# To sopa or not to sopa



## gsilbers (Jan 17, 2012)

I am all for SOPA but seems many tech giant arent.. which is kinda obvious cause if Sopa goes through it will kill them and their "content"

am i right? or am i missing somehting. 


shouldnt this bill or something like it had passed a long time ago preventing piracy?


but i am open to read others opinions to see why its bad.. good and anything in between


----------



## midphase (Jan 17, 2012)

No on SOPA...here's why:

http://www.g4tv.com/videos/56930/internet-goes-on-strike-against-sopa-aots-loops-in-reddits-ohanian/ (http://www.g4tv.com/videos/56930/intern ... s-ohanian/)


----------



## Mike Marino (Jan 17, 2012)

+1. 

I see what they're trying to do.....but I don't think this is the way to get there.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 17, 2012)

gsilbers @ Wed Jan 18 said:


> I am all for SOPA



I literally just hurt my neck from the epic double-take I did reading that. You're WHAT?!!


SOPA is satan.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 18, 2012)

Video is very slow here. Can anybody explain in a few words the pros and cons or point to a written explanation?


----------



## SergeD (Jan 18, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

Dinosaurs ruling the new world... They just say "Follow us or die". They will realize soon that a global problem has to be solved with all the countries contribution. 

In a first step, they could have proposed to create and maintain a helper reference database tool having DNS piracy sites of all kind to help remove them in the search engines and websites. 

But their real concern is to put their feet on the e-commerce. Buying drugs outside the USA territory was the perfect trojan horse.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 18, 2012)

Every site I own is gently blacked out and I'm doing my part to spread the word about why this is worthy of everyone's attention, around the world.

I'm not into politics (nor am I in the states), but this affects the foundations of our entire modern culture, which is heavily reliant upon a self-policing global internet. 

The anti-piracy principle is laudable, but even a cursory glance at the bills themselves reveals that they're assembled by a community of people who very simply do not possess a sufficient understanding of the landscape to be entrusted with changing it. The implications and consequences, the ambiguity, the anti-constitutional sentiments...this is not the sort of legislation that's going to save creative work from being pirated. 

It's empowering bullies, stunting startups, threatening to destroy nearly every major site on the internet that relies heavily on user generated content (in other words, the core of the web 3.0 universe) and attempting to turn the internet into a cold, dark, and small place. 

An inability to keep up with the times is not an excuse for powerful dinosaurs to try applying outdated thinking to situations where it is no longer relevant. No amount of clout will fit a square peg into a round hole. That's really what it boils down to, from my perspective. Folks who prefer leeches to vaccinations should not be the ones determining standards for medicine.

And so I oppose the bills with all my heart. Even if we choose to be optimistic and believe that protecting copyrights really was the core intent, the integrity of the underlying sentiment can't possibly eclipse the mess of issues with these bills in their current form.

At least someone is making an effort up there, it's true, but it's the wrong people making the wrong effort. We can do better, and we should.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 18, 2012)

dunno man. still think i am for SOPA. 

if you host a website that has illigal copyrighted material then you should be responsible. 
same as a TV network is. same as anyone who grabs your music and profits from it one way or another. 

now you mean that websites that thrived cause they based their profits on this are pissed?
well duh!

this whole thing is because sites like youtube are not policing themselves in a good way. its only if you send an email saying that the materials violates your copyright. ,, x1000!! 

just stop pretending copyright material is not a big deal and we are fine. same with the TV/cable structure.


they have to find a way to screen material to see its not copyrighted. that could be spending on workers doing it. or with programs, or a find a video codecs that can do something about it. 


so far, all the against arguments are from big companies that has made millions out of illigal copyright material. 

if wikipedia, youtube, dont wanna play ball.. im sure there are plenty who will.


----------



## SergeD (Jan 18, 2012)

Mathazzar @ Wed Jan 18 said:


> At least someone is making an effort up there, it's true, but it's the wrong people making the wrong effort. We can do better, and we should.



+1

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, internet providers, etc... It's time to move your cells and put something on the table :idea:


----------



## José Herring (Jan 18, 2012)

SOPA has two things going against it. First, Rupert Murdock is for it. If Murdock is for it, he feels that its something that will greatly benefit him and anything that benefits him hurts society as a whole. He puts the evil in "evil media empire".

Second, it's being pushed by Republicans. Anytime the party of "non government regulation" pushes a bill to regulate something you know 2 facts: a) They're a bunch of hypocrites and liars, and b) it will benefit people like Rupert Murdock. Thus bringing us back to point 1.

SOPA, is a covert attempt in the name of "Justice" to usurp the power of the internet and put it under the control of very powerful entities. For example, let's say that composer "X" on this forum post a piece of music that bares a slight resemblance to a Fox news theme. He got paid for the gig and wants to share the work with his friends. Rupert can then levy his mighty arsenal of lawyers and bring a suit against not only the composer but this forum for "distributing" illegal material. So instead of getting a nice cease and desist letter and giving Frederick the choice to take it down, which he would, he would get a shut down notice, and the government would have the power to black out his site. It's horrible. It's what those facist countries do to hide info from their population.

If SOPA passes sites like Youtube, Wiki will go down not just pirate sites.

We can do better. Thk God, Obama's in office. If Mitt gets in, SOPA will be law.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 18, 2012)

Money will decide if this law gets passed, not some temporary occupant of the White House. If Goldman Sachs want SOPA, Obama will bow to them like he does to Saudi Royalty. Mit will do it just becasue censorship and evangelicalism go hand oin hand, and after all they will be giving him alot of money.....

It's sad that politicians are promoting yet more laws and regulations because of their continued failed attempts at regulation and enforcement.
We only need to enforce laws already in place.

Look to the RIAA case against a women who was downloading music and using it illegally w/o permission............86,000 USD fine.
I doubt she will do this again..It was a godd example of what pirates can look forward to is the Laws already on the books were enforced.
International laws are even more harsh when broken.

Take the thousands of federal Feedbags we already have doing nothing in duplicitive departments like the Fresh Water Salmon Department, and the Salt Water Salmon Department, combine them, place the extra non productive employees and make them useful by having them train at the Air Force Cyber Warfare School.
Jeez they'd help out the people actually, and even earn their money............What a concept...


----------



## Mike Marino (Jan 18, 2012)

Here's your list of supports and opponents:

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 18, 2012)

ok.. so lets things keep going as it is. 

studios will have to pay less for movies and tv shows because they dont have the income from piracy. 
music software is pirated so kids dont pay for it and can make cheap sounding music that can give away to music stock libraries for cheap tv shows that studios can afford. 
pay less to composers cause there is less money and more music producers.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 18, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Wed Jan 18 said:


> Here's your list of supports and opponents:
> 
> http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/



List is a little outdated as now Cornyn and Rubio have just switched to oppose.


----------



## midphase (Jan 18, 2012)

gsilbers @ Wed Jan 18 said:


> studios will have to pay less for movies and tv shows because they dont have the income from piracy.
> music software is pirated so kids dont pay for it and can make cheap sounding music that can give away to music stock libraries for cheap tv shows that studios can afford.
> pay less to composers cause there is less money and more music producers.



I wish the answers to life's great mysteries were as simple as that.

The truth of the matter is that as much as studios are crying foul, they are still reporting record profits. Disney stock is up...way up and Warner Bros. announced third quarter profits (not revenue) of $822 million.

You will not get any arguments from me about shrinking music budgets, but to single handedly point the finger at piracy as the only culprit is only seeing a very minuscule part of the picture.


----------



## midphase (Jan 18, 2012)

Here is an interesting point of view about copyright infringement...not saying that I fully agree with everything being said, but it's interesting to read nonetheless:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... ster_.html


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 18, 2012)

The TED talk on the subject does a very good job of explaining this in context in plain english; highly recommend a watch:

http://youtu.be/9h2dF-IsH0I


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 18, 2012)

How many politicians have been quoted as saying " I wish we could be more like China just for 1 week. "

This is another step for State Capitalism.
You know if they get thier foot in the door with this one, not only will they get some excellent IPO tips and promises of Chris Dodd type Lobbyist jobs when they get caught stealing next time, they will kill start up companies, and make sure they choose the winners like Facebbok and Google, Twitter, Youtube, Yahoo......think of all the shakedown money they can get.

Her's an example of a good shakedown technique by the master himself.

Nevada has had Legal Prostitution and Gambling since it's inception, the state prospers from it's regulation, and the finest porn stars are not in Vegas, but within 1000 yards of the Capital Building in Carson City.
Harry Reid gives these speeches about how Prostitution is a stain on the great State of Nevada and must be voted on as a Federal law, and naturually he isn't going to do that, and nobody in DC will even consider signing on as they know whats up.

The Brothels were making too much, but suddenly after the election the speeches stopped............I wonder if money came in as a campaign contribution...?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... YUF-HGIZPw

This is DC my Brothas', so at the end of the day the left right shit is a joke, as the bi partisanship on this matter is quite evident. It concerns money and power, so they have no disageement on that, its like asking them if they want to vote themselves another raise next year.
Too bad Social Security didn't get it's cost of living raise for 2 1/2 years, but now they got a boost in pay finally, too bad it happened at the same time they raised the costs of Medicare to Seniors........ o=? 

I am shocked Pelosi is a No vote, but I am willing to bet she's holding out for a bigger IPO tip at Facebook or Google......
Don't be shocked if she makes an announcement that she has "Refined" her position. 
In DC you dont switch, you use the term refine as it insinuates this is a better distillation like whiskey and wine, or even Crude Oil. There are several steps of refinement, and she's been around since Daddy left her the job. So she knows what's Up..........

