Are SOPA Sponsors Violating SOPA Rules? Not So Fast, Says Ars Technica 115
TheNextCorner writes "Remember how the Stop Online Piracy Act would make streaming of copyrighted material a felony? Many of these lawmakers actually stream copyrighted videos on their websites." However, that's not the whole story. according to a followup at Ars Technica to the tweeted claims about streaming and SOPA. From which:
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted the post, and it was re-tweeted more than 100 times. So are the sponsors of SOPA hypocrites? We're not fans of SOPA, so we'd love to have this story check out. But we're also a news site, so we contacted James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at New York Law School, (and judging from his tweets, not a SOPA supporter) to get his expert opinion."
Not really the point (Score:5, Interesting)
The core issue is how SOPA changes the liability structure to permit endless copyright troll lawsuits. It doesn't matter if your users are or aren't infringing if copyright holders can sue you endlessly regardless.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The same people who sued to stop the Camp Fire Girls from singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in the woods around a fire as a "public performance" will be making accusations and shutting down web sites en mass. Because all it takes is for a site to be a suspected offender.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the 4 million copyrighted songs written or published by ASCAP's 68,000 members.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html [umkc.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html
http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=ROW%20ROW%20ROW%20YOUR%20BOAT&search_in=t&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&pagenum=1&start=1
While the lyrics are public domain, performances of the song including musical arrangements can be copyrighted. So if someone who has a copyrighted performance of the song decides that the Girl Scouts version (say a group of girls sing
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Informative)
The same people who sued to stop the Camp Fire Girls from singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in the woods around a fire as a "public performance" will be making accusations and shutting down web sites en mass. Because all it takes is for a site to be a suspected offender.
Citation please. That song was written in it's modern form in 1881.
In reference to the Girl Scouts, a source is here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html [umkc.edu]
They cite ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) as the perpetrators. A different source describes the particulars of how they decide who and what infringes: http://woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html [woodpecker.com], which specifically says ASCAP has more than 80 arrangements of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" under copyright. So the song is public domain, but if you infringe upon their arrangement, they are going to get you.
Note on sources: more reliable sources may be available, this is all I had time to find.
Re: (Score:2)
So we are safe if we sing it like Shatner?
Not until he's been dead for 70 years...
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Funny)
So we are safe if we sing it like Shatner?
Not until he's been dead for 70 years...
Not until i've been dead for 70 years.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a citation.
This law isn't just bad, it's redundant.
The legal system already caters to itchy trigger fingers anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. I supply you with a link and get 2 -1 redundants. I has fans!
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Informative)
Ever notice that major restaurant chains don't sing the traditional "Happy Birthday to You!" [snopes.com]?
AOL Time Warner currently collects about $2M per year in royalties on "Happy Birthday to You", originally popularized more than 80 years ago.
and, won't the world be such a better place when these rights are more vigorously protected? cough, gag
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Interesting)
The really awful thing about that is that the actual music to "Happy Birthday to You" isn't copyrighted, or at least shouldn't be under copyright. The melody is from "Good Morning to All", which was written in 1893. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the combination of the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics and the "Good Morning to All" melody first appeared in print in 1912 and was copyrighted by people who clearly weren't the true originators in 1935 and, due to the various copyright extensions, won't fall out of copyright until 2030.
Now, the lyrics consist of 4 lines, only one of which is unique, and only barely, since it differs from the other three only by replacing "to you" with "dear ____". And there are only 5 actual words (aside from the person's name, which is clearly not a copyrightable part of the song). So, "Happy Birthday to You" is a clear example of a song that doesn't deserve to fall under copyright. If it ever went to court, the defendant would probably win, but very few people would ever fight it because the expense and effort involved wouldn't be worth it versus caving and handing over the protection money.
