copyright infringment

The idea that sites infringing on the RIGHTS of other people might be shut down doesn't disturb me at all.

Who is the person in the video? Is that a news site? Is that a news outlet or recognized news syndication story? If I watch a video on a news site I don't usually see genie bras advertised at the bottom of it. The woman's agenda is clear - her qualifications not so much.

The infringements on copyright (and trademark) have become so blatant online that many marketers now believe they can use anything they want without permission or penalty. Sites protect themselves by saying "we don't know what users add to our site" - maybe they should be required to be responsible for what appears on "their" sites.

Hi, Kay, and thanks for taking time to reply, I cant really comment on the "Bra thing"

No offense intended, but I am not sure how important an item of clothing is compared with the message which I think is valid.

but I would say that the facts speak loudly, and you can read it for yourself.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...3IFHgw&cad=rja


My concern is the not that there is a need for (the Internet Police) but that the potential for misuse and abuse if such attempts to black list and ban Internet websites without due process, were to become law, that we would have competing marketers accusing each other of infringement in order to effectively, "silence" or eliminate such competition, without due process and when due process is applied the "competition that has the deepest pockets would be the winner" Now that should scare anyone in their right minds to death.

That concerns me greatly and it should concern you as well,

As far as the legitimacy of the news story being marred by the choice of Bra used, or other clothing, ( as long as they do wear something I am not that concerned with how that might or might not effect the actual facts) I look at the proposed language of the bill itself.

Which you can read for yourself.

Which I would encourage you to do the same.

keep in mind that what is not stipulated is just as important as what is stipulated in a bill
before congress.

Now I like the idea of combating piracy, but the issue here is that they can choose to apply that law in any way they wish.

Considering that even now the Patriot, act is being used to pursue, ordinary Americans, (not terrorists) but regular law abiding americans, under the auspices, of the Patriot act, (something that was never intended to happen) and most people think that the Patriot act is only used to protect America from Terrorists, but that is not true, the DEA is using it, to take away real property, in ways that would never be possible in a normal free society.

The point is that when you have a bill that does not spell out the letter of the law, that creates a way for that law to be abused to such an extent that it becomes a threat to freedom.

Just my take on the entire thing.

Tim

Oh, now I understand, it was some kind of advertisement, (LOL, sorry I thought you were commenting on what the girl was wearing) so I went back and checked it out a second time and your right, she does seem to be more interested in protecting the "right to pirate content" so perhaps a better video would be better,)

Now here is an attorney, that expresses this issue a little better and should satisfy the question of legitimacy.

Kay - forget about the bra - and don't take this video without a grain of salt -- but do consider it a knock on the door to tell us there is legislation going on and check that bill out yourself == EVEN if it IS from an authorized news site. Just because the MSM is talking, doesn't mean they will give you the truth.

This bill = if written correctly can be a good thing........but if there is any wording whatsoever askew, or if there is anything that should be in there that is apparently left unsaid -- be afraid of that legislation.

This year the US gov asked for more videos to be removed from Youtube than any other government, including China. Many they wanted removed were simply because they don't want people to know what's going on. Why ask for the removal of a video that shows a protest? IS that a free society action?

Considering the way our gov is acting = we need people posting warnings about new bills for the simple reason that it will get people to go READ those bills so that NOBODY, gov, news, or citizen can lie to us about what they contain.

Anyone who trusts the government NOT to abuse any power it is given is asking for trouble. Second point, the interests of the entertainment industry are secondary to individual rights and freedom of speech.

As for the bra advertisement, it was gone when I went to the site. Keep in mind though, that quite often a website owner doesn't know what ads will be served.

A lot of bills are introduced for political posturing and for no other reason. Even the person introducing the bill knows its never coming out of committee. At some point, some bill probably will come out and be passed but not this one.

Thomas

@whateverpedia -- I hear ya. I can't really comment without tiptoeing around (or on) the forum rules, so suffice it to say you didn't say anything I disagree with.

Okay - read it. It's got problems. This bill will result in anything that the gov doesn't want to be said being ripped off the net. I knew there was going to be a connection with all the youtubes they are asking to be taken off line and this bill. I mean think about it - piracy is already illegal so all they have to do about that is enforce laws we already have. This bill is an expansion so they can just go in and shut down any damned thing they want to shut down. The only thing that is new about this is that it can target free speech and the right to due process. They can either drop this off and enforce existing law - or they need to rewrite the whole damned thing.

That is the one thing that is probably the most disturbing, that most of us do not even know who is running the store...

Yes, good points, in fact you might be surprised to learn that the Yep - I saw that. It's embarrassing as hell. Here we're supposed to be the freeist nation on earth and everyone else in the world thinks the US leaders are imperialist thugs. Which is what they are proving to be, but still. I am ashamed of them.

Yep - and I'm ashamed of us, too, for not doing just that. I've tried to put out a few petitions. People just drool on them and say "next election". If you tell them that if the person serves their full term without getting kicked out they have it made for life, they just drool some more. People just don't get it - they need to start demanding removal of any rep that violates the constitution. Not next election - NOW.

So the leaders are embarrassing and the people are running between embarrassing and disgusting. Wonder why I'm on line so much in here? It's a place I can come and find people that "get it". Restores the sanity and soul.

@Tim, Not mentioned is that many (not all) of the government requests to take down videos concerned hate videos which, in many cases, threatened the life of the President, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices and just about anybody else they disagreed with. Many others advocated violence.

Thomas

There have been several articles on Huffpo but since that's a curation site I'd have to go back and trace the source. A lot of those are loose around the net. You are right about the main point. No additional laws were needed.
Also have to remember who now owns You Tube. They can take down any video that choose with no reason at all. Probably explains the sudden disappearance of 1,000s of marketing videos.

Thomas

That's why I purchase any music used in ANY videos from Royalty-Free Stock Music, Sound Effects, and Audio | AudioJungle

I would never risk my entire business with an illegally downloaded song.

But then again, I might be a little wrong on this subject. I just wanted to toss out my 2 cents.

Hopefully many folks will lobby their representatives to not stand for this