We won this round! But it's not over yet... (SOPA/PIPA update)

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invinci...orance_fallacy

Nice way of admitting you dont have a valid answer.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Nice way of admitting you dont have a valid answer.

What? A lot of valid answers and links explaining things have been given in this thread.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by tompe

What? A lot of valid answers and links explaining things have been given in this thread.

For what?? Not wanting a workable anti piracy bill?? The link provided shows me the current bills need to be written with a little less power for the corporations of media(which I agree with, the two bills in question wont work) and some extreme paranoia over pulling some youtube video of a little girl singing. Hardly examples of peoples creative license being taken away from them.

Piracy still runs rampant on the net. New laws imo new to be put in place. AGAIN regardless if the big corporations have abused their power in the past, there needs to be something more in place. YES the corporations will have to be checked and balanced as we discussed back in the thread.

All I am seeing here is a bunch of double talk and how peoples creative rights arent worth stopping a "few" illegal mp3 downloads. AGAIN no ones creative rights will be hindered by the big bad corporations. I have not see one example that will halt that right for people on-line. Yes there are a couple of extreme example the last couple years where the Recording industry went a bit to far...but guess it didnt go to far for them. I think a little inconvenience for would be "creative" people online is worth it for the protection of propeties that someone truely creative spent many hours on.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

For what?? Not wanting a workable anti piracy bill?? The link provided shows me the current bills need to be written with a little less power for the corporations of media(which I agree with, the two bills in question wont work) and some extreme paranoia over pulling some youtube video of a little girl singing. Hardly examples of peoples creative license being taken away from them.

Piracy still runs rampant on the net. New laws imo new to be put in place. AGAIN regardless if the big corporations have abused their power in the past, there needs to be something more in place. YES the corporations will have to be checked and balanced as we discussed back in the thread.

All I am seeing here is a bunch of double talk and how peoples creative rights arent worth stopping a "few" illegal mp3 downloads. AGAIN no ones creative rights will be hindered by the big bad corporations. I have not see one example that will halt that right for people on-line. Yes there are a couple of extreme example the last couple years where the Recording industry went a bit to far...but guess it didnt go to far for them. I think a little inconvenience for would be "creative" people online is worth it for the protection of propeties that someone truely creative spent many hours on.

By a little too far you mean issuing takedowns for things they did not have any legal right to?

That little inconvenience? The one where if a big company makes a complaint my stuff goes offline? You don't see why maybe just maybe I'd rather a few mp3s get downloaded than I myself get censored or the perfectly legal something I want to view gets censored?

And who the hell are you to decide who someone truly creative is? Are we adding the no true Scotsman fallacy into your mix of unbaked claims and non answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la piracy bad, is not an argument in favor of anything.

You have not explained what is so bad about infringement. You probably have a general consensus against it but that doesn't absolve you from justifying the position.

If it is bad you still haven't explain why it is worse than censorship. I and other have shown how the current laws have been abused. You haven't shown how it is any of our interest to have even more laws that will (given past performance) be abused.

You haven't shown how this new law would do anything to even stop infringement.


Honestly all you've said over and over is anything to stop piracy which is bad, really! I'm saying no. There's a price to freedom. That price is sometimes people will abuse it. We as a society have in the past accepted this. We require things like warrants and trials and showing some cause for a prior restraint.

Would you support simply shutting down the internet to make sure no more files get traded online? If you don't then what exactly is your problem with understanding why so many of the rest of us think that this attempt goes too far.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

By a little too far you mean issuing takedowns for things they did not have any legal right to?

That little inconvenience? The one where if a big company makes a complaint my stuff goes offline? You don't see why maybe just maybe I'd rather a few mp3s get downloaded than I myself get censored or the perfectly legal something I want to view gets censored?

And who the hell are you to decide who someone truly creative is? Are we adding the no true Scotsman fallacy into your mix of unbaked claims and non answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la piracy bad, is not an argument in favor of anything.

You have not explained what is so bad about infringement. You probably have a general consensus against it but that doesn't absolve you from justifying the position.

