Research copyright and stolen property distribution. Purchase of a book doesn’t grant legal right to distribute copies. It’s illegal to make if not the copyright owner. Owning the copyright means your name is ON the copyright page of a distributed book.
You handout stolen property, I reveal what my search finds. Prove removal of ALL illegally posted books and I remove you from here. Your refusal to cease distributing stolen property equals my refusal to cease broadcasting your information.
This bill supports censorship. Maybe you ought to actually read the bill and have some small understanding of the law before you blindly throw support into something that may look on the surface to be a good thing.
I did read the bill and it specifically targets –quote– INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES. –end quote– The friend of an acquaintance said it quite well.
—quote—
The bill's primary goal is to be able to pursue and shut down places that knowingly commit piracy or copyright infringement. This means web sites like Astatalk, Demonoid and Underground will be in violation of this law and the uploaders will be targeted and punished.
This means any individual who stores their books on a locker storage site like 4shared, Mozy or Drop Box AND posts public links for anyone who wishes to get copies of their books will be in violation of this law and the uploaders will be targeted and punished.
This means places like iOffer and eBay where people sell copies of eBooks they do not own the copyright to will be in violation of this law and the uploaders will be targeted and punished.
IOW, any web site or person who knowingly commits copyright infringement will be in violation of the bill and can be punished.
This bill might even put pressure on places like eBay and iOffer to police themselves better, to seek proof of someone owning the copyright to what they wish to sell before being allowed to sell it.
—end quote—
The sad fact is many people think anything on the net should be free because they think everything on the net qualifies as information.
The truth is, information is factual and informative.
Not everything on the internet is information, therefore not everything on the internet is free.
Information is fact, not fiction, not entertainment.
eBooks, games and most music are NOT information, but the efforts of someone's work, someone's time, someone's creativity, and solely for entertainment if fiction and the creator deserves compensation asset by the copyright owner.
Once again, information is fact, not entertainment. eBooks, music, games and the likes are not gifts freely given, but creations to earn the owner a particular compensation.
The text of the bill can be read on washingtonwatch (just add s3804 to your search)
It is most unfortunate that the people of EFF, not to mention participants on various pirate sites, have decided to editorialize, and to "translate" the wording of s3804 to suit their own agendas.
All I can say, as an author whose work is regularly pirated, is thank you, thank you, thank you. I just got the link to this site. I'm going to be sharing it.
Isn't it amazing that people cannot and simply will not see that there is a HUGE freakin' difference between censorship and stealing. The people who think this bill is about censorship have no clue. The bill is about stopping people from stealing from artists. Plain and simple. That is all. IF i give you a book for free because you won it in a contest, that does not give you the legal right to upload that book and give it to everyone else for free. If you buy my book (thank you) it does not give you the legal right to put my book up on line for free. If you STEAL from me you are no better than a looter who breaks a window out of store and puts your greedy hands on things you didn't pay for. Stealing is stealing is stealing. Artists of any kind do their work out of love for what they are doing, yes. THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO STEAL FROM THEM.
I am really baffled where some people get the definition of censorship from something clearly written to specifically target: INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
Let’s break down the phrase INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
INTERNET SITES – We all know, or should know, such is any place on the net a computer can take you.
DEDICATED – —quote— http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dedicated –adjective 1. wholly committed to something, as to an ideal, political cause, or personal goal. –verb 2. to devote wholly and earnestly, as to some person or purpose. 6. to set aside for or assign to a specific function, task, or purpose. —Synonyms 1. See devote. 2. commit, pledge, consecrate. —end quote—
TO – If you need the definition of this word, please visit dictionary.com as it’s a great place to look up any words that might confuse you.
INFRINGING – —quote— http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringing Infringe –verb 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule. –verb 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ). —Synonyms 1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.
