Now cue the apologists who will say that "you have nothing to fear if you're not doing badness", that it's "for the artists and content producers", and that they might even work in my personal favorite: It "will protect the children".
daedalus wrote:y personal favorite: It "will protect the children".
The sad part is that every other country that has tried this has at least have the decency to hide it behind the "protect the children and stop child pornography on the internet" excuse. (The effectiveness of DNS blocking instead of actually removing the content and going after the hosts is a whole other story and Germany has shown that the later is much more effective).
But no, instead of protecting the children our senators march to the sound of the legacy industries and try to infringe on our freedoms to protect corporations. At least lie to us and pretend it is for the children...
James Allworth, a fellow at Harvard Business School, said SOPA could stifle innovation.
"It contains provisions that will chill innovation. It contains provisions that will tinker with the fundamental fabric of the internet. It gives private corporations the power to censor. And best of all, it bypasses due legal process to do much of it," he said.
I honestly believe there's more at work here than just businesses. I'm not claiming Illuminati or anything, but the less the masses can communicate freely, the more anyone with power can exert it.
Well, any surprise that there's a sudden push to censor the internet under any pretense, what with so many countries recently using it to organize protests and revolt?
Has anybody told the USA that having freedoms is the thing that separates you from China and the great firewall?
This is predictable as it is depressing. No doubt we in the UK would follow suit with our own version in the interest of preserving 'the special relationship.'
If they really want to stop piracy, then stop ripping people off with overpriced DVDs and CDs (if anyone still buys them!)
Call me cynical, but I remember years ago when people talked about the internet being a force for good that would change mankind for ever... The search for truth is over, as there is only one truth in the universe - money talks. Rant over.
As I revisited this topic the lyrics that come from my randomized playlist are:
All this time has whittled away
Like so many days in one
Back and forth the leaders sway
Backing it up with guns
Superpowers flex their wings
Hold the world on puppet strings
Egos will feed
While citizens bleed
That's always the way it goes
The "good" news is that IF passed, enforcing it will be a HUGE boondoggle without an ENORMOUS increase in manpower.
I don't believe it will pass, but if it does, it really won't be around long. It'll be like prohibition. Once we get down to actually doing it, they'll realize it was a horrible idea after all.
Oh god I hope this does not pass because if its does the idiots here in Oz will try to use it as leverage to do the same thing here.
Knowledge is free and I guess we are easier to control as a people if we cant access any.
Also I wonder if many of the idiots trying to pass this bill even use the interwebz I have found over and over again that older people resent what they dont understand.
No. These bills need to die a quick death. It's total bs to censor the web to protect private interests. I don't even have a good reason just reading this bill makes me wary.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If they really want to stop piracy, then stop ripping people off with overpriced DVDs and CDs (if anyone still buys them!)
Indeed, that and release stuff in good time or even at all. I fail to understand why there is so much of a lead time between a DVD release and it's cinema release. It just exacerbates the issue. Take for example Game of Thrones. No release date for it on DVD right now, there was simply no way I could've watched this legally as I am a Virgin Media customer, and, as many UKers know Sky has Virgin by the balls so no Sky Atlantic for you!
The thing that gets me too, the most downloaded films of the past 3 years (Dark Knight, Avatar, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1) have also been the highest grossing at the box office in their respective years and the movie industry is dying? Right. Admittedly it is a problem they're making for themselves with all this 3D nonsense, there are some cinemas that won't show it in 2D, meaning one has to go elsewhere or wait a ridiculously long amount of time to see it in a manner they like.
Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something?
I always thought of it more of a privilege, nay, a duty, to abscond with others IP, not a right. Of course you have to wear a domino mask and laugh like Mutley while you do it.
I'm sure the UK would love to take google's (and other tech companies) dollars and convert them into Sterling if this passes... assuming we don't have the same kind of idiots in charge of our countr...
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
To me it's not entirely that cut and dry. I know you have a personal stake in this one and I mean no disrespect towards it, but there are somethings that I would not have spent money on because I was only half-heartedly interested in them and gone without, save that I could see them for free. If I'm not going to spend the money anyway (and only I know if I would or not, which is where "integrity" comes in here IMO), what have I cost anyone? I've told people about things I've seen for free and they have actually bought it themselves purely on my recommendation; it's not always the case, but it happens. Not everyone is "responsible" in the same way that I am, but I think it really needs to come down to finding a way to enforce punishment for abuse rather than restricting the ability to legitimately do things as well.
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
And theres the threat of more than just pirated sites getting shut down as well....and tbh at this rate I'll never get to be a somalian pirate!
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
And theres the threat of more than just pirated sites getting shut down as well....and tbh at this rate I'll never get to be a somalian pirate!
Maybe they shouldn't be doing suspicious things. You have nothing to fear if you're not doing badness.
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
And theres the threat of more than just pirated sites getting shut down as well....and tbh at this rate I'll never get to be a somalian pirate!
Maybe they shouldn't be doing suspicious things. You have nothing to fear if you're not doing badness.
Well, seeing as then Dakkadakka goes away, I have a big problem with these.
Why hit the best part of the economy? Because the music and film industry put a lot more lobbying in on this issue than the web companies did..and it all boils down to money
bombboy1252 wrote:Anon is going to have a field say if this gets passed, I'm just waiting for Anon to hack into the pentagon if this bill gets passed..............
And I hope they all get a bullet to their head, I'm still not over the PSN hack.
halonachos wrote:Guy Fawkes would not be amused, seriously, that's a nice way to capitalize on his image and go against what he stood for.
We're anonymous because we all went to our hot topic and bought this mask.
Do go on. You're doing your point justice and I am not wanting you to hang yourself with your own words. At all. I am completely serious. Continue.
I personally don't like how Guy Fawkes is portrayed now and days. The guy wanted to blow up Parliament, not for individual power, but to get the Catholics back into power in England by assassinating the king and the parliament. To use the mask to represent the idea of the power of the individual is to misrepresent what he stood for, he didn't want to be anonymous, he tried to get Spain to support his actions after all, and I doubt he would be amused by the acts of anonymous.
We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
To me it's not entirely that cut and dry. I know you have a personal stake in this one and I mean no disrespect towards it...
Woah, woah, hang on - this is nothing to do with my decision to give away Dresden's music. We did that because it seemed like a nice way to build a little good will towards us, and I'm satisfied that it has seemed to. However, the point is this: That was my choice and my decision. Giving away one's intellectual property for free should be at the discretion of the artist. Of course, the consumer is entitled to get that product for as cheap as he/she possibly can, but you've got to accept that by downloading it for free without permission, you've broken the law, and stolen from the creators of the work. It's just that cut and dried.
but there are somethings that I would not have spent money on because I was only half-heartedly interested in them and gone without, save that I could see them for free. If I'm not going to spend the money anyway (and only I know if I would or not, which is where "integrity" comes in here IMO), what have I cost anyone? I've told people about things I've seen for free and they have actually bought it themselves purely on my recommendation; it's not always the case, but it happens. Not everyone is "responsible" in the same way that I am, but I think it really needs to come down to finding a way to enforce punishment for abuse rather than restricting the ability to legitimately do things as well.
Well, isn't this a way to punish abuse? By forcing ISPs to shut down websites that routinely infringe upon other people's rights? There is no legitimate way to steal another's property, is there? It doesn't matter if you were going to purchase that album later, you stole it now. That's not your only recourse - you could go to Spotify (or similar). You can stream music there for free and the artists get a royalty. It's a great way to hear new stuff without stealing.
Albatross wrote:
Woah, woah, hang on - this is nothing to do with my decision to give away Dresden's music. We did that because it seemed like a nice way to build a little good will towards us, and I'm satisfied that it has seemed to. However, the point is this: That was my choice and my decision. Giving away one's intellectual property for free should be at the discretion of the artist. Of course, the consumer is entitled to get that product for as cheap as he/she possibly can, but you've got to accept that by downloading it for free without permission, you've broken the law, and stolen from the creators of the work. It's just that cut and dried.
The bill is overreaching and designed to be abused. Take a look at it. It really is about the worst kind of 'protection' you could hope for. I'm not getting into the ethics of downloading the latest Britney album (or whatever is on Billboard nowadays), but I could if you'd like.
Well, isn't this a way to punish abuse? By forcing ISPs to shut down websites that routinely infringe upon other people's rights? There is no legitimate way to steal another's property, is there? It doesn't matter if you were going to purchase that album later, you stole it now. That's not your only recourse - you could go to Spotify (or similar). You can stream music there for free and the artists get a royalty. It's a great way to hear new stuff without stealing.
Dragging people into the street and shooting them in front of their neighbors is also a way to punish abuse. It's about as inappropriate as this is. Again, not trying to debate ethics of 'stealing' music, merely how horrible a piece of legislature the *AA paid for.
Albatross wrote:
Woah, woah, hang on - this is nothing to do with my decision to give away Dresden's music. We did that because it seemed like a nice way to build a little good will towards us, and I'm satisfied that it has seemed to. However, the point is this: That was my choice and my decision. Giving away one's intellectual property for free should be at the discretion of the artist. Of course, the consumer is entitled to get that product for as cheap as he/she possibly can, but you've got to accept that by downloading it for free without permission, you've broken the law, and stolen from the creators of the work. It's just that cut and dried.
The bill is overreaching and designed to be abused. Take a look at it. It really is about the worst kind of 'protection' you could hope for. I'm not getting into the ethics of downloading the latest Britney album (or whatever is on Billboard nowadays), but I could if you'd like.
You could try, but I've pretty much summed it up already. Any other position is nigh on indefensible. You do NOT have the right to steal, no matter how over-priced you think that Yo La Tengo album is.
I don't doubt that this piece of potential legislation could be open to abuse, but that's a completely separate argument from the one I'm making. Some people are complaining that this bill will prevent them from stealing. That's a childish reason to oppose this bill. THAT is the point I'm making.
Well, isn't this a way to punish abuse? By forcing ISPs to shut down websites that routinely infringe upon other people's rights? There is no legitimate way to steal another's property, is there? It doesn't matter if you were going to purchase that album later, you stole it now. That's not your only recourse - you could go to Spotify (or similar). You can stream music there for free and the artists get a royalty. It's a great way to hear new stuff without stealing.
Dragging people into the street and shooting them in front of their neighbors is also a way to punish abuse. It's about as inappropriate as this is. Again, not trying to debate ethics of 'stealing' music, merely how horrible a piece of legislature the *AA paid for.
By comparing it to 'dragging people out into the street and shooting them'?
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian? No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. The only people who's rights HAVE been trampled on are the people who work hard to create art only to see it stolen by entitled over-grown manchildren. Artists and their representatives have the legal right to control their intellectual property, not you, and certainly not the people with TB hard-drives full of stolen films and music.
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I can't wait for the American Right to tie themselves in knots over this!
'hrghh...It protects enterprise...nnnggh...but Obama did it!! gfnghh....'
(1) Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Also, I can't wait for the American Right to tie themselves in knots over this!