Re: (Score:1)
The only solution ( since law makers apparently don't care ), is for everyone to break the law ( I am not encouraging outright piracy here). Laws that make all of your citizens criminals are laws that will be in the worst case scenario ignored if not abolished. Then and only then, people of interest will push forward to laws and regulations that at least will be up-to-date with the current technology, and in accord to what the population wants.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
...aside from this, bring it up whenever you can when there's a politician in the immediate vicinity. Nobody in the past might have cared abount songs being copyrighted (c)1938 by a rotting corpse that has been in the ground for 40 years, but nowadays the Great Wall of Copyright is withholding so much of our popular culture behind a paywall (if you're lucky) or out-of-print-wall (if you're not).
33 1/2 rpm Vinyl Recordings: Rightsholders: ALL Public Domain: NONE
45 rpm Vinyl Singles: Rightsholders: A
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
If you won't encourage outright piracy after this, when will you? You fucking pussy. I'll fly the fucking Jolly Roger on the hood of my car if this passes, and steal and hand out every god-damned piece of copyright crap I can find. Will I go to jail? Probably the morgue.
Re:Not really the point (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll encourage outright piracy when you show that it actually hurts the RIAA, the MPAA, or their member companies.
As it is I think of it as free advertizing for despicable entities. Not actually immoral, but dangerous and stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the only solution is for everyone to say "You're not worth it" to the media companies and ignore all their products. Don't buy them, don't download them, don't acknowledge them in any way whatsoever. Pirating just acknowledges the public's desire for that product, and gives it word-of-mouth advertising on which others will buy it.
Let them rot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Occupy action sugggestion (Score:1)
There are a lot of musicians at OWS camps, and it's a large gathering so somebody will be having a birthday every day. They should pull them up on stage (or in front of the mic) and lead the entire camp in a "public performance" of Happy Birthday to You.
Re:Not really the point (Score:5, Insightful)
hairyfeet opined:
Bimbo Newton Crosby, what this does is gives the big boys a really nice weapon to shut down the indies.
For the first time in history we are seeing artists bypass the gatekeepers completely, going from 'viral sensation' to nationally known artist and this scares the living fuck out of them. They know in the age of YouTube and Twitter and a bazillion other non controlled communication circuits their ability to force artists into assraping contracts where they are basically nothing but cogs and "all your IP belong to us" is becoming a thing of the past.
Sadly the only way we have to fight back anymore is massive piracy, there simply is nothing else.
The ONLY way we are gonna get rid of these bastards is to bleed them to death, there is simply no other choices left now.
Here's the problem I have with your exhortation: indiscriminate "massive piracy" will not only harm the IP plutocrats of the RIAA, it will also adversely impact the very independent artists you claim to support - and it is them, and not the Sonys of the industry, who will be harmed the most. That's because the warez kiddies who do the vast majority of unauthorized downloading are unlikely to make any distinction whatsoever between music the rights to which the RIAA members control, and those recordings which are directly owned and controlled by independent artists themselves. Instead, in their enthusiasm to embrace "stick it to The Man" as a valid excuse to download every popular tune they see, they will gleefully end up harming the innocent along with the guilty.
It's very difficult to make a living in the music industry as an independent artist. And I mean VERY difficult. Every dollar in income you have to sacrifice puts you a dollar closer to being forced to hang up your guitar for good. And, while that's especially true for independents early in their careers, it is, to some extent, true of all independent musical artists. Downloading their music without their permission, and refusing to pay them for it is NOT "sticking it to The Man". It's sticking it to the artist him/herself ... and that's Not A Good Thing, especially if that artist is one whose music you like and would like to hear more of.
