6 ms·

Copyright Lawsuits Could Come to Regular Internet Users Under a New Law

78 points by dmitrygr 7y ago

sieabahlpark 7y ago
This type of shit has been pushed for about 10 years at this point. Who the hell wrote the bill, get them out of the Senate immediately.
- comex 7y ago
  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1273?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22case+act%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=3 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/127... Sponsored by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), cosponsored by 14 senators (9 Democratic, 5 Republican).
  - annadane 7y ago
    The same John Kennedy who lectured Zuckerberg? :/ It's really annoying. I want to be on his side and then this happens
    - m_a_d 7y ago
      Never trust a politician. They will always let you down.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  I'm not too fussed, I'll just keep using this to point out the absurdity of intellectual property and we can make sure it doesn't come back after western society collapses.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I don't understand this viewpoint. Do you really think there should be zero protections for creative works? That authors who spend years writing a book shouldn't be able to sell it?† How many movies would get created in such a world? How many software developers would exist? I am all for reducing protections of intellectual property. I think copyright should expire after a few decades at most, with much broader and more powerful fair use exemptions in the interim. But eliminating copyright completely? I think that would severely limit the amount of artistic output in the world. --- † I recognize that authors would still technically be able to sell their books in a world without copyright. However, they would have to compete with others who just copied and pasted their text, which amounts to the same thing.
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      >Do you really think there should be zero protections for creative works? Creative works may be protected by means of the existing contract system, anything beyond that is grossly controlling and leads to absurd situations. >That authors who spend years writing a book shouldn't be able to sell their text†? Would the movie studios stay in business? If that is what ends up happening then sure, but it doesn't really matter to me either way, if your enterprise depends on the artificial restriction of an abstract format it's probably not a good business model. For all intents and purposes we already live in a world without intellectual property, your average Joe doesn't pay for music and yet musicians have found alternative business models now it's time for the journals, authors and filmmakers to do the same. Besides, people still buy the official version of Free as in Freedom despite it being a creative commons work. >Would software developers? Most definitely, services need to exist and someone will be willing to pay to have it created. Same thing goes for graphic design etc. >But eliminating it completely? I think that would severely limit the amount of artistic output in the world. The output of art into the world would explode by the ending of intellectual property. How much art has been lost to takedown requests? How many artists have been discouraged from creating for fear of legal consequences?
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        Most users do pay for music via streaming services though. > Creative works may be protected by means of the existing contract system, anything beyond that is grossly controlling and leads to absurd situations How can a contract protect me from someone not bound by it. If I publish a novel then what, I provide a license that provides a penalty for copying my creative work (now we're back at modern IP laws but with more work for creators), but I'm not protected if someone not party to the contract copies the work and puts it online. It might increase the amount of amateur art in the world. But, most of that isn't very good. Good artists need to survive and get paid so they can focus on creating more works. Some IP laws help that. > Same thing goes for graphic design etc. But you're saying that if I see good graphic design somewhere, I can just take it and use it. No need to hire anyone except for bespoke branding, which most work doesn't need.
pmoriarty 7y ago
Not enough of us acted last time and we got stuck with the DMCA. Let's act and get others to act so we can avoid this atrocity this time.
rxm 7y ago
> any Internet user who uploads a copyrighted work could find themselves subject to a largely unappealable $5,000 penalty Shared a viral amateur video? I understood that this law would allow a troll firm to contact the video creator and offer to sue you and all those that did so.
tnzk 7y ago
(from outside of US) The article looks like written on the assumption that every Internet user in US is automatically an infringer. Are copyright infringement so popular there?
- e1ven 7y ago
  I am not an expert in the subject, but as far as I understand most countries in the world are party to the Byrne convention. One of the details that this stipulates is that works are automatically copyrighted upon creation – even if you don't register work with the copyright office it still holds protection. This means that any picture, text, or other work in a tangible medium that you share without permission could be considered potentially infringing, and leave you open to a lawsuit. There are defenses you can argue, but that would only be after the lawsuit has already started, potentially costing you time and money for legal representation.
  - tnzk 7y ago
    I am aware of the convention, and that anything somewhat creative is supposed to be protected by copyrights. Are people share the things without permission there, so frequently? Even if so, why should these sharing be legal?
bitwize 7y ago
I say, pass the law. Maybe then, people will see what a joke copyright really is and how damaging it is.
lunias 7y ago
Charge up your VPNs boys and girls. It's insane outside.

