More Copyright Nuttiness - 10 Strikes? Go to jail. Do not pass go...

[Renegade]

Yeah... the lobbyists are at it again...

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/

URGENT: Congress Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

Tell Congress to oppose S. 978, the new "Ten Strikes" bill

Here they go again: The big business lobbyists who are behind the Internet Blacklist Bill are already making the sequel. THIS WEEK Senators will be voting on a "Ten Strikes" bill to make it a felony to stream copyrighted content -- like music in the background of a Youtube video -- more than ten times.

Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml

So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail.

%^&*^ (^&5 ^%$&$ (&(*&% ()&(*~!

Yeah? Well infringe this:

NSFW Canadian Comedy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sY9X7IcZl8

http://www.lyrics.com/f-k-ya-lyrics-maclean-maclean.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacLean_%26_MacLean

And the "non-infringing" version here:

http://www.macleanandmaclean.com/live.html

[zridling]

What a timely post, Renegade. I was just reading a post on a blog about the World Copyright Summit, where the "public" is never mentioned except the "respect" of the public for the monopolies of the rights holders. All other references are to monetizing the rights of owners to "consumers":

Several initiatives around the world have attempted to connect rights holders – and primarily creators – to consumers in order to promote values such as the respect of copyright. This session looks at some of those projects which are aiming to bring creators and consumers closer together.

Copyright laws are passed that take from the public and never give, just as copyright is always extended, never shortened. The public was not invited to the World Copyright Summit, nor do we have a say. Seventy years after the author dies? How about 700? Wow, it's an industry talking to itself, reinforcing its own prejudices and delusions, and unwilling to accept that the world has changed utterly under the impact of digital technologies; unable even to mention the idea that it's time to engage with those seven billion people -- not merely as consumers.

[Renegade]

From the front page of the link you provided:

Creating value in the digital economy

The World Copyright Summit is a truly international and cross-industry event addressing the future of the creative community and the entertainment business in the digital economy.

All stakeholders involved in creative industries – creation, licensing, usage, collective management, legislation and dissemination of intellectual property and creative content – now have a unique forum to exchange views on the value of creative works, the future of authors’ rights, the role of creators and their collective management organisations.

WTF are they talking about? They're barely addressing the authors/creators.

Stakeholders? More like leeches that are trying to suck the blood out of the efforts of creators.

Like I said in another thread, the publishers offer zero value and bring nothing to the table. They are vampires. Or perhaps vampire lawyers... Which would make them vampire sharks... But marine sharks don't really deserve that kind of abuse... I have such a foul mouth.

[Stoic Joker]

Yeah... the lobbyists are at it again...

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/

Okay, sounds like a call to action... But, how safe is the signup to tell congress no bit on the top right of that page?? Do we know/trust the site well enough to all jump in and fire off a letter through it?

[zridling]

...how safe is the signup to tell congress no bit on the top right of that page?? Do we know/trust the site well enough to all jump in and fire off a letter through it?

Good question. In this modern world, I'd expect someone to show up with a subpoena if you did. How good are you with proxification!! 

[app103]

...how safe is the signup to tell congress no bit on the top right of that page?? Do we know/trust the site well enough to all jump in and fire off a letter through it?

Good question. In this modern world, I'd expect someone to show up with a subpoena if you did. How good are you with proxification!! 

I don't think that was what Stoic Joker meant.

@Stoic Joker, if you are worried about going through that site to send a message to Congress, thinking you might end up spammed to death or something, then it's time to get familiar with who your representatives are and how to contact them. Info for where to send email, snail mail, phone calls shouldn't be too hard to find. It's considered public information. You don't need to use a 3rd party.

[Renegade]

Okay, sounds like a call to action... But, how safe is the signup to tell congress no bit on the top right of that page?? Do we know/trust the site well enough to all jump in and fire off a letter through it?

Should that be something more like:

Do we know/trust Congress well enough?

