Worst Internet Law Ever

[KabeRinnaul]

I never understand this attitude from these companies. You would think they would welcome any sort of publicity especially given that Ghostbusters is what over 20 years old now? I can understand them going after illegal downloads of the movies but not fan created stuff. But then again, I guess it's like Disney going after every version of Mickey copies that they don't like.

I don't think they're going after the fan creations specifically (or maybe they are, if so I haven't heard about it); the thorn in their paw seems to be "we didn't approve this/it's not making us money!" (well a higher power than you does approve, so there). Or something. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.

It's about protecting trademarks and copyrights. If a company is too lax about allowing common usage of their IP, then eventually when they do try to protect it, they could lose their case on grounds of the IP having entered common usage. This is why we call a photocopy a "xerox" and a tissue a "kleenex". Despite both of these words being trademarked company names, they've become so widespread in everyday use that Xerox and Kleenex are having trouble challenging their use.

[Dreamstalker]

That was the example I was thinking of, thank you. I've run into lots of people who call any of the paranormal reality shows "Ghostbusters" (sometimes I have to ask them to clarify by telling me where it was set, etc and then correct them).

We figured out that the GB fan franchises are 'safe' as long as the logo is altered in some way (size, color, details, someone figured that rotating it a few degrees off center counted as an alteration so was OK); as far as the props, the only restriction I know of is that we're not supposed to sell completed replicas (at least not in a public venue where Sony can take notice).

They seem to be gung-ho about certain aspects of the property, pretty lax about others.

[lordlundar]

I can sort of see the paranoia from Sony over the GB label considering they're not the original ones to hold the trademark, Filmation is. If they're not careful, Filmation could easily snatch it back.

[Dreamstalker]

I kinda forgot about that...

[Andara Bledin]

Columbia paid Filmation on contract, so Filmation has no claim; there's no rights being trampled, and nothing for Filmation to "snatch back."

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I really doubt this law is going to pass. It could, and I don't like it, but I doubt that it will. There's a lot of people against it. And there's also a lot of moneya gainst it.

[lordlundar]

Columbia paid Filmation on contract, so Filmation has no claim; there's no rights being trampled, and nothing for Filmation to "snatch back."

^-.-^

Not directly no, but the contract was for the movie and all connected works to it (toys, game, etc) and required a strict enforcement of trademark. If they fail to, a claim of not adhering to the terms can be filed and Sony can lose the rights. All Filmation has to do is file the trademark then, and they are very good at monitoring trademarks.

[FArchivist]

Uhm no. See the companies would have to prove harm. If they can't prove that the "infringement" is harming them then no action is taking. Outside links isn't a "portion of the site dedicated to infringing copyright"

So if everything people are saying about the law is incorrect, then please tell me how the full analysis given here (video and text) is incorrect.

[Dreamstalker]

Not directly no, but the contract was for the movie and all connected works to it (toys, game, etc) and required a strict enforcement of trademark. If they fail to, a claim of not adhering to the terms can be filed and Sony can lose the rights. All Filmation has to do is file the trademark then, and they are very good at monitoring trademarks.

From what I understand, the contract was for name only. The two series have very little in common aside from the basic premise.

Anyhoo, I doubt this will stick for long. There's an interesting thread over at Slashdot on the subject; someone mentions Google, FB, etc going dark for a day in protest (the only working link will be to an explanation; the servers would refuse any other workaround requests) and/or blacklisting congressional IPs until they wise up.

[jackfaire]

So if everything people are saying about the law is incorrect, then please tell me how the full analysis given here (video and text) is incorrect.

lBecause it's mostly rhetoric and very little fact.

The thing is they are using the slippery slope argument but trying very hard not to call it the slippery slope. They never mention the protections cited in the law that actually protect journalists and other forms of Free Speech.

In addition everyone that talks about this law ignores the fact that it doesn't change what copyright law allows.

It also cites the fact that the Entertainment industry sued the first VCRs and MP3 players using this as a scare tactic while failing to point out what we all know which is that the entertainment industry lost those law suits you know since we had VCRs for years and even my cell phone has an MP3 player.

