Quote:
Originally Posted by Iphinome
By a little too far you mean issuing takedowns for things they did not have any legal right to?
That little inconvenience? The one where if a big company makes a complaint my stuff goes offline? You don't see why maybe just maybe I'd rather a few mp3s get downloaded than I myself get censored or the perfectly legal something I want to view gets censored?
And who the hell are you to decide who someone truly creative is? Are we adding the no true Scotsman fallacy into your mix of unbaked claims and non answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la piracy bad, is not an argument in favor of anything.
You have not explained what is so bad about infringement. You probably have a general consensus against it but that doesn't absolve you from justifying the position.
If it is bad you still haven't explain why it is worse than censorship. I and other have shown how the current laws have been abused. You haven't shown how it is any of our interest to have even more laws that will (given past performance) be abused.
You haven't shown how this new law would do anything to even stop infringement.
Honestly all you've said over and over is anything to stop piracy which is bad, really! I'm saying no. There's a price to freedom. That price is sometimes people will abuse it. We as a society have in the past accepted this. We require things like warrants and trials and showing some cause for a prior restraint.
Would you support simply shutting down the internet to make sure no more files get traded online? If you don't then what exactly is your problem with understanding why so many of the rest of us think that this attempt goes too far.
|
Sheesh talk about missing the point. I will repeat it again. If someone online is using OR downloading/hosting copyrighted materials they should be liable for that use.
Now as for creative. Be as creative as you want. NO ONE is going to take that away from you. BUT dont be creative riding on the coat tails of someone elses creativity UNLESS you have permission to do so.(I am not talking about a little girl singing along with a radio) Im talking about people who have websites that use these creative propeties on their site either in design or offering them for free to others or make money off them etc. etc.....
...and once again I will repeat I am NOT for a bill that allows these media corporations to abuse it.(how many times do I have to repeat it?) These bills need to be rewritten to protect people who are not infringing on others hard work. It is irrelevant if laws have been abused in the past. Thats a weak argument IMO. Bottom line is there will be a standard eventually and you either deal with it or dont.
If you created something wildly popular. A story, Logo, music etc. Would you be willing to let others make money off it without compensation?? Or people take these items without paying the purchase price? I doubt it.
It happens all to frequently online.
Instead of people seeing these corporations as BAD and GREEDY all the time. Understand they are businesses as well and employ people. They have a bottom line as well. They have lost much money on piracy over the last 16 years.
If one thinks they ask too much for their wares. DONT purchase them. But also one shouldnt feel they have a right to it for free.
My question is. Would you be willing for an anti piracy bill that will insure coporations do not abuse it????