Forums / Discussion / General

168,527 total conversations in 5,398 threads

+ New Thread


Politicians now want to throw you in prison for an innocent thing that every single one of us has done

Last posted Jun 18, 2011 at 11:43PM EDT. Added Jun 14, 2011 at 06:38PM EDT
47 posts from 25 users

HOLY SHIT! This has gone too far.
You thought PROTECT IP was bad? This new one is worse, it would make it illegal to view or listen to any copyrighted material over the internet. Do it 10 times, and it’s a felony.

In other words, watch this video 10 times, and you’re going to jail with a criminal record.

Sign the petition against it http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/

Jun 14, 2011 at 06:38PM EDT
Quote

So if I go onto youtube, and listen to a bunch of songs, I go to jail? Fucking politicians. They aren’t even worth the rant I gave on the internet one.

Jun 14, 2011 at 06:56PM EDT
Quote

You really think this will go through? Pssshhh.

Jun 14, 2011 at 06:58PM EDT
Quote

I know it won’t go through, but it’s the fact that someone thought of the idea and submitted the idea.

Last edited Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00PM EDT
Jun 14, 2011 at 06:59PM EDT
Quote

Wooooooooowwwwwwwwww… And guess what doesn’t have any media attention?

Yea, this is getting too crazy. It’s time to kick ass.

Jun 14, 2011 at 08:56PM EDT
Quote

Let wait and see if its passed first.

Jun 14, 2011 at 09:20PM EDT

3….

2…..

1….

Wait, where’s all the internet LOIC bombing? Where’s the rallying for a better future? Where’s the hacking with Nyan Cat? WHERE IS THE RETALIATION!!?!?

Jun 14, 2011 at 09:28PM EDT
Quote

Eh, maybe it would be good to have that go through. I see it this way: the more opressive our government is, the sooner the people get off their lazy asses and do something about it en masse. A few small groups of people will do nothing but slow down the progress of opressive and dumb as shit government, and I really want to participate in a revolution or at least a nation-wide riot before I’m have that heart attack at 23. And its not like they will stop trying to make stupid laws even if this doesn’t make it through. We need a new system.

In any case, I have my Guy Fawkes mask on my desk now, and am awaiting anon retaliation.

Jun 14, 2011 at 09:42PM EDT
Quote

Syndic wrote:

Eh, maybe it would be good to have that go through. I see it this way: the more opressive our government is, the sooner the people get off their lazy asses and do something about it en masse. A few small groups of people will do nothing but slow down the progress of opressive and dumb as shit government, and I really want to participate in a revolution or at least a nation-wide riot before I’m have that heart attack at 23. And its not like they will stop trying to make stupid laws even if this doesn’t make it through. We need a new system.

In any case, I have my Guy Fawkes mask on my desk now, and am awaiting anon retaliation.

This.

Except I would like to see the US army kick the shit out of cops, and demand higher pay.

Jun 14, 2011 at 10:11PM EDT

Sweatie Killer wrote:

This.

Except I would like to see the US army kick the shit out of cops, and demand higher pay.

Fuck yeah sweatie. Military owns police. Cops are either to fat or lazy to be a soldier.

Jun 14, 2011 at 10:17PM EDT
Quote

This would be impossible to enforce. Basically everyone in the world would receive jail time for this if they somehow managed to enforce it. No one will be willing to put the effort in. I can understand downloading illegal content, but look how well those laws are working.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:05AM EDT

Arcadian wrote:

This would be impossible to enforce. Basically everyone in the world would receive jail time for this if they somehow managed to enforce it. No one will be willing to put the effort in. I can understand downloading illegal content, but look how well those laws are working.