I know it's popular here on /. to maintain that artists "should" regard recorded tracks as pure loss leaders, and be content to make their money strictly from live performances. And that's fine, if you're Lady Gaga, or some other top-tier artist. But independent musicians - and, again, especially those who are just starting their careers, or who have, after struggling for years, finally released a hit record - don't pull in the big bucks for performances. Touring is expensive: transportation for you, and your band and crew, lodging for all of you, food for all of you, concert promotional costs (You didn't think those posters advertising that concert you think will be so profitable printed themselves, did you? Or posted themselves on all those walls, windows, and telephone poles?), liability and property insurance (On Pink Floyd's first U.S. tour, their van was stolen in Texas, and they lost all of their instruments, including Rick Wright's heavily-customized Hammond organ, their giant - and very expensive - gong, and all their guitars and amplifiers - and, as a result, they had to return to England, because they couldn't afford both to replace their gear and continue to pay for a tour that had been only marginally profitable for a band that, at that point, wasn't at all well-known here in the States.), merchandise (tee shirts aren't free - and neither is having your band's name and touring information printed on them), and so on. By the time you finish paying for all that - and much of it has to be paid for in advance - even a show in a decent-sized venue, at a relatively high per-ticket price (which you have to split with the concert promoter/venue owner, btw), to a sold-out audience is likely to make you exactly enou
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I've toured the south a few times myself and known several indie bands and most of us put our stuff on P2P, thanks anyway. you know why? Because fans will STILL happily buy your CDs at the shows, along with the T-Shirts, caps, mugs, keyrings, mousepads (those were my idea BTW) and anything else to help out the band because guess what? they are FANS and want to see you get ahead.
If bands and/or solo artists CHOOSE to put their music on P2P, that's one thing. Taking that choice away from them is quite another.
I'm surprised I even have to explain this to you.
BTW I probably shouldn't share this trick, as we were raking in the cash with it, but what the fuck, sharing is caring right? Indie guys, want to make a fuckton of money and sell out your swag? The magic word is "raffle". We would go to a local pawnshop in whatever town we were at, but a cool cheap guitar or bass, me or the guitarist would play it for 3 or 4 songs and at the end of the show we would all sign it and anybody who bought a piece of swag had their name in the drawing for the instrument.
Not only did audiences eat it up but we ended up with several hardcore fans that showed up at nearly every gig simply because they won something that made them feel closer to the band. We'd always let them sit with the wives and GFs and they were happy to hang up posters or post on FB or anything else that got out the word, simply because it made them feel like a winner.
It works, its cheap, makes you a hell of a lot more than the guitar costs, and creates really loyal long lasting fans. Last gig I played even though i wasn't with that band anymore and hadn't been in 5 years i had a guy show up and bring nearly 30 friends, all of whom bought swag, simply because 'hey man I still have that bass i won in Memphis, remember me?" so he and his buds got to hang out with the wives and GFs while we played and we had a beer afterward. Its a great way to get long term fans
Great idea. If I were wearing it, I'd take my hat off to you.
Re: (Score:2)
USA is going nuts for Hollywood (Score:5, Interesting)
Go on america; keep on going, keep listening to the 1 % to try to get the rest of the world to do your bidding..
This is one of many steps that have been taken to make the USA look silly & this will only be one more step towards the downfall of the usa..
I used to be a big fan of the country; but i'm getting more & more convinced that the usa is nuts... & getting more & more so :)
in 10 years the usa will be disconnected from the internet.. at least; the free internet the rest of the world will enjoy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. The new media companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) will leave the country completely and move the USA operations bases to other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
in 10 years the usa will be disconnected from the internet.. at least; the free internet the rest of the world will enjoy.
The problem is that the majority of the Internet infrastructure is inside the US.
Re:USA is going nuts for Hollywood (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's designed to survive a holocaust, the Internet can survive without America.
Re:USA is going nuts for Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)
Well it's true that the US owes us much more cash to europe than europe owes to the US, what the heck does europe needs the USA for ? ... :-) and watch UK series instead of US remakes... (We might make an exception for future seasons of Episodes just be drive the point home...
Natural resources ? no it comes from other countries and what the US has it keeps...
Agricultural produces ? well we do import coca cola, but we could buy clones from other countries, OGM's well no thanks,
Manufactured products ? you mean those who are made in china ?
