SOPA: Take two.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

SOPA: Take two.

Postby Sockmonkey » Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:17 pm UTC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... art-of-it/

So far it's mostly in the beginning stages, but still...

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: SOPA: Take two.

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:22 pm UTC

I think it is hardly surprising that the Department of Commerce would take a pro-copyright stance. Newsflash: Department of Defense also supports higher defense spending :? :? . This is honestly the most "linkbait" post I have ever seen. It is talking about a part of SOPA no one gives a fuck about, about a department (that has pro-copyright leanings) that happens to support it in a 130+ page document.

The Commerce Department report recommends “[a]dopting the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted works to the public as now exists for criminal reproduction and distribution,” adding that “[s]ince the most recent updates to the criminal copyright provisions, streaming (both audio and video) has become a significant if not dominant means for consumers to enjoy content online.”


I do recall that SOPA thread a while back? I was pretty active in it. No one even *mentioned* this clause, I wasn't aware that this clause existed in SOPA. I can see how anti-copyright groups would be against it, but no, this line is NOT why people hated on SOPA.

That isn't even the main point of the entire document. It is an overall look into various copyright laws, and calls attention to the often ignored parts. Their section on "Fair Use" is pretty well balanced, and calls to the attention that the US Courts have been defining the "contours of Fair Use", not the Senate. So basically, they acknowledge that debate on Fair Use hasn't really happened! Calling attention to this fact is a good thing.

The paper is also supportive of expanding the "Library exception" to include video. This is a strictly anti-copyright stance. Overall, this document is a mix of interesting pro-copyright and anti-copyright arguments. Frankly, some of these arguments I've never heard of before. Hating on a 130 page document because of a single paragraph within a single section that happened to line up with an obscure part of SOPA is not the right way to write an article. That is only from a basic glance.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser, Thesh and 16 guests