July 27, 2019
Senate Considering New Copyright Restrictions
Timothy Birdnow
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill to make suing for copyright even easier than at present.
According to Blunt Force Truth:
I happen to be one of those suckers.
Our older readers here at The Aviary remember that we got sued over a photograph, and it wound up costing $1,600, which I had to pay to avoid winding up in court in either New York or California - both places I would have lost my shirt. The photographer used software to search the web for pictures he copyrighted then sued violators - it was how he made his living. I used the photo in good faith, thinking it was part of the public domain. I was wrong.
This is going to absolutely kill free speech in this country. Those two paragraphs I just posted could theoretically be used in a complaint, as there is no definitive guidelines on how much of an article one can post. You have to wing it - and hope you don't get sued. In fact, copyright is so crazy that a guy at National Review got sued for doing a pseudo-Dr. Suess article. The estate of Suess argued it was a ripoff of his STYLE and they won!
We need reform to go in the exact opposite direction.
If Republicans fail to stop this they will be killing their greatest allies - the blogging community, as well as social media. I would say they can't be so foolish, but I've learned that they surpass my expectations.
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill to make suing for copyright even easier than at present.
According to Blunt Force Truth:
A bi-partisan bill working its way through Congress could drastically change how copyright claims are processed, and would create a system to impose up to $30,000 in fines on anyone who shares protected material online.
In other words, the Congress wants to make it easier to sue people who send a meme or post images that they didn’t create themselves, essentially a giveaway to lawyers who sue unsuspecting suckers for a living.
In other words, the Congress wants to make it easier to sue people who send a meme or post images that they didn’t create themselves, essentially a giveaway to lawyers who sue unsuspecting suckers for a living.
I happen to be one of those suckers.
Our older readers here at The Aviary remember that we got sued over a photograph, and it wound up costing $1,600, which I had to pay to avoid winding up in court in either New York or California - both places I would have lost my shirt. The photographer used software to search the web for pictures he copyrighted then sued violators - it was how he made his living. I used the photo in good faith, thinking it was part of the public domain. I was wrong.
This is going to absolutely kill free speech in this country. Those two paragraphs I just posted could theoretically be used in a complaint, as there is no definitive guidelines on how much of an article one can post. You have to wing it - and hope you don't get sued. In fact, copyright is so crazy that a guy at National Review got sued for doing a pseudo-Dr. Suess article. The estate of Suess argued it was a ripoff of his STYLE and they won!
We need reform to go in the exact opposite direction.
If Republicans fail to stop this they will be killing their greatest allies - the blogging community, as well as social media. I would say they can't be so foolish, but I've learned that they surpass my expectations.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:52 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Nothing like this is EVER done by accident. "They" are trying, slowly but surely, to shut us, and others like us, down.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at July 27, 2019 10:43 AM (rIYC+)
2
Absolutely agreed, Dana! We have a big target on our backs here.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 28, 2019 01:28 PM (3D0gS)
23kb generated in CPU 0.0233, elapsed 0.2288 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2162 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2162 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
