Forum:US Intellectual Property Protection Act

Forums: Index > Village Dump > US Intellectual Property Protection Act

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6540 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Check this out.

So I stumbled upon this page and thought that others here (especially the American'ts) might wanna check it out... would this affect us here at Uncyclopedia?

• For the lazies among you or those afraid to click links, essentially this piece of shit legislation will allow the feds to lock your ass up for doing the things that Uncyclopedians love to do, namely photoshopping George Bush's head onto various objects that are most definitely not his body. The floor is open...

--Imrealized 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Although, generally, suing people for parodical works, which also afford themselves a form of protection is generally considered to be a bad PR move! --Olipro Anchor (Harass) 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG.....I was just photoshopping George W's head onto a donkey's arse when I noticed several black helicopters coming my way. I stopped immediately and they went straight passed. Thanks for the heads up! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13904&ch=biztech . I'm unclear: would this affect trademarks? --Hrodulf 14:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

McCain speech on the bill: [[1]] --Hrodulf 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to belive that Hollywood would be backing a bill that barred parodies, because they would be barred from creating parody works of other IP also. That means no scary movie series, no MST3K, no Saturday Night Live as we know it, etc. There's a difference between parody and just stealing content. Parody is a way of demonstrating an individual's opinion or thoughts about the ip, and is protected speech. Using the trappings of the content to comment on it in a parodic manner has traditionally been considered "fair use," even if the parody is sold commercially for profit. [[2]]. I think what they're after here is the guy on the sidewalk selling a bootleg dvd of the latest horror flick, not the guy who gets dressed up like the killer from the latest horror flick and goofs on it in front of a live studio audience on a certain long-running Saturday night television program. I'm honestly hoping that this bill leaves parody alone and just goes after outright literal theft of the actual content itself. There's a difference between making fun of Scream, and giving someone a burned dvd of the actual "Scream" movie. --Hrodulf 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See, when laws violate the Constitution's 1st Amendment, we simply challenge the law's validity in court. Keep going from court to higher court until the Supreme Court agrees to hear our case, and the law will be struck down. Honestly, I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble for such a thing. --User:Nintendorulez 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is for the average person, getting justice out of the system isn't so easy. In an ideal world, justice would not be elusive, but in the real world, few people have the money and time free to litigate an issue such as this. Corporations know this, and use the time and money cost of litigation to claim rights against consumers they don't actually have, but effectively can seize because of their power.

For example, American Greetings was able to shut down a well known satire of their "strawberry shortcake" property done by the webcomic "penny arcade," (I'm not providing a link because anyone with internet access can find it themselves easily). While it was American Greeting's position that their property was used for the purposes of satire of something else, rather than a parody of "strawberry shortcake," the use also arguably functioned as a parody of "strawberry shortcake." I'm not saying this was fair use, I'm saying it's a case that looked questionable at best, but the imbalance of power between American Greetings and Penny Arcade won the war before it even got started.

--Hrodulf 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

American Greetings' argument was valid, the intent of the comic had nothing to do with parodying American Greetings. We, for the most part, abuse copyrights for things that we're directly parodying. It's pretty clear cut most of the time so we can just wait for Cease and Decists and respond to the ones that are valid. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know IP law, but if you're taking someone elses IP to make fun of that IP, under this rule, you can't make fun of anything else in the same work, or else now you're violating copyright (or trademark, depending on what is being used). That means that if a cartoonist makes fun of, say, popeye, he can't do a joke about the president in the same comic strip. That seems rather restrictive and silly, and against the purpose of fair use in the first place, to allow people to express themselves. Regardless of what the law is or may be, I don't think American Greetings' position is good fair use policy. And it's perfectly valid to discuss differening policy positions when it comes to law.--Hrodulf 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note that you could see the content of the penny arcade strip as a parody of Strawberry Shortcake. I don't know if you've seen the cartoons, I saw one at the Museum of Television and Radio. They're ripe to be made fun of just because they're so naive on one level, and that's sort of an interesting contrast to the fact that they're also toy commercials. Injecting sexual misbehavior into Strawberry Shortcake's antics could be a parodic commentary on the fact that the cartoons were aggressive toy commercials, which some people could consider morally suspect, since marketing to children in this way has been contoversial. Also, there was another strawberry shortcake spoof on Drawn Together that sexualized the character [[3]], can American Greetings now win an IP case against the people who make Drawn Together because the sole purpose of the episode wasn't to parody Strawberry Shortcake? --Hrodulf 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another important point I neglected to notice. The reason American Greetings won't sue over the Drawn Together episode, which was arguably more offensive to the character than the Penny Arcade strip (I won't go into it, if you're curious watch and see for yourself), is because the people who made Drawn Together likely have a horde of lawyers ready to defend their work. This shows how, in our legal system, people with money for more lawyers and more litigation, in effect, have more IP and fair use rights than those who don't, and it's unfortunate that the US is a country where money buys you more rights and freedom than you'd otherwise have. I thought we were supposed to be equal. Apparently, we're not. --Hrodulf 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. They only attack the little guy. I never actually saw the PA strip in question, just a note saying it was removed. Does anyone have a link to an archived version or something (Don't tell AG I said that)? --User:Nintendorulez 15:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find it on any search engine by typing in "penny arcade" and "strawberry shortcake" or words to that effect, say, in google images. I have elected not to post a direct link in here, yes, to keep the American Greetings people out of our collective hair. --Hrodulf 15:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Incase noone noticed, all of the sites you linked to are from 2004. Its an old story, and obviously didnt pass as Uncyclopedia and other such things still exist. But you never know, it could explain the ever decreasing quality of SNL. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the bill was introduced in 2004, but it's apparently coming under consideration in the Senate in a modified form this week. So I don't think this is a dead letter. --Hrodulf 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find something giving a time frame, wait a sec. --Hrodulf 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, there is a 2006 bill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Protection_Act_of_2006] --Hrodulf 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6064016.html--Hrodulf 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Law text:http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/ip-protection-act-2006-20060413.pdf --Hrodulf 20:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the word trademark in this bill. I think that's what concerns us, trademarks, not copyrights. --Hrodulf 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated, but hilarious: [[4]] [[5]] --Hrodulf 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good old Canada...A land where almost everything is legal. --ZB 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone asks we're all crazy foreigners that don't speak english. Wait... damn, they can get us there too...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As soon as we get a court-order thing, we change out name to Canadopedia and claim to live on a hippie comune in an igloo. --ZB 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Or move the servers to western Samoa and become http://uncyclo.pedia.ws --carlb 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, doesn't that violate the first amendment of the bloody constitution? I thought we fought the cold war to get rid of communism. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 01:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This image is a random arrangement of colored pixels, any similarity to George Bush is entirely coincidental. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 01:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's add that to our disclaimer for anyone claiming images are copyrighted. --User:Nintendorulez 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Another great idea! Let's get wikia to switch all their servers to Sealand, instead of boring old USA! --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 13:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

When does the invasion start? Karmafist 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some fiction in your truth and some truth in your fiction. --Nerd42Talk 17:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)