If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   RIAA on SOPA outrage: "It sure seems like the deck is stacked to ensure no meaningful or balanced debate occurs on an issue that is very important to American jobs and our economy"   (politico.com) divider line 336
    More: Asinine, American Jobs, RIAA, Ces, FedRamp, Americans, Fred Upton, Commerce Committee, John Shimkus  
•       •       •

16146 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2012 at 9:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



336 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-15 12:49:04 PM

vwarb: Then I weep because I realize it doesn't matter. He's still going to win. One of the most wildly unpopular bills to ever go to the floor is going to pass, despite the screams of every one of us. Why? Because Congress is filled with geriatric assholes who think every American citizen is a criminal anyway and should be caged.


In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.
 
2012-01-15 12:50:13 PM
Fark you America, I can't afford to buy my new gold Porsche because of your pirating antics my inability to produce anything of substance.
 
2012-01-15 12:52:53 PM
The RIAA and MPAA perform late term abortions
 
2012-01-15 12:53:59 PM

Joce678: In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.


So how, exactly, do you find a magnet link if The Pirate Bay's site is blocked for "facilitating copyright infringement?"
 
2012-01-15 12:54:19 PM

Joce678: vwarb: Then I weep because I realize it doesn't matter. He's still going to win. One of the most wildly unpopular bills to ever go to the floor is going to pass, despite the screams of every one of us. Why? Because Congress is filled with geriatric assholes who think every American citizen is a criminal anyway and should be caged.


In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.


Once SOPA passes, the only way to get anything will be to pirate it
 
2012-01-15 12:54:37 PM
Artists should be slaves to society! Am I a good little progressive now?
 
2012-01-15 12:54:40 PM
img689.imageshack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

UP YOURS BIG MEDIA!
 
2012-01-15 12:55:12 PM
Parasite: par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/ Noun.

1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2. derogatory. A person or organization that habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.
 
2012-01-15 12:58:35 PM

glassbottomboatcaptain: tenpoundsofcheese



You keep referring to piracy as 'stealing', when in many cases it is not. To clarify, when 'Piracy' is referring to the unauthorized sale of someone else's intellectual property, THAT is stealing.

However, the act of copying something for personal use, is not stealing.
Let's say I go over to your house, and admire an Ikea chair you have. Being somewhat of a handyman, I take pictures and measurements of your chair, go home, and make a replica of it. Or baring my own skills, I 'know a guy' who makes a good chair, and he's willing to do it for free, because he's a chair enthusiast.
The replica is not perfect, lacking in the quality craftmanship of the original, but it is functional.

Now, can you call the cops on me and have me arrested for stealing your chair? Nope. YOU still have your chair. There has been no loss of property. And here's the big question. Can Ikea have me charged for making my own personal copy of their chair and not paying them for it? The only thing they could argue, is that if I didn't have the ability to make my own chair, I would have had to pay them to get it. Yet they still can't charge me for that, because it is utterly impossible for them to know, or prove, that I actually liked the chair enough to pay for it.

Now why does this logic suddenly go out the window when we are discussing digital content? If I download an Xbox game, there is no demonstratable loss of income for the maker or distributer, because it is merely an assumption that I *would* have bought it if I hadn't the means to get it for free.

Despite this assumption of loss of sale being impossible to prove in a court of law, it is also untrue in many cases, and in such cases, there is no moral or ethical issue.


Ever see people who have cleaned out their garage or basement, and left a bunch of junk sitting at the end of their driveway with a sign saying 'free for the taking' or what not. If you come across this pile of junk, you might find a few ...


Actually the loss of sales is exactly provable in court. But beyond that, you are correct: infringement of intellectual property rights is not the tort of conversion (theft) - the depriving of others of the use and enjoyment of their property. It is its own thing, its own tort. It is really more of a bastard child of the tort of trespass (i.e. entering someone's land) and restitution (someone is unjustly enriched at your expense). We have given a monopoly right to creators as a way of spuring creation of new workd because intellectual property is a public good, making it almost impossible to internalize the external benefits. By copying the work without paying for it you are saying "if you wanted to make a living off of making IP, don't, because you cannot recoup the benefits you have put out into the world."

I know this will lead inevitably to the "George Lucas and Metallica are filthy rich - oh boo hoo" but they became so because of IP. Also its looking at the margins. You can also argue about the PR value of the big labels being constant sperm-turtles, encouraging infringement. You would likely be right - but all i am saying is that it is disingenuous to say that IP infringement isn't a tort because it isn't conversion. That's like saying Intentional infliction of emotional distress isn't a tort because it doesn't fit the elements of battery.
 
