We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
You can't make this stuff up. What's this country coming to? The government doesn't have enough to do? If something is copyrighted, should it be embeddable on YouTube in the first place? No.
Crazy thing is, lots of people use YouTube for self-promotion. If you are a would-be performer or show or whatever, and copyright your stuff, do not make it embeddable. Simple. Can't have it both ways. Can't tell me not to post a photo of your billboard along the road.
YouTube is good fun, a vast resource, and one of the best time-wasters ever invented. If George Shearing's estate, or the Feds, come after Maggie's for embedding his YouTube vid, I have good defenses planned already. Make my day!
if intellectual property rights are abandoned, creative production will cease.
Life performances might continue for some artists, but only in a strictly local setting as there will not be enough revenue to make larger tours feasible (which are now mainly used as promotionals for new albums).
Authors will no longer write books, as they simply won't have the time to do so, some excluded whose publications are secondary to other work (like religious writers who see their work as means to spread their faith, not to generate income).
Production of software (including the software that drives this website) will halt as those who previously earned a living creating and maintaining it will no longer be able to do so.
The same with nearly all product development work, as whatever you come up with can be copied and sold for a lot less by some Chinese company within days or weeks, meaning the cost of development will never be recovered.
Its like everything else in the entertainment industry - they want it all and they want it now.
And the government is totally committed to making that happen.
It is exactly like that guy who had some kind of unique gene structure - he cooperated with the company studying his genes for potential medicines and procedures. One day he found out that he didn't own his own genes - the company patented and copyrighted him, his guts and the genes. He didn't even own himself.
A copyright or patent held by a non-creator could be open to challenge in court. The authority of Congress in this manner is quite clearly enumerated, and specifies that it has the power to reserve IP to the creators, and not on other grounds.
I strongly doubt that the company holding the copyright is the creator of the fellow's genes.
From the first article: "In 1984, Moore sued, claiming that everyone has a right to their own body parts, and that he should be awarded a share of the profits. However, in 1990, the California Supreme Court denied that people have such rights to their bodies."
By extension, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the search chops to find it, the court basically found that you don't own you - which was extended in a different case in MA - Worcester company called Advanced Cell Technology I think.
It's not a logical stretch that if you don't own your genes, or have proprietary rights to them, that you do not own you.
So, I clicked the link and found it went to an Alex Jones site. It may be true that some senate bill or another could be interpreted to criminalize embedding copyrighted youtube videos, but you can't learn anything about the truth of the matter by looking at an Alex Jones site. Nothing about anything can be learned from an Alex Jones site -- nothing. Perhaps "you" can't make this stuff up, but Alex Jones sure can.