Protect our Internet rights now!
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
Everything will move to offshore hosting where they can give the finger to takedown notices in the US. Things will continue as usual, but with more spyware/adware/virus problems. 
Just my guess.
Welcome to the USA, where our technology bills are written by lobbyists and passed by a bunch of complete idiots who don't understand the first thing about these here crazy intertube webs facetwitterspace and such.
Just my guess. Welcome to the USA, where our technology bills are written by lobbyists and passed by a bunch of complete idiots who don't understand the first thing about these here crazy intertube webs facetwitterspace and such.
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 82,468
Likes: 1,193
The protect IP act will destroy the internet as we know it. It will quell any drop of self expression on the internet. Media sites will be slain such as youtube, soundcloud, twitter, facebook, google+, etc. Search engines will be under unprecendented pressure to censor their search engines. ISP's will be forced to censor their networks.
It works essentially by handing over the internet to media companies, allowing them to prosecute to the fullest extent they choose of any 'infringement of copy[wrong]right and IP'. This means if you do a youtube news show, and you have a 20 second info song of Journey; you will be sued. If you record yourself singing Seal in the bathroom, you will be sued. If you even have music in the background of a video you will be sued. Further more search engines will be sued for not censoring your video through their search engines. Then the hosts will be shut down. Keep in mind ALL infringers from the top down, will be prosecuted as a federal crime. Of course this also does apply also to torrent sites; but other sites that link to torrent sites, and all file sharing sites.
This is a direct assault on the internet, free speech, free thought, and sharing of those thoughts. This is a bill for lobbyists, by lobbyists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxPQ320jBLc
(A law professor discussing SOPA/PIPA)
And of course, my buddies aren't happy about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czY-dZQsd-k&hd=1
It works essentially by handing over the internet to media companies, allowing them to prosecute to the fullest extent they choose of any 'infringement of copy[wrong]right and IP'. This means if you do a youtube news show, and you have a 20 second info song of Journey; you will be sued. If you record yourself singing Seal in the bathroom, you will be sued. If you even have music in the background of a video you will be sued. Further more search engines will be sued for not censoring your video through their search engines. Then the hosts will be shut down. Keep in mind ALL infringers from the top down, will be prosecuted as a federal crime. Of course this also does apply also to torrent sites; but other sites that link to torrent sites, and all file sharing sites.
This is a direct assault on the internet, free speech, free thought, and sharing of those thoughts. This is a bill for lobbyists, by lobbyists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxPQ320jBLc
(A law professor discussing SOPA/PIPA)
And of course, my buddies aren't happy about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czY-dZQsd-k&hd=1
I haven't watched the videos you posted, nor have I read that much about this. But I do have a question for you. Should there be a limit to the amount of 'media' that you use before you should be required to pay for it?
*'Media' being songs/videos/graphics/sounds etc that you use that you did not create yourself.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
I haven't watched the videos you posted, nor have I read that much about this. But I do have a question for you. Should there be a limit to the amount of 'media' that you use before you should be required to pay for it?
*'Media' being songs/videos/graphics/sounds etc that you use that you did not create yourself.
*'Media' being songs/videos/graphics/sounds etc that you use that you did not create yourself.
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 82,468
Likes: 1,193
Originally Posted by zdave87' timestamp='1322615999' post='21195989
I haven't watched the videos you posted, nor have I read that much about this. But I do have a question for you. Should there be a limit to the amount of 'media' that you use before you should be required to pay for it?
*'Media' being songs/videos/graphics/sounds etc that you use that you did not create yourself.
*'Media' being songs/videos/graphics/sounds etc that you use that you did not create yourself.
If I create something and I use media that I did not purchase or get permission to use from the artist, why shouldn't the copyright holder be compensated for that use? If I combine Journey's video for 'Separate Ways' with the audio track from Adele's 'Rolling in the Deep', shouldn't those artists be paid? And how much? Let's say that each time that video/song gets played, it earns a $1. Do I, Journey & Adele get $.33 each? Do they get $.40 each and I get $.20? Or do I get $.90 and they split the dime?