2012-01-15 01:05:22 PM
If farking with the first amendment is what it takes to create jobs in your industry, RIAA and MPAA... then I'd say it's time for your industry to go away.
 
2012-01-15 01:07:20 PM

Teiritzamna: glassbottomboatcaptain: tenpoundsofcheese



You keep referring to piracy as 'stealing', when in many cases it is not. To clarify, when 'Piracy' is referring to the unauthorized sale of someone else's intellectual property, THAT is stealing.

However, the act of copying something for personal use, is not stealing.
Let's say I go over to your house, and admire an Ikea chair you have. Being somewhat of a handyman, I take pictures and measurements of your chair, go home, and make a replica of it. Or baring my own skills, I 'know a guy' who makes a good chair, and he's willing to do it for free, because he's a chair enthusiast.
The replica is not perfect, lacking in the quality craftmanship of the original, but it is functional.

Now, can you call the cops on me and have me arrested for stealing your chair? Nope. YOU still have your chair. There has been no loss of property. And here's the big question. Can Ikea have me charged for making my own personal copy of their chair and not paying them for it? The only thing they could argue, is that if I didn't have the ability to make my own chair, I would have had to pay them to get it. Yet they still can't charge me for that, because it is utterly impossible for them to know, or prove, that I actually liked the chair enough to pay for it.

Now why does this logic suddenly go out the window when we are discussing digital content? If I download an Xbox game, there is no demonstratable loss of income for the maker or distributer, because it is merely an assumption that I *would* have bought it if I hadn't the means to get it for free.

Despite this assumption of loss of sale being impossible to prove in a court of law, it is also untrue in many cases, and in such cases, there is no moral or ethical issue.

Ever see people who have cleaned out their garage or basement, and left a bunch of junk sitting at the end of their driveway with a sign saying 'free for the taking' or what not. If you come across this pile of ju ...


That's a great argument for the DMCA, but comes nowhere close to PIPA or SOPA... letting the government unilaterally censor the internet is going way farther than enacting IP tort reform.
 
2012-01-15 01:08:04 PM

TyrantII: You know, movie studios and record studios have only been around in their modern form for about 100 years. Humanity survived without them for eons. We'll survive just fine without them in the future.


Serious question: What would happen if we got rid of copyright on music?

OK... first up, we'd get a lot less new work. But really, so what? I mean, we've got fricking thousands and thousands of great songs and records out there, and very little innovation happening. If no-one wrote another song again, it wouldn't matter.

But... people would still write songs, because they always did in the past. They still do today. You go to English football stadia and people sing chants that they've written, either celebrating players or dissing their opponents. No-one has copyright on "He's fat, he's round, he's sold your f**king ground, Al Fayed, Al Fayed...".
 
2012-01-15 01:08:34 PM
If (and that's a big if) the bill gets passed then people just need to make a few youtube videos and photoshop posters which enthusiastically support SOPA and RIAA. Those organizations will use them on their websites without asking permission and can then be reported as being in violation of the act.
 
2012-01-15 01:11:35 PM

ParaHandy: Their fate is inevitable ... in a decade or so, more new acts will rise from YouTube and its competitors than from traditional studios.


Oops - those new acts were accused of copyright violation. They didn't violate any copyright, but they were accused and so their videos were taken off youtube. Luckily the hot new star that Sony is promoting is available to view instead!
 
2012-01-15 01:12:11 PM

Noah_Tall: If (and that's a big if) the bill gets passed then people just need to make a few youtube videos and photoshop posters which enthusiastically support SOPA and RIAA. Those organizations will use them on their websites without asking permission and can then be reported as being in violation of the act.


Didn't you get the memo? The rules and laws do not apply to those who make or enforce them.
 
2012-01-15 01:15:55 PM

bulldg4life: Gonz: No, he's usually a troll. And his act is rather played out. He's not a bad troll, per se, just predictable. You know what you're going to get from him, which takes a lot of the sheen off his posts.

If you think his comments are anything other than an absurd comedic extension of what some actual trolls actually say on this site, then you are taking Fark entirely too seriously.

My god, the man spent a month last year talking about how awesome Mario Chalmers is.


He's only an absurd comedian in threads like this. In a gaming thread, if you don't like exactly the sorts of things he likes, or even hint at the possibility that someone might not like the same things he likes, he turns into a huge whiny brat. And it's not entertaining at all.

