News, tips, advice, support for Windows, Office, PCs & more
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon

We're community supported and proud of it!

  • Schrödinger’s Bill

    Home Forums AskWoody blog Schrödinger’s Bill

    Viewing 11 reply threads
    • Author
      Posts
      • #2337297
        Max Stul Oppenheimer
        AskWoody_MVP

        Legal Brief Schrödinger’s Bill By Max Stul Oppenheimer, Esq. The recently passed Consolidated Appropriations Act includes provisions that should be of
        [See the full post at: Schrödinger’s Bill]

        3 users thanked author for this post.
      • #2337388
        Amy Babinchak
        Manager

        Thanks for including this content. This was an excellent article and enjoyable read.

        1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2337435
        gwt10
        AskWoody Plus

        In a nutshell, what’s this all about?  And how does it affect AskWoody readers?

        • #2337499
          DLivesInTexas
          AskWoody Plus

          In a nutshell, The Affordable Care Act contains several legally-untested provisions unrelated to health care that could impact electronic distribution of copyrighted material as well as aid small companies in competing in markets controlled by a larger entity.  The author, demonstrating his skepticism about their usefulness, references provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act to provide examples of how these provisions might likely be meaningless.

          Overall, the article was enlightening.

           

          2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #2337505
          Susan Bradley
          Manager

          Just the other day I was adding some music to something I was doing online.  I need to make sure I do so legally.  This bill adds some teeth and potential jail time if I didn’t do it right.  (also it’s not the affordable care bill, it was an appropriations bill)

          Susan Bradley Patch Lady

          2 users thanked author for this post.
          • #2337536
            rc primak
            AskWoody_MVP

            You Tube will mute any copyrighted music they detect. If it doesn’t come rfom their own curated collection, it won’t play on their platform. Very sad state of affairs! This restriction is spearheaded by Warner Music, which owns the largest collection of copyrights in the world. Warner does not compensate small artists anywhere near the worth of their music. If at all.

            -- rc primak

      • #2337498
        Geo
        AskWoody Plus

        Sounds like Nancy Pelosi’s comment on the Affordable Care Act. “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”

      • #2337526
        heritage972
        AskWoody Plus

        Delighted that a lawyer is interested in physics.  One small correction.  The comment about Schrodinger’s Cat is correct but the comment about the basic premise is due to Heisenberg, not Schrodinger.  It is known as the Heisenberg Principle.  Namely “…it was impossible to determine an atomic particle’s location and velocity simultaneously because the act of observation changed one or the other…”  Ph.D. in Physics from MIT.

        3 users thanked author for this post.
        • #2337537
          rc primak
          AskWoody_MVP

          Also, the act of observing one of two particles in quantum entanglement (spooky action at a distance) will break the entanglement.

          -- rc primak

          1 user thanked author for this post.
        • #2337550
          Max Stul Oppenheimer
          AskWoody_MVP

          Thanks for the correction.  Heisenberg might not think it small!

      • #2337538
        rc primak
        AskWoody_MVP

        Not an expert here, but…

        On page 2,539 of the Act, we find an amendment to Section 211 of the Copyright Act, amending Section 113 of Title 18 (the federal criminal statute). The language Congress chose makes it unlawful to “willfully” and for “commercial advantage” or “private financial gain” provide a digital transmission service that is primarily, and without other significant purpose, designed for the purpose of publicly performing works protected by copyright. We need to wade through some rather dense definitions to figure out what is being changed (and we’ll need a court to interpret it before we know what it means and whether it’s constitutional), but that certainly sounds like it’s directed to streaming services.

        That looks on first glance as if it’s aimed at services like Aereo (OTA rebroadcast in NY City, sued and now defunct) and Locast (free streaming service, also doing a form of rebroadcasting over the Internet. Sued but still pending).

        Aereo:
        https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/25/325488386/tech-firm-aereo-performs-an-illegal-service-supreme-court-says

        Locast:
        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/media/broadcast-networks-lawsuit-locast.html

        Kodi boxes also have free channels available which pirate copyrighted content, but most of these are not based in the US anymore.

