Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Copyright Cops?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#21 of 129 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer



  • 6,281 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted June 01 2008 - 07:39 AM

Disney stiffed Peggy Lee on Lady and the Tramp video royalties and continues to screw over the Slesinger family over Winnie the Pooh royalties, and Whore-y-wood sleaze like them are expected to have the moral high ground, according to the Copyreich crowd? The mu-Sick industry would charge you for the songs that got stuck in your head if they could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
I think our government isn't doing enough to secure our copyrights.

So would you advocate making copyright infringement a capital crime?

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then.


#22 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 08:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew markworthy
Brian, you are normally calm and rational, so I can only assume that this issue has touched a raw nerve. I shall not make any further comments on this issue as clearly it is upsetting you too much.
Gosh, how magnanimous of you. Posted Image

If anything, I could understand a complaint from you about how unemotional my response was. As it is, there is no "upset" here. There is a "right" and "wrong" in this case. Stating it plainly, calmly and rationally, as I have, is simply the most effective way of communicating it.

#23 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 08:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtEP
Next, you're going to be advocating turning the U.S. back to the British, because, ya know, that revolution was illegal.
Don't you remember the old BOAC commercials? They let bygones be bygones.

As it is, your implication that abuse of copyright is a righteous action, defensible in the same way that the American revolution was defensible, it ridiculous, the ultimate rationalization.

#24 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 08:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
So would you advocate making copyright infringement a capital crime?
No.

Why ask such a silly question?

#25 of 129 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer



  • 6,281 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted June 01 2008 - 08:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
No.

Why ask such a silly question?

Why do you feel the need to talk down to people for their legitimate concern over excessive force? That is the real issue at hand. Excessive force, not copyright infringement. You claim not to support eventually turning copyright infringement into a capital crime, but to me nothing, no matter how absurd on its face, is outside the realm of possibility thanks to Whore-y-wood sleaze bags and their army of shysters. Your attitude proves my point. You don't care if other people get hurt as long as you get yours. Even if it means turning the country into a police state over the distribution of pop culture junk, claiming that "it's the law," and misrepresenting all concerns over the enforcement of these laws as being pro-copyright infringement. That's like saying that one who argues that a murderer has rights makes one pro-murder. The enormity of the crimes are not comparable, but the principles are. History books are strewn with page after page of stories of and abuses of power, and those committing the abuses trying to hide behind the law to justify them. It's actions like these (treating law-abiding citizens like common criminals) that make bootleggers look like saints in comparison.

God forbid that governments try to fight terrorism with half as much zeal as homemade CD-Rs full of mediocre 2-chord Slop 40 sludge.

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then.


#26 of 129 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer



  • 6,281 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted June 01 2008 - 08:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
As it is, your implication that abuse of copyright is a righteous action, defensible in the same way that the American revolution was defensible, it ridiculous, the ultimate rationalization.

No one here, least of all myself, have ever intended to imply that copyright infringement is defensible. It is not.

Technically, the American revolution was illegal, otherwise George III would not have sent soldiers to quell the rebellion. However, the actions by the crown that drove us to revolution may have been the law, but they were unjust laws, made doubly unjust by the absence of colonial representation in Parliament. The methods used to enforce the laws were excessive to say the least.

Here's what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has to say:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It sounds to me like the whole "due process of law" is being treated in such a cavalier manner.

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then.


#27 of 129 OFFLINE   RickER

RickER

    Producer



  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted June 01 2008 - 08:58 AM

I could agree they have the right to delete illegal downloads. But they sure as hell shouldnt be allowed to destroy my personal (legal) property. They also shouldnt be allowed to delete anything until THEY prove its not legal. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

I havent heard a good song in 20 years anyway. Posted Image

#28 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 09:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Why do you feel the need to talk down to people for their legitimate concern over excessive force?
Re-read your question to me, again. Realize that you basically asked a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
That is the real issue at hand. Excessive force, not copyright infringement.
I haven't said anything about excessive force, in agreement or disagreement with you. I haven't commented about the use of force at all. Please restrict your rebuttals to my messages to what I actually what I have asserted, rather than what is easier to argue against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
thanks to Whore-y-wood sleaze bags and their army of shysters
I think you're the one over-emotionalizing this issue and this discussion. Please calm down, and let's have a polite discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Your attitude proves my point. You don't care if other people get hurt as long as you get yours.
I am to be subject to the same laws as you are.