This bill will pass no matter what the people say or do.
How could you pass up a chance at regulating the internet, which is the real reason for this.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 19, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Jan 18 said:


> No on SOPA...here's why:
> 
> http://www.g4tv.com/videos/56930/internet-goes-on-strike-against-sopa-aots-loops-in-reddits-ohanian/ (http://www.g4tv.com/videos/56930/intern ... s-ohanian/)



The reddit guy at least spoke the words "well we are against piracy, too".

I just received a mail by avaaz.org that is full of 'stop the dark powers' and 'sign the emergency petition' but no word lost about piracy and the obvious problems to be adressed. Which seems quite one-sided.

It's the same story over and over ... those that abuse their personal freedom for hurting the community provoke restrictions and regulations for everybody, which is a step backwards. As long as most things are balanced way the society can afford broad tolerance but when something goes beyond limits and is not timely tamed by self-regulating forces there will be a reaction. In regards to piracy there has been much talk but nearly no success of self-regulation, therefore some measures will be inevitable.



chimuelo said:


> How could you pass up a chance at regulating the internet, which is the real reason for this.


Yes but for the history books: Piracy bereaved the free internet from us, that is what happened.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 19, 2012)

Yepp they did.
Much in the same way MacAfee creates viruses and then naturally you need their divine program to eliminate the bugs....
As you see the voting now as badly as the Feds are licking their lips the number of politicians " refinfing " their positions has grown by 40%, so it seems they have cashed in on favors for the switch...................sorry..
I meant the refinement.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 19, 2012)

I work in the consumer electronics industry. In CE, we are also against IP piracy. We don't want our logos put on knockoff products. We need a strong content industry to create demand for many of our products.

Put simply, the problem with SOPA and PIPA are that they were trying to catch sharks with a wide net that would kill dolphins.

Frankly, the introduction of these bills was bad for everybody. Because SOPA/PIPA overreached, they got the Wikipedia blackout treatment. Now politicians will treat the topic as a third rail. 

In the CE industry, we want _good_ IP legislation. Because the content industry pushed _extreme_ IP legislation, we are likely to get none at all.

We need politicians who develop win-win legislation, not one-sided legislation.


----------



## midphase (Jan 19, 2012)

I believe that piracy is a fact of life, like people running red lights and going over the posted speed limit, drinking and driving (arguably much more damaging to society), parking in handicap spots, not paying sales (usage) tax when purchasing products from out of state, and a host of other law breaking instances that are simply unenforceable.

Any attempt at thwarting piracy has resulted in it growing stronger and harder to control (remember Napster? It was a purty kitty cat compared to the 400lbs bitch that are Torrents).

The only ways of controlling piracy are education, and providing a convenient and affordable legal solution to address the demand. I look at Netflix as being part of the solution, so is the iTunes store, Hulu, and yes...even YouTube.

One of the things to keep in mind is also that the USA has one of the lowest rates of piracy on the entire planet...our kids are already pretty damn honest. Another thing to keep in mind...financial loss estimates are grossly inflated. Lower wages and budgets in the film/music industry have little to do with piracy and more to do with increasing quarterly profits and overall less general demand on the part of the public.

One more fact to be considered, and this one is a tough one for most people to digest but please chew on it for a bit before rejecting it as nonsense -- Think of the amount that people have to spend on non-essentials as a finite amount of money. Judging by the rather lackluster increase of middle class income rates in the past 10 years, we can assume that the amount has been relatively fixed. Nobody really likes to hoard money (in the middle class that is), so if you give a kid a $20 weekly allowance, chances are he'll spend it somewhere. In today's world, this finite amount of money is still being spent, even with rampant piracy. The problem (for us), is that the spending has shifted from content, to storage media and bandwidth. Every dollar that is lost by a sample developer, movie studio or record label, is gained by a hardware manufacturer, an ISP, or a data hosting site. I assure you that that kid is not putting the money that he just saved from downloading the latest Arcade Fire album into his stock portfolio...he's using it to buy a bigger hard drive!

Now we (creatives, developers, etc), might not be thrilled about this shift in spending habits, no more than small stores were about megastore chains and online spending...but the people who are benefitting from the shift in spending are very very happy about this shift.

The other argument is that rampant piracy damages creative endeavors and dissuades people from creating new content. I think this sounds great on paper, but I have simply not seen any evidence of this. People have been pirating for almost 3 decades. I remember in high school me and my friends bringing floppy disks to class and trading Commodore 64 games with each other. When I purchased a Prophet 2000 in 1984, one of the incentives from the sales person was that I'd be allowed to copy the entire sample library that the store had. Remember mix cassettes?

At that rate by now we should have a barren desert of content creators...instead what I have seen is an exponential increase in films being produced, music being recorded, and sample libraries being developed. There are more successful developers and software manufacturers today than ever before. In the past decade I have seen good friends of mine create content (as directors, writers, musicians, and sample developers), with some of them becoming millionaires in the process.

The creative community is alive and well...perhaps too much so. In my opinion, much more damaging than piracy to the creative community is the over saturation of the talent pool. The main reason why it's so hard to get a decent advance from a film distributor is not due to piracy, it's due to way too much content being available and only a limited amount of money to be made from it.

In closing, I am not encouraging, or even justifying piracy. I am simply urging us to not have knee-jerk reactions to it which might further damage things without necessarily solving the problem. Ultimately the desire to do the right thing or not comes down to a personal choice and not censorship or threatening laws.

Should there be deterrence from breaking the law? Absolutely! The 'good fences' argument holds. But we shouldn't seek to undermine the system or punish legitimate users in a misguided and ultimately futile attempt to control and eliminate an issue that is simply not going away.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 19, 2012)

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/feds-sh ... pload-com/

RIP Megaupload. We had some good times over the years. Miniupload must be sweatin it right about now.


----------



## snowleopard (Jan 19, 2012)

Against SOPA and PIPA. Don't have the time to write on it, suffice to say I agree with Midphase who put it well, and the others. May try to write later if I have the time.

Props to my Senator, Ron Wyden, for saying he'll filibuster to block it if he has to.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 20, 2012)

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technol ... ce=cnn_bin


Well that was easy.


----------



## handz (Jan 20, 2012)

I really cant believe what is happening in the "free country" right now - SOPA is EVIL - no doubts. I think every American should do everything he could to stop this insane thing from happening. 

US really starting to scares me - the Megaupload thing is just a start - Piracy is bad YES but megaupload is just file hosting web nothing more, no torrent tracker, people who uploaded things there are guilty, I really really dont get what US are thinking - they are even want to arrest graphic designer who cooperated with megaupload - WHAT? Sick.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 20, 2012)

Yeah, I know plenty of people who relied on Megaupload for legitimate means. We'll see if Yousendit survives.


----------



## handz (Jan 20, 2012)

I wondering what owners of Filesonic, Rapidshare and all other of hundreds similar sites like Megaupload are doing now - buying false passports and moving to Carribean? I would certainly do if I was them...


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jan 20, 2012)

To be fair - and I'm a huge opponent of SOPA/PIPA etc - there is some compelling evidence that Megaupload not only knew about infringing content, but:

(a) Paid/rewarded people to upload it
(b) Deliberately ignored and failed to comply with requests to take it down


----------



## wst3 (Jan 20, 2012)

Andrew is spot on - Megaupload was not some innocent bystander.

I have to say I find some of the posturing for the press to be a bit hypocritical - almost as if some of these folks believe stealing other people's intellectual property has become everyone's right.

Piracy is bad, but let's not let poorly thought out legislation like SOPA/PIPA derail efforts to clamp down on piracy!


----------



## Udo (Jan 20, 2012)

One could say that the USA celebrates its first act of plagiarism every year, on the 4th of July. :wink: 

Research has confirmed that the US Declaration of Independence, including the preamble, is based, to a significant extent, on the 1581 Dutch declaration - Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (Act of Abjuration).

It's justified with remarks like: "Unlike our own age, which prizes originality, the 18th century gave its greatest accolades to those able to master the art of imitation, ....".


----------



## Daryl (Jan 20, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Jan 19 said:


> http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/feds-shut-internet-file-sharing-site-megaupload-com/
> 
> RIP Megaupload. We had some good times over the years. Miniupload must be sweatin it right about now.



HAHAHAHA. Serves 'em right anyway.

D


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 20, 2012)

wst3 @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> Piracy is bad



Disagree. I don't think it's that black and white. While a lot of piracy is bad there are many times when it is actually good. 

With SOPA would something amazing like this exist?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO-An4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5LpwO- ... re=related)


Who's losing money from that existing? If anything it makes me want to buy episodes of the show.

Imagine VI control being shut down every time I need to remind anyone how much of a relentless thief Zimmer is! 

True, you're not a fan of SOPA but I think not all piracy is equal.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 20, 2012)

handz @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> I really cant believe what is happening in the "free country" right now - SOPA is EVIL - no doubts.



Can someone explain to me why - in black and white? The only argument I have heard against these bills, is that they are too broadly written, and leave too much to chance.

Is that it, or is there something else to this?


----------



## Udo (Jan 20, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> handz @ Sat Jan 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I really cant believe what is happening in the "free country" right now - SOPA is EVIL - no doubts.
> ...


Yes, there is something else to it, like there is to the frivolous allocation of copyright and, in particular, patents!


----------



## wst3 (Jan 20, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> handz @ Sat Jan 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I really cant believe what is happening in the "free country" right now - SOPA is EVIL - no doubts.
> ...



