April Looming Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Ok, all this mention of SOPA and PIPA on Google and Wikipedia has me freaked out. Has anyone thought about what the ramifications might be to SL? If we had to pay maybe $35USD to upload a file so they could check it manually for Copyright infringement? That would mean L$8750 or so for an upload... but what if it cost more? Like $500USD per file? If Linden Labs had to start charging a lot more for uploads, what would happen? Am I just worried for no reason? Should we be rallying to tell our Congresspeople "Vote NO" to save SL?I hear there's a promised veto, but what about the next time?Can we, should we, band together to protect SL from having to face scary new legislation? Should we have an SL Political Action Committee or suggest something like that for LL? A lot of big companies have PACs. Comments? Thoughts? Too off-topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishani Mhia Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It won't be just SL, though...it will be everything from Twitter, MySpace and FaceBook to Amazon, YouTube, Creg's List and EBay. ANYTHING that is uploaded will be scrutinized for security. We'll no longer be free simply because we will have to watch even more closely (which we already have to do) not just everything we upload, but everything we book mark, share, save or send. The laws look plain and easy. But that's what makes them so very dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canoro Philipp Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 yes, SL is in a very dangerous position if that law pass. the proposed law will shut down any internet company if one of the users upload content that is suspected to be infringing copyright, without due process, if one Second Life user makes available a link to a website that has a link to a place that may have content that infringes copyright, Second Life will be shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashy Calcutt Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I Agree Sl wont Survive if it passes.. Clubs depend on Streaming Music to operate and Club Owners Depend on Dj's to Stream in the music. I'm a club Owner myself and i worry about it to i have 3 dj's who stream in music.. any Artists finds thier music being used will be able to sue and Second life will be shut down with question ... so yeah its a Horrible lets just hope that the president vetos it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashy Calcutt Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 mean to say Without Question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I don't think SL would go down. As soon as it seems that these would go into place, LL would be extremely agressive, and they would remove anything that could be, in any way, a vague infraction on anything. Many people would suffer, but SL doesn't have to go down because of this. There is really no need to check every items that is uploaded. LL would probably only need to check all items being sold. So, registering each product would be costly for the merchants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenni Darkwatch Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Ashy... if the DJs are not licensing their music for streaming, these "DJs" deserve to get punished. Stealing is a crime, regardless whether it's a physical good or not. Same goes for everyone who downloads music unlawfully. OP... I'm not sure if SL would go down, but it certainly might impact SL in some drastic ways as it does away with safe harbor provisions. Among other things it also means ISPs are liable for what their users do - so I'd expect some fairly drastic filtering technologies be put in place. Along with another excuse to raise costs for broadband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think this legislation does sound very scary, and whilst I defintely don't agree with it, there does seem to be quite a lot of misinformation about it. The legislation is designed to target torrent sites and the like, sites who's main aim is to share copyrighted material.... Infringement exists if "facts or circumstances suggest [the site] is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described." It would be difficult to form a legal argument which said that the Second Life's PRIMARY reason for existing and the main activity of its users was illegal file sharing. Thats not to say I am naive enough to believe that such legislation won't be misused should it come into effect. I havent seen any mention anywhere other than here of huge upload fees to cover the cost of detecting illegal content, after all DMCA already covers this offence and we don't pay huge fees now. A sound legal argument has to be presented to block a site, and this of course can be disputed so sites cannot be taken down 'without question' . In the case of streaming music, I don't think its very expensive to actually operate legally, sites like Live365 for instance offer packages for small internet broadcasters, and I think there may well be even cheaper solutions if you live in Europe. This of course covers the internet broadcasting of the music and obvioulsy not the original illegal download (assuming many DJs usually obtain their files in this way.) The other way around this of course is to pay an artist to perform live, and more new artists gettting paid has to be a good thing for SL and for music generally. Given the number and magnitude of the opponents to this legislation, it seems fairly unlikely it will be passed in its current form, I really, really hope not, but I dont think it will be the end of the world or the end of our specific world if it does become law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
April Looming Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 RE: "It would be difficult to form a legal argument which said that the Second Life's PRIMARY reason for existing and the main activity of its users was illegal file sharing." I saw in the news the other day that a drunk driver is suing the estate of someone he KILLED in an accident that he admits he caused, for $15000. Will he have trouble proving his argument? Sure! That didn't stop a court from hearing the case. So just imagine your average SL griefer thinking "hmmm. This sounds like fun." No need to actually have his argument win; just tie up SL in legal action. What if LL doesn't have the cash to fight a bunch of legal battles? What if the merchants that depend on SL for their main income face a potential shutdown? I believe SL would be a very different place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 April Looming wrote: So just imagine your average SL griefer thinking "hmmm. This sounds like fun." No need to actually have his argument win; just tie up SL in legal action. What if LL doesn't have the cash to fight a bunch of legal battles? What if the merchants that