New anti-piracy system will hit U.S. Internet users next week

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
Looks like I'm gonna be doing all my illegal stuff at Starbucks from now on. Free public Wifi... I wonder how they're gonna work around that one...

ETA: Here's a "guide" to how its suppose to work. It looks like it's only suppose to affect uploaders.

www.dailydot.com...
edit on 2/24/2013 by scojak because: (no reason given)


All the networks have to do is make certain sites restricted. It would take some time, but Starbucks *could* do it. Heck, the library does it some sites (such as Myspace and Facebook).

It might not catch every potential site, but if they keep adding domains as inaccessible in the router, especially if it becomes a law or there is pressure from the outside to restrict access.

Self censorship, if you will.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 19KTankCommander
 

You own how many? More nonsense from someone who has no clue as to what IS a copyright, who can GET a copyright, how long it's good for, and what it protects. Get informed. There are no copyrights on HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB or TWINKLE, TWINKLE LITTLE STAR etc.

Those are public domain and as they are way old...cant be copyrighted. You can however copyright your arrangement and/or performance of your version...but have to give credit to the original.

Speak about something you know about...

MS (owner of over 150 copyrights on music and original novels...including a trademarked band name).



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by 19KTankCommander
 

You own how many? More nonsense from someone who has no clue as to what IS a copyright, who can GET a copyright, how long it's good for, and what it protects. Get informed. There are no copyrights on HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB or TWINKLE, TWINKLE LITTLE STAR etc.

Those are public domain and as they are way old...cant be copyrighted. You can however copyright your arrangement and/or performance of your version...but have to give credit to the original.

Speak about something you know about...

MS (owner of over 150 copyrights on music and original novels...including a trademarked band name).




Anything, in the US is copyrighted from the moment of creation simply by signing and dating.

You can apply for formal copyright, but US law does not require it. Simply by retaining proof of the signed and dated original proves you are the original creator. Official copyrights offer little more real protection in court. Simply put, if you didn't create it, you don't own it. The US recognizes natural copyright in a court of law.

Trademarks are different. Trademarks offer protection of a name, logo, or style, and can prevent someone from making money off your back, for instance using the name Coca Cola.

ETA: www.copyright.gov...
edit on 24-2-2013 by Libertygal because: ETA Links



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I'm just really confused about this whole thing... it seems ridiculous to me. First of all the video says that "content owners" will be the ones making the reports which the CAS system acts upon... uh huh, how the hell is that going to hold up in court. Content owners could claim anything, all we have is their word.

But then the article from Daily Dot explains the system quite differently:

The CAS will take content that people might be pirating, like a blockbuster movie or popular album, and looks for computers that are uploading it using peer-to-peer filesharing software like BitTorrent.

www.dailydot.com...

This would imply the CAS system is completely automated. It scans P2P networks for illegal content using some sort of intelligent search engine and records the offenders IP address, then sends them a warning. This would provide solid proof that their IP address was associated with illegal file sharing; but then again one must take into account false positives as the article mentions.

In fact I bet in reality the CAS system is now built into the ISP computers (AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon) so that it will monitor the internet traffic of all their customers (a gross violation of customers privacy if you ask me). Knowing exactly how CAS works is the key issue here.
edit on 24/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Yes ma'am. I was addressing registered legal copyrighting. No major recording label for instance will touch an artists music...unless they retain a registered copyright from the US Library of Congress. If not....theyll register it themselves...or they wont touch the music. Its all about protection Internationally of compostion and ownership rights.

My 1st Reg. Copyright was in 1970 for 2 songs, and the next was 7 songs in 74. Granted, I have now and had music publishing represetation by major labels in 1974. Current representation is in LA and NY, and European and Netherlands rep in London. I dont make musc a year now in royalties...last yr it was $4000, and some of our music was in the Sopranos, Tommy Boy and Trains, Planes and Automobiles.

That being said...noe of it would have been used...without a legally registered US/International copyright. None of it.

