...Thought it would be a good idea to extend the attacks towards people that don't pirate at all.
"How do I stop this infection? How about use a nuclear bomb to kill everything in sight?"
They are NOTORIOUS for trying to create a handful of new copyright enforcement tools (more specifically, laws, crappy DRM) which ALL of them have dangerous side effects that nobody ever wants besides any copyright maximalist who think its a good idea to add more restrictions, enforcement, and even monitoring to users. From annoying FBI warning screens (in this modern age, you cannot skip) to requiring certain devices they don't own to have DRM on it (such as television flags), this organization has it all:
*SOPA (and its clones, including PIPA) supporter. In a nutshell, they wanted to make sites punished more easily just because it has infringing content, rather than a notification before a takedown if the site owner doesn't obey when it is in fact infringement.This goes without saying that safe harbor is bypassed should this bill passed into law. When I mean sites being punished, I mean that any copyright holder can simply send a notification to payment network providers, advertising services and any other groups to stop supporting the site that is flagged for infringement, WITHOUT ANY PROOF. This comes before the victim of the attack have to proof that they're not supporting piracy. So the damage to the site is already done. Along with Viacom (yes, another copyright maximalist who f*cked youtube along with false takedown to any reviewers like they are being above the copyright law) and others who previously try to pass the COICA bill, they have the NERVE to try again on a similar law enforcement tools all over again. If you fail to succeed, DON'T try try again. They wait no time to attack. Treating online service providers or anything else that is abusable for piracy like slaves is egregious.
-Of course, members of the MPAA was Universal Pictures and Walt Disney Company, who got into a fight with sony (Not sony pictures, just sony) for releasing a video tape titled "Betamax" in 1984. Find more on "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc." and thank god that Sony didn't lose the battle. They are afraid that if a tool that is often used for piracy, they will try to take it down for liability just because it enabled them to do so. This is an example they trying to be against fair use.
They're slogan "don't talk and don't record" (can't remember exactly) pretty much tells me that the first two words is censorship, for the Internet under the name of copyright enforcement. This organization represents the crumbling, corrupted, corrosive form of copyright. They hated safe harbors the same way they hated piracy, up to where people would like to use content in creative ways that doesn't harm a copyright holder's revenue. This is the complete opposite of what copyright intended to do: "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." More like "To promote dictatorship, monopoly, and relying on extremism by combating freedom of speech".
Customer Questions & Answers
Did You Find This Page Useful?
Business owners: What’s your side of the story?
Manage your business