Hollywood products, well we are kind of addicted to, but we can move over to bollywood
So good by and thanks for all the fish, but ... it's not quite too late, just please fix your country. .... and only have 75 year old records to feed them..
a) do not not vote for any incumbent (we should follow this advice also)
b) make and execute a plan to divide by 10 your natural resource per capita intake.
c) stop accepting a society that thinks it's "ok" to have about 3% of your population in prison, or under some sort of judiciary control.
d) put a cap on salaries of professionals involved in sports (let's say 50% of an university professor or GP doctor whichever is lower)
(this might actually make sport a game again)...
e) put cap copyright protection period to 5 years, and patent protections to 6 month
(and give artist some lessons on "saving for old age" so that the various mafiaa's cannot argue that poor old artists need "extended protections" because they are now so old
Re: (Score:1)
Well it's true that the US where on the right side during WWI and II although they came to help during WWI not when it was the decent thing to do, but when it threatened the credit line they extended to the allies.
And europe paid back most of it, although it did push it into WWII.
So it is certainly not a duty of anybody to be "extra nice", but asking to be thanked for self preservation is not very efficient.
And the Euro is much stronger than the US dollars, the issue is the lack of political integration, no
Re: (Score:1)
Not saying the US was being nice or anything for paying for defense of Europe in WWI WWII and Cold War. It is just the way we wanted it. You don't have to say thank you, just realize you would not exist if it didn't happen, and if we stop doing it Russia might just decide to cut off all your gas and oil and let you starve (your fertilizer is made from Russian nat gas) in the cold and dark for a while before invading. Lots of Russians would love their old empire back, and for it to include western as well as
Re: (Score:1)
Euro is backed by several sovereign entities, which together form a formidable economy. When euro gets weaker the exports go higher (yes, Europe still has a large manufacturing base, unlike USA), so the situation can correct itself. But, what will happen when the dollar weakens? Will USA be able to export stuff cheaper? The problem is what does USA really produce nowadays - Hollywood movies and Lady Gaga?
A weak dollar is VERY scary for the USA because it will just accelerate the tailspin the US economy is i
Re: (Score:2)
just realize you would not exist if it didn't happen
Whaaa? The US supported Hitler's efforts, dude. The WWI was a big business opportunity for the US, as was the WWII (FFS! it ended the "great depression"!). They waited for the near-annihilation of European countries with their 'help' so that they could buy them out with "Marshall plan".
Since that time the F[ucking]US have been invading and destroying economies all over the world with impunity.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick google shows that the top 50 European soccer players average about $7 million per year.
Oddly, I can find only 19 NFL players who make $6.5 million or more....
Perhaps the Europeans might consider their own overpaid athletes before they waste a lot of time suggesting that ours are overpaid....
Re: (Score:2)
Although in europe Football + Tennis + Cricket replaces NLF + NBA + Baseball, so to compare your should evaluate total expenditure per capital, I fundamentally agree, yes we should do that too..
And the issue is not just the players, but also the coaches, agents, and TV executive in charge of sports, etc...
Although at least we do not mix universities with sport, so it hurt a little bit less.
But yes sports became an opium for the people, and if you do a parallel between the fall of the Bizantine empire and us
Re: (Score:2)
Europe birthed America, it did fine before the 1700's, no reason it can't tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, it wouldn't take long to rectify that if the will power were there. It isn't at the moment, and there won't be while the US law stays basically similar to global law. But if US law goes too far off the beaten path, that'd be all the incentive that companies would need...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
in 10 years the usa will be disconnected from the internet.. at least; the free internet the rest of the world will enjoy.
The problem is that the majority of the Internet infrastructure is inside the US.
That was once true. I don't believe that it's been true for over a decade
Re: (Score:2)
It's like President Clark is in power, he might as well be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is a valid argument in this case. If they're arguing for more protection of their IP, then they have to explain why it is that they should get protection and other people shouldn't get protection. That sort of logical inconsistency is definitely fair game considering that the industry is trading on its "integrity" and harm being done to it to try to push SOPA through.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. The observation that the speaker is being hypocritical is completely germane to the argument as the speaker in this case is trading on his position in order to advance his line of reasoning. Not all Ad Hominem Tu Quoque attacks constitute a logical fallacy and this would be one of those times. It is very much relevant to the process of debunking his argument to point out that there's an apparent logical inconsistency being presented. The speaker has the burden of proof in this case and would have
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the the ones proposing the law are idiots is worth pointing out, but it does not mean the law itself is bad.
