Should Congress regulate the Internet? Does the Commerce Clause give Congress the power to regulate it?
This issue is hotly debated. Should Congress regulate the internet; such as ban false advertising? Do you think the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate internet activity? Please explain.
Should we eliminate copyright protections?
No one anywhere seriously supports that idea. The few fringe internet pirates or music mash-up artists are pretty one-sided in their views, absolutely refusing to consider the point of view of content creators (both big and small) in this matter.Copyright (and patents) are the only law the U.S. Constitution mandates that Congress create. That’s how important these protections are viewed.And anyone asking this must be blind to history, to the reasons that copyright laws were created to begin with. If you were a would be author, you never made money from your work. Instead you spent money to get your work into the public sphere, with the publishers who kept recycling the good works making all of the money. This is a massive barrier to creation (you have to be rich) and it was extremely unfair that publishers make all of the profit off of the work of others.History of copyright law - WikipediaReasonable questions are: Does copyright last too long? Should we expand fair use? Is the burden of enforcing your own copyright too much for small creators? Should websites be immune to copyright infringement caused by their users, or should they be forced to enforce the law on their users by blocking and banning?These seem to be of interest to you. You might also read the answers in these Quora questions and consider if that’s the world you want to live in:How could an artist earn money in a post-copyright world?How does the "content industry" earn money in a post-copyright world?
Why is copyright infringement illegal?
Oh, this is fun. From a technical point of view it isn't. And from a technical point of view it is.What do I mean? If you make a camcorder copy of the new Star Wars film when it comes out, and upload it onto a torrent site, Disney can sue you for copyright infringement. If they prove in court that you are responsible, you'll end up owing Disney a lot of money.But you won't get put in jail.So Copyright Infringement is not a criminal act, unlike murder. The police aren't hunting for people infringing on Copyright, that is the responsibility of the Copyright Holder.So the act is legal under criminal law, but not legal under Copyright law.It gets even more fun. Say the new Star Wars movie gives me an idea, and I write a novel based on that idea, which is not set in the Star Wars universe, uses none of the characters, and none of the setting. That's 100% legal. But if I include Luke Skywalker, Disney can, and will, sue me into oblivion.At which point I'll leave you with the Monkee's song 'Shades of Gray'
What would happen if copyright laws were non-existent?
If no copyright laws existed the whole world would function like traditional China.China over the ages, until the last century, didn't have anything resembling copyright or patent laws, and never seemed to wont for innovation and inventiveness. In fact, they invented and discovered more things than the rest of the ancient world combined.How would it work?By becoming much better at negotiations, commercial development and competitive models.In China, you have to move FAST to leverage an advantage you gain by inventing something new. You need to plan how to capitalize on your edge as soon as possible, to become an established market presence in the relevant domain by the time the competition copies your invention and catches up. As a matter of fact, businesses on the Web work pretty much along this model, as the barriers for competition in cyberspace are quite easy to overcome, even legally. Web companies, especially those in online commerce and social networking, and the entire mobile market, must move fast, generate viral adoption and establish the brand before the incumbents or new adversaries come up with alternative offering. Copyright and patent laws come from a culture that values property ownership and rights above all - a very European model. China only adopted this model reluctantly, as it is foreign to its culture, and works around it as much as they can get away with. There is moral directive here as far as China views property rights, and I think they have shown the world many times over that lack of such laws and culture does not kill of inventiveness as you might think when within the western paradigm.
What 5 people/groups can propose laws to congress?
A Senator A Congressmen/women A constituent or a groups of constituents [through use of their Senator/Congressman] The President State Legislatures [through Senate/HOR members] ... more? The VP might be able to submit bills, but if he/she does, it would probably be considered to have been submitted by the Pres.
What laws did congress pass to protect consumers from abuses by the food and drug industries?
The Pure Food and Drug Act, passed in 1906 The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act bans false and misleading statements from the labeling of foods, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics. The Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments, passed in 1962 in the wake of the Thalidomide tragedy, require that drugs must also be proven effective before marketing. Lots more info: http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/laws.html
Copyrights now last 70 years after the death of the author. The time used to be much shorter. Do you believe the copyright law is being used for censorship?
