Blacklists, ahoy! PROTECT IP Act sails on to Senate floor - GoFuckYourself.com

Barefootsies · 05-26-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

The Senate Judiciary Committee this morning unanimously approved the PROTECT IP Act by a voice vote after a brief markup; the hugely controversial Internet blacklisting bill now moves to the Senate floor with minimal changes, and may—or may not—soon come to a vote.

The bill builds on last year's proposed COICA legislation, which would have given the government power to go to court and get a website's domain name blocked from American DNS servers. Credit card companies and advertising networks would be forbidden to do business with such sites. The bill was also passed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) put a hold on the bill when it came to the floor.

The new version tightens up its definition of infringing sites, but adds things like a “private right of action” for companies who want to cripple sites without waiting for the government to get involved. Search engines are also prohibited from linking to blocked sites.

Major rightsholders are particularly thrilled. The MPAA and the cable lobby both expressed enthusiastic support, and the US Chamber of Commerce said in a statement, "Rogue sites and their operators contribute nothing to the US economy. They do not innovate, they do not pay taxes, they do not follow safety standards, and they do not follow the law. Today’s vote serves as a wakeup call to those who illicitly profit at the expense of American businesses and consumers—the US will not tolerate your careless, reckless, malicious behavior."

Will the bill get a vote in the Senate this time? Wyden has been cautious in his public statements, previously suggesting that certain changes to the bill could make it more palatable to him. He did make clear, however, that the bill in "its current form" was not acceptable.

As he told Ars when we spoke a month ago, "If the new version of COICA is like last year's version of COICA, I will do everything in my power to block it."

Back on May 12, when the PROTECT IP Act was introduced, Wyden said it would be "hard to consider legislation that would give the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security additional authorities to combat online content infringement… While the departments finally responded to questions that I sent them more than three months ago, their responses reveal a single-minded determination to stamp out online infringement and demonstrate little if any understanding of the Internet’s value and function."

Of particular concern is "their refusal to explain how linking is different than free speech. Given that hyperlinks in many ways form the foundation of the Internet, efforts to go after one site for linking to another site—which the Administration is currently doing and the Protect IP Act would expand on—threaten to do much more than protect IP."

Cue gideongallery in 5...4...3...

Barefootsies · 05-26-2011, 10:40 AM

Source XBIZ

nation-x · 05-26-2011, 10:53 AM

Rogue sites and their operators contribute nothing to the US economy. They do not innovate, they do not pay taxes, they do not follow safety standards, and they do not follow the law. Today’s vote serves as a wakeup call to those who illicitly profit at the expense of American businesses and consumers—the US will not tolerate your careless, reckless, malicious behavior.

Mutt · 05-26-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

The new version tightens up its definition of infringing sites, but adds things like a ?private right of action? for companies who want to cripple sites without waiting for the government to get involved

this would be the best that we could hope for - need Europe to go along with this though.

JFK · 05-26-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

this would be the best that we could hope for - need Europe to go along with this though.

what about the rest of the internet ?

Mutt · 05-26-2011, 11:14 AM

the worst offending tube sites and file lockers and pirate forums/blogs are non-American - even Manwin is European/Canadian. so how as a copyright owner do I go to an American court and tell them to shut down a site owned by a European and hosted in Europe?

Klen · 05-26-2011, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the worst offending tube sites and file lockers and pirate forums/blogs are non-American - even Manwin is European/Canadian. so how as a copyright owner do I go to an American court and tell them to shut down a site owned by a European and hosted in Europe?

Very simple,if they dont respond in court,then add their domain/ip/whatever to dns blacklist.

GetSCORECash · 05-26-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlenTelaris

Very simple,if they dont respond in court,then add their domain/ip/whatever to dns blacklist.

But everyone in China gets to see the content?

L-Pink · 05-26-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Rogue sites and their operators contribute nothing to the US economy. They do not innovate, they do not pay taxes, they do not follow safety standards, and they do not follow the law. Today?s vote serves as a wakeup call to those who illicitly profit at the expense of American businesses and consumers?the US will not tolerate your careless, reckless, malicious behavior.

Barefootsies · 05-26-2011, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

contribute nothing to the US economy.

they do not pay taxes

they do not follow safety standards

they do not follow the law.

If only the chicken shit politicians used the same standards for illegal immigration.

ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-26-2011, 11:31 AM

Post proof or ban.