        Among the second-order boxes that will need opening is determining how this will interact with the “fair use” provisions of Section 107 of the Copyright Act (“criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching …, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright”).

        This controversy has hit nearly all of my Zoom meetings with tech interest groups. Some sites like ABC News have begun to use draconian DRM techniques which make downloading for future use nearly impossible. Now they may have legal leverage as well. Very tricky business, fair use.

        This also affects posting of recorded Zoom meetings where copyrighted images, audio or video were used.  The definition of “educational organization” is surprisingly narrow.

        -- rc primak

        • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by rc primak.
      • #2337555
        Max Stul Oppenheimer
        AskWoody_MVP

        If you want to see the full text of the bill, you need to do a little more work than just following the link. After a bill is signed into law, it goes to the Government Printing Office to be printed. They note on the website that, while that usually takes a day or two, large bills are an exception.  This is the quintessential “large bill”.  So the link shows “not yet printed” – and may show that for some time.  If you go to the “text” tab at the bottom of the page and select “enrolled bill” the text will appear.

        Or if that isn’t your idea of time well spent, you could go directly to

        which will work until the GPO gets around to printing it.
      • #2337573
        anonymous
        Guest

        “In March 2010, when House Speaker Pelosi told the National Association of Counties that we needed to pass the Affordable Care Act in order to find out what’s in it, few saw the humorous reference to one of the most famous parables of modern physics: Schrödinger’s cat.”

        Your article was pleasant (more so than the Act if references) and humorous, but while Schrodinger had a box with a cat in it. He simply wondered if said cat was dead or alive. In Nancy’s case she had a bill, and nobody knew exactly what was in it.

        So as opposed to an answer to a binary choice, it’s much more of a Pandora’s box.

        Who knows everything in it???

      • #2337680
        Bill Vallance
        AskWoody Plus

        I wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed the article by Max Stul Oppenheimer in Issue 18.3.0 of the AskWoody Plus Newsletter titled, “Schrodinger’s Bill.”  I am the owner of a software start-up whose past career has involved the protection of intellectual property for large corporations in my role as a program manager employee.  While not a lawyer, I have read several legal books on trademark, copyright, and patent law in an effort to make myself familiar with these laws so that I know how I can successfully compete with the Microsofts and Googles of the world when my software products eventually reach market.  Please let Mr. Oppenheimer know that I found his article clearly written, insightfully witty, and most of all, very informative.  Please keep articles like this coming in the future!

      • #2338018
        geekdom
        AskWoody Plus

        What impact will copyright changes have on fair use?

        On Hiatus {with backup and coffee}
        offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender TRV=1909 WuMgr
        offline▸ Win10Pro 20H2.19042.685 x86 Atom N270 RAM2GB HDD WindowsDefender WuMgr GuineaPigVariant
        online▸ Win10Pro 20H2.19042.804 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox86.0 WindowsDefender TRV=20H2 WuMgr
      • #2338206
        tomaszj
        AskWoody Plus

        I do not understand why this highly political subject that for normal folks has nothing to do with computers nor software usage has made it into this newsletter. If similar political subjects will continue to be discussed here I will drop my subscription as this should not be the forum to indoctrinate people.

        • #2338243
          Susan Bradley
          Manager

          Susan here:  Because these topics do have technology impact they are here.  I used to download videos from “unusual sites”.  I’ve stopped doing that because of not only the issues of malware but legal issues as well.  The  intent is not to “indoctrinate” but rather make you aware that how we’ve come to use the web may be changing and we need to be aware of it and how it impacts how we watch things online and consume things online.

          I disagree that normal folks don’t have to worry about this.  Look at the people that have had legal action taken against them for downloading movies.

          Susan Bradley Patch Lady

          6 users thanked author for this post.
          • #2338301
            doriel
            AskWoody Lounger

            I thought the sharing person is to blame. Download the movie is illegal too? Downloading from torrent apparently is (since you let others download small stripes of that movie too). How you can prove, that it was me or my sister, who was at the computer? You cant fine “the whole household”.

            Reminds me of that old scene “IT Crowd – privacy warning”, which is obviously more true than I thought. I wish law was more straightforward and could not be understood that many ways, how many lawyers read it 🙂

            Thanks AskWoody for educating users.

