US Government Targets Pirate Bay and Other 'Piracy Havens' (torrentfreak.com)

The US Government has listed some of the largest piracy websites and other copyright-infringing venues. The USTR calls on foreign countries to take action against popular piracy sites such as The Pirate Bay, which has important "symbolic value," according to the authorities. In addition, stream-ripping is mentioned as an emerging threat. TorrentFreak adds: The overview is largely based on input from industry groups including the RIAA and MPAA, who submitted their recommendations a few weeks ago. While the USTR admits that the list is not meant to reflect legal violations, the goal of the review is to motivate owners and foreign Governments to take appropriate action and reduce piracy. "The United States encourages all responsible authorities to intensify efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and to use the information contained in the Notorious Markets List to pursue legal actions where appropriate," the USTR announced.

Comments

Good luck with that

[nospam007]

And look who's talking.No conservative rally, meeting or speech this year has been without a violation of some artist's rights, because they just played whatever song they like, without prior giving a crap about the copyright owners' consent,

It's also a trademark issue, since artists usually don't want people to think that they endorse the moron who uses it without consent.

http://www.thelegalartist.com/...

Re:Good luck with that

[Salgak1]

As I understand it, if it's a commercial recording and you've paid the public performance licensing fee to the appropriate agency (ASCAP and/or BMI, as I recall), you have the right to play it as many times as the license allows.

Consent of the copyright holder is not required.

Re:Good luck with that

[rickb928]

"Consent of the copyright holder was obtained through their agreement with the licensing agency."

FTFY

Re:Good luck with that

[CaptainDork]

The whole problem is with ASCAP and BMI (and equivalent in other IP megacorps).

Those greedy bastards don't want to spend their own goddam money chasing violators and attempts to embed copyright blocks into the digital IP code fails due to CaptainDork's 3rd corollary:

For every mother fucker out there with a computer, there's another mother fucker out there with a computer.

So, the big houses tried to get the ISPs to track, trace, invoke the three-strike rule, and the ISPs said, "Great! How much is it worth to you?"

Those outfits backed off and tried to legislate ISP watch-dogging.

That didn't work, so now it's time to get the federal government in on the protection racket.

--

The undeniable reality is that when IP went digital, the former paradigm was totally lost.

The entertainment IP protectors are chasing a fucking goddam unicorn.

Re:Symbolic

[Anonymous Coward]

And they should also go back and read the original text about copyright. It is supposed to be a protection against copies FOR A LIMITED TIME. Anything over two decades is completely insane. Architects don't get paid every year by everyone living in the buildings they designed.

Let the hate flow through you

[H3lldr0p]

And throw that temper-tantrum so the world really knows just what the law in the US means. Let them see how our leaders grovel at the feet of the moneyed class for crumbs to run their campaigns with. Let them see you toadying like the good little servants you are.

Meanwhile we'll be over here, ignoring you. Going to concerts, buying merch, and finding ways to pay the artists directly without going through your precious machines that do little more than siphon off "value". The game's changed and you could have changed with it, made it a place where you could have made a profit (albeit smaller) but smarter people beat you to the punch. Now you all bleed at the altar of Apple, Amazon, and Google while we go around the corner and get what we want for nearly free.

Burn in hell you corporate, backward assholes. You could have made the world a better place but chose money over humanity once again.

What happens when culture and copywrite collide.

[fish_in_the_c]

The final purpose of all law is to create a 'better' society, where better is the usually the hotly disputed point.
So one of the 'unbalances' of current especially United States copy write laws is between what is commonly considered 'fair use' and what actually and legally is 'fair use'. Digital technology only adds a layer of complication to that.

Since action begins with citizens thinking and understanding I'd like to encourage everyone here to think about some questions. I will try not to be too leading or interject my own opinions too heavily in doing so, forgive me if I fail.

Given that : The reason copy write law exists at all is to provide income for the generators of content that they would not have without such laws.

There seems to be a general consensus that without such laws the quality and availability of useful works will suffer. ( How true is that? for which types of works?)

What is the proper balance between product and income?
How much income per hour/ per work is fair?
Should copy writes be transferable to family after the death of the creator?
What if the creator is a corporation?
How does that server the purpose of the society and the law.
How do you mitigate the ability to control society through media by maintaining copy write on the songs, phrases, memes etc that become part of the daily culture by the nature of popular art?