Consider, for example, Phitek versus Bose. Phitek developed headphones using noise canceling technology, and started selling them to US airlines. Bose went to the ITC, and claimed they had breached IP laws. With SOPA or PIPA in place, not only could Bose block imports of these Phitek products (actually, I think it is all Phitek products) - which was threatened (or actually happened), but Bose could basicaly stop anyone in the US from being able to purchase Phitek noise canceling headphones (which recently won awards as being best in the class). As it happenes, Bose and Phitek settled out of court rather quickly.
Not particularly relevant. Well, let's not pass any laws then. Heck, laws against stealing surely can be abused. Let's repeal them. What's yours is mine. No. You?
Yeah they did. Phitek says it has agreed to modify elements of its products as part of the settlement. Other terms remain confidential. Phitek CEO would not comment on whether the settlement included royalty payments to Bose for on its noise-cancellation technology, which Bose claims to have pioneered. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/phitek-settles-with-bose-38022 That's just normal patent stuff and not part of SOPA
Yes, I'm aware of that. Strawman hypothesis - I didn't say it was part of SOPA, I was pointing out how SOPA could be abused as part of what you're dismissing as 'normal patent stuff' to promote protectionism and anti-competivness, which is one of the core objections to SOPA. All it would have taken was Phitek standing up, instead of rolling over, and Bose could have had their webpage blacklisted as a 'rogue website' selling 'unauthorized knockoffs'.
And that is BS as pointed out earlier. We don't avoid passing necessary laws because the can be abused. We repeal or change them if they are abused If SOPA was being abused then other congressmen would deal with that. The idea that we are passing a law to do something other than what it is designed to do is one of the ways SOPA has been unfairly attacked all along. We have Patents (including international patents) for the same reason we have Copyright laws and there is no indication that Bose was abusing the patent law. Apparently Phitek WAS infringing, hence the agreement to make changes.
No, it's a valid concern this statement: Does not invalidate the concern. If you cut every corner, It's really not so bad. Everybody does it, Even Mum and Dad. .. If you cut every corner, you'll have more time for play! It's the American way! Assuming that industry reps don't lobby against it changing or repealing it... So let's see. A start-up company scores a major contract with American corporations, then a major american company with a similar product takes action blocking their competitors product from import, and this doesn't smell funny to you? I see similar things happen all the time, including in environmental law. That's bullshit and you know it. The only thing that proves is that Phitek was unwilling to fight an established American company, in American courts under American law. Economically, it makes sense - you can risk bankrupting yourself, or you can bend over the table one more time, make some inconsequential change to your product, and see if you can settle out of court. As it stands, Bose' bullying tactics rumoured as being part of the reason for a lack of success, and the lack of an IPO so far.
ROFLMAO I just had the funniest thought. SOPA and PIPA are supposed to be domestic laws targeting domestic services right? But here's the thing. When I go to google, because I'm in NZ, I automatically get taken to Google New Zealand if I just type in Google.com (notice that google NZ is not blacked out). Likewise, I have also at varying times, for my own reasons, used Google India and Google South Africa to perform searches. But here's the thing. Google New Zealand Limited is a New Zealand limited company, with registered offices and service of address in New Zealand, that has Americans listed as its directors. This then seemingly leaves us in an absurd position. Let's say, that being a good Kiwi, I want to 'Buy NZ made', and get a set of Phitek headphones with noise cancelling technology (because according to the industry, it's better than that Bose crap anyway). Now let's suppose, for a minute, that SOPA was passed, and Bose, being the good wholesome american company they are, went through the ITC to force google to black list the Phitek web page. Then this, it seems leads us to one of a couple of absurdities. The first absurdity is that the law, it seems, is utterly useless, because an American citizen can simply go to Google Canada, Google New Zealand, or Google Mongolia, or simply use the english version of a foreign search engine to proceed as normal. The second absurdity is that we have American Courts telling New Zealand companies (for example, Google New Zealand) how to police and censor New Zealand cyberspace - and I'm about as comfortable with that idea as I am with the idea of NYPD officers policing NZ streets according to American law.
