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.

(The New York Times)   RIAA CEO, in a thoughtful op-ed on SOPA opponents, fairly points out that they were probably all criminals   (nytimes.com) divider line 585
    More: Asinine, SOPA, RIAA, Wikipedia, peer-to-peer networks, black outs, Napster, creative work, Motion Picture Association of America  
•       •       •

16748 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2012 at 9:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-08 11:23:44 AM
Every time the SOPA/PIPA thing comes up all I can think is man I really love sopapillas.

Also extracreditz had a great show on this a couple weeks back. On SOPA/PIPA I mean not sopapillas
 
2012-02-08 11:26:41 AM

jayhawk88: Notice I did not say "DNS seizures".


What do you think we're talking about, then? "DNS mucking" isn't exactly in the bill either.

Clearly though PIPA (at least as originally written, Leahy offered to take it out at some point during the meltdown) expected ISP's to play "DNS cop" in some way to help make it more difficult for people to find sites in question.

Where? There's nothing like that in PIPA. Got a section number?
 
2012-02-08 11:27:20 AM
I still love this article about a bust on a CD copying ring 9 years ago.


But the RIAA seems to be having a few problems with the facts itself.

Yesterday it issued a press release announcing a piracy bust in New York which unearthed 421 CD-R burners.

Only there weren't 421 burners, but "the equivalent of 421 burners."

In fact, there were just 156. How did the RIAA account for this discrepancy?

"There were only 156 actual burners, but some run at very high speeds: some as high as 40x. This is well above the average speed," was the official line yesterday.


fark those guys.
 
2012-02-08 11:31:12 AM

AKA Joker: I would think that the recent raid of MegaUpload should show that the laws currently on the books are more than enough to take down rogue sites. If the rights holders have a real case against a site then settle it in court. I am sure there is a case to be made for streamlining the process of site take downs but that should not come at the expense of due process.


The issue is that many of the sites are outside the US, where US laws don't apply - can't take someone to court, and the MegaUpload raid couldn't have happened if all of their servers were overseas, rather than being in Virginia.
 
2012-02-08 11:32:19 AM

Biological Ali: Gonz: I agree with you, with one minor amendment: The artists or whoever represents them can decide whether and how much they want to charge, and consumers can decide whether and how much they want to pay- as long as the consumers are willing to do without the product if they are unwilling to pay.

Why, exactly? Should people stop lending (and borrowing) books too?


False equivalence. When you "loan" a song online, you still have access to your copy. I have no problem loaning books. You shouldn't photocopy them and give it out, though.
 
2012-02-08 11:33:19 AM
This is the guy who would outlaw videos of babies dancing to All The Single Ladies. He'd require us to surrender all of our downloaded copies of the worst final count-down cover ever. There would be no more videos of conflicted 45 year old men doing acoustic versions of Miley Cyrus songs, no compilations of nut-shots taken from shaky handi-cam captures of TV sets tuned to America's Funniest Videos, no highlights of news shows with graphics of poorly-drawn leprechauns, no bedroom intruder autotune songs, no videos documenting every instance of characters saying "cover me" in movies and then throwing their weapon to the person who they wanted to cover them.

Wait... Maybe this guy has something.
 
2012-02-08 11:34:10 AM

fireclown: He's sorta right. We've got a generation on our hands for whom copyright is sort of an antiquated concept. And it isn't like torrenting movies and music isn't common. I didn't like the acts either, but hard drives the world over are full of products that weren't paid for.


You know, I'm not normally into modern art, but this piece amused me.

In case you don't feel like clicking, it's a terabyte hard drive purportedly worth $5 million dollars. According to the artist, the harddrive is filled with illegally downloaded files and the $5 million price tag was determined by adding up the value of the software, music, etc. that it contained.

Copy this to an identical drive and you'll have created another $5 million. Creates an interesting logical problem once you think about it in economic terms.
 
2012-02-08 11:34:45 AM

Gonz: Strategeryz0r: Name one reason a digital copy of an album should be the same price as a CD?

Ooh- I can: "The Free Market". (a.k.a. The Invisible Hand). CDs hold their current price point, even though digital downloads are readily available through venues like Amazon and iTunes. If more consumers thought digital downloads offered better value, then the price of CDs would drop until they either achieved a market equilibrium or went the way of the cassette and 8-track.

Remember, when you're buying a CD, you're not primarily paying for the packaging and album art. That's secondary. You're paying for the artist's time and effort. This is where the Trent Reznor anecdote above misses the point. Once an artist decides to make his work free, then, by all means, download it. But, unless the artist has said "Take it, it's free", respect their right to make money off their work.

The decision as to whether works should be free belongs to the artist, not the consumer.


