It's Baaaaaaaaack: Lamar Smith Says SOPA Markup To Resume In February

By +M2Ys4U
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted
For all the talk from some that SOPA was "dead," it appears it's alive and well and getting ready for its big re-entrance. Lamar Smith has just sent out a press release saying that he intends to resume the markup in February:
Stop Online Piracy Act Markup to Resume in February

Washington, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today said that he expects the Committee to continue its markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act in February.

Chairman Smith: "To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy.

"Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.

"I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property."

There had been some talk that, due to Rep. Eric Cantor telling Rep. Darrell Issa that he would not take it to the floor, the bill was "dead." But, we knew all along it was only "delayed." Especially given the Senate's planned vote next week. This really is zombie legislation. It will not die... because some businesses that don't want to adapt want to make sure it never dies.

All the more reason to make your calls to Congress really count tomorrow.

Source: TechDirt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Pam14160

Posted
Posted

This is not just the movie, and music industry; go to any torrent site and type in the name of your favorite magazine you can download in just a few seconds. The print media is really out to push this bill. There is proably not a book in print today that cannot be downloaded.

This is a bill that has a huge following (in favor) of being passed. All the large media outlets are behind this bill, along with some major tech companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

Politicians elected to represent the people are increasingly representing the corporations. Awesome.

Seriously, though... most of the public that knows about SOPA doesn't support it. It's just companies who have politicians in their pockets.

  • Reacon and Glassed Silver
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

<snip>

I hate that argument so much. It's just stupid. By the same argument, ideas can't be stolen since you always still have the idea. Or saying plagiarism isn't stealing someone else's words since the original words still exist.

Theft is different in the realm of intellectual property. Quit hiding behind rhetoric. In fact, the legal definition of larceny or theft is as follows: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent." You're taking the intellectual property without consent. Whether or not the original creation still remains is irrelevant. Even the FBI disagrees with your characterization of intellectual property theft. Why people keep hiding behind this stupid argument is beyond me.

This is not to say I'm in favor of these absurd lawsuits against software pirates and whatnot. There needs to be more clarification and overhaul in our laws on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

I hate that argument so much. It's just stupid. By the same argument, ideas can't be stolen since you always still have the idea. Or saying plagiarism isn't stealing someone else's words since the original words still exist.

Theft is different in the realm of intellectual property. Quit hiding behind rhetoric. In fact, the legal definition of larceny or theft is as follows: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent." You're taking the intellectual property without consent. Whether or not the original creation still remains is irrelevant.

Actually, no. The owner of the exclusive right still has the exclusive right, you've only infringed on that right not stolen it. The "property" in "intellectual property" refers to the exclusive right not the content that it covers.

  • Glassed Silver
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Motoko.

Posted
Posted

I hate that argument so much. It's just stupid. By the same argument, ideas can't be stolen since you always still have the idea. Or saying plagiarism isn't stealing someone else's words since the original words still exist.

Theft is different in the realm of intellectual property. Quit hiding behind rhetoric. In fact, the legal definition of larceny or theft is as follows: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent." You're taking the intellectual property without consent. Whether or not the original creation still remains is irrelevant.

capitalist...The world is headed for sharing and the standard of living is rising without cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

Actually, no. The owner of the exclusive right still has the exclusive right, you've only infringed on that right not stolen it. The "property" in "intellectual property" refers to the exclusive right not the content that it covers.

Incorrect by legal definitions. See my edit.

You're hiding behind rhetoric that isn't applicable. We're talking about the legal definition; no other definition is relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

Incorrect. See my edit.

If it was theft, somebody would have been charged and convicted of theft. But it's not, and nobody has.

Copyright infringement is the violation of a monopoly (more specifically an exclusive right). One cannot steal information (Oxford V Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183) thus, it must follow, that one cannot commit theft by copying information.

You're hiding behind rhetoric that isn't applicable. We're talking about the legal definition; no other definition is relevant.

Actually, no. Please cite me the relevant passage from the statute book (or case law) which states that copyright infringement is theft.

US Code Title 17 Chapter 1 deals with copyright by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

If it was theft, somebody would have been charged and convicted of theft. But it's not, and nobody has.

Copyright infringement is the violation of a monopoly (more specifically an exclusive right). One cannot steal information (Oxford V Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183) thus, it must follow, that one cannot commit theft by copying information.

Actually, no. Please cite me the relevant passage from the statute book (or case law) which states that copyright infringement is theft.

O RLY?

Also see my aforementioned link to the FBI citing cases (one example, for instance, which cites cases in regards to intellectual property). A selection from one such case:

BI Assistant Director-in-Charge DEMAREST stated: "Proprietary information and trade secrets are sometimes the most valuable assets of a business. The computer code Aleynikov copied was worth millions. But the theft of such assets is usually much harder to detect than the theft or embezzlement of tangible assets, because the thing stolen is not physically missing, it's duplicated. The FBI is committed to policing the theft of trade secrets."

There are more sources with citations if you're interested. Intellectual property theft is accepted vernacular for describing the infringement of intellectual property rights; your country even has a division devoted to it. There are tons of sources on the matter. You're just being willfully ignorant for the sake of it.

But the simple fact is this: what you're supporting is illegal, whether you like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Community Regular

KomaWei

Posted
Posted

Sharing stuff that doesn't belong to those doing the sharing.

Actually the CD, DVD, download is the person's that bought it. It's just the code, product, etc. that doesn't belong to them. They are allowed to make backup copies, burn it, let their dog chew on it, let friends borrow it, etc.

If I buy a brand new car for $85,000. You are going to tell me that it's not mine, and that I only renting it? WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hardcore Til I Die

Posted
Posted

Actually the CD, DVD, download is the person's that bought it. It's just the code, product, etc. that doesn't belong to them. They are allowed to make backup copies, burn it, let their dog chew on it, let friends borrow it, etc.

If I buy a brand new car for $85,000. You are going to tell me that it's not mine, and that I only renting it? WTF?

Yes, you can distribute YOUR copy of the music, but not create more.

Just like you can sell YOUR "copy" of the car, but not create an identical car and sell that (as you'll get sued into oblivion by the car manufacturers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

+Xinok Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

Tell me what's worse: People pirating media on the internet, or the government censoring any website without due process on the false claim of piracy?

Opposing this bill is NOT about advocating piracy, but advocating free speech. By passing this bill, it gives the US government similar power to countries like China and Iran to censor the web. If a politician or corporation has a grudge against a website on the internet, they can use piracy as an excuse to have that site censored.

  • Glassed Silver and Ayepecks
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Hardcore Til I Die

Posted
Posted

Tell me what's worse: People pirating media on the internet, or the government censoring any website without due process on the false claim of piracy?

Opposing this bill is NOT about advocating piracy, but advocating free speech. By passing this bill, it gives the US government similar power to countries like China and Iran to censor the web. If a politician or corporation has a grudge against a website on the internet, they can use piracy as an excuse to have that site censored.

I don't think the bill is the right way to go but I also think pirates are 100% to blame for the possibility of such things.

People need to stop being cheap and buy their music or use an ad supported medium such as spotify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Experienced

scratch42069

Posted
Posted

I can lend physical things I pay for to whomever I so please, as long as no one is claiming they created said objects and are making a profit off it. Same should apply digitally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing