|
"Few things are more important to the future of the American economy
and job creation than protecting our intellectual property," said
Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who co-sponsored the bill.
"That is why the legislation is supported by both labor and industry,
and Democrats and Republicans are standing together." -------- Original Message --------
|
Democrats and Republicans are standing together."
Then who thought the bill up the trashbaggers? I don't think so. Censorship smacks of the republiban. Living and playing outside the box.
|
On 11/21/2010 12:53 PM, Ron Becker wrote: Censorship smacks of the republiban. This issue has nothing to do with censorship, or of free speech, or of protecting musicians, for that matter. It is simple copyright law. Every other medium of publication and distribution has had to obey these laws. There is nothing which should make the Internet exempt, except that the gov't has made no attempt to provide the protection which has been duly filed and paid for by the copyright owners. What is so hard to understand? Maybe I should be a frikkin' lawyer. Bobby
|
On Nov 21, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Bob Hansmann wrote: On 11/21/2010 12:53 PM, Ron Becker wrote:
Censorship smacks of the republiban. This issue has nothing to do with censorship, or of free speech, or of
protecting musicians, for that matter. It is simple copyright law.
Every
other medium of publication and distribution has had to obey these
laws.
There is nothing which should make the Internet exempt, except that
the
gov't has made no attempt to provide the protection which has been
duly
filed and paid for by the copyright owners.
What is so hard to understand? Maybe I should be a frikkin' lawyer. Gee that's funny, they called it the Censorship bill in the subject head. That's what is so hard to understand. Ron Living and playing outside the box.
|
Hi Ron, Gee that's funny, they called it the Censorship bill in the subject
head. Rumour Mill News, who agrees with you, btw, calls it that. What it's called, though, is The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) Ain't it funny how words can be twisted around by our oh,so truthful "Internet News" organizations to fit their agenda? best, Bobby
|
I think the problems are how this kind of
legislation can be used. Allowing a bunch of faceless
political assistants the power to close anything down
on the pretext of copyright infringement means that any
site could be closed to gag opposing political views.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Voltaire.)
Will
|
On 11/22/2010 4:00 AM, Will wrote: I think the problems are how this kind of
legislation can be used. Allowing a bunch of faceless
political assistants the power to close anything down
on the pretext of copyright infringement means that any
site could be closed to gag opposing political views. In principle I agree with this. The problem is in the expectation that musicians should be expected to take the financial "hit" to protect the "free speech" of the thieves (by "free", I guess they mean that they don't have to pay for it - it has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional Law), and to do so graciously. The problem, then, is where to draw the line. What is an acceptable trade-off of rights. The American people seem all too willing to allow meaningless strip searches in airports and 4th Amendment violations of their rights in subways, trains, banks, and soon probably fast-food restaurants, but to protect real copyright ownership they have a problem. The real problem is not the rights of these thieves, but the fact that they are thieves in the first place. If people could be trusted not to steal, then all of our laws regarding theft would be unnecessary. It would be nice to think you'll never be robbed, but I'm guessing that you are not taking the locks off of your doors anytime soon. best, Bobby
|
On 11/22/2010 4:00 AM, Will wrote: I think the problems are how this kind of
legislation can be used. Allowing a bunch of faceless
political assistants the power to close anything down
on the pretext of copyright infringement means that any
site could be closed to gag opposing political views. Dave Woods There's a bunch of faceless political assistants fucking everything up right now on every issue, and as long as the American people want to just "lay in the cut", rather than get involved, it's always going to be this way. In principle I agree with this. The problem is in the expectation that musicians should be expected to take the financial "hit" to protect the "free speech" of the thieves (by "free", I guess they mean that they don't have to pay for it - it has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional Law), and to do so graciously. Dave Woods I agree with bobby entirely with this. Musicians have had to "bend over" long enough, and for what? The problem, then, is where to draw the line. Dave Woods Everybody's afraid that change is going to happen, or it's not going to happen soon enough. Why do a soft shoe while we "pussy" foot through the dog pound. PASS the God damned thing. Change has to come first before lines can begin being drawn. Right now we can argue about what?.....nothing. Draw a line about what?.......nothing. Let em' come after me and sensor my foul mouthed Emails..........I don't give a F#%K!!