Except it doesn't. It belongs to the Label/Studio/Distributor. The artist actually has very little say in what's being charged. The artist creates an album, the label retains the right to sell/distribute it at a price they determine, the artist makes royalties on the sale. Arists do not create a cd, then sell it at the price they want, while the label does all the heavy lifting to get said product to market. When Trent said steal my shiat, he said it while the label retained all rights to his music. It was actually a long drawn out process for him to get full rights to his own discography that was done after the fact. He told people to steal it, because he wanted to reduce the price on his own works to better serve the consumer yet the label refused to do so.

The CD retains it's price point because labels aren't cutting back physical distribution to match the increase in online sales. Most labels actually don't like working with online distribution, as it's cut out their profits as well as made piracy easier(in their eyes).


So again you feel it's YOU who gets to decide what private businesses charge for their products.

(but all those products are "shiat" so you don't want them anyway)


Again you're missing the point. You can only gouge the consumer for so long before the consumer fights back. If a business wants to succeed then they need to find a happy medium between making a profit, and pleasing the consumer. Otherwise they'll face backlash from those they depend on to survive.

To put it bluntly, as the person who keeps these companies in business. Yes I believe the consumer should have a say in what's being charged. As it needs to be fair to all parties involved, and not blatant money grabs.

And you're still missing the point at it's very core. If you charge a price that most consumers feel is unfair, for a product most are deeming sub-par, then they will not pay it. Even if it's a good product, there's a fine line between reasonable and unreasonable prices. Once you skew to the wrong side of that line, guess what happens? Consumers find a way to get their goods at a reduce rate, or for free. Like the oil companies, people find ways around it. Whether that's buying electric cars, making their own bio diesel(my dad does this), relying on public transit, riding a bike, walking, or flat out stealing it. Nobody wants to be gouged, and most will not just roll over and deal with it(but apparently you will, since you're a spineless consumer who thinks businesses should be supported regardless of what they charge or do).

The business is dependent on people they keep screwing, yet they refuse to understand why nobody wants to buy their shiat? Nobody buys it because it's either terrible quality, over-priced, both, or even just out of principle for the self-entitlement these companies/lobbyists have.

Prime example of this is the video games industry that's trying to put a stop to the second hand game market. Here you have consumers who already bought the goods, and are legally selling it second hand. Now because the publisher/developer doesn't see any profit from this sale, they believe it's their god given right to put a stop to it. Yet the second hand market has been around since the creation of capitalism.

Do you know why the second hand market has thrived? Because the price of games keeps going the hell up, when there are alternative distribution methods that should be reducing the price. People don't want to put up with that, so they buy their stuff second hand on craigslist or, god forbid, GameStop. So the game companies tried to combat this by what many call project 10 dollar. Selling you goods that have a one time use code to allow access to the entire product. Yet if you buy it second hand without that code, you only get half the product unless you spend 10 bucks to get a new code to unlock the rest.

It's a sleazy business tactic that people don't support.

Things like this, combined with DRM, bills like SOPA/PIPA, etc ,etc are examples of how companies are treating their paying customer like a common criminal. Yet doing nothing to successfully combat the people actually breaking the law. However, if they would just realize that their prices are too high, and adapt their business models to fit the technology available at their disposal, they would probably find the consumer more willing to buy their product.

The issue they face is of their own creation, and they refuse to accept that. You can't keep raising prices, with little to no real justification, and expect the consumer to put up with it. That's not how things work. People have no obligation to buy your product, and if they feel it's an unfair price or a sub par product then guess what happens? They either don't buy it, or they find a way to get it cheaper/for free(provided they actually want it)!

Do I pirate shiat? Actually not anymore. I used to when money was tighter. These days I just don't go see movies like I used to, I don't buy nearly as much music as I used to, and I don't really watch much in the way of TV(though admittedly the quality of TV has surpassed the current films so I do watch more shows than films). I refuse to buy these products because they're trash, I wont even waste my time pirating them because they're trash. However, I can understand why so many people are choosing to pirate.

Like I keep saying, yet you keep refusing to understand, if you lower the quality of a product people don't buy it. If you increase the price of a product to what many would feel is an unreasonable level, people wont buy it(even if it's good). These companies continue to fuel piracy by constantly treating paying customers like criminals, as well as jacking the price up to the point that many feel it's an unreasonable amount to pay. All the while they're still rolling in huge profits while biatching and moaning about how their profits should be bigger.

Pardon me for not looking out side and seeing the starving record executive begging for money. Last one of those guys I saw was actually pulling up in his brand new Maserati. So forgive me for not taking pity on them and their "diminishing returns" caused by piracy.
 
2012-02-08 11:35:44 AM

Theaetetus: Where? There's nothing like that in PIPA. Got a section number?


From memory, Section 3(d)?
 
2012-02-08 11:36:44 AM

T.M.S.: glassbottomboatcaptain: T.M.S.: So again you feel it's YOU who gets to decide what private businesses charge for their products.

