|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:00 pm
I'll say the same thing that I said on DA
I don't think that could work if you have a copyright on your work you are protected by law that other's can't use it without permission.
If they would pass this law(which I highly doubt) that would work against this law and everything will be messed up.
Thats like buying a whole bunch of george forman grills putting your name on it and selling them from your corporation. Or selling stephen king books and saying you wrote them. That would totaly destroy that copyright law. People paid that money for copyright we should be protected.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:19 pm
Wow. That law wouldn't even be CONSIDERED in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:31 am
thats ******** up.
then I just won't post deviations anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:01 am
KitDreamer
Wow. That law wouldn't even be CONSIDERED in the UK.
Nor in Canada.
-.-;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:24 am
RAWR!!!*Goes on a rampage.*IT'S MY WORK MINE!!!! NO TOUCHY!!!!*Hording all my drawings in a little box.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:49 am
KitDreamer
Wow. That law wouldn't even be CONSIDERED in the UK.
Actually, the UK is mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:51 am
Everyone, write letters to your Congressmen, they will listen. I did so last night. All it takes is an email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:32 am
Woah, hey guys, Hold up.
There' sa forum elsewhere I frequent for roleplay and stuff.
http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=59278
Someone posted the same article, but a pretty damned smart and sensible member of the community raised some counterpoints, and pointed out what the actual act was trying to do. I suggest reading it before flying off the handle at this one.
Also according to said user, the only thing he can find on that particular act, is from back in 06. There's been NOTHING for 2 years on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:20 pm
KitDreamer
Woah, hey guys, Hold up.
There' sa forum elsewhere I frequent for roleplay and stuff.
http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=59278
Someone posted the same article, but a pretty damned smart and sensible member of the community raised some counterpoints, and pointed out what the actual act was trying to do. I suggest reading it before flying off the handle at this one.
Also according to said user, the only thing he can find on that particular act, is from back in 06. There's been NOTHING for 2 years on it.
But they've been working on it sense then, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:27 pm
MeakoLadyMist KitDreamer
Woah, hey guys, Hold up.
There' sa forum elsewhere I frequent for roleplay and stuff.
http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=59278
Someone posted the same article, but a pretty damned smart and sensible member of the community raised some counterpoints, and pointed out what the actual act was trying to do. I suggest reading it before flying off the handle at this one.
Also according to said user, the only thing he can find on that particular act, is from back in 06. There's been NOTHING for 2 years on it.
But they've been working on it sense then, right?
Nope. There's no plans infront of Congress regarding this. The author of the original report posted that article in a manner and style SPECIFICALLY meant to basically inflame people and incite a reaction. He quotes NO sources, or anything like that. He just rants on about a proposal that is more than two years old and went nowhere. :/
He doesn't even tell anybody what the porposal really does. He just trusts that people will read maybe the first page and on a gut reaction get all angry about it and bombard the government without even realising what the proposal was really for or what it was about. It was a badly worded, purely inflammatory article with little basis in fact.
Basically, we all got trolled. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:29 pm
Oh, haha, sweatdrop I'm sorry for causing a stir. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:37 pm
KitDreamer MeakoLadyMist KitDreamer
Woah, hey guys, Hold up.
There' sa forum elsewhere I frequent for roleplay and stuff.
http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=59278
Someone posted the same article, but a pretty damned smart and sensible member of the community raised some counterpoints, and pointed out what the actual act was trying to do. I suggest reading it before flying off the handle at this one.
Also according to said user, the only thing he can find on that particular act, is from back in 06. There's been NOTHING for 2 years on it.
But they've been working on it sense then, right?
Nope. There's no plans infront of Congress regarding this. The author of the original report posted that article in a manner and style SPECIFICALLY meant to basically inflame people and incite a reaction. He quotes NO sources, or anything like that. He just rants on about a proposal that is more than two years old and went nowhere. :/
He doesn't even tell anybody what the porposal really does. He just trusts that people will read maybe the first page and on a gut reaction get all angry about it and bombard the government without even realising what the proposal was really for or what it was about. It was a badly worded, purely inflammatory article with little basis in fact.
Basically, we all got trolled. :/
Kit...that makes me feel so much better
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:33 am
MeakoLadyMist
Oh, haha, sweatdrop I'm sorry for causing a stir. lol
Nah it's okay. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:10 am
KitDreamer MeakoLadyMist KitDreamer
Woah, hey guys, Hold up.
There' sa forum elsewhere I frequent for roleplay and stuff.
http://forums.rpghost.com/showthread.php?t=59278
Someone posted the same article, but a pretty damned smart and sensible member of the community raised some counterpoints, and pointed out what the actual act was trying to do. I suggest reading it before flying off the handle at this one.
Also according to said user, the only thing he can find on that particular act, is from back in 06. There's been NOTHING for 2 years on it.
But they've been working on it sense then, right?
Nope. There's no plans infront of Congress regarding this. The author of the original report posted that article in a manner and style SPECIFICALLY meant to basically inflame people and incite a reaction. He quotes NO sources, or anything like that. He just rants on about a proposal that is more than two years old and went nowhere. :/
He doesn't even tell anybody what the porposal really does. He just trusts that people will read maybe the first page and on a gut reaction get all angry about it and bombard the government without even realising what the proposal was really for or what it was about. It was a badly worded, purely inflammatory article with little basis in fact.
Basically, we all got trolled. :/
there is another place that exains stuff here is her major point 1. "There's legislation before Congress right now that will enact major changes in US copyright law regarding orphaned works! We have to act immediately!" Actually, no, there isn't. Even the Illustrators Partnership admits this, so I don't know where Mark Simon gets this idea. There may very well be a bill introduced this legislative session, but no such bill has surfaced yet. That gives you, artists and authors, time to get familiar with the actual legislative landscape, research what might be proposed in a bill, and decide for yourself what position to take. go there a you'll find links accctually I haven't rea cheacked those links sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