Censorship is generally considered to be an effort by the government to silence ideas they find dangerous or a social effort to block distribution of a certain category of content.Copyright is neither of these things, no matter how long it lasts.Toward the first definition, copyright doesn't prevent new works expressing or exploring the same idea from being released. That's why there are over one hundred books on the Paleo Diet, each by different authors. They aren't being censored, just because one person wrote the first book on this idea.Toward the second definition, our right of free speech mostly shuts down society's ability to consor. Only child pirnography and terrorist recruitment videos have, as categories, been banned. And copyright is not the legal tool used here.I get the sense that you feel censored because you cannot distribute Beyonce's music in your YouTube video. Or whatever. If that is the case, duration has nothing to do with that feeling. Your argument opposing long copyright duration is essentially a plea to emotions, which isn't a rational argument.A legal structure that requires people to pay for their entertainment, but doesn't restrict the creator from offering it in the way they want to offer it isn't “censorship”. Censorship is about blocking the ability to create messages, not redistribute messages already created.And when you “now lasts 70 years…” you imply that the change to this duration was recent. In the U.S. this duration was increased over 30 years ago. And in most other countries, that duration was in place more than 90 years ago. Hardly a recent change.Quora is not really a discussion forum. If you have thoughts on copyright duration that you want to express, rather than creating a question so you can back-and-forth with people (which is not supported on Quora), you can easily post your thoughts here: Should the duration of copyright be shortened?
Are there any websites where I can upload videos without copyright infringement?
Simply speaking, copyright infringement of a video involves making a copy of it or publicly showing it when the copyright for that video belongs to someone else and you do not have their permission to do so.When you upload a video to a website, you are placing a copy of a video saved on your computer onto the server on which that website is hosted. You are free to do that if you hold the copyright to the video you are uploading to the website or if that video is in the public domain (meaning, there is no copyright holder or the copyright has expired).Most copyright infringement of videos involves downloading a video from a website; that is, making a copy of a video stored on the website's server and saving that copy onto your computer. Almost all websites that allow you to download copyrighted videos require you to pay for the website service (e.g., Netflix) or pay for the individual video (e.g., iTunes). If a website is allowing you to download or view a Hollywood movie or television show for free, you might well be engaged in copyright infringement, since the copyright holder most likely did not give the website permission to distribute the video fro free.Some websites allow you to download or view videos that are in the public domain for free (e.g., The United States Library of Congress). Such websites will have information about the copyright status of the videos they host and your rights to download them.
Why doesn't the US government ban porn?
The U.S. government is granted a few limited powers by the people. We grant these powers to the government via our U.S. Constitution. We are born free and the government does not grant us rights. We cherish individual freedom more than anything and this is the reason our nation has been so successful. Unfortunately, we have allowed our government to infringe too much on our freedoms and I hope that someday soon we return the government to it's place of limited power and scope before we cede too many of our liberties and are forced to fight another war to get them back. I think most U.S. citizens still embrace individual freedom but many are not willing to fight to protect it and many are taught a distorted view of freedom through the government run education system. So, to your question about banning a product or service....... the government generally doesn't have the power to do this. If we gave the government this power then who knows what they might want to ban. Now, in reality, there are things that are regulated so heavily that they are essentially banned and we have criminal laws that restrict certain things which can also be looked at as essentially banning them. But, in general, the government simply can not ban something. Our God given birth right to be free means that we are free to engage in activities that some may feel are offensive or bad. Thankfully, we don't grant man the power to define the rights of another man.
Why don't Hollywood movie producers try to ban torrent websites?
I don't think piracy is not all bad. I mean, I get it why content creators would not be happy about it since it hinders with their revenue.But the thing that you don't get is that developing countries like in India, people don't have enough money to pay for the actual hardware let alone to pay for the content. This also applies to software. And its not like we have a streaming service like Netflix or Hulu to which we can pay 9.99$ a month and enjoy every new episode of numerous T.V Shows and watch them anytime & everywhere. Not only that, the medium (Internet) is also not cheap. Compare the data / cost ratio and you'll know. That means we cannot stream content and that's where torrent comes in.So, then what about satellite T.V (DTH Service)... right?Yeah, this is plausible but it doesn't have the flexibility as the internet and we have a very irritating Censor Board.Enough of our problems, what is it in for you guys...Well, you have our total respect. There aren't any good shows like Breaking Bad, GOT, Friends, The Big Bang Theory etc. except maybe two or three. We know Creative Programming is your cup of tea.So, IMO you should wait for Netflix or any other streaming service to expand outside U.S. Combined with cheap internet the problem will die itself.Because we cannot ignore the fact that buying stuff has its perks.