Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
The video made it sound very bad and I was ready to write my congressman.
After actually READING the bill, I have a different opinion.
I thought these three parts of the bill were interesting:
It applies only to web sites dedicated to nothing but copyright infringement. The court must see that the site has no other use.
|
?The bill still defines a site as ?dedicated to infringing activities,? if it is designed or marketed as ?enabling or facilitating? actions that are found to be infringing,? he said. ?In other words, even if the site isn?t itself infringing copyright, if its actions ?enable or facilitate? someone else?s infringement, the government can tell ISPs to blacklist your site, and copyright holders can sue to cut your funding.?
the definition of "dedicated" to copyright infringement includes "enabling or facilitating actions" too that insanely broad.
Just giving instructions on how to use Bit torrent without mentioning WHAT content you can get is enough to qualify for "dedicated" definition.
Quote:
It applies only to foreign sites and not to .com or .net sites.
(in other words it's useful against Chinese and Russian thieves.)
|
and the 25 other countries of the world which have a piracy tax (like Canada) which significantly extends the fair use rights of those citizens regardless where they happen to be surfing the internet from (you don't have a right to take away my piracy tax granted rights just because i am doing a contract in the states)
Quote:
|
It does require a court order.
|
right based on a bogus definition of "Dedicated to copyright infringement" that over rides the solutions of other countries with the US definition of fair use.
it not like that is going to get abused at all
Like i said would you support the bill if the penalty for abusing it (being wrong) was the complete loss of your copyright protection.
Without such a penalty their is no consequence for just bald face misrepresenting any fair use competition as "piracy"