And, yes, I agree that the RIAA and MPAA should DIAF.
 
2012-01-15 01:16:20 PM

glassbottomboatcaptain: Now why does this logic suddenly go out the window when we are discussing digital content? If I download an Xbox game, there is no demonstratable loss of income for the maker or distributer, because it is merely an assumption that I *would* have bought it if I hadn't the means to get it for free.


Because piracy isn't theft. In the case you described, you're illegally distributing a copyrighted work. That's what you'd be taken to court for and that's why the judgements against pirates tend to be drastically higher than the MSRP of the content they pirated.

You should probably know a little about this stuff before you write really long posts about it.
 
2012-01-15 01:18:05 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Those corporations' cocks aren't going to suck themselves.


^

adamgreeney: Hey RIAA, television studios, etc. FIND A NEW BUSINESS MODEL.


^

Hobodeluxe: I used to record songs on cassette off the radio. they didn't cry about it then. they didn't try to outlaw cassette recorders.


^
 
2012-01-15 01:18:47 PM

firefly212: That's a great argument for the DMCA, but comes nowhere close to PIPA or SOPA... letting the government unilaterally censor the internet is going way farther than enacting IP tort reform.


Oh trust me sir, I am majorly against SOPA. I was just responding to the implied argument that because IP infringement is not the same as the tort of conversion, its not a tort at all (which tends to be one of the 5 great logical fallacies regarding IP law trotted out in every IP thread).
 
2012-01-15 01:19:06 PM
In the event that these bills pass. How might one theoretically get around all of these things when browsing the interwebs?
 
rpm
2012-01-15 01:19:27 PM

ox45tallboy: Joce678: In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.

So how, exactly, do you find a magnet link if The Pirate Bay's site is blocked for "facilitating copyright infringement?"


Except they can't be blocked. They explicitly exclude .com as "under US control"
 
2012-01-15 01:21:26 PM
Barack Obama is the Democratic Mitt Romney. He says whatever he thinks people want him to say, and stands for nothing, while, in the end, ignoring what he said to do what we all knew would happen anyway. Like all the other expansions of executive power we've seen so far, Obama will pretend to protest, and sign himself more power anyway.
 
2012-01-15 01:21:47 PM

Dr J Zoidberg: In the event that these bills pass. How might one theoretically get around all of these things when browsing the interwebs?


DeSopa for Firefox Bypasses SOPA DNS Blocking (new window)
 
2012-01-15 01:23:00 PM

glassbottomboatcaptain: If the RIAA thinks it can hold the cards in this battle, it has another thing coming. If they fark up the Internet for the sake of covering their lack of foresight and inability to adapt their business model to modern technology, I personally would not have a problem with never buying music, again, ever. Hell, I've got decades worth of great music I love that I can listen to exclusively for the rest of my life and be content.

RIAA, the bands don't even need you anymore. So how about instead of you bullying us back into buying your overpriced product and giving our money to the people who deserve it the least, how about we just start buying the music directly from the bands, and cut you out of the process altogether?

More so.


boo hoo i don't listen to music.
 
2012-01-15 01:23:21 PM

pxlboy: Dr J Zoidberg: In the event that these bills pass. How might one theoretically get around all of these things when browsing the interwebs?

DeSopa for Firefox Bypasses SOPA DNS Blocking (new window)


Do they have something similar for chrome?
 
2012-01-15 01:24:01 PM

narkor: Google is pouring gigabucks into lobbying against SOPA - and Google makes more in a quarter than the entire movie industry does in a year.


Citation Needed.
 
2012-01-15 01:25:46 PM

rpm: ox45tallboy: Joce678: In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.

So how, exactly, do you find a magnet link if The Pirate Bay's site is blocked for "facilitating copyright infringement?"

Except they can't be blocked. They explicitly exclude .com as "under US control"


Uhhh.... last time I checked, they were a .org, not a .com

Hang, on, let me check again.... yup, .org
 
2012-01-15 01:27:23 PM

HeartBurnKid: Kome: art.penny-arcade.com

If DRM or huge, overreaching regulations worked, that strip would not exist. Just saying.


When I started file sharing, it was for music that was too difficult to find: b-sides, rarities, live stuff. Finding music used to require physical effort.

The internet more or less eliminated that. I can get nearly anything on CD. When you say DRM and mean, I can't put this on my ipod, or I can only put this on my ipod, I get that, but realize that music is available for sale in more convenient ways than ever. Online stores can't sell out of hit albums.