depend on SL for their main income face a potential shutdown? I believe SL would be a very different place. This a highly unlikely scenario, an individual starting a law suit against a decent sized corporate certainly isn't going to be having a lot of fun, he still has to put evidence before a judge and have him agree there is a case to be heard, at the very least its going to be extremely costly in time an effort, and one would assume that as with DMCA if a law suit is brought incorrectly the complainant is liable for the losses of the defendant, this is hardly going to be something 'your average SL griefer' is involved in, if that were the case we would all already be receiving regular take down notices under DMCA. I don't like the idea of this legislation, I see it as the start of the slippery slope of censorship, but we shouldn't panic and waste our time worrying about fantastical over dramatic scenarios like $500 uploads and SL being shutdown, there really is nothing in this legislation to suggest that either of these things may come to pass even if it is passed in it's current form which it probably won't be. "Legislation should not include a private right of action that would invite suits by 'trolls' to extort settlements from intermediaries or sites who are making good faith efforts to comply with the law," Google vice-president and Chief Counsel Kent Walker has said in Congressional testimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Jenni Darkwatch wrote: Ashy... if the DJs are not licensing their music for streaming, these "DJs" deserve to get punished. Stealing is a crime, regardless whether it's a physical good or not. Same goes for everyone who downloads music unlawfully. See this is where everything gets messed up. You can't just adjust the meaning of words to fit your ideas, or the propaganda that leads to this line of thinking. Stealing has a definition. DJ's playing music, that they purchased, for the enjoyment of a group of people, does not fit the definition of stealing. Nor does it fit the definition of a copyright violation. Downloading copyrighted music without paying for it, that is a copyright violation, yet it still does not logically fit the definition of stealing. Stealing something from some1 else implies that the person being stolen from does not have the property after it is stolen. Sorry to be picky, but these things get confused all the time. This is also why so many people in SL think SL is filled with tons of copyright violations. Sure, if the government or a judge does not want to apply the laws accurately, then none of the actual definitions mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Otoole Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The venue is accountable for a performance license from several label licensing authorities. This will not change. If enforced the number of "clubs" in SL would be dramatically reduced. However some would have a license and enjoy max capacity crowds. The DJ is not accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Ann Otoole wrote: The venue is accountable for a performance license from several label licensing authorities. This will not change. If enforced the number of "clubs" in SL would be dramatically reduced. However some would have a license and enjoy max capacity crowds. The DJ is not accountable. Are you sure about this statement Ann? I know a few DJ's and the rare one has actually bought some kind of right to play licence from their music library - I cannot recall now what they call it as it was some time ago when it was explained to me. The DJs in many cases in SL are independent contractors to the club - ie they DJ at many clubs since a good DJ (or any DJ for that matter) is not an easy person to find. I can see in RL that the Club owner would need licenses for so many things - including the DJ - but the library of music the DJ uses to perform his/her job is his/her responsibility from what I understand. Laws like SOPA & PIPA will make DJs in SL extremely rare - but if Club Owners are also going to be held legally liable to protect the content owner's copyright... then you are correct, the number of clubs in SL will collapse. SL's economy is based on micro-payments and existance. Its fragile already. If Virtual DJs and Club Owners (who 99% operate at a loss already) will be forced to pay RL licence costs for music.... POOF!!! GONE!!! Its not rocket science - they will be gone. Even the more successful profitable ones will be gone. SL will likely only be left with a few clubs that are likely already run my RL professional organizations - I am thinking like THE ROCK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
April Looming Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 Ditto what ToySoldier said. If that were true, if I hire a DJ in RL to play at my house, I would need to get a license in RL? That can't be true. Nobody does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 That depends how big your house is, and how many people you invite. In most cases it is just allowed, however it is not allowed when a substantial number of persons outside the normal circle of a family and its close acquaintances is present. Because when that is the case you come in conflict with the rights of public performance, broadcasting and communication to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Otoole Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform? Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business. ref: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 April Looming wrote: Ditto what ToySoldier said. If that were true, if I hire a DJ in RL to play at my house, I would need to get a license in RL? That can't be true. Nobody does that. Technically, it probably is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 This is a distorted and twisted understanding of the use of a product. It completely and thoroughly shows the massive injustice that these corporations propagate. Try and apply those rules to any other product sold. For the most part you can't. What if a guy wants to have a big barbecue. Does he need to get a license to use his barbecue and feed every1? What if this is a corporate event? If I'm a mechanic, should I pay a license to use my screwdriver? The whole concept of copyright has been completely misused. The point was to stop people from copying, not broadcasting, and definitely not broadcasting to a small group. How the heck does any of that have to do with copying? Now, although I don't agree, I do see how some1 posting a video on Youtube using a copyrighted song is copying, but not a DJ. It used to be that copyrights were VERY specific, and had to do with some1 else competing directly with the publisher or creator using the creators material. A video does not constitute competing with a song. They are 2 completely different mediums. Tho, I will submit to this reasoning if it hurts the song