Ever wonder the current WORST country for Copyright Infringment? Russia and all countries involved with them. Bootleg heaven...and they'd KILL for it. International law doesnt apply to them. They wont honor it.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Or you can just go linux and be done with it. I dont download ts and telesyncs and all that mess. The quality most of the time is really bad. I like the screeners and DVDs but im not starting my own collection. I watch them and then I delete them. That simple. No stealing. I agree that it is contradictory for these companies to be so mad about something that they own. Most of the time they didnt buy it out right anyway. They stole it. Just to add, this mess is about money and CONTROL. More rules for us to follow in this so called free nation. I am sitting back and waiting for the crash.
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1337s0lja because: More verbage.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I already pay for the internet on a monthly basis. So If its thier for me to see I paid.

I didn't put it thier so why do I get branded as a thief, thats a bunch of B.S.

They need to go after the people that are putting it on the internet not the user. Its just another revenue farming tactic that they are trying to come up with to take more of our money.

In the end its just going to turn out to be away to empty our pockets nothing more.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Th3MissingLink because: spelling



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
There are no copyrights on HAPPY BIRTHDAY...


Actually, Summy-Birchard Music, a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner owns the copyright to "Happy Birthday". Currently, that copyright is set to expire in 2030, thanks to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

"Mary Had a Little Lamb" and "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star", are still in the public domain, however.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)


XL5

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I think the biggest criminal ever will be the person who invents a device that can turn waste into food and products (like the replicator in Star Trek). You could get everything for free! No one would need money anymore, there would be no use for money, but it would still be stealing...

They are already starting to go down the road of intellectual property scaryness far outside of downloading/copying issue. They are charging people who buy used games $9.99 to access the online part of the game just because they say used games hurt the devs of the game! When it is an accepted practice, say goodbye to libraries, used cars and maybe houses.

Talking car says: "its 32deg C out, please insert your chip and reactivate your A/C for $150 NWO credits"



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Junkheap
 

From my side? My group in the 60's had 11 top 10s....all of which were rock versions of standards....and all because they were in the public domain, and we didnt need permission or pay royalties. My solo album at Motown Records in the Rare Earth days, was copyrighted because I wrote and owned the material.

Usually, I dont care to mention my musical past, my books, or anything of that...because we still get royalties, we still get commercial soundtrack work, and receive quarterly worldwide royalties for perpetuity. And, its no ones business but mine, the group members and trademark owners (us). My books sell well on Amazon and elsewhere without any self promotion...so I could care less.

I will say additionally...I can close down a YouTube video with one email by proving ownership. They are really great to us about that. You cant use our music, post any video...or ever discuss us without general permission. The name itself is trademarked.

The world is changing tho...how it all works out? Ive no clue. But we do have large attorneys fees...and we have 5 around the world. Anywhere from $250 to $4000 for counsel...so defending rights can be an expensive deal.

Thanks alot! MS



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Hey guys.


I think it's important to remember the story of the goose laying the golden eggs...

People are just so fickle...

If the guys with an apparently unquenchable need for 'our' money don't get it together... people will just go somewhere else to get their jollies...



Here are some facts to consider...

The 'Person of Interest' type monitoring of EVERYTHING you do... is ALREADY in place...

There are NO secrets.

I was warning people about the methodology of how the data is gathered, and x-referenced to all of your id info (address, SSN, credit cards, service providers, all the particulars of the people in your household, your insurance info, your motor vehicles, mac address on your network card, ISP IP addy, etc, etc) a few years back (and was censored by the owner of ATS
)...

All of your activities... your so-called electronic footprint' is x-referenced.

Once you get past your false sense of pseudo-anonymity...

Bottom line.... They already know what you are downloading...

There are some implications, such as Comcast throttling your access etc.

Here is the golden goose part...

If they make it too difficult to access the so-called illegal materials... How are the ADVERTISERS going to get their digs in...

You know, the public service announcements, the car dealerships, the Mormon Church adverts, the Washington State lottery, etc. etc.

ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE ADVERTISING their goods and services are participating and enabling the so-called piracy.

If they make it too difficult... people WILL find alternative means...

Whether it's the OS, the hardware, the ISP access...