It's a lot of things - but mostly I think the opposition focused on two points:
1) it was insanely broad, almost all encompassing. If I found pirated software on your site I can shut you down, and I can shut down anyone that links to you - whether they link to the pirated software or not. And if you link to someone that has pirated software on their site I can still shut you down.
2) closely related is the presumption of guilt until proven innocent. That's just not how we do things - or we're not supposed to anyway.

I think there was a third flaw - the way they would shut you down is to remove you from the domain name services system... well, that doesn't actually belong to anyone any more than the internet does, so that's a problem, but more to the point, it won't work.

I think that companies ought to be able to pursue civil action against people that steal their intellectual property. That's the obvious remedy, but if you are making millions providing access to stolen property you can probably afford the legal bills better than the person that created it. Ooops!

I also think that for companies that demonstrate complete disregard for property rights there ought to be some form of criminal remedy as well... but I'm probably in the minority on that one.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 20, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> wst3 @ Fri Jan 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Piracy is bad
> ...



We're going to have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

It is black and white - I either grant you permission to use my intellectual property or I don't - and if I don't then you don't have the right - under current law - to use it anyway just because you figure it won't hurt me.

I think people ought to respect other people's rights... and not just for intellectual property, but that might be a start.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 20, 2012)

wst3 @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> choc0thrax @ Fri Jan 20 said:
> 
> 
> > wst3 @ Fri Jan 20 said:
> ...



Alright, agree to disagree then. One day you'll win and they implement something SOPA like. Until that cold joyless world becomes a reality I'm going to enjoy every minute of Arnold Schwarzeneggar's attempts to destroy the galaxy. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKEg6fJ-7P4


----------



## SvK (Jan 20, 2012)

i enjoy big movies.

big movies hire many people to make them. Grps, extras, caterers, sound-designers, security services on and on and on.They can cost 150 million plus to make....In short they put a lot of people to work. They form the foundation of a major city's economy (LA)....

All those people who work on such a production pay their rent, their food, their electrcicty bills from working on them..

If the ticket sales don't roll in because to many just watch the pirated online version.....then we wil see the demise of an entire economic system....

All those lives get impacted because the profit margins aren't there anymore to make future productions.

that's a big problem

best,
SvK


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 20, 2012)

wst3 @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> 1) it was insanely broad, almost all encompassing. If I found pirated software on your site I can shut you down, and I can shut down anyone that links to you - whether they link to the pirated software or not. And if you link to someone that has pirated software on their site I can still shut you down.



Ok, we cant have that. I am all for stopping piracy and shutting down sites that knowingly and willfully host and aid in the distribution of intellectual property, but not at the suffrage of innocent people who do not engage in such behavior. This country was founded (in part) on _you are innocent until proven guilty_. 



> It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man.



If they want to shut down your site simply because you are linked to a site that hosts and aids in the distribution of intellectual property, that is bad, and that is what we can not have. If a person living in your household shoots someone, do you go to prison to if you didn't aid the crime?


----------



## nikolas (Jan 20, 2012)

I remember quite a few cases of youtube charging copyright infrigment at a few videos. The funny thing? It was performances of a chopin etude... :D So you can imagine if one claims that they own the rights of a chopin etude performed by... Pollini, someone else coming in to claim they perform the same etude would result in a shity situation... :D And a LOLtastic one as well!

But can you imagine what would happen if SOPA and PIPA was in action? Come on... the world is a silly world. We don't want to put a gun in the hands of the powerful morons and let them rule the internet, do we?


----------



## Daryl (Jan 21, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> If they want to shut down your site simply because you are linked to a site that hosts and aids in the distribution of intellectual property, that is bad, and that is what we can not have. If a person living in your household shoots someone, do you go to prison to if you didn't aid the crime?


It's not quite as simple as that. The big search engines, such as Google, are not innocent bystanders. By pointing their clients in the direction of how to acquire stolen goods, they are conspiring in piracy. I do agree that SOPA is far too wide ranging, but that's what happens when self regulation doesn't work, and it clearly doesn't work. You just have to look to the financial sector for proof. :wink: 

D


----------



## Ed (Jan 21, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Jan 19 said:


> http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/feds-shut-internet-file-sharing-site-megaupload-com/
> 
> RIP Megaupload. We had some good times over the years. Miniupload must be sweatin it right about now.



Apparently not for long...

:lol: 

http://109.236.83.66/

It was the same for TV Links and Pirate Bay if I recall.

I like the analogy someone in the comments posted about SOPA:

_"If somebody was selling pirated DvDs on 8th street.. should the government be allowed to ban citizens from going to 8th street?"_

The funny thing about it is that the pirates will still find a way around it anyway, yet you just screwed over all the citizens.


----------



## Ed (Jan 21, 2012)

I am amazed that anyone that knows the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4&feature=related (internets are not series of tubes) can support the SOPA billls. I didnt know such people existed beyond the greedy corporations that know how bad it is but think it will help line their pockets.

Firstly, some "piracy" really is good. Demonstrably good. South Park creators for example have said many times they endorse freely spreading their show around and that in the early days this helped them become famous. Many artists rely on marketing via sharing their work online, so even though people were getting their music for free, they still become successful because it is publicity. It doesnt apply everywhere and to all situations of course not, but clearly there are situations where it does help rather than hinder. The very thing about the internet that makes piracy so harmful is the very thing that makes it so amazingly useful to other markets. I know that if someone hears a track of mine and puts it on youtube, I'm going to get way more publicity than not having that facility. There are people that write songs that go viral on the internet and then have a link to it on itunes and Amazon, they then get YouTube money and itunes sales and they would have had none of that otherwise and the more people that mirror the video only helps.

* But this is not about defending piracy in any way,* it really isn't. I am surprised no one here has mentioned* fair use*. Who here that has indicated they support SOPA doesnt agree with fair use? If you're not sure what fair use is I suggest you look it up, because it wont exist if these bills pass.

This kind of video for example comes under fair use, it is not infringement, yet would not be able to have things like this.
http://youtu.be/7ezeYJUz-84


Next, YouTube automatically take down videos if they are flagged for infringement. Its the uploaders responsibility to prove its fair use or that they own the rights to post the video to get it reinstated. Thats how it is *right now.*

Youtube will be completely destroyed apart maybe from some cat videos and some people in front of thier computers. The whole reason Youtube can afford to pay its content creators is because of the huge amount of advertising revenue generated. If 90% of your videos are now gone, theres no incentive for people to go to the site and therefore advertisers wont want to pay and therefore content creators wont be able to make any more content. You see where this is going? You've effectively destroyed Youtube as a company, but not just that, *you've destroyed an entire industry. * And Youtube's copyright restrictions for their Partners are even more strict than it would be normally, right now, already.

And if that doesnt grab you, how about this. As someone else pointed out Fred should be afraid about keeping this forum online. He could very well have to take it down or worse, be *criminally* liable. You really want to support that? 

Someone else compared SOPA to trying to catch some sharks but killing dolphins because the net is too big. I'd go further, its like trying to catch all the sharks by killing just about every other creature in the sea.

SOPA will literally destroy the internet as we know it.

Oh, and btw, It probably wouldnt even stop piracy as those guys are smart enough to get around it somehow. It will just make it *slightly *less accessible. What it will do is stop all the LEGITIMATE users, destroy entire industries and criminalise creativity and people like Fred, and for those reasons alone it needs to be opposed.


----------



## Ed (Jan 21, 2012)

Oh and if you're in any doubt whether these people will abuse their powers. Check this video out below. Universal Music tried to take down the video on copyright infringement it has *ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS TO.* Not even a fair use issue here. It was taken down on serval occasions and reinstated only to be taken down again and their account was threatened to be blocked. 

Its as bad as this *RIGHT NOW*, but you want to give them *MORE* power? 

* Universal Music are the kinds of people supporting SOPA.*

Its a video showing various famous pop music artists supporting megaupload.

(_On a side note, why do so many people think that just because someone downloads or watches or listens to material they did not pay for, that they would have bought it if they did not access to it? Music and movie companies claimed $500M in lost revenue because of MegaUpload, are they serious? Its only lost revenue if they were going to buy it anyway, why is that so difficult to understand? _)


----------



## wst3 (Jan 21, 2012)

Ed @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> Firstly, some "piracy" really is good. Demonstrably good. South Park creators for example have said many times they endorse freely spreading their show around and that in the early days this helped them become famous.



It IS NOT PIRACY if the artist allows the free distribution of their work.

Can we please make the distinction between spreading a work with permission from spreading a work without permission.

I may be over simplifying things, but I believe that the person that holds the rights to a work is the ONLY person who ought to be allowed to determine what is done with it.

That is not a perfect system - I'll be the first to stipulate that copyright protection in general has flaws. Some of these flaws have been exacerbated recently by greedy individuals (sorry, corporations may be made up of greedy bastards, but they aren't people!)

It is, however, the law, and until we find something better we need to either respect that, or work to overturn it. I think the later is very dangerous - without some motivation other than the reward of creating something I fear many will stop creating. (I might be wrong, but I doubt it!)

Someone posted about the ever widening impact of piracy though the LA economic model. I think we tend to overlook that.

Think about dishwashers or televisions or computers or cars. Much of this manufacturing has moved overseas because we, the consumers, have turned all of them into commodities - we make our purchasing decisions primarily or entirely on price. When that happens the manufacturer will do whatever they can to reduce their costs.

If we stop paying for music and movies and books the result will be similar.


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 21, 2012)

SvK @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> If the ticket sales don't roll in because to many just watch the pirated online version.....then we wil see the demise of an entire economic system....
> best,
> SvK



and we probably will. i agree with your premise but you must remember youre talking from an educated viewpoint.