(2) 'hrghh...It protects enterprise...nnnggh...but Obama did it!! gfnghh....'
/head explode
(1) I'm all for protecting itellectual property and culling piracy. I just want them to take their time with the bill so there isn't some stupid line item that will harm legitimate businesses due to some wrongful or unintended interpretation of the bill.
(2) Like all fiscally conservative republicans, I'm going to pretend that it was the Republicans in congress that came up with the bill and passed it while I stick my fingers in my ears and say "La, la, la...can't hear you!!"
bombboy1252 wrote:Anon is going to have a field say if this gets passed, I'm just waiting for Anon to hack into the pentagon if this bill gets passed..............
And I hope they all get a bullet to their head, I'm still not over the PSN hack.
They didn't do that. They tried for months, but the PSN hack took skill, not DDOSing.
You could try, but I've pretty much summed it up already. Any other position is nigh on indefensible. You do NOT have the right to steal, no matter how over-priced you think that Yo La Tengo album is.
Theft and software piracy are not the same thing. They never have been. Copyright infringement is not theft except insofar as the RIAA has lobbied to make it so.
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian?
It would allow them to shut down youtube and virtually any other user centric content upload service in existence (including this one). That's not only draconian, its idiotic and creates a business landscape of uncertainty while giving the litigious nature of the corporate world just one more weapon with which to do illegitimate business.
No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
Freedom and speech and assembly. This site could be shut down for aiding in the piracy of GW products (which it does by existing).
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Because you don't ever look into the direct implications of the things you support.
Albatross wrote: I don't doubt that this piece of potential legislation could be open to abuse, but that's a completely separate argument from the one I'm making. Some people are complaining that this bill will prevent them from stealing. That's a childish reason to oppose this bill. THAT is the point I'm making.
And its a fantastic point, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we need to give corporations and the government carte blanche to censor the internet over it.
Fine, you want to keep arguing this? You're absolutely right. You have zero right to it. Can we please move on?
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian? No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. The only people who's rights HAVE been trampled on are the people who work hard to create art only to see it stolen by entitled over-grown manchildren. Artists and their representatives have the legal right to control their intellectual property, not you, and certainly not the people with TB hard-drives full of stolen films and music.
Quite justifiably? I hope you're trying to convince yourself, not me. And it won't even fix things. People who wish to pirate will still find a way. The bill talks about seizing domain names, for feths sake. Circumventing that is braindead easy. Check this out: http://74.125.226.50 . Alternatively, there are independent DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this bill, and if they try a technical angle beyond DNS, there's other options such as IRC, darknets, decentralized protocols, and god know what else that's not actually been invented yet. The 'internet' IS more than just port 80 and port 53, you know.
Long as there is a demand, there will be a method. What this WILL do though is allow companies and the government to make it much harder to find sites that are inconvenient to them. If I get taken down because of the page I have speaking out against Monsanto (for example), it becomes popular, and Monsanto wants to kill it, then I'm down, have to fight a costly battle to get up, not being able to get my message out all the while.
It kind of reminds me of the DMCA. The DMCA was quite justifiable and 'merely' allows people to protect their own content, right?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As I revisited this topic the lyrics that come from my randomized playlist are:
All this time has whittled away
Like so many days in one
Back and forth the leaders sway
Backing it up with guns
Superpowers flex their wings
Hold the world on puppet strings
Egos will feed
While citizens bleed
That's always the way it goes
...surreal
When will the world listen to reason, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
When will the truth come into season, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
The Offspring - It'll be a long time
As written in 1992ish
Albatross wrote:We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
He won't give a gak because he was disemboweled! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Catholic.
You could try, but I've pretty much summed it up already. Any other position is nigh on indefensible. You do NOT have the right to steal, no matter how over-priced you think that Yo La Tengo album is.
Theft and software piracy are not the same thing. They never have been. Copyright infringement is not theft except insofar as the RIAA has lobbied to make it so.
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to simply to justify not paying for something that they are supposed to pay for.
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian?
It would allow them to shut down youtube and virtually any other user centric content upload service in existence (including this one).
Only if youtube does not take sufficient steps to combat the copyright infringement that takes place on its watch. There are legitimate ways to host music videos on youtube, all of which require the expressed permission of the person or persons who own the content. And so they should. You don't get to decide who owns what.
That's not only draconian, its idiotic and creates a business landscape of uncertainty while giving the litigious nature of the corporate world just one more weapon with which to do illegitimate business.
Or it could excise a massive leech on the culture industries in your country. It's too early to tell.
No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
Freedom and speech and assembly. This site could be shut down for aiding in the piracy of GW products (which it does by existing).
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech? Does that apply to websites too? What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions? No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Because you don't ever look into the direct implications of the things you support.
Albatross wrote:We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
He won't give a gak because he was disemboweled! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Catholic.
Who gives a rodent's fundament what Fawkes would have thought? He was psychotic. Of all the things to criticise Anonymous for, corrupting the image of Fawkes isn't one of them. I doubt most of them even know who he is.
Albatross wrote:
I don't doubt that this piece of potential legislation could be open to abuse, but that's a completely separate argument from the one I'm making. Some people are complaining that this bill will prevent them from stealing. That's a childish reason to oppose this bill. THAT is the point I'm making.
And its a fantastic point, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we need to give corporations and the government carte blanche to censor the internet over it.
We don't and we aren't. This bill doesn't do that, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of hysterical. But then, that's just you being you.
Please. It (quite justifiably, I might add) allows private individuals and companies to protect their property by shutting down websites (or sites who link to them) who's only (or main) purpose is to allow people to traffic it illegally. How is that draconian? No-one's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. The only people who's rights HAVE been trampled on are the people who work hard to create art only to see it stolen by entitled over-grown manchildren. Artists and their representatives have the legal right to control their intellectual property, not you, and certainly not the people with TB hard-drives full of stolen films and music.
Quite justifiably? I hope you're trying to convince yourself, not me. And it won't even fix things. People who wish to pirate will still find a way. The bill talks about seizing domain names, for feths sake. Circumventing that is braindead easy. Check this out: http://74.125.226.50 . Alternatively, there are independent DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this bill, and if they try a technical angle beyond DNS, there's other options such as IRC, darknets, decentralized protocols, and god know what else that's not actually been invented yet. The 'internet' IS more than just port 80 and port 53, you know.
Excellent attempt to blind me with IT jargon there, sport. I am un-cowed. Yes it IS justifiable for people to try and protect their intellectual property. The only arguments to the counter I've heard so far are 'it's unfair because now I can't download an album to see if I like it', which is irrelevant, and 'this could lead to the whole internet being censored!!', which is risible. This slope is simply not that slippery. And yes, it may be possible to circumvent this legislation. And? That's part of the Game. There has to be more than one side in the Game, otherwise we just throw up our hands and declare that property is theft.
What this WILL do though is allow companies and the government to make it much harder to find sites that are inconvenient to them. If I get taken down because of the page I have speaking out against Monsanto (for example), it becomes popular, and Monsanto wants to kill it, then I'm down, have to fight a costly battle to get up, not being able to get my message out all the while.
Wow. That's really got nothing to do with this situation at all. You're pretty paranoid, huh?
And with any luck, your band will sign with a major label and enjoy all the prestige, wealth, and fame that goes along with it.
Be as sarcastic as you want, but it's people like me that you would gladly steal from. Don't expect me to sympathise with your 'cause'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
htj wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Albatross wrote:We burn effigies of Guy Fawkes every year, and Anonymous are doing him a disservice!? Our Government hanged him by the neck until he was near death, disemboweled him, cut off his genitals, then chopped him into four pieces, finally displaying his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. I hardly think he'd give a gak about a bunch of nerds wearing his visage as a mask.
He won't give a gak because he was disemboweled! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Catholic.
Who gives a rodent's fundament what Fawkes would have thought? He was psychotic. Of all the things to criticise Anonymous for, corrupting the image of Fawkes isn't one of them. I doubt most of them even know who he is.
Yeah, plus:
'Bin Laden wouldn't give a gak because he was shot in the face! That was all well and good, but he knew the risks of what he was going to do before he did it, he was a real hardcore Muslim.'
Not as romantic, eh? Fawkes was a terrorist and a traitor. I spit on his grave.
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
Copyright infringement. There are dramatic differences in form, function, and the possibility of law enforcement. They haven't been treated the same for the last 100 years and it's suddenly stealing now that a useless middleman industry is losing it's shirt? Cry me a river. This is business lobbying to change the rules to stay relevant, not a great reversal of peoples views on theft.
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to simply to justify not paying for something that they are supposed to pay for.
No. It's amazing how much legal and historical revisionism people that defend the media industries go through, and how many logical hoops they have to jump in order to equate copying and theft. You know what I steal when I download a song? Nothing. Nothing is lost. I am using my own equipment to copy something. Is that illegal? Sure, why not, lots of things are. But equating it to theft to make it somehow intellectually easier to understand and label is just dumb.
Only if youtube does not take sufficient steps to combat the copyright infringement that takes place on its watch.
Yes, a service through which a third of all internet traffic goes through can easily vet the terabytes that are uploaded to it every minute. Clearly that wouldn't take hundreds of thousands of lawyers on full time pay.
There are legitimate ways to host music videos on youtube, all of which require the expressed permission of the person or persons who own the content.
And this law punishes google for hosting a service people can misuse. It doesn't really punish the people. It can't. Not on that scale.
And so they should. You don't get to decide who owns what.
And you don't get to decide who Jwalks. Lets put a policeman on every street corner on earth.
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech?
I dunno. Is youtube illegal? Is Dakka? Comcast? They all do.
Does that apply to websites too?
Does it? If I post a poster I copied from the internet on your car window should it be impounded?
What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions?
Or fonts? Did you know that under these proposed laws a site could be brought to court for an illegally used font on a jpeg stored in its servers? Do you know what fonts you have legal access too? I do graphic design for a living and I'm not even sure!
Did you know that the .gif file format is proprietary and theoretically every website in creation could be illegal under these laws?
No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
Yes. It functionally breaks the internet. The most common video codec on earth is proprietary. Did you know that?
What's your basis for that statement?
You don't seem to know where copyright ends and begins and exactly how much of your day to day life violates a copyright. There's a reason these are business cases and not law enforcement. What matters is damages, not your petty sense of moral outrage at all the theivery going on. The internet has been one of the greatest generators of wealth the western world has ever seen and you're diving in front of a bullet headed towards industry executives that haven't had a purpose in 20 years and risking the entirety of it.
While I'm generally on the side of the artists in cases such as this, giving an entity that isn't the judiciary organ the power to shut down web pages because they feel like it should be such an obviously bad idea that I cannot fathom how it's an issue in the first place. Dealing with crime is the job of the police and court system, not Warner Brothers.
Albatross wrote:
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
It's amazing the lengths some people will go to simply to justify not paying for something that they are supposed to pay for.
