NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to Mashiki
Re: Thank Bush for killing the "Govt suing infringers" part
said by Mashiki  :It took 5 weeks to get into see my family doctor that's the legacy of universal healthcare. Just an aside, even here in the US, I have had to wait that long to see my neurologist at the time and, on occasion, a little over three months to see my PCP. This isn't a community clinic, but a private foundation hospital with an EXCELLENT reputation.
said by Mashiki :By-the-by and going back to topic, I'd suggest going for a CD levy down there. Not sure if you are kidding or not, but a CD levy addresses the problem from the wrong angle, especially when you consider that most infringement is not done with physical media. It might have made sense back before everyone had high speed internet and still relied on copying discs.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. |
|
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | reply to jc100
Yep, you are correct sir.
That is why we have something called private security guards and not public police to do the dirty work for the private corps. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jc100
I said the FDA was different. I won't argue that point.
The porn industry will find protection under the IPEC. Your previous comment was "should the porn interest have a smut czar?" and my retort was that they will with IPEC.
If you think I missed my point and proved yours, then our discussion is done. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to openbox9
No grasping for straws. FDA regulates ALL FOOD whether from a restaurant or private company. Their job is to ENSURE that food is safe to it, not that it tastes good. Their job isn't go around to Pizza Hut, McDonalds, and say this stuff is good. Also their job IS NOT to hold anyone who might be stealing their recipe accountable. Simply put, the FDA just makes sure you WON'T DIE from what you eat. There's no grasping for anything.
As for the porn industry, their job is to protect copyright and the actors. However, they work FOR the industry as a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. The same as the MPAA / RIAA. Neither are government funded.
See how you are missing the point? Why shouldn't these organizations FUND THEIR OWN POLICE / Copyright Czars instead of the tax payer footing the bill. Notice once again, these organizations are FUNDED BY THE INDUSTRY THEMSELVES. So their enforcement should stay that way and NOT BURDEN tax payers.
I think you were missing the ENTIRE POINT and did a fantastic job of proving mine. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | reply to Nightshade
He just pulled the number out of his ass. |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by openbox9 :IP is a concern for more than just the RIAA. Take your blinders off and expand your vision a little. Yes, it is a concern of mine. As a photographer, I've had my images used by Big Bu$ine$$ but never received a dime for the publication despite my copyright. Where is MY U.S. government assigned/taxpayer financed private police force to enforce MY copyright? I would like the feebs to protect my Intellectual Property rights, after all, my images contribute to the economy in that monies received enable me to spend locally as well as nationally. My side photography business is good for the economy, but the feebs won't help me. Just the **AAs. They won't help you because you aren't funneling millions of dollars into their wallets like the **AAs. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to Boberator
Pretty much for people who argue against anything socialized. My belief, the government is needed AT TIMES but it should not be there to help private companies who make STUPID DECISIONS. It's one thing for tax payer money to build Roads, Fund Schools, Maintain Public Safety (Fire, Police, EMS), etc. It's another thing to expect tax payers to foot the bill for a PRIVATE COMPANY who offers NO REWARD to tax payers who will no doubt be on the losing end of this scheme. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jc100
You still aren't grasping the fact that this new IPEC position will work to protect more than one business. Pizza Hut and McDonald's have the FDA which is different, but does mandate and protect the industry. The porn industry would fall under the IPEC since porn is copyrighted. The IPEC does not solely protect the MPAA or the RIAA. At least you expanded your vision beyond the RIAA, but you need to expand it further.
I do agree with your statement that taxpayers do not need to fund more government. I do believe that we should be reducing the government's size and rid it of waste. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to openbox9
The FBI is tax payer funded and WORKS all security. That's my point open box. They are not dedicated to ONE ENTITY. Why should ONE BUSINESS get 24/7 protection when no other industry is afford that luxury.