(Bolding mine.) Interesting. Yet again, this legislation seems very much an effort by certain third-party agencies--who are only peripherally related to those who actually create and distribute "content"--to garner revenue, via penalties and fees, for themselves. The means by which they will acquire this revenue is not explicitly detailed within the legislation, but that will undoubtedly follow... (See below.) As to the matter of whether or not there is in fact a serious "piracy" problem, I think it's telling when one considers just who exactly is crying "foul" here: with some very few exceptions, it's not the creators and distributors; rather, it's those whose ties to the respective industries--music, film, software, etc.--are quite removed from the actual creative process. This is partly the reason I mention it's historical affinity to actions against (music) bootlegging and plunderphonics over the "piracy" controversy of the cassette era: no one in their right mind would suggest that musicians and labels were "suffering " as a consequence of an abundance of bootleg recordings. Seriously, imagine it's 1970 and you've been hearing all about this Pink Floyd from your mates. You saunter into the record store and spot a copy of, say, Saucerful of Secrets for 3 bucks and Ummagumma (a double-album) for 5 bucks. And Fillmore West--a double record bootleg, shoved inside of a plain white sleeve, with a b/w photocopied "cover," with typos and all, glued to the front (oh yeah, and it's on really crappy vinyl and it sounds like crap)--for 30 bucks. Which one are you gonna buy? And if you buy that 30 dollar bootleg, chances are, you've probably already purchased all the proper releases. So, what's the "problem"? As to the matter of greedy vultures finding ways to profit legally off of the hard work of others, I'm reminded of actions like these undertaken by the RIAA (a few years old, but highly relevant nonetheless): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/04/24/327063/-Is-the-RIAA-Pulling-a-Scam-on-the-Music-Industry
didn't you hear, the US is the new world government, bow down to your American overlards (hope you played overlordPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), your not worthy to lick there boots.
George Takei (Sulu) posted thisPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! he's a funny basted
Arthur is likely temptation free as far as music piracy, because from what I see, he seems only to enjoy the CHA-CHING of the cash register. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would like to see some evidence that the majority of "piracy" (whatever that entails) constitutes a loss of profits or potential profit. Does every audio or video file that is copied, uploaded, downloaded, etc, equate to a lost sale, or a metaphorical hand that reaches into the intellectual property holder's pocket and robs them blind? How about someone on a limited budget who buys quite a bit of music but cannot afford everything: do a few filesharing downloads actually harm anyone in that case? Other than maybe psychological "trauma" if the musician finds out? That would seem to be more akin to a type of victimless crime. Although the content creator may claim to been infringed in some way, no profit was likely to be made in the first place, hence the real damages were mostly perceived, and the crime was more thought crime than anything. In fact, I heard years ago a reference to a study on software piracy, of the more authentic kind, where software is physically duplicated, packaged, and sold in black markets. It was determined that much of the software sold at often far cheaper prices was bought by people who were mostly lower income and not be able to afford much of it in the first place(the official retail price). Going from memory on that, but wait... let me see if I can find something on it...http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/piracy.html One person's analysis. On a different note, does anyone make music or art for the sake of it? Does music creation driven by the desire to create music actually exist, or is everyone just in it for money?