It's academic, as I've already stated my opinion on the matter, but as long as you're going to continue, I'll bite: Is the actual theft to acquire property belonging to someone, or to deprive someone of property?
Or it could excise a massive leech on the culture industries in your country. It's too early to tell.
Indeed it is. However, it's not too early to tell what damage perpetual copyright extension has done to culture. There was a time, a long time ago where culture was fostered by people wishing to generate culture, not revenue. If you were good, you were commissioned to continue doing whatever it was that you did. That's why we have classical music and folklore. I mean, Christ, imagine if you were getting sued by ASSCAP for reenacting "The Tempest". There was a time when people freely swapped stories, songs, and ideas. Culture shouldn't be a buy-in. And culture obviously survived those dark and scary days. Who's to say it won't again?
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech? Does that apply to websites too? What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions? No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
You guys remember that apologist I mentioned on the first page and how to spot him? Here's a fun thought: This bill is designed for copyright. You've already cited 'useful' methods of tackling other evil things with it. Congratulations, you've misused it already. I bet it would be great for stopping 'terrorism' too.
If you want an anti-kiddie porn bill, make an anti-kiddie porn bill. Alternatively, write that into this one. Better still, use the already existing laws that cover that stuff already. DON'T make a vague bill that could be used for all of these 'wonderful' things.
Furthermore, you trumpet out "constitutional rights" (as if that means anything anymore) but where does it actually state anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights anything about having a right to your own ideas? A cursory glace did not reveal it to me.
And that's what copyright was really supposed to be: a compromise. You're trading public awareness of your ideas in exchange for limited protection to profit off of them, and then they go to public domain, for the good of all. There was nothing about being able to live off of a single creation in perpetuity. Now it just hampers derivative works and, if anything, discourages innovation. It's almost as terrible as patent law is nowadays.
Sorry guys, but the party's over, and I for one couldn't be happier.
Because you don't ever look into the direct implications of the things you support.
What's your basis for that statement?
I could copy and paste my above post showing you, but you'd ignore it a second time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Quite justifiably? I hope you're trying to convince yourself, not me. And it won't even fix things. People who wish to pirate will still find a way. The bill talks about seizing domain names, for feths sake. Circumventing that is braindead easy. Check this out: http://74.125.226.50 . Alternatively, there are independent DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this bill, and if they try a technical angle beyond DNS, there's other options such as IRC, darknets, decentralized protocols, and god know what else that's not actually been invented yet. The 'internet' IS more than just port 80 and port 53, you know.
Excellent attempt to blind me with IT jargon there, sport. I am un-cowed. Yes it IS justifiable for people to try and protect their intellectual property. The only arguments to the counter I've heard so far are 'it's unfair because now I can't download an album to see if I like it', which is irrelevant, and 'this could lead to the whole internet being censored!!', which is risible. This slope is simply not that slippery. And yes, it may be possible to circumvent this legislation. And? That's part of the Game. There has to be more than one side in the Game, otherwise we just throw up our hands and declare that property is theft.
Indeed. You ARE most certainly un-cowed in my most skillful attempt at offering facts showing why this bill is futile at best. Here's a hint, if you don't understand how something works, you probably shouldn't attempt to make an argument against it one way or another. My troll meter is kind of going off at this point.
What this WILL do though is allow companies and the government to make it much harder to find sites that are inconvenient to them. If I get taken down because of the page I have speaking out against Monsanto (for example), it becomes popular, and Monsanto wants to kill it, then I'm down, have to fight a costly battle to get up, not being able to get my message out all the while.
Wow. That's really got nothing to do with this situation at all. You're pretty paranoid, huh?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:As I revisited this topic the lyrics that come from my randomized playlist are:
All this time has whittled away
Like so many days in one
Back and forth the leaders sway
Backing it up with guns
Superpowers flex their wings
Hold the world on puppet strings
Egos will feed
While citizens bleed
That's always the way it goes
...surreal
When will the world listen to reason, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
When will the truth come into season, I have a feeling it'll be a long time
The Offspring - It'll be a long time
As written in 1992ish
btw Cannerus when did you turn into alice cooper?
Last weekish? I started getting into him more this last summer really though. I love rebellion songs in general (made a playlist for a bunch of occupier friends to blare for the hell of it ).
Okay the government will probably destroy the internet. Dakkadakka will most likely be taken down by the government. Everything will be taken down that offends a major company. Just a simple complaint will destroy a website.
Illegally gaining ownership of another's property is NOT theft. Cool, gotcha. So... What is it?
Copyright infringement. There are dramatic differences in form, function, and the possibility of law enforcement. They haven't been treated the same for the last 100 years and it's suddenly stealing now that a useless middleman industry is losing it's shirt? Cry me a river. This is business lobbying to change the rules to stay relevant, not a great reversal of peoples views on theft.
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission. If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
Only if youtube does not take sufficient steps to combat the copyright infringement that takes place on its watch.
Yes, a service through which a third of all internet traffic goes through can easily vet the terabytes that are uploaded to it every minute. Clearly that wouldn't take hundreds of thousands of lawyers on full time pay.
Correct. Clearly it wouldn't because, clearly, they already have mechanisms in place with which to monitor and filter content. Clearly. Also, doesn't the wording of the bill refer only to sites which are intended solely, or mostly, for the purpose of illegal distribution of IP?
Is operating a shop that distributes illegal goods protected speech?
I dunno. Is youtube illegal? Is Dakka? Comcast? They all do.
Do what? Exist for the purpose of infringing copyright? If so, then yeah, why not?
Does that apply to websites too?
Does it? If I post a poster I copied from the internet on your car window should it be impounded?
What's on the poster?
What about websites that feature child porn? Or bomb-making instructions?
Or fonts? Did you know that under these proposed laws a site could be brought to court for an illegally used font on a jpeg stored in its servers? Do you know what fonts you have legal access too? I do graphic design for a living and I'm not even sure!
I use the open source gak I got with Ubuntu.
In any case, I think that would probably fall under Fair Use, considering the purpose of fonts.
Did you know that the .gif file format is proprietary and theoretically every website in creation could be illegal under these laws?
OK, now you're being silly. But intriguing...
To Google (if it's still there)!
No, apparently it's open now, and has been since 2004. Phew!
No-one's saying that people can't say what they want, only that they can't copy and distribute IP that doesn't belong to them. Is that so unfair?
Yes. It functionally breaks the internet. The most common video codec on earth is proprietary. Did you know that?
No. So? What does that have to do with SOPA? Are you honestly saying this legislation will be used to shut down any website that uses the aforementioned codec? I think that you and both know that that is a massive stretch.
What's your basis for that statement?
You don't seem to know where copyright ends and begins and exactly how much of your day to day life violates a copyright.
OK, stop right there. You are incorrect. Simply using another person's intellectual property is not an infringement of their rights, so stop trying to pretend that it is. That is simply not true.
There's a reason these are business cases and not law enforcement. What matters is damages, not your petty sense of moral outrage at all the theivery going on. The internet has been one of the greatest generators of wealth the western world has ever seen and you're diving in front of a bullet headed towards industry executives that haven't had a purpose in 20 years and risking the entirety of it.
Y'see the thing I find most confusing is that you people seem to think I'm on some sort of crusade on behalf of The Man, or something. Do you think I honestly give a gak about your hard-drive full of stolen gak? You couldn't be more wrong. As was alluded to before, my band gave away it's first album. As part of the process, we were featured on a pretty major torrent site as a 'featured artist' - they asked, we said yes. It did us a lot of good. I have no particular axe to grind with pirates, but pirates are what they are. They are law-breakers. They're not on some righteous crusade against big business, liberating culture from the money men. They're digital shoplifters, pure and simple. Now, I'm cool with that. I break the law all the time - if some copper nicks me when I've got a big bad of the good stuff in my pocket, then so be it. I know the risks. What irks me is that all this crying from certain quarters is based on not being able to get free stuff anymore. Well, boo-hoo. That's the game. You're allowed to break the law, they're allowed to try and catch you.
...
On reflection, that was kind of rude of me, daedalus. Apologies. I've removed it. Sufficed to say, I think you have some strange ideas about culture.
The government can order service providers to block websites for infringing links posted by any users.
Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users
It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook.
Chaos for the Internet
Thousands of sites that are legal under the DMCA would face new legal threats. People trying to keep the internet more secure wouldn't be able to rely on the integrity of the DNS system.
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission. If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
I fundamentally disagree that copyright violation is theft. It wasn't for the vast majority of human history, yet it suddenly is in the last ten years? No. You are borrowing a moral equivalence from a PR firm. Do you know why adobe doesn't take legal action against the distributors "stealing" its platform? It's because it's built an empire on zero advertisement software sales generated by being the most pirated software manufacturer in history. Many major anime studios turn a blind eye to the 'theft' of their products because they drive sales. Many artists encourage the 'theft' of their material because it provides them an outlet for spreading their brand beyond the often times strict record industry contracts that started this whole storm of gak in the first place.
Copyright infringement is the breakage of a financial law that if proven in court can lead to the payment of damages. Theft is when you take someones property. You can't steal the future and you can't steal what might have been.
Correct. Clearly it wouldn't because, clearly, they already have mechanisms in place with which to monitor and filter content. Clearly. Also, doesn't the wording of the bill refer only to sites which are intended solely, or mostly, for the purpose of illegal distribution of IP?
I've watched full movies a week before they came out on youtube. I've watched entire television series. I've watched unlicensed sports clips. I've watched unlicensed software tutorials. Like half of all music on youtube violates copyrights.
Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material.[136][137][138] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".[139] During the same court battle, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights".[140][141] In June 2010, Viacom's lawsuit against Google was rejected in a summary judgment, with U.S. federal Judge Louis L. Stanton stating that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling.[142] Since Viacom filed its lawsuit in 2008, YouTube has introduced the "Video ID" system, which checks uploaded videos against a database of copyrighted content with the aim of reducing violations.[143]
One hundred and fifty thousand clips violating just viacoms IP. You think the real numbers not in the tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions for videos violating any copyright?
Do what? Exist for the purpose of infringing copyright? If so, then yeah, why not?
Provide and facilitate services that aid in the distribution of copyrighted material and provide webspace for downloaders and distributors.
What's on the poster?
A picture of bono and a QR code that downloads "like a G6" onto your phone.
In any case, I think that would probably fall under Fair Use, considering the purpose of fonts.
It doesn't. Those things can be well over 1000 dollars. Typeface copyrights are a truly awful creature.
OK, now you're being silly. But intriguing...
To Google (if it's still there)!
No, apparently it's open now, and has been since 2004. Phew!
Oh, cool. How about the rich text format then? RAR? There are a still non public holdouts that are ludicrously ubiquitous.
No. So? What does that have to do with SOPA? Are you honestly saying this legislation will be used to shut down any website that uses the aforementioned codec? I think that you and both know that that is a massive stretch.
