Monitored Alarm Systems

Day, Declan McCullagh has a great post in which he approached politicians and lobbyists who supported SOPA and PIPA last year to see what he had to say a year later. Appointments are incredible in their tone deafness of what happened. All of them - in style - this is the future and not look back, but none mention the public or do what is best for the public. A group of them has created a false dichotomy between "Hollywood" instead of "Silicon Valley", as if it were a giant trade dispute. Others speak of him in terms of business. Incredibly, despite dollars

people

about our rights, not one person interviewed by McCullagh seems to think not even worth mentioning.

look at some statements.

The problem of online piracy and sale of counterfeit products online has not disappeared. Senator Leahy continues to monitor the actions of the security forces, significant changes in the courts and voluntary industry practices and all parts will help you determine what measures are appropriate

-. Spokesman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and author of the law of protection IP

Well, the first problem: continuous melting of copyright infringement on the Internet by selling counterfeit products. These are two very, very different, with very different causes requiring different approaches to deal with them. However, Leahy and others have used this dangerous combination of extreme PIPA bills. What they do is take the pervasiveness of copyright infringement and is mixed with the possibility very very small, but real, even serious damage to a few very specific cases of counterfeit products (c . to drugs and military equipment) - and then try to create large "solutions" that have

massive
unintended consequences that affect individual freedoms, such as freedom of of expression. If both are "problems" can be genuinely discuss them individually. The second mixture, you know that something bad will come out of it.

We all agree on the importance of protecting American innovation foreign thieves, but I think it is essential that all parties have a seat at the table and work together to address important policy issues. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I look forward to working with the communities of technology and content to find ways to protect the competitive advantage of the United States, while promoting internet freedom and growth
-. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the original sponsor of SOPA

First of all, do not "steal" innovation . Innovation is a process. But even beyond that, when he speaks of "all parties" have "a seat at the table" and work together, notice he does not mention at all the public. Has "Technology and communities content. "It was a big part of the problem in the first place, and it is disappointing that constantly pushes the stupid Goodlatte online. It has never been" tech vs. content. " In recent years, government agencies and visionaries who want to keep the Internet open and free - and former players (

two

content industry and technology, ) they sought to block and monitor new systems in a feeble attempt to protect business models increasingly obsolete. Carry "tech" and "content" at the table and think they are two sides in this struggle is not only unfair, it is the very foundation of this conflict will inevitably lead to more pain and problems. Beyond what is false "solutions" such as strikes six agreements, which again left the audience completely out in the cold.

Goodlatte is now head of the House Judiciary Committee. He always presented himself as a friend of Silicon Valley (and constantly reminds us that his son works for Facebook). If you want to do a better job than its predecessor, must go beyond the artificial divides like "technology" instead of "content" and start looking at the real problems: the general public and innovators against existing players. Those cuts through two lines. There are players who seek technology inherited stifle innovation and innovative there, covering the public and content.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley have more in common than we think. We share a commitment to innovation, our customers and we work together to develop new platforms to make content easily accessible and legally. As the technology industry is the well-being of the community depends on a film First Amendment dynamic and never support legislation that would limit this fundamental right. We can all agree that nobody wins if everyone loses. Protection of freedom of expression and the protection of intellectual property rights are not mutually exclusive efforts. Protection of intellectual property is essential to the creators and leaders of these two sectors and we need to talk rationally. Let's use this anniversary to forge a way forward with creative content and technology work together to develop effective solutions that provide Internet that works for everyone
-. Michael O'Leary, executive vice president of global policy and external affairs for the Motion Picture Association of America

agreement in the first half, but as c ' is often the case, O O'Leary said the first half mainly try to avoid the obvious criticism of the second half. He says that the MPAA would never support a law that restricts the First Amendment, but did exactly that. Protection of freedom of expression and the protection of "intellectual property" is not mutually exclusive, but absolutely
Can

• conflict and often

conflict. The MPAA has refused to even acknowledge the possibility.

From there, the instruction becomes increasingly problematic. We have seen repeatedly that although many designers and technology companies use copyrights, patents and trademarks, are hardly "essential." Again, to simplify this to "technology" instead of "content" is easy to target O'Leary existing technology companies leaning hard on the copyright or a patent, then, suggest that both parties "" want more protectionism. But this is misleading. As mentioned above, much of this is really about existing players trying to block innovators who seek to benefit the public. You can align a group of players on both sides of the existing technology and content you agree to the end of time values ??protectionism - as if we could bring true innovators in both areas that patent, copyright and trademark rights are of little value and are mostly a distraction.


is a new day for a new company music and the RIAA. For most of the last year, we have focused on being an evangelist market dynamic and exciting legal online now exists for the fans. This will be our priority in 2013. We won more than half of our revenues from digital services and platforms. Creative industries can not say the same. Music helps drive social media trends and appliance sales. In fact, in 2012, the two Google searches are related to music. Currently, 19 of the 20 videos on YouTube music videos. And according to Twitter, September 10 Twitter accounts are owned by the artists.



What does all this tell us? The music is at the center of commercial and cultural phenomena. We are not stuck in the past, but looking towards a bright future full of promise and new music options. That is why we have created with our partner NARM online retail, WhyMusicMatters.com a unique educational guide for digital music fans may know where to get your favorite music in a variety of ways. And we hope that this bright future provide access to music in a way unimaginable today, but perhaps it will seem trivial in a year. In typical
Find best price for : --RIAA----Glazier----Mitch----Google----Valley----Silicon----Goodlatte----copyright----Protect----online----PIPA----SOPA----McCullagh----Declan----Internet--