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 21, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> By pointing their clients in the direction of how to acquire stolen goods, they are conspiring in piracy. but that's what happens when self regulation doesn't work, and it clearly doesn't work. You just have to look to the financial sector for proof. :wink:
> 
> D



i agree totally although i could really care less. and neither could google. what they really worry about is the share price dropping 10%. less worried than yahoo though. :lol:


----------



## midphase (Jan 21, 2012)

SvK @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> i enjoy big movies.
> 
> big movies hire many people to make them. Grps, extras, caterers, sound-designers, security services on and on and on.They can cost 150 million plus to make....In short they put a lot of people to work. They form the foundation of a major city's economy (LA)....
> 
> ...



Steven,

You know I dig most of the stuff you say...but in this case you're just repeating the same baseless studio propaganda that is completely devoid of any hard data to back it up. There is no evidence whatsoever, none that presents a valid (or even plausible) argument that piracy is affecting movie theatre ticket sales. There is however plenty of data showing that other factors are at play (including studios putting out cliched crap).

The following is a good read on the subject:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20111228%2FCOMMENTARY%2F111229973 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... F111229973)


----------



## Ed (Jan 21, 2012)

wst3 @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> Ed @ Sat Jan 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, some "piracy" really is good. Demonstrably good. South Park creators for example have said many times they endorse freely spreading their show around and that in the early days this helped them become famous.
> ...



It *IS *piracy because the creators of South park do *NOT* own the rights to South Park, the studio does and the studio does *NOT *condone the piracy of South Park. Just try and upload whole episodes of it on youtube and find out how long it takes before they are removed. This is much like someone like John Williams that does not own the rights to his music either. He cannot say anyone is allowed to do what they like with his music, because he does not own any of it, the film studios do. But even if the South Park guys did have the rights to it, they only said this years later and no one asked their permission to share their copyrighted materials.

You do seem to have missed the basic point in that particular section of my post, which is that piracy isn't *always* detrimental, that is demonstrable fact. As I also said, the reason why SOPA is so terrible has nothing to do with defending piracy in any way whatsoever and I hope you read the rest of my posts that explained why.




> Can we please make the distinction between spreading a work with permission from spreading a work without permission.



Since I did give such an example (but the South Park one doesn't count) I was saying that if someone takes some of my Epic Score tracks (key part: WITHOUT PERMISSION) and put them on youtube technically you could say that people that would have bought it from itunes now dont need to because they can listen for free. But now theres free marketing and you could argue the WHOLE reason why there is a huge growth of popularity in trailer music and the reason why companies like Immediate and Epic Score are selling their music online now, is because of people pirating it on youtube and showing the content to a wide audience. The point being that there would be no audience if it wasnt for pirating it in the first place.




> If we stop paying for music and movies and books the result will be similar.



People *are *paying for music and movies, if they werent the studios wouldnt still be making profits. Its just maybe they arent making in quite as much as they were. You also have to remember, as I and many others have said, just because someone watches a film, listens to music or downloads software without paying doesnt mean this is necessarily "lost revenue" yet the figures typically quoted represent these kinds of assumptions. It is only lost revenue if they would have paid for it, obviously! 

MegaUpload have said they are going to be back with some kind of music company which has a much fairer system for music artists where they get to keep "90%" according to their press release. Since there seem to be a fair number of these high profile artists supporting MegaUpload this might actually happen. Maybe, just maybe, these record companies have had a monopoly on this for far too long and technology is finally offering a way for the market to offer a better deal to everyone. These people want to shut that down, which is why Universal Music tried to *illegally* take down Megaupload's music video (see my post) despite not owning *any *rights to it at all. So they are already abusing the system *now*, you give them more rights with SOPA and they will most definitely ruin the internet and destroy entire industries as I already said. 

SVK says that he feels sorry for all the lost cinema tickets because people arent going and how this is going to affect all the families of these companies not being able to pay for essentials. First... they are still making a lot of freakin money, just check these profits from these movies. They are making MILLIONS in profit. Second, it isnt due to piracy, its mainly due to the absurd prices they charge now. I love going to the cinema but not when it costs me over £10 (over $15) for a normal non 3D ticket, so I'm going to be awfully picky about what I go and see and so I usually go only twice a year. Then you have services like Netficks and Love Film offering a much cheaper way to watch Tv and film and you can see why cinema revenue is dropping. You also of course need to take into account the fact that home cinema systems make watching films at home much more comfortable than it used to be. I dont know about anyone else, but the 3D thing was just a gimmick to get people back in the theatre. But even if its a good 3D film, they haven't solved the frame rate loss issue and the picture is always noticeably darker because of the glasses and they even charge you MORE to see it than normal!! Yet they want to blame it all on piracy for some reason. Their heads are in the clouds!

*And as I pointed out before, do you want Fred to close this website and become criminally liable? If so then continue supporting SOPA because if this kind of bill passes I'd be very worried if I were him.*


.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 21, 2012)

Ed @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> Youtube will be completely destroyed apart maybe from some cat videos



You do realize Youtube is 90% cat videos right? 8) 

I do feel bad for the studios. Their films have been over performing for weeks. Poor bastards.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 21, 2012)

Ed @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> wst3 @ Sat Jan 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Sat Jan 21 said:
> ...



My apologies, I wasn't clear enough... I was not referring to the South Park example explicitly, but rather to the more general concept, I probably should not have clipped the quote the way I did.

It is true that the creators (not the rights holders) of South Park benefited from piracy. It is also true that the rights holders may, or may not have suffered as a result of the piracy.

It's also true that making the case for or against the real financial consequences of piracy is difficult, but the impact of allowing (in some cases encouraging) piracy is very clear - people do not value other people's intellectual property, and that's sad!


----------



## Ed (Jan 21, 2012)

wst3 @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> It is true that the creators (not the rights holders) of South Park benefited from piracy. It is also true that the rights holders may, or may not have suffered as a result of the piracy.



Well thats the same thing isnt it? If the studio weren't successful then Trey and Matt wouldnt have been successful either. Exactly why would Trey and Matt make more money than the studio that finances it and broadcasts it? If South Park wasnt such an amazing underground hit because of piracy it probably would have been cancelled. South Park has to be one of the easiest TV shows ever to see for free streamed online from a hundred different places and yet they still sell plenty of box sets of the show and have done for years. People still end up paying for this stuff. The piracy was the marketing, thats the point here. The reason these studios are stupid enough to claim they've lost money is because they base the figure on the assumption that every view on a free streaming site is a lost customer that would have bought the episode on itunes or a box set. They have since figured it out somewhat and have free streaming on their own website where they can offer it to you with ads. 



> It's also true that making the case for or against the real financial consequences of piracy is difficult, but the impact of allowing (in some cases encouraging) piracy is very clear - people do not value other people's intellectual property, and that's sad!



It may be "sad", but thats no excuse to endorse killing off most life in the internet sea just to think we can get to a few sharks in the process, sharks which will probably survive anyway. Seriously, it will just become slightly less convenient to get pirated stuff, you can be sure there *will* be a way. The point being that there will not be a way for any legitimate purpose, not for YouTube and the entire industry that will be killed, not for people like Fred that operate forums like this one. You talk about lost revenue from piracy, SOPA will kill off enough of an industry that you'll loose far more than that. These people already abuse their powers, just look at the Universal Music / MegaUpload thing.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 21, 2012)

sso for those against SOPA and against piracy...

how would SOPA (or something like it) LAW be written or what should it do.?

or is it just allowing piracy to keep happening cause its not so bad?


----------



## midphase (Jan 21, 2012)

I hate to say it, but the law should still be leaning towards "innocent until proven guilty"

I think the copyright holder needs to present a convincing argument as to why a site should be taken down and the owners prosecuted. A "he said she said" type of plan is doomed to fail.

Even stores have pretty stringent rules to prevent theft, a security guard is bound by those rules and can not arbitrarily decide to pursue and hold a suspect without reasonable cause.


----------



## Ed (Jan 21, 2012)

gsilbers @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> sso for those against SOPA and against piracy...
> 
> how would SOPA (or something like it) LAW be written or what should it do.?
> 
> or is it just allowing piracy to keep happening *cause its not so bad*?



I don't agree with how you worded this question. Its not that piracy "isnt so bad", as if to imply people are saying its good, its that its not as bad as the record companies and film companies are trying to make out. Their lost revenue must also take into account technology like home cinema systems, high ticket prices and redundant antiquated sales practices (when we have Itunes and Netflicks). Video rental stores like BlockBuster video might want to blame piracy for their lost customers, when more likely their customers simply went to Netflicks and Lovefilm which somehow are experiencing high demand despite piracy (ask yourself how thats possible). Thats just technology and capitalism, you either get with it or your company dies. In other words, its easy to pretend that all of these companies' losses compared with 10 years ago is due to piracy, when really its due to the internet in general offering cheaper goods and services. And we must not forget that film companies are still raking in millions in profits from their films, the figures are all there on the internet to see, so don't feel too bad for them.

Even if you let the SOPA bills pass piracy will still be around, you'll just have to be more l33t to get it. Ie. It may be a little less convenient.

To answer your question, I don't think you can regulate the internet except with small laws which make it slightly easier to get people who are really flaunting copyright. Currently its easy to abuse the laws right now at the expense of lawful people, hence how Universal Music illegally kept issuing DMCA's on MegaUploads youtube video that kept being taken down over and over. If you try and make a law like SOPA that can take away all these things you want to take away, you will only kill the rest of the internet and what makes the internet great and crucially it won't kill the pirates completely anyway. As I said before, if SOPA or others like it passes it will kill off industries so big and with such potential that because of those new laws, the "lost revenue" from this will *far *surpass any lost revenue from piracy.


