|
Post by Komori on May 25, 2012 23:05:08 GMT -5
Because paying for a song is one of the few ways that singer gets any money to feed herself? And you can't pay the bills with joy. Said singer has the right to decide where her work gets shared, since that song does belong to her. As a content creator, I can see the desire to protect one's created works. It's a way more complex issue than "sharing the joy" of a song Also, you can buy that CD on ebay. :3
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on May 25, 2012 23:20:51 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. Except you can buy her albums in America. That's not even counting all of her albums I found for sale on Amazon and Ebay -- some of them with free shipping even. And for me at least, it's far more tragic for a singer when they don't get paid for their hard work. If people steal enough of a percentage of their potential sales, they'll have to quit doing it and do something else that does pay. Most singers already don't make enough off of their songs that they can do just singing, and not a second job that pays for the food, gas, and insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2012 10:41:01 GMT -5
Okay, but what about the makers of A Very Potter Musical and that sort of thing?
They have obvious Harry Potter references. Won't they be targeted?
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on May 26, 2012 12:13:51 GMT -5
Okay, but what about the makers of A Very Potter Musical and that sort of thing? They have obvious Harry Potter references. Won't they be targeted? No, because they're covered via fair use-parody protection. I suggest that when you get the chance (my high school offered classes in this, but many do not) take a basic law course. Since you want to be a singer, it would behoove you greatly to understand what things are -- and aren't -- protected by US and international law.
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on May 26, 2012 12:41:31 GMT -5
Uh, guys The Cyebrsecurity Act doesn't deal with pirating. Like, at all.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on May 26, 2012 14:23:50 GMT -5
K. We aren't talking about the Cybersecurity Act right now. XD I mean, unless Sae is, but I think she was talking in general terms about recent legislation efforts.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on May 26, 2012 16:10:03 GMT -5
Okay, but what about the makers of A Very Potter Musical and that sort of thing? They have obvious Harry Potter references. Won't they be targeted? there are contracts that take care of that, they probably asked perimission to make a parody. Just like the author of "james Potter" got J.K's permission to public his fan fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on May 29, 2012 19:04:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Feb 19, 2013 21:24:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Feb 20, 2013 9:36:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd be worried if it didn't turn out that the committee's working with the White House on how to fix the bill. Plus, they clarified the intent of the bill, which gives them more incentive to actually make the bill less vague.
Honestly? What's gonna happen is they either change it enough to make it actually passable, or they don't, the White House issues another veto threat, and it's gonna die on the floor. Yannow, just like last year.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 20:43:09 GMT -5
This bill is downright unconstitutional. I should know, because I'm taking American Government so I can graduate high school. It says right there in the Bill of Rights that we have the freedom to openly criticize the government! (You can't talk about overthrowing them (though I don't exactly know what "overthrowing" would entail, seems like saying "I HATE THE PRESIDENT AND HAVE A PLAN TO GET SOANDSO IN OFFICE" counts though it probably doesn't) but you CAN hate them)
So, yeah, if the government were to come here and find someone who said "I don't like how Obama/Congressman So-and-so/Supreme Court Judge Blahblah is doing such-and-such" they have no right to hold that person accountable for any crime! One of the biggest freedoms in America is that we don't have to like our government, and with all the government criticism that's on the Internet, this bill sounds like people could just find reasons to throw random innocent people in prison! How horrible!
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Feb 25, 2013 22:04:42 GMT -5
They can't throw you in prison just because you criticize the government. You can do that on the steps of the White House and not get imprisoned. (So long as you aren't threatening the president or something else extreme)
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Mar 5, 2013 20:08:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd be worried if it didn't turn out that the committee's working with the White House on how to fix the bill. Plus, they clarified the intent of the bill, which gives them more incentive to actually make the bill less vague. Honestly? What's gonna happen is they either change it enough to make it actually passable, or they don't, the White House issues another veto threat, and it's gonna die on the floor. Yannow, just like last year. In the meantime, CAS has been passed.It isn't much, but here's a petition against CISPA.
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on Mar 11, 2013 16:51:41 GMT -5
Apparently, the bill's sponsors say that talks are going well with privacy advocates. It actually looks like CISPA might end up not being sucktastic.
|
|
|
Post by Fang of the Dead on May 1, 2013 19:42:00 GMT -5
Well, the bill ended up being sucktastic, but the Senate just killed it. Source. I'm encouraged to hear the American Cybersecurity and American Cyber Competitivness Act Rockefeller's working on will contain the strong privacy protections from lat year's CSA. The news that Feinstein's in charge of information sharing is the icing on the cake - she baked up the strong privacy protections in last year's revised Cybersecurity Act.
|
|