Source Plox? This could be really good news for content owners.

merina0803 · 05-26-2011, 11:37 AM

sounds good to me for actual producers left on board.

iamtam · 05-26-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the worst offending tube sites and file lockers and pirate forums/blogs are non-American - even Manwin is European/Canadian. so how as a copyright owner do I go to an American court and tell them to shut down a site owned by a European and hosted in Europe?

you still end up with no american search engines or sites being able to link which limits traffic.

Klen · 05-26-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetSCORECash

But everyone in China gets to see the content?

Why bother for China and other non-usa countries?Usa is key market anyway.

acrylix · 05-26-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetSCORECash

But everyone in China gets to see the content?

Robbie · 05-26-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the worst offending tube sites and file lockers and pirate forums/blogs are non-American - even Manwin is European/Canadian. so how as a copyright owner do I go to an American court and tell them to shut down a site owned by a European and hosted in Europe?

Yeah, they aren't shutting down the sites. They are blocking them from the U.S.

Which means that if you are in the U.S. the only way to see them would be via a proxy.

Sure some people will do that. But 99.9% won't. And the U.S. is the biggest consumer of porn in the world.

Robbie · 05-26-2011, 04:31 PM

Hey somebody better call up Fabian and let him know "his" "empire" is in trouble.

Don't know if anyone can get through to him though, after all he is such a bigshot and Manwin is so big that none of us can understand it.

We'd see how big Manwin is without all that traffic he's getting from stolen content now wouldn't we?

gideongallery · 05-26-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

The bill builds on last year's proposed COICA legislation, which would have given the government power to go to court and get a website's domain name blocked from American DNS servers. Credit card companies and advertising networks would be forbidden to do business with such sites. The bill was also passed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) put a hold on the bill when it came to the floor.

the previous version passed unanimously too

guess what it got killed pretty dam quickly

don't bet on this bill passing

and even if it does
don't expect it to survive the court challenge.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-26-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

what about the rest of the internet ?

Quote:

DEAUVILLE, France, May 26 (UPI) -- Leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations met in France Thursday and discussed the Internet and the world economy.

The presidents and prime ministers were joined in an oval room in Deauville by Google founder Eric Schmidt, Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg, Yuri Milner of Digital Sky Technologies, Hiroshi Mikitani of Rakuten, Maurice Levy of Publicis and Stephane Richard of Orange.

The White House pool report said German Chancellor Angela Merkel walked in the room with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Zuckerberg apparently talking about the film about Facebook's creation, "The Social Network."

ADG

GatorB · 05-26-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

Rogue sites and their operators contribute nothing to the US economy. They do not innovate, they do not pay taxes, they do not follow safety standards, and they do not follow the law. Today?s vote serves as a wakeup call to those who illicitly profit at the expense of American businesses and consumers?the US will not tolerate your careless, reckless, malicious behavior.

If yuo actually believe that's the purpose. Any pornographer for this law thinking the US government will seize "illigtimate" porn sites is a fool. ALL porn is illegitimate to the government. The government doesn't care is "legitimate" porn goes out of business. when the feds use this law to take YOUR sites well I told you so.

Robbie · 05-26-2011, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

If yuo actually believe that's the purpose. Any pornographer for this law thinking the US government will seize "illigtimate" porn sites is a fool. ALL porn is illegitimate to the government. The government doesn't care is "legitimate" porn goes out of business. when the feds use this law to take YOUR sites well I told you so.

I could swear that there was nothing said about "taking" sites.

It's about blacklisting copyright infringing sites from the United States.

Nathan · 05-27-2011, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Hey somebody better call up Fabian and let him know "his" "empire" is in trouble.

Don't know if anyone can get through to him though, after all he is such a bigshot and Manwin is so big that none of us can understand it.

We'd see how big Manwin is without all that traffic he's getting from stolen content now wouldn't we?

Robbie,

1) oh if you would only understand PROTECT IP Act and realize it does not affect any of the Manwin Tubes.

2) Notice that PROTECT IP is already basically killed? They will never get around Wyden's block of it that he put on it a matter of hours after PROTECT IP Act passed the commitee in the senate?

Nathan · 05-27-2011, 01:10 AM

BTW, for anyone that is wondering why I said 1) ...

This is the bill: http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/do...OTECTIPAct.pdf
Read Section 2, (7) (A) (i) and (ii).

Odin · 05-27-2011, 01:15 AM

Ever notice how you hardly get any spam in your inbox now days?

Lawsuits didn't stop spam, laws didn't stop spam, technology did.

