SOPA

[Typhoid]

3 joint-spawned posts in one. Oh glorious day. I need a hobby.

I honestly think that the world is going to be a shitty, depressing, dystopian society if we cannot nip this in the butt.

Buds.
You nip a bud.
Like cutting the bud off of a weed before it can bloom.
Just a personal hate.

Like when people say "I could care less".
Oh, you can? That's nice. Me, on the other hand, I couldn't care less. My capacity for caring is already at it's minimum.

To some extent, you probably shouldn't fuck your coworkers

Woah woah woah. What if they're incredibly sexy?




I think this paragraph should be read by every person in your country. No joke.

The US Political system is bloated beyond belief anyway. You don't need a billion dollars to run for President, or at least you shouldn't. And more importantly...if you are running a business...you shouldn't have elevated influence because you can throw money at a problem. Everyone should have the option to vote equally: whether you are a poor inner-city family or a billionaire CEO of some huge banking company.

[KillerGremlin]

Yeah...I confess...if your coworker is smoking hot you should probably go for it. Something about not passing up a golden opportunity....

You could even go for it at work. I do think the desk fantasy is hot. And the copy room is definitely hot....


I realize that lobbying has been going on forever. Maybe it wasn't a big deal in the past. Sure, the Oil Companies lobbied in the past. But for most people, driving is more important than the ocean or some obscure piece of Alaskan wildlife. I think most people are okay with cutting down a forest so that they can use their car.

Now we have reached a point where lobbying is resulting in the government passing Draconian laws...we also see the bloat in industries like medicine. Add in things like the declining education and the current state of the economy and EEEK.

I seriously think the solution is flushing DC out. Something akin to a revolution with a drafting of something like separation of Church and State. Only separation of Government and Business. And that should include "charity" and "off the book" exchanges. If the IRS can track me down for missing a bill and unleash the wrath of a full audit, the IRS should be able to keep tabs on its politicians.

[TheGame]

[KillerGremlin]

I mean I don't want to say it isn't possible and then...it becomes possible.

But there has to be so much shit on those megaupload servers that no human could possibly sort through it in a reasonable amount of time. And an IP Address is not clear evidence of downloading. Think of the thousands of appeals that the RIAA would have to deal with...I don't think they would actually target 25% of the population. They are probably going to target single individuals on a per case basis. But even that is futile, because who has a million dollars? These lawsuits are frivolous which is why they've been stopped.

The end game is finally controlling the Internet and the distribution of data. Moving forward, if they can control how you obtain your digital media, you will be forced to pay what they ask for. It will be no different than Cable TV.

It's all about control. Some time in the 1990s the MPAA/RIAA lost an opportunity to jump on a golden business opportunity, online file sharing, and fell victim to Napster/p2p/etc. Now you have bandcamp, paypal, amazon with its DRM-free mp3s, etc. The middle man has been cut out thanks to the Internet, and they don't like it.

The middle man should have no say...because as has been pointed out a million times: a downloaded album is not a net sales loss. There is a good chance the person who downloaded the album wasn't going to buy it in the first place. So by that logic, there really is no damages. With the Internet, you can go to Radiohead.com and give the band 10 dollars direct for a Lossy FLAC encoded album that is DRM free. In less than...Napster was what? '98? In less than 10 years the Internet killed corporate music.

According to my folks, there was a time when cable TV was commercial free. I think it's pretty retarded that cable is a paid service, and it has commercials. I think what is even more retarded is they don't offer some premium package for 5 or 10 dollars more a month to not watch commercials. The Internet is changing the way we advertise, commercialize, and harass consumers. It's fucking ridiculous that I buy a PC game and have to verify some DRM bullshit on the internet. It's fucking bullshit that I pop in a blu-ray movie and have to sit through 15 commercials for shitty movies I don't want to see. These are all reasons piracy is rampant. The suits brought this fate on themselves...and I hope the tech world is smart enough to keep progressing to win this war.

I'm done supporting shitty service. I buy a lot of things, and I support developers who respect their customers. I buy games that are DRM-free, I buy Apps on my phone, I even have purchased Windows because I like the OS. I support bands too as often as I can. I feel like most people are in my camp.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I mean I don't want to say it isn't possible and then...it becomes possible.

But there has to be so much shit on those megaupload servers that no human could possibly sort through it in a reasonable amount of time. And an IP Address is not clear evidence of downloading. Think of the thousands of appeals that the RIAA would have to deal with...I don't think they would actually target 25% of the population. They are probably going to target single individuals on a per case basis. But even that is futile, because who has a million dollars? These lawsuits are frivolous which is why they've been stopped.

The end game is finally controlling the Internet and the distribution of data. Moving forward, if they can control how you obtain your digital media, you will be forced to pay what they ask for. It will be no different than Cable TV.

I think it's deeper than that. The "end game" here isn't just controling the internet, it's controling people.

No, they're not going to arrest 25% of people who use the internet. But if a person becomes an issue via the internet or other means, they will use that information to build a case against them and silence them for good. The fact that they now have this in their pocket is the issue, similar to the guantanamo bay and the NDAA issues but less obvious in it's attempt to be able to pick and choose who they lock up.

[Teuthida]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/st...acy/52760484/1

They're dropping like flies.

[Typhoid]

So here's a question I have, I mean the answer might be obvious, but you never know.