78 points by dmitrygr 7y ago

This type of shit has been pushed for about 10 years at this point. Who the hell wrote the bill, get them out of the Senate immediately.

comex 7y ago
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1273?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22case+act%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=3 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/127... Sponsored by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), cosponsored by 14 senators (9 Democratic, 5 Republican).
- annadane 7y ago
  The same John Kennedy who lectured Zuckerberg? :/ It's really annoying. I want to be on his side and then this happens
  - m_a_d 7y ago
    Never trust a politician. They will always let you down.
faissaloo 7y ago
I'm not too fussed, I'll just keep using this to point out the absurdity of intellectual property and we can make sure it doesn't come back after western society collapses.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I don't understand this viewpoint. Do you really think there should be zero protections for creative works? That authors who spend years writing a book shouldn't be able to sell it?† How many movies would get created in such a world? How many software developers would exist? I am all for reducing protections of intellectual property. I think copyright should expire after a few decades at most, with much broader and more powerful fair use exemptions in the interim. But eliminating copyright completely? I think that would severely limit the amount of artistic output in the world. --- † I recognize that authors would still technically be able to sell their books in a world without copyright. However, they would have to compete with others who just copied and pasted their text, which amounts to the same thing.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    >Do you really think there should be zero protections for creative works? Creative works may be protected by means of the existing contract system, anything beyond that is grossly controlling and leads to absurd situations. >That authors who spend years writing a book shouldn't be able to sell their text†? Would the movie studios stay in business? If that is what ends up happening then sure, but it doesn't really matter to me either way, if your enterprise depends on the artificial restriction of an abstract format it's probably not a good business model. For all intents and purposes we already live in a world without intellectual property, your average Joe doesn't pay for music and yet musicians have found alternative business models now it's time for the journals, authors and filmmakers to do the same. Besides, people still buy the official version of Free as in Freedom despite it being a creative commons work. >Would software developers? Most definitely, services need to exist and someone will be willing to pay to have it created. Same thing goes for graphic design etc. >But eliminating it completely? I think that would severely limit the amount of artistic output in the world. The output of art into the world would explode by the ending of intellectual property. How much art has been lost to takedown requests? How many artists have been discouraged from creating for fear of legal consequences?
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      Most users do pay for music via streaming services though. > Creative works may be protected by means of the existing contract system, anything beyond that is grossly controlling and leads to absurd situations How can a contract protect me from someone not bound by it. If I publish a novel then what, I provide a license that provides a penalty for copying my creative work (now we're back at modern IP laws but with more work for creators), but I'm not protected if someone not party to the contract copies the work and puts it online. It might increase the amount of amateur art in the world. But, most of that isn't very good. Good artists need to survive and get paid so they can focus on creating more works. Some IP laws help that. > Same thing goes for graphic design etc. But you're saying that if I see good graphic design somewhere, I can just take it and use it. No need to hire anyone except for bespoke branding, which most work doesn't need.

pmoriarty 7y ago

Not enough of us acted last time and we got stuck with the DMCA. Let's act and get others to act so we can avoid this atrocity this time.

rxm 7y ago

> any Internet user who uploads a copyrighted work could find themselves subject to a largely unappealable $5,000 penalty Shared a viral amateur video? I understood that this law would allow a troll firm to contact the video creator and offer to sue you and all those that did so.

tnzk 7y ago

(from outside of US) The article looks like written on the assumption that every Internet user in US is automatically an infringer. Are copyright infringement so popular there?

e1ven 7y ago
I am not an expert in the subject, but as far as I understand most countries in the world are party to the Byrne convention. One of the details that this stipulates is that works are automatically copyrighted upon creation – even if you don't register work with the copyright office it still holds protection. This means that any picture, text, or other work in a tangible medium that you share without permission could be considered potentially infringing, and leave you open to a lawsuit. There are defenses you can argue, but that would only be after the lawsuit has already started, potentially costing you time and money for legal representation.
- tnzk 7y ago
  I am aware of the convention, and that anything somewhat creative is supposed to be protected by copyrights. Are people share the things without permission there, so frequently? Even if so, why should these sharing be legal?

bitwize 7y ago

I say, pass the law. Maybe then, people will see what a joke copyright really is and how damaging it is.

lunias 7y ago

Charge up your VPNs boys and girls. It's insane outside.