Forums / Discussion / General

Wasn't this part of SOPA?

This idea would make something as innocent as singing Happy Birthday at a party and uploading the party video to YouTube illegal. This would probably also affect us here at KYM because of all the video embeds on meme entries.

Join DemandProgress and fight back.

I refuse.
 
First, I find online petitions silly. I'm more likely to flood my Congressmen with letters, emails, and phone calls than to sign an online petition.

Second, I don't know if that's a really new law anyway. No one's really supposed to reproduce copyrighted material or show it to a ton of people without expressed written consent. Putting something on YouTube is about the equivalent of mooning a police officer and not expecting to be taken off for indecent exposure.

Third, in practice, I don't think anyone is going to bother with some matters (i.e., Happy Birthday renditions.) It's too much trouble and too benign for anyone to bother with it.

And fourth, like with most things, I kinda doubt the government here will take many people to court and attempt to get them locked up for years. It's just not worth it. Edited, because mostly redundant.

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that the hands in lawmakers' pockets don't have a say in the bills being considered and the laws being passed. But it's not really my position to say what I should be able to do with other people's stuff. I don't think inconvenience is a reason for me to get upset about not being able to do whatever I want with something that doesn't belong to me (even if it belongs to a money-grubbing industry.)

I may be concerned if someone actually gets locked up for posting their version of Happy Birthday on YouTube, but I'm more likely to ask the convict:

"…so…was it worth it to go to jail over singing a kid's song?"
 
In that instance, I question the person who broke an easily followed law more than the law itself.

This would certainly be bad for the LP crowd. I would then end up with a lot less reason to browse Youtube.

This awful crap REALLY needs to be stopped! It's obviously terrible and morally repugnant, yet these political asshole keep trying to push it through, they must be stopped!
And we don't need people like Verbose trying to act as apologists either!

You know what's bad? Whenever a new draconian measure is proposed, people forget previous ones that have been passed.

And why not? An opposing opinion is often welcome in any discussion. If we were to all agree, there would be no point in discussing, you'd be offering a circlejerk.

Trying to shut down someone's right to voice an opinion just because it does not match your own is despicable, immoral and downright idiotic. You can accept it or you can reject it, but you can't say we don't need it.

And so what if Verbs feels he's not obligated to do something he feels is pointless. What makes you believe you're head of political activity? That we should do as you say and keep from doing things you don't approve of?

If you want to protect freedom on the internet, I'd suggest you start respecting the freedom people have now.

While I agree with the message, I refuse to sign that petition, because last time I signed something from DemandProgress they flooded my inbox with spam. Also, slacktivism is for PUSSIES.

They're still trying? Didn't they learn anything last January?

…I have so much I want to say against HolyCrapItsBob but I think I'm better off biting my tongue.

In any case, when are we going to update the entry or whatever? This is definitely in need of recognition.

Well, you have one moderator who believes your thoughts that I should not speak because of my stance to be hypocritical at best, and a resigned moderator who thinks you're silly. Perhaps holding your tongue is the best course of action here in regards to the meta discussion.

I'm all for changing my stance, if I believed my argument to be as irrational as I think some might think it is.

…would someone be so kind as to attempt to argue why it is such a poor stance? It appears that the correct course of action here is obvious, and I consider myself a fairly intelligent person who leans toward rational behaviors.

So… how is it that I did not come to that conclusion?

@Crash

Oh no, by all means, please speak up. I'm completely for the freedom to say what you want. So don't feel intimidated to say what you wish to say.

@Verbs

I don't think it's the idea that the government will be taking us to court for everything we do that bothers people. I think what bothers people is that the government is trying to control what is available on a relatively free environment.

I see nothing wrong with what Verbose has said, except for the last bit about the "Happy Birthday" scenario. What you suggest is that we normalize the obedience of a law that shouldn't exist in the first place. That obedience of the execution and enforcement of an unjust law should take precedence over resistance and defiance of said law until it is repealed/no longer enforced. Instead, I would thank that person for possessing the courage that I do not.

I do not believe there should be any "biting of the tongue" here. Not by Verbose and certainly not by anyone else, regardless of seniority.

As it stands, this threat currently only exists in the form of an official recommendation from the Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force (contained in the "copyright Green Paper") to the Obama Administration, a recommendation whose substance is similar to SOPA Section 201 (upgrading the penalty for illegal streaming from misdemeanor to felony). I recommend we not completely lose our heads until it actually turns into something substantial, like an as yet to be signed Executive Order or a bill introduced into the appropriate congressional committee. Until then, we should just keep our senses peeled for new developments and plan multiple avenues of response dependent on how it all unfolds. The potential for a serious threat to emerge should be made known throughout the meme-web regardless, but nothing that would suggest we are in full panic mode, or future attempts at riling the web at large may be mitigated by the preconception that it's just more overreacting. Play this well, and we will not require Wikipedia or Google's assistance in the matter.

@Jimmy

>US government
>learning anything

I get a feeling this would be one of those Faux pas laws.

HolyCrapItsBob wrote:

I don’t think it’s the idea that the government will be taking us to court for everything we do that bothers people. I think what bothers people is that the government is trying to control what is available on a relatively free environment.

Correct, but this is also a point that always had bothered me back with SOPA. We can of course say that the whole SOPA deal was a case against "freedom" and all that, but in the end we all know that most people were against SOPA because it risked their comfortable life of illegally downloading content they would otherwise have to pay for. If you deny it, you are like that.

Now for this case, we can agree it's overkill. Singing Happy Birthday and uploading the video to Youtube shouldn't deserve someone years in prison. It's an innocent thing to do and whoever owns the rights of the song can look at it as free advertising, it would be closely to promote the spread of your product than risk it.

But let's be realistic here, do you really think they will throw someone in prison for years for doing that? When you think about years in prison for illegal streaming, I would first look at people who constantly stream illegally (or legally) gained content to an audience for free, like a more indirect form of seeding but in their case only showing it once. Or people who upload complete films to areas like Youtube or elsewhere. Uploading an innocent birthday video to Youtube and get in prison for years? I doubt that'll happen, it should even be obvious that something like that won't happen.

[Insert reaction gif towards the goverment involving disappointment and facepalms here for mad kramas yo!]

Why don't people protest against TPP?

Because they need it for their bungholios.

RandomMan:

But let’s be realistic here, do you really think they will throw someone in prison for years for doing that?

You really think someone would do that? Just go to court and abuse the legal system?

@Evilthing & TPP
Are they not? I assumed people still were.

I've summed up my thoughts on this In my previous post. After reading the discussions, my point still stands – since I'm pretty sure an LP would count as such streaming. Even if it is non-commercial stuff and may allow people to experience games they otherwise wouldn't (and sometimes provide the best way to experience undeniably bad games (Like Sonic '06. If anyone were to experience that, I would without question direct them to the pokecapn LP of that game.)

Of course, with stuff like flash games and freeware games then LPs would be completely safe – After all, such games tend to be free – In that case it would basically be free advertising by a fan.

RandomMan wrote:

Correct, but this is also a point that always had bothered me back with SOPA. We can of course say that the whole SOPA deal was a case against “freedom” and all that, but in the end we all know that most people were against SOPA because it risked their comfortable life of illegally downloading content they would otherwise have to pay for. If you deny it, you are like that.

I think you're right. But SOPA is just part of the larger issue of overpowered copyright law.

I, personally, would like to extend fair use, and greatly decrease the lifespan of copyrights. Like the war on drugs, it's MUCH easier to make something legal than it is to fight every infringement with escalating firepower.