Good laws passed by idiots? That happens how often? Giving them the benefit of the doubt and calling them idiots is naive. We seldom get bad laws passed by idiots, mostly it it is bad laws passed by self-serving greedy lying bastards.
Those who oppose this in congress.. (Score:5, Informative)
I have been so opposed to SOPA due to the shift in who has to scan and check.
The content companies got what they wanted with the DMCA.
They then found out it was to much of a problem for them to check.
Bad enough they did not know what others inside the same content holder were doing. (VIACOM v GOOGLE)
Now they want to shift the responsibility over to the internet operators, eliminate safe harbor.
In addition this gives the government even broader powers to shut down "infringing" internet sites, remove or change DNS.
Some of these are legal in the country that the sites operate in.
The US/Content companies are yet again trying impose there will on the rest of the world.
Now several prominent members of congress have come out against it.
This includes the former speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi.
Hopefully enough of them will realize this is bullshit and come to there senses.
I doubt it, but there is always hope.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that petition [whitehouse.gov] only has 17,535 signatures, and needs 7,465 more before November 27 (8 days) or it will, like all the other feedback they've received, be ignored.
When I first heard of that petition, about a month ago, I tried to sign up for an account so that I could sign it. Their sign-up process is broken. I clicked the contact link and wrote something up asking for help, and have yet to hear back from them. Agreed, I do not think they're really listening, nor do they really care to put an
Won't work on Firefox (Score:2)
Site is broken with firefox (blank window) but works in IE9.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Their sign-up process is broken. I clicked the contact link and wrote something up asking for help, and have yet to hear back from them.
Site is broken with firefox (blank window) but works in IE9.
Seems to be working now. I just signed up using Firefox 7.0.1 on Windows XP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole point.
Your congress critters are too busy listening to lobbyist coins jingling in their pockets to want to be distracted by the pleas of their constituents.
Put simply, they make it hard on purpose because...THEY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO YOU ANYWAY!
Making it technically possible but difficult in practice is just a workaround to avoid pissing everyone off.
Re: (Score:2)
The other day I wrote to my congressmen through an EFF-hosted web form. I did NOT have to sign up or register for anything, the system merely took my name, address, and email address.
Yea, it took no effort at all to do ... and thats exactly how much anyone cares about your web form submission.
Emailing and using online forms that take no effort make your submission valueless. You get mixed in with all the other lazy people who do the least amount of effort required to say 'I did it'.
If you actually want to make someone notice you have to do something that stands out.
Your odds of being heard is about 10,000 times higher if you write an actual letter and mail it, as opposed to the nearly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. My local council (in New Zealand) literally said in a report on a strategic plan that they disregarded thousands of submissions because they were "unsolicited nearly identical submissions sent in via a web form".
Re: (Score:3)
On the day the SOPA passes is the day I stop, renting/buying dvd's, going out to see movie's, and purchasing music. This is the only thing that is going to stop the madness. I ask all of you to join me on this day.
Secondley I hate to say it but if you want your country back you have to withdraw your support from this system. That means stop supporting anything but community driven companies
An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
Mohandas Gandhi
I don't has list (Score:3)
Does anyone have a list of the tards that have come out in favor of the bill so far?
Re:I don't has list (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't has list (Score:5, Informative)
Here ya go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
The laws are there to protect the media! (Score:3, Insightful)
And while this is happening, media will be blowing up a big "fight" between Mitt and Obama, as if either of them would stop the rape on your (and the rest of the world's) basic human rights.
Not a problem for Congress (Score:4, Informative)
Expect Congress to exempt themselves from SOPA, just as they did with insider trading laws. In fact if they realize they could be charged for streaming those videos they may just exempt themselves from having to pay to use copy-written material for political uses at all. Certainly enough of them have been caught using material without the author's permission to make them think about it and this would solve that little issue.
