SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
The US Copyright Office is asking the tech industry and members of the public to comment about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and in particular the rules governing copyright infringement.
Section 512 of the DMCA gives ISPs and internet hosts immunity from prosecution if material that infringes copyright, such as music tracks, is taken down promptly if the entity owning the rights to it protests. "Repeat infringers" are penalized.
[...] The DMCA was signed into law in 1998, and since then flaws have been consistently pointed out in the legislation, not least with section 512. So the Copyright Office wants to know how to improve things.
"The Office will consider the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on large- and small-scale copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public", the request reads.
"The Office will also review how successfully section 512 addresses online infringement and protects against improper takedown notices. To aid in this effort, and to provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of key questions."
In the request for responses, the Office posits 28 questions it would like answered, including how the legislation is working in practice, what legal precedents are affecting its operation, and whether takedown notices are effective. It also asks for any academic studies on the matter.
[...] The guidelines for submissions will be posted on February 1 and the open period for comments ends on March 21, so there's plenty of time to get a submission ready. How much good this will do, however, remains to be seen.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:46AM
the original concept of copyright was that, in exchange for temporary exclusive distribution rights, that once your period of exclusive distribution ended the work became public domain. it was both a way to enrich the public domain and allow people a way to survive while working on their next project. its one of those "the benefits outweigh the cost" cases. this has, however, become extremely distorted such that nothing remains of the original concept. most people don't have a problem with the original concept of copyright, just idealogues like you who refuse to compromise or budge on anything short of what they consider "perfect".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:51PM
the original concept of copyright was that, in exchange for temporary exclusive distribution rights, that once your period of exclusive distribution ended the work became public domain.
Infringing upon free speech and private property rights to stop something that doesn't even cause any real harm in order to obtain more shiny goodies is not justifiable to me at all. The original concept of copyright was flawed as well. Whether or not it is effecting at encouraging innovation is a secondary matter, but no one has even demonstrated scientific evidence that it does such a thing.
I cannot, in good conscious, support punishing people for behaviors that are not truly harmful, even if doing so allows for more innovation.
its one of those "the benefits outweigh the cost" cases.
Only if you don't mind punishing people for engaging in an activity that isn't even harmful and place a very low value on freedom.
most people don't have a problem with the original concept of copyright,
What most people do or do not have a problem with is irrelevant. Why did you feel the need to mention this?
just idealogues like you who refuse to compromise or budge on anything short of what they consider "perfect".
Yes, yes. Typical nonsense where you take the easy way out and label anyone you don't like as an "extremist" or an "ideologue"; it has the convenient benefit of allowing one to shut off their brain and not think about the validity of the arguments presented, but whether or not that was your intention, I don't know.
Anyway, what you're saying is just false. Perfect is the enemy of good. I am all for compromises that will improve the situation from my point of view, which means I would accept (or temporarily tolerate) weaker copyright laws. Of course, it would not stop there and I would continue advocating for the complete abolition of copyright. But in the mean time, I'm all in favor of lessening the severity of these rights violations. I would recommend that you simply ask me what my positions are, instead of pretending that you know what they are or getting this information from some unknown source.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:16PM
who said anything about shiny goodies? i'm talking about fucking food and shelter, you know things required to survive:
allow people a way to survive while working on their next project
nope, not anyone, just you, because i know from experience that you will never budge on your positions or compromise in any way, no matter how irrational, extreme, and incorrect they are. well, not just you because there are plenty of others around here who refuse to compromise or budge from their positions no matter what, but you, specifically, i know it is true of you because i've read enough of your posts and you make it extremely obvious in just about every discussion you take part in. there's a word for that kind of thing too, "idealogue" [merriam-webster.com].
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 11 2016, @01:04AM
who said anything about shiny goodies? i'm talking about fucking food and shelter, you know things required to survive:
There is no fundamental right to make money doing a particular job, and the ones who engage in copying neither help nor hurt that goal. Some business models fail and others succeed, but you don't get to infringe on other people's freedom of speech just to 'guarantee' yourself a minimum amount of income. Since they are not causing harm, it is unjustifiable to me to punish them. The ends don't justify the means.
And since you were talking about the original intentions of copyright, you should know that copyright in the US was not intended to exist so that artists can make money doing their jobs, but to promote innovation. The copyright clause makes this clear. Giving people monopolies on the distribution of particular implementations of ideas was just a means to that end. Quite a difference, there.
So I am baffled by your response, because it appears to indicate that you think that we can infringe upon people's fundamental rights and outlaw actions that are not even harmful so that some people can make enough money doing particular jobs. I don't find that to be justifiable. It seems to me that what you might want is a basic income.
because i know from experience that you will never budge on your positions or compromise in any way,
I've already told you that this is false, and that I would be willing to accept a compromise if it meant having weaker copyright law even if that isn't my ultimate goal. Are you trying to tell me what I believe? If so, that is rather foolish, I think. Why not just argue with an imaginary opponent if you're going to do that?
Or what do you mean by "compromise"? To give up my position because I don't share your values?
no matter how irrational, extreme, and incorrect they are
I'm not seeing how my position here is irrational or incorrect. You may not share my values, but you have not shown my position is logically flawed.
How "extreme" you think a particular position is has nothing to do with its validity, so I'm not sure why you bothered mentioning that. Why would I "budge on" (What does this mean, exactly? You listed it as a separate thing from "compromise", so I assume they are different.) a position merely because it's considered "extreme"?