Alternate anti piracy bill.....

[charles maynes]

any reactions?

Wyden, Issa Release Alternate Anti-Piracy Bill, But Hollywood's Not Biting | Reuters


added-


Update: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which will vote on the entertainment industry-backed bills next week, directly attacked Google in his response to the legislative proposal. "Google recently paid a half billion dollars to settle a criminal case becasue the search engine giant's active promotion of rogue pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients. As a result of their actions, the health and lives of many American patients may have been endangered. Their opposition to this legislation is self-serving since they profit from doing business with rogue sites."



Read more: http://www.wilshireandwashington.com...#ixzz1g5Z74UTx
Visit Variety.com to become a Variety subscriber.

[AwwDeOhh]

Ugg.. that's an absolute nightmare...

This MTP post sums it up nicely from a musicians perspective

Would You Rather Just be Waterboarded Now, or Was there a Kafka Sighting at the Federal Trade Commission? Rogue Sites Legislation: Enter the amendments for the 1% (Part 3)

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

Ugg.. that's an absolute nightmare...

This MTP post sums it up nicely from a musicians perspective

Would You Rather Just be Waterboarded Now, or Was there a Kafka Sighting at the Federal Trade Commission? Rogue Sites Legislation: Enter the amendments for the 1% (Part 3)

"If Google is against it".....

I understand....

[chrisso]

I guess the clue is in the first paragraph.
The tech companies love this 'compromise', hence it's probably too weak.

[terryhart]

It's bad on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. (I'm working on a detailed post for Monday.)

It's difficult to see this as a pure and shameless political ploy: come up with a bill that would be absolutely useless for creators of any shape and size and use the reaction to paint copyright supporters as "unwilling to compromise."

Pay some lip-service to public input by throwing up a website that accepts comments on the bill to paint existing bills as being fast-tracked without listening to all sides -- ignoring the fact that work on these bills has been ongoing for over a year, with several hearings; remember that not only was the tech community invited to participate, but last February Google was threatened with a subpoena for not showing up at a hearing to testify on its concerns.

The bill would allow action against a completely foreign site -- one where the host, operator, and domain name registrar are outside the US (so, no dot coms!).

Action can't be taken against a site that qualifies for DMCA safe harbor (under the ITC's interpretation of the DMCA, whatever that will end up being).

It also can't be taken against a site that "expeditiously" removes content when it receives notice of infringement from a rightsholder -- even if it otherwise doesn't qualify for a DMCA safe harbor (in other words, you could move to Russia and set up your own version of iTunes and not have to worry about this bill as long as you take down a song when the owner sends you a notice. Of course, you could also replace the song after a while, it would seem).

It also can't be used against a site that slaps a legal notice on their site saying they consent to US jurisdiction for copyright infringement lawsuits.

So, if any site like this actually exists, you can trek to Washington DC, find a lawyer who knows how to practice in front of the ITC, and file a complaint. The average length of an ITC action is 15 months, and the average cost is $2 million. After all that, you can get a cease and desist letter for the advertising and payment service providers to stop doing business with the site.

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by terryhart

It's bad on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. (I'm working on a detailed post for Monday.)

It's difficult to see this as a pure and shameless political ploy: come up with a bill that would be absolutely useless for creators of any shape and size and use the reaction to paint copyright supporters as "unwilling to compromise."

Pay some lip-service to public input by throwing up a website that accepts comments on the bill to paint existing bills as being fast-tracked without listening to all sides -- ignoring the fact that work on these bills has been ongoing for over a year, with several hearings; remember that not only was the tech community invited to participate, but last February Google was threatened with a subpoena for not showing up at a hearing to testify on its concerns.

The bill would allow action against a completely foreign site -- one where the host, operator, and domain name registrar are outside the US (so, no dot coms!).

Action can't be taken against a site that qualifies for DMCA safe harbor (under the ITC's interpretation of the DMCA, whatever that will end up being).

It also can't be taken against a site that "expeditiously" removes content when it receives notice of infringement from a rightsholder -- even if it otherwise doesn't qualify for a DMCA safe harbor (in other words, you could move to Russia and set up your own version of iTunes and not have to worry about this bill as long as you take down a song when the owner sends you a notice. Of course, you could also replace the song after a while, it would seem).

It also can't be used against a site that slaps a legal notice on their site saying they consent to US jurisdiction for copyright infringement lawsuits.

So, if any site like this actually exists, you can trek to Washington DC, find a lawyer who knows how to practice in front of the ITC, and file a complaint. The average length of an ITC action is 15 months, and the average cost is $2 million. After all that, you can get a cease and desist letter for the advertising and payment service providers to stop doing business with the site.

Right. In addition to my previous "absolute nightmare" comment, i'll just add.. a fuking joke of an insult.
i don't know how these circus clowns can actually introduce this proposition with a straight face.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

any reactions?

Wyden, Issa Release Alternate Anti-Piracy Bill, But Hollywood's Not Biting | Reuters


added-


Update: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which will vote on the entertainment industry-backed bills next week, directly attacked Google in his response to the legislative proposal. "Google recently paid a half billion dollars to settle a criminal case becasue the search engine giant's active promotion of rogue pharmacies that sold counterfeit and illegal drugs to U.S. patients. As a result of their actions, the health and lives of many American patients may have been endangered. Their opposition to this legislation is self-serving since they profit from doing business with rogue sites."



Read more: Wyden and Issa Debut Anti-Piracy Bill - Wilshire & Washington on Variety.com
Visit Variety.com to become a Variety subscriber.