Exactly. Let them pass it. Around here, they are starting to actually turn prisoners out to the streets due to lacking of empty cells, telling them to “come back later” to serve their time. Once this law gets passed, you might as well not even have prisons anymore, as half of the non-amish population would have to be put under house arrest or excused of their sentence.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:19AM EDT
Quote

Or…

They could only enforce it on people they dislike or want to get rid of.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:50AM EDT

SK’s got a point. Sometimes they make laws just to have an excuse to jail people. It’s sorta like how they got Capone on tax evasion. The government doesn’t like you? Just find a few illegal songs on your hard drive, and they’re good to go.

However, I’d like to take this opportunity for a mini rant I sometimes bring up on an unrelated issue (that I will not mention here to avoid the inevitable flame war that even beyond MY taste). People forget that the jury system in America exists for a reason. As a juror, you get the honor, privilege, and responsibility to be part of the third branch of government. What purpose does that branch of government serve? To interpret the law! Put me on the jury of a criminal case in which someone is being prosecuted for listening to illegally downloading songs, and just see if you can get a “guilty” verdict out of me. That should be the real reason why this law is unenforceable, but everyone who gets a jury summons whines and tries to get out of it.

There’s an old saying: People get the government they deserve.

Jun 15, 2011 at 01:37AM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

SK’s got a point. Sometimes they make laws just to have an excuse to jail people. It’s sorta like how they got Capone on tax evasion. The government doesn’t like you? Just find a few illegal songs on your hard drive, and they’re good to go.

However, I’d like to take this opportunity for a mini rant I sometimes bring up on an unrelated issue (that I will not mention here to avoid the inevitable flame war that even beyond MY taste). People forget that the jury system in America exists for a reason. As a juror, you get the honor, privilege, and responsibility to be part of the third branch of government. What purpose does that branch of government serve? To interpret the law! Put me on the jury of a criminal case in which someone is being prosecuted for listening to illegally downloading songs, and just see if you can get a “guilty” verdict out of me. That should be the real reason why this law is unenforceable, but everyone who gets a jury summons whines and tries to get out of it.

There’s an old saying: People get the government they deserve.

Not if they are bribed, or some other form of foul play is in use.

Jun 15, 2011 at 02:07AM EDT

Sweatie Killer wrote:

Or…

They could only enforce it on people they dislike or want to get rid of.

Holy shit… I just realize that this gives them the right to arrest anyone, since it would be very easy to prove on most people!
Our legal system just went down the pipes.

Jun 15, 2011 at 07:23AM EDT
Quote

Semi-related quote I came across this morning from David Byrne:

There was another piece in the Times today about yet another 20 percent drop in CD sales. (Are they running the same news piece every 4 months?) Jeez guys, the writing’s on the wall. How long do the record execs think they’ll have those offices and nice parking spaces? (Well, more than half of all record A&R and other execs are gone already, so there should be plenty of parking space). They, the big 4 or 5, should give the catalogues back to the artists or their heirs as a gesture before they close the office doors, as they sure don’t know how to sell music anymore. (I have Talking Heads stuff on the shelf that I can’t get Warner to release.) The “industry” had a nice 50-year ride, but it’s time to move on. Luckily, music remains more or less unaffected -- there is a lot of great music out there. A new model will emerge that includes rather than sues its own customers, that realizes that music is not a product in the sense of being a thing -- it’s closer to fashion, in that for music fans it tells them and their friends who they are, what they feel passionately about and to some extent what makes life fun and interesting. It’s about a sense of community -- a song ties a whole invisible disparate community together. It’s not about selling the (often) shattered plastic case CDs used to come in.
Jun 15, 2011 at 10:21AM EDT
Quote

With this and the IP Bill, it looks like the U.S. is inching more and more closer to Martial Law.

…I’m moving to the U.K.

Jun 15, 2011 at 11:07AM EDT

SilverMonGoose wrote:

With this and the IP Bill, it looks like the U.S. is inching more and more closer to Martial Law.

…I’m moving to the U.K.

Everywhere has problems, SMG, I bet Drpepperfan could spend quite a while telling you all the problems with England.

Jun 15, 2011 at 11:16AM EDT
Quote

The days of the Wild West Internet are over, chaps.

