Yes, it’s good as concept, not as enforceable law. Its real-world representation will only get harder to implement correctly, a law designed in a good way is not a minefield everyone has to stay away from as far as possible.
With the genetically modified humans and mind-computer interfaces the concept of IP is so blurry you can’t really draw a line without adding hundreds of exceptions and every such exception proves that it’s a bad law.
I don’t think it’s possible to regulate flow of information (unless you want to have the current situation). To me it’s like making “you can’t say bad things about X”, now, how do we define saying a bad thing? Is sarcasm saying a bad thing? It’s representing the same information as saying it directly, right?
A short lived IPTV based provider that used “micro ATSC antennas” which people rented, lost a appeal to stay in business because they were considered a cable/satellite company for rebroadcasting free to air OTA signals and not paying cable carriage fees.
On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo’s services breached copyright laws. It ruled that, “viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly”, and that “insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service.”
This is where copyright AND federal laws on telcos and cable companies meant this company was bound to fail.
The “muh development effort” doesn’t really work out if they shelve it now does it? Besides I don’t even think they invented it, they just phished the patent.
So yes I take the free for all opposed to people getting knocked for having a song play that the game they are licensed to play licensed.
Aware of that and is a shame they got shut down, again issue with law not the idea of copyright or the idea that people shouldn’t be paid for their work.
Then you could prove their patent invalid, so go ahead. Again it needs a rework for sure but its not bad like a few of you seem to think it is. You shouldnt be able to just play someones song for free cuz its not the majority of what happens on your stream etc.
This is exactly why Netflix discourages VPN use because Netflix has to purchase rights for specific regions, and those rights run out from time to time.
When they can’t remain competitive and the original rightsholders make their own services (Disney+), the internet basically turned into cable. Fast lanes and slow lanes that came about after net neutrality was abolished also sucks.
Yep super stupid, just like disks being region locked, but thats the system we have ATM. People who sold the rights that way did it because it made them the most money, I see that type of thing changing since people are going more online based.
I think thats more why get a small cut when Disney owns so much IP already, cut out hte middle man, if they are to pricey the market will decide. Just buy your own media and stop "renting " it from all these services.
Ok and they got shot down on that BS, whats the point people break the law all the time and get smacked for it. Sounds like the system working as intended.
If all you do is streaming music to twitch, then yes. Otherwise having music in the back should be free up to a certain threshold of income or reach. It would basically fall under fair use because it’s not the essential part of the stream.
The patent ran out last or this year iirc but even if not, are you seriously suggesting using the judicial system? And having music in game isn’t even free, I payed for the packaged game.
The RIAA can’t make this happen. This is if the government decides to get involved and charge you. Its not likely to happen. Copy right cases can be hard to prove in the internet age. Most likely the RIAA will use the same tactics the MPAA has used. Send a letter that says give us money and we will go away. In the end its all a money grab. They don’t want to put people in jail and they don’t want the government getting involved as they don’t want YOU paying the government a fine, these guys want the money for themselves.
I’d say it needs to be heavy updated, since the way copyrighted content is consumed has changed a lot since it was written.
Though I would say copyright should be a lot shorter, I’d say 40 years at max. It makes no sense that patents last around 20 years and copyright lasts over a 100 years.