If it is bad you still haven't explain why it is worse than censorship. I and other have shown how the current laws have been abused. You haven't shown how it is any of our interest to have even more laws that will (given past performance) be abused.

You haven't shown how this new law would do anything to even stop infringement.


Honestly all you've said over and over is anything to stop piracy which is bad, really! I'm saying no. There's a price to freedom. That price is sometimes people will abuse it. We as a society have in the past accepted this. We require things like warrants and trials and showing some cause for a prior restraint.

Would you support simply shutting down the internet to make sure no more files get traded online? If you don't then what exactly is your problem with understanding why so many of the rest of us think that this attempt goes too far.

Sheesh talk about missing the point. I will repeat it again. If someone online is using OR downloading/hosting copyrighted materials they should be liable for that use.

Now as for creative. Be as creative as you want. NO ONE is going to take that away from you. BUT dont be creative riding on the coat tails of someone elses creativity UNLESS you have permission to do so.(I am not talking about a little girl singing along with a radio) Im talking about people who have websites that use these creative propeties on their site either in design or offering them for free to others or make money off them etc. etc.....

...and once again I will repeat I am NOT for a bill that allows these media corporations to abuse it.(how many times do I have to repeat it?) These bills need to be rewritten to protect people who are not infringing on others hard work. It is irrelevant if laws have been abused in the past. Thats a weak argument IMO. Bottom line is there will be a standard eventually and you either deal with it or dont.

If you created something wildly popular. A story, Logo, music etc. Would you be willing to let others make money off it without compensation?? Or people take these items without paying the purchase price? I doubt it.

It happens all to frequently online.

Instead of people seeing these corporations as BAD and GREEDY all the time. Understand they are businesses as well and employ people. They have a bottom line as well. They have lost much money on piracy over the last 16 years.

If one thinks they ask too much for their wares. DONT purchase them. But also one shouldnt feel they have a right to it for free.

My question is. Would you be willing for an anti piracy bill that will insure coporations do not abuse it????

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Sheesh talk about missing the point. I will repeat it again. If someone online is using OR downloading/hosting copyrighted materials they should be liable for that use.

Now as for creative. Be as creative as you want. NO ONE is going to take that away from you. BUT dont be creative riding on the coat tails of someone elses creativity UNLESS you have permission to do so.(I am not talking about a little girl singing along with a radio) Im talking about people who have websites that use these creative propeties on their site either in design or offering them for free to others or make money off them etc. etc.....

...and once again I will repeat I am NOT for a bill that allows these media corporations to abuse it.(how many times do I have to repeat it?) These bills need to be rewritten to protect people who are not infringing on others hard work. It is irrelevant if laws have been abused in the past. Thats a weak argument IMO. Bottom line is there will be a standard eventually and you either deal with it or dont.

If you created something wildly popular. A story, Logo, music etc. Would you be willing to let others make money off it without compensation?? Or people take these items without paying the purchase price? I doubt it.

It happens all to frequently online.

Instead of people seeing these corporations as BAD and GREEDY all the time. Understand they are businesses as well and employ people. They have a bottom line as well. They have lost much money on piracy over the last 16 years.

If one thinks they ask too much for their wares. DONT purchase them. But also one shouldnt feel they have a right to it for free.

My question is. Would you be willing for an anti piracy bill that will insure coporations do not abuse it????

Show me a bill that corporations can't abuse I'll read it and tell you what I think. I'm something of a fan of due process and i haven't yet seen a bill that doesn't involve summery removal or blocking and then fighting it out later. I wouldn't agree to something that allowed removal without FIRST giving the opportunity to defend oneself.

You still haven't bothered to back up your arguments. What money have they lost? How much? How is it calculated? I was under the media industry has been turning in record profits.

A better question than would I be willing to allow someone to profit from something wildly popular I created would be how far would one be willing to go to stop them, what would you give up and expect others to give up? And why should I expect others to sacrifice for me profit margin?

