| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:04 pm Post subject: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
 |
|
http://www.myce.com/news/antipiracy-dns-blacklist-bill-passes-through-senate-judiciary-committee-36777/
| Quote: |
A bill that will allow the US government to force internet service providers to block websites accused of illegal file sharing was passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning by a unanimous vote.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) will permit government officials to set up a system banning the Domain Name System of any website they believe is engaging in activities related to piracy. It will also ban credit card companies from processing any domestic payments to the websites and forbid online marketing agencies from doing business with them.
Predictably, the RIAA was pleased with the results of the vote.
�With this first vote, Congress has begun to strike at the lifeline of foreign scam sites, while protecting free speech and boosting the legal online marketplace,� said RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol. �Those seeking to thwart this bipartisan bill are protecting online thieves and those who gain pleasure and profit from de-valuing American property.� |
The copyright cartel wins. The cartels are winning every battle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
Load up on what you want, while you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Piracy isn't something that can be stopped in this fashion. This is to piracy as body scanners are to terrorism; it won't stop it, but if it were to go into effect, it would certainly negatively affect America and its citizenry. Specifically, it sounds like it would be a perfect tool for the government to suppress free expression on the internet:
| Legal Objection Letter wrote: |
| The Act would also suppress vast amounts of protected speech containing no infringing content whatsoever, and is unconstitutional on that ground as well. The current architecture of the Internet permits hundreds or even thousands of independent individual websites to operate under a single domain name by the use of unique sub-domains; indeed, many web hosting services operate hundreds of thousands of websites under a single domain name (e.g., www.aol.com, www.terra.es, www.blogspot.com). By requiring suppression of all sub-domains associated with a single offending domain name, the Act �burns down the house to roast the pig,� ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 844, 882 (1997), failing the fundamental requirement imposed by the First Amendment that it implement the �least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest.� |
So are these legislators just stupidly oblivious to the potential consequences of their bill, or did they design a hammer for the task of killing a fly because they really just wanted the hammer for other purposes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| this wont stop anything. there will always be demand for new sites that offer music/porn/movies/etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
So are these legislators just stupidly oblivious to the potential consequences of their bill, or did they design a hammer for the task of killing a fly because they really just wanted the hammer for other purposes? |
Design it? What makes you think they read it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/judge-in-xbox-modding-trial-berates-prosecution-halts-trial.ars
| Quote: |
| Crippen is charged with two counts of violating the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and faces a maximum five years for each count if convicted. The government maintains Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated copies of games. |
Modifying a product? 5 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ^Everyone was talking about this in the office today. This is just out of control. And jail time? How is this guy a threat to anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
htle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
. |
So if you were to write a book or song that became immensely popular you'd be fine with not making any money on it? Just download it free of charge to anyone?
Well maybe you would be, but very few people would. Especially if it meant they'd never have to work again unless they wanted to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
htle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
. |
So if you were to write a book or song that became immensely popular you'd be fine with not making any money on it? Just download it free of charge to anyone?
Well maybe you would be, but very few people would. Especially if it meant they'd never have to work again unless they wanted to. |
What? You support a wild abuse of state power to protect a cartel? I am shocked. Just shocked!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
htle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
. |
So if you were to write a book or song that became immensely popular you'd be fine with not making any money on it? Just download it free of charge to anyone? |
Yes. "Culture For Profit" is socially destructive. I have no especial problem with creators being rewarded to some extent for material they'd produce anyway (which is still possible even in the presence of free file sharing, as is proven by reality), but if your sole reason for producing the work in question is profit, then I think we can do without it.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Well maybe you would be, but very few people would. Especially if it meant they'd never have to work again unless they wanted to. |
I don't think the law should be informed by people never wanting to work again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
htle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
. |
So if you were to write a book or song that became immensely popular you'd be fine with not making any money on it? Just download it free of charge to anyone?
Well maybe you would be, but very few people would. Especially if it meant they'd never have to work again unless they wanted to. |
What? You support a wild abuse of state power to protect a cartel? I am shocked. Just shocked!! |
No, I support a use of state power to protect the author's rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
htle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
. |
So if you were to write a book or song that became immensely popular you'd be fine with not making any money on it? Just download it free of charge to anyone? |
Yes. "Culture For Profit" is socially destructive. I have no especial problem with creators being rewarded to some extent for material they'd produce anyway (which is still possible even in the presence of free file sharing, as is proven by reality), but if your sole reason for producing the work in question is profit, then I think we can do without it.
|
On the other hand if the sole reason is profit and people wish to buy it, then the author has every right to not only to write it but profit by it as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
htle.
The ability to copyright culture is vile. A song or book is not the sole product of an individual but also the wider culture and spirit of the times.
. |
So if you were to write a book or song that became immensely popular you'd be fine with not making any money on it? Just download it free of charge to anyone? |
Yes. "Culture For Profit" is socially destructive. I have no especial problem with creators being rewarded to some extent for material they'd produce anyway (which is still possible even in the presence of free file sharing, as is proven by reality), but if your sole reason for producing the work in question is profit, then I think we can do without it.
|
On the other hand if the sole reason is profit and people wish to buy it, then the author has every right to not only to write it but profit by it as well. |
He has every right to write it, but I certainly don't think anyone has a right to profit. Profit should be derived from convincing other people to willingly engage in transactions with you, and if the author can convince people to do that, I have no problem with him earning money. I just don't think the law should help him convince those people by illegalizing file sharing. We should be able to configure our computers however we want, and we should be able to make copies of anything we buy and distribute those copies in a non-profit fashion if we so desire. I value the right to do that more than I value any book written purely for profit (or song made purely for profit, etc). Don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I just don't think the law should help him convince those people by illegalizing file sharing. We should be able to configure our computers however we want, and we should be able to make copies of anything we buy and distribute those copies in a non-profit fashion if we so desire. I value the right to do that more than I value any book written purely for profit (or song made purely for profit, etc). Don't you? |
I certainly agree that my rights as a consumer, computer-owner, and internet-user are more important than anyone's desire to fairly blatantly violate the fourth amendment, but I also feel it's obvious that a good majority of digital entertainment being shared is done so with no intention of ever compensating the creators, making it in every way equivalent to theft. Do you disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| ... but I also feel it's obvious that a good majority of digital entertainment being shared is done so with no intention of ever compensating the creators, making it in every way equivalent to theft. Do you disagree? |
Yes, I disagree. Theft requires you to lose something from your possession. If I copy a file onto my computer, you've lost nothing you ever possessed. And no, the old, "But he's lost a sale!" line doesn't work, both because he never possessed the sale, and because many file-sharers would never under any circumstances have paid the outrageous asking prices for the material in question anyway. Indeed, imagine trying to define theft as "costing someone a sale." Protesters who turn away customers could be legitimately accused of theft!
So no, it's not theft, nor anything equivalent to theft. I don't even think it's unethical. This conceit that artists, writers, singers (and the companies that they ultimately work for) are somehow entitled to compensation (especially whatever compensation they arbitrarily deem a given work is worth) is not something I think stands up to analysis, but is rather just a dubious notion that modern industry has used to justify laws that allow them to more effectively "fleece the flock." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
