New Bill Would Require U.S. ISPs to Block Pirate Sites

Again, as many people stated on the first page, won't do anything. Hackers, and big-deal, The Pirate Bay is simply one of hundreds of thousands of sites out there. And what about all of those private sites?(Who will take those down...?)

There should also be limits to those boundaries.

Freedom of Speech ain't free when you start allowing gov't to control it in any form.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power may not always corrupt absolutely, but can be abused to great extents.

Colonel Travis said:

BCXtreme said:

In my opinion, the entire DMCA needs to be repealed and replaced with a system where intellectual property is handled just like physical property, without all of these additional complications. You shouldn't be able to restrict someone's legal use of a CD anymore that you can restrict someone's legal use of a stove, a cup, or anything else.

Agree with you except this last point. If you give someone a stove or a cup or anything else physical in that sense, unless you have a duplicate, it means you outright surrender your ownership of it to them. If you copy music and, say, place it online, you still have your copy while thousands or millions of others can get it, too. Not only that, but a stove is built to do one thing, which is to cook food. Yes, you have gas, electric, glass, ceramic, whatever. And you've got different manufacturers. But unlike, for example, a song, no one constructs a stove that is unlike any other stove ever created in human history. What is the gas range equivalent of Lady Gaga?

Publishing people, movie people, song people - most of them are still clueless about how to adapt to digital, or they are reluctant, or both. At the same time, I think there needs to be a distinction between what they produce and what non-DR people produce. I don't have the golden answer, but I don't think it takes a genius to see how customer behavior has changed in the past 10 years. It's the producers who, for the most part, still live in the stone age, not the buyers.

What I mean is simply that you should have unrestrained jurisdiction over what you do with the CD that you bought. And the analogy does hold water, because you can't make duplicates of a stove and starting selling/redistributing your own Kenmore stoves. So you shouldn't be able to do that with digital content either. However, you COULD loan your stove to a friend (though it would be physically difficult to do so), sell it, modify it, or do anything you wished for the purposes of personal use. I'm saying we should have the same jurisdiction over, not the music itself, but the copies of it that we bought.

Tepid said:

There should also be limits to those boundaries.

Freedom of Speech ain't free when you start allowing gov't to control it in any form.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power may not always corrupt absolutely, but can be abused to great extents.

No. Absolute power always corrupts absolutely. You cannot find a single instance in history where absolute power didn't absolutely corrupt its holder.

madtownidiot said:

Piracy is defined as
1) making copies of digital media explicitly for the purpose of distribution without compensating the copyright holder
2) possession of a copy of digital media the owner wasn't compensated for
3) robbery and murder at sea

Anyone here see the incongruity here?

It is a very unusual term to use. I'm not sure why we ever called it that in the first place. Of course, it might just be reflective of the digital media industries' overreaction to unauthorized redistribution...

Colonel Travis said:

The word "piracy" has been a word used in conjunction with intellectual property for hundreds of years. The earliest example in the OED is from 1654. (Had to look that up, I ain't that anal.)

It's still kinda weird. The two meanings of the word are vastly different in intensity.

madtownidiot said:

Piracy is defined as
1) making copies of digital media explicitly for the purpose of distribution without compensating the copyright holder
2) possession of a copy of digital media the owner wasn't compensated for
3) robbery and murder at sea

Anyone here see the incongruity here?

They need to add,,,,,

The corporate practice of artificially disabling or limiting hardware in order to ensure more profits by creating a monopoly on the software it can use is guaranteed to result in inferior products, making them more likely to fail. The idea that it is somehow wrong to modify your personal property to suit your own purpose ...ridiculous

You could call that a form of Piracy.
Can anyone say Apple? Oh, silly me,, Apple hardware doesn't much exist anymore.. Duh!