SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Australian Communications Minister is proposing "game changing" laws crack down on Piracy by forcing search engines such as Google to filter content results thereby removing the path people have to finding illegal content online.
[...] Under the proposed laws to be introduced to Parliament today, authorities will also be able to force search engines like Google to stop "unashamedly facilitating crime" by promoting pirate sites that allow internet users to illegally download music or films.
Graham Burke, chief executive of Australian film company Village Roadshow, last night hailed the new laws as game-changing for the industry while slamming Google for acting "as evil as Big Tobacco" in its online behaviour.
"We stand ready to be co-operative with Google. We see good Google and bad Google. But bad Google is as evil as Big Tobacco was 30 years ago. They know what they're doing. They know they're facilitating and enabling crime and it's time for them to clean their act up," he told News Corp.
He accused Google of "unashamedly facilitating crime" by taking people to criminal pirate websites.
Does the Australian government really need to give weapons to special interest groups to enforce civil laws the majority of people do not support?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @01:40PM (5 children)
Fair enough, I don't even much disagree with it from my own point of view, and even to the degree I do, you of course have a right to your own point of view.
"As someone who "creates" I certainly don't want people taking my work without paying for it"
I wouldn't want anyone *taking* my work without my consent. Paying me would be one way to get it - not the only way.
However you still don't seem to grasp that *copying* and *taking* are not the same thing!
But they are not. As long as you're talking about people *taking* things from you, the point is being evaded.
This isn't about *taking*, but about *copying.*
While *taking* without consent is something we can both agree is wrong - or at least that we don't want since that's how you phrased it - *copying* without consent isn't so clear cut at all. It can be flattering, it can be insulting, it can feel like a tribute or a rip off; most confusingly it can trigger several of those at the same time.
Of course, thinking of yourself in only a single role, as a 'creator' (presumably of something completely novel, in no way anticipated by or building on earlier works,) whose work is being "stolen" obviously you would want to be able to stop this.
But in few, if any, roles beyond that obviously unrealistic one would you still feel that way. As a realistic 'creator' who uses the cultural and intellectual heritage of the past in order to create the future, you might think it's very important that you be free to copy what you see and hear. As an artist of some sort you might realize that you could not have even learned your art without copying what had come before. And as a 'consumer' (which you surely are - everyone is - in areas outside of your creative work) of course you would expect that when you buy a copier, it makes copies.
So that one's much more complicated. You can make it simple by sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing to pretend we're talking about 'taking' but that's still not the case.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @05:31PM (4 children)
How presumptuous of you. This one is easy. For example "copying to make a backup" is not "taking". Copying a CD you own so you can have a copy in your car is not "taking". Copying a DVD for a road trip so the kids don't ruin it is not "taking". But copying someone else's images to use without licensing them is taking. Copying software so you don't have to pay for it is taking. Downloading a song or a movie because you don't want to pay for it is taking. The fact that the verb and the process are called "copying" in all of those examples doesn't mean they are all the same.
Though I agree with the "magpie philosophy" it is not germane to my situation.
Yet I do not use my copier to copy copyrighted works.
The "Steve Miller stole the lick from from Bad Company, who stole the lick from the Beatles" scenario is "much more complicated", yet not germane to me.
Your default response seems to be "you don't know the difference and are unable to grasp how complicated things are in the real world", which is ridiculously condescending. Hevean forbid that someone else might have thought something through beyond the low standards you attribute to them. It must be quite a burden to be so much smarter than everybody else.
To me it seems that you are sticking your fingers in your ears. You want to accuse anyone who wants to defend their work as not knowing the difference between "copying" and "taking" because that knee jerk reaction justifies your position (to you). But it's just you pretending that your view is the only valid position to take and no one with a brain in their head could conclude anything differently than you do. Of course, my opinion may be similar to someone else's, which means you may accuse me of copying it and not being cognizant of how that is possible.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @06:33PM (1 child)
It's certainly the only valid position in a free society. If you think the government should impede people copying data just so you and people like you can make more money, you are an authoritarian. And that is ultimately what you are arguing for, regardless of how you try to dress it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @08:07PM
I think I should be paid for my work. That is my position, and it has not wavered. Does that make me an authoritarian?
Do you expect a paycheck from your boss every pay period? Why should you get paid for your work but think it's OK for me not to get paid for my work? Isn't denying workers their pay something authoritarian regimes do?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday October 19 2018, @07:12PM (1 child)
"Copying a CD you own so you can have a copy in your car is not "taking". Copying a DVD for a road trip so the kids don't ruin it is not "taking". "
You might want to consult a lawyer on that. IIRC, the rough jist of what I got the last time I spoke with a lawyer who was versed on the subject was 'you might have a right to do it - but it's illegal for anyone to assist if there's any form of DRM involved, even to help you figure out *how* to do it.' Which is the absurd result of the system you seem to be defending.
"But copying someone else's images to use without licensing them is taking."
No, it's not taking. It's not even actually *using* without permission, though you slip that word in to describe it. It's unauthorized copying.
Whether that's a crime or a civil infraction or a cause of action or simply fair use depends on the precise context and the applicable jurisdiction. You'd need to hire a lawyer to look at it case by case to be sure.
Which has a very chilling affect on 'fair use' btw.
"Yet I do not use my copier to copy copyrighted works."
Not even so you can have a copy in the car, or a copy for the road trip where the kids will probably ruin it?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2018, @08:17PM
I said "taking" because taking my "product" without paying for it is "taking". You brought your presumption of "you don't understand the difference between taking and copying" by accusing me specifically of that. Which is horse shit.
Well, if you are now taking the position that what I defined as "copying" should be "taking" then you seem to be flip flopping. If not, then you're just dishing up a disingenuous distraction.
Semantics. Unauthorized copying is "taking". If you don't agree you should read what you said about "making a copy for the car" and consulting a lawyer. You can't have it both ways.
If my kids are reading copies of contracts or business correspondence on a road trip then I'm going to be saving a lot on entertainment.