My "attitude" is that violating copyright is indefensible. That's it. It does not include any aspect that could conceivably be interpreted as not "caring if other people get hurt as long as I get mine". That's yet-again, distortion that serves only to over-emotionalize the discussion and distract from the clear and compelling moral assertions that I am making.

#29 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 09:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
No one here, least of all myself, have ever intended to imply that copyright infringement is defensible. It is not.
Then we agree. And, if what you're saying is true, there is no need to respond to my messages, except to agree with me I suppose. Don't fabricate reasons to make this into an argument.

#30 of 129 OFFLINE   KurtEP

KurtEP

    Supporting Actor



  • 698 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 09:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
As it is, your implication that abuse of copyright is a righteous action, defensible in the same way that the American revolution was defensible, it ridiculous, the ultimate rationalization.

I wasn't commenting on the abuse of copyright. I was commenting on your assertion that advocating a violation of the law is craven and condemnable, while obeying is praiseworthy. A lot of bad things tend to happen when people slavishly adhere to attitudes like this.

As to copyright, I'd argue that intellectual property protections should be scaled back by quite a bit in some areas, not stiffened.
Lay down your law books now, they're no damned good -- The Eagles

#31 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 09:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtEP
I wasn't commenting on the abuse of copyright. I was commenting on your assertion that advocating a violation of the law is craven and condemnable, while obeying is praiseworthy. A lot of bad things tend to happen when people slavishly adhere to attitudes like this.
First, no one has said anything about "slavishly" adhering to anything. Again, like Matthew, you're over-emotionalizing the discussion by resorting to loaded language, reading nefarious aspects into statements that aren't actually there.

Second, your comment, "A lot of bad things tend to happen when people slavishly adhere to attitudes like this," is a rationalization. It isn't true, as far as I'm concerned, and only is valuable as justification for transgressive action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtEP
As to copyright, I'd argue that intellectual property protections should be scaled back by quite a bit in some areas, not stiffened.
Which perhaps may be why we disagree about the nature of the other issues we're discussing.

#32 of 129 OFFLINE   Johnny Angell

Johnny Angell

    Played With Dinosaurs Member



  • 5,345 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 1998
  • Real Name:Johnny Angell
  • LocationCentral Arkansas

Posted June 01 2008 - 09:46 AM

I have a couple of questions. I have a bunch of CDs that I purchased over many years. 1) Under current US law, do I have the right to rip those CDs to mp3s to put on any portable player I might own for my personal use? For instance, I have a 1mb mp3 player I jog with. 2) If I don't have that right, should I?

I do not make copies of these materials to give away or distribute in any fashion.

I am particularly interested in the opinions of those there that create these copyrighted materials.
Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another.--Irving Townsend


#33 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 09:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
Under current US law, do I have the right to rip those CDs to mp3s to put on any portable player I might own for my personal use? For instance, I have a 1mb mp3 player I jog with.
Yes, current US law affords you that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
I do not make copies of these materials to give away or distribute in any fashion.
That is an included requirement of your rights.

#34 of 129 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer



  • 6,281 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted June 01 2008 - 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
I think you're the one over-emotionalizing this issue and this discussion. Please calm down, and let's have a polite discussion.

I will thank you not to misrepresent my beliefs and accuse me and others of "over-emotionalizing" the argument. I have been extremely polite all things considered.

You said that the government does too little to enforce copyright, and gave your explicit defense of the rights of government to infringe on one set of rights to enforce another. That's not how we do things in the United States of America.

Let me remind you of exactly what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
As someone who creates copyrighted materials, I think our government isn't doing enough to secure our copyrights.

Let 'em search, and let 'em sanction the craven violators.

I took the liberty of removing your cheap shot at Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Vigorously combating copyright violations is not only technically legal, it is absolutely and unequivocally "right".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Following the law, and advocacy of compliance with the law is praiseworthy. Advocating violating of the law is craven and condemnable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
And, if what you're saying is true, there is no need to respond to my messages, except to agree with me I suppose. Don't fabricate reasons to make this into an argument.