There are lawsuits on h264s wiki page and of course I am. It will happen. It won't happen because the use of the codecs or file formats does any real damage, but it will give ammo to private companies to compromise the free speech of competitors and it will hypercharge what is already one of the most litigious industries in the history of mankind. You don't need to sue someone for a just reason to do damage for them. All you need is a cause and the ability to keep them in court. The technology industry swims in this kind of lawsuit. It's their ambrosia.
OK, stop right there. You are incorrect. Simply using another person's intellectual property is not an infringement of their rights, so stop trying to pretend that it is. That is simply not true.
Then how is it also theft? Are we drawing a line now between what you find acceptable and unacceptable use of someone elses intellectual property? That line is utterly and impossibly ambiguous and it's what SOPA is based on. It's a line that is exploitable and damaging. There's a reason every major technology company you can name is against these laws despite them being ostensibly to protect online services and providers.
It is also of note that Viacom uploaded a large portion of the clips that they claim violate their copyright themselves.
Technology has always found ways to create new inventions and ways to infringe on copyrights. The entertainment industry has fought every one of them, but the evil pirates won. If it would be up to the legacy industries we would not have such platant pirating tools like:
The Player Piano
The Record Player
The Tape Recorder
The Movie Camera
Radio
TV
Cable TV
The VCR
The DVR
Zip Drives
USB Sticks
Writable CDs and DVDs
Every single one of these was fought tooth and nail by the legacy industries. Every single one of them was going to be the death of them. Even now Piracy is going to kill the industry, even though it still makes more money every year than the year before.
If they would adapt to technology instead of trying to hold it back, they might make even more money...
Albatross wrote:
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission.
Well, legally, the deprivation of property is the crux of theft. Its also a significant moral distinction, given that, while I might pirate your song you still have the capacity to use it for profit. Compare this to stealing your car, in which case your ability to use your car is permanently curtailed.
Albatross wrote:
If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
Well, not necessarily. What you've really done is deprive them of potential revenue. In essence, the person obtaining the media in question for free may have purchased it in the absence of such means, or he may not have; there's no way of knowing.
halonachos wrote:Guy Fawkes would not be amused, seriously, that's a nice way to capitalize on his image and go against what he stood for.
We're anonymous because we all went to our hot topic and bought this mask.
Do go on. You're doing your point justice and I am not wanting you to hang yourself with your own words. At all. I am completely serious. Continue.
I personally don't like how Guy Fawkes is portrayed now and days. The guy wanted to blow up Parliament, not for individual power, but to get the Catholics back into power in England by assassinating the king and the parliament. To use the mask to represent the idea of the power of the individual is to misrepresent what he stood for, he didn't want to be anonymous, he tried to get Spain to support his actions after all, and I doubt he would be amused by the acts of anonymous.
The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
Krellnus wrote:
The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
There will always be a leader, whether an individual or a group of individuals there will always be a leader. That's just human nature, anonymous could say that they have no leader, but without a leader they have no one ot tell them what to do.
Krellnus wrote:
The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
There will always be a leader, whether an individual or a group of individuals there will always be a leader. That's just human nature, anonymous could say that they have no leader, but without a leader they have no one ot tell them what to do.
In a group that acts collectively but anonymously to one another the viability of a hierarchical leadership is questionable at best. Anonymous doesn't have one. Individual subgroups within the main may, but the group itself is largely purposeless and reactionary.
Krellnus wrote:
The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
There will always be a leader, whether an individual or a group of individuals there will always be a leader. That's just human nature, anonymous could say that they have no leader, but without a leader they have no one ot tell them what to do.
In a group that acts collectively but anonymously to one another the viability of a hierarchical leadership is questionable at best. Anonymous doesn't have one. Individual subgroups within the main may, but the group itself is largely purposeless and reactionary.
Someone starts the reaction though, its not like there is an affector that causes them to automatically respond. They have someone who says "Let's do this." and then they go along with it.
Krellnus wrote:
The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
There will always be a leader, whether an individual or a group of individuals there will always be a leader. That's just human nature, anonymous could say that they have no leader, but without a leader they have no one ot tell them what to do.
In a group that acts collectively but anonymously to one another the viability of a hierarchical leadership is questionable at best. Anonymous doesn't have one. Individual subgroups within the main may, but the group itself is largely purposeless and reactionary.
Someone starts the reaction though, its not like there is an affector that causes them to automatically respond. They have someone who says "Let's do this." and then they go along with it.
It is actually truly leaderless and mostly concensus based. If someone simply says "let's do this" they would simply face a wall of "we are not your personal army". If there is concensus for an action, then the action happens. But not because somebody said "let's do this".
Krellnus wrote: The mask represents not the individual but the collective consciousness of 'group', comparison can be drawn between anon and the alpha legion, if everyone is the same, than how do you kill the leaders?
There will always be a leader, whether an individual or a group of individuals there will always be a leader. That's just human nature, anonymous could say that they have no leader, but without a leader they have no one ot tell them what to do.
In a group that acts collectively but anonymously to one another the viability of a hierarchical leadership is questionable at best. Anonymous doesn't have one. Individual subgroups within the main may, but the group itself is largely purposeless and reactionary.
Someone starts the reaction though, its not like there is an affector that causes them to automatically respond. They have someone who says "Let's do this." and then they go along with it.
That's like saying the rock is the leader of the ripples in the pond. The rock was transient, it was a moment. The ripples are disconnected from it and the rock doesn't come back up. Someone can speak up or voice a cause, but the cause tends to be the actual motivator. A call to arms is vastly more likely to be ignored then it is to be acted upon.
halonachos wrote:
Someone starts the reaction though, its not like there is an affector that causes them to automatically respond. They have someone who says "Let's do this." and then they go along with it.
Not really, multiple people can spontaneously generate an idea that is essentially the same. And, even if one person generates a particular idea that many people like, that doesn't make said person even a de facto leader; merely the first person to give the idea voice.
It makes for an interesting parallel between authority, leadership, and inspiration. Authority would be following a person because that's what the system requires. Leadership would be following a person because you trust him to take you in the right direction. Inspiration would be following someone because they have an amazing idea.
Anon would probably claim that what goes on is mostly inspiration, one person having an amazing idea, and people considering if they want to follow along or not. I haven't ever read any of their planning myself, so I don't know but I'd think there's a bit of that, and also a bit of leadership, where people are following the advice of more prominent posters.
But what there appears to be none of is authority, no-one ever has to act because of the orders of another member. Which is cool and all, but hardly mindblowingly unique. Pretty much every community volunteer organisation works like that.
Who said all those business courses I sat through were totally wasted?
I think one major point is that current copyright law is archaic and in need of major reform. The internet has changed the way in which we all create, share, and consume media, and copyright law hasn't really held up to reflect that. Instead, the corporations that were built upon it cling to it desperately in the face of the change that is really needed. The current issues of copyright in an online world can't be solved with such broad solutions which only act as a bandage to cover the real problem, and such solutions only work to make the failures of the current system even more apparent.
Fafnir wrote:I think one major point is that current copyright law is archaic and in need of major reform. The internet has changed the way in which we all create, share, and consume media, and copyright law hasn't really held up to reflect that. Instead, the corporations that were built upon it cling to it desperately in the face of the change that is really needed. The current issues of copyright in an online world can't be solved with such broad solutions which only act as a bandage to cover the real problem, and such solutions only work to make the failures of the current system even more apparent.
FWIW, I agree with you - copyright law has it's basis in print media, and I think we can all recognise the inadequacies of using that law to defend IP in the digital realm. It just happens to be my opinion that, even though that might be the case, it doesn't give people the right to trample on the rights of the creator, the desire to do which seems to be largely the basis of this furore. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
You can dance around it all you like, but there is a clear moral equivalence between copyright infringement and 'theft' (which is a pretty broad term per se) - it is the illegal appropriation of another's property. It's irrelevant that the owner is not deprived of his/her property by your actions (though your ability to copy it at will does devalue it) - you have no right to copy it without the owners permission. If the means to obtain it for free were not there then you would have had to pay for the property, therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that revenue.
I fundamentally disagree that copyright violation is theft. It wasn't for the vast majority of human history, yet it suddenly is in the last ten years? No.
I don't think that that is a particularly compelling argument, for reasons that should be obvious.
You are borrowing a moral equivalence from a PR firm. Do you know why adobe doesn't take legal action against the distributors "stealing" its platform? It's because it's built an empire on zero advertisement software sales generated by being the most pirated software manufacturer in history. Many major anime studios turn a blind eye to the 'theft' of their products because they drive sales. Many artists encourage the 'theft' of their material because it provides them an outlet for spreading their brand beyond the often times strict record industry contracts that started this whole storm of gak in the first place.
Exactly. It's discretionary. The copyright holder has the choice not to protect his/her IP, or to protect it to a degree of their choosing. That's the whole point. This bill gives IP creators greater discretionary powers. Yes, you could argue that this a case of 'sledgehammer-to-swat-a-fly', and I might be inclined to agree. It's harsh, no question. However, the opening of this century has been marked by a complete disregard for the intellectual property of others - people's rights have been trampled on.
What's on the poster?
A picture of bono and a QR code that downloads "like a G6" onto your phone.
In that case, I'm torching the car.
OK, now you're being silly. But intriguing...
To Google (if it's still there)!
No, apparently it's open now, and has been since 2004. Phew!
Oh, cool. How about the rich text format then? RAR? There are a still non public holdouts that are ludicrously ubiquitous.
Once again, depending on the circumstances, Fair Use would be the most likely defence.
OK, stop right there. You are incorrect. Simply using another person's intellectual property is not an infringement of their rights, so stop trying to pretend that it is. That is simply not true.
Then how is it also theft? Are we drawing a line now between what you find acceptable and unacceptable use of someone elses intellectual property? That line is utterly and impossibly ambiguous and it's what SOPA is based on. It's a line that is exploitable and damaging. There's a reason every major technology company you can name is against these laws despite them being ostensibly to protect online services and providers.
And yet YOU are siding with THEM! Do you honestly think that youtube and Google give a gak about you and your freedoms? They care about their bottom line, and this endangers it, because copyright infringement plays a significant role in their businesses. Perhaps it shouldn't. Perhaps they should be honest.
FWIW, I agree with you - copyright law has it's basis in print media, and I think we can all recognise the inadequacies of using that law to defend IP in the digital realm. It just happens to be my opinion that, even though that might be the case, it doesn't give people the right to trample on the rights of the creator, the desire to do which seems to be largely the basis of this furore. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Most artists I know view modern times as a great renaissance of creative capability, both because the tools have made being creative easier and because modern society makes it vastly easier to spread their work. I've yet to hear anyone that wasn't already set for life complain that their works are trampled upon. The videogame industry has become the largest entertainment industry in the history of the planet despite piracy. The movie industry is successfully transitioning into new markets without great upheavals. The music industry, the source of all this hooplah is still growing, and there are more musicians then ever making more music then ever. Whose in trouble is the content provider middleman and the manufactured content star (sony BMG and metallica as examples). They are products of a dead age. I will not feel bad that they can no longer stifle creativity and become vastly rich by selling other peoples works.