Yes-there is a difference in public/private/sharing and I agree that if I only play that song on my computer and no-one else listens/watches it (or I send to a few friends and they listen/watch it private is one thing), but what if someone posts it on YouTube or iTunes etc and it starts to earn money.
I know that I'm probably not explaining myself in the best way, but I hope you get the point.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
This depends. Are you making money off of it?
See just by posting on youtube, doesn't mean your making money off of it. Are you a youtube partner? Where you're making advertising per click? Or are you just a youtube channel, who shares video/audio without any sort of currency interaction?
If you're not making money off of a video, as long as you're properly citing those others who's work is involved with your 'work', then all is fair right? I believe that's what the Fair Use act is for.
Of course, if you're making money through things like youtube this is where things get trickier. But of course there is no standard for this operation; for good reason. Since we're talking about a distrubution of profit, then one's assuming we're going the legal channel. Therefore there MUST be NO formula for this.
Let's take your example. If I'm going about this legally, I must contact Adele/Journey (or their labels), and ask for permission and terms. Now there's a whole host of results that this could produce:
They may ask for simple creditation, and references, and that's it. They may ask for a certain cut based upon the payment structure. They may flat out deny you. There shouldn't be any sort of pre-prescribed formula because this directly assaults the freedom of the artist and they way that they wish to distribute their media through their base. Some artists don't even sell music anymore, because they know they'll make theirs on the back end through appearances, concerts, product, what have you. So in short there's no blanket answer, because that blanket assaults the freedoms of all creators [direct and indirect].
And certainly Chinese internet isn't the answer.
See just by posting on youtube, doesn't mean your making money off of it. Are you a youtube partner? Where you're making advertising per click? Or are you just a youtube channel, who shares video/audio without any sort of currency interaction?
If you're not making money off of a video, as long as you're properly citing those others who's work is involved with your 'work', then all is fair right? I believe that's what the Fair Use act is for.
Of course, if you're making money through things like youtube this is where things get trickier. But of course there is no standard for this operation; for good reason. Since we're talking about a distrubution of profit, then one's assuming we're going the legal channel. Therefore there MUST be NO formula for this.
Let's take your example. If I'm going about this legally, I must contact Adele/Journey (or their labels), and ask for permission and terms. Now there's a whole host of results that this could produce:
They may ask for simple creditation, and references, and that's it. They may ask for a certain cut based upon the payment structure. They may flat out deny you. There shouldn't be any sort of pre-prescribed formula because this directly assaults the freedom of the artist and they way that they wish to distribute their media through their base. Some artists don't even sell music anymore, because they know they'll make theirs on the back end through appearances, concerts, product, what have you. So in short there's no blanket answer, because that blanket assaults the freedoms of all creators [direct and indirect].
And certainly Chinese internet isn't the answer.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,342
Likes: 103
From: Raleigh
You're only thinking about this from one point of view...look at all parties involved.
Essentially, if a friend gives me a song for free, then yes I am not paying for it and am not spending money on something that would otherwise require me to pay for ownership. I understand why pirating is considered stealing by some.
Perfect example, I posted a video of me driving the S with a song playing in the background. It was rejected by Youtube, citing that I had copywritten material in my video. I jumped through a few hoops to get it uploaded with the song playing (as in e-signing a document stating that the music playing was either on the radio or I legally own it) and I could post it. That said, this new bill could sue Youtube, who in turn would sue me for posting the vid.
Essentially, if a friend gives me a song for free, then yes I am not paying for it and am not spending money on something that would otherwise require me to pay for ownership. I understand why pirating is considered stealing by some.
Perfect example, I posted a video of me driving the S with a song playing in the background. It was rejected by Youtube, citing that I had copywritten material in my video. I jumped through a few hoops to get it uploaded with the song playing (as in e-signing a document stating that the music playing was either on the radio or I legally own it) and I could post it. That said, this new bill could sue Youtube, who in turn would sue me for posting the vid.