In my view, these comments by Sgt. Mullins make him a terrorist. He is advocating a philosophy calculated to terrorize the general citizenry and take away out fundamental rights. Why use bombs when you have the power of the NYPD behind you?
Your response to this assumes many facts that are not in the record. Please, if you have information that would back up your claims, then provide it so that we all can understand the situation better. On what basis do you assume that the record label must be living up to their obligations?
If you believe in that idealistic view of contracting you are putting forward, you are either naive or have never been involved in contracting with parties of disparate power.
Or, because the process of defending yourself, even when you are innocent, is expensive in terms of time, money and emotions, you just pay up. These letters are not about punishing infringers, they are about extorting money out of people.
Actually, It is section 104 of SOPA. Actually, if you read and study the bill from the perspective of copyright law, 103,combined with 104 does what the previous comment was suggesting.
What strikes me as interesting is that the proponents of SOPA on TD have several things in common
1)An unusual trust that greater power put into the hand of those that already abuse power is ok;
2)A simplistic view of reasons people do not wish to use filtered DNS
3)A oversimplified view, coupled with a complete understanding, of how a DNS system works
4) Some strange notion that SOPA is anything but a power grab with parts intentionally left ambiguous; ambiguity is greater to be used as a weapon to threaten litigation. It is expensive to litigate,and unless an accused company stands by some principles, they will cave to save the half a million to a million dollars
If a lot of people did this and it started costing them some serious money, they wouldn't see the true reason. They would blame piracy and the wild west of the internet. They have been blind thus far, so it is unlikely that they would see the truth in the future.
First of all, copyright is not the basis of all creative output. People were creative before the modern copyright statutes (by modern, I mean those that come after the Statute of Anne). In addition, many creative industries thrive with no or limited copyright.
Stay clear of obvious danger? Where is the line between what is an obvious danger and what is a not-so-obvious danger (both of which would have the same penalty). The library would be risk-adverse... and presto, a chilling effect.
So says you. If this is the intent of the drafters, then they should be more clear and precise that they do not mean to change the standard of willfulness or liability for criminal copyright infringement. The problem is, the drafters are not the people who enforce and interpret the law.
First of all, in the US, there usually is no clear documentation on ownership of copyright. Copyright is given without any formality. Second of all, every site associating a user with the user's real identity would be problematic from both a privacy and logistics standpoint.
I would like to hear you outline a feasible system that you have vaguely outlined and waved your hand around. Currently, the internet is a robust ecosystem for creative expression and speech. Sometimes, bad actors do bad things with IP. But that is an acceptable price for the benefits the internet gives the public. Under your proposed system, control of the internet would effectively be given to the moneyed corporate content creators at the expense of the public's ability to freely express themselves.
If you dispute this, outline a system where your view and freedom of expression could feasibly be implemented.
For instance, what documentation would you require for me to : A) verify that I own the copyright on what I have just posted; and B) the documentation necessary to prove to you I am who I say I am?
Whether or not an application of the law would constitute a chilling effect on the First Amendment would be up to the courts. This is just a statutory interpretation issue. If the court finds a use of SOPA does create a chilling effect, then SOPA cannot be applied.
This story is not about the crackability of DRM. As the story shows, breaking the DRM in this case is quite easy. Companies like Rhapsody need to make up their mind. They DRM files and then encourage all their users to break the DRM (which most smart people would have already done). It would have been better had they not placed the DRM on the file at all, since the DRM was easily broken, only those who were willing to play by the rules were hurt.
Why do I buy digital music instead of CDs? So I don't have to pay for all the crap tracks that I don't like. I can buy (for cheaper) song ala carte. It was "nice" of Rhapsody to warn their customers. Basically, they are saying, "unless you move it quick, we're going to crap in your cereal bowl."
First of all, if you are going to criticize Mike for poor writing skills, you should probably write well.
Second of all, it is a bigger deal than you let on. It is a cautionary tale of not relying on sources that sell you a product requiring constant DRM. You might find the process trivial, but the fact that you even have to go through those steps is a joke.
I guess I am not familiar with an occasion US copyright protection was given to works already in the public domain. Though, I am willing to go read about it if you can point me in the right direction.
While their might be a property right, that is not the right we are talking about. The expressive party has the right to make their expression on any work that is in the public domain; when the public domain is shrunk, that expressive right is being taken away.
"Reliance party" is an just a way to obfuscate what is really going on, IMHO. Party that is getting the copyright on what was in the public domain is really the "Usurpation Party." The usurpation party should have not expectation of a property right in what is in the public domain. Their misplaced desire to make a metaphorical land grab does not trump the public's constitutional right to expression of what is the public communal property.