It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama wants felony charge for downloading copyrighted material on internet

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Once again dont worry about the criminals on capital hill or the criminals committing fraud (banks) or anyone special, but if you stream a tv show because you missed it last night on tv your a FELON!!!




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Wait...all things aside. If I create something and wish to use the internet to disseminate it to the widest audience; should I not be subject to receive some type of royalties on it?

I am all for a free and open internet. Where communication flows freely and ideas are contested and debated. I am against theft of original works of art or science in which I have toiled day in and day out to accomplish. Only to be stolen and used by someone as their own or disseminated amongst the masses as free and open ideas.

There is a difference here. If I have an idea; I want it protected not only for the money that could come with such an idea, but also for the rest of everyone else. Investors, buyers...etc are interested in what is new and orignial. Well...its not original if it is being stolen and distributed without my consent.

It sounds greedy and selfish, but it really isn't. Protected ideas lead to greater innovation and allows a wider base for people to participate.
But it starts to get silly. Say, for example, Billy uploads a song he likes to a storage server and then proceeds to put the access information on a forum. In 5 days 232 people download it. The question becomes, do you prosecute all of them for felony or do you just prosecute the uploader?

The reason I say this is because, right now, piracy is an immense problem. There're so many people downloading this stuff that don't even realize the implications of what they're doing. They just click a link and think ti's cool. Or they think that authorities won't look for people like them.

I guess what I'm asking is... could they exploit this? We throw already too many people into our jail system that simply smoked some weed. This costs states a lot of money to prosecute these drug addicts and put them in prison for several months. Most people don't realize how expensive it's. It's about $30,000 per year for a single prisoner, if I recall. That's not accounting for other costs.

I just feel like law and order isn't being served in some cases - the law goes too far.

It's just too easy to copy stuff on the computer - that's really the root of the problem. It's like putting a stash of weed in every home and then telling the homeowners it's illegal to use it.

I think what will happen is we will start to see contractors working for police who do sneak operations... they fake a website or upload and tell people it's a movie/etc and post it on a forum for people to download. A few weeks after they download they get a 'ticket' mailed to them and they'll have to go to the local court to either pay the fine or get a lawyer.

If people start getting $300 fines you can bet piracy will decrease a great amount.

Of course you would fine the actual uploader a lot more than $300. I think most downloaders aren't people who're going to spread what they download. So I think $300 is about right. But fining the uploader $5000 or more in addition to some jail time is probably appropriate.
edit on 16-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I dont see an easy solution to this problem. I just bought a CD today. I feel if I like the music and the artist enough I dont mind having a physical CD I like the idea. But a felony for streaming music on youtube, Thats a bit much.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



My opinion is that if it's on the internet, it's free to use etc. All one should have to do is quote the source.

Sorry Barry O, not this time...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
This is just busting the bottom barrel users.

The real criminals here are the ISPs, they are the ones pushing the dope, so to speak. They are the dealers.

The ISP gets $$$ and provides you with the goods.

They should be held accountable, if anyone's to blame here.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
So fines are the solution?

Why should the govt get paid for people's art?

How does that make any sense?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The empty suit, eerr.....Obama, can make all the legislation he wants to about piracy laws, but the FACT still remains that most of the websites that you can access on the web and download are based in foreign countries. He doesnt have the power to implement any laws that may affect outside nations and their computer users.

Case in point, remember Pirate Bay went down, because of his last attempt, but guess what, pirate bay has returned because the US didn't have jurisdiction over that domain..because of local.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by shortyboy
 


So where is the fine line between theft and copyright infringement? I think copyright infringement constitutes using the works commercially, while theft is constituted by just using.

I am not an expert on the interpretation of law, just my thoughts. Can anyone else clarify?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
The true color of the democratic party were revealed by "I never had sex with Monica..." Clinton when he made Late Child Support Payments a FEDERAL offense. Now Obama will make this a felony! I wouldn't be surprised if Obama makes speeding tickets over 12 mph a felony too.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Wait...all things aside. If I create something and wish to use the internet to disseminate it to the widest audience; should I not be subject to receive some type of royalties on it?

It sounds greedy and selfish, but it really isn't. Protected ideas lead to greater innovation and allows a wider base for people to participate.