So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So here's a question I have, I mean the answer might be obvious, but you never know.


So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

I don't have any statistics, but I would say a combination of both. Obvioiusly, media like music, books, and movies are the lifeblood the corporations that sell them. They can't simply be given away for free, nor should they.

These works take a massive amount of talent, people, and money to create. If no one paid for them, they wouldn't even exist.

And put yourself in an artists shoes. You spend a ton of time and put a lot of work into creating something, then you see people taking it without compensating you at all. They're essentially telling you that your labor of love is worthless to them.

But at the same time, artists get ripped off by corporations. Corporations take about 90% of the sale of media. Not to mention media is expensive to purchase, because of how bloated corporations are. They have a lot of people to pay, so a movie that should cost $5 costs $20.

In order for these corporations to survive, they have to adapt. They need to stop applying an old business model to a world where it doesn't work any more. They need to embrace digital distribution and build a service that is better than the one you can get for free.

They can probably continue to get away with ripping artists off, because artists are desperate to make it big.

The bright side is, once you do make it big, you can do whatever the hell you want. Nine Inch Nails gave away their latest album. Louis C.K. sells his stuff directly to fans at like $5 a pop and makes a killing. Once you're name is out there and you have a fan base, you don't need the corporation any more.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

That depends on what type of "media" you're referring to because it has so many different meanings. It is hard to draw a line.

For example: (This is 100% opinion)
1) Jane jailbreaks her iphone and downloads hundreds of dollars of music for free that was intended to be sold. - Should Jane go to jail? No. Should Jane be fined? Yes, and the fine should be no more then the amount an average american makes in a month. And for first time offenders, if they can provide details on how they obtained their pirated materials then the fine should be waved.

2) Jane purchases a music track legally, but then she turns around and makes a music video with the sound playing for youtube. Should she go to Jail? I'd still say no. Should she be fined? No, that would be youtube's legal issue to deal with because they provided the forum to post the video. Unless they can prove that Jane profited from posting such a video it's on the site.

3) Jane purchases a music track legally. The track is 6 minutes long, but she uses a 2 minute exert of the track as background music for something she puts on MegaUpload. Should she go to Jail? Nope. Should she be fined? Nope. Once again, it depends on if she profited from placing that video up. If she used the music to sell a product or promote a website that she gets a paycheck from, then fine her.

----

I guess to sum it up. I have a problem with individuals being harshly punished for obtaining or using copywrited material. I have the samethoughts on the war on drugs, even though listening to stolen music is less harmful then being hyped up on meth and being on the streets.

Yes individuals should be held accountable IF they're directly stealing content or using it in the pursuit of profit. But stopping the people who enable it is a lot more important.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

That depends on what type of "media" you're referring to because it has so many different meanings. It is hard to draw a line.

For example: (This is 100% opinion)
1) Jane jailbreaks her iphone and downloads hundreds of dollars of music for free that was intended to be sold. - Should Jane go to jail? No. Should Jane be fined? Yes, and the fine should be no more then the amount an average american makes in a month. And for first time offenders, if they can provide details on how they obtained their pirated materials then the fine should be waved.

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

In laymen terms there is no difference, but in legal terms there is.

Downloading a copy of a file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Theft means that the other person was deprived of their item.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

In laymen terms there is no difference, but in legal terms there is.

Downloading a copy of a file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Theft means that the other person was deprived of their item.

You are referring to larceny, a form of theft (non-violent), and that is indeed associated with jail time, either state or county.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1105

larceny

n. the crime of taking the goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the intent of keeping them. It is one form of theft. Some states differentiate between grand larceny and petty larceny based on the value of the stolen goods. Grand larceny is a felony with a state prison sentence as a punishment and petty larceny is usually limited to county jail time.

[Professor S]

Overall, I think we need to be VERY CAREFUL that the argument against SOPA and PIPA does not degrade into defending the theft of intellectual property. There are already laws against stealing intellectual property, and they should be enforced, but if the argument is allowed to be redefined as "I want my free shit" rather than "I want my rights protected" then those that would push internet ownership will win because they will claim moral high ground.

Stealing intellectual property is an immoral side-effect of having a free and open internet, and should not bee the poster child of a free and open internet.

[KillerGremlin]

Look, we've had this argument a thousand times and everyone here is just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think we can all agree though that if Jane walks out of Best Buy with a CD she isn't going get fined 1.25 million dollars. If she downloads 15 songs she might.

There is also a fundamental difference from a technology, legal, and moral standpoint between copyright infringement vs. taking a physical product from someone.

There are gray area issues at stake...like how long should a copyright be good for? What should the fine for copyright infringement be? What are the real damage when someone is the victim of copyright infringement.

These are all good questions that require serious thought and maturity. SOPA and PIPA give too much power to a single group (government) and make it very easy to shut down websites on the basis of copyright. The last person you want with this power is the RIAA/MPAA.

[Vampyr]

I saw an image the other day that basically said:

Penalty for downloading Michael Jackson's music: 5 years in prison

Penalty for killing Michael Jackson: 4 years in prison

Which is what the doctor who's actions supposedly killed MJ got.

edit: And if you read my post before last you can tell I'm obviously not trying to defend copyright infringement. The people who create digital media deserve to sell it for money - no questions asked. Anyone who thinks that these things should be free is absurd...if they were free, very few people other than hobbyist would even be creating them. There would be no movies or games to pirate.