Now I'm not innocent of anything, but consider that the goalposts have moved from "buying this is physically impossible for me" to "delivery methods don't meet my criteria."
 
2012-01-15 01:31:01 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: For virtually every important issue - I have *no clue* how to reach the desired end goal. So I don't vote.


Which Occupy did you attend?
 
2012-01-15 01:31:48 PM

ox45tallboy: Joce678: In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.

So how, exactly, do you find a magnet link if The Pirate Bay's site is blocked for "facilitating copyright infringement?"


Without the .torrent files the files needed to reproduce The Pirate Bay are reduced to a fraction of their former size size. They can be passed around easily to create clones. You could even grab your own copy.

Where will it end up? I dunno, but you can bet it'll be automated/easy before SOPA gets warmed up.
 
2012-01-15 01:32:46 PM

apeiron242:
Hobodeluxe: I used to record songs on cassette off the radio. they didn't cry about it then. they didn't try to outlaw cassette recorders.
^


Um, yes they did.
 
2012-01-15 01:34:13 PM
I wonder if Lamar has to give the money back.
 
2012-01-15 01:34:37 PM
I've 2700+ movies on my media center, some converted from my dvd collection, most pirated. I've not watched a vast majority of them but I like having the library available when needed, I'm not paying $20 for a dvd I'll likely never watch. If someone would come along and offer Hollwood's complete library available for instant viewing, maybe a buck or two per viewing I'd be all over the thing. This will never happen until someone like Apple drags them kicking and screaming into the 21st century, they're perfectly happy with most consumers paying $20 for a dvd they watch once.

And yes I know about Netflix streaming, I've a subscription. The selections are so hobbled by studio squabbling as to be near-useless.
 
2012-01-15 01:35:21 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but let me agree with the "Fark you RIAA/et al. asshats. You're the only ones trying to stifle debate about this absolute disaster of a bill. DIAF" crowd. I've written to my Congresscritters to no avail. The form letter I get in return is totally devoid of intelligence, which I can only assume should be telling me something. Bah.

How about we all move to KY, rename it Farkistan, and secede?
 
2012-01-15 01:35:29 PM
"unfairly stacked" my ass (new window)

if anything, the debate is unfairly stacked in favor of the lobbyists.
 
2012-01-15 01:42:33 PM
I think it is hilarious that there are so many Total Farkers who actually PAY to be on this site. Wow. What a badge of honor you have next to your name. I mean let me get this straight...you actually PAY $5 a month to post your innane IMO commentary on this shiat site? Is that just some kind of ego validation that ANY OF US really really cares or loses slep over the opinions of each other?

And what is this sh*t ignoring other users? You really think that bragging about how you block another Farker from posting on your screen in a 1st Amendment type of thread issue makes you what...? Better, more enlightened, your opinion and commentary matters more...I mean WTF?

Personally I could not possibly be bothered to take the 0.5 seconds it would take to block anyone off the thread...goes against my philosophy to censor anyone out of discourse troll or not...

Grow up you pretentious a&&holes who realy think you matter. Ignore him? Her? Them? Me? Boggles my mind that someone thinks snubbing on these threads is worth two squirts of piss of their efforts...

My ideal experience on Fark someday would be to perhaps ignore ALL OF YOU and just have the whole thread with just MY wit and wisdom...lol

Fools.
 
2012-01-15 01:48:17 PM

mayIFark: narkor: Google is pouring gigabucks into lobbying against SOPA - and Google makes more in a quarter than the entire movie industry does in a year.

Citation Needed.


This made me curious. If you look at it as total revenue:

q4 2010 Google: 8.44 Billion
Entire Year 2010 Recording Industry: 15.9 Billion.

It's important to note that the recording industry numbers include all "trade revenue", kind of like how box office receipts include the theater's take, not the money sent to the distributor. Then the distributor takes their cut before passing it on to the studio.

In other words, Google reports all revenue they received. For instance, when they get 1/10 of a cent for a clickthru, they don't count it as the $25 someone spent at the site they clicked on, they count it as how much revenue they received - 1/10 of a cent.

The recording industry, however reports all money spent on music related items worldwide. They report the retail price someone paid at Wal-Mart for the new Justin Beiber CD, even though Wal-Mart is going to keep about 30 % or so of that revenue.

So, in summary, this assertion is not far off, if you only include revenue received by the record companies, and not received by the retailers.

/I just realized that you were talking about movies, not music. I'll do some research there, but I worked hard on this and I'm not deleting it.
 