Also, I realize it has to do with a bigger picture. The point still stands. Should Pizza Hut / Mcdonalds get a food Czar to protect their interest? Should the Porn interest have a Smut Czar? All these contribute to the economy as well. Tax payers do not need to be funding MORE programs, especially if their purpose is to serve a SINGLE industry versus that of everyone. Let's face it, this is being created SOLELY for the MPAA / RIAA. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :Where is MY U.S. government assigned/taxpayer financed private police force to enforce MY copyright? Since the IPEC is an executive position and funded by taxes, it isn't a private police force. I don't understand why this misunderstanding continues to be repeated. The IPEC position was just established and the POTUS hasn't nominated anybody for the position yet. Even after an appointment is confirmed, the IPEC has 12 months from the date the bill was passed to develop a Joint Strategic plan against counterfeiting and infringement. So, your assistance is coming, it's just not here yet. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :IP is a concern for more than just the RIAA. Take your blinders off and expand your vision a little. Yes, it is a concern of mine. As a photographer, I've had my images used by Big Bu$ine$$ but never received a dime for the publication despite my copyright. Where is MY U.S. government assigned/taxpayer financed private police force to enforce MY copyright? I would like the feebs to protect my Intellectual Property rights, after all, my images contribute to the economy in that monies received enable me to spend locally as well as nationally. My side photography business is good for the economy, but the feebs won't help me. Just the **AAs.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to Nightshade
Small businesses can own IP as well. IP owners don't have to be large international corporations. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jc100
You do realize that the FBI is taxpayer funded and does not exist merely to "sit in one spot and serve as 24/7 security to one entity".
You're missing the bigger picture. Just as the $700B economic plan serves a much larger role than bailing out a few banks, protecting IP interests in the US and around the world serves a much larger economic role than placing money in the **AA executives' pockets. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to Nightshade
As a matter of fact, I'm of the opinion that the draconian copyright laws we have are HURTING the economy by stifling artistic development that could be occurring but (for the most part) is not.
For example, take the recent project ReAnimated. A group of artists and filmmakers took the film Night Of The Living Dead and broke it up into pieces. Using the original film soundtrack (music, dialogue, etc.) each piece was then animated in a different style, creating a very cool and (for the most part) very interesting retake on a classic horror film that is relevant to many people because it was a part of our lives growing up or because it's a recent enough part of our cultural heritage as to still resonate with many folks.
This project would not be have been legally possible if the film was not in the public domain (and the creators of ReAnimated are planning to sell the film on a for-profit basis). So here we have a whole group of folks profiting and participating in a small bit of economic stimulus far beyond what the original work's creators could have enjoyed themselves.
And this is a perfect example of EXACTLY the reason copyright laws were created by the founding fathers: encourage a creation with the promise of financial reward, then after enjoying a brief period of profit, pass the work onto the culture at large and allow others to use it for THEIR gain also (kinda like cultural recycling *grin*).
To play with these ideas further, let's look at Mickey Mouse, one of the primary reasons for the Sonny Bono extension from '96. Disney would have a cow if Mickey Mouse were to fall into the public domain tomorrow. Why? Do they really think folks will stop buying mouse ears at Disneyland? Nonsense. Are they concerned about protecting Mickey's artistic legacy? Ridiculous. Mickey's a freakin' picture and his legacy will be just fine. Besides, I doubt for one minute that Disney is more concerned with doing anything other than making money.
But let's look at the broader scope. If Mickey were in the public domain, many folks would suddenly be free to create all sorts of Mickey-themed items that will earn them money and help stimulate the economy. Multiply this by all the other creations that should be in the public domain and we have a very large opportunity for creative and financial growth that we currently do not. BUT...rather then allow a large group of folks to profit from this situation, the current laws allow the owners of a single company--OWNERS WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MICKEY'S CREATION--to continue to get paid for it. Heck, that sounds great!! When I die, please forward my paychecks on to my family for the next ninety years...Wow, talk about a pension plan!
It's bad enough that such freedoms for the majority were taken away solely to benefit a very, very tiny minority, but to then reallocate our already troubled, overburdened judicial, legal and community resources in FURTHER protecting that minority is to me, unconscionable. When the government has fixed the economy, wiped the Iraqi mess off our loafers (Hey! Stop tracking that mess in my living room!) and repaired our other crumbling infrastructures, then I might not have a problem with them creating a copyright czar.