Yes the law has potential for abuse. However the chances of it being abused are no where near what people fear.

And now there are politicians at a high level speaking out against the law conveniently after the Occupy movement has pretty much now become yet another crazy fringe group to be ignored.

Whille everyone was focusing on this non issue that became an issue the Occupy movement put out things like this

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...f-ows-demands/


And doing things like occupying privately owned bridges, which becomes trespassing, and blocking traffic so that more people will lose their jobs when they have to explain to their bosses why they couldn't get to work.

[Pedersen]

In addition everyone that talks about this law ignores the fact that it doesn't change what copyright law allows.

Error, Does not compute.

If this law doesn't change what copyright law allows, then what exactly is it doing?

ignoring the whole OWS crap, since there's plenty of other threads dedicated to it.

[jackfaire]

Error, Does not compute.

If this law doesn't change what copyright law allows, then what exactly is it doing?

ignoring the whole OWS crap, since there's plenty of other threads dedicated to it.

It's creating new ways to enforce existing copyright laws.

Think of it like this originally a cop had to see you run a red light to ticket you for running a red light. Then they designed cameras that will take the picture of anyone running a red light.

New laws had to be passed to allow for those cameras to be used in enforcing an already existing law.

It wasn't like running the red light had been legal in first place now they just have a new to enforce the original law saying it is illegal.

YouTube not taking down videos that violate existing copyright law would be illegal with or without this new law.

[Salted Grump]

To use your own 'red light' analogy, jack, the new law is set up in such a way that, if someone runs a red light, all the witnesses who see that can be charged as well.

[Pedersen]

It's creating new ways to enforce existing copyright laws.

Except, by your own statement, it doesn't. See, here it is:

In addition everyone that talks about this law ignores the fact that it doesn't change what copyright law allows.

So, nothing new is being done by this law. If that's true, then the law is a waste of paper, and should not pass on those grounds alone.

Or, have you misspoken above, and something is changing? If so, please educate me on those changes and how they won't be abused by an industry that has already shown a strong willingness to abuse weaker laws, especially when you've already admitted

Yes the law has potential for abuse.

[jackfaire]

Except, by your own statement, it doesn't. See, here it is:



So, nothing new is being done by this law. If that's true, then the law is a waste of paper, and should not pass on those grounds alone.

Or, have you misspoken above, and something is changing? If so, please educate me on those changes and how they won't be abused by an industry that has already shown a strong willingness to abuse weaker laws, especially when you've already admitted

Actually the first two statements of mine you quote do not contradict each other.

Creating a new way to enforce copyright infringement is just that.

It is illegal to post a whole episode of a TV show without proper permission.

Even if this law is voted against that is still illegal and still in violation of copyright.

The law does not make that illegal it already is. The law does not repeal the Fair Use Act in no way does it change Copyright law itself.

However it does change how it can be enforced adding a level of enforcement that is more effective against foreign owned companies.

Since you either didn't see or didn't understand the traffic light analogy here is another one.

Murder is illegal.

Currently to enforce laws against it the prosecution must have a preponderance of evidence and they must not leave reasonable doubt.

If a law was submitted for consideration that would make it so that only one witness (I mean even if there is no body and no evidence a crime was committed whatsoever) is needed to convict you for murder that would in no way alter the fact that Murder is illegal.

Murder would still be as illegal under the new law as the old law.

Nor would it be redefining murder to include chopping down a tree is now considered murder. It would only be saying that now even with a lack of evidence they could convict you for murder.

And yes all laws have potential for abuse. The fact you must identify yourself to the police when asked has been abused to throw parolees back in jail on the pretense that they refused to ID themselves while ignoring the police provoking a violent reaction.

I am not saying it wouldn't ever be abused but everyone who reacts negatively to any law like this seems to be saying it would be better to have no laws than have a law that could be abused.

And honestly my biggest problem is that most people reacting to this law are not doing so after having read the bill and making their own educated decision about how they feel but rather basing it on websites, blogs and friends all telling them how to feel about it.

As to this topic I am done discussing it because I have more pressing personal matters going on that are taking my energy.