If they kill the golden goose... she is just going to show up in a different form... just out of reach of your greasy, greedy little money grabbing fingers...

The only people that suffer in the idiotic anti-piracy schemes... is always the little people...

There are ALREADY some indications of how this is ultimately going to play out...

edit on 25-2-2013 by golemina because: Typos and the meaning of life...




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I'll be torn apart for this but ... read the whole thing before beating me to death or burning me.


Originally posted by sirhumperdink
i look at his wheel understand how it works and carve a copy of that wheel (and maybe added some of my own design elements further advancing the technology)..... did i steal anything from ugg?


So what feature films did you release this year? How many big albums? What visual effects did you do?

Copying a wheel isn't copyright infringement. It doesn't make sense as an example.


Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ausername
 

I get it, actors and directors and producers yada yada all need their pay checks so on and so forth...I don't know what to tell you, except that it's not stealing. Someone paid for it, and they decided to gift it to the rest of us. I can guarantee you that most of those developers and actors won't miss a dime.


What sources of information did you use to work that out?

It wasn't from the VFX artists protesting outside the oscars was it?

I've worked massive amounts of hours, and probably cut ten years off my life at least working media, and I'm not getting any particular piece of the pie. The reason directors and actors get paid a lot is that they are used as a marketing asset. For example, if you get Brad Pitt and Zack Snyder you have a marketing package to get more funds for your movie.

Those funds don't trickle down into post artist's, set crew, and performers pockets a lot of the time. They sink into Brad Pitt's security system for his house and car collection. Consumers give him this power by insisting big movies have big names.

I know performers and artists that have been working for years and years and are still doing things like showing up free for a Ke$ha video or working 80 hours a week but only cashing in 37 on a regular basis.

You can't use marketable actors and directors as a base model for the earning capacity of the average person in film making. In fact most films aren't even that successful. Many film makers turn to drink or drugs because it sucks as an industry - not because they have massive handfuls of spare cash. Regardless of your talent you need a Brad Pitt to get the funding, and even then you still might make a loss or not seal the deal in time.

It's already hard enough making an indie film, but with people able to download more mainstream crap than they can watch in a year in under a month and having zero invested in it - its not even like consumers want quality and depth. Your little indie film gets chucked in the movies folder along with Transformers and Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

It's not like I agree with what's happening or think it will even work ... I uploaded my own work on mediafire a whiles ago and they flagged me for copyright infringement. It's getting ridiculous. It's bad enough that people pirate movies, but when that pirating actually stops you posting your own work on your paid for for web space?

So much face palm ... I think movie goers only have themselves to blame when only big budget films are screens in force and they complain about it ... or when they say 'are movies getting worse?'

The dumbest thing is ... we're even getting hammered in the software area. You download movies then people download our software like After Effects and Nuke. Entire cheap mini studios run on one or two purchased licenses if you're lucky sometimes. (In fact one organization in my country runs an entire 30 person unit on trial versions of a software but how can you report this knowing your friends will lose work?)

So thus legitimate legal running companies are being punished by other post production companies using pirated plugins and softwares and therefore creating false overheads that lower the cost expectations of those recieving post production services - this culture was started by video and game piracy ...

I don't think all people who pirate are evil but don't tell me this isn't your problem or your fault, or that I'm rolling around town with 50 inch rims and me, Rihanna and Pink are just chilling in the back seat. I make poor money, work stupid hours, and no you're not helping.

Do me and everyone else a massive favor ... buy a copy of photoshop (50% of people 'have' it), buy one big movie, and one little movie every few months if you can ... then pirate away cos I know you're going to anyway. At least then they might think they're making a difference, and I might get some kind of pay off before 2015 when I'll be too old to strip and will have to resort to taxi driving.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
My problem with this is that the system isn't perfect, and will hit legit users as well...

example:
My band has recorded an album fully paid for and produced by us. There were no outside influences involved with this album. all of the music is original compositions We also follow the model of the grateful dead as we allow recording and and trading of our live performances. So we decide to share some of these recorded events, and within two weeks we get the letter from the isp declaring that we are in violation of copyright infringement. It took almost a month to sort this fubar out. and then when we were able to prove that in fact we were the copyright holders, They still wanted to hit us with infringement for sharing our own copyrights. LMAO they said that because it was copyrighted we couldn't share it, even if we were the owners of said copyright. I don't see this as protecting the artist, I see it as protecting all the bottom feeders that make money on other peoples work.