Yeah. This is reminiscent of the DMCA - "compromises" that cut all the effectiveness out of the bill while giving lip service, and lip service only to the concepts.

This would address Google's complaints that they would have to police their own site or be liable? DAMN STRAIGHT they should police their site! But that would be at odds with their corporate goals of getting rich by facilitating piracy.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

"If Google is against it".....

I understand....

Charles, have you actually READ that? It's a friggin' nightmare!

You'd have to be as rich as Google just to pursue a complaint. And by the time it worked its way through the process the IP you were trying to protect would be old and stale and would have lost all its value due to piracy.

[rack gear]

so now the solution to an already ineffective law is to create a new one that is less effective than the old one... good lord, it's time for me to move to the cabin by the lake and watch what's left burn...

seriously... I could be looking at early retirement...

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Charles, have you actually READ that? It's a friggin' nightmare!

You'd have to be as rich as Google just to pursue a complaint. And by the time it worked its way through the process the IP you were trying to protect would be old and stale and would have lost all its value due to piracy.

John, you missed the intention of my comment- it was serious, not facetious.

I wanted to add- I look forward to Terry's comments he is preparing on it- The thing that I find troubling is the painting of frustration that it seems almost all the news coverage on that new proposal is- propaganda at its best-

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

...it seems almost all the news coverage on that new proposal is- propaganda at its best-

I haven't seen any news coverage about intellectual property. It's all been propaganda. You can, however, follow the money to learn the truth.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I haven't seen any news coverage about intellectual property. It's all been propaganda. You can, however, follow the money to learn the truth.

It actually seems similar to the Newspaper empire of Hearst...... Where he decidedwhat was news and what wasnt.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

It actually seems similar to the Newspaper empire of Hearst...... Where he decidedwhat was news and what wasnt.

Today they decide which press release to print since they don't want to pay reporters. The tech "press" is the worst because they are often just working for samples and inside tips on tech stocks.

[chrisso]

Good point....
Another issue with the web, newspapers are on their knees.
Many times newspapers have printed whole press releases word for word, supposedly as a news story written by a journalist.

[Gary Ladd]

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by Gary Ladd

Actually, that is a published press release, not actual journalist/reporter work product at all...

Actually, most reporters work as little as possible, doing the bare minimum to get their paycheck and bennies, just like the avg. 'MeriKan sheepster these days...

But cutting and pasting press releases and claiming original content is not only a quick path to termination of employment, it'll also get you banned from working in legitimate new agencies

sadly, Bob's comments are SOOOOO very true- when you see crap like PRWire being linked as a news source it is pretty shameful, and I know in my industry, most of the articles run in the magazines and all are paid for content written by PR writers. Infomercials.... oh how I hate thee.....

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Gary Ladd

Actually, most reporters work as little as possible, doing the bare minimum to get their paycheck and bennies, just like the avg. 'MeriKan sheepster these days...

Any generalised comment like this is doomed to fail.
There are as many different approaches to journalism as there are journalists.

But cutting and pasting press releases and claiming original content is not only a quick path to termination of employment, it'll also get you banned from working in legitimate new agencies

Again, this is misguided and utterly wrong.
One of my favourite tv shows here is Mediawatch. This kind of practice is very, very common. Both the editors and the media owners accept it as a fact. They need to turn out 50 pages a day, but can't afford the staff to produce the stories, or sub-editors to QC the stories any more.
The result is a PR company can pump out a story on a wonder drug (for example), and a huge number of news outlets (paper and radio) will repeat it word for word, with no checking of facts, or even minor attempt at a rewrite.
This is a known fact.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Gary Ladd

Just in case you missed the intent of the now FAILED American Experiment, here's the source of both the above and the legal foundation for the Sons of Liberty to Revolt against King and Parliament:





Betcha not 1 in 100,000 "Americans" have any idea about this legal foundation (which the Ivy League Tribe have since 1933 suspended with Emergency Powers), nor do they realize how important the power they let slip every time they consent (by voting) for either of the utterly corrupt, co-opted duopoly of sociopath traitors...

This really doesn't have anything to do with piracy and is going too far into politics.

[charles maynes]

yes it does.... (meaning I support John's comments)

[Gary Ladd]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

yes it does.... (meaning I support John's comments)

No worries, I'm out of here, from now on I'll use GS for what it was intended for:

Sound production, Music Business and Music GEAR discussion<period>.

Why did I get dragged into this nonsense, my mistake!

As far as I'm concerned, Jules should nuke any forum that isn't Gear/Music related like this pit!

Non-productive forums like this represent nothing but venues for chest-beating, trolling and argument addicts

Plenty of other alternative non-MUSIC places to go for this type of tripe the Internet...

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Gary Ladd

Non-productive forums like this represent nothing but venues for chest-beating, trolling and argument addicts

Plenty of other alternative non-MUSIC places to go for this type of tripe the Internet...

Huh?
Don't be rude about other forumites just because you willfully crossed the line from music piracy/SOPA to all out, general political criticism, which those other posters have been reprimanded for in the past. Goodbye.

[rack gear]

in general I've appreciated gary's contributions here, but we all need to be respectful of the boundaries set by the mods. this section of the board has come dangerously close to be shuttered a couple times for these exact reasons.

the debate here over piracy is important to raise awareness, I'd hate to see that go away. if someone wants to talk straight politics there are plenty of other places on the web to do so.

[John Eppstein]

Actually I agree with most of the stuff Gary says, we just can't talk about it here.