----------



## snowleopard (Jan 21, 2012)

First, thank you Ed for your excellent posts. I agree with all you say, and could not have said it better. I do want to comment in a few other ways though. 

First, I've been around a while. Going back a few decades I recall the RIAA (and MPAA and others) fighting nearly every change in technology instead of learning to embrace it and make it their own, which they resisted until it was almost too late. They did this with cassette tapes, VHS, DAT tapes, Napster, and everything else. Their thinking seems to be extremely comfort based and risk averse, as if they have no idea how to adapt, and are so short-sighted they are killing themselves and have no one else to blame. Steve Jobs was right (of course, duh), as were Sean Parker and the Fannings to a degree. If the RIAA had any sort of vision or foresight they would have made a huge offer to Parker and the Fannings and bought Napster in it's infancy back in 1999. If they had done this it would have been them, in their own control, who would have sold how many ever billions of songs through the web, not Steve Jobs and Apple. And they wouldn't have ended up wasting zillions on mostly frivolous lawsuits and lobbying trying to prevent something they were nearly powerless to stop. Even to this day an enormous amount of music is "illegally" traded every day. You also have quasi-legal sites, often in Eastern Europe, and a great unknown if and how MegaUpload will come back and pay artists. If these sites are forever shut down someone else will quickly fill the void, just as I am certain in recent days traffic must have increased at FileServe, FileSonic, YouSendIt, etc. This will ONLY stop when it is replaced by a superior, more convenient technology that consumers adapt. And if history is any example, the industry will fight that tooth and nail as well instead of adopting it. 

An analogy I have is the growth in China. After instituting levels of private ownership and capitalism the country has blossomed and boomed big time. They have problems with it, yes, but they are growing and people there have more freedom than they ever did before. In 1999 I went to Guangzhou and it was astounding to see how fast it was changing. You could just see it like a wall of development, and advertising everywhere. Out with the old, in with the new. China has learned to embrace this, and done a good job harnessing it. If the RIAA and MPAA were in charge in China, they would be trying to go back to the way it was in the 1980's. Yet anyone with a brain who stood where I did in Guangzhou would have known as the Chinese did, that his would be impossible, absolutely impossible. Same with technology. 

Second, while there is a fine line indeed, in many, many instances videos that are likely posted to YouTube illegally are of great benefit to the world, and work as generally free promotions for the artist, just as Ed says with the South Park guys. Another example, a friend recently shared some great old John Coltrane footage. This footage has likely only been seen by 100 people before being on YouTube, ever. If I were a member of the Coltrane family or owner of the rights to his music, I'd be very happy to see this on YouTube and give it my blessing. At most I'd ask the owner to post a link to a site selling some of John's works, or a family website honoring his legacy perhaps. But the last thing I'd do is ask to have it taken down. SOPA and PIPA would allow RIAA (or others) to demand this be removed or face the entire site being shut down. But they wouldn't offer any other way to see or hear it, even for pay. Does anyone really want this???

Now, the ugly, disturbing part is that in the last several weeks Congress was basically passing around the hat to first the media industry. 

http://gizmodo.com/5877352/surprise-sen ... t-sopapipa

And then to tech giants. Yes, you read that right. Double dipping, and not entirely under honest pretense: 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/tech_company_pacs_donate_to_sopapipa_sponsors.php (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/te ... onsors.php)

What's more disgusting is that what's likely to now happen is that now that the impotent Congress has given up, the industries may form some sort of tenuous bond and have their own "bill" written, with some compromises, and plenty of little perks in there. This bill may not even accomplish much, but it will go to Congress who will tie it to another bill, and it will pass - likely without many members even reading the details in the bill - and Congress and the President (who won't read it either) will hail it a huge victory.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 21, 2012)

chimuelo @ Wed Jan 18 said:


> How many politicians have been quoted as saying " I wish we could be more like China just for 1 week. "
> 
> This is another step for State Capitalism.
> You know if they get thier foot in the door with this one, not only will they get some excellent IPO tips and promises of Chris Dodd type Lobbyist jobs when they get caught stealing next time, they will kill start up companies, and make sure they choose the winners like Facebbok and Google, Twitter, Youtube, Yahoo......think of all the shakedown money they can get.
> ...



Chim-do me a favor.

Research Senator William Proxmire. See what he did regarding America and the Genocide act-then come back and tell me why my thinking is wrong-how I should not consider him an American hero, but instead see him through your unique lens of money and influence trumping all.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 21, 2012)

@Ed-I'm not in favor of SOPA at all-it is far too blunt an instrument. However, I don't care whether the big entertainment companies are losing money or not, that's of minor concern to me. What I find distinctly troubling is the lack of a moral compass in these matters. Piracy affects big and small, and when you defend or "accept" it or even state is as an unavoidable reality, you are not only talking about conglomerates, you are talking about the developers of products on this forum, many of whom you and I and others support with our dollars and our admiration. Saying that theft is ok or inevitable is akin to agreeing with the taking of bread out of the mouths of smaller artists and developers and owners of digital content everywhere. Plus, and I just cant say this enough times-it is just...plain...wrong to steal someone's work. Just... plain... wrong.

@ Snowleopard-I've been around a long time too-painting those at the top as Luddites and therefor somehow responsible for the moral failings of a generation is besides the point. None of that gives people license to steal digital content, no pass, no justification other than complete denial that digital content is something of value that people should and must pay for if the owner of said material wishes to be paid for it. It doesn't matter whether that owner is a rich famous artist or a starving one, a small content company or Getty Images. It's ..just...wrong to steal.

To sum up, I'd love to see stronger legislation to enforce copyright laws across borders. I don't know how it could be implemented without censorship, but a crack team of lawyers (on crack!) should be able to figure it out.

Here endeth the rant.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 22, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 22 said:


> @Ed-I'm not in favor of SOPA at all-it is far too blunt an instrument. However, I don't care whether the big entertainment companies are losing money or not, that's of minor concern to me. What I find distinctly troubling is the lack of a moral compass in these matters. Piracy affects big and small, and when you defend or "accept" it or even state is as an unavoidable reality, you are not only talking about conglomerates, you are talking about the developers of products on this forum, many of whom you and I and others support with our dollars and our admiration. Saying that theft is ok or inevitable is akin to agreeing with the taking of bread out of the mouths of smaller artists and developers and owners of digital content everywhere. Plus, and I just cant say this enough times-it is just...plain...wrong to steal someone's work. Just... plain... wrong.


I think I agree with this. I know that some people say that various big artists don't mind if their work is pirated, but what they forget is that these artists have often been given a large advance, which has to be clawed back by the company that funded it, before any profit is made. In fact some of these advances are so stupidly large, it is doubtful that they will ever be paid back, hence record companies going out of business.

I wonder if there were no advances paid, and the artists had to stump up the money themselves, whether or not they would be so keen to allow their performances to be pirated. Somehow I think not. :wink: 

D


----------



## midphase (Jan 22, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jan 21 said:


> @Ed-I'm not in favor of SOPA at all-it is far too blunt an instrument. However, I don't care whether the big entertainment companies are losing money or not, that's of minor concern to me. What I find distinctly troubling is the lack of a moral compass in these matters. Piracy affects big and small, and when you defend or "accept" it or even state is as an unavoidable reality, you are not only talking about conglomerates, you are talking about the developers of products on this forum, many of whom you and I and others support with our dollars and our admiration. Saying that theft is ok or inevitable is akin to agreeing with the taking of bread out of the mouths of smaller artists and developers and owners of digital content everywhere. Plus, and I just cant say this enough times-it is just...plain...wrong to steal someone's work. Just... plain... wrong.




This is an interesting point. Yes, the moral compass has changed. Yes, I think it's a generational thing. I think there is some fascinating psychology at work here, and I would love if someone (not a record label or a pirate site) would sponsor a study to figure out exactly what has happened?

I have some theories in the matter, and I believe the trouble all started with MTV. Before MTV, the lives of artists and the labels behind them were fairly private. With MTV, for the first time in history, the public became very aware of the excesses of rock stars...and their labels. Money was thrown around like it grew on trees, and the moral judgement of the artists and labels was put into question with showings of massive drug and alcohol consumption. The trend continued deep in the 90's, and the damage was made even worse with shows like MTV Cribs once again showing us the great excesses of the stars. If you're a kid watching Jay Z flaunt his garage full of exotic cars, how guilty are you going to feel about obtaining a copy of his latest album illegally?

Fast forward to now, and I think the moral compass as a whole has shifted considerably.

Also, of note, but probably deserving its own post...I should mention that seeing things from the side of content producers (i.e. small budget film producers and directors), I can tell you that for that segment, the biggest theft is coming from distributors. The deals that I see getting signed by struggling filmmakers are absurdly in favor of the distributors with many filmmakers never seeing a dime off of relatively solid releases...it's disgusting!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 22, 2012)

midphase @ Sun Jan 22 said:


> and the damage was made even worse with shows like MTV Cribs once again showing us the great excesses of the stars. If you're a kid watching Jay Z flaunt his garage full of exotic cars, how guilty are you going to feel about obtaining a copy of his latest album illegally?



Now that they have MTV Teen Cribs I'm wondering if they'll move down to MTV Cribs Cribs. Where we watch Jay-Z's baby flaunt some bling.

I'd actually watch that.