If you idiots would spend half as much time developing automated anti-piracy technology (which when it exists mind you is technically a requirement of the DMCA for sites to allow/implement) as you did whining piracy would not be an issue.

There are a few companies that actually do proactively protect their content through all the automated systems available to them - and you won't find their content anywhere on the tubes/torrents/etc.

It's a technical challenge, not a legal one - but half of you idiots make your living running piece of shit websites and despite operating online business, barely scrape by on the technical side.

So because of your incompetence and laziness you pray for the day Governments around the world take complete control of the internet... sad.

nation-x · 05-27-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

If yuo actually believe that's the purpose. Any pornographer for this law thinking the US government will seize "illigtimate" porn sites is a fool. ALL porn is illegitimate to the government. The government doesn't care is "legitimate" porn goes out of business. when the feds use this law to take YOUR sites well I told you so.

If you read the quote from the OP you will see that I pulled out the statement by the Chamber of Commerce and posted that...

Quote:

the US Chamber of Commerce said in a statement, "Rogue sites and their operators contribute nothing to the US economy. They do not innovate, they do not pay taxes, they do not follow safety standards, and they do not follow the law. Today?s vote serves as a wakeup call to those who illicitly profit at the expense of American businesses and consumers?the US will not tolerate your careless, reckless, malicious behavior."

merina0803 · 05-27-2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

BTW, for anyone that is wondering why I said 1) ...

This is the bill: http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/do...OTECTIPAct.pdf
Read Section 2, (7) (A) (i) and (ii).

not viewable from ukraine. maybe daniel can fix that

Socks · 05-27-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

BTW, for anyone that is wondering why I said 1) ...

This is the bill: http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/do...OTECTIPAct.pdf
Read Section 2, (7) (A) (i) and (ii).

The word significant will surely be the main argument in court cases. If Pirate Bay has an active forum where people chat, does that mean their site isn't solely for piracy? Is it significant enough?

Nathan · 05-27-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

The word significant will surely be the main argument in court cases. If Pirate Bay has an active forum where people chat, does that mean their site isn't solely for piracy? Is it significant enough?

The Pirate Bay is a whole different story. My comment was to Robbie who thought I would lose all my tube sites...

Socks · 05-27-2011, 10:23 AM

Of course, it's just an example of someone they'll obviously go after, and what strategies target sites will make to pre-empt the language of the law, giving themselves an argument in court.

My feeling is also that it will be a stretch for this to apply to the major tubes.

just a punk · 05-27-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Cue gideongallery in 5...4...3...

Chinese Internet firewall finally came to the "land of free". Congrats on it

pornguy · 05-27-2011, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

this would be the best that we could hope for - need Europe to go along with this though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

what about the rest of the internet ?

The road to Hell is paved with the best intentions.

Laws are written and passed every day to get real bad guys locked up and then used against everyone just for a conviction.

gideongallery · 05-27-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Chinese Internet firewall finally came to the "land of free". Congrats on it

i guess your too stupid to see my post above

just a punk · 05-27-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i guess your too stupid to see my post above

I guess you are too stupid to believe that I read your shit.

gideongallery · 05-27-2011, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

I guess you are too stupid to believe that I read your shit.

and i didn't say read i said see

scanning the names down the side would take 5-10 seconds

the stupid part is not taking those 10 seconds before posting something so obviously wrong.

Barry-xlovecam · 05-27-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

BTW, for anyone that is wondering why I said 1) ...

This is the bill: http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/do...OTECTIPAct.pdf
Read Section 2, (7) (A) (i) and (ii).

Read U.S.C. 17 § 501
34(d) of the Lanham Act incorporated in: U.S.C. 15 §1116
U.S.C. 17 § 1201 is not of relevance.

Sure you are still right ...

Redrob · 05-27-2011, 04:32 PM

I will be watching to see how this one shakes out.

GregE · 05-27-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KlenTelaris

Why bother for China and other non-usa countries?Usa is key market anyway.

USA is indeed key but the markets in Europe, Latin America and Japan are nothing to sneeze at either.

Redrob · 05-27-2011, 09:52 PM

Looks like this Senator pocketed over $16,000 from Google so far this year. I wonder who else contributed to his "problem" with this legislation?

Link to list of contributors

Redrob · 05-27-2011, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Several large corporations such as Google, Yahoo!, Ebay, American Express and Paypal have all opposed the bill. At an earlier hearing on the act, Google opposed the act saying that it will have very negative ramifications.

