Protect our Internet rights now!
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
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.
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.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
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.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
And this isn't just about song/movies.
There would be no more video game reviews; television reviews; music reviews; movie reviews; hell even sourcing news content wouldn't fly. Infact this site, s2ki would be shut down.
There would be no more video game reviews; television reviews; music reviews; movie reviews; hell even sourcing news content wouldn't fly. Infact this site, s2ki would be shut down.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,342
Likes: 103
From: Raleigh
All in all, this is an infringement on the 1st amendment. What's the difference between someone singing a song on the street vs. on youtube? The only difference is the amount of people it can reach...that's it. Other than that, NOTHING!
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
I'm all for artists rights and whatnot wanting to protect themselves, but handing the internet to the government is NOT how you accomplish that. And you hit the nail on the head, this is a blatant attack on our first amendment rights (not that that should surprise anyone in the LEAST bit).
Infact I'm pretty sure I couldn't even read a Reuters news article on youtube.
Infact I'm pretty sure I couldn't even read a Reuters news article on youtube.
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 82,468
Likes: 1,193
But aren't you using someone else's words in the first place?
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Artists deserve to be paid for their music when it is used by 3rd parties for profit. If a person is making enough money on ads from youtube partnership, they need to license any music they use. HOWEVER - and this is a big however - there is already a system in place for artists to complain if they are NOT getting their fair share.
This is a valid argument about fair use and copyright, and I encourage you to continue. However, I feel the need to point this out in case anyone reading isn't clear on it: this entire discussion has nothing to do with the bill in question. The bill in question is bullshit, overreaching Chinese-firewall style legislation and needs to be rejected *even if you think copyright needs reform.*
*side note: Fair Use is addressed in copyright law but it isn't nearly as clear cut as some of you are making it out to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
This is a valid argument about fair use and copyright, and I encourage you to continue. However, I feel the need to point this out in case anyone reading isn't clear on it: this entire discussion has nothing to do with the bill in question. The bill in question is bullshit, overreaching Chinese-firewall style legislation and needs to be rejected *even if you think copyright needs reform.*
*side note: Fair Use is addressed in copyright law but it isn't nearly as clear cut as some of you are making it out to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use