ACTIVITIES – Again, if you need the definition of this word…
I guess if you want to call a bill that specifically targets INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES censorship, then an adult can claim laws prohibiting activities toward children censorship and a person can claim laws prohibiting unauthorized activities with your property censorship. Do you have a problem with laws controlling adult activity with children or unauthorized activity in regard to your property? The following are as simple yes or no answers: If you do not give your permission, do you have a problem with laws that arrest and punish someone for taking your car or that arrest and punish someone for running up your credit card debt or that arrest and punish someone for emptying your bank account or that arrest and punish someone for taking your paycheck?
If your answer isn’t no to all of the above, I wonder what kind of person you are.
Any person who takes another’s legal property without owner permission is a thief and a person who does anything with someone else’s property without the legal owner’s permission is committing an illegal act. There is no other way to put it.
What of the laws that arrest and punish someone for taking your identity and selling it to the highest bidder on the net without your permission? Would you still feel the same about the laws that arrest and punish that same thief for making your ENTIRE identity public and available to anyone known on the net without your permission?
And if you think that’s what I do, think again as I do not do such because I have kept hidden what is truly vital (DOB, SS#, family details, etc.), even though such info is available to the general public via Yahoo, Google, etc search engines.
Now, if you have no qualms with the law pertaining to activities associated with the taking of your property by a thief, why do you offer such resistance to a law intended to stop INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES that are robbing artists/authors/musicians?
Think about it…is what that artist/author/musician created any less important to them than your paycheck is to you? No. To think otherwise makes you foolish.
Before you start touting something, like censorship, it’s best to make sure of the definition as throwing around words can often make one look the part of a fool.
For instance. Censorship.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, defines Censorship as: —quote— Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. —end quote—
In no way do I or any legal resources I’ve consulted see targeting INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES as censorship in anyway whatsoever. What we do see it as is a hope to end copyright infringement and illegally seized distribution of copyright protected material.
Art in any form, music/eBook (fiction)/painting is a form of communication designed for entertainment, not factual information designed to teach, therefore such does not fall under the freedom of speech act.
To those who do see taking a song/eBook/picture you did NOT make and distributing it as no big deal, than me seeing you working your day job for FREE is no big deal…so why don’t you do it? Come on, you expect authors to write and publishers to produce for free, you expect songwriters to write and musicians to sing for free, you expect artists to paint for free, why is it any less fair for you to work for free?
If you expect people to respect the job you do and to pay you for the time you put into it, then you need to grow up, show some respect and pay authors/artists/musicians in the same manner.
To those claiming an infringement on freedom of speech, you have the right to speak, but not the right to take. You have the right to speak, but not the right to give away another’s property. You have the right to speak, but when your right infringes on my right, you become an oppressor. When you become an oppressor by infringing on my rights, you have crossed the line from freedom into oppression and that makes you stand against the US Constitution you are determined to use as a shield against this bill.
I think the censorship concern comes in a later portion of the bill, the part that allows the Secretary of State in a given state to maintain a list of sites for which service providers are legally protected from complaint if they shut the site down - yet the state need prove nothing against that site (this is over and above the list of known, proven offenders). While the obvious purpose is to provide for more rapid handling in such a rapidly-moving environment (lawsuits take time) there is no standard in the law as proposed for what might constitute grounds for inclusion on the list, and burden of proof to be removed from it seems to be on the site owner.
In essence, this provision allows the state to place a site on the list without proving any wrongdoing, maintain it there indefinitely, and providers can shut that site down - and the site, whether it has done any wrong or not, has no recourse against the ISP for doing so.
It is this last provision that people are mostly concerned about when they discuss this law as a censorship measure. While I am in favor of the rest of the law, I have grave concerns about the structure and requirements of this second "blacklist" and feel it would lead to due process violations. And the way it's written leaves far too much room for exploitation by state government officials.
In fairness to the legislators, I'm not sure this was the intent of the provision in question - but I do think it is a very likely potential outcome.
