|
|||||||
| Show Talk Talk about the show |
| View Poll Results: If passed, will SOPA and PIPA destroy The Internet? | |||
| Yes! The Internet will now be in the hands of the government! |
|
127 | 89.44% |
| No. It’s not that big of a deal. |
|
15 | 10.56% |
| Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#42 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
|
KEITH!
I can't believe you could care so little about these respective bills. While I agree that it sucks for the corporations to have to do all this work to keep their content off the internet... however YOU KEITH could suffer directly from this law. All that music in the KATG archives contains copy-righted music. They would have the ability to shut down ALL OF KATG for having just 1 copy written song. An "extreme" example would be possible even mentioning the contents of a movie (a spoiler) could result in a shut down. The other half of this movement is the "Funny Machine" (weird machine) Bill (Law). Basically 'they' want to make it so that computers read and decide on which processes are prevented from running. The theory is to stop from some processes from running (Pirated movies, software etc). |
| (Offline) |
|
|
|
#44 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
|
No because Copy Right is a Gray Area law.
I think the main issue is that these corporations have already gone after fan videos who use copy righted music. Did those people intend to distribute copy righted material? Probably not.. they probably are really excited about the content of the video (you've done this keith). Along the same vein, your beloved skim-that could be shut down because the are re-publishing news paper article. I create copyable content for a living. It grinds me whenever I see what I've created reused without my permission. In the end, you can't control digital content. This is the same issue with mix tapes (& CDs) essentially, except the copy-right holders can't cut a cheque from internet for every time you distribute digital content. |
| (Offline) |
|
|
|
#48 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 38
|
In this case, "Extreme" means that while it would be within the boundaries of the law to do just that, you think you're safe from it because it would take an "extreme" asshole of a government/corporate official to actually pursue the case. He'd have every right to do so if this law were passed, but you're lulled into a false sense of security because you think that no one would be that "extreme".
Getting your business sued into the ground for singing the copyrighted "Happy Birthday" at a party would be "extreme". Yes, it is ridiculous. It is also absolutely possible within the current legal framework. And the same people who made it possible are the ones writing this even more ridiculous bill. The only reason we're not all getting sued for singing "Happy Birthday" is because most of us haven't pissed off its copyright holder. The law isn't keeping us safe. We're just flying under his radar. The current law is extreme. We're just lucky that that guy is only a little "extreme". And yet, there are a number of companies that are extreme - Huge companies like Monster Cable that make a habit of suing every mom and pop shop that dares to use the word "Monster". There are companies devoted solely to randomly patenting shit that they never intend to make, solely for the purpose of suing anyone who invents it a few months later, and sue him for the money he made actually marketing and selling that invention. This bill will make it absolutely legal to do ridiculous shit like exactly what OrangeM is saying. The fact that it's ridiculous shit is in no way a guarantee that it won't happen. People gobbled down bull's penises on Fear Factor for like 500$, for god's sake! They didn't even know if they'd win, they just wanted the fucking chance! You think people aren't going to take full advantage of the ridiculousness that this bill opens up, if they think it'll even have a chance of making them a bit of cash? Make no mistake. This law means that unless you are monitoring your forums, comments, and any other way that content can be displayed on your page, 24/7, someone can find a reason to take your entire site down, without due process. And even if you nuke all those things off the site, do you realize you would have to go back through every single minute of every show in the archive and remove every song you've played without permission of the author, every audio clip from the wacky local news stories, and every news article you read aloud, just to be safe? You either think we're exaggerating because no one could be so stupid as to write such a ridiculous law (you're wrong), or because you're naive enough to think that you'll never piss off anyone enough for them to bother with taking you down (which is also wrong). Last edited by BadDecisionDino; 01-20-2012 at 12:31 AM. |
| (Offline) |
|
|
|
#49 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 95
|
The Taliban vs Al-Queda
I don't know why everyone insists that the Taliban and Al-Queda are completely different.
Mullah Omar (leader of the Taliban) and Osama Bin Laden were actually quite close. A number of years back a hard drive was captured in Afghanistan which included a number of emails between Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar: Inside Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive - Magazine - The Atlantic The two also solidified their relationship by marrying each other's daughters: "Reports also indicate that Mullah Omar has close personal ties with Laden as he has married bin Laden’s eldest daughter and that bin Laden has married one of Mullah Omar’s daughters." Terror Tuesday: Impact on South Asia -- Mullah Mohammed Omar-Profile |
| (Offline) |
|
|
|
#50 (permalink) |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
|
|
| (Offline) |
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|