2012-01-15 01:48:44 PM

Hugemeister: Personally I could not possibly be bothered to take the 0.5 seconds it would take to block anyone off the thread...


I can't be bothered either... Oh wait, look at that. It seems I can.
 
2012-01-15 01:49:57 PM

Hugemeister: I think it is hilarious that there are so many Total Farkers who actually PAY to be on this site. Wow. What a badge of honor you have next to your name. I mean let me get this straight...you actually PAY $5 a month to post your innane IMO commentary on this shiat site? Is that just some kind of ego validation that ANY OF US really really cares or loses slep over the opinions of each other?

And what is this sh*t ignoring other users? You really think that bragging about how you block another Farker from posting on your screen in a 1st Amendment type of thread issue makes you what...? Better, more enlightened, your opinion and commentary matters more...I mean WTF?

Personally I could not possibly be bothered to take the 0.5 seconds it would take to block anyone off the thread...goes against my philosophy to censor anyone out of discourse troll or not...

Grow up you pretentious a&&holes who realy think you matter. Ignore him? Her? Them? Me? Boggles my mind that someone thinks snubbing on these threads is worth two squirts of piss of their efforts...

My ideal experience on Fark someday would be to perhaps ignore ALL OF YOU and just have the whole thread with just MY wit and wisdom...lol

Fools.


Settle down, Beavis.
 
2012-01-15 01:52:53 PM

Kome: art.penny-arcade.com


My solution? I don't buy the damned things. I tend to have violent reactions to pop music (as in, it makes me sick to my stomach). If you enjoy the old Sierra-style adventure games--or heck, anything that's not a clone of Shooter Guy 2025--you're pretty much screwed by the current selection, and the indie games are the only ones worth playing anymore; indie games which tend not to have any DRM.

How did we get from Fallout 2 to The Elder Scrolls 4.5: Vault 13?

/War. War never changes.
//Or does it? The war has changed. Did it? The answer is no. Unless it is yes. No, of course it is. Is war. Yes! No. Yes?
 
2012-01-15 01:53:45 PM

Hugemeister: I think it is hilarious that there are so many Total Farkers who actually PAY to be on this site. Wow. What a badge of honor you have next to your name. I mean let me get this straight...you actually PAY $5 a month to post your innane IMO commentary on this shiat site? Is that just some kind of ego validation that ANY OF US really really cares or loses slep over the opinions of each other?

And what is this sh*t ignoring other users? You really think that bragging about how you block another Farker from posting on your screen in a 1st Amendment type of thread issue makes you what...? Better, more enlightened, your opinion and commentary matters more...I mean WTF?

Personally I could not possibly be bothered to take the 0.5 seconds it would take to block anyone off the thread...goes against my philosophy to censor anyone out of discourse troll or not...

Grow up you pretentious a&&holes who realy think you matter. Ignore him? Her? Them? Me? Boggles my mind that someone thinks snubbing on these threads is worth two squirts of piss of their efforts...

My ideal experience on Fark someday would be to perhaps ignore ALL OF YOU and just have the whole thread with just MY wit and wisdom...lol

Fools.


You seem a little upset. Why don't you sit down, have a cookie and tell us all about it.

No, really. We're dying to hear about it.
 
2012-01-15 01:54:02 PM

RobSeace: Big_Fat_Liar: Anyone think CS Obama isn't going to sign this?

White House "will not support" SOPA as it stands


They've seen the writing on the wall - it took them this long to come out and make an opinion. The Administration's council on Intellectual Property is stacked with ex-MPAA and ex-RIAA lawyers and everyone there knows who writes the big checks for campaigns.

In short: they were for it before they were against it. I was in the room for some of those meetings.
 
2012-01-15 01:54:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: adamgreeney: tenpoundsofcheese: adamgreeney: We pirate because you make content unavailable through legal means or make it so restrctive that it isnt worth the price. Maybe look in the mirror a bit here.

No you pirate content because you are an entitled idiot who believes that you should benefit from pirating without paying.

tenpoundsofcheese: adamgreeney: We pirate because you make content unavailable through legal means or make it so restrctive that it isnt worth the price. Maybe look in the mirror a bit here.

No you pirate content because you are an entitled idiot who believes that you should benefit from pirating without paying.

yeah, some people do. Personally, i have never pirated anything since Napster. I WANT to give people my money! But the pricing and DRM tells me they dont want to take it. giving me 24 hours to watc h a film? sorry, but human lives arent always constructed so that i have 2 contiguous hours. So obviously they want to make movie renting a pain in the ass. iTunes allows you to buy music, but only for your apple device, so you dont actually own the music. How does any of that make piracy less attractive?