Each of my books have been pirated and "shared" thousands of times on sites like Astatalk, Demonoid, Underground Forum, 4Shared, and the list goes on and on and on. I spend every day, for hours at a time, sitting at the computer and writing these stories that take a lot of energy and creativity. I put effort into my work so that the reader can enjoy the experience and the journey. Just like anyone else who has a career, this is time spent away from my family.
Don't get me wrong - I love to write. BUT I'm not doing it for free! I'm trying to build a career. I'm trying desperately to make money. I don’t think people realize that most authors aren’t wealthy. Just the opposite! I'm struggling, and it's so frustrating to see that my hard work is taken for granted and that I'm not getting compensated. And that these "pirates" are so eager to continue this practice as if it's not hurting anyone.
Bottom line, thank you to the owner of this blog for sticking up for authors like me. I appreciate it!!
Delphine, I took even more time to go over the section you spoke of and yes, that last part could definitely pose an issue. Perhaps someone—maybe you, as you did well here—could word this in a letter and spread it to every legislative ear available. If given your permission, I would be happy to take such to my legislative ears as well.
Thank you so much, Delphine, for clearly explaining why one might be against this bill but not *for* piracy. Many of us opposed to COICA are getting painted with this very broad "pro-pirate" brush, when that is not the case.
What you are being blinded by is your anger from pirates downloading your material. The same way pirates do not want this to pass because they will no longer be able to easily steal. If this act is passed pray you have no YouTube videos or pictures online of anything with a corporate logo or music in it because under this act it is legally sufficient to throw you in jail. Something needs to be done but the way this bill is written it is to vague and leaves to much room for horrible abuse to happen. Things people are not thinking about is that Facebook, Youtube, and other sites that you love can be shut down without due process and remain shut down while the detain and arrest/fine people for having any piece of copyrighted material on their sites.
I hope whoever is in favor of this act will reconsider their views and realize that this act does not need destroyed but re written, and because of that at this time CANNOT be passed.
This bill supports censorship. Maybe you ought to actually read the bill and have some small understanding of the law before you blindly throw support into something that may look on the surface to be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteDo some research.
I did read the bill and it specifically targets –quote– INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES. –end quote–
ReplyDeleteThe friend of an acquaintance said it quite well.
—quote—
The bill's primary goal is to be able to pursue and shut down places that knowingly commit piracy or copyright infringement. This means web sites like Astatalk, Demonoid and Underground will be in violation of this law and the uploaders will be targeted and punished.
This means any individual who stores their books on a locker storage site like 4shared, Mozy or Drop Box AND posts public links for anyone who wishes to get copies of their books will be in violation of this law and the uploaders will be targeted and punished.
This means places like iOffer and eBay where people sell copies of eBooks they do not own the copyright to will be in violation of this law and the uploaders will be targeted and punished.
IOW, any web site or person who knowingly commits copyright infringement will be in violation of the bill and can be punished.
This bill might even put pressure on places like eBay and iOffer to police themselves better, to seek proof of someone owning the copyright to what they wish to sell before being allowed to sell it.
—end quote—
The sad fact is many people think anything on the net should be free because they think everything on the net qualifies as information.
The truth is, information is factual and informative.
Not everything on the internet is information, therefore not everything on the internet is free.
Information is fact, not fiction, not entertainment.
eBooks, games and most music are NOT information, but the efforts of someone's work, someone's time, someone's creativity, and solely for entertainment if fiction and the creator deserves compensation asset by the copyright owner.
Once again, information is fact, not entertainment. eBooks, music, games and the likes are not gifts freely given, but creations to earn the owner a particular compensation.
The text of the bill can be read on washingtonwatch (just add s3804 to your search)
ReplyDeleteIt is most unfortunate that the people of EFF, not to mention participants on various pirate sites, have decided to editorialize, and to "translate" the wording of s3804 to suit their own agendas.
I'm glad to see this site. My first e-book released yesterday and already it someone is trying to pirate it!
