|
Post by Kai on Jan 23, 2012 12:23:49 GMT -5
On a side note, may I mention that "SOPA" means soup in my language and "PIPA" means kite? Seriously, it's so weird talking about it in portuguese with my friends. XD Apparently it means something pretty funny in greek too but I don't think it's appropriate to post it here
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Jan 23, 2012 12:33:42 GMT -5
I did some back searching on ACTA, and I found out why it's treated as a predecessor to SOPA/PIPA, and why those were written - ACTA has long since been neutered to the point that it's far less dangerous than either of those two were. The "three strikes" provision? Out. The overlap of criminal and civil cases for infringement? Also out. Plus, the EU parliament voted overwhelmingly against it, 663 to 9.
Ah, and it specifically says in ACTA "Fair use shall not be circumscribed." This already makes ACTA a hell of a lot better than SOPA or PIPA were, because "circumscribed" means restricted, thus - Fair use would not be restricted under ACTA.
All ACTA seems to do is bolster existing copyright laws while doing not much more than kicking the intertubes in the shin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 16:32:39 GMT -5
Just a question for you debating folks.
When someone uses clips from movies/TV to make a character tribute, do you consider that infringement or love for the character and his/her creators?
Personally, I consider it to be a "thank you so much for creating this character, we love him/her and we love you!" That's how I would feel.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jan 24, 2012 17:17:45 GMT -5
It depends on how the tribute is done.
Most tributes would tend to fall under Fair Use provisions... Kind of. Because those are sticky (one of the stipulations being "limited distribution"). If someone was making money off of tributes, then definitely not a cool thing.
For example, people making money off of commissioned fanart is technically illegal and a violation of copyrights. But that's another discussion in general.
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jan 24, 2012 18:50:05 GMT -5
I generally consider it tribute. However, people's mileage does vary on that. There are tons of creators who don't appreciate that kind of thing (especially stuff like parodies).
Take, for instance, J.K. Rowling, whose characters have been pretty much put through the fanfiction mill. She's cool with it because she's cool like that, but plenty of people would have been like "AUUGH! WHAT IS THIS?!" about it and prefer their characters to stay only in canon. Weird Al, too, has occasional trouble getting permission for his parodies. It's not very common, but it does happen, and that kind of thing is difficult to say.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 24, 2012 20:15:40 GMT -5
Also depends on where you put them. If you made a fan video and put it on your own website, where you paid for your own hosting, and where you didn't make money of any kind, then it's usually fine.
If you post it on YouTube, then it's a problem. YOU might not be making money off it, but YouTube (owned by Google) is making money off its ads. Therefore, since money is being made, and it's not going to the creators, it's wrong. That's also why DeviantART doesn't allow you to post any videos containing infringing material. (And why they require you to apply for film priviledges: so it's a smaller group to police)
Fanart is slightly different because you're not using someone else's artwork directly; you're still using their concepts, though, which is still part of their copyright. Making money off it is still technically illegal, but most creators tend not to mind since it's usually small potatoes, money-wise. But if you mass-produce something (like selling a print, etc), then you definitely risk getting into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 21:24:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Celestial on Jan 26, 2012 19:28:34 GMT -5
We might have dodged a bullet with SOPA/PIPA but there's still ACTA to deal with. It's gaining some momentum on the internet so maybe, just maybe, everyone will rally together against it. Because this is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than SOPA/PIPA if simply for the fact that it's international. Here's a petition. Sign it. Spread the word. Here's hoping we'll stop countries ratifying it.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jan 26, 2012 19:41:27 GMT -5
Hipster Stal was Anti-ACTA before even of you guys ever heard of it. 8|
<.<
>.>
But seriously, where was everyone a couple years ago when information on this started breaking?
|
|
|
Post by Celestial on Jan 26, 2012 19:43:18 GMT -5
Hipster Stal was Anti-ACTA before even of you guys ever heard of it. 8| <.< >.> But seriously, where was everyone a couple years ago when information on this started breaking? I don't know but the mood is ripe for it now, what with the anti-SOPA stuff just being over. Here's hoping that it's second time lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jan 26, 2012 19:49:12 GMT -5
Hipster Stal was Anti-ACTA before even of you guys ever heard of it. 8| <.< >.> But seriously, where was everyone a couple years ago when information on this started breaking? I don't know but the mood is ripe for it now, what with the anti-SOPA stuff just being over. Here's hoping that it's second time lucky. But now it's all mainstream, and I was into it while it was still underground. Posers. <.< *brick'd* Actually, I'm glad to see it's prominent now. But the fact it's a treaty makes it much harder to combat.
|
|
|
Post by Celestial on Jan 26, 2012 20:01:41 GMT -5
I don't know but the mood is ripe for it now, what with the anti-SOPA stuff just being over. Here's hoping that it's second time lucky. But now it's all mainstream, and I was into it while it was still underground. Posers. <.< *brick'd* Actually, I'm glad to see it's prominent now. But the fact it's a treaty makes it much harder to combat. We might as well give it all that we've got and stop governments from ratifying treaties that the people are against. And the fact that this is not just internet that will be affected makes it even more urgent that people finally sit up and take notice of this, no matter how late it is. EDIT: I changed the title slightly to maybe draw a bit more attention to this. Hope nobody minds. ^^;; </power abuse for the greater good>
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Jan 26, 2012 20:44:56 GMT -5
Actually, one of the reasons people didin't really care about ACTA up until recently was that it has been repeatedly neutered. The EU parliament wouldn't accept it without the three strikes provision being removed - and the EU parliament has the final say in whether it's dismissed or approved, and they overwhelmingly voted "no" on the "Three strikes" version. ACTA also doesn't restrict Fair Use - all in all, it's been far neutered from its original purpose as "international DMCA," meaning that, in its current form, ACTA is actually LESS powerful than the DMCA. Also, the blurring of the lines between civil and criminal infringement has been removed, I read, meaning that it's actually LESS bad than SOPA or PIPA. Basically, all ACTA was supposed to do was make US copyright laws global - and then it was neutered. Then, in the SOPA/PIPA frenzy, people went digging and found out about ACTA, but forgot that it was, in fact, neutered a long time ago. Plus; ACTA is more like guidelines for what the individual signees do, and since the US planned to basically use it to export the DMCA, things aren't gonna change much. Sooooooo... Yeah. Also, Aussie's official ACTA site has a Q&A: www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/factsheet.html
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 26, 2012 20:54:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Celestial on Jan 26, 2012 21:00:12 GMT -5
It's still better to not have it. What makes me nervous is that additions can be made to it without democractic process and as far as I know. it forces ISPs to look at everything you're receiving and sending, rendering internet privacy null and void (please correct me if this isn't the case). Added to the secret negotiations and the fact that not every country was asked to participate in the discussion, I personally would rather not risk this being ratified.
|
|