 

[Stoic Joker]

...how safe is the signup to tell congress no bit on the top right of that page?? Do we know/trust the site well enough to all jump in and fire off a letter through it?

Good question. In this modern world, I'd expect someone to show up with a subpoena if you did.

This is actually of no concern, as I've made people regret finding me before...

I don't think that was what Stoic Joker meant.

Quite Correct!

@Stoic Joker, if you are worried about going through that site to send a message to Congress, thinking you might end up spammed to death or something, then it's time to get familiar with who your representatives are and how to contact them. Info for where to send email, snail mail, phone calls shouldn't be too hard to find. It's considered public information. You don't need to use a 3rd party.

That distinction only dictates in what form and by whom you will be bothered going forward. Being that I run my own mail server, I've no problem blacklisting offenders. So I much prefer electronic communication whenever possible ... Assuming of course that the site in question is endorsed as being reputable by someone who's opinion I trust. Hence the question...

Should that be something more like:

Do we know/trust Congress well enough?

 

I trust congress about as far as I can throw the State of Florida.  

[app103]

I don't think that was what Stoic Joker meant.

Quite Correct!

@Stoic Joker, if you are worried about going through that site to send a message to Congress, thinking you might end up spammed to death or something, then it's time to get familiar with who your representatives are and how to contact them. Info for where to send email, snail mail, phone calls shouldn't be too hard to find. It's considered public information. You don't need to use a 3rd party.

That distinction only dictates in what form and by whom you will be bothered going forward. Being that I run my own mail server, I've no problem blacklisting offenders. So I much prefer electronic communication whenever possible ... Assuming of course that the site in question is endorsed as being reputable by someone who's opinion I trust. Hence the question...

Going through a 3rd party would only result in them sending it to the same email address you could have in the first place, or possibly the wrong one, while the 3rd party gets some info about you and where to send the political spam in most cases. It won't give your message any extra power. In fact, it would probably have a better chance of being read (and possibly responded to) if you sent it yourself. You will at least know it is going to the correct representative. (but don't count on the congressman himself doing it...probably will be handled by one of his aides.)

The point is the old saying: If you want something done right, do it yourself.

If everyone handles it themselves, then all of congress will receive messages from the citizens they represent, rather than a single congressman or some general info email address that nobody pays attention to.

[Stoic Joker]

Going through a 3rd party would only result in them sending it to the same email address you could have in the first place, or possibly the wrong one, while the 3rd party gets some info about you and where to send the political spam in most cases. It won't give your message any extra power.

A simple no doesn't need "extra power", and as far as spam goes ... That's why I was/am inquiring about the site in questions reputability. Time is also a factor...

In fact, it would probably have a better chance of being read (and possibly responded to) if you sent it yourself. You will at least know it is going to the correct representative. (but don't count on the congressman himself doing it...probably will be handled by one of his aides.)

Given that most of congress is to busy, drunk, or stupid to use Email (or most technologies (Twitter...) properly)...It will assuredly be handled by an aid of some kind. In which case critical thinking skills are best left out of the requirements list. Better to repeatedly flash the same (exact) message in front of them for the purpose of it hopefully eventually sinking in. Just like training a dog; somewhere between to 1st and 5,000th time a command is repeated they catch on ... Trying to reason with them ($$$$$$$$) is simply foolish.

This is a big part of why dictators of old had to be lashed to a post and then set on fire before they realized that the people weren't "happy" with them (e.g. Not everybody likes cake.).

If everyone handles it themselves, then all of congress will receive messages from the citizens they represent, rather than a single congressman or some general info email address that nobody pays attention to.

If everyone handles it themselves, there will be a bunch of different messages, worded a bunch of different was, many of which will detract from or completely obscure the point. And if the site in question has the address wrong, or is failing to send said message to all of the necessary/relevant parties... Well, that would be a part of the reputation thing I was inquiring about.