From creator "We understand there's no way to fully control the internet or how people decide to use Pepe the Frog. Trying to control that would be a completely unreasonable goal."
His kickstarter is pretty pathetic
Memes transmit information, not well, but effectively to todays ADD and ADHD population. I guarantee they find this dangerous, and this is another layer of the onion that is the attack on the first amendment, to protect themselves...
I'm guessing what you're referring to is the CASE Act which I think might actually be a good thing to pass through. From how I read it and understand it it'd essentially set up a new court to deal specifically with copyright cases. The people set up on the board have to be attorneys with extensive dealings on BOTH sides of copyright disputes. And the 30k is a maximum that goes to the copyright holder, so not a fine. I might be wrong, but the copyright system currently in place is pretty abysmal in a lot of ways and this might actually solve some of the problems regularly faced by YouTubers and streamers -- a lot of whom are essentially small business owners trying to live out the American Dream (rags to riches).
Copyright holders already can sue for every little thing. As is right now copyright suits are very different than any other type of suit since you don't even have to prove damages. And those take place in a traditional court where there's essentially no maximum reward amount.
By the way, should look up the actual McDonald's suit. The lady only sued for like 10k to cover hospital bills and plastic surgery since the third degree burns she got on her legs were so severe her labia fused to her thighs. The jury awarded her a massive amount of money since McDonald's were such assholes about the whole situation
It actually wouldn't give people more things to sue over. If you have a copyright, say a song, and someone uses your song at all, even just one second of it, you can sue them for using your song without your permission. The suit would go to the appropriate trial court and you and the infringer duke it out in front of the judge. You're at the advantage since you hold the copyright and there are very few defenses for copyright infringement. And even then the defenses are essentially a toss up as to whether they'll hold or not since they're essentially flimsier than any other defense to any other type of suit -- fair use is not a guaranteed defense as there is no judicial test, to my knowledge, that is used to determine if the infringement actually was fair use. In other words, it's all up to the judge.
With the CASE act, a new court would be created that deals explicitly with copyright matters. The court that's set up would be helmed by attorneys who have extensive experience on both sides of copyright matters -- "defense" and "offense". It would also open up an easier avenue for people to fight back against DMCA claims since right now big copyright holders, think Universal Media Group, throw them around like confetti and have the money to drag out cases till the other side goes bankrupt. With the CASE act though, those copyright holders would probably be a lot less likely to litigate as fiercely since the payoff is exceptionally small compared to the attorneys fees; the potentially maximum 30k compensation in damages can quickly dwarf the tens or hundreds of thousands they have to pay their attorneys.
To address the McDonald's thing again, yeah there are plenty of really stupid suits out there, but if it's a little guy against a massive corporation, don't be too quick to side with the Corp
That is my initial read ion this as well, looks like they stuffed the CASE act in here along with the rest of the stuff they have hanging around. I am going to get it in basic English, and see what other existing laws this new copyright committee type thing may impact.
Sweet Square Dancing Jesus.
But antifa gets the catch and release, keep the bail money, treatment.
Gotta include this in the fix come Jan 6.
Yeah I forgot all about this one! It went around the other week and expected to be included. I didn’t read the 5000 pages or what ever today yet /:
I don't think so.
From creator "We understand there's no way to fully control the internet or how people decide to use Pepe the Frog. Trying to control that would be a completely unreasonable goal." His kickstarter is pretty pathetic
They stuck everything they could think of into this one. It's less "green" authoritarian and just regular authoritarian.
So we cant even taplap?
Memes transmit information, not well, but effectively to todays ADD and ADHD population. I guarantee they find this dangerous, and this is another layer of the onion that is the attack on the first amendment, to protect themselves...
https://imgur.com/a/NWRmF2x
I'm guessing what you're referring to is the CASE Act which I think might actually be a good thing to pass through. From how I read it and understand it it'd essentially set up a new court to deal specifically with copyright cases. The people set up on the board have to be attorneys with extensive dealings on BOTH sides of copyright disputes. And the 30k is a maximum that goes to the copyright holder, so not a fine. I might be wrong, but the copyright system currently in place is pretty abysmal in a lot of ways and this might actually solve some of the problems regularly faced by YouTubers and streamers -- a lot of whom are essentially small business owners trying to live out the American Dream (rags to riches).
Who’s to say they won’t abuse it and start suing us for every little thing? McDonald’s got sued $50 mil over coffee, this is gonna be the same shit.
Copyright holders already can sue for every little thing. As is right now copyright suits are very different than any other type of suit since you don't even have to prove damages. And those take place in a traditional court where there's essentially no maximum reward amount.
By the way, should look up the actual McDonald's suit. The lady only sued for like 10k to cover hospital bills and plastic surgery since the third degree burns she got on her legs were so severe her labia fused to her thighs. The jury awarded her a massive amount of money since McDonald's were such assholes about the whole situation
Thx about the McD’s thing, I didn’t know cuz I hear all the time about people suing for stupid shit so it just jaded me.
Why exactly would we want to give them more things to sue over/a greater ability to sue people?
It actually wouldn't give people more things to sue over. If you have a copyright, say a song, and someone uses your song at all, even just one second of it, you can sue them for using your song without your permission. The suit would go to the appropriate trial court and you and the infringer duke it out in front of the judge. You're at the advantage since you hold the copyright and there are very few defenses for copyright infringement. And even then the defenses are essentially a toss up as to whether they'll hold or not since they're essentially flimsier than any other defense to any other type of suit -- fair use is not a guaranteed defense as there is no judicial test, to my knowledge, that is used to determine if the infringement actually was fair use. In other words, it's all up to the judge.
With the CASE act, a new court would be created that deals explicitly with copyright matters. The court that's set up would be helmed by attorneys who have extensive experience on both sides of copyright matters -- "defense" and "offense". It would also open up an easier avenue for people to fight back against DMCA claims since right now big copyright holders, think Universal Media Group, throw them around like confetti and have the money to drag out cases till the other side goes bankrupt. With the CASE act though, those copyright holders would probably be a lot less likely to litigate as fiercely since the payoff is exceptionally small compared to the attorneys fees; the potentially maximum 30k compensation in damages can quickly dwarf the tens or hundreds of thousands they have to pay their attorneys.
To address the McDonald's thing again, yeah there are plenty of really stupid suits out there, but if it's a little guy against a massive corporation, don't be too quick to side with the Corp
That is my initial read ion this as well, looks like they stuffed the CASE act in here along with the rest of the stuff they have hanging around. I am going to get it in basic English, and see what other existing laws this new copyright committee type thing may impact.