writer in anyway, but I could give a crap about publishers, as they are just leaches the song writer has yet to remove. Personally, I just think people need to wake up and start using their brain and basic reason and logic. I'm not talking about you Ann. I'm sure you are just reporting the facts as you understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Otoole Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I am simply reporting the facts and providing reference links. It is not "as I understand it". It is the facts. If you go study that website you might discover there are conditions in which no performance license is required. If people don't like the law they need to buy themselves some congress people and get things changed. Or raise a gigantic mob like that which defeated SOPA (much to the anger of scumdodd). Honestly I have only heard of one detective with a cob up rear running around checking performance licenses and he did not even know how it works and stole DJ's computers. This was in San Francisco. I have never heard of any other "license checking" going on anywhere on earth. Maybe it happens but it is apparently not a big deal. Youtube has a robust copyright management system in place. They scan the videos and if they detect IP that is banned from youtube it is removed and warning issued. If the uploader keeps uploading banned music the uploader gets banned in accordance with the DMCA rules for repeat offenders. If the IP owner has an agreeement with youtube then the music is for sale on the page and an ad appears for which the IP owner is paid for views. There is an extensive library of available to use music in the audioswap system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene Erlanger Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 A DJ playing music in a club enviroment...actually inspire consumers to to buy some of those records (or albums). I've bought many an Album from hearing a track being played in a club....sometimes I've even approached the DJ to get name of artist & title name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Actually, i went to the site, and I read most of the provisions. This is again an interpretation, and not actually factual. The only factual way to present this is to only post the law, itself. Even if taken to court, the court decision would be another interpretation of the law relating to it. Essentially, there are no facts, just opinions. This is not something like the grass is green or the sky is blue. The part that angers me is that creators actually think all of this helps them, when it is plainly obvious that the law is designed to trap the creator into relying on these organizations or whatnot, essentially acting as gatekeepers. It is also probably worth pointing out that corporations are purposely trying to blur the line between themselve and actual people or persons. There is a huge reason for this, and not just to pay off officials. The main reason for the blurring of the line, IMHO, is to get around corporate laws, which directly affect copyrights. An actual person, which is also a legal fiction but at least it does refer to 1 breathing entity, is afforded rights given by God, and should not apply to corporations at all, hence why they should pay for a license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeliefste Oh Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Medhue Simoni wrote: The whole concept of copyright has been completely misused. The point was to stop people from copying, not broadcasting, and definitely not broadcasting to a small group. How the heck does any of that have to do with copying? What time are you talking about when you say 'the point was to stop people form copying'? Before the invention of the radio and television maybe? I don't know how it is arranged in US exactly, but in my country 'the right to broadcast and to public perform' a work is in the hands of the creator since 1912 already. It is illegal to broadcast without permission or license since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Well, of course I can't go thru a history lesson here in text, nor would I imply that I have a complete understanding of it, or really anything, lol. Here is a decent video that I think comes from an institution that promotes truth and freedom. Stephan Kinsella, from the Mises Institute, is or was a patent lawyer, and remarkably, and honest 1. You can do a search for him on Youtube and find hundreds of different videos related to Intellectual Property. Another decent video that I just watched the other day is with Richard Stallman. This is a persom many of us may know about, and have definitely been affected by, considering what we all do here. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Medhue.... The Stallman video was awesome. I watched the whole video. Amazing how many thoughts and statements he made that I was trying to explain to WADE1 in another thread. WADE should watch this Stallman video but since WADE has admitted to be on the side of the Publisher / non-creator "rights holder", WADE will publically dismiss and disagree with Stallman. But many thoughts Stallman was saying are pretty much my beliefs and see what is happening in the US Government being used as a willing puppet to the NON-CREATING mega-corp rightsholders of that was created. The SOPA and PIPA and ACTA are all perfect examples of the propaganda and scandal that these companies constantly will try to gain control. Too bad that the TRUE ARTISTS and those that are creating these wonderful works like Puus N Boots & Titanic, or to the 99% of musicians that are not getting their fair share of the sales generated from THEIR music which the record companies hold, or the 2D and 3D artists of paintings and shapes etc. or books..... dont get their fair share for what they created. Too bad there are so many - specially in Government that have been brainwashed to believe that these proposed laws are to protect the rights of the actual creators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 On another note from listening to Stallman, he said something that never poked in my mind until he said it.... So a question to the group here... I am a Canadian (Stallman's presentation was at the University of Calgary) and Stallman said that the DMCA was a law create by American and has no power outside the US. So... that being said, if inside SL some goofball were to wrongly file a DMCA against some of my works, what would LL's position be? The filing would be against a person that is not American and therefore not enforcable. Would LL execute a takedown of my content when a US filed DMCA is not enforcable against me? Even if MY content that was being attacked with a DMCA resides on a LL serve located in the US, the dispute is about the content - not its location. How would a scenario like this play out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now