            Dell Latitude E6530, Intel Core i5 @ 2.6 GHz, 4GB RAM, W10 1809 Enterprise

            HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

            • #2338348
              Susan Bradley
              Manager

              Susan Bradley Patch Lady

              2 users thanked author for this post.
              • #2338351
                doriel
                AskWoody Lounger

                You are correct. Dowloading is illegal.

                Copyright infringement occurs when the works are reproduced, republished, or used without permission from the copyright holder. This is where illegal downloading kicks in. The violation is typically enforced as a civil matter, although specific penalties vary by jurisdictions and some may apply criminal punishments.

                Generally speaking, however, the most likely penalty is going to be a monetary fine for copyright infringement — if you’re caught downloading illegally, that is.

                Dell Latitude E6530, Intel Core i5 @ 2.6 GHz, 4GB RAM, W10 1809 Enterprise

                HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

              • #2338355
                Paul T
                AskWoody MVP

                Downloading is not illegal, doing so without authorization is. The generally accepted form of authorization is paying money.

                cheers, Paul

                2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #2338327
          geekdom
          AskWoody Plus

          Copyright is a legal definition affecting information across web, books, art, software, and other medium. How is the information protected? What are owner rights? Under what circumstances may information be legally copied?

          On Hiatus {with backup and coffee}
          offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender TRV=1909 WuMgr
          offline▸ Win10Pro 20H2.19042.685 x86 Atom N270 RAM2GB HDD WindowsDefender WuMgr GuineaPigVariant
          online▸ Win10Pro 20H2.19042.804 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox86.0 WindowsDefender TRV=20H2 WuMgr
          • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by geekdom.
          • This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by geekdom.
          1 user thanked author for this post.
          • #2338347
            doriel
            AskWoody Lounger

            That depends on your local laws.
            Information? You mean general idea of “intellectual property”? Thats a tough one. Especially when the author is dead. In Czech Republic intellectual property is inherit to descendants. There are 45 pages of that law in Czech.Rep.

            Cant reply exactly to your questions. You cant treat all the web, books, art, software, and other medium the same. Its not that simple, but I understand your angle of view.
            Its important to know about this law, before you make a mistake and pay lot of money then 🙂

            Dell Latitude E6530, Intel Core i5 @ 2.6 GHz, 4GB RAM, W10 1809 Enterprise

            HAL3000, AMD Athlon 200GE @ 3,4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Fedora 29

            • #2338782
              rc primak
              AskWoody_MVP

              In the EU, they are trying to classify even two-word headline excerpts as copyrighted content. And they are trying to make platform owners responsible for violations in uploaded content:

              It happens all the time: remixes, top ten videos and film analyses use content without paying for rights. So if platforms can be punished for this, they must prevent such content from being uploaded.

              But how?

              One year of EU copyright reform: Is the Internet still working?

              (Sorry about the image link — I don’t know how to prevent that from showing here.)

              This is scary stuff, not to mention government overreach.

              American film studios and companies who own television networks and streaming services were rumored to be behind these draconian provisions.

              It is this sort of micro-managing of copyrights which has caused me to decline to present any video, no matter how short or how public-domain, to any Zoom meeting of any group. That is truly sad, but IMHO necessary.

              -- rc primak

              • This reply was modified 1 month ago by rc primak.
              1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2338823
        Bill C.
        AskWoody Plus

        Downloading is not illegal, doing so without authorization is. The generally accepted form of authorization is paying money.

        cheers, Paul

        In the US, there is a graphic showing that there are 1500 newspapers, 1100 magazines, 1500 television stations, and 2400 publishers owned by 6 corporations with global reach or their subsidiaries.

        I would post it, but given the tenor and implications of this discussion, will exercise wise caution.

        As with everything in the legal and political world, you need to follow the money. That is because the real Golden Rule, is “Those with the Gold (and share it wisely), get to make the Rules.”

        2 users thanked author for this post.
    Viewing 11 reply threads

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, no politics or religion.

    Reply To: Schrödinger’s Bill

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.