Copyright Lawsuits Could Come to Regular Internet Users Under a New Law
eff.org
eff.org
Shared a viral amateur video? I understood that this law would allow a troll firm to contact the video creator and offer to sue you and all those that did so.
Let's act and get others to act so we can avoid this atrocity this time.
One of the details that this stipulates is that works are automatically copyrighted upon creation – even if you don't register work with the copyright office it still holds protection.
This means that any picture, text, or other work in a tangible medium that you share without permission could be considered potentially infringing, and leave you open to a lawsuit.
There are defenses you can argue, but that would only be after the lawsuit has already started, potentially costing you time and money for legal representation.
Are people share the things without permission there, so frequently? Even if so, why should these sharing be legal?
Who the hell wrote the bill, get them out of the Senate immediately.
Sponsored by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), cosponsored by 14 senators (9 Democratic, 5 Republican).
It's really annoying. I want to be on his side and then this happens
Do you really think there should be zero protections for creative works? That authors who spend years writing a book shouldn't be able to sell it?† How many movies would get created in such a world? How many software developers would exist?
I am all for reducing protections of intellectual property. I think copyright should expire after a few decades at most, with much broader and more powerful fair use exemptions in the interim. But eliminating copyright completely? I think that would severely limit the amount of artistic output in the world.
---
† I recognize that authors would still technically be able to sell their books in a world without copyright. However, they would have to compete with others who just copied and pasted their text, which amounts to the same thing.
Creative works may be protected by means of the existing contract system, anything beyond that is grossly controlling and leads to absurd situations.
>That authors who spend years writing a book shouldn't be able to sell their text†? Would the movie studios stay in business?
If that is what ends up happening then sure, but it doesn't really matter to me either way, if your enterprise depends on the artificial restriction of an abstract format it's probably not a good business model. For all intents and purposes we already live in a world without intellectual property, your average Joe doesn't pay for music and yet musicians have found alternative business models now it's time for the journals, authors and filmmakers to do the same. Besides, people still buy the official version of Free as in Freedom despite it being a creative commons work.
>Would software developers?
Most definitely, services need to exist and someone will be willing to pay to have it created. Same thing goes for graphic design etc.
>But eliminating it completely? I think that would severely limit the amount of artistic output in the world.
The output of art into the world would explode by the ending of intellectual property. How much art has been lost to takedown requests? How many artists have been discouraged from creating for fear of legal consequences?
> Creative works may be protected by means of the existing contract system, anything beyond that is grossly controlling and leads to absurd situations
How can a contract protect me from someone not bound by it. If I publish a novel then what, I provide a license that provides a penalty for copying my creative work (now we're back at modern IP laws but with more work for creators), but I'm not protected if someone not party to the contract copies the work and puts it online.
It might increase the amount of amateur art in the world. But, most of that isn't very good. Good artists need to survive and get paid so they can focus on creating more works. Some IP laws help that.
> Same thing goes for graphic design etc.
But you're saying that if I see good graphic design somewhere, I can just take it and use it. No need to hire anyone except for bespoke branding, which most work doesn't need.
Not in my experience, people usually either just use the free version or use a youtube to mp3 converter and keep that version.
>How can a contract protect me from someone not bound by it.
That's the point, you shouldn't be.
>But, most of that isn't very good. Good artists need to survive and get paid so they can focus on creating more works.
I prefer ameteur art and believe it has more societal value.
>But you're saying that if I see good graphic design somewhere, I can just take it and use it
Sure, but you still need brand recognition and you still can't create counterfeits ergo a graphic designer is still in your best interests.
Consider that your experience may not be the norm. Spotify and apple music have a combined 170 million subscribers. Not to mention various other ways of consuming music by paying for it.
> That's the point, you shouldn't be
Then how do I make a living?
> I prefer ameteur art and believe it has more societal value.
And you're willing to decide that all of society must bow to your whims? Amateur artists are important, but almost by definition their products won't be as good as professional artists. They can't put in the same amount of practice.
> Sure, but you still need brand recognition and you still can't create counterfeits
Erm, why not? IP law is what prevents counter fitting. You've previously suggested that copying and reselling am artistic work is fine, so why couldn't I also copy and resell any other work or brand?
What's to prevent me from sticking the Gucci logo on a purse? Currently the answer is IP law.
170 million is a vanishingly small number.
>Then how do I make a living?
By doing something people are willing to pay you for.
>And you're willing to decide that all of society must bow to your whims?
Either ameteur artists get screwed or professional ones do, I value ameteur artists more ergo I sacrifice the professional.
>You've previously suggested that copying and reselling am artistic work is fine, so why couldn't I also copy and resell any other work or brand?
Reselling an artistic work is fine, claiming a product was made by someone it wasn't is lying to the consumer.