How many times should I have to pay for a song? I bought the Sugar Hill Gang album with 8th Wonder on it, I paid for it again when I bought the 12" inch single to play in clubs, and I paid for it a THIRD time when I bought the Greatest Hits CD, and still got hit by a copyright claim when I uploaded it to Youtube, which I see as no different than inviting friends over to listen to music, or listening to it on the radio. (I appealed it and prevailed! Yay me.)

Yes, artists deserve to be paid for what they do, after all, it costs a lot to be a rock star. But when bands are charging $100-150 a ticket for nosebleed seats I'd say they need to be happy with that and CD sales at Walmart. If they want to increase their bottom line then they need to ease up on the Cristal.

On the other hand, if I own the CD, LP, Cassette Tape, or 8-Track of a song, I should be able to get a digital copy of it free of charge. That just gave me an Idea.
SUE the record company to get free copies of the songs I have on vinyl. That should increase my library substantially



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Gee what a surprise when Obama is a puppet of those scumbags at the RIAA.

Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.

Obama, like his handlers, hate freedom on the internet, it's a threat to their objectives of total control of information.

White House Wants New Copyright Law Crackdown

The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers.

In a 20-page white paper (PDF), the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws.

• The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

Felony for this is ridiculous.

And more Patriot Act use/wiretapping extension....

• Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."


And the implication of more of those Homeland Security goons in the process :

• Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it's generally illegal to distribute hardware or software--such as the DVD-decoding software Handbrake available from a server in France--that can "circumvent" copy protection technology. The administration is proposing that if Homeland Security seizes circumvention devices, it be permitted to "inform rightholders," "provide samples of such devices," and assist "them in bringing civil actions."


Yay, Obama going AGAIN against the freedom and liberties of the average Americans, siding with those scumbags at the RIAA, who are themselves working for the big editor industry, which themselves are screwing the artists, hiding the real talents in their shadow while producing whole sale crap like Transformers movies and the like... (sorry but I hate that twit Michael Bay)....



Time for Anonymous to start attacking those bastards at the RIAA...
edit on 15-3-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


-Netflicks
-gamefly
-blockbuster
-amazon
-criagslist
-ebay
- pawn shops
-online merchandise brokers

Have made this a moot point. Nice try though.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
This noob obama needs to worry about real problems instead of someone downloading a few movies or songs. Seriously how about making it illegal to hire illegal aliens with stiffer penalties, how about securing the border...nope, all hes worried about with his butt buddies is about filesharing...seriously who put this clown into office. At least with Bush we didn't have this stupid stuff.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOMALY502
Once again dont worry about the criminals on capital hill or the criminals committing fraud (banks) or anyone special, but if you stream a tv show because you missed it last night on tv your a FELON!!!


Hulu does this legally and free. They have almost every tv show. Just to let you know. This is mainly about music and movies as there are free legal online tv providers, even some of the Stations have their best shows online CW does (and they link them on hulu.)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
All this is going to do is expand the wire taps on idividuals due to the slippery slope of the patriot act being implemented and also pander to his mouthpieces in media (i.e. rock stars, movie stars, rap moguls, etc...) who want that extra $.10 they get from each album sale. Its bs. These people have forgotten that most of them came from garages and should be happy that they are where they are now a days due to the fans. Ill bet that each and every one of the outspoken people in the media have at least dubbed a tape when they are younger. If they pay the fines first, then I will, otherwise, they need to stfu. Damn hipocrites.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Well the RIAA is already so twisted it's despicable.

en.wikipedia.org...

The RIAA's methods of identifying individual users had, in some rare cases, led to the issuing of subpoena to a recently deceased 83-year-old woman,[24] an elderly computer novice,[25] and a family reportedly without any computer at all.[26

In the case RIAA v. Tenenbaum, the jury awarded the RIAA $22,500 per song shared by Joel Tenenbaum resulting in a judgment of $675,000 for the shared 30 tracks (this was later reduced to $67,500 by the judge) and in the case RIAA v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the jury awarded $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million for 24 tracks[19][20] (this award was later reduced by the judge to $54,000,[21] though the final amount of damages has yet to be determined).

But these are all just fines, it seems not to serious (I know $1.92 million for 30 songs is pretty serious), and currently one can be jailed for copyright infringement, making it a felony seems to imply many more jail sentences.

Seriously? Jail for streaming the new hit song on YouTube? This is no longer a free country (Was it ever?).