Clarification: We weren't sharing our album, but rather live recordings of material found on the album.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I am sooo not tech savy or anything so i am a little confused. Please bare with me.
What is the difference in me buying a dvd and loaning it to my friends to watch, OR making it available online for my friends to watch? Isnt it the same thing?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tluna1
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I am sooo not tech savy or anything so i am a little confused. Please bare with me.
What is the difference in me buying a dvd and loaning it to my friends to watch, OR making it available online for my friends to watch? Isnt it the same thing?


You ask THE critical question. It's an issue that hasn't been testing in court in the U.S.

Some believe it's a volume issue. And some that it's about the anonymity. But it really hasn't been tested.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   


Wait, the CAS can falsely flag me?

We don't know for sure until it's deployed, but there's reason to be concerned that the CAS isn't perfect. The creators of the CAS software, MarkMonitor, got some egg on their face recently when they sent a stern, automated letter to Google that essentially said "stop linking to this site, because it streams HBO's copyrighted content!" The site? HBO.com.

www.dailydot.com...


That's a major fail...

Predicting a huge mess.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5They are already starting to go down the road of intellectual property scaryness far outside of downloading/copying issue. They are charging people who buy used games $9.99 to access the online part of the game just because they say used games hurt the devs of the game! When it is an accepted practice, say goodbye to libraries, used cars and maybe houses.


The game issue isn't really due to piracy, you can pirate the rest of the game. It's because used game sales dramatically hurt game producers. This wouldn't be a very big issue (it wasn't for movie rentals, or games until recently) except for the fact that there's a lot of small game studios out there and game production costs are increasing exponentially. Many games cost more than movies to create these days, while the payoff to the studio is considerably lower due to the publisher system of advances against future royalties (this is the model the music industry uses, except the average song doesn't cost 30 million to create) to fund a game. The gaming industry is on the verge of collapse due to production costs and piracy (25% consoles, 90% pc), and used game sales have the potential to be that final push that does it since they cut needed sales in less than half. It's bad enough that there's news of small to mid size studios closing every single week.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


You cant stop people from hiding their IP addresses. This is just sensationalism. There is no way to avoid people circumventing what ever measures they employ. Sorry. They´re just going to have to deal with it. Pirates exist and always will....



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Here's my two cents on the issue.

If your having problems with people downloading music, why don't you find a way to make money off the download, instead of trying to make money off a person who's simply accessing a file. Buissness is all about suply and demand, and for the entertainment industry the demand is for free downlodable entertainment, so why not release your media online for free and make advertising pay your wage? People don't want to pay for crap that hollywood sh*ts out just to make you spend money on them. People want to listen/watch something that people put there heart into, not something that's there just to collect dollars. Jack and Jill.... you think that movie was made because someone thought it would be funny or a good idea???? I doubt it, crap like that is all for profit.

Now I'm all for copyrighting laws that protect creativity, but when those copyrighting laws are used to financially abuse the world around you then I think it's time that people stop paying for the newest hottest garbage that those addicted to the drug called money produce.

To Hollywood: GET BENT!!!

To every artist be it in movies, music or tv: I will support your individual efforts, but I will stop considering you people when I have to pay for your producer, advertiser, image personel, or financial advisor, or any other way you wish to make your medium more famous. I`m not paing for that greedy >&%`s loft, and will from there stop supporting you as an artist, and classify you as a money grub...... and i don`t support money grubs.
edit on 25-2-2013 by openeyeswideshut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Educational video?

Im guessing that just like in the New York gun law dispute, copyright infringers have mental problems and will need proper treatment. After the the 10th video sent, we will probably be sent to a hospital where they will treat us and have a doctor educate us about copyrights.


This thing is sh*t






top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join