ReplyDeletehttp://astatalk.com/request/41242/1/Anitra_Lynn_McLeod_-_Thief/
and this request is still there despite my repeated emails to remove it!
http://astatalk.com/request/27692/1/Anitra_lynn_Mcleod_-_Dark_Harvest/
Pirate hunter, please find out who these people are and blast them! Thank you. :)
All I can say, as an author whose work is regularly pirated, is thank you, thank you, thank you. I just got the link to this site. I'm going to be sharing it.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it amazing that people cannot and simply will not see that there is a HUGE freakin' difference between censorship and stealing. The people who think this bill is about censorship have no clue. The bill is about stopping people from stealing from artists. Plain and simple. That is all. IF i give you a book for free because you won it in a contest, that does not give you the legal right to upload that book and give it to everyone else for free. If you buy my book (thank you) it does not give you the legal right to put my book up on line for free. If you STEAL from me you are no better than a looter who breaks a window out of store and puts your greedy hands on things you didn't pay for. Stealing is stealing is stealing. Artists of any kind do their work out of love for what they are doing, yes. THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO STEAL FROM THEM.
ReplyDeleteI am really baffled where some people get the definition of censorship from something clearly written to specifically target: INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
ReplyDeleteLet’s break down the phrase INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
INTERNET SITES – We all know, or should know, such is any place on the net a computer can take you.
DEDICATED – —quote— http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dedicated
–adjective
1. wholly committed to something, as to an ideal, political cause, or personal goal.
–verb
2. to devote wholly and earnestly, as to some person or purpose.
6. to set aside for or assign to a specific function, task, or purpose.
—Synonyms
1. See devote. 2. commit, pledge, consecrate.
—end quote—
TO – If you need the definition of this word, please visit dictionary.com as it’s a great place to look up any words that might confuse you.
INFRINGING – —quote— http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringing
Infringe –verb
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ).
—Synonyms
1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.
ACTIVITIES – Again, if you need the definition of this word…
I guess if you want to call a bill that specifically targets INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES censorship, then an adult can claim laws prohibiting activities toward children censorship and a person can claim laws prohibiting unauthorized activities with your property censorship. Do you have a problem with laws controlling adult activity with children or unauthorized activity in regard to your property?
The following are as simple yes or no answers: If you do not give your permission, do you have a problem with laws that arrest and punish someone for taking your car or that arrest and punish someone for running up your credit card debt or that arrest and punish someone for emptying your bank account or that arrest and punish someone for taking your paycheck?
If your answer isn’t no to all of the above, I wonder what kind of person you are.
Any person who takes another’s legal property without owner permission is a thief and a person who does anything with someone else’s property without the legal owner’s permission is committing an illegal act. There is no other way to put it.
What of the laws that arrest and punish someone for taking your identity and selling it to the highest bidder on the net without your permission? Would you still feel the same about the laws that arrest and punish that same thief for making your ENTIRE identity public and available to anyone known on the net without your permission?
And if you think that’s what I do, think again as I do not do such because I have kept hidden what is truly vital (DOB, SS#, family details, etc.), even though such info is available to the general public via Yahoo, Google, etc search engines.
Now, if you have no qualms with the law pertaining to activities associated with the taking of your property by a thief, why do you offer such resistance to a law intended to stop INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES that are robbing artists/authors/musicians?
Think about it…is what that artist/author/musician created any less important to them than your paycheck is to you? No. To think otherwise makes you foolish.
Before you start touting something, like censorship, it’s best to make sure of the definition as throwing around words can often make one look the part of a fool.
ReplyDeleteFor instance. Censorship.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, defines Censorship as: —quote— Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. —end quote—
In no way do I or any legal resources I’ve consulted see targeting INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES as censorship in anyway whatsoever. What we do see it as is a hope to end copyright infringement and illegally seized distribution of copyright protected material.
Art in any form, music/eBook (fiction)/painting is a form of communication designed for entertainment, not factual information designed to teach, therefore such does not fall under the freedom of speech act.