----------



## Udo (Jan 22, 2012)

midphase @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> ...... I should mention that seeing things from the side of content producers (i.e. small budget film producers and directors), I can tell you that for that segment, the biggest theft is coming from distributors. The deals that I see getting signed by struggling filmmakers are absurdly in favor of the distributors with many filmmakers never seeing a dime off of relatively solid releases...it's disgusting!


Also, lets not forget "the theft" by record companies. Look at the number artists and bands that are/have been ripped off by them (copyright is included in that, at times).


----------



## handz (Jan 22, 2012)

I did not red whole discussion but I must still think about the Megaupload case and how dangerous this is for another sites - if they will get them succesfuly into jail then no space providing site could be safe anymore, it is totally ridiculous and insane, in our local news they talking about megaupload like "illegal movie and music sharing site" I was like "WHAT!!?" Of course everybody knows that people are uploading such content there but it is their guilt not providers - there is no simpler thing than get IPs of the uploaders of the illegal content - why they are care about site that is only hosting for peoples data? The lobbing of recording and movie companies who are still did not learned how to deal with internet is insane. It is year 2012 - they should already adapt to this jeez... 

I thought about this example: You are the owner of apartment house - one of your tenants will be filming child porn in his apartment - then police come and arrest you for allowign this - same like with megaupload. They do not had any rights to control the data of users - otherwise service would be really bad.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 22, 2012)

handz @ Sun Jan 22 said:


> I did not red whole discussion but I must still think about the Megaupload case and how dangerous this is for another sites - if they will get them succesfuly into jail then no space providing site could be safe anymore, it is totally ridiculous and insane, in our local news they talking about megaupload like "illegal movie and music sharing site" I was like "WHAT!!?" Of course everybody knows that people are uploading such content there but it is their guilt not providers - there is no simpler thing than get IPs of the uploaders of the illegal content - why they are care about site that is only hosting for peoples data? The lobbing of recording and movie companies who are still did not learned how to deal with internet is insane. It is year 2012 - they should already adapt to this jeez...
> 
> I thought about this example: You are the owner of apartment house - one of your tenants will be filming child porn in his apartment - then police come and arrest you for allowign this - same like with megaupload. They do not had any rights to control the data of users - otherwise service would be really bad.



Thing is Megaupload knew about the illegal uploading and did nothing. That's like knowing your tenant is filming child porn and doing nothing and letting him upload it to Megaupload.


----------



## handz (Jan 22, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Sun Jan 22 said:


> handz @ Sun Jan 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I did not red whole discussion but I must still think about the Megaupload case and how dangerous this is for another sites - if they will get them succesfuly into jail then no space providing site could be safe anymore, it is totally ridiculous and insane, in our local news they talking about megaupload like "illegal movie and music sharing site" I was like "WHAT!!?" Of course everybody knows that people are uploading such content there but it is their guilt not providers - there is no simpler thing than get IPs of the uploaders of the illegal content - why they are care about site that is only hosting for peoples data? The lobbing of recording and movie companies who are still did not learned how to deal with internet is insane. It is year 2012 - they should already adapt to this jeez...
> ...


)
But how they could know? That they probably know is one thing - but do they really need to inform aomebody about? If my tenant would be filming porn only thing I could know would be be that I spy on him - which is not quite legal. 

if they provided space and somebody uploaded AVABD001_x128_001.rar, passworded - then why they should care, privacy is privacy - I believe if a company send them link to forum where is link to their site with illegal content they would delete it - like every other filesharing - they care once somebody informs them.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 22, 2012)

handz @ Sun Jan 22 said:


> choc0thrax @ Sun Jan 22 said:
> 
> 
> > handz @ Sun Jan 22 said:
> ...



Yeah... I'm far too lazy to reread the whole Megaupload thing so you win. I'm going to put my time and energy into buying chocolate milk and probably chips. BBL.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 23, 2012)

handz @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> I did not red whole discussion but I must still think about the Megaupload case and how dangerous this is for another sites - if they will get them succesfuly into jail then no space providing site could be safe anymore, it is totally ridiculous and insane, in our local news they talking about megaupload like "illegal movie and music sharing site" I was like "WHAT!!?" Of course everybody knows that people are uploading such content there but it is their guilt not providers - there is no simpler thing than get IPs of the uploaders of the illegal content - why they are care about site that is only hosting for peoples data? The lobbing of recording and movie companies who are still did not learned how to deal with internet is insane. It is year 2012 - they should already adapt to this jeez...
> 
> I thought about this example: You are the owner of apartment house - one of your tenants will be filming child porn in his apartment - then police come and arrest you for allowign this - same like with megaupload. They do not had any rights to control the data of users - otherwise service would be really bad.


None of us know the full truth about megaupload, but so far it seems that not only did they allow illegal file sharing, they actually paid people to upload files that they had no rights to. Therefore it is quite right that they should be shut down, and the guilty (if proven) parties sent to jail.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jan 23, 2012)

handz @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> But how they could know? That they probably know is one thing - but do they really need to inform aomebody about? If my tenant would be filming porn only thing I could know would be be that I spy on him - which is not quite legal.


Inaccurate analogy. A closer one would be that you paid him to film it in the first place, so you knew all about it.

D


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 23, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Jan 19 said:


> I believe that piracy is a fact of life, like people running red lights and going over the posted speed limit, drinking and driving (arguably much more damaging to society), parking in handicap spots, not paying sales (usage) tax when purchasing products from out of state, and a host of other law breaking instances that are simply unenforceable.



Hmm ... so you say there should not be a law against running red lights, speed driving and driving drunk? Because that is what you are saying basically, no?

Let me repeat just that I don't misunderstand: You and others (like chocotrax) basically say that since certain phenomenons can not fully eradicated they should be legalized to a certain amount, which means the criterion for a law would not be whether something is 'wrong' or 'right' but whether it is 'practical' or 'unpractical' ... and in certain cases it even helped some people (Southpark example and others) to earn money ... did I understand this correctly (I am just asking)?

For me it is clear that all these items including piracy can not be fully enforced but they have to be enforced to a certain amount. Or else the constitutional state should on the long hand give up its existence, don't you think so?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 23, 2012)

I want to add that I am a Wikipedia fan, donate for it and consider it to be a major cultural achievement of our century. What I want though is a Wikipedia that is congruent with the virtue of 'not stealing'.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 23, 2012)

Also keep in mind these sites like Wikipedia are on the most part accurate.
In the case of a friend of mine, he has many alums he recorded on with various groups and both of s get a kick out of the extra albums he is credited with recording, that he wasn't on.
So they are on the most accurate, but shouldn;t be written in stone just yet.

This is why I encourage my son to read published and unpublished works, with published works, liable and slander, plagiarism can be a reason for a lawsuit, which a publisher wants to avoid. This is why
you know when you buy a book and use Amazonkindle or the Barnes and Noble tablet, you can read both but the published works are the most reliable source of accurate information.

IMHO Sheet Music is pirated and since it's pulished works, the pirates can be sued, so hiring a lawyer is all it takes, and even if the deadbeats doing the pirating aren't wealthy, they will have a percentage of their pay taken which will discourage piracy.

I remember years back a former member of a polular Signed band went seperate ways, He then used a tune written by someone else whoi had the proper copyright and was told this guys was contributing his song to this new group who was also signed.
They waited until air play got the song out and since it ws used to sell the album and was previously copyrighted the radio station, the band and management were sued for liable. THey were smart thoug, and allowed this to take place over a period of time, so they actually used the pirats to make them money.
No sense suing someone w/o money unless you are using them as an example....


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

Daryl @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> None of us know the full truth about megaupload, but so far it seems that not only did they allow illegal file sharing, they actually paid people to upload files that they had no rights to. Therefore it is quite right that they should be shut down, and the guilty (if proven) parties sent to jail.



What we do know is that since the SOPA and PIPA bills werent passed, the next day they shut down MegaUpload. So they *already* had the powers do what they did. Universal Music *already *had the power to (illegally) try and take down MegaUploads music video on Youtube. What we do know is that the precedent is scary. The idea that a website can be prosecuted simply for having copyrighted materials uploaded by their users is dangerous to every other company like this, such as Youtube or YouSendIt. You give these people more powers than they already have and that will create a whole load of problems for everyone, which has already been explained.



Hannes_F @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> Let me repeat just that I don't misunderstand: You and others (like chocotrax) basically say that since certain phenomenons can not fully eradicated they should be legalized to a certain amount, which means the criterion for a law would not be whether something is 'wrong' or 'right' but whether it is 'practical' or 'unpractical' ... and in certain cases it even helped some people (Southpark example and others) to earn money ... did I understand this correctly (I am just asking)?



I can't speak for others, but as I've tried to make clear I think that the reason why you can't make these kinds of laws is because you end up ruining the rest of the internet for everyone else. Like the example of killing off a whole ocean to kill a few sharks, or putting down dangerous poison in your house to try and kill rats or cockroaches but that will likely kill you in the process and probably wont kill them completely anyway. Arguments like... "don't you want to get rid or the rats?"... or maybe.. ."You think rats are a good thing?"... are obviously not valid responses when this is pointed out.


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 22 said:


> Saying that theft is ok or inevitable is akin to agreeing with the taking of bread out of the mouths of smaller artists and developers and owners of digital content everywhere. Plus, and I just cant say this enough times-it is just...plain...wrong to steal someone's work. Just... plain... wrong.



See my post above. In terms of the issues around these laws, what you said doesnt make any difference. We already have laws that can deal with pirates and those that abuse copyright laws. If you want to make laws that cant be abused to the detriment of innocent people then I think you'd have trouble doing that.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 23, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> What we do know is that since the SOPA and PIPA bills werent passed, the next day they shut down MegaUpload. So they *already* had the powers do what they did.