No, actually, I'll have as big of a problem with it then, also. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :When Democrats are in, both go down. Strange, ay =). Ah. So let's just kill all the Republicans, and the right wingers, and be done with it.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to NormanS
Which was??? The Great Depression was due in part to what we have now. No regulation. Except back then, banks were not FDIC. So when they went under, they took everyone's money with. There were a LOT of banks in that era who were taking money and investing it in companies who had no real assets. Many companies inflated their worth and there were no checks to see if anything was true. That was the fault of the whole system back then. We should have learned from that and fixed it 70 years later. Last I recall, Republicans ran things the last 8 yrs. Matter of fact, if you go to the bls.gov website, every year republicans are in office, Unemployment and Crime go up. When Democrats are in, both go down. Strange, ay =). |
|
Boberator
@bellsouth.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Here's where you are wrong TK.. Are you ever Right (nope)?. Tax Payer money shouldn't be used to protect the interests of PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. It' is THEIR JOB, NOT tax payers to do that... (snip) So when there's a fire at the factory, the fire department shouldn't respond, because taxpayer money shouldn't be used to protect the interests of corporations? |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by openbox9 :The US wasn't founded on the attitude of "hey, I didn't do it right the first time so I'm going to give up". But then again, maybe that attitude has allowed our country to get where it is today. But that is the attitude of so many of the slackers that now are in school or unemployed. Just give up; watch videos on the internet or listen to the stolen music on their iPods. Sorry I have to disagree with having a bigger government role. The current system works. There is the DMCA and it is enforceable once a person is caught. To make the FBI now go after people seems like more money spent in the wrong direction the US has other issues.
Terrorism is more of a threat to the US then copyright intriguers.
Artists can sue or the RIAA has sued and done much to make people aware of illegal downloads even suing them.
Now tax dollars via:FBI will educate other countries.
Why not the RIAA and the like spend there money on catching the people responsible, but no spend US tax dollars not like the US already has financial issues lets just throw that in the 700 Billion bailout and call it an ear mark.
If someone takes your property then you take them to court.
It has always been that way.
Why should the Elite few (artists) get special help from the FBI when the RIAA has enough money to track down illegal file sharing?
Waste of money and politically motivated by lobbyist's, as usual pay someone in office to pass a bill.
EDIT: FYI the FBI goes after Drug dealers along with state and local authorities because Drugs are priority to them.
Does the FBI stop people from taking drugs or deter them?
Answer: NO, people still do it. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to openbox9
A) Yes and no. First, law enforcement is there to protect the GENERAL community as a whole. He / She does NOT sit in one spot and serve as 24/7 security to one entity. Their job as police is to POLICE the city they work for. Now, if they wish to moonlight as private security on their off time, they are welcome to. Yet, when tax payers foot the bill, their job is NOT to serve private / corporate interests. Would you want your cops taking free meals from restaurants, discounts from stores, etc. I think that would give an air of bias. So why should tax payers be footing the bill for the RIAA / MPAA to go after people using OUR MONEY. It's their business. Now if a crime is committed, they should report it to the FBI. You ever see that nice little logo on a DVD? Their job is to handle this matter. Now, I am sure they got better things to do, but it is still their job. Tax payers don't need to make other departments to serve Corporate interests.
As I said above, should we have a Fast Food Restaurant Czar to ensure fast food joints aren't robbed and no one uses their logos? Should car dealers get a Car Czar to make sure their vehicles are not stolen or subject to theft? Hell, the tax payers are a cash cow. Let's fund EVERYONE who cannot work to serve their own needs. Why have private corporations if tax payers are LEFT WITH THE BILL. IE 700 Billion economy bail out. This merger of OUR (Tax Payer interests) and Corporate seems to be blurring together. I DONT RECALL HAVING A HAND IN THEIR BUSINESS or SEEING the profits. Now if the MPAA / RIAA want to cut each and every tax payer a check + interest in the future, then that would be a different story. Until then, my money shouldn't be used to serve theirs or anyone elses interests.
As for a citizen's arrest, they are perfectly legal. Have I made one no. Is shooting the "dumb fuck" legal, YES. I'm from Ohio and our law says if anyone breaks into your property, you have a right to protect it. Now, I moved to Texas and the laws here are a LOT MORE RELAXED. You trespass onto someone's property, (don't even have to enter a building, just be on the grass), and THEY HAVE 100 percent legal right to take your life. I said it once, and I'll say it twice, every state is different. Yet, most afford you the right to protect your own property. This moral and ethical argument behind this is another matter. I'm just stating the law as it is in the two places I've lived. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to jester121
Sorry misread. Point stands. Intellectual Property DOES NOT need a CZAR. Do all private businesses need a Police / Czar. Shit, why not give Pizza Hut / Fast food Industry a Food Czar to make sure no one uses their logo. Why not give all car dealers a car czar to make sure their cars aren't stolen. I mean hell, let's be frivolous with tax payer money and cut blank checks for all. I think EVERYONE needs security and the tax payers should foot the bill. Who's with me (sarcasm). |
|
