| Statutory changes in PRO IP bill Sometimes I simply cannot believe my eyes when I read blog entries on this site. The wording on this new copyright bill makes complete sense. That does not mean that some theoretical mafia will be busting down the doors of innocent people who infringe unknowingly. Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?
The notion that someone willfully stealing one thousand songs (perhaps by 100 different singers, yet distributed together in a DVD compilation) and distributing in mass over the Internet should be liable for the same maximum damages award as someone stealing 1 song, and sharing it with his/her neighbor, is totally absurd.
The only way that a statutory damage claim reaches the $150K maximum amount is if willful infringement has occurred and the actual distribution (like that which occurs over the Internet) is difficult or impossible to calculate. Judges and juries have the discretion to determine something not to be willful, and move the statutory bar all the way down to $200. Why didn't you tell your readers that truth.
Second, this is not the RIAA's bill. This is a bill for the entire copyright community (mostly individuals and small companies like mine) and level headed people interested in being compensated for our hard work and our country maintaining its competitiveness in a global economy as well. China now has some tougher copyright laws than we do here in the U.S. The PRO IP bill is LONG overdue. I know. I am a graphics artists/designer who has suffered widespread intentional theft of my valuable works for years.
Third, try stealing a box of pens from your local Officemax on a routine basis and see how long it takes for the police or FBI to show up at your door. Not the manufacturer of the pens or Officemax personnel with guns and ropes. The PRO IP bill strengthens the criminal side of willful copyright infringement. How could anyone argue this is not fair?
Please don't continue to mislead people and create hysteria when you are not at all knowledgeable about the facts. I feel badly about your innocent readers/audience who think you must be knowledgeable or you wouldn't be taking this position in a public forum. Tell the truth. Can you point out a single person who has been forced to file bankruptcy, or been sent off to jail, based on copyright company attacks and/or unreasonable judgments rendered against them in court.
I didn't think so.
Remember, the truth is a far more powerful ally and positive avenue for change than deception. A level headed discussion will likely get you much further along than hysteria.
The PRO IP bill helps small companies and creative individuals (not just huge record labels and movie/software billionaires) and encourages continued innovation. Why can't you help us spread this truth.
GeorgeR |
|
| said by GeorgeR :
Third, try stealing a box of pens from your local Officemax on a routine basis and see how long it takes for the police or FBI to show up at your door. Not the manufacturer of the pens or Officemax personnel with guns and ropes. The PRO IP bill strengthens the criminal side of willful copyright infringement. How could anyone argue this is not fair?  Sorry man the stealing pens and FBI showing up at someones house for it really made me laugh... Call out the SWAT that same guy just got another box... lol...
Other than that I see your point, but no matter how it's worded by you or anyone else it will more than likely be used by the RIAA or MPAA to sue some other person without a computer, grandma for sharing some songs on kazaa, or *gasp* those bit torrent downloaders.
I don't agree that file sharing copyright infringement should carry a stiffer penalty than shoplifting. They are similar in that someone gets something they didn't pay for.
The blue collar version of getting caught stealing a cd (or your example pens) from your local store is usually a slap on the hand, small fine (usually double the value of what you stole and court costs), maybe probation unless you are a repeat offender. It's a misdemeanor petty theft charge.
You buy a cd and whether or not you have a clue how p2p works you can get sued by the RIAA and settle out for $3000-$4000 dollars for ripping it to your drive. You could always risk going to trial and losing, maybe have a $220,000 verdict thrown at you for 24 songs. If this gets passed maybe a mil...
I am all about people not taking your designs but not at that price. That is excessive... |
|
| Thanks, Dez_nutz
You are probably right. Perhaps I should have used the example of an employee of a jewelry store I know. The problem with piracy of digital works is that 1 million perfect copies can be made and distributed in just a few minutes. Again (unfortunately), this is exactly what happened to us. There is no way we will ever be properly compensated for these losses. Existing laws or the new PRO IP bill considered.
Thanks for your critique ... I think you made a lot of sense.
George |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to GeorgeR
Sorry, GeorgeR, but the punishments are RIDICULOUS.
Millions of dollars in fines. Whatever. |
|
|
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | reply to dez_nutz
said by dez_nutz:You buy a cd and whether or not you have a clue how p2p works you can get sued by the RIAA and settle out for $3000-$4000 dollars for ripping it to your drive. You could always risk going to trial and losing, maybe have a $220,000 verdict thrown at you for 24 songs. If this gets passed maybe a mil... I am all about people not taking your designs but not at that price. That is excessive... I think you got it right there. Fact is that just ripping the disc to your HDD for your own use (i.e. no sharing) is accepted as totally legal today. It is fair use no question.
The trouble again is distribution. If you send that sucker up to some P2P network then you've distributed the work for which you have no rights to do so.
My concern is that the media industry is starting to make arguments which makes the simple ripping of the disc for your own use a questionable legal position. That's what they did in the P2P case that everyone jumped on a few weeks ago.
I don't believe we need a yearly ratcheting up of the penalties. They don't quit.
GeorgeR,
I see your point and as someone who creates content as well, I feel your pain on having your stuff used improperly. It pisses you off to no end.
However, I have to tell you that this thing isn't about us small guys. This IS all about the RIAA/MPAA "big media" and that's it. They couldn't care less about the artists they claim to be helping, nor anyone else. It is business after all.
I fully support copyright protections as I use them myself, BUT I also look to have some balance in the system. This type of action they're seeking is completely counter to the purpose of copyright. It is full on abuse of that system, and that's why I do not support this bill, no matter the rhetoric. |
|
| reply to dez_nutz
I hate to tell you, this Law will not do jack for you or your company! It will be valid for the xxAA, as they are the only ones who will have the $$$$ to actually pursue any infringers.
I am all for some laws to protect artists better, but laws backing the xxAA is NOT the way to protect the "little guys"!
--
Images are Copyrighted and use is NOT
permitted. What is RSD? |
|