The idea that an international body, similar to the United Nations, is necessary troubles me. Who will be able to hold them accountable when (not if, but when) they overstep their bounds? The United Nations has proven no better at handling international affairs than the League of Nations before it, but I digress. Furthermore, why can't individual countries enforce their own copyright laws in a reasonable manner?

If the law says it's okay to infringe on the physical property rights of individuals to protect the intellectual property rights of corrupt companies, then the law, as Dickens wrote in "Oliver Twist," "is a ass, a idiot."

The level of corruption in Whore-y-wood is well-known and why Congress hasn't launched an investigation of the industry is beyond me. They're likely to find things that would make Enron look like a traffic court hearing. We already know what Disney did under Michael Eisner. And Paramount's claims that mega-hits like Coming to America and Forrest Gump lost money sounds like something out of "The Producers."

Not one person here has advocated violating U.S. law. No one. But you have twisted their words to imply that they do.

And yes, I would defend copyright infringement before I defended the studios' business practices. And I would defend neither. But in terms of the enormity of these crimes, copyright infringement is not exactly as bad as the creative accounting that has been proven to be going on in show business for years.

I find it also odd that the movie industry has been spoon-feeding us anti-capitalist propaganda for decades now and they're surprised that people hold them up as examples of corrupt business practices. Not to mention decades and decades of shameless plagiarism. As Andrew pointed out, what they are practicing is not capitalism anymore than what Enron was doing, but market manipulation. These people are the ones who should be brought to justice, not the oil companies (whose understanding of how they work much of Congress seems to get from "Dallas" and "Dynasty" reruns).

What, exactly, would you have the government do to enforce copyright laws?

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then.


#35 of 129 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer



  • 6,281 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted June 01 2008 - 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Yes, current US law affords you that right.

That is an included requirement of your rights.

Not according to what the studios believe the law says. Have you seen the new unskippable FBI warnings you are forced to watch at the beginning of every DVD and Blu-Ray? They say that "copyright infringement, even without monetary gain" is included. And that scumbag Valenti was even against allowing people copying their own DVDs for themselves.

That misbegotten DMCA was just the tip of the iceberg.

The people who really deserve compensation are the writers, actors, directors, and people who actually created intellectual property. In theory, they're the ones who would be hurt by copyright infringement. But in practice, even when copyright laws are obeyed, they're getting cheated left and right by studio executives. Jack Klugman is suing Universal over residuals for his TV show "Quincy, M.E." I'm rooting for him, and not just because we have a mutual birthday.

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then.


#36 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
You said that the government does too little to enforce copyright
Correct; that's what I said. That's practically all I've said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
and gave your explicit defense of the rights of government to infringe on one set of rights to enforce another.
Sorry, but I gave no "explicit" defense of that sort. Again, you're arguing against something I haven't said. Regardless, the government is always in the position weighing the rights of one group of people against that of another group of people; though in this case, they're weighing the rights of one group of people against the desires of another group of people. What you're asserting are "rights" are not. You're simply mistaken about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Let me remind you of exactly what you said:
Quote:
As someone who creates copyrighted materials, I think our government isn't doing enough to secure our copyrights. ... Let 'em search, and let 'em sanction the craven violators.
Indeed, searching and sanctioning. You perverted those things into nefarious actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
The idea that an international body, similar to the United Nations, is necessary troubles me.
The fact that there is any need for enforcement of copyright troubles me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Who will be able to hold them accountable when (not if, but when) they overstep their bounds?
The UN always operates through local authority, when it exists. They provide coordination, not execution.

[Digression omitted.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Furthermore, why can't individual countries enforce their own copyright laws in a reasonable manner?
Yeah: Why can't they? Regardless, since they can't, let's move on to discuss the issue at hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
If the law says it's okay to infringe on the physical property rights of individuals to protect the intellectual property rights of corrupt companies
You've polluted the point you were trying to make by imposing your person opinion on your premise instead of just on the conclusion. Posted Image

[Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories omitted.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Not one person here has advocated violating U.S. law. No one. But you have twisted their words to imply that they do.
I disagree, but at worst, I was responding in kind, because all you've done is distort my words. Specifically, go back to each statement of mine; put each one in its proper context, and you'll see that I have not distorted anyone's words to make my points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
What, exactly, would you have the government do to enforce copyright laws?
Present each proposal the government makes, and I will vote yea or nay on each, and explain why.