Great point, Ed. One can be against the wide net of SOPA and PIPA and still be against piracy.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 23, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> What we do know is that since the SOPA and PIPA bills werent passed, the next day they shut down MegaUpload. So they *already* had the powers do what they did.



... however what you did not take into account is how easy or difficult it might be to shut a site down now vs. with SOPA/PIPA. As I hear the MegaUpload owner says he did not do anything wrong, so the outcome is uncertain.

If you can't go after the owners of upload sites then copyright is not enforceable ... ask any developer here in this forum. There has been much talking about that _since years_ but not much consequences. Google, Youtube, Megaupload, Rapidshare ... where have they been in this discussion up to now? On the wrong side I fear. Why haven't there been better suggestions on the table since years?

Creative individuals have pretty much given up about enforcing anything. Because they experienced it is hopeless as a small to medium enterprise or individual artist. However if society should give it up that would be like giving in into general fist law.

When the first really innocent site is shut down then want to know details and maybe I'll rethink my position then. Up to then I think it is finally time for some consequence now.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 23, 2012)

We need to see how it plays out then.

I want copyright protected. I also want the rights of the innocent to be respected. These are not mutually exclusive goals. 

SOPA and PIPA were not designed to meet both goals. It was win-lose legislation. Hopefully, we can get a win-win solution.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 23, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sun Jan 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that theft is ok or inevitable is akin to agreeing with the taking of bread out of the mouths of smaller artists and developers and owners of digital content everywhere. Plus, and I just cant say this enough times-it is just...plain...wrong to steal someone's work. Just... plain... wrong.
> ...



That's an interesting thought. In that case, laws against murder and rape shouldn't be allowed, because some innocents get caught up in the net.

Our present copyright laws have proven ineffective. Ask any developer on this forum.
I agree that SOPA is a blunt instrument and the wrong law, but that doesn't mean a solution can't be reached, and I would hope for standards that were international. These hundreds of torrent sites don't have any redeeming social value, Ed. They exist strictly to steal, or "trade". Man, do I hate that word.


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:
> 
> 
> > What we do know is that since the SOPA and PIPA bills werent passed, the next day they shut down MegaUpload. So they *already* had the powers do what they did.
> ...



We shouldnt want it to be easier, thats what Im saying. They already have a lot of power. With those kinds of bills, if someone uploaded copyrighted material to YouSendIt then YouSendIt is liable and can be shut down. Vi-Control can be shut down and Fred criminally liable if someone posts a link to copyrighted material and crucially, even if its "fair use" of that copyrighted material.



> When the first really innocent site is shut down then want to know details and maybe I'll rethink my position then. Up to then I think it is finally time for some consequence now.



But its happening already, forums get sued for claimed copyright infringement and even slander, which is why is disclaimers started popping up on forums which stated the forum owners are not responsible for what their forum members say. This forum has even been threatened by certain members that wanted to sue Fred over an internet argument. YouTube already take down videos automatically if they are flagged for copyright infringement, abused by plenty of people and most recently and famously by Universal Music which tried to take down http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0Wvn-9BXVc (MegaUploads viral promotional music video)it had no rights to. It kept being restored and kept being taken down again, filing a DMCA without cause is illegal but they did it anyway.With bills like SOPA and PIPA and there'd be no chance for stopping them, but by then it would be incredibly hard to get the law changed back.




NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> but that doesn't mean a solution can't be reached, and I would hope for standards that were international.



If you can do it then you should try and think of something. I said I think you can only change the law in small ways, but these big kind of wide reaching proposals that want to get rid of piracy from the internet will not work for the betterment of the internet or society due to how much harm they will do. In short, explain how to kill the cockroaches without killing ourselves.



NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> These hundreds of torrent sites don't have any redeeming social value, Ed. They exist strictly to steal, or "trade". Man, do I hate that word.



Strawmen and irrelevant.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 23, 2012)

Using the word "irrelevant " doesn't make it so- and it is most definitely not irrelevant to me.


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> Using the word "irrelevant " doesn't make it so- and it is most definitely not irrelevant to me.



It is irrelevant, if you had been reading what I have been saying you'd understand why. Simply put, the reason why its irrelevant is because it makes no difference to the criticisms of laws like SOPA and PIPA. Its like me saying... "Cockroaches are disgusting, they spread disease". Even if saying something like that is factual that all parties agree with, its an irrelevant observation if they only proposed way to kill them is to use a method that would kill ourselves.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 23, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> With those kinds of bills, if someone uploaded copyrighted material to YouSendIt then YouSendIt is liable and can be shut down. Vi-Control can be shut down and Fred criminally liable if someone posts a link to copyrighted material and crucially, even if its "fair use" of that copyrighted material.
> ...
> This forum has even been threatened by certain members that wanted to sue Fred over an internet argument.



But wait a moment ... that is exactly how it should be, or not? I know I might not making myself popular if I say this but in the case of an actual copyright infringement of a forum member here there _should _be some threat and pressure coming from the copyright owner onto the forum owner (Fred in this case) because then he can forward that towards the individual member.

In order to avoid that in advance we have moderators of course because we are a reasonable forum with mostly reasonable members. However what about if the owner/the moderators would not care at all and the member in question would be anonymus and resist to delete the content ... how else could pressure be built up if not via the forum owner?

As long as there is a one time warning before it gets costly I don't see a problem here.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 23, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Using the word "irrelevant " doesn't make it so- and it is most definitely not irrelevant to me.
> ...



No Ed, if I had been reading what you'd been writing (which I had), I'd know that your OPINION is that it's irrelevant. Sadly, I sometimes feel that your idea of critical thinking is to try to bludgeon someone over and over with a lot of words and a repeated opinion. You often show an unfailing sense of personal rectitude. 

As I stated before (now for the third time, to be equally dogged) SOPA is too blunt an instrument and it absolutely should never be passed, but I believe a stand has to be made. I'm not an attorney or a legislator, but I believe it's possible to crack down on obvious theft of intellectual property and digital content without the world ending. This idea you have of the inevitability of omelets made=eggs broken-it's not an original thought, but sometimes a stand has to be made, otherwise the world dissolves into chaos. That chaos is sometimes the result of "pragmatists" deciding there's nothing to be done.

I'm interested that you don't respond to the idea that the theft we're talking about deeply affects the developers on this forum who you profess to admire.


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> No Ed, if I had been reading what you'd been writing (which I had), I'd know that your OPINION is that it's irrelevant. Sadly, I sometimes feel that your idea of critical thinking is to try to bludgeon someone over and over with a lot of words and a repeated opinion. You often show an unfailing sense of personal rectitude.



I gave you an argument for why its objectively irrelevant, I didnt just say it was. You keep ignoring it. How is explaining that cockroaches are bad relevant when the criticisms of the proposed method for combating them *does not dispute* this?



> I'm not an attorney or a legislator, but I believe it's possible to crack down on obvious theft of intellectual property and digital content without the world ending.



Im not saying that, not sure why you insist on strawmanning me. Maybe its because you dont really know what Im saying or you think pretending Im saying something I'm not or exaggerating is a good debate tactic. Im saying that *wide net style anti-piracy bils such as SOPA and PIPA* will ruin the internet by destroying entire industries and criminalising innocent people. I have said several times that the only way you can deal with piracy legally is to potentially create small scale laws to make it slightly easier than it is now to deal with copyright infringement and piracy under specific circumstances, that anything more is likely to mess everything up for all the reasons I've already gone over. *If *there can be some new laws introduced they must be very carefully thought out and *minor*. They already have a lot of power that can easily drift onto a slippery slope if given the chance. If thats what you're saying as well, then we appear to agree.


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> But wait a moment ... that is exactly how it should be, or not? I know I might not making myself popular if I say this but in the case of an actual copyright infringement of a forum member here there _should _be some threat and pressure coming from the copyright owner onto the forum owner (Fred in this case) because then he can forward that towards the individual member.
> 
> In order to avoid that in advance we have moderators of course because we are a reasonable forum with mostly reasonable members. However what about if the owner/the moderators would not care at all and the member in question would be anonymus and resist to delete the content ... how else could pressure be built up if not via the forum owner?
> 
> As long as there is a one time warning before it gets costly I don't see a problem here.



This more or less already exists in law right now. That's why torrent websites can be shut down, even if they say they are merely search engines and they don't actually host any copyrighted material


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 23, 2012)

The boldface type alone is enough for me to cede the field to you. Play on-it's obvious you *must* be correct.


----------



## Ed (Jan 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> The boldface type alone is enough for me to cede the field to you. Play on-it's obvious you *must* be correct.



Wow.... :roll: 

Maybe if you didn't ignore the point consistently each time i wouldn't need to bold it in the hopes that you won't miss the critical point the next time.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 23, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 23 said:
> 
> 
> > The boldface type alone is enough for me to cede the field to you. Play on-it's obvious you *must* be correct.
> ...



I'm sure you're right, Ed. Move along-nothing to see here.


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 23, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3DjJJhEjM


----------



## Daryl (Jan 24, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3DjJJhEjM


Of course there is no mention of the fact that Megaupload was (allegedly) paying people to upload pirated files. Of course not. :roll: 

D


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 24, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3DjJJhEjM
> ...


In that case they should convict the US Post Office for giving bulk rate discounts on junk mail.

I get more physical junk mail than e-mail spam.

Although I don't think giving an incentive for uploading should be a crime in itself. Otherwise, I'd loose all my stars on vi. Hmmm.... and I see you're collecting incentives as well. :wink:


----------



## Daryl (Jan 24, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> ...


The Post Office wouldn't send out junk mail advertising something illegal. How many times have you been offered kiddie porn via the Post Office? Never. That's right.