I don't think that that is a particularly compelling argument, for reasons that should be obvious.
Then state those reasons. As it is all I'm hearing is that you don't like change and that you're willing to defend archaic and utterly dysfunctional IP laws in liu of regressing to a society where artistic creativity can't be easily owned by major corporations.
Once again, depending on the circumstances, Fair Use would be the most likely defence.
Enjoy running out of money before the court comes to that decision.
And yet YOU are siding with THEM! Do you honestly think that youtube and Google give a gak about you and your freedoms? They care about their bottom line, and this endangers it, because copyright infringement plays a significant role in their businesses. Perhaps it shouldn't. Perhaps they should be honest.
I'll side with the company whose motto is 'do no evil' and who stood up to china in liu of increasing their market share massively before I think that Rupert Murdoch has my or anyone elses best interests in mind.
Exactly. It's discretionary. The copyright holder has the choice not to protect his/her IP, or to protect it to a degree of their choosing. That's the whole point. This bill gives IP creators greater discretionary powers. Yes, you could argue that this a case of 'sledgehammer-to-swat-a-fly', and I might be inclined to agree. It's harsh, no question. However, the opening of this century has been marked by a complete disregard for the intellectual property of others - people's rights have been trampled on.
It's discretionary and it empowers the most unscrupulous characters in entertainment (an industry with no scruples) to do whatever they can to quash the freedoms of competitors. I have respect for content creators, content providers that provide a good service aren't evil in my eyes other. Many of the industries advocating these bills don't have a role any more and act like tyrants in their quest to stay afloat. The internet and low cost content production technologies replaced them almost wholesale and they know it. To threaten powerful emerging industries to protect old ones is worse then any bank bailout, it's pure corruption clothed in the crusade of 'law'. That you can pretend that corporations willing to sue 90 year old women and 13 year old children won't do anything in their power to feth with every person they can is striking. It's not a world I want to live in, it's one I'd prefer to give the bird.
Albatross wrote:Wait, do we have the right to steal other people's intellectual property now, or something? If it's overpriced, just go without. It's not like we're talking about food and water here, we're talking about movies, music and games - diversions. Diversions which also happen to be commercial products.
Perhaps we should all just grow up a little.
To me it's not entirely that cut and dry. I know you have a personal stake in this one and I mean no disrespect towards it, but there are somethings that I would not have spent money on because I was only half-heartedly interested in them and gone without, save that I could see them for free. If I'm not going to spend the money anyway (and only I know if I would or not, which is where "integrity" comes in here IMO), what have I cost anyone? I've told people about things I've seen for free and they have actually bought it themselves purely on my recommendation; it's not always the case, but it happens. Not everyone is "responsible" in the same way that I am, but I think it really needs to come down to finding a way to enforce punishment for abuse rather than restricting the ability to legitimately do things as well.
See, I agree with Alby and I dont have a stake in it. I don't make music or movie's or whatnot, but Im adult enough to admit if something is wrong even if it makes my life suck a little more.
Its the same reason I side with GW on most of the legal gak. The fact of the matter is that if a company like Chapterhouse makes "combi melta's" (I bought 8) it IS for use in 40k and they ARE making loads of cash because of Games Workshop existing and creating a game. It really IS that cut and dried.
We all do dodgy gak on the internet, I'm not some corporate suit that's going to slag people off for trying to get gak for free, but seriously.. If some bloke slaves away writing a book, or a song, why the feth do we have the "right" to steal it?! Just because he is rich and I am not?
The fact is, we all like getting gak for free, and we all don't want to see this law passed, but it is fething childish to make a scene about it. We don't have the right to steal gak off people, and If I spent 9 months writing my memoirs but nobody bought them because they could all download a scanned version for nothing, I would be pissed off about it.
How is it different to spending 9 months working to buy a car, and then me stealing the keys from your coat pocket?
See, I agree with Alby and I dont have a stake in it. I don't make music or movie's or whatnot, but Im adult enough to admit if something is wrong even if it makes my life suck a little more.
Its the same reason I side with GW on most of the legal gak. The fact of the matter is that if a company like Chapterhouse makes "combi melta's" (I bought 8) it IS for use in 40k and they ARE making loads of cash because of Games Workshop existing and creating a game. It really IS that cut and dried.
Except CH is winning that case. Clearly it's not as simple as you pretend.
We all do dodgy gak on the internet, I'm not some corporate suit that's going to slag people off for trying to get gak for free, but seriously.. If some bloke slaves away writing a book, or a song, why the feth do we have the "right" to steal it?! Just because he is rich and I am not
There is no inherent right to proportionate income based on creative output. The vast majority of writers and artists do it without significant profit and the majority of those profiting had nothing to do with the contents creation. That's a bad system and it's one that SOPA reinforces.
The fact is, we all like getting gak for free, and we all don't want to see this law passed, but it is fething childish to make a scene about it. We don't have the right to steal gak off people, and If I spent 9 months writing my memoirs but nobody bought them because they could all download a scanned version for nothing, I would be pissed off about it.
It's fething childish to equate this to stealing. It's not. It never has been. Its not suddenly going to be because you can repeat it.
How is it different to spending 9 months working to buy a car, and then me stealing the keys from your coat pocket?
ShumaGorath wrote: It's fething childish to equate this to stealing. It's not. It never has been. Its not suddenly going to be because you can repeat it.
Sure it is.
I'll simply repeat the question, If you spent 9 months writing a book or shooting a movie, and then wanted to sell it for 5 bucks a pop, but some bloke bought one copy and then put it on his website and 2 million people downloaded it, how would you react?
It's very simple.
Just because Shuma doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's right.
gak, I don't like it! Im not a suit or an executive or a writer, and I don't want to have to buy everything, but them's the breaks. Were talking about stuff we use for fun, not things essential to life like water and food. Granted actual physical theft (the car line) is far worse, but the fact of the matter remains that if you invest a great deal of time and effort into something that should be bought and paid for and people copy it and dish it out for free, your being fethed.
I mean, you are right? Your a grown man Shuma, you can admit it, or you can convince me otherwise.
I'll simply repeat the question, If you spent 9 months writing a book or shooting a movie, and then wanted to sell it for 5 bucks a pop, but some bloke bought one copy and then put it on his website and 2 million people downloaded it, how would you react?
Like a fething rock star. That's the basis of every youtube marketing and guerrilla video campaign ever. I've done that exact thing and I'd kill a man for that kind of success and name recognition.
That creates careers.
Just because Shuma doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's right.
Right or wrong doesn't make it theft. Also IP law is fundamentally a lawset that seeks to show right or wrong through damages, it's not a moralistic set of laws and in theory there is significant immorality to the idea of punishing someone for utilizing ideas.
gak, I don't like it! Im not a suit or an executive or a writer, and I don't want to have to buy everything, but them's the breaks. Were talking about stuff we use for fun, not things essential to life like water and food. Granted actual physical theft (the car line) is far worse, but the fact of the matter remains that if you invest a great deal of time and effort into something that should be bought and paid for and people copy it and dish it out for free, your being fethed.
Somehow, as the one actually doing content creation for a living I don't share your beliefs concerning my job.
I mean, you are right? Your a grown man Shuma, you can admit it, or you can convince me otherwise.
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.
Let's try this again. If I wasn't going to purchase something in the first place, and I watch/listen to it, what harm is being done to who? My life benefits slightly, but that's it. No harm is being done here, and other people might legitimately buy it if I refer them to it.
daedalus wrote:
And its a fantastic point, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we need to give corporations and the government carte blanche to censor the internet over it.
We don't and we aren't. This bill doesn't do that, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of hysterical. But then, that's just you being you.
It doesn't give them "carte blanche". I agree that's maybe hyperbolic. But it DOES give force of criminal law to what SHOULD be a civil matter. I'm not really ok with that.
It also goes against the grain of the traditional burden of proof that someone should have to meet before they can take action against you.
I'm really against piracy, but this bill is not designed well at all. Civil and Criminal law should stay separate and plaintiffs should have to make their own cases. Under this, taxpayer funded law enforcement agencies would be doing discovery for totally private civil cases on our dime.
ADDITIONALLY, it furthers the whole "takedown now, ask questions later" thing that's been happening more and more and that really hurts parody and fair use. Do you know how often companies send takedown notices to youtube for things that legally fall under fair use? Basically every day. This makes those harder to stand up against.
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.
Its a good job this is the internet then mate cos I quite like you, and I would feel terribly guilty about taking you apart with consummate ease and leaving you a bloodstained ruin scattered across a car park somewhere.
daedalus wrote: And its a fantastic point, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we need to give corporations and the government carte blanche to censor the internet over it.
We don't and we aren't. This bill doesn't do that, and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of hysterical. But then, that's just you being you.
It doesn't give them "carte blanche". I agree that's maybe hyperbolic. But it DOES give force of criminal law to what SHOULD be a civil matter. I'm not really ok with that.
It also goes against the grain of the traditional burden of proof that someone should have to meet before they can take action against you.
I'm really against piracy, but this bill is not designed well at all. Civil and Criminal law should stay separate and plaintiffs should have to make their own cases. Under this, taxpayer funded law enforcement agencies would be doing discovery for totally private civil cases on our dime.
ADDITIONALLY, it furthers the whole "takedown now, ask questions later" thing that's been happening more and more and that really hurts parody and fair use. Do you know how often companies send takedown notices to youtube for things that legally fall under fair use? Basically every day. This makes those harder to stand up against.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Let's try this again. If I wasn't going to purchase something in the first place, and I watch/listen to it, what harm is being done to who? My life benefits slightly, but that's it. No harm is being done here, and other people might legitimately buy it if I refer them to it.
But on a serious note, how can you (and Shuma) not see my point?
Im not saying that I disagree with every point you make, I wouldnt buy "Weapons of ass destruction" on DVD for ten bucks but I would DL it for free. I agree with you. Sure the system needs a tweak when the artists get feth all and the big wig producers get all the cash, I agree with you there too. There are many points I can agree on, but to me its still simple.
I really really don't see how anyone can't see the obvious point that If you slave away on a product, just because we now have technology its alright for everyone who wants a copy of it to get it for free? Its ok for shuma to say he would "party like a rock star" because he is a relative nobody and would love to see something he wrote go viral and have a million people read, but if you were a semi famous writer, why should your latest work that you slved over go to everyone for free?
Is that not glaringly obvious? Just because we aren't famous writers and singers doesn't mean we cant see their fething point surely?
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.
Its a good job this is the internet then mate cos I quite like you, and I would feel terribly guilty about taking you apart with consummate ease and leaving you a bloodstained ruin scattered across a car park somewhere.
I'm scrappier then I sound and I've been kicked out of more then one school .
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.
Its a good job this is the internet then mate cos I quite like you, and I would feel terribly guilty about taking you apart with consummate ease and leaving you a bloodstained ruin scattered across a car park somewhere.
I'm scrappier then I sound and I've been kicked out of more then one school .
Matty got kicked out of Afghanistan for being such a bad-ass.
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.
Its a good job this is the internet then mate cos I quite like you, and I would feel terribly guilty about taking you apart with consummate ease and leaving you a bloodstained ruin scattered across a car park somewhere.
I'm scrappier then I sound and I've been kicked out of more then one school .
Matty got kicked out of Afghanistan for being such a bad-ass.
Ever see Hot Fuzz? It was like that, but in the Army. And Matty was a lot less polite than Simon Pegg.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Let's try this again. If I wasn't going to purchase something in the first place, and I watch/listen to it, what harm is being done to who? My life benefits slightly, but that's it. No harm is being done here, and other people might legitimately buy it if I refer them to it.
But on a serious note, how can you (and Shuma) not see my point?
Im not saying that I disagree with every point you make, I wouldnt buy "Weapons of ass destruction" on DVD for ten bucks but I would DL it for free. I agree with you. Sure the system needs a tweak when the artists get feth all and the big wig producers get all the cash, I agree with you there too. There are many points I can agree on, but to me its still simple.
I really really don't see how anyone can't see the obvious point that If you slave away on a product, just because we now have technology its alright for everyone who wants a copy of it to get it for free? Its ok for shuma to say he would "party like a rock star" because he is a relative nobody and would love to see something he wrote go viral and have a million people read, but if you were a semi famous writer, why should your latest work that you slved over go to everyone for free?
Is that not glaringly obvious? Just because we aren't famous writers and singers doesn't mean we cant see their fething point surely?
Why should that writer deserve millions more then a soldier or fireman? Why does the record executive deserve millions more then the artists that pay his bills? Why does kanye deserve the ability to afford four concurrent mansions and yet a social worker can barely afford a condo? I simply fall on the side of open standards and lax enforcement while you stand on the side of draconian pro industry countermeasures. The feths still make money hand over fist, why is any of this bs needed? Do they need that many more cars?
Show me how these industries are being actively hurt by piracy in a way that makes this needed and prove to me that these laws are for the good of the people I'll agree with you. Until then I don't.
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.
Its a good job this is the internet then mate cos I quite like you, and I would feel terribly guilty about taking you apart with consummate ease and leaving you a bloodstained ruin scattered across a car park somewhere.
I'm scrappier then I sound and I've been kicked out of more then one school .
Matty got kicked out of Afghanistan for being such a bad-ass.
Ever see Hot Fuzz? It was like that, but in the Army. And Matty was a lot less polite than Simon Pegg.
I can believe it, Simon Pegg has been quoted as saying, "The inspiration for Hot Fuzz came from one man, and one man alone. Our good pal Matty. He told us this story about how he single-handedly took out a village of terrorists and exposed other human-rights violations. We decided to make a movie about that, but we had to lessen the violence so it could be rated R.".
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Let's try this again. If I wasn't going to purchase something in the first place, and I watch/listen to it, what harm is being done to who? My life benefits slightly, but that's it. No harm is being done here, and other people might legitimately buy it if I refer them to it.
But on a serious note, how can you (and Shuma) not see my point?
Im not saying that I disagree with every point you make, I wouldnt buy "Weapons of ass destruction" on DVD for ten bucks but I would DL it for free. I agree with you. Sure the system needs a tweak when the artists get feth all and the big wig producers get all the cash, I agree with you there too. There are many points I can agree on, but to me its still simple.
I really really don't see how anyone can't see the obvious point that If you slave away on a product, just because we now have technology its alright for everyone who wants a copy of it to get it for free? Its ok for shuma to say he would "party like a rock star" because he is a relative nobody and would love to see something he wrote go viral and have a million people read, but if you were a semi famous writer, why should your latest work that you slved over go to everyone for free?
Is that not glaringly obvious? Just because we aren't famous writers and singers doesn't mean we cant see their fething point surely?
Why should that writer deserve millions more then a soldier or fireman? Why does the record executive deserve millions more then the artists that pay his bills? Why does kanye deserve the ability to afford four concurrent mansions and yet a social worker can barely afford a condo? I simply fall on the side of open standards and lax enforcement while you stand on the side of draconian pro industry countermeasures. The feths still make money hand over fist, why is any of this bs needed? Do they need that many more cars?
Show me how these industries are being actively hurt by piracy in a way that makes this needed and prove to me that these laws are for the good of the people I'll agree with you. Until then I don't.
Yes and I'm aware that records are still selling and whilst some artists are hugely against piracy, some aren't. I remember seeing BJA from Greenday on the MTV awards basically saying "the best things in life are free, download whatever you want", but YMMV depending on the individual, its Ok for him to say that because he is rich as feth already and he is not being needlessly greedy, but what if your a struggling musician and you rely on your stuff selling for an income?
Clearly as a soldier/working class bloke it annoys me to see Kanye with 3 mansions but as I said, them's the breaks. Jelously on our part shouldn't a motivation either. They don't need more cars or more money no, but there are people that aren't rich (the majority of writers and singers) who seriously get fethed if they work hard on a product that they expect to sell and it gets copied and distributed en-masse without their consent.
How can you not concede that point? Its ok for us to say were against it because its not our stuff getting pirated, but if you or I worked hard on a book for a year, and we intended to sell it, and we had projected sales of X but some bloke scanned and shared a copy and we sold far far less than X as a result of it, we would be rightly pissed off about it!
Yes and I'm aware that records are still selling and whilst some artists are hugely against piracy, some aren't. I remember seeing BJA from Greenday on the MTV awards basically saying "the best things in life are free, download whatever you want", but YMMV depending on the individual, its Ok for him to say that because he is rich as feth already, but what if your a struggling musician and you rely on your stuff selling for an income?
Then pirated albums are probably funneling people into your concerts which are a vastly better venue for profit generation.
Clearly as a soldier/working class bloke it annoys me to see Kanye with 3 mansions but as I said, them's the breaks.
Why does it have to be?
Jelously on our part shouldn't a motivation either. They don't need more cars or more money no, but there are people that aren't rich (the majority of writers and singers) who seriously get fethed if they work hard on a product that they expect to sell and it gets copied and distributed en-masse without their consent.
And these laws do nothing to protect them since they don't have the muscle to prosecute. You're vastly overstating the impact of piracy on the small scale artists in any event.
Can you not concede that point? Its ok for us to say were against it because its not our stuff getting pirated, but if you or I worked hard on a book for a year, and we intended to sell it, and we had projected sales of X but some bloke scanned and shared a copy and we sold far far less than X as a result of it, we would be rightly pissed off about it!
And when you prove that that actually occurs to any meaningful degree and I'll agree. I'm friends with quite a few such 'starving artists' and I've never heard of anyone with a bank account under seven digits getting burned by mass piracy. Even in the indie game field where piracy is as ubiquitous as the sun. The mechanisms required for piracy don't really have a method for preying on the 'little guy'. They require name recognition of subject matter to function.
In terms of 'copying IP is stealing'... Theft is determined by monetary damages. Consider a garage band in America somewhere. They sell CD's of their songs for $10. Someone uploads it to the internet, and I download it. Have I caused them monetary damages? Because I downloaded the song, do they somehow have less money? Have they lost the potential for a sale from me, when I would never have heard of them otherwise? No.
This debate reminds me of the Australian Government's attempt to put a 'child porn' filter on the internet here. Ostensibly for the purposes of 'protecting the children'. The outcry from nearly every single IT professional was enormous. Why? Because it wasn't just child pornography being filtered; it was a dubious 'refused classification' class which contained all material that was illegal to sell in stores (but much was perfectly legal to own if you could get your hands on it otherwise). Because the filtering was to be done by a government agency, and no notice had to be given that a website was being filtered; It just disappeared. Because the agency responsible had a 50% misclassification rate on print materials, where the list of 'refused classification' was published. And because it was ridiculously easy to bypass via vpn and so wouldn't actually serve its stated purpose.
RC material included 'instruction on crime' which included the making of bombs. When does instruction in chemistry and electronics turn from 'educational' to 'crime'? Instruction on crime also includes material such as, 'how to take recreational drugs without getting hepatitis' or books regarding euthanasia. Violent sex films would also be blocked, which would have affected the incredibly popular 'Pirates' series of adult films. Websites inciting political unrest would be blocked. We sit here praising the internet for what it's done to the middle east but would readily stop our own people? when does 'I don't like this bill' become political unrest? Also, instructions on how to bypass the filter would have been a crime, so no access to any VPN tutorials for australia...
And thats just the vaguely legitimate uses of the proposed legislation. What about, if I hack into my competitor's online store, put some illegal images on there and report it to the government. The site gets shut down, no warning. My competitor loses months of revenue whilst he navigates the appeals process to get the site opened again.
The terrible parts about this SOPA thing is more to do with the potential for abuse: as others have said, it gives you excuses to put other people in court. If dakka got sued today for breaching GW's IP, what would happen? It takes a certain amount of money just to defend yourself against completely illegitimate lawsuits, let alone plausible ones like this bill would enable.
It could become so much more than a bill to protect copyrights. That is why it needs to be stopped.
FWIW, I agree with you - copyright law has it's basis in print media, and I think we can all recognise the inadequacies of using that law to defend IP in the digital realm. It just happens to be my opinion that, even though that might be the case, it doesn't give people the right to trample on the rights of the creator, the desire to do which seems to be largely the basis of this furore. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
Most artists I know view modern times as a great renaissance of creative capability, both because the tools have made being creative easier and because modern society makes it vastly easier to spread their work. I've yet to hear anyone that wasn't already set for life complain that their works are trampled upon.
Really? Perhaps that's just the circles that you move in. I've certainly spoken to a lot of people who say that exact thing. I've spoken to people who say the opposite. The fact is, it's both easier and more difficult to have a career as a musician now. Sure, you can use the internet to gain a lot of exposure, but money still makes the industry go round, and it's monetising your music that is the hard part. Have you ever tried to do it? It's not as easy as you make it sound. People expect everything for free. One of the only ways an emerging artist can make money in the initial phases of their career is to play live, and that is impossible to do with any effectiveness without an injection of hard cash - touring is expensive. Not everyone is as lucky as we have been thus far, and the only hope they have for a large cash injection is some sort of recording or publishing deal, which are harder and harder to get. And we know why that is, don't we? Because records don't sell, and if records don't sell, labels, large and small, will not venture money on breaking an artist. Hell, even if you do use the internet to gain a large amount of exposure, it's really only a way of attracting a label, so the web doesn't divorce big business from the process.
I don't think that that is a particularly compelling argument, for reasons that should be obvious.
Then state those reasons. As it is all I'm hearing is that you don't like change and that you're willing to defend archaic and utterly dysfunctional IP laws in liu of regressing to a society where artistic creativity can't be easily owned by major corporations.
You're hearing that because you want to hear it, and you want to hear it because you like to get mad. You like to get mad because you think it cows people, but it doesn't cow me. To me, you're just a hyperactive kid with an over-inflated opinion of yourself.
