/fur/ - Furry

dont forget to sign here:

https://www.change.org/p/ask-congress-to-pass-the-preventing-animal-cruelty-pact-act/c?source_location=petition_show

Looks like it'd just make zoo-sadism more difficult to flaunt online penalty-free.

>>95036

if its not online, or its on the deep web, theres less attention brought to it. it wont go away it will just adapt to the tor network.

This law annoys me because it’s just like the air transport industry’s reactions to terrorism. Someone brings in a shoe bomb, check everyone’s shoes. Then while everyone’s focused on shoes someone makes an underwear bomb so we all start to look at underwear instead of addressing the matter of bombs being snuck in.

Making a laser focus law that bans one specific bad thing is great but people who get off on hurting things will just be careful not to do that one thing, so they can keep plying their trades.

>>95042

would you rather them blanket statement or would you rather then make it abuseable? cant have both.

How often are live animals actually inserted in the bum?

Asking for a friend

>>95029

>filename

OP, I'm concerned.

>>95046

alot.

>>95047

its from the article page. i just reused it for attention grabbing

Looks like Kero will have a harder time finding more porn.

>>95052

not only will he have a harder time finding more porn, the feds are waiting to pull his case if this document passes so they can have more pull with the judge. cause the court trial will take case and effect AFTER the bill is past, now rendering it to be legally processed, atleast i think.

>>95044

No, not when legislators and enforcement people are idiots. You sure can’t.

I’d like the laws to make sense. Everyone knows what it means to do evil shit to animals. If a law is so poorly written that it fails to describe “doing evil shit to animals” then it’s not too late to try again or to fix it.

There’s no ambiguity in the law when it comes to whether you’re pirating Disney movies or pimping your children out.

>>95066

welp im glad it includes sexual contact with animals, :3

>>95069

In fairness it covers a lot of things besides “crush porn” but when you look back at the number of horrible people with animals incidents through history it seems like a weird focal point.

>>95081

because of the zoosadists that have come to light, so there gonna pass it soley because of that.

>>95066

>There’s no ambiguity in the law when it comes to whether you’re pirating Disney movies or pimping your children out.

There's plenty of ambiguity in copyright law.

>>95238

Can you point out an example of where you find it ambiguous? It’s pretty cut and dry, especially if it’s a published copyrighted work being illegally distributed.

I mean, most furries don’t know what copyright means but not because the laws are confusing, they just choose not to read them.

>>95243

furries do this all the time, why they havent been hit with copyright fines is beyond me.

>>95244

Got me. Tho I heard a rumor once that they played the game once, cropped a furry Nick&Judy r34 pic and tweeted it from their account with a “I know where you got that pic” comment.

Maybe they don’t want to risk a boycott and lose a third of their DVD sales. Or maybe they know no furries have any money to sue for.

>>95249

its that furries have no money to sue.

>>95243

>Can you point out an example of where you find it ambiguous?

The entire "can you trademark this" part, which has been exploited to hell and back because of it.

>>95265

Well wrt trademarks, which are more of a cross between a design patent and a copyright, things can be murky, sure. But a copyright is simpler. You either are or aren’t the owner, and if it’s a Disney movie, you aren’t the owner. If a furry commissions a pic from a furry artist, it’s possible that neither of them knows for sure who owns it... but that’s mostly because furries never write/sign commission contracts, and a paypal receipt does not confirm who holds the license to make derivative works.

>>95273

>But a copyright is simpler. You either are or aren’t the owner

Enter DMCA, and now you can easily make false/unfounded copyright claims that will almost never get to court because of terrible incentive structure.

There's a guy on /tech/ that managed to get an open source project taken down without even providing the personal info you're supposed to provide.

>inb4 that's the host's falut, not the law's fault

The law created the situation in which the host takes a large risk by contesting the validity of a claim.

>>95350

Ok but if you pirate a Disney movie.. there is zero ambiguity. If you pimp out your kids, there is zero ambiguity.

Open source is not copyright. It’s a fascinating topic for sure but it isn’t how Disney licenses their films.

If you want my opinion it’s our fault for saying “oh okay, I’ll keep watching fucking pewdiepie and vine compilations while you steadily turn YouTube into the Nazi Europe of the web because I can’t control myself enough to defend my rights.”

>>95029

in the US, guro and lolicon are 100% legal as long as it's all fiction, no real life models. therefore it should be the same for animals, and i don't care about animal cruelty or bestiality as long as it's fiction and not happening to real life animals.

>>95355

Same. I don't give a shit about drawn porn, no matter how creepy or disturbing the subject matter may be. I care about photos of real people hurting others.

>>95359

Don’t you worry that after seeing a cartoon someone will want the real thing? (That’s like the biggest made up objection to your point)

>>95353

>Ok but if you pirate a Disney movie.. there is zero ambiguity.

But if you show a few seconds from said movie, is it piracy? Is it fair use? Do you have to mute the audio because you can hear a piece of the soundtrack in the background?

The ambiguity is there, not in the super-obvious cases of copyright infringiment.

>If you want my opinion it’s our fault

Anon, if the entire site stopped interacting with youtube completely nobody would notice.

>>95370

That's the "rock and roll causes drugs" argument, so why worry?

>>95450

No, of course not. If you exercise fair use then DMCA and the sycophants at google/yt will side with the best paid lawyer and shut your shit down.

Partly because Disney’s DMCA cops are underpaid and have 0.2 seconds to evaluate your threat and react appropriately. Partly because of lobbying and crooked politicians, and the fear that the whole site will get shut down (like anyone seriously believes that). But your access rights on YT are not guaranteed by federal law. Hitting you with a strike is their prerogative and they can do it because they don’t like your face. That doesn’t mean your right to use the video wasn’t there to begin with.

But.... we have been letting sites like yt and Facebook shit all over us willingly because they let us post our stupid shitty vines and screen caps for free.

Serious content creators have other ways to get their material online that doesn’t include a remote killswitch. We also could have stood up for ourselves fifteen years ago when they didn’t insert ad content and when Facebook only had real human beings on it.

But those vines and memes add so much more to the experience of being online that we apparently needed them more than our rights.

>>95455

Btw there is a pretty crystalline “three prong test” definition of fair use. Disney just isn’t keen on everyone knowing what it is. I’m sure you can google it but the jist is whether the use case is an equivalent of the original. 11 seconds out of the middle of “seasons of love” in monophonic 720p is not the same thing as seeing Rent in a playhouse on Broadway.

>>95370

No, I don't worry. People who want the real thing will want it whether or not they see a drawing of it. People who don't want the real thing won't.

>>95450

>That's the "rock and roll causes drugs" argument, so why worry?

Yep. And violent video games don't make people who haven't previously wanted to commit violent acts suddenly decide to do so. Most people can separate fantasy and reality. The few people who cannot do so have already got problems.