|
On Nov 21, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Bob Hansmann wrote: Hi Ron,
Gee that's funny, they called it the Censorship bill in the subject
head. Rumour Mill News, who agrees with you, btw, calls it that. What it's
called, though, is
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) Ain't it funny how words can be twisted around by our oh,so truthful
"Internet News" organizations to fit their agenda? Oh yea, never heard of rumor mill news tho. But spin is the game these days. Hope things are smooth over your way. Ron Living and playing outside the box. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
On 11/22/2010 9:44 AM, Dave Woods wrote: Let em' come after me and sensor my foul mouthed Emails..........I don't
give a F#%K!! Well, Dave, Thank you for that. Fuckin'-A, that was good. Of course, they can censor the ever-lovin' piss out of our fucking selves, while still letting the fucking thieves steal away in the name of "free" fucking speech. Maybe we'll get fucking lucky and the CEO of Google will yell "Fire!" in a crowded fucking theater. I hope I didn't say something fucking wrong, Bobby
|
On 11/22/2010 9:44 AM, Dave Woods wrote: Why do a soft shoe while we "pussy" foot through the
dog pound. PASS the God damned thing. Change has to come first before
lines can begin being drawn. Right now we can argue about
what?.....nothing. Draw a line about what?.......nothing. For starters, draw the line about what the bill is all about. John Hall, pussy that he is, knows all too well that this is NOT about protecting musicians. It's about Federal Copyright Law infringement, pure and simple. To even express a need for a new legislation is ludicrous, and shows just how incompetent and dishonest our legislators and judicial system are - a way to pass it on 'til the next politician comes along. While all the arguments about the "big-bad" record companies deserving to be out of business, and musicians not getting exposure without the Internet , and "free speech", &c. &c keep going 'round & 'round like a circle in a wheel, the plain fact of Copyright Law Violations remain ignored simply because the thievery is done through new technology (or so say the liars who say that). Has it ever occurred to anybody that most of the "artists" who do not get exposure through conventional means fail to do so because they're just not good enough? That for some or other reason they fail to attract fans - either because their music is weak, or their image is weak, or their attitude is bad, or even in many cases they don't even bathe? I can't sell that; can you? Lots of artists over the decades have made very good livings - a fact which the circular argument seems to ignore. The overwhelming majority of artists who have failed, regardless of their talent, have done so because they blatantly refuse to learn the business end of their craft. - we call these people jerks, and so do the lawyers they try to take on without any foreknowledge or homework (hint: the record companies' lawyers are paid to represent the record companies, the musicians have to hire their own). If I find a new way to rob a bank of even a small fraction of what the Internet geeks have stolen from all copyright owners, musicians included, does that make it legal until new laws are passed to take the new technology into account. If someone posts everybody's bank account information on the internet for all to see, is that legal? Rather, methinks, those opposed to Federal Copyright Law enforcement are so because they want in on all the free stuff, and that they don't care a rat's ass who loses out. Let's be honest, folks, and "call a spade a spade" for a change. Bobby
|
On 11/22/2010 9:44 AM, Dave Woods wrote: Why do a soft shoe while we "pussy" foot through the
dog pound. PASS the God damned thing. Change has to come first before
lines can begin being drawn. Right now we can argue about
what?.....nothing. Draw a line about what?.......nothing. For starters, draw the line about what the bill is all about. John Hall, pussy that he is, knows all too well that this is NOT about protecting musicians. It's about Federal Copyright Law infringement, pure and simple. To even express a need for a new legislation is ludicrous, and shows just how incompetent and dishonest our legislators and judicial system are - a way to pass it on 'til the next politician comes along. Bobby, Clear me up on this. Is Federal Copyright Law all inclusive? Meaning it protects a copyright for a better mouse trap plan, as well as intellectual property? Am I confusing patent law with copyright? Ohhhh, I think I get it. the protection is already in place, and they're just ignoring it's enforcement. The "new" legislation is just another way for them to justify their jobs. FUUUUUCCCCKKK!!!, and I thought my home town city council was the only entity guilty of this. When it comes to getting it crammed up my you know what, I wish these idiots would "pull out" once in a while. Dave Woods
|
Hi Dave, Ohhhh, I think I get it. the protection is already in place, and they're
just ignoring it's enforcement. The "new" legislation is just another way
for them to justify their jobs. FUUUUUCCCCKKK!!!, and I thought my home
town city council was the only entity guilty of this. When it comes to
getting it crammed up my you know what, I wish these idiots would "pull out"
once in a while. Sadly, yes. You get it. The real core and meaning of the topic is very simple, once one strips away the rhetoric and bullshit. And to make it even better: I hope those in support of "free" (no cost) speech for huge corporations like Google will sleep easier knowing that so many creative people, including musicians, can do without heat, food, or medical insurance this Winter. This time of year is interesting. Almost every artist and band for decades has made sure to put out a Christmas album, or at least a song or two. The reason for this is not religious, but for the airplay royalties they would receive over the years. No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. best, Bobby
|