#37 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Not according to what the studios believe the law says. Have you seen the new unskippable FBI warnings you are forced to watch at the beginning of every DVD and Blu-Ray? They say that "copyright infringement, even without monetary gain" is included.
Matthew: You are distorting reality again: The warning says that "copyright infringement, even without monetary gain" is included. The question the PP asked was whether the specific activity was, effectively, copyright infringement. My answer was no, it is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
And that [crude characterization omitted] Valenti was even against allowing people copying their own DVDs for themselves.
As well he should. I believe perfect copies of digital video should have restrictions. The law, including the courts, agree with me, not you, on this point. You will undoubtedly complain that you're right and we're wrong; I'm not surprised given that you want to make copies of DVDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
The people who really deserve compensation are the writers, actors, directors, and people who actually created intellectual property.
And they have the right to assert those rights when the enter in contract with production companies, and also have the right to assign those rights to the production companies in consideration of getting the job. This is capitalism, not charity.

#38 of 129 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer



  • 6,281 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted June 01 2008 - 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
I'm not surprised given that you want to make copies of DVDs.

I don't want to make copies of DVDs. The copies will likely get scratched and become unplayable in a short time. You, however, told Johnny Angell that it was within the owner's rights to make personal copies of DVDs that they own for themselves, but now you're turning around and saying digital copies of movies should have restrictions. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
Under current US law, do I have the right to rip those CDs to mp3s to put on any portable player I might own for my personal use? For instance, I have a 1mb mp3 player I jog with.
=end Johnny's quote=
Yes, current US law affords you that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
I do not make copies of these materials to give away or distribute in any fashion.

=end Johnny's quote=
That is an included requirement of your rights.

And this is where the issue lies. If Johnny went on vacation, and his MP3 player were seized without probable cause, is that right? Should there be probable cause before authorities can search or seize his property?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Present each proposal the government makes, and I will vote yea or nay on each, and explain why.

The government has yet to make any proposals that I'm aware of. Thus far, no news is good news. Do you support jail time for offenders? What about monetary fines? What about simply relinquishing the offending material?

There has always been copyright infringement as long as there have been copyrights. And I stand by my comments about Valenti, and that goes double for that mafia-like thugocracy he ran for too many years.

Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then.


#39 of 129 OFFLINE   drobbins

drobbins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,870 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 02 2004

Posted June 01 2008 - 11:13 AM

Quote:
Border searches Newspaper reports indicate that the proposed agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travelers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.[2][5]

ISP cooperation The leaked document includes a provision to force internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant, making it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay.[6]

Enforcement ACTA would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.[

What give the government the right to search my ipod with out a warrant or any reason except a random chance? Guilty until proven innocent. Posted Image

Why should ISPs provide information about their customers, both law abiding and others, out a warrant? Guilty until proven innocent. Posted Image

A governing body that operates outside the WTO or UN? Who will oversee it? The entertainment industry ? Posted Image

Believe me I am for protecting the copyrights, but not at the expense of basic personal freedoms like privacy.

#40 of 129 OFFLINE   Brian^K

Brian^K

    Supporting Actor



  • 681 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2006

Posted June 01 2008 - 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
I never said that.
Granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
You, however, told Johnny Angell that it was within the owner's rights to make copies of DVDs that they own for themselves
No I didn't. You misread Johnny Angell's posting. I'll reproduce it for you here, so you realize your error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
I have a couple of questions. I have a bunch of CDs that I purchased over many years. 1) Under current US law, do I have the right to rip those CDs to mp3s to put on any portable player I might own for my personal use? For instance, I have a 1mb mp3 player I jog with....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
but now you're turning around and saying that it's not. Which is it?
I'm sure you're now sorry about your interrogative. Apology accepted.


Back to After Hours Lounge


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow