Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

halonachos wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

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.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

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".

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

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.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Tell your reps what you think.

It's not too late.

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.

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.

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, 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?

Did you seriously just ask that?

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.

Or have a go anyway.

Sure it is.

No. It's not.

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.

Now you know how people feel when they get their IP ripped off by donkey-caves.

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.

Albatross wrote:

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.

kronk wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
At this point I just want to start throwing fists, this stuff pisses me off worse then the Palestine stuff ever could.

Now you know how people feel when they get their IP ripped off by donkey-caves.

I'm confidant I can both take them and don't give any level of gak how they feel.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Albatross wrote:

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.

Emphasizing issues I've run into myself.

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?

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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 .

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

mattyrm wrote:

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.

MrDwhitey wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.".

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

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.