My grandson is so upset about this it has given him a bad hair day
What is the difference between downloading an album, book or movie for free and walking into a store and stealing it?
It is definitely a question about intelligent property……but to your question, ponder this, what if you took the stores property (album, book, or movie) and put it through a Star Trek like replicator, made a digital copy of it, and left the store with your copy and leaving the store’s property in the store.
I’m not saying digital piracy is good, but we don’t need the damn gov’t in the Internet’s cookie jar.
Your brain is freezing up there. It is still something for nothing.
And, the damn gov’t is already in the store’s cookie jar. In some states, do it (get caught) 3x and it’s life.
Again, what is the difference?
We don’t need the damn Gov’t in much of ANYTHING, and that was my point. I applaud the punishment of those that BREAK the Law, but NOT at the expense of those that simply have ACCESS to do so. It’s the same single-minded approach that presumes that uni-lateral GUN control will keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals. YES, Our Internet Freedoms are able to be abused by those with Intent to resort to piracy. If we give them ANY leeway here, it’s a Orwellian precursor. That debate I quoted was a BI-PARTISAN debate and both sides actually agreed that we dare not censor. Granted, our Forefathers never even DREAMED of something as free as the Net. Do I totally understand the plight of the artist that has their property taken away from them by the ease with which it can be obtained without their consent, yes. We just dare not allow the gov’t to dictate.It’s already deeper than most know. Try taking a pix of your Great-Grandma to a Copy Center and ask them to duplicate it for you. Chances are, they will refuse due to the fear of copyright infringement. That long dead photog, technically still holds the rights to his intellectual property.
I like the part where you say, “…the punishment of those that BREAK the Law, but NOT at the expense of those that simply have ACCESS to do so.”
That attitude has caused drugs like Sudafed to be taken off the shelves because a few people do bad things with it. Gee, I could take my car and drive it 100 miles an hour in a school zone. Are they going to take my car away from me next?
Ayup. I’m ex-military and could probably cause serious havoc with some mothballs, ammonia and a base-ball bat… (left the rest of the ingredients out lest they label me a terrorist, LOL) My Dad is a HUGE conspiracy theorist.. I do not take it that far. The politicians push some of these issues because they think that all of us are illiterate sheep, and if they can just get it past HALF of us (which sadly, is totally possible)they get points on their agenda. We dare not just sit back and allow them to define our Rights based upon the actions of the immoral majority. Yes, this means that those that seek the path of plunder WILL have the ability to do so. I’m inserting a link of the writings of a man named Frederic Bastiat. This man was a French Liberal by definition in the early 1800′s, and he had more of a clue on what has become the reality of THIS Century than MOST of our aforementioned politicians. It is a LONG read, but PLEASE read it. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G008
PLEASE READ, and if you agree, POST for a petition!!
January 18, 2012
To the Senators of the State of (insert State Here):
We wish, hereby, to make our position known and on the Record regarding both SOPA and PIPA. We decry these Bills as Unconstitutional, as well as the method with which it is being presented for Consideration to be SANS Representation.
As our 1st Amendment currently reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is MORE to this, however. This version OF said Amendment was a Government Selected mandate of the following concepts: Madison in 1789 said ”The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: ”The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.’
Sir William Blackstone, in response, stated the following: ”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.
LET IT BE KNOWN, that while we stand on the side of the Law, we invoke our Constitutional Rights, both as they stand in writing NOW, as well as in the Spirit in which they were intended, we URGE you, as your Constituents , to OPPOSE without dissemble, any Bill that would infringe on our 1st Amendment, both as written as well as Intended.
The names of those OPPOSED to PIPA and SOPA hereby follow.
The thing I dislike most about SOPA is that our congress is for sale to the entertainment industry. There are real problems in America, real problems on the INTERNET, but what are they focusing on? Policing youtube.
Email to Sen Rubio of Florida:
You sponsored and later withdrew the PIPA copyright law in the U.S. Senate. I would like to offer a few thoughts on the same subject.
In 1934, Disney made a short “talkie” cartoon film “Steamboat Willie” with Mickey Mouse. Anyone viewing this should bow very deeply, because that wretched little cartoon mouse will be copyright for centuries! How that squares with the clear Constitutional requirement that copyrights be granted for “limited times” is no mystery: Congress just makes up laws as it goes along, depending on what greedy media lawyers and their clients want.
Nobody approves of the flagrant distribution of copyright works for profit, as in the case of the group just arrested and shut down in New Zealand; they got what they deserved. However, it’s important to note that about a third of the users of that group were innocent people storing personal and business material and not violating any copyrights at all.
Copyright law is a difficult exercise in choosing between a restricted monopoly for limited times as the Constitution demands, and the public interest. Congress has failed miserably in that job; instead they have just stampeded in the direction of the biggest “campaign contributions.”
Copyright reminds me about the two Kings: Dr. Martin Luther King the Afro-American cleric and speaker, whose memorial holiday we just observed, and Mr. Stephen King the novelist.
It’s now perfect feasable and cheap to copy Mr. King’s popular and widely-read novels, violate his copyright, and distribute his works online, or in other electronic form. But there would be no point! His works are widely available in printed or electronic form at reasonable prices; they can be borrowed from public libraries, and bought and sold second-hand without any problem at all. A good, proven, copyright business model protects his interests far better than any Congressional manipulation of copyright. But media interests and their mouthpieces in Congress have fought tooth and claw to cripple the public interest limitations of copyright law, public library access and limited copyright terms especially.
In the case of Dr. King, his important and profound writings and speeches are copyright for ridiculously long times, locked up in vaults somewhere, little noticed and remembered. No one objects to his heirs making a few occasional dollars from them, but the occasions will be very few as time goes on. In the process, important facts of history will be forgotten.
Congress still has a lot of work to do about copyright; please keep the public interest in mind as you go about it.