|
Post by Stal on Mar 18, 2012 11:22:14 GMT -5
The method needs to be improved, but I'm more okay with this plan than SOPA/PIPA.
I have no issue with the company (who is providing the service I pay for and I signed contracts and agreements with), creating disincentives to copyright breaking.
Unfortunately, still a very rough method with way too many holes in the lining (and not in favor of the consumer). But it's a start.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2012 11:31:31 GMT -5
Okay, I'm still worried. I've been uploading custom smilies and avatars to Photobucket. The users who made them made them for me.
Are they seriously going to incriminate me for that? And what about uploading my own songs?
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 18, 2012 11:41:42 GMT -5
Okay, I'm still worried. I've been uploading custom smilies and avatars to Photobucket. The users who made them made them for me. Are they seriously going to incriminate me for that? And what about uploading my own songs? Generally speaking, no. None of that is going to violate copyright laws. In both cases you have specific permission and license. And as none of the content is connected with the MPAA or RIAA, they'd have no reason to believe that x-bytes of data you're playing with is violating any major copyrights. Even streaming YouTube videos you'd be blameless. Now someone who uploads the Ars songs may get in trouble for violating the copyright. But in all the instances you've cited, no fall out for you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2012 11:43:07 GMT -5
Okay, I'm still worried. I've been uploading custom smilies and avatars to Photobucket. The users who made them made them for me. Are they seriously going to incriminate me for that? And what about uploading my own songs? I don't think that would be under copyright. And you'd certainly not be punished for uploading your own work.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Wolf-Park on Mar 18, 2012 11:56:56 GMT -5
Okay, I'm still worried. I've been uploading custom smilies and avatars to Photobucket. The users who made them made them for me. Are they seriously going to incriminate me for that? And what about uploading my own songs? I wouldn't worry about the smilies, Sae. After all, the creators did give you permission to use them. You're not going to be incriminated for that. Original songs (if that's what I implying from your post) should be fine as well because you are technically the creator
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Apr 10, 2012 18:10:05 GMT -5
Anyone heard of CISPA? Well, don't panic - the lead co-sponsors are clarifying the only things it can be used for and adding privacy safeguards even as we speak. Link
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Apr 13, 2012 14:11:14 GMT -5
erk
i wanna read it
but it's sooo much text blargh x.x
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Apr 16, 2012 17:15:58 GMT -5
guys
guys
guess what
the lead co-sponsors of CISPA are removing the bit about "theft of intellectual property" and turning the bill from a bad thing into a not-very-bad-at-all-and-actually-kind-of-decent-thing.
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Apr 19, 2012 9:10:43 GMT -5
hmmm :/
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Apr 27, 2012 23:52:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Apr 29, 2012 10:33:57 GMT -5
Yeah, now that CISPA's become such a partisan bill (Democrats are mostly against it, Republicans are, of course, mostly for it), I don't think it'l pass the Democrat-controlled Senate if they don't make some biiiiig changes.
Even then, Lieberman's Cybersecurity Act stands a far better chance of passing, and is a vastly superior bill all around.
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Apr 30, 2012 19:10:00 GMT -5
Could you summarize CISPA and Lieberman's briefly? To tell the truth, with all these different bills, I think a lot of us have gotten rather lost. The stuff you find online is all rather couched in legal jargon, so it would be nice to read a paraphrased summary. It's not about watching stuff on Youtube. They're concerned more about those who are downloading--or, worse yet, those who are uploading stuff, since they're the root of it. xD Hm. Maybe I should kick this torrenting habit before the gummint comes for me. Aw, man. Or I guess we could all spend the next few months in between now and July in a torrenting frenzy. xDDDD
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on May 1, 2012 17:00:06 GMT -5
CISPA = Bill designed to fight cyberthreats, but had poor definitions of cyberthreats in its initial draft and included "theft of intellectual property" as a cyberthreat. However, "theft of intellectual property" is no longer in its narrowed definition, and now people are worried about the Quayle amendment, which allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over info pertaining not only to cyberthreats, but "protecting individuals from harm" and "protecting children from physical or psychological harm." HOWEVER - ISPs can already voluntarily turn over info related to real world threats and such to the government, so it really doesn't change anything except possibly allowing for MOAR WIRETAPPING. Also, the government cannot search for "threats to children or invidivuals" unless it's given to them with things that fit an actual cyberthreat, such as hacking or a virus. It still has a lot of problems, but it's far from being as bad as SOPA and PIPA were, and is (marginally) better than its first form. Obama is threatening to veto it unless it gets stronger privacy safeguards. Techdirt's thing about "CISPA has been made worse" is hyperbole, and the CDT outlines the more realistic concerns here. Lieberman's bill = focuses more on protecting the systems of public works and has stronger privacy safeguards than CISPA. Is far more likely to be debated in the House and signed into law since it's backed by the White House. A more preferable bill than CISPA, but still has some flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on May 25, 2012 21:42:12 GMT -5
UPDATE: No, CISPA is NOT going through the senate. What IS planned for a debate in the Senate is the Lieberman-Collins bill, which contains the "national security" and "notwithstanding any provision of law" language that remain key flaws in CISPA. That's the bad news.
The good news is that it already has built in anti-tasking procedures, and has actual mandatory privacy protections written into the law. While it's still a flawed bill, it's vastly superior to CISPA.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 21:57:09 GMT -5
Yeah, now that CISPA's become such a partisan bill (Democrats are mostly against it, Republicans are, of course, mostly for it), I don't think it'l pass the Democrat-controlled Senate if they don't make some biiiiig changes. Even then, Lieberman's Cybersecurity Act stands a far better chance of passing, and is a vastly superior bill all around. I don't get why anyone would be FOR a bill that stops people from listening to pretty songs written by people from another country whose CDs most certainly won't be buyable in America. If it's a crime to share the joy of a song, they'll be targeting the singer herself next.
|
|