Time to pack our shit and run.

Jun 15, 2011 at 11:22AM EDT
Quote

Piano wrote:

Everywhere has problems, SMG, I bet Drpepperfan could spend quite a while telling you all the problems with England.

Like I’m not freakin’ aware that everywhere has problems! I know England isn’t perfect either, but right now with all the crap that the U.S. is doing, England is looking pretty dang good right now. Even with some of it’s faults.

Jun 15, 2011 at 11:53AM EDT

SilverMonGoose wrote:

Like I’m not freakin’ aware that everywhere has problems! I know England isn’t perfect either, but right now with all the crap that the U.S. is doing, England is looking pretty dang good right now. Even with some of it’s faults.

Sorry >.<.

Jun 15, 2011 at 11:56AM EDT
Quote

Taryn wrote:

The days of the Wild West Internet are over, chaps.

Time to pack our shit and run.

Tally ho! Remember to pack up your kittehs!

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:02PM EDT

Please kill me. Life as we know it has officially gone to hell in a handbasket.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:52PM EDT
Quote

Ugh…

I bet Viacom LOVES this.

Someone alert Mike Mozart. I want to see his opinion.

Jun 16, 2011 at 11:40PM EDT
Quote

WTF is WRONG with politicians and their “Intellectual property protection” bullshit!?!?! Yeah, I’d be pretty steamed (no pun intended) if someone ripped of copies of a game i made, but this is fucking nuts! The whole “PROTECT IP” and “10 Strikes” bs is completely ape-shit insane!!! WHEN THE HELL DID WE END UP UNDER THE CONTrOL OF BIG BROTHER!?!? It’s like a goddamn Orwellian dystopia of censorship and propaganda!
TL;DR version: GET ME THE HELL OUTTA THE USA!

Jun 17, 2011 at 01:10AM EDT
Quote

Katie C. wrote:

HOLY SHIT! This has gone too far.
You thought PROTECT IP was bad? This new one is worse, it would make it illegal to view or listen to any copyrighted material over the internet. Do it 10 times, and it’s a felony.

In other words, watch this video 10 times, and you’re going to jail with a criminal record.

Sign the petition against it http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/ten_strikes/

My brain is so full of fuck from this post.

The actual bill is an amendment to an existing copyright infringement law. It’s already illegal to pirate a video, and this amendment would expand that law to treat embedding of videos the same as downloading.

This does not, as you put it, “make it illegal to view or listen to any copyrighted material over the internet.”

Here’s what it does: if you wanted to embed a copy of an Avril Lavigne video or an episode of The Colbert Report or something like that, then you’d have to get permission, and probably pay royalties. But you can go ahead and watch it wherever they make it available.

I think the bill will inhibit sharing and I’m against that. The bill sucks, but not in the ways that you’re making it out to be.

Also, the way you generalize this to “politicians” makes it sound like this is some unanimous movement and not just one bill proposed by one senator to a committee who will later vote.

Let me fix this for you:

Senator Amy Klobuchar wants to make unlicensed embedding of streaming video a felony. Call the congressman that represents your voting district and tell them how you feel about the bill. Make sure you have an understanding of the bill first.

Jun 18, 2011 at 01:08PM EDT
Quote

Joaquin Phoenix wrote:

My brain is so full of fuck from this post.

The actual bill is an amendment to an existing copyright infringement law. It’s already illegal to pirate a video, and this amendment would expand that law to treat embedding of videos the same as downloading.

This does not, as you put it, “make it illegal to view or listen to any copyrighted material over the internet.”

Here’s what it does: if you wanted to embed a copy of an Avril Lavigne video or an episode of The Colbert Report or something like that, then you’d have to get permission, and probably pay royalties. But you can go ahead and watch it wherever they make it available.

I think the bill will inhibit sharing and I’m against that. The bill sucks, but not in the ways that you’re making it out to be.