Link to Article

It is said that we have the best congress money can buy. If we, as an industry, contributed more to congressmen, judges, and city council races....we just might have a few more victories under our belts.

Just my opinion.

Captain Kawaii · 05-27-2011, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Link to Article

It is said that we have the best congress money can buy. If we, as an industry, contributed more to congressmen, judges, and city council races....we just might have a few more victories under our belts.

Just my opinion.

True perhaps. At AVN a couple of years ago, an attorney on a Legal Issues panel said just that. Contribute to both sides. Some may return your donation but the others will at least give due consideration to point. Haven't tried it myself but makes sense.

gideongallery · 05-28-2011, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Looks like this Senator pocketed over $16,000 from Google so far this year. I wonder who else contributed to his "problem" with this legislation?

Link to list of contributors

it interesting how you believe a senator "problem" with the bill is bought yet all the money spent to get the bill in the first place is corupting in any way shape or form.

you might want to check the guys voting record, he has been pro free speech for years

google money went to guys who are pro free speech, not the other way around.

Robbie · 05-28-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

If we, as an industry, contributed more to congressmen, judges, and city council races....we just might have a few more victories under our belts.
t

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

True perhaps. At AVN a couple of years ago, an attorney on a Legal Issues panel said just that. Contribute to both sides. Some may return your donation but the others will at least give due consideration to point. Haven't tried it myself but makes sense.

I don't believe that any politician will ever be on our side.

It would be political suicide in todays uptight and sexually repressed American society. We all know that everybody loves porn...and everybody denies it.

Redrob · 05-28-2011, 12:21 PM

I don't really see content theft as a free speech issue.

gideongallery · 05-28-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

I don't really see content theft as a free speech issue.

it not

it everything else that get caught in the net when copyright holders use these over reaching laws to take down/redefine fair use.

Redrob · 05-28-2011, 02:30 PM

As I recall, the intellectual property laws were in place long before the Internet so where is the redefining happening?

Seems to me that the thieves are trying to do all the redefining.

gideongallery · 05-28-2011, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

As I recall, the intellectual property laws were in place long before the Internet so where is the redefining happening?

Seems to me that the thieves are trying to do all the redefining.

how about trying reverse the timeshifting ruling that allows me to get a commercial free timeshifted version from the swarm

Quote:

Indeed, when my son is taping for his permanent collection, he sits there and pauses his machine and when he is finished with it, he has a marvelous Clint Eastwood movie and there is no sign of a commercial.

or arguing that timeshifting never allowed distribution (to justify disallowing using torrents as a vcr)

even though mpaa failed to get tape locking (preventing a recording from playing in any vcr that didn't record the content)

a failure which clearly proves that distribution (lending a copy of the show to someone else who missed it) was covered by the original right.

and don't get me started on commentary, backup, recover.

Redrob · 05-28-2011, 06:58 PM

You made my point for me that the thieves are redefining the copyright laws.

What is thieving today may be legit tomorrow at the copyright holder's expense.

gideongallery · 05-28-2011, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

You made my point for me that the thieves are redefining the copyright laws.

What is thieving today may be legit tomorrow at the copyright holder's expense.

what the fuck are you talking about

when the vcr first established the right of timeshifting

it include the right to make a commercial free "permanent collection" (see quote from the vcr debates in congress)

Quote:

Indeed, when my son is taping for his permanent collection, he sits there and pauses his machine and when he is finished with it, he has a marvelous Clint Eastwood movie and there is no sign of a commercial.

yet if i use the swarm as the medium for that "permanent collection" copyright holders are arguing that infringing.

that clearly trying to reverse a right i have already been grant

to try and make the new technology (torrents) inferior to the old technology (Betamax).

Socks · 05-28-2011, 08:10 PM

Betamax is inferior to torrents on a technology scale, gideon. Just to clear that up. It's the decades, not the argument.

Socks · 05-28-2011, 08:11 PM

Pretty sure that law only applies to someone taping something from a source they originally paid for or had rights to. I can't tap into my neighbours cable and "backup" what's coming through his signal, well I can, but it's not legal.

Doing so would be illegal beyond the stealing cable aspect, or tampering with their equipment - because, it would be displaying it to a large audience. Same way bars have to pay a different licensing fee to show a pay per view event in public, or why you can't buy a DVD and sell tickets for people to watch it.

If letting 500 people watch a DVD I purchased is illegal, then why is it okay to share it with 500 strangers on the internet?