I'll tell you the simple truth, if I wrote a book or made a movie or wrote a song that was wildly popular enough that I was making money I'd say please buy it, it'll let me try to do more cool stuff and it would suck to after all this epic have to go get a real job, please please don't make me get a real job. And then leave it at that. I wouldn't risk being forcibly silenced in exchange for the chance at a few more dollars. And there's already a process in place for civil litigation if someone made a movie based on my book song or movie and tried to release it for profit. Bonus points for that being an actual tort as opposed to going after someone who shares a torrent, going after them would just be spite. Life's too short for that crap and hell they may very well have a legitimate reason such as their legitimate copy being DRM crippled by the distributor.

You can't back up your no one will take it away from you argument. We've shown that it has been done. Claiming otherwise is just foolish. Given the power to censor someone is going to try to do it for reference see the link I posted earlier.

If you want to go after people profiting from infringement go after their bank accounts. Find the infringing material get a warrant for bank records, show the profit, show the intent to use infringing material for profit, get a judgement.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

My question is. Would you be willing for an anti piracy bill that will insure coporations do not abuse it????

Isn't it already illegal to pirate stuff? If so, then why do we need another law?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Isn't it already illegal to pirate stuff? If so, then why do we need another law?

Yes, it is. And the fact that Megaupload was shut down and the people running are about to be prosecuted for it, kind of proves hat current laws can get the job done already.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Isn't it already illegal to pirate stuff? If so, then why do we need another law?

Its illegal but as far as I can tell it still runs rampant. Things need to be better defined and enforced.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Its illegal but as far as I can tell it still runs rampant. Things need to be better defined and enforced.

Perhaps the corporations in question who are pushing this law need to reform themselves. Their model of business and product distribution is certainly not effective any more. Customers know this but still, they are ignored or treated with disdain.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

You still haven't bothered to back up your arguments. What money have they lost? How much? How is it calculated? I was under the media industry has been turning in record profits.

Sure they have make up some lost profit on digital downloads. It has grown. I dont know about record profits but they like other industries they stay healthy by showing growth. They cannot stay stagnant or lose sales every year I would think.

Heres an article its the first one I googled so there may be better ones out there.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...-industry-says

The article mentions that 28% of internet users access unlicensed sites. I dont know if these users are downloading but thats a pretty big number.

Even if they were doing record profits across all boards I dont see how that makes piracy ok.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Perhaps the corporations in question who are pushing this law need to reform themselves. Their model of business and product distribution is certainly not effective any more. Customers know this but still, they are ignored or treated with disdain.

I would agree that they need to not be so brash. BUT can you really blame them for pushing this?? When piracy of their content has been running so high for the last 16+ years??

As for their business models...as far as I know music, books, film etc. can be legally downloaded online for a fee.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Its illegal but as far as I can tell it still runs rampant. Things need to be better defined and enforced.

Businesses faced with potential losses from infringement have two options - attempt to minimize infringement or to maximize revenue. The two are mutually exclusive. You can find a balance, but you can only make one your primary focus.

Part of the problem here is that you can only go so far towards attempting to curb piracy before it starts cutting into sales. Game companies have seen this first-hand in cases where draconian anti-piracy schemes not only cost sales, but fostered piracy because it was almost impossible to play the game thanks to the "protection scheme" - so that legitimate customers were downloading pirate copies so they could play the games they had already paid for.

One of the biggest problems right now is that there is a fundamental disconnect between the general population's view of casual infringement and that of the media corporations. For most people it's a minor peccadillo, like speeding or jaywalking; in other words, not very serious. According to the media corporations it's a serious crime, ranking up there with murder and kidnapping.

Most of the evidence seems to indicate the perception of the general populace is closer to reality than that of the media corporations.

Yes we need to implement and enforce laws against infringement, but at the same time we need to balance the cost of enforcement against the harm done by the infringement.

[William F]

Maybe they dropped Sopa because they don't need it anymore. Why make a law when a treaty will just trump it anyway.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...you-meet-acta/

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Its illegal but as far as I can tell it still runs rampant. Things need to be better defined and enforced.

Enforce current law.