American Censorship Day

[Deleted-236924]

Thanks for the information.
I'd have looked for it for a while.

 

[s4mid4re]

I believe that the copyright holder for whichever product they produced should be credited and benefiting from us.
But I'm a fucking hypocrite. Fuck you America.

Dunno if posted, but Mozilla, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yahoo!, and Zynga doesn't like this either (also includes the letter they sent).

 

[alphamule]

My main concern is that there are so many laws that we were promised would only be used in reasonable cases, and then some prosecutor stretches the dictionary in order to get a conviction. Think of the issue where patents aren't de facto evil, but the current implementation of the patent system leads to abuse.

Also, wasn't the copyrights extensions to a century+ essentially supposed to be "helping create jobs"? Bono act? Books being dust before you can legally copy them?

 

[Midna]

Could you be more precise as to where it states that in Bill C-32?

Under Section 29.22, Subsection 3 in Bill C-32, it is stated that:
"In the case of a work or other subject-matter that is a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, subsection (1) does not apply if the reproduction is made onto an audio recording medium."

The cited Subsection 1, of Section 29.22, states that:
"It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy; the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced; the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; the individual does not give the reproduction away; and the reproduction is used only for private purposes."

Basically, Section 29.22 (3) states that as long as the copy of a performer's work, the music itself, is made onto an audio recording medium, it is exempt from 29.22 (1) which requires ownership of said work to make the copy. A famous court case from 2004, under the citation BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe (F.C.), 2004 FC 488, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 241, had the judge rule that "the downloading of a song for a person's private use does not constitute infringement," citing this very section. Since Bill C-32 was introduced in 1997, it does not specifically indicate what an "audio recording medium" would be in the era of today with HDDs, media players, etc., thus allowing Canadians to exploit this section as a legitimate reasoning to legally downloading copyrighted music. There have been disputes to this, but since it is not solidified in law, it is considered to be "legal" (although it should be defined as in the grey area).

Well fuck me sideways.

The part that hit me wrong from YayMii's post was laws being changed because "people forgot" and that because there's a tax that means the thing they're taxing to compensate for is legal.

Cite it first next time instead of stating things unsourced in a very dubious looking fashion

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

Ok, I've just gotten the chance to read this entire thread and I have some things to say about the offtopic and on conversations going on.

@brandonspikes: Hypocrite. "Guild, your opinion is wrong because it goes against mine! I have a right to my own opinion and you don't!" Yeah, that about sums up what you and all the other posters attacking Guild are saying.
Now that that is out of the way, lets get to what you're saying. People have the power to do what they want, but not the right. Those are two different things. "Rights: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." Get it? I even bolded italicized and underlined it for you. I have the power to punch my grandma in the face, but not the right.

@Guild: I don't usually agree with you, but I think you're right about the fact that chances are nothing will happen because of this and people should just ignore the bill and do jack shit about it.

On Topic now: All the big sites will never go down. It is literally impossible to close these sites down because, as someone else said, these are GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES. The chance of the government closing any of these down are practically 0.

 

[s4mid4re]

Ok, I've just gotten the chance to read this entire thread and I have some things to say about the offtopic and on conversations going on.

@brandonspikes: Hypocrite. "Guild, your opinion is wrong because it goes against mine! I have a right to my own opinion and you don't!" Yeah, that about sums up what you and all the other posters attacking Guild are saying.
Now that that is out of the way, lets get to what you're saying. People have the power to do what they want, but not the right. Those are two different things. "Rights: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." Get it? I even bolded italicized and underlined it for you. I have the power to punch my grandma in the face, but not the right.
*snip

The Star-Spangled Banner says otherwise (+Audio)

Spoiler: lyrics

O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
’Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation.
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust;”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave![12]

The US itself is hypocritical.

 

[Jakob95]

So what happened in the end? Did it get passed or not? Links?

 

[s4mid4re]

So what happened in the end? Did it get passed or not? Links?

"It was all a JOKE!" says Congress.

 

[Deleted-236924]

They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.

 

[the_randomizer]

As much as I love living here, everyday I wonder how our so-called "leaders" became leaders. Freedom? What freedom? They're screwing us at every opportunity they get.