You basically just stated that copyright is a bad concept because it hasn't existed for a very long period within the wider context of human history. That is an appalling argument, one which can be used to justify all sorts of indefensible things. There are reasons that copyright is a bad idea, but the fact that we haven't always had it isn't really one of them
Once again, depending on the circumstances, Fair Use would be the most likely defence.
Enjoy running out of money before the court comes to that decision.
There are cases which have been won by private individuals against companies, in which Fair Use has been the successful defence.
And yet YOU are siding with THEM! Do you honestly think that youtube and Google give a gak about you and your freedoms? They care about their bottom line, and this endangers it, because copyright infringement plays a significant role in their businesses. Perhaps it shouldn't. Perhaps they should be honest.
I'll side with the company whose motto is 'do no evil'...
'Strength Through Joy'
'Work Makes Free'
Yeah, mottos are meaningless.
Exactly. It's discretionary. The copyright holder has the choice not to protect his/her IP, or to protect it to a degree of their choosing. That's the whole point. This bill gives IP creators greater discretionary powers. Yes, you could argue that this a case of 'sledgehammer-to-swat-a-fly', and I might be inclined to agree. It's harsh, no question. However, the opening of this century has been marked by a complete disregard for the intellectual property of others - people's rights have been trampled on.
It's discretionary and it empowers the most unscrupulous characters in entertainment (an industry with no scruples) to do whatever they can to quash the freedoms of competitors. I have respect for content creators, content providers that provide a good service aren't evil in my eyes other. Many of the industries advocating these bills don't have a role any more and act like tyrants in their quest to stay afloat. The internet and low cost content production technologies replaced them almost wholesale and they know it. To threaten powerful emerging industries to protect old ones is worse then any bank bailout, it's pure corruption clothed in the crusade of 'law'. That you can pretend that corporations willing to sue 90 year old women and 13 year old children won't do anything in their power to feth with every person they can is striking. It's not a world I want to live in, it's one I'd prefer to give the bird.
...and I have no desire to live in a world where some basement-dweller gets to decide that my property is now his to do what he likes with in the name of 'progress'. It's not his, it's mine, and it's not progress, it's simply not wanting to pay for something that you want. Be honest, you don't care about any of this, you just want to get free stuff, don't you? And you're mad because this could hamper that, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel cheap?
Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?
I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?
I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Oh well carry on then. Copyright protection is important.
Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?
I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?
I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Oh well carry on then. Copyright protection is important.
Yup. I see no reason to take advantage of someone, simply because it's been made easier. That argument, frankly, disgusts me. Once again, it's a harsh bill. I've already said that. However, I think it's a product of the climate - IP protection is next to irrelevant in some countries which are consumers of American IP. Look at China, in the year before last (iirc) just $19m worth of CDs were sold in China, roughly around the same as in Hungary for the same period. That's money being drained from your economy. I mean, when 19 out of 20 tracks being downloaded are illegal, that's a serious problem.
Albatross wrote:
Yup. I see no reason to take advantage of someone, simply because it's been made easier. That argument, frankly, disgusts me. Once again, it's a harsh bill. I've already said that. However, I think it's a product of the climate - IP protection is next to irrelevant in some countries which are consumers of American IP. Look at China, in the year before last (iirc) just $19m worth of CDs were sold in China, roughly around the same as in Hungary for the same period. That's money being drained from your economy. I mean, when 19 out of 20 tracks being downloaded are illegal, that's a serious problem.
I'm not defending piracy here, but that's a fallacy. Not every download is a 'lost sale'.
I have a friend who is an anime-head, big time. He's got a lot of legally bought anime and manga. He has a lot more downloaded. Why? It doesn't exist here. He can't buy it. He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.
Rented Tritium wrote:Hey albatross, I explained what's bad about this bill in your terms, did you see it?
I've read the bill (I downloaded it! ). I'm not arguing that it's a good bill. I'm arguing against the idea that copyright/IP should not be defended, because it absolutely should. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
It wasn't.
I think that in your case it was the fact that I was disrupting the ambience in the echo-chamber that led you to believe I thought that it was a good bill. You were mad and wanted someone to attack, I get that. However, I'm pretty sure I never said that it was a good bill. I said that it was harsh, but that I could understand why, a few times. Oh, and that I was happy that the party's over. That's more about my lack of sympathy for pirates than my approval of this bill.
daedalus wrote: (A) He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.
Albatross wrote:
Yup. I see no reason to take advantage of someone, simply because it's been made easier. That argument, frankly, disgusts me. Once again, it's a harsh bill. I've already said that. However, I think it's a product of the climate - IP protection is next to irrelevant in some countries which are consumers of American IP. Look at China, in the year before last (iirc) just $19m worth of CDs were sold in China, roughly around the same as in Hungary for the same period. That's money being drained from your economy. I mean, when 19 out of 20 tracks being downloaded are illegal, that's a serious problem.
I'm not defending piracy here, but that's a fallacy. Not every download is a 'lost sale'.
Perhaps not, but are you saying that it doesn't impact sales?
daedalus wrote: (A) He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.
(B) So he 'steals' it, because he can't buy it.
But you're (A) says there is a means to buy it.
I guess that's fair. So then does he actually need to have the separate DVD player and the TV mail ordered from Japan, or can he just buy the DVD (assuming he can find somewhere that will ship it to the US) and tack it up on the wall while watching his downloaded copy?
daedalus wrote:
I'm not defending piracy here, but that's a fallacy. Not every download is a 'lost sale'.
Perhaps not, but are you saying that it doesn't impact sales?
Not at all. I'm sure it does. I never said it had to be 100% one way or the other. I'm just saying it's something that has to be kept in mind when trying to give hard numbers.
daedalus wrote: (A) He would have to buy the region locked DVD (an anti-piracy measure) from Japan, a Japanese DVD player, and (at least, back in the day) a PAL TV, because we used to use NTSC here.
(B) So he 'steals' it, because he can't buy it.
But you're (A) says there is a means to buy it.
Worse than that. Japan uses NTSC, not PAL, so he actually JUST needed a region free dvd player, which is pretty easy to get. You can even hack a PS2 into doing it or use a PC if you're good.
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Let's try this again. If I wasn't going to purchase something in the first place, and I watch/listen to it, what harm is being done to who? My life benefits slightly, but that's it. No harm is being done here, and other people might legitimately buy it if I refer them to it.
But on a serious note, how can you (and Shuma) not see my point?
Im not saying that I disagree with every point you make, I wouldnt buy "Weapons of ass destruction" on DVD for ten bucks but I would DL it for free. I agree with you. Sure the system needs a tweak when the artists get feth all and the big wig producers get all the cash, I agree with you there too. There are many points I can agree on, but to me its still simple.
I really really don't see how anyone can't see the obvious point that If you slave away on a product, just because we now have technology its alright for everyone who wants a copy of it to get it for free? Its ok for shuma to say he would "party like a rock star" because he is a relative nobody and would love to see something he wrote go viral and have a million people read, but if you were a semi famous writer, why should your latest work that you slved over go to everyone for free?
Is that not glaringly obvious? Just because we aren't famous writers and singers doesn't mean we cant see their fething point surely?
I guess I just don't have any sympathy for someone I'll never meet who is losing nothing by me gaining enjoyment from something they produced which I otherwise never would have experienced. Hell, I've emailed/commented a few bands or talked to a few artists I had downloaded face to face and they seem to appreciate when I compliment their work. Would have been hard to do otherwise. On top of that, how many big artists at concerts make some joke about people downloading their music and laugh it off?
kronk wrote:I'm not really an audio/video guy and could give two feths about his manga fetish.
But it's important to the discussion. If I have a copy of something, but for whatever technological reason, it's in a format I can't use, is it still wrong for me to download a 'better' (as in usable) copy?
I can list non-manga examples that apply to me personally, if you would like:
I have a couple old Sony CDs that have their infamous rootkit on them. For technical reasons, I can't make mp3s out of it. Can I download the music?
I also possess a legal copy of The Witcher. It's DRM scheme (for piracy measures) does not function on Windows 7. The only fix I've been able to find is a pirated version, which has the DRM scheme removed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Worse than that. Japan uses NTSC, not PAL, so he actually JUST needed a region free dvd player, which is pretty easy to get. You can even hack a PS2 into doing it or use a PC if you're good.
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Eh, well, there you go. Like I said, wasn't me. I assumed he knew what he was talking about.
daedalus wrote:I have a couple old Sony CDs that have their infamous rootkit on them. For technical reasons, I can't make mp3s out of it. Can I download the music?
I also possess a legal copy of The Witcher. It's DRM scheme (for piracy measures) does not function on Windows 7. The only fix I've been able to find is a pirated version, which has the DRM scheme removed.
The problem isn't downloading, which is legal in those cases. The problem is sharing. You CANNOT torrent those without some of your bits going to other users. If those users didn't have their own copies, then you just distributed a pirated copy.
If you had a way to download it WITHOUT also giving it to someone else, as in a non-p2p connection for a straight 1 way download, then it would be legal and fine for you to do so.
I think it would be really awesome if Amazon or itunes had a program where you could send in crappy DRM'd copies like that and they could credit you for digital download. They'd get a TON of consumer goodwill out of a move like that.
Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.
So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.
Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.
So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.
What?
That doesn't make sense.
CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TOIT suck?
Really? Perhaps that's just the circles that you move in. I've certainly spoken to a lot of people who say that exact thing. I've spoken to people who say the opposite. The fact is, it's both easier and more difficult to have a career as a musician now. Sure, you can use the internet to gain a lot of exposure, but money still makes the industry go round, and it's monetising your music that is the hard part. Have you ever tried to do it? It's not as easy as you make it sound. People expect everything for free. One of the only ways an emerging artist can make money in the initial phases of their career is to play live, and that is impossible to do with any effectiveness without an injection of hard cash - touring is expensive. Not everyone is as lucky as we have been thus far, and the only hope they have for a large cash injection is some sort of recording or publishing deal, which are harder and harder to get. And we know why that is, don't we? Because records don't sell, and if records don't sell, labels, large and small, will not venture money on breaking an artist. Hell, even if you do use the internet to gain a large amount of exposure, it's really only a way of attracting a label, so the web doesn't divorce big business from the process.
Then they should tour locally. Do more bars. I know members of five different unlicensed bands, most have other jobs, one travels to gigs. Stop blaming piracy because recording contracts are being outmoded by cheap microphones and Logic. The reason the starving musician exists isn't because of piracy, it's because being in a band is a bad way to make money and always has been. If you're friends can't monetize their music now, when the costs of recording have hit a floor, then they wouldn't have managed it before when you had to take a loan to get a rig or rent some studio space. At least if they're good enough now they get to keep their integrity instead of being ghost written and having their music censored.
You're hearing that because you want to hear it, and you want to hear it because you like to get mad. You like to get mad because you think it cows people, but it doesn't cow me. To me, you're just a hyperactive kid with an over-inflated opinion of yourself.