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
One area of this subject that tends to get overlooked is Sheet Music/Tablature. Guitar Tablature is like "Cliff's Notes" of music. This is how I learn to play songs on guitar. There are a few remaining Tablature sites left due to being shut down by the RIAA. The remaining ones have more than 1 million songs transcribed for students of guitar, bass, drums, piano...etc. The RIAA seems to think that playing someone else's music on your own guitar is a crime. Especially when you post the tablature on the internet for others to learn from. Somewhere along the way, the RIAA began to lump Sheet Music and Tablature into the Pirating of Music category.

These sites are almost exactly like Wikipedia. They are merely a source for musicians around the world to transcribe music and post on a website so that others can learn to play these songs.

So would you guys consider learning to play other musicians songs a felony too? I certainly don't see it that way.
Just take a look at some of these sites if you find the time/interest. The only way that these sites can still operate is if they allow advertisers to inundate their website with literally dozens of ads that pop up in places that severely hinder the sites functions.

If I can learn to play someone else's copyrighted material by ear, does that make me a felon? Nobody gains a single dollar from doing it nor do they get any kind of recognition for it.(amateurs-not prof. musicians) Should they spend 3 years in jail?

It truly will be a sad day when they shut these sites down. All that knowledge and work will be gone in an instant. The only way we will be able to play our favorite artists music will be to buy the Tablature books. Which if you play guitar you know that these are not cheap. The publishers of these books actually charge $4 per song. And you can only buy them as full albums. So we are talking about $40 for 10 songs. Most albums have at least 10-15 songs.

Would you pay $40-$50+ just to learn one or two songs?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
All this is going to do is expand the wire taps on idividuals due to the slippery slope of the patriot act being implemented and also pander to his mouthpieces in media (i.e. rock stars, movie stars, rap moguls, etc...) who want that extra $.10 they get from each album sale. Its bs. These people have forgotten that most of them came from garages and should be happy that they are where they are now a days due to the fans. Ill bet that each and every one of the outspoken people in the media have at least dubbed a tape when they are younger. If they pay the fines first, then I will, otherwise, they need to stfu. Damn hipocrites.


Well if this is the case I am going to really have some fun with this, what words are those wiretapping programs programmed to alert the Dope in office about? A list would be really nice. Then I could use those words, in another context (which I won't mention here, but it will make them blush when they listen to the entire convo)! Yes you may have guessed I am and always was a bit of a trouble maker lol!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



My opinion is that if it's on the internet, it's free to use etc. All one should have to do is quote the source.

Sorry Barry O, not this time...

Excellent point my friend! Time to start copyrighting your personal info. When they use it to sell to advertisers then they are breaking copyrights, therefore you can sue them for $1Million dollars per word.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Go to the pirate bay, download whatever you want and wait for the knock on the door. Im gonna stop downloading for a while just in case. Ive allready heard of other people getting hit with huge fines and I dont wanna take the chance. That and ive got pretty much everything i need, mostly older movies that were hard to find in the stores.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


I was just wondering if you meant it makes Obama's new law a moot point or the OP's point? I do not think it is a moot point either way you cut it. I agree that the bottom line is this just allows the feds to tap anyone's phones they want. They are well aware that probably 90% of Americans have downloaded something illegally at some point. Which means they can tap 90% of America's phones at will, and another 6% for the actions of there children or family members. The bottom line is that approximately 96% of America's phone lines will be tapable through this law.

I am just wondering how it is that Youtube slips through the cracks on thsi one? I wouldn't be surprised to see Youtube getting more and more censored. I mean they are distributing copyrighted music videos, tv shows, clips of tv shows etc. So what are there plans on Youtube. Will we soon be watching a bunch of idiots talking about themselves and there problems. Can't have some kids mom or dad singing/dancing to a britney spears song as that would be copyright infringement. Can't quote lines from a book, Can't show a replay of some random scene from the Cosby Show. Technically would you even be able to have those guys drumming, playing guitar or bass to a old song in the background?

Simply and utterly ridiculus. I guess I better find all the music and movies I want before the law comes into effect. Wonder if it will be grandfathered? Guess this is what happens when the RIAA gives up on suing 15 yr olds for millions of dollars.



I just realized I'm infringing copyright with my signature


I wonder if they will re-open Alcatraz just for those of us that got the total value out of the internet that we could.
edit on 3/16/2011 by Phantom28804 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/16/2011 by Phantom28804 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join