Bruh, you’re not even in the states.
You’re not subject to United States law.
But yes, I agree that DMCA needs rework.
The TPP provisions which the US tried to sneak in was super scary for us Canadians.
Good thing the TPP was DOA then.
It was bad for everyone in every way.
Oh yes they will. It is not about making money, it is about making all of the money.
It is
A patent lasts 20 years, after that it is a free-for-all. Either your company inovates on it and files again, or everyone can inovate on it.
Copyright can drag on and on and on. Long dead brands (for example Telefunken) is just a brand name existing to pretend to be German quality (it is not, actually quite shitty).
When you hold a patent to just sue people over them infringing on it, it is called patent trolling. In copyright, that is just how Sony, UMG, etc. make considerable money on the side.
Take the time to watch this:
Edit: What makes copyright such bullshit is that the big copyright holders have 0 interest in licensing to you.
You can go fuck yourself. You are not a business worth dealing with to license those two songs you want (have fun shelling out thousands for a broadcast license).
However their lawyers (or their automated systems) are more than happy to get the money out of you anyway.
1 Like
This is the issue. Patents are beneficial, since they protect and encourage innovation. At the very least, the length of time should be swapped.
Copyright does nothing for the world, patents do. But then again, copyright was designed to protect media, so that makes sense.
Thank you disney lobbyists for making copyright law in the US as dumb as it is.
Then Zoltán Bay and György Szigeti would still hold the patent on LEDs.
Yes, but LEDs actually provide a beneficial function to society.
The only thing that Hollywood does is propagandize about $POPULAR_SOCIAL_ISSUE
Interesting dichotomy, huh.
Copyright is protected under treaties AND there is a thing called Extradition.
Hmmm, you’re right.
I’ve found one case in 07 where this happened:
Normally, I’d tell non-US countries to treat it like L1 treats GDPR: completely ignore it.
But I’m not sure that’s an option.
That being said. The US government goes after the people providing the content. So if you upload it to the internet and are “Distributing” it then they will go after you generally. All others the studios have to file Civil charges.
Yeah, it tends to only be the people distributing that they’re interested in.
Which, I suppose, puts torrents in an interesting position. #noseedlife
Well they can always have ISP’s pull a Comcast and throttle the traffic. You know Comcast is the reason Net neutrality originally went in to effect, due to Throttling torrents.
This just in from the Internet Archive. To please publishers harassing them, it’s erasing it’s “emergency backup” of books. This is what I feared happening to the Library of Congress:
pretty sure they coordinate prior with the owners unlike internet archive
Even with coordination, breaking digital locks is still illegal under the DMCA. That’s why it’s dangerous if the only archive of something is the consumer facing copy protected media.
was not done with Library of Congress
…after the law was revised. For a time it was a huge legal headache if the DMCA didn’t see revisions.
… What are you talking about? You can have a none DRM version of a copyrighted software and not be required to bypass copyright protection. I am not understanding your comment, you can also be given a different license that allows for different distribution compared to regular retail chains.
1 Like
Disorganized content creators that don’t keep their originals is what the Library of Congress was worried about when they pushed for the modification of the law. Basically it was to cover incompetence when archiving.
The point is archival had one stage of headaches when everything was analog, but with digital, laws just took it to another level. Thankfully, the DMCA is better now in terms of archival… but only for Library of Congress. Yes, your Plex collection can be considered illegal.