 

[Thesolcity]

They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.

AFAIK the bill only touches the URL->DNS bit, you should still be able to input the site's IP and get on just fine.

 

[Lastly]

Perhaps this is one step forward into complete censorship... (Mirror Edge?)
Let our last little brink of freedom demolish into the oblivion of immolation.

 

[ferofax]

My main concern is that there are so many laws that we were promised would only be used in reasonable cases, and then some prosecutor stretches the dictionary in order to get a conviction. Think of the issue where patents aren't de facto evil, but the current implementation of the patent system leads to abuse.

Also, wasn't the copyrights extensions to a century+ essentially supposed to be "helping create jobs"? Bono act? Books being dust before you can legally copy them?

This also leads to "harassment" thru lawsuits, which shark-type prosecution lawyers and trigger-happy company lawyers are apt to do.

 

[the_randomizer]

They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.

AFAIK the bill only touches the URL->DNS bit, you should still be able to input the site's IP and get on just fine.

Which is very easy to find out (the ping command being one way), and I guess you'd have to type something like 74.125.239.8 (youtube), then press enter.

 

[alphamule]

You mean to use ping to find the IP? No, it does just like the web browser. Now, if you meant to test a site using the IP address instead of the domain name, then yes that'll work just fine so long as the ping packet itself isn't being dropped.

"This also leads to "harassment" thru lawsuits, which shark-type prosecution lawyers and trigger-happy company lawyers are apt to do."
Yeah, I guess the jobs were for the lawyers! HAHAHA

 

[ferofax]

On Topic now: All the big sites will never go down. It is literally impossible to close these sites down because, as someone else said, these are GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES. The chance of the government closing any of these down are practically 0.

GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES can go down, it's just way harder. But they go down harder too. All one needs to do is find something that can be definitely nailed to them, and the rest will follow. Just because Google, Youtube, et cetera doesn't promote/condone piracy doesn't mean their hands are clean. If anything the freedom fosters the unbridled sharing of information/content, which most of the time is copyrighted content. That argument alone can shake these giants' boots, given a sufficiently twisted logic (which copyright lawyers are wont to do).

 

[MasterPenguin]

http://mafiaafire.com/

Problem solved.

 

[Thesolcity]

They can't close the websites, but they probably can censor them.

AFAIK the bill only touches the URL->DNS bit, you should still be able to input the site's IP and get on just fine.

Which is very easy to find out (the ping command being one way), and I guess you'd have to type something like 74.125.239.8 (youtube), then press enter.

But you wouldn't be able to ping if the bill took effect.
It'd be censored...

 

[YayMii]

Well fuck me sideways.

The part that hit me wrong from YayMii's post was laws being changed because "people forgot" and that because there's a tax that means the thing they're taxing to compensate for is legal.

Cite it first next time instead of stating things unsourced in a very dubious looking fashion

Sorry...
I was kinda kidding about the "forgot" part. I just figured that with the success of iTunes, music 'piracy' has gone down, which would lessen the need for such taxes. And the taxes make sense if you think about it. Free legal music=less music sales=less profit=taxes to make up for lost sales

 

[Deleted User]

Ok, I've just gotten the chance to read this entire thread and I have some things to say about the offtopic and on conversations going on.

@brandonspikes: Hypocrite. "Guild, your opinion is wrong because it goes against mine! I have a right to my own opinion and you don't!" Yeah, that about sums up what you and all the other posters attacking Guild are saying.
Now that that is out of the way, lets get to what you're saying. People have the power to do what they want, but not the right. Those are two different things. "Rights: legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." Get it? I even bolded italicized and underlined it for you. I have the power to punch my grandma in the face, but not the right.

@Guild: I don't usually agree with you, but I think you're right about the fact that chances are nothing will happen because of this and people should just ignore the bill and do jack shit about it.

On Topic now: All the big sites will never go down. It is literally impossible to close these sites down because, as someone else said, these are GIANT FUCKING COMPANIES. The chance of the government closing any of these down are practically 0.

--- Edit, I would rather not bother arguing, I'll let people think what they want.