How would you fix SOPA?
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And thankfully, everyone's just going to wait idly by....JesterRaiin said:
Yeah, screw artists. If they wanted to make money they should have got a real job, miriteDumbfish1 said:
I'm not following you - are you suggesting that i'm the only one that's pretty happy with the way Internet is right now ?Zachary Amaranth said:
you can't stop piracy.Saucycardog said:
so i would can both of the bills.
Changes to combat piracy need to occur with in the industry itself, Not through law.
whats worse.
The Entertainment Industry knows this.
SOPA and PIPA are not ventures to combat piracy...
they where acts designed to remove control from consumers.
Well the reason I don't buy movies anymore is because it always starts with them treating me like a criminal for the first 10-15 minutes with their anti-piracy warnings and adds. Get rid of those and maybe i'll feel more inclined to pay for their shit again.
Also the region codes. Release your crappy movie everywhere at the same time, EVERYWHERE! If I can't buy a legitimate copy where I live, don't come crying to congress when I download the fucking thing.
Also the region codes. Release your crappy movie everywhere at the same time, EVERYWHERE! If I can't buy a legitimate copy where I live, don't come crying to congress when I download the fucking thing.
Well the reason I don't buy movies anymore is because it always starts with them treating me like a criminal for the first 10-15 minutes with their anti-piracy warnings and adds. Get rid of those and maybe i'll feel more inclined to pay for their shit again.
Also the region codes. Release your crappy movie everywhere at the same time, EVERYWHERE! If you won't let me buy a legitimate copy where I live, don't come crying to congress when I download the fucking thing.
Also the region codes. Release your crappy movie everywhere at the same time, EVERYWHERE! If you won't let me buy a legitimate copy where I live, don't come crying to congress when I download the fucking thing.
I actually made a thread for a bill called OPEN, which does what SOPA should have done. Look it up at www.keepthewebopen.com, or look at my thread. (should be on page 2 or 3 on the R&P forum.)
Probably rewrite it to fix any loopholes... but I don't know how to write laws, so I'd get someone else to do it.
First off, IP rights are rights to intangible things, to ideas, as expressed (as copyrights), or as embodied in a practical implementation (as patents). IP rights, at least for patents and copyrights, may be considered rights in ideal objects. It is important to point out that ownership of an idea, or ideal object, effectively gives the IP owners a property right in every physical embodiment of that work or invention.Zachary Amaranth said:
Consider a copyrighted book. Copyright holder A has a right to the underlying ideal object, of which the book is but one example. The copyright system gives A the right in the very pattern of words in the book; therefore, by implication, A has a right to every tangible instantiation or embodiment of the book.
Thus, if A writes a novel, he has a copyright of it. If he sells a physical copy of the novel to B, in book form, then B owns only that one physical copy of the novel; B does not own the ?novel? itself, and is not entitled to make a copy of the novel, even using his own paper and ink.
Thus, even if B owns the material property of paper and printing press, he cannot use his own property to create another copy of A?s book. Which is utterly ridiculous. A?s ownership of ideal rights gives him some degree of control (ownership) over the tangible property of countless others.
The whole point of IPs originally was to maximise wealth and utilty by granting copyright and patent monopolies that encourage authors and inventors to innovate and create. However even if we assume they're right (of which there is no evidence) and it does, this dosn't excuse that it restricts some peoples rights to use their property as they see fit. The goal of law isn't to maximise profits, rather justice is.
The ?end? of encouraging more innovation and creativity does not justify the seemingly immoral ?means? of restricting the freedom of individuals to use their physical property as they see fit.