Having stated what you say are facts while only actually giving your own opinions since you admitted have read nothing but the supporters and writers of the bills texts on the bills means nothing. Your article is a simply a support of the bill, laced with demeaning language to those opposed to the bill, who have actual stakes in whether the bill passes or not, unlike you who have none. Your are not an artist or a copyright lawyer so your view of “everything is fine” is only true since you don’t have your livelihood at stake. You label the opposition as liars and discount their views as hysterics. This is as ridiculous as those of us opposed to the bills labeling supporters as lazy governmental doorsteps or sheep, which by the way, I am not saying. I think you are just a supporter of the bills but that DOES NOT MAKE YOU MORE INFORMED. Do you honestly think that Mark Simon didn’t do any research? That is foolish since he writes for a major publication and you, what, have a blog? Remember, some of what he was using was the statement that the 2008 bills would be very much like the 2006 bills (which weren’t voted on “because they were found to be unfair to the copyright holders” and not, as you allude to, because session ended. That was not the case and it is just another piece of misinformation you put in your support article. You think mark Simon has nothing a stake if he lies? You just chose to ignore the loopholes in the wording of the current bills (which unlike your first point do exist.) Those who have thanked you for “setting the record straight” are just people who WANT to be lulled in to inaction because the are to apathetic to do anything. It is far easier to support what congress puts forward than to fight to oppose it. You constantly use Marybeth Peters article and make it look like you are talking about the actual bills, they are two entirely different things. She was only making suggestions as to what the bill writers might do. So you didn’t argue anything on the actual bills. I understand that when you wrote this you said that “no such bill has surfaced yet” which only means that Mark Simon and Brad Holand (one of the most highly awarded illustrators alive today) had more info than you. you consistently use statements of argument like “this isn’t likely to be the case” and “there is nothing on the table that suggests that” stating that you have no idea of what the actual bills contain when you wrote your support opinion. There are many points that an actual art professional should be concerned with concerning how these current bills are written:
First, the concept of this "diligent search." This very term means nothing. Why? A "DILIGENT SEARCH" FOR IMAGERY ON THE INTERNET CAN NOT BE DONE AT THIS TIME. The only way you can currently search for images online is by using WORD searches. Change the words connected to the image and you erase the path to the image once it is reposted under with the altered text, this isn't hard to understand nor is it difficult to do, it is simple. There is NO pixel recognition system currently out there that can make a search for art possible at this time. Even the best face recognition software used by the government only measures the distance between the eyes, and the sizes of certain features. And it only works with FACIAL STRUCTURES and only from front view(and in a few cases side view.) So the idea that a system will be developed to VISUALLY recognize all the different things that can exist in an image is ridiculous. While this technology has been theorized and may even be at some EARLY stage of development, it will be some time before anything approaching this kind of technology is made available, let alone to the internet public. And so, any argument that a "diligent search," documented or otherwise, is a deterrent for the infringer can only be coming from a technologically ignorant person.
I have to break the rest into a second post. Sorry for the wordiness but I feel it is necessary.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just your opinion of support and hardly "setting the record straight"
Date: 2008-05-13 04:00 pm (UTC)You label the opposition as liars and discount their views as hysterics. This is as ridiculous as those of us opposed to the bills labeling supporters as lazy governmental doorsteps or sheep, which by the way, I am not saying. I think you are just a supporter of the bills but that DOES NOT MAKE YOU MORE INFORMED. Do you honestly think that Mark Simon didn’t do any research? That is foolish since he writes for a major publication and you, what, have a blog? Remember, some of what he was using was the statement that the 2008 bills would be very much like the 2006 bills (which weren’t voted on “because they were found to be unfair to the copyright holders” and not, as you allude to, because session ended. That was not the case and it is just another piece of misinformation you put in your support article. You think mark Simon has nothing a stake if he lies? You just chose to ignore the loopholes in the wording of the current bills (which unlike your first point do exist.) Those who have thanked you for “setting the record straight” are just people who WANT to be lulled in to inaction because the are to apathetic to do anything. It is far easier to support what congress puts forward than to fight to oppose it.
You constantly use Marybeth Peters article and make it look like you are talking about the actual bills, they are two entirely different things. She was only making suggestions as to what the bill writers might do. So you didn’t argue anything on the actual bills. I understand that when you wrote this you said that “no such bill has surfaced yet” which only means that Mark Simon and Brad Holand (one of the most highly awarded illustrators alive today) had more info than you. you consistently use statements of argument like “this isn’t likely to be the case” and “there is nothing on the table that suggests that” stating that you have no idea of what the actual bills contain when you wrote your support opinion.
There are many points that an actual art professional should be concerned with concerning how these current bills are written:
First, the concept of this "diligent search." This very term means nothing. Why? A "DILIGENT SEARCH" FOR IMAGERY ON THE INTERNET CAN NOT BE DONE AT THIS TIME. The only way you can currently search for images online is by using WORD searches. Change the words connected to the image and you erase the path to the image once it is reposted under with the altered text, this isn't hard to understand nor is it difficult to do, it is simple. There is NO pixel recognition system currently out there that can make a search for art possible at this time. Even the best face recognition software used by the government only measures the distance between the eyes, and the sizes of certain features. And it only works with FACIAL STRUCTURES and only from front view(and in a few cases side view.) So the idea that a system will be developed to VISUALLY recognize all the different things that can exist in an image is ridiculous. While this technology has been theorized and may even be at some EARLY stage of development, it will be some time before anything approaching this kind of technology is made available, let alone to the internet public. And so, any argument that a "diligent search," documented or otherwise, is a deterrent for the infringer can only be coming from a technologically ignorant person.
I have to break the rest into a second post. Sorry for the wordiness but I feel it is necessary.