+Not A Rockstar Posted July 15, 2019 #1 Share Posted July 15, 2019 I just heard about this tonight, and while it sounds good to protect copyrights, it actually means they can shut down memes and political cartoons, basically anything they do not like which is not original. I laughed when I heard they intended to outlaw memes, then read this, and they were serious. What do YOU think? Tyranny and PC gone wild, or just making it easier to sue people we do not agree with? Protecting small photographers and creatives, from their pictures being used in satire or for humor they do not approve of. https://reclaimthenet.org/new-us-copyright-laws-case-act/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASE_Act https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/05/06/understanding-the-case-act/ They want to take away your memes and can come after the one who makes them and uses them, bottom line, though they seem to be addressing other uses far more. There is no room here for fair use, no room for anything the one who took the original picture or whatever it might be does not like. What do YOU think? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted July 15, 2019 #2 Share Posted July 15, 2019 It sounds pretty awful. The article is frightening, and it mentions copyright trolls, another way to make a living on the internet searching for infringements and suing in the kangaroo court. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted July 15, 2019 #3 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Not A Rockstar said: I just heard about this tonight, and while it sounds good to protect copyrights, it actually means they can shut down memes and political cartoons, basically anything they do not like which is not original. I laughed when I heard they intended to outlaw memes, then read this, and they were serious. What do YOU think? Tyranny and PC gone wild, or just making it easier to sue people we do not agree with? Protecting small photographers and creatives, from their pictures being used in satire or for humor they do not approve of. https://reclaimthenet.org/new-us-copyright-laws-case-act/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASE_Act https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/05/06/understanding-the-case-act/ They want to take away your memes and can come after the one who makes them and uses them, bottom line, though they seem to be addressing other uses far more. There is no room here for fair use, no room for anything the one who took the original picture or whatever it might be does not like. What do YOU think? What do I think? to the people behind this. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Not A Rockstar Posted July 15, 2019 Author #4 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: What do I think? to the people behind this. V for Victory? OK. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted July 15, 2019 #5 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Not A Rockstar said: V for Victory? OK. You hold your hand the other way around for Victory, champ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorg Posted July 15, 2019 #6 Share Posted July 15, 2019 It is good and bad. If I made a humorous MEME of myself and posted it on the Facebook, and then some troll takes it and changes it to make me say racist dialog with my face posted all over the internet. Yes, you can believe I will sue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 15, 2019 #7 Share Posted July 15, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, South Alabam said: It is good and bad. If I made a humorous MEME of myself and posted it on the Facebook, and then some troll takes it and changes it to make me say racist dialog with my face posted all over the internet. Yes, you can believe I will sue. pretty much, however you must register yours with copyright office first, how many memes are copyright protected? Edited July 15, 2019 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorg Posted July 15, 2019 #8 Share Posted July 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, aztek said: pretty much, however you must register yours with copyright office first, how many memes are copyright protected? I know. It would be a good idea if using your real self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Not A Rockstar Posted July 15, 2019 Author #9 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, aztek said: pretty much, however you must register yours with copyright office first, how many memes are copyright protected? this is the scary thing, though. You do not need to do this under this act. If I publish a picture of my dog and you think its funny and use the pic as a meme for something else, I can insta sue you for using it. No warn, no nothing, insta sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted July 15, 2019 #10 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Even though the bill caps the fines at $5,000 – $15,000 per work – that's still high enough to financially ruin many Americans, where the average annual income is $57,652. And this is particularly true because the new process would leave those accused of infringement “without many of the traditional legal safeguards or rights of appeal [US] justice system provides.” To make suing people in this way even easier – and no doubt more appetizing for copyright trolls – the bill states that a copyright holder would be able to sue even if the work they claim had been infringed was not registered with the Copyright Office. https://reclaimthenet.org/new-us-copyright-laws-case-act/ From the first reference article. My bold there. It seems to indicate that you can hold an unregistered copyright and still sue. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 15, 2019 #11 Share Posted July 15, 2019 48 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said: this is the scary thing, though. You do not need to do this under this act. If I publish a picture of my dog and you think its funny and use the pic as a meme for something else, I can insta sue you for using it. No warn, no nothing, insta sue if ownership is not required to be proven, anyone can sue you for a picture of your dog, they can say it is their dog and you stole the pic, remember proof of ownership is not needed. so whoever filed complaint wins automatically. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Not A Rockstar Posted July 15, 2019 Author #12 Share Posted July 15, 2019 This is a direct effort to shut down communication, IMO. If we allow this to go through, and don't stop it in the Legislature, it a huge blow against free speech. I am all for protections to copyright, but IMO, THIS is not about that, really. This is about silencing criticism and mockery of the PTB and Gov under the guise of "taking back our internet" and similar virtue signaling and posturing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted July 15, 2019 #13 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Hmm.. this isn't even in commitee yet ? (??) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Not A Rockstar Posted July 16, 2019 Author #14 Share Posted July 16, 2019 5 hours ago, RoofGardener said: Hmm.. this isn't even in commitee yet ? (??) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426 it is in sub-committee for now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwynbleidd Posted July 20, 2019 #15 Share Posted July 20, 2019 On 7/16/2019 at 10:56 AM, Not A Rockstar said: it is in sub-committee for now. Disgusting! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted July 20, 2019 #16 Share Posted July 20, 2019 On 7/15/2019 at 5:26 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said: You hold your hand the other way around for Victory, champ Didn't Churchill originally do the "V for victory" that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jim Posted July 21, 2019 #17 Share Posted July 21, 2019 On 7/15/2019 at 1:44 PM, Tatetopa said: To make suing people in this way even easier – and no doubt more appetizing for copyright trolls – the bill states that a copyright holder would be able to sue even if the work they claim had been infringed was not registered with the Copyright Office. This is either intentionally vague or not well thought out. Who is the copyright holder if the work was not registered with the copyright office? In truth, there is no copyright holder. It opens the door for anyone to claim infringement at any time for any comments they post online. I would infringing on you right now if you chose to claim it, but so would you by quoting the article. This sounds like an open door to prosecute anyone who ever quotes another person. In effect, it relieves the original poster of any responsibility for whatever they say because anyone who quotes them to question what they said could be sued. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwynbleidd Posted July 21, 2019 #18 Share Posted July 21, 2019 I wish people weren't so easily offended now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted July 21, 2019 #19 Share Posted July 21, 2019 5 hours ago, pixiii said: I wish people weren't so easily offended now. What a rude thing to say. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted July 21, 2019 #20 Share Posted July 21, 2019 9 hours ago, pixiii said: I wish people weren't so easily offended now. I believe I said that about 3 years ago...you owe me $30,000! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now