05-26-2011, 10:40 AM	#2
Barefootsies Choice is an Illusion Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Land of Obama Posts: 42,635	Source XBIZ __________________ Should You Email Your Members? Link1 \| Link2 \| Link3 Enough Said. "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

05-26-2011, 11:14 AM	#6
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	the worst offending tube sites and file lockers and pirate forums/blogs are non-American - even Manwin is European/Canadian. so how as a copyright owner do I go to an American court and tell them to shut down a site owned by a European and hosted in Europe? __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

05-26-2011, 11:31 AM	#11
ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,241	Post proof or ban. Source Plox? This could be really good news for content owners. Last edited by ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE; 05-26-2011 at 11:33 AM..

05-26-2011, 04:31 PM	#17
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Hey somebody better call up Fabian and let him know "his" "empire" is in trouble. Don't know if anyone can get through to him though, after all he is such a bigshot and Manwin is so big that none of us can understand it. We'd see how big Manwin is without all that traffic he's getting from stolen content now wouldn't we? __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

05-27-2011, 01:10 AM	#23
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	BTW, for anyone that is wondering why I said 1) ... This is the bill: http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/do...OTECTIPAct.pdf Read Section 2, (7) (A) (i) and (ii). __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-26-2011, 10:53 AM	#3
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	Rogue sites and their operators contribute nothing to the US economy. They do not innovate, they do not pay taxes, they do not follow safety standards, and they do not follow the law. Today’s vote serves as a wakeup call to those who illicitly profit at the expense of American businesses and consumers—the US will not tolerate your careless, reckless, malicious behavior.

05-26-2011, 11:37 AM	#12
merina0803 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 573	sounds good to me for actual producers left on board.

05-27-2011, 01:15 AM	#24
Odin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: au Posts: 2,545	Ever notice how you hardly get any spam in your inbox now days? Lawsuits didn't stop spam, laws didn't stop spam, technology did. If you idiots would spend half as much time developing automated anti-piracy technology (which when it exists mind you is technically a requirement of the DMCA for sites to allow/implement) as you did whining piracy would not be an issue. There are a few companies that actually do proactively protect their content through all the automated systems available to them - and you won't find their content anywhere on the tubes/torrents/etc. It's a technical challenge, not a legal one - but half of you idiots make your living running piece of shit websites and despite operating online business, barely scrape by on the technical side. So because of your incompetence and laziness you pray for the day Governments around the world take complete control of the internet... sad. __________________ ICQ: 637//961--015 Last edited by Odin; 05-27-2011 at 01:17 AM..

05-27-2011, 10:23 AM	#29
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Of course, it's just an example of someone they'll obviously go after, and what strategies target sites will make to pre-empt the language of the law, giving themselves an argument in court. My feeling is also that it will be a stretch for this to apply to the major tubes.

05-27-2011, 04:32 PM	#36
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	I will be watching to see how this one shakes out.

05-27-2011, 09:52 PM	#38
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Looks like this Senator pocketed over $16,000 from Google so far this year. I wonder who else contributed to his "problem" with this legislation? Link to list of contributors Last edited by Redrob; 05-27-2011 at 09:53 PM..

05-28-2011, 12:21 PM	#43
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	I don't really see content theft as a free speech issue. Last edited by Redrob; 05-28-2011 at 12:23 PM..

05-28-2011, 02:30 PM	#45
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	As I recall, the intellectual property laws were in place long before the Internet so where is the redefining happening? Seems to me that the thieves are trying to do all the redefining.

05-28-2011, 06:58 PM	#47
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	You made my point for me that the thieves are redefining the copyright laws. What is thieving today may be legit tomorrow at the copyright holder's expense. Last edited by Redrob; 05-28-2011 at 07:00 PM..

05-28-2011, 08:10 PM	#49
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Betamax is inferior to torrents on a technology scale, gideon. Just to clear that up. It's the decades, not the argument.

05-28-2011, 08:11 PM	#50
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Pretty sure that law only applies to someone taping something from a source they originally paid for or had rights to. I can't tap into my neighbours cable and "backup" what's coming through his signal, well I can, but it's not legal. Doing so would be illegal beyond the stealing cable aspect, or tampering with their equipment - because, it would be displaying it to a large audience. Same way bars have to pay a different licensing fee to show a pay per view event in public, or why you can't buy a DVD and sell tickets for people to watch it. If letting 500 people watch a DVD I purchased is illegal, then why is it okay to share it with 500 strangers on the internet?