Re: (Score:2)
they may just exempt themselves from having to pay to use copy-written material for political uses at all.
Well, if it's their copywriters, it's their copyright. Unless you meant Dems stealing PR material from Reps.
Re: (Score:2)
They're getting it wrong! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Is this site big enough that it can make trouble with lawyers?
2. Is this site big enough that it's offended user base may alter the outcome of upcoming elections?
If the answer to either one is yes, the law will not be enforced. Youtube fits
Re: (Score:1)
Re:They're getting it wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
If SOPA had been in place when youtube was a small startup company, they'd have been blocked and killed. That would still happen to many startups. Today, though, youtube passes the bigness test - it won't be blocked. That would produce too much of an outrage.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This. I, too, post a fair amount of videos, mainly game walk-throughs and reviews, and I can't even tell you how often I get hit with a takedown notice even though I am clearly immune under Fair Use. I'm one of those people that actually pursues the matter because I know that my use of the material is protected under Fair Use, by that certainly doesn't stop them from yanking it down first and putting the burden on me to get it reinstated.
Of course, if any of the rights holders were to actually decide that
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to watch a Youtube video, only to find the link was dead and replaced with "This video was taken down due to copyright infringement'?
No, never. Does that materially alter the validity of your argument in such a way that Nietzche would notice?
Re: (Score:1)
Unconstitutional. Period. (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, wait, I forgot that the Constitution, which used to be the supreme law of the land and could only be superceded by a 2/3 majority vote by the states, is just a goddamn piece of paper.
As you were.
Re: (Score:1)
At the time that was written person damn well did NOT mean corporation. Many of the signers didn't even believe that corporations should be legal. Seeing what's been happening recently, I'd say they had a good point.
And *I* sure don't consider corporations to be people. When was the last time one went to jail for killing someone? I trust you aren't going to claim that they never do, because that's blatantly false. They have been documented doing it with prior intent. (Usually it's of the form "when we
Re: (Score:1)
A phrase I have been trying to coin of late: everything is a two way street, if you can figure out where the lines are painted.
Congressmen get the benefit of the doubt; we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyer says it's not a problem because the representatives are "unlikely to be willful infringers". They're public officials and everyone knows them. Therefore, no one is really going to take an infringement case against them seriously.
But what about the rest of us? What about some random kid posting the same sorts of videos to YouTube? Will there be anyone to say he's unlikely to be a willful infringer as well? Or will he just get sued straight away? Maybe he could hire an attorney, go to court, and spend months or years trying to prove he had a good-faith belief his actions weren't infringing. Or maybe he'll be scared into settling by some troll looking to extort money.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of undefined words in legalspeak is a neat trick so they can tweak the law every time to suit their needs.
Re: (Score:1)
David Byrne won a wonderful settlement against a prominent politician recently for using a Talking Heads song for his campaign.
Sure, Byrne has more money than God, but I think we can get people to take notice.
So clueless even hypocrisy is impossible (Score:2)
Wrong Interpretation of SOPA (Score:1)
Why is anyone asking a copyright professor about a criminal statute? His analysis is fundamentally flawed: By way of analogy, in order to be guilty of a criminal trespass you need only willfully (i.e. intentionally, volitionally) take a step that lands you on anothers property after being told not to or on property marked "no trespass." Thus, If you intentionally step on what you believe to be your land, but mistakenly cross onto anothers land after being told not to, you are guilty. The willfulness elemen
Doesn't check out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming that they are infringing unknowingly is a nice idea, except for the fact that these guys ARE SPONSORING THE VERY LAW WHICH THEY ARE BREAKING. To claim that they are breaking the law unknowingly is claiming that they don't understand the law they are passing. This is a far more frightening prospect.
Also, what sort of law includes ignorance as an excuse for breaking it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if ignorance is indeed an excuse in this case, than it's true that politicians should not be liable.
Re: (Score:1)
quotes are beyond your comprehension apparently.