Good question. I wonder what Arthur's view on this is, since I don't think he actually responded? This topic has come up before in the larger debate about intellectual property. I do believe at least the RIAA (maybe MPAA too?) wanted a royalty fee on used CD sales at one time, but the plan didn't get off the ground. So certainly, they at least made known their sense of entitlement to what someone had already bought and sold at least once before, so following that logic, you apparently are only ever part owner. Maybe the physical medium is the only thing you own, but intellectual property is not yours? Unsure how that works. see also : http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/05/is_it_ethical_t.html Besides, isn't it even more ridiculous that they actually get royalties on BLANK CD-R's? As one person brings up in the comments in the Tribune article, what about libraries? Organizations like the RIAA (with which I've long been disgusted) play valiant defender of the rights of the artists, who are always in danger of being victimized, allegedly. However, this high-road image isn't always the case. Many have in the past and continue to question the business ethics of the RIAA. In particular, said organization seems to care more about collecting royalties than in ensuring that the supposed victims are recipients of the proper share of those royalties owed to them. Many recording artists have themselves claimed to have been victimized, not by "pirates" but the RIAA, their supposed intercessors and advocates. The RIAA has lost several suits, some of them class action, for unpaid royalties. And that is only what we see on the surface as far as their "ethical and selfless" role as guardian of monies due the artists. Who knows what is yet uncovered? As well, recording companies in general have a reputation for leeching off talents of anyone they can get their hands on. Then of course, we had the sue em' all prosecutions that started with the whole Napster revolution, but certainly didn't end there. People were charged thousands of dollars (hundreds of thousands in some cases) for songs that anyone at the time could probably hear and record off their radios(and knowing the numerous low bitrate files at the time, radio would probably have been higher quality!), with the RIAA being none the wiser. I remember well the old woman sued because of her grandkids' downloading choices when they were visiting her. Yep, the RIAA is a wonderful bunch of people, no doubt: pillars of truth, justice, and the American way! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Any legislation that has the support (as well as possibly a lobbying hand in writing that legislation) of the RIAA and the MPAA deserve all the scrutiny and suspicion that such a bill could attract.
I don't know if Giambattista is talking about the same thing but personally I lost all respect for copy write for the music industry after the case against men at work. An american company who didn't even acquire the rights to this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MrTbE-xFng&feature=related until quite recently took men at work to court for copywrite violation for a song written AGES ago and now get 90% of the royalties for what amounts to less than 1% of the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MrTbE-xFng&feature=related (its only the flute section which was found to be "copied"). The women who actually WROTE the song obviously didn't even CARE that her work was used assuming it was because SHE never took them to court when it first came out
Sure it's a valid concern, but that's true with nearly every law/regulation. Monitoring the impact and adjusting is just part of the legislative process, not a reason to not legislate. Nope. Bose invented noise cancelling head-phones and has filed many patents on the technology as it advanced. It has a right to defend those patents. Nope. Patent law doesn't take nationality into account, you either infringe or you don't. Bull, if you aren't infringing, you aren't infringing. And in Patent law, you have to defend your patent and so the majority of the cost of bringing the patent suit falls on the party bringing the suit. Now if you lose, the costs swing to the infringer, and here's the key, if you are shown to KNOWINGLY infringe, then your penalties are up to 3 times higher and thus those are the cases where you most likely to settle or change if you are likely to lose. Defending your patents isn't bullying.
So? Because some staffer on Lamar's staff made that web site and used someone's intellectual property that invalidates the need for laws to protect content providers? Right.
If I bought the original CD/Movie/Book, I paid for it and paid the royalty due on it. If I later sell it I don't owe the creator anything and that goes for future sales as well. If I make a COPY Of the CD/Movie and use that so that the original is protected I owe nothing as copies for personal use are not infringing. BUT, if I make a copy of the CD/Movie and sell the copy, then I am infringing as now two people have a copy at the same time but only one royalty was paid. I find that being fair to both the buyer and the creator is not that difficult of a concept to understand. LOL, no your source refutes your argument: but your source did include this: OOPS You do know that that is about CANADIAN levies on CD-Rs don't you? They charge 29c per CD. http://www.cpcc.ca/en/ The US has also has a levy, but it is far less than the Canadian one, 3% of the original transfer price (not the retail selling price) and only the Audio versions of CD-Rs come under the law, DVD-Rs do not. The money is distributed ~66% to performers, ~16% to Publishers and ~16% to Writers. Sure, and in this case, there are no royalties/levies imposed by the legislation, like that Canadian Levy you posted, hence it really is about stopping piracy.
