Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Maltby
No one is "against protecting their rights", and none of these bills actually
go after those Pirates. They just want to control or shut down any site
that they do not own. (Can I make it any simpler??)
Maybe political speech is new to you? A bill titled "To improve the education
of our children" actually means "A bill to payoff the teacher's union". A bill to
"help the poor" actually means "A bill to provide funding to more social workers and mostly those at the highest administrative level and/or the collage professors advising them". Little if any of the funding actually gets
into the hands of any poor person.
Just because a bill claims to be for protecting "Intellectual Property Rights"
means nothing, look at what the bill actually puts in place and authorizes the
bureaucrats to do.
Luck;
Ken
|
That paranoia talking. I an pretty sure that if you have a site that is not using any trademarks or content witout consent you will be fine. Many sites get permission right now to use certain logos, music etc.
Its all speculation on part of people who do not want this. Like it or not this will come to pass. The internet will still be here for all to use. The only difference is you either will have to pay for using certain trademarks, music etc. and pay for content you want to view.
I am beginning to wonder that the underlying fear of many is that they will not be able to view or listen to copyrighted stuff for free any longer.(ie. Some Youtube content)
The excuse I always here is. "If the music, Tv industries had a good business model for obtaining their material, it would resolve much of the piracy." Bunch of BS. As long as people can pirate this stuff they will. There is no business model that will prevent people from obtaining this stuff online for free. Free is always better than paying, right??? If someone can get it for free online there are those that wont pay. This will be policed. Like it or not. Its been a long time coming.