ReplyDeleteTo those who do see taking a song/eBook/picture you did NOT make and distributing it as no big deal, than me seeing you working your day job for FREE is no big deal…so why don’t you do it? Come on, you expect authors to write and publishers to produce for free, you expect songwriters to write and musicians to sing for free, you expect artists to paint for free, why is it any less fair for you to work for free?
If you expect people to respect the job you do and to pay you for the time you put into it, then you need to grow up, show some respect and pay authors/artists/musicians in the same manner.
To those claiming an infringement on freedom of speech, you have the right to speak, but not the right to take. You have the right to speak, but not the right to give away another’s property. You have the right to speak, but when your right infringes on my right, you become an oppressor. When you become an oppressor by infringing on my rights, you have crossed the line from freedom into oppression and that makes you stand against the US Constitution you are determined to use as a shield against this bill.
ReplyDeleteI think the censorship concern comes in a later portion of the bill, the part that allows the Secretary of State in a given state to maintain a list of sites for which service providers are legally protected from complaint if they shut the site down - yet the state need prove nothing against that site (this is over and above the list of known, proven offenders). While the obvious purpose is to provide for more rapid handling in such a rapidly-moving environment (lawsuits take time) there is no standard in the law as proposed for what might constitute grounds for inclusion on the list, and burden of proof to be removed from it seems to be on the site owner.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, this provision allows the state to place a site on the list without proving any wrongdoing, maintain it there indefinitely, and providers can shut that site down - and the site, whether it has done any wrong or not, has no recourse against the ISP for doing so.
It is this last provision that people are mostly concerned about when they discuss this law as a censorship measure. While I am in favor of the rest of the law, I have grave concerns about the structure and requirements of this second "blacklist" and feel it would lead to due process violations. And the way it's written leaves far too much room for exploitation by state government officials.
In fairness to the legislators, I'm not sure this was the intent of the provision in question - but I do think it is a very likely potential outcome.
Each of my books have been pirated and "shared" thousands of times on sites like Astatalk, Demonoid, Underground Forum, 4Shared, and the list goes on and on and on. I spend every day, for hours at a time, sitting at the computer and writing these stories that take a lot of energy and creativity. I put effort into my work so that the reader can enjoy the experience and the journey. Just like anyone else who has a career, this is time spent away from my family.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong - I love to write. BUT I'm not doing it for free! I'm trying to build a career. I'm trying desperately to make money. I don’t think people realize that most authors aren’t wealthy. Just the opposite! I'm struggling, and it's so frustrating to see that my hard work is taken for granted and that I'm not getting compensated. And that these "pirates" are so eager to continue this practice as if it's not hurting anyone.
Bottom line, thank you to the owner of this blog for sticking up for authors like me. I appreciate it!!
Delphine, I took even more time to go over the section you spoke of and yes, that last part could definitely pose an issue. Perhaps someone—maybe you, as you did well here—could word this in a letter and spread it to every legislative ear available. If given your permission, I would be happy to take such to my legislative ears as well.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, Delphine, for clearly explaining why one might be against this bill but not *for* piracy. Many of us opposed to COICA are getting painted with this very broad "pro-pirate" brush, when that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are being blinded by is your anger from pirates downloading your material. The same way pirates do not want this to pass because they will no longer be able to easily steal. If this act is passed pray you have no YouTube videos or pictures online of anything with a corporate logo or music in it because under this act it is legally sufficient to throw you in jail. Something needs to be done but the way this bill is written it is to vague and leaves to much room for horrible abuse to happen. Things people are not thinking about is that Facebook, Youtube, and other sites that you love can be shut down without due process and remain shut down while the detain and arrest/fine people for having any piece of copyrighted material on their sites.
ReplyDeleteI hope whoever is in favor of this act will reconsider their views and realize that this act does not need destroyed but re written, and because of that at this time CANNOT be passed.