Skip to main content

View Diary: MPAA's statement on internet blackout (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NOt sure why you people do not support copy rights (0+ / 0-)

    or think Movie companies and musicians do not deserve to make a profit or have their creative work protected from copy rights infringement. Can't web sites be responsible enough to prevent pirating?

    •  What I don't support (10+ / 0-)

      is giving archaic, outdated industries and their government stooges a blank check to disrupt an essential component of a functioning Internet.

      These bills don't really have anything to do with copyright infringement; they wouldn't be able to stop it.  But they could be used against sites and organizations that the US government or corporations decide are too troublesome to leave alone.  It is a tool of oppression; I, for one, will not accept a pinky swear from anyone in the government that they won't abuse it.  I choose not to trust them with it at all.

      •  Well said, Seraphiel! nt (4+ / 0-)

        Empathy is going to change the world.

        by Mayfly on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:15:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Suppose I buy the copyright for the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher

        picture of the original 'moran' guy. The first time someone posts a link to it, I can have the entire web site it appears on shut down. No court hearing, no judges order/oversight. Just a year or two depending how deep my pockets are for litigation. And your web site is put out of business until then.

        Give them a tool and they will use it and abuse it. Look at the 'Patriot Act', now used to bust people for drug offenses. Nothing to do with it's original intent of fighting terra'.

        "I don't need a script to tell the truth" Ed Schultz, Feb. 4 2010

        by BusyinCA on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:04:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We do. But we don't trust politicians to actually (9+ / 0-)

      write carefully crafted legislation that won't be simply another tool for corporations to control people, and used to stifle anti-corporate speech.  Bet your booties that political websites like DK would be targeted in an attempt to keep criticism of copyright holders from being published.  Being able to provide things like screenshots, links, and videos to bad behavior by politicians and corporate stooges would be a thing of the past.

      Although, personally, I'd like to see copyrights only allowed to be owned by the original inventor/writer.  No corporate ownership, corporations do not create content or invent things, humans do.

    •  Hmm... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, Eric Nelson, jessical

      From what I understand, this does more than prevent pirating. I know it would affect YouTube in a very big way.

      For those of you who know more, please enlighten me.

      •  Here are some quotes (10+ / 0-)

        Here is what experts have to say about these bills:

        “When civil liberties organizations describe the bills as encouraging “American censorship,” a weighty charge, the legal analysis by Professor Tribe and I support that conclusion. At least, according to the American Supreme Court’s established First Amendment jurisprudence.”

        - Marvin Ammori (& Laurence Tribe), Leading Constitution Scholars

        “The potential for abuse of power through digital networks – upon which we as citizens now depend for nearly everything, including our politics – is one of the most insidious threats to democracy in the Internet age … This is no time for politicians and industry lobbyists in Washington to be devising new Internet censorship mechanisms, adding new opportunities for abuse of corporate and government power over online speech.”
        - Rebecca MacKinnon (New York Times)
        “It contains provisions that will chill innovation. It contains provisions that will tinker with the fundamental fabric of the internet. It gives private corporations the power to censor. And best of all, it bypasses due legal process to do much of it.”
        - James Allworth (Harvard Business School)
        “[SOPA would] overturn the long-accepted principles and practices [of the DMCA] in favor of a one-sided enforcement mechanism that is far more broad than existing law while not attempting to protect the rights of anyone accused of copyright infringement.”
        - Gigi B. Sohn (President of Public Knowledge)

        "No man born with a living soul can be working for the clampdown" The Clash

        by Calee4nia on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:26:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I strongly support copyright for people involved (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, foresterbob

      I have no respect for corporations that misuse copyright law or patent law to make money by suing. They did nothing. They deserve nothing.

      Corporations should only be allowed to have trademarks. Inventions and copyrights are for things that people did.

      The GOP is the party of mammon. They mock what Jesus taught.

      by freelunch on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:30:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We already have copyright laws. (6+ / 0-)

      The problem is that the laws are too harsh:

      A 23-year-old British college student who operated a popular website that linked to other sites that offered pirated videos is to be extradited to the U.S. where he faces a possible 10-year prison sentence for copyright violations.

      On Friday a British judge rejected Richard O'Dwyer's defense that he broke no British law (so-called linksites are not barred in the U.K.), that his site did not host any infringing material itself, and that it was unlikely that he would receive a fair trial in the United States.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site