Also, the way you generalize this to “politicians” makes it sound like this is some unanimous movement and not just one bill proposed by one senator to a committee who will later vote.

Let me fix this for you:

Senator Amy Klobuchar wants to make unlicensed embedding of streaming video a felony. Call the congressman that represents your voting district and tell them how you feel about the bill. Make sure you have an understanding of the bill first.

Excuse me? Yes, it does. It will make it illegal to watch Inception Cat because it can be seen as economic damage in the eyes of the government.

But I also thought I’d make a note about this. The RIAA and MPAA (and affiliates) haven’t lost as much as they say they have. The logic is that you’re pirating instead of buying, so money is lost, but most people that pirate buy the music and movies that they really like and pirate what they wouldn’t have bought in the first place or can’t afford it.

Jun 18, 2011 at 02:58PM EDT
Quote

Please elaborate.
How are you getting “watching” out of this?
I’ll admit that the phrase “public performances by electronic means” isn’t very clear, but this is an issue of re-distributing content online, not consuming it.

Also, the bill isn’t saying that watching the video directly causes economic damage. The bill states that IF economic damage is incurred by effect of these public performances (read: making a stream available without consent from the copyright holder), then the offense is punishable.

It doesn’t define watching a video as damage, it defines a punishment for the damage, if such damage is otherwise proven.

Jun 18, 2011 at 03:30PM EDT
Quote

Joaquin Phoenix wrote:

Please elaborate.
How are you getting “watching” out of this?
I’ll admit that the phrase “public performances by electronic means” isn’t very clear, but this is an issue of re-distributing content online, not consuming it.

Also, the bill isn’t saying that watching the video directly causes economic damage. The bill states that IF economic damage is incurred by effect of these public performances (read: making a stream available without consent from the copyright holder), then the offense is punishable.

It doesn’t define watching a video as damage, it defines a punishment for the damage, if such damage is otherwise proven.

Dear Garlic,

You’re annoying as shit, I already proved my point, a lot of people here at KYM hate you, Get the fuck off

Jun 18, 2011 at 03:37PM EDT
Quote

Katie C. wrote:

Dear Garlic,

You’re annoying as shit, I already proved my point, a lot of people here at KYM hate you, Get the fuck off

Nice flame.

Mind if I cook something on it?

Jun 18, 2011 at 03:47PM EDT
Quote

Katie C. wrote:

Dear Garlic,

You’re annoying as shit, I already proved my point, a lot of people here at KYM hate you, Get the fuck off

Hey Katie,
I’m not going anywhere. Deal with it.

Jun 18, 2011 at 03:54PM EDT
Quote

Shit like this makes me glad I’m Canadian… America would never think to censor its hat!
Seriously though, Intellectual Property should not apply to the internet. If companies don’t want their stuff Pirated, they should spend some time encoding the damn things. Seriously, if people would just hire a couple anons they wouldn’t have any trouble at all.
Instead, they use this as an excuse to give corporate fat cats and Republican senators control over yet another form of media. Free speech as we see on the internet has been rare before; we can’t let them take it away.

Jun 18, 2011 at 04:54PM EDT
Quote

MDFication, it sounds to me like you’re arguing in favor of DRM (digital rights management), is that right?

Jun 18, 2011 at 05:12PM EDT
Quote

We’re all starting to jump down each other’s throats. All this political talk is shredding the unity we create by coming on these forums and debating issues! We must retain ourselves and respect the opinions of others!

Now then: I personally think any government interference in the business of the internet cannot lead to anything good. As evidenced by the Weinergate scandal, one could say that politicians do not know how to properly use the internet, although that would be a stereotype. The internet is a place of freedom, a place of anarchy. That is the way it should stay, for it is in this state of anarchy that the internet can thrive. Also, I don’t feel I should have to pay for information, mostly because I am not very well off. Thus, I oppose this new bill. The RIAA can go to hell.

Jun 18, 2011 at 11:43PM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Yo! You must login or signup first!