And a gyro.
You basically just stated that copyright is a bad concept because it hasn't existed for a very long period within the wider context of human history.
No I stated that copyright infringement isn't theft for that reason. That includes the vast majority of time that we've had copy protection.
That is an appalling argument, one which can be used to justify all sorts of indefensible things. There are reasons that copyright is a bad idea, but the fact that we haven't always had it isn't really one of them
It's an appalling argument when you intentionally misread it. I agree.
There are cases which have been won by private individuals against companies, in which Fair Use has been the successful defence.
And there are just as many cases where a small business or defendant had to cow tow or went out of business because they didn't have the money to continue. Whats your point? That those situations are acceptable to you?
'Strength Through Joy'
'Work Makes Free'
Yeah, mottos are meaningless.
And yet their actions agree with their motto so far. Either way I've picked a side that's taken legitimate strides towards reshaping human society in a way that I aprove of vs one that didn't. Get over it.
...and I have no desire to live in a world where some basement-dweller gets to decide that my property is now his to do what he likes with in the name of 'progress'.
You already live there and this bill doesn't do gak to stop it. Get over it.
It's not his, it's mine, and it's not progress, it's simply not wanting to pay for something that you want. Be honest, you don't care about any of this, you just want to get free stuff, don't you? And you're mad because this could hamper that, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel cheap?
As the person here who actually does the content you seem to want to protect I find it odd that you want to constantly mislabel my arguments and represent me as an irresponsible and slovenly teen who just wants free gak. Guess what? I'll still get free gak after these laws. They won't stop it, you won't stop it. These laws are virtually unenforceable and incredibly innefective. These laws are irrelevant insofar as they do nothing to me except pretend to protect the things that I make on a daily basis.
Except they don't.
They just feth up the Internets business model for legitimate content providers and legitimate artists doing parody or referential works. They're a threat to privacy and free speech and they will be misused by an industry that has proven its willingness to stoop low.
Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.
So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.
What?
That doesn't make sense.
CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TOIT suck?
No dude.
Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.
Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.
So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.
What?
That doesn't make sense.
CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TOIT suck?
No dude.
Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.
Huge stretch, dude. If this law PASSES then people in charge have no clue.
You should never be against the very CONSIDERATION of an idea.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Then they should tour locally. Do more bars. I know members of five different unlicensed bands, most have other jobs, one travels to gigs. Stop blaming piracy because recording contracts are being outmoded by cheap microphones and Logic. The reason the starving musician exists isn't because of piracy, it's because being in a band is a bad way to make money and always has been. If you're friends can't monetize their music now, when the costs of recording have hit a floor, then they wouldn't have managed it before when you had to take a loan to get a rig or rent some studio space. At least if they're good enough now they get to keep their integrity instead of being ghost written and having their music censored.
And I wanted to divorce myself from this thread as I said my piece, but I want to leave this here:
Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.
So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.
What?
That doesn't make sense.
CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TOIT suck?
No dude.
Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.
Huge stretch, dude. If this law PASSES then people in charge have no clue.
You should never be against the very CONSIDERATION of an idea.
I'm against the consideration of the idea because the idea itself is bs.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Then they should tour locally. Do more bars. I know members of five different unlicensed bands, most have other jobs, one travels to gigs. Stop blaming piracy because recording contracts are being outmoded by cheap microphones and Logic. The reason the starving musician exists isn't because of piracy, it's because being in a band is a bad way to make money and always has been. If you're friends can't monetize their music now, when the costs of recording have hit a floor, then they wouldn't have managed it before when you had to take a loan to get a rig or rent some studio space. At least if they're good enough now they get to keep their integrity instead of being ghost written and having their music censored.
And I wanted to divorce myself from this thread as I said my piece, but I want to leave this here:
Rented Tritium wrote:
You can even just buy the disc legit, then rip it and convert the ISO and reburn it. Nobody will consider that piracy since you have the real thing.
Look at bill C32 in Canada. It would essentially make it illegal to rip a DvD or music CD, among other things.
So yes, there are people that want to take it to such extremes, which is why current copyright law is such garbage.
What?
That doesn't make sense.
CURRENT copyright law is garbage because PROPOSED CHANGES TOIT suck?
No dude.
Current copyright law is garbage because it's in desperate need of change, because it fails to address any of the issues that are relevant to the internet age in a way that's effective, meaningful, and fair. And the fact that laws like that are even being considered is proof that the people in charge have no clue what they're dealing with and are being lobbied by the people who shouldn't have nearly as much control as is being proposed.
Huge stretch, dude. If this law PASSES then people in charge have no clue.
You should never be against the very CONSIDERATION of an idea.
I'm against the consideration of the idea because the idea itself is bs.
And how is it that one decides that an idea is bs without considering it?
LoneLictor wrote:Wow, if this passes... well, it means Freedom of Speech is on the way out. As many a liberal has said before me...
I SWEAR IF THIS LEGISLATION IS PASSED I'M MOVING TO CANADA!
You think Canada has freedom of speech?
Not really. That part about moving to Canada was pretty tongue in cheek. Even if Canada is some magical democratic utopia society that I like to pretend it is, I wouldn't be able to move there for financial reasons. More likely if this Legislation passes I'll send buckets of angry letters to Congressmen and probably join some random protests against it.
Rented Tritium wrote:And how is it that one decides that an idea is bs without considering it?
I should eat your children to gain their powers and youth.
I don't think you'd consider that, just to prove a point Not that some form of dealing with piracy is total bsimo, just open-ended things scare me.
Saying that something, ANYTHING, is so insane that it can't even be TALKED ABOUT in the legislature is wrong, though. There is NO SUCH THING as a topic so wrong or so stupid that you can't even have the DISCUSSION.
Rented Tritium wrote:And how is it that one decides that an idea is bs without considering it?
I should eat your children to gain their powers and youth.
I don't think you'd consider that, just to prove a point Not that some form of dealing with piracy is total bsimo, just open-ended things scare me.
Saying that something, ANYTHING, is so insane that it can't even be TALKED ABOUT in the legislature is wrong, though. There is NO SUCH THING as a topic so wrong or so stupid that you can't even have the DISCUSSION.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: Everyone should be forced into gay marriage.
While eating children.
Why do you believe that? Please elucidate.
Once we've tested our own moral and ethical boundaries voluntarily in a controlled way, we'll have the strength of will to make ethical decisions later on when we are without a choice. Clearly.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Everyone should be forced into gay marriage.
While eating children.
Why do you believe that? Please elucidate.
Veal is delicious, and is from a young mammal. Children are young mammals, therefore, they are surely delicious as well.
Far as the gay marriage goes, who doesn't deserve a union they are happy in?
But why would you want both of these on the same bill? Isn't the rider of gay marriage going to get lumped into the child eating? Thats not going to give it the proper amount of debate, isn't that unhealthy in a democracy?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Everyone should be forced into gay marriage.
While eating children.
Why do you believe that? Please elucidate.
Veal is delicious, and is from a young mammal. Children are young mammals, therefore, they are surely delicious as well.
Far as the gay marriage goes, who doesn't deserve a union they are happy in?
But why would you want both of these on the same bill? Isn't the rider of gay marriage going to get lumped into the child eating? Thats not going to give it the proper amount of debate, isn't that unhealthy in a democracy?
I see your point, however, in my train of thought, happy marriage should ensure that more children are produced, so we won't ever run out of delicious, delicious foodstuffs.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: Everyone should be forced into gay marriage.
While eating children.
Why do you believe that? Please elucidate.
Veal is delicious, and is from a young mammal. Children are young mammals, therefore, they are surely delicious as well.
Far as the gay marriage goes, who doesn't deserve a union they are happy in?
But why would you want both of these on the same bill? Isn't the rider of gay marriage going to get lumped into the child eating? Thats not going to give it the proper amount of debate, isn't that unhealthy in a democracy?
I see your point, however, in my train of thought, happy marriage should ensure that more children are produced, so we won't ever run out of delicious, delicious foodstuffs.
I mean, the two just go together.
I don't think you're considering the opposing point of view here. What about sustainability of the child population? That'll only be compounded with mandatory gay marriage. You're advocating a short sighted and destructive policy combination. This is exactly why we need these debates.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Everyone should be forced into gay marriage.
While eating children.
Why do you believe that? Please elucidate.
Veal is delicious, and is from a young mammal. Children are young mammals, therefore, they are surely delicious as well.
Far as the gay marriage goes, who doesn't deserve a union they are happy in?
But why would you want both of these on the same bill? Isn't the rider of gay marriage going to get lumped into the child eating? Thats not going to give it the proper amount of debate, isn't that unhealthy in a democracy?
I see your point, however, in my train of thought, happy marriage should ensure that more children are produced, so we won't ever run out of delicious, delicious foodstuffs.
I mean, the two just go together.
I don't think you're considering the opposing point of view here. What about sustainability of the child population? That'll only be compounded with mandatory gay marriage. You're advocating a short sighted and destructive policy combination. This is exactly why we need these debates.
Mandatory pregnancy it is then. It's the only reasonable solution!
I don't think you're considering the opposing point of view here. What about sustainability of the child population? That'll only be compounded with mandatory gay marriage. You're advocating a short sighted and destructive policy combination. This is exactly why we need these debates.
Now I'm just confused. I thought we were talking about forcing marriages in which everyone was happy. Why will that not promote a healthy child population?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Mandatory pregnancy it is then. It's the only reasonable solution!
I don't think you're considering the opposing point of view here. What about sustainability of the child population? That'll only be compounded with mandatory gay marriage. You're advocating a short sighted and destructive policy combination. This is exactly why we need these debates.
Now I'm just confused. I thought we were talking about forcing marriages in which everyone was happy. Why will that not promote a healthy child population?
Your side can't even keep it's policy straight and cannerous keeps adding more riders. This is why you were thrown in 2010.
We are talking about something that could kill the internet in the US
Not just America... As has probably been said, if this gets through in America, that'll open the floodgates. The UK, Australia and Canada will probably follow suit, as well as the fact that most websites are based in the US, meaning if they get banned, people in other countries using those websites will suffer if they cannot get sufficient attention to keep the site running.
We are talking about something that could kill the internet in the US
Not just America... As has probably been said, if this gets through in America, that'll open the floodgates. The UK, Australia and Canada will probably follow suit, as well as the fact that most websites are based in the US, meaning if they get banned, people in other countries using those websites will suffer if they cannot get sufficient attention to keep the site running.
Scumbag US politicians. Sort it out guys.
You do know after the rest of the house of reps found out about this they tore it apart. They all raised up questions like "You know net neturality? Well your breaking that!"
Admittedly it is a problem they're making for themselves with all this 3D nonsense, there are some cinemas that won't show it in 2D, meaning one has to go elsewhere or wait a ridiculously long amount of time to see it in a manner they like.
Do go on. You're doing your point justice and I am not wanting you to hang yourself with your own words. At all. I am completely serious. Continue.
.
