US Congress Press Release Full Of Copyright-Violating Animated GIFs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The United States Congress and animated GIFs are a perfect match. Both of them serve no real purpose except for being repetitive and annoying as hell. ;)

No, I'm going for the online piracy jugular of the Judiciary committee. You see, the press release is chock full of animations protected by copyright law. Stick with me for a minute. I'll show you how completely... just wait. You'll see. All of these were run, clearly without licensing, on a Web page produced by the House Judiciary Committee.
Click to expand...
 
I can only assume someone in their 20s who has grown up with all these silly animated GIFs and use of copyrighted materials for humour is doing this thinking it's bringing the government into the 21st century. You would think he or she would have needed to present this to an editor or something who would keep this more professional.
 
Since lots of forum members have pointed out again and again that violating copyrights is basically victimless, I'm pretty sure no one would complain at all when the only difference here is that it's their government and not an individual doing it. :)
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Since lots of forum members have pointed out again and again that violating copyrights is basically victimless, I'm pretty sure no one would complain at all when the only difference here is that it's their government and not an individual doing it. :)
Click to expand...

The problem here is that this is the website of the House Judiciary Committee, and six of its members sponsored the infamous Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) back in 2011. And here they are not only making a very unprofessional looking press release, they are doing so with movie clips SOPA would have made illegal to share.

Maybe they wised up and realized most people consider things like this "Fair Use". However, I sincerely doubt it. Given everything else, I believe these guys just simply have zero clue as to what laws they are trying to pass.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Since lots of forum members have pointed out again and again that violating copyrights is basically victimless, I'm pretty sure no one would complain at all when the only difference here is that it's their government and not an individual doing it. :)
Click to expand...
It has to do with that little thing called hypocrisy.
 
This might be surprising except for the simple fact that politicians have always felt laws don't apply to them, that is why the common practice when they draft laws are to exempt themselves from it.

For example, Charles Rangel while writing tax laws was blatantly violating the very laws he was writing and not only was he reelected but his punishment was a reprimand.

This isn't a partisan issue, as both Republicans and Democrats do this and the only time they feel outrage over it is when it's made public about someone in the opposite party.
 
Copyright violating? How so? They're short clips, they're used for the purpose of education (in this case a presentation) in a non-profit setting, possibly even used as comedy, sounds like it hits fair use on all boards.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Given everything else, I believe these guys just simply have zero clue as to what laws they are trying to pass.
Click to expand...

Correct. Members of the House & Senate neither write nor read the laws being put forward. The writing is done by lobbyists and ultra-rich donors who in turn tell the bought and paid for serfs what to introduce and when.

Term limits for Congress anyone?
 
Okay, now someone prove that these super short, low-quality GIFs are actually violating copyrights. An animated GIF and a "clip" is not the same thing. The author looks like a flaming retard based on his profile photo (seriously, why do all of these bloggers have such stupid photos of themselves?), so I'm inclined not to believe any word he says.
 
Megalith said:
Okay, now someone prove that these super short, low-quality GIFs are actually violating copyrights. An animated GIF and a "clip" is not the same thing. The author looks like a flaming retard based on his profile photo (seriously, why do all of these bloggers have such stupid photos of themselves?), so I'm inclined not to believe any word he says.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't actually read any word he said, either.
 
Megalith said:
Okay, now someone prove that these super short, low-quality GIFs are actually violating copyrights. An animated GIF and a "clip" is not the same thing. The author looks like a flaming retard based on his profile photo (seriously, why do all of these bloggers have such stupid photos of themselves?), so I'm inclined not to believe any word he says.
Click to expand...

Its probably fair use, however SOPA would kill fair use.

SOPA was supported by members of the group that made this posting.

I would guess they didn't read the SOPA bill or even contribute to its writing.

But hey who has time for reading...when you can attack someone for their physical appearance, and call them mentally handicapped.

Keep up the good work America.
 
thedocta45 said:
But hey who has time for reading...when you can attack someone for their physical appearance, and call them mentally handicapped.

Keep up the good work America.
Click to expand...

+1

Reading and thinking takes time and brain activity.
pointing fingers and and trying to look cool is just so easier...

Welcome to the ever growing high school mentality

...Darn i just did it myself didn't I...:p
 
The site isn't making money, no copyright violations.

Ad revenue and charging people to see something you don't own are what will get you dinged.

Besides, already seen that Obama will push to revoke copyrights if it suits him (Redskins)
 
Watjalukinat said:
The site isn't making money, no copyright violations.

Ad revenue and charging people to see something you don't own are what will get you dinged.

Besides, already seen that Obama will push to revoke copyrights if it suits him (Redskins)
Click to expand...

It's not to suit him, it's a racist name and logo, one of Native Americans who were slaughtered in mass and had all of their land stolen to create this "great country". :D
 
timta2 said:
It's not to suit him, it's a racist name and logo, one of Native Americans who were slaughtered in mass and had all of their land stolen to create this "great country". :D
Click to expand...

Better rename Oklahoma then.
 
idk if it's my "old man mode" kicking in, but I absolutely loathe animated GIFs making their way into news articles or the like. It just cheapens the entire content. Ugh. BUT HEY, AT LEAST IT APPEALS TO MILLENIALS WITH THEIR TWITTER AND APPS.
 
TheStormofWar said:
It seems the author of the article forgot about Fair Use. Ah well.
Click to expand...

He did not and talks about fair use in the article.

The issues brought up revolve around the fact that these very same people are the ones attempting to pass legislation that would do away with fair use.
 
dr_drift said:
idk if it's my "old man mode" kicking in, but I absolutely loathe animated GIFs making their way into news articles or the like. It just cheapens the entire content. Ugh. BUT HEY, AT LEAST IT APPEALS TO MILLENIALS WITH THEIR TWITTER AND APPS.
Click to expand...

I agree. I hate it so much when professional news sources put GIFs in their articles.
 
Yeah yeah I'm really late on replying.

More like dr_drift hit upon, I wonder who thought this was a good idea? Not even addressing if one agrees with the content of the message, I'm wondering how anyone thought this was the way to make a the information known to anyone! Is this not the same of dangling a shiny object while trying to convey a message?

This is even worse than all the tech commercial that have nursery or cutsey music with way too much finger snapping and clapping in them .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top