Cary Sherman, the head of the RIAA and graduate of Cornell and Harvard Law, has been a calculated leader of the outfit throughout the years. However, when the issue is the interests of the music industry, he seems to be just the same as the MPAA’s CEO.
Sherman’s interviews made it clear that he desperately wants to revive new copyright legislation named SOPA, but his position to insult Google and Wikipedia can remind one of the MPAA’s CEO’s reactions, when they were called “an irresponsible response” and “an abuse of power”, to name a few.
The fact is that the concerns are entitled, with millions of sad citizens, coupled with tech companies, teachers, online analysts, and lots of others, having already questioned the manner in which both the music and movie industry addressed the piracy issue, calling it “anti-democratic” and “abusive”.
The matter is that SOPA had a single hearing where the only speaking-against voice appeared to be Google, which was bombed by acid remarks spoken by Chairman Lamar Smith. At the same time, the Senate’s version of the copyright law (PIPA) had no hearings at all, but the members of the Congress did admit that experts having knowledge about the technical implications should be consulted.
Sherman pointed out that misinformation might be a dirty, but working trick. He called to consider the claim that the suggested copyright bills had been “censorship,” a term designed to recall images of crackdowns on websites by China or Iran. He wondered since when it is censorship to close down a website determined by an American court to operate against the law.
In response, the opponents point out that in file-sharing lawsuits, no thorough reviews of the evidence ever occur. Fir instance, you might remember when dajaz1.com was seized by the American government for a year, though the founder of the site simply couldn’t find anything about the case to be able to defend himself. In a year, the US government has released the site back without any explanation.
The CEO of the MPAA said last year that when the Chinese required Google either to block websites or stop doing business in their country, the search engine managed to figure out how to block sites. Thus, he unknowingly made quite a fair association of China’s totalitarianism and the suggested US censorship
Sherman’s interviews made it clear that he desperately wants to revive new copyright legislation named SOPA, but his position to insult Google and Wikipedia can remind one of the MPAA’s CEO’s reactions, when they were called “an irresponsible response” and “an abuse of power”, to name a few.
The fact is that the concerns are entitled, with millions of sad citizens, coupled with tech companies, teachers, online analysts, and lots of others, having already questioned the manner in which both the music and movie industry addressed the piracy issue, calling it “anti-democratic” and “abusive”.
The matter is that SOPA had a single hearing where the only speaking-against voice appeared to be Google, which was bombed by acid remarks spoken by Chairman Lamar Smith. At the same time, the Senate’s version of the copyright law (PIPA) had no hearings at all, but the members of the Congress did admit that experts having knowledge about the technical implications should be consulted.
Sherman pointed out that misinformation might be a dirty, but working trick. He called to consider the claim that the suggested copyright bills had been “censorship,” a term designed to recall images of crackdowns on websites by China or Iran. He wondered since when it is censorship to close down a website determined by an American court to operate against the law.
In response, the opponents point out that in file-sharing lawsuits, no thorough reviews of the evidence ever occur. Fir instance, you might remember when dajaz1.com was seized by the American government for a year, though the founder of the site simply couldn’t find anything about the case to be able to defend himself. In a year, the US government has released the site back without any explanation.
The CEO of the MPAA said last year that when the Chinese required Google either to block websites or stop doing business in their country, the search engine managed to figure out how to block sites. Thus, he unknowingly made quite a fair association of China’s totalitarianism and the suggested US censorship
No comments:
Post a Comment