Piracy is getting something for nothing, so for people have ethics, it should never be an attractive option.

well, except maybe if somehow an orphans life depends on it or something like that.

Different business models are emerging. You can get redbox for $1.3 a day and don't need to worry about watching it in two days. Others will emerge too.


You've really never seen a show\movie\song where no one produces it, but you'll get your ass sued off for posting a totally free copy on Youtube. Or making a fanvid. Or doing anything with it.

If you want to talk about ethics, that's essentially spitting in the face of everyone who put time or money into creating that work, not to mention the fans who enjoy it. And it's not stealing to enjoy a work of art, even if you wouldn't traditionally consider it art.
 
2012-01-15 01:57:24 PM

HeartBurnKid: Honest Bender: This is why I abstain from voting.

Then STFU. You've got no reason to complain; you got the government you deserve.


Then the voters are getting the government they deserve too. What was your point again?
 
2012-01-15 01:57:33 PM

syberpud: RobSeace: Big_Fat_Liar: Anyone think CS Obama isn't going to sign this?

White House "will not support" SOPA as it stands

They've seen the writing on the wall - it took them this long to come out and make an opinion. The Administration's council on Intellectual Property is stacked with ex-MPAA and ex-RIAA lawyers and everyone there knows who writes the big checks for campaigns.

In short: they were for it before they were against it. I was in the room for some of those meetings.


I think you underestimate who has the deepest pockets in this.

That would be Google and other internet giants.

It might get passed, but it'll be a neutered, toothless gesture of futility that'll be impossible to enforce or enact in any meaningful way.

The Internet giants have too much to lose in this and they have have far far more money than the weakened music and movie businesses. And then there's the PR that's solidly against SOPA and the like..

As soon as I saw that Google and other major internet-connected corps were against it, I knew it was dead in the water. The rest is just wild gesturing by all parties involved.
 
2012-01-15 01:58:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Piracy is getting something for nothing, so for people have ethics, it should never be an attractive option.


I note the distinct lack of a TF next to yer name, there, Mr. Captain Blackcheese, Sir. Arrr, but ye might want to rethink yer definition.
 
2012-01-15 02:05:44 PM

ox45tallboy: So, in summary, this assertion is not far off, if you only include revenue received by the record companies, and not received by the retailers.


Yep. The MAFIAA is actually pretty small in terms of real $$$.

How they got so much influence in Washington is just another indication of how slimy/spineless they are.
 
2012-01-15 02:07:07 PM
"American Jobs": RIAA lawyers

"Economy": the ability of Hollywood producers to buy more yachts and Dom Pérignon.

The RIAA is made up reincarnated Nazi death camp guards and serial killers
 
2012-01-15 02:07:10 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: heypete: tenpoundsofcheese: No you pirate content because you are an entitled idiot who believes that you should benefit from pirating without paying.

I'm an American living in Switzerland. Netflix isn't available here, nor is any similar service (i.e. streaming video on-demand). Before I moved here, I happily paid for Netflix service as it offered the content I wanted at a price I thought was reasonable.

Since I've moved here, my options are:

1. Don't watch movies. (Unless I want to watch them in German, which I don't.)
2. Continue to pay for Netflix, but connect to a US-based VPN service to get around their geographical restrictions. (That is, they don't offer the service here and actively restrict paying customers from using it.)
3. Pirate content.

I choose #2 even though it is technically against the Netflix terms of service (nonetheless, I am paying for the service and thus for the content). I know a few other expats here who also do the same, but occasionally pirate a particular movie as it's not available on Netflix for streaming (that is, they would happily pay for it, but it is not available legitimately where they are).

Got it.

You are NOT paying for the service you are using. What you are paying for does not allow access in Switzerland (probably due to whatever licensing fees Netflix would have to pay if they did that).

You an entitled, unethical POS.


I've read some stupid shiat in this thread, but this takes the cake. Welcome to Ignore, population: you.
 
2012-01-15 02:08:39 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Vodka Zombie: See? This is where I need the cartoon of the laughing guy saying "Ha-ha, Oh wow!"

[i1125.photobucket.com image 348x228]
You're welcome.

/Die RIAA DIE!
//In a fire please, kthxbai.


1.bp.blogspot.com
HE TOOK MY JERB!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 336 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report