Do you really think that paying people to upload illegal material should not be a crime? Do you earn any of your living from Royalties? 

What incentives am I collecting? I don't get paid to post on any forum, and even if I did there is nothing illegal about the content of any of my posts, so I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

D


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 24, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Do you really think that paying people to upload illegal material should not be a crime? Do you earn any of your living from Royalties?


I think youtube creates an incentive for uploaders. Uploaders can make money from advertising. I think this is a pretty good model although its not perfect yet as the advertising bucks should be shared with content creators as well as uploaders. This would then benefit both consumers and content creators. Plus it creates an incentive for content creation.

I have several royalty performances on youtube with fairly large hits for which I have never received a penny for internet performances. Of course, I'm not pleased that Google gets my money, but I'd rather see a good internet pay solution evolve rather than taking down youtube. I find youtube quite useful myself for other purposes and its an interesting social network development that should be encouraged not destroyed.



Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> What incentives am I collecting? I don't get paid to post on any forum, and even if I did there is nothing illegal about the content of any of my posts, so I don't really understand what you're trying to say.


Do you mean to suggest that I can't cash in all of these stars I've been collecting here on vi-control? Damn!


----------



## Daryl (Jan 24, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think that paying people to upload illegal material should not be a crime? Do you earn any of your living from Royalties?
> ...


Nothing wrong with that, as long as the person uploading the content has the legal right to do so.


synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> I have several royalty performances on youtube with fairly large hits for which I have never received a penny for internet performances. Of course, I'm not pleased that Google gets my money, but I'd rather see a good internet pay solution evolve rather than taking down youtube. I find youtube quite useful myself for other purposes and its an interesting social network development that should be encouraged not destroyed.


If you are not receiving the money, then talk to your PRO. I am certainly not suggesting that Youtube should be taken down. I just think that all content should be legally uploaded.


synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > What incentives am I collecting? I don't get paid to post on any forum, and even if I did there is nothing illegal about the content of any of my posts, so I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
> ...


HAHAHAHA. I hadn't even seen those. Should pay more attention, I guess.

D


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 24, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Nothing wrong with that, as long as the person uploading the content has the legal right to do so.


I don't think you can teach (or expect) 8 year old kids to arrange for royalty payments. They should just be able to use the content they wish and the artists should get payed by Google as if it were airplay. Who pays? advertising should pay. You could have inocuous ads on the side that are targeted to the interest of the user. Such as LASS, Spitfire, EW, VSL and stuff that YOU like. Everyone gets paid and everyone's happy. 

Simple eh? Except the lawmakers don't quite understand how it all works. We really need to examine carefully how the copyright system and legal system are intertwined so as to both create incentives for content creation as well as pay content creators.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns ... /#46048983


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 24, 2012)

Here's an interesting twist on things... true or not? If so, a good solution was just killed. And given that Alicia Keys husband was to become a CEO, it doesn't seem implausible.

Megaload claims they were ready to release a cloud-based music distribution that would allow music aritst to receive 90% of the payments even on free music downloads (presumably payed by advertising?).

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... 21airvinyl


----------



## Daryl (Jan 24, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing wrong with that, as long as the person uploading the content has the legal right to do so.
> ...


I think it's a bad idea to teach children that they can do whatever they like with other people's property. We need better education, and not just encouragement of todays entitlement society. For a start 8 year olds shouldn't be using the Internet with no parental overview anyway.

Secondly, the concept of stealing should be taught early on, and in most cases it is. Just not for IntelectualCopyright theft. It's not a difficult concept to understand. It's just that many parents and teachers don't take it seriously. In fact I know quite a few teachers who don't care that they are infringing someone's Copyright when they photocopy teaching material that should be purchased.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jan 24, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Here's an interesting twist on things... true or not? If so, a good solution was just killed. And given that Alicia Keys husband was to become a CEO, it doesn't seem implausible.
> 
> Megaload claims they were ready to release a cloud-based music distribution that would allow music aritst to receive 90% of the payments even on free music downloads (presumably payed by advertising?).
> 
> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... 21airvinyl


It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. If they have been paying for people to upload Copyright material illegally, as they have been accused of, they should be shut down.

D


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 24, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> I think it's a bad idea to teach children that they can do whatever they like with other people's property. We need better education, and not just encouragement of todays entitlement society. For a start 8 year olds shouldn't be using the Internet with no parental overview anyway.
> 
> Secondly, the concept of stealing should be taught early on, and in most cases it is. Just not for IntelectualCopyright theft. It's not a difficult concept to understand. It's just that many parents and teachers don't take it seriously. In fact I know quite a few teachers who don't care that they are infringing someone's Copyright when they photocopy teaching material that should be purchased.


While I agree in principle, I don't think its realistic to "edumacate" everyone. It will have the effect of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" to drugs. Thirty years later that has hardly solved any problems! And abstinence programs often end up with pregnancies within a year. Yup, so much for teaching people.

I think many teachers are exasperated with their low budgets and gargantuan tasks they are faced with. So I don't think targeting teachers is the best solution for society. I think we need to find solutions for teachers to have the materials they need in a cost-effective and convenient manner.

The internet with its mass numbers and advertising possibilities offers solutions that are not being tapped by the old school businesses such as the entertainment and publishing industry. Like it or not, convenience is the key. So the solution seems to me to figure out a way to provide convenience while making money for those involved. Netflix, Google are some good examples (free or relatively low cost with convenient service). We need more solutions such a these.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 24, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> While I agree in principle, I don't think its realistic to "edumacate" everyone. It will have the effect of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" to drugs. Thirty years later that has hardly solved any problems! And abstinence programs often end up with pregnancies within a year. Yup, so much for teaching people.



Oh no ... please don't come along the lines 'drug banning did not have any effect, so piracy banning won't either'.

Of course people can be taught, or else all education would be useless and we would still live in the middle ages (where the life of a subordinate could be taken without much consequence for example). However civilisation will need centuries over centuries in order to get rid of bad habits by and by, so we need patience. 

Stealing is one of these bad habits, actually one that is described in every religion or old philosopical system, and sooner or later we will get over it.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 24, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> However civilisation will need centuries over centuries in order to get rid of bad habits with time, so we need patience.



How many years do you predict until substance abuse is completely gone?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 24, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 25 said:


> How many years do you predict until substance abuse is completely gone?



That would be an interesting question if it were meant seriously 8) I am not an oracle but according to hindu and buddhist criteria on cycles it would eventually be possible to give an answer to that.

Quite short if measured in geological terms :lol:


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 24, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Hannes_F @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > However civilisation will need centuries over centuries in order to get rid of bad habits with time, so we need patience.
> ...



Demonstrably sooner for some than others (he said, sipping an Irish whiskey)


----------



## handz (Jan 24, 2012)

SvK @ Fri Jan 20 said:


> i enjoy big movies.
> 
> big movies hire many people to make them. Grps, extras, caterers, sound-designers, security services on and on and on.They can cost 150 million plus to make....In short they put a lot of people to work. They form the foundation of a major city's economy (LA)....
> 
> ...



You seem to be looking at the situation from the perspective as media and those companies do, and that is - "WE ARE LOSING MONEY BECAUSE OF THAT" - Nonsense, They are not losing money, they do not earning more - but how they could be so sure if there was no piracy those people would instead downloading, buy their cds, dvds etc - realise that in many countires price of music CDs etc is still enormly high for common people to buy them regulary. And movies - buy a movie to just look at it once and then put it on shelf - blah - for 90% people one watch is enough (with todays cinematography even once is too much sometimes) you just only need to borrow the movie - they should care about creating online lending place for their movies WORLDWIDE aviable for standard lending price or something - working simple - people who are paying for megaupload etc would for sure pay for such a place where you can borrow any movie in best quality for some monthly fee for example - no need to search obscurfe sites for some nonworking virused links. 

the fact is - people who not buying cds and movies because of piracy will NOT buy this if they can not download it, they just let it go, nobody needs music and movies for living, they downloading because they CAN not because they NEED, this is thing they still not getting, when you can download everythign - some people will do, download 10 movies in a week + 10 Justin Biebers best of CD - it is "free", if it wont be - they would not download but also not buy, they borrow it and burn it old fashioned way - like before fast internet, in times of CDs or before in time of VHS or tapes... and even if this would not be possible people stick to radio and tvs and sometimes visit cinema.


----------



## Ed (Jan 26, 2012)

lol


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 26, 2012)

Ed @ Thu Jan 26 said:


> lol




That's one of the better ones.


----------



## Niah (Feb 4, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue Jan 24 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's a bad idea to teach children that they can do whatever they like with other people's property. We need better education, and not just encouragement of todays entitlement society. For a start 8 year olds shouldn't be using the Internet with no parental overview anyway.
> ...



I know this is slighty off-topic here but since you mentioned education...

I agree that teachers are faced with an enormous challenge here but that's not to say that to target teachers is not the solution. I think the solution is in giving teachers the tools and aid they need to tackle these issues. You seem to be also forgetting that not only teachers work in schools but psychologists as well. During my internship I tried to implement a sexual education program as well as a drug prevention program with my colleages. These iniciatives however never took off because of the opposition of most of the parents. Most were just very ill-informed about these issues and how to handle them. I think the key to this and many issues is indeed in education but what I am finding out more and more is that it's a mistake to assume that it's just children who need to be educated and that education should only take place in the school system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMPtYvZ8tM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beJ9yJpR_DA


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 4, 2012)

@Niah-that's an excellent point.


----------

