49 replies to this topic

[+M2Ys4U]

Quote

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:

Quote

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

[Beyond Godlike]

Man, those greedy ***** in the recording industry just wont quit.

[djdanster]

God damn it, just die already!!!

[illegaloperation]

Kill it with fire.

[Pam14160]

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.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Beyond Godlike, on 17 January 2012 - 21:18, said:

Man, those greedy ***** in the recording industry just wont quit.

They'll quit when the scummy, thieving pirates do.

[Ayepecks]

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.

[firey]

And even after it passes, piracy will be just as strong if not stronger...

[Jerid]

Hardcore Til I Die, on 17 January 2012 - 21:58, said:

They'll quit when the scummy, thieving pirates do.

[Enron]

If they pass this dumb bill, they should at least remove all the annoying copy protection schemes.

[Ayepecks]

QUANTA 0000, on 17 January 2012 - 22:04, said:

<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.

[+M2Ys4U]

Ayepecks, on 17 January 2012 - 22:09, said:

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.

[Jerid]

Ayepecks, on 17 January 2012 - 22:09, said:

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.

[Ayepecks]

M2Ys4U, on 17 January 2012 - 22:11, said:

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.

[+M2Ys4U]

Ayepecks, on 17 January 2012 - 22:13, said:

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.

Ayepecks, on 17 January 2012 - 22:13, said:

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.