He's not saying he gets to decide what businesses charge for their product, he's merely expressing that if said businesses charge more than the product is worth, people will not buy it.

Or does that fundamental tenet of commerce elude you? Does this mean if movie tickets cost $50 each, you'd continue to pay for them? $100? Because if there is ANY limit to how much you're willing to spend for a product, then must concede that you agree with his underlying point, that if you price a product beyond it's inherent value to the consumer, the consumer will cease to purchase said product.

What does any of that have to do with stealing?


Whose Definition?

If I Download an album, or a few songs from an album, listen to them and decide they suck and I don't want to pay money for the album, and never listen to them again... is that stealing? The RIAA says yes.

If I download an album, or a few songs from an album, listen to them, decide they rock and this band I never heard of is awesome, and I go out and buy the album, and find out they have 2 previous albums, and buy those too... is that stealing? The RIAA says yes.

The RIAA would like use laws to broaden their definition of stealing even further.
 
2012-02-08 11:37:11 AM
What these guys don't or won't get is there is an easy way to compete with free. Let people consume their product how they want it and for a reasonable price. Lets say there is a first run movie I wanna see. They are requiring me to jump in a car, go to the local movie theater. Wait on line, Pay ridiculous prices and watch the movie with a bunch of strangers when what I really want is to watch it in the comfort of my own home. So you discover a decent screener out there, guess what people are going to do?

But Say I am a law abiding citizen. I will wait for the DVD to come out. But hey, I can't get it on Netflix for 30 days because of the deals they struck and my only option is to go buy one for $20 bucks. Guess what people are going to do?

But I don't want to deal with physical media because its pain in the ass. I want it streamed right to my TV. But because they refuse to distribute it though Netflix streaming service I can't watch it. Guess what people are going to do?

It seems to me if they just released movies though a reasonably priced streaming service they would make a whole lot more money then their present model. I am not going to pay $20 to watch a movie, but I would pay 5 bucks. or even 7.
 
2012-02-08 11:37:49 AM

T.M.S.: This is not theft.

How is it not theft?


When someone is a thief, their victims lose what was stolen.

When someone copies something, no one lost anything.
 
2012-02-08 11:38:21 AM

IMDWalrus: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: You asked that question. The author did not.

In fact, the author even states, "As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn't take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. "

The person you objected to was mocking the author's obvious butthurt, not the larger issue you introduced after the fact.

Agreed. That said...

downtownkid: And it did. Regardless of your feelings on the larger issues, this is a legitimate question. The tech companies used internet advocacy to help kill this bill. I don't think you would dispute that the vast majority of people who used social media to demonstrate their opposition to the bill had at best a tenuous grasp of the real issues involved. Seems like killing the bill served the common good, so it worked out in the end. What happens when similar tactics are used for nefarious purposes?

You may disagree, but I think it's a legitimate cause for concern, and anyone who dismisses it because they dislike the messenger deserves whatever they get.

There's only one reason that this is a cause for concern: that people are stupid. Whether or not that's a valid assumption to make - and it's one you do seem to be making, since you're not giving the majority credit for actually looking into SOPA/PIPA and educating themselves - is up for debate, but it's not something anyone can really change.



Do you REALLY think the majority of people who came out against SOPA/PIPA fully understood it? In this very thread there are a handful of people who are clearly pretty invested in the issue and even here the vast majority clearly have a very loose understanding of the technical issues.

Listen, I understand that it's just FARK and people will post anything to buttress their argument, but did you just actually argue in favor of the intelligence of the American public? You ought be ashamed.
 
2012-02-08 11:39:15 AM
"We gotta protect democracy with this legislation"
...
"What's with all these people getting in the way of my legislation? Won't someone think of the democracy!!!"

/I can't believe there's anyone left on their side
 
2012-02-08 11:40:47 AM

RexTalionis: Theaetetus: Where? There's nothing like that in PIPA. Got a section number?

From memory, Section 3(d)?


Seems to say otherwise:
"such operator shall not be required--
(aa) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(bb) to take any measures with respect to domain name lookups not performed by its own domain name server or domain name system servers located outside the United States; or
(cc) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disable by other means; and
(II) nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of such an operator under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.

PIPA (new window) It's also there in the struck out version.
 
2012-02-08 11:41:15 AM
They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.

Good. You've been made redundant by more efficient means of distribution. Go find another job, saddlemaker.
 
2012-02-08 11:42:19 AM

T.M.S.: glassbottomboatcaptain: T.M.S.: So again you feel it's YOU who gets to decide what private businesses charge for their products.

He's not saying he gets to decide what businesses charge for their product, he's merely expressing that if said businesses charge more than the product is worth, people will not buy it.

Or does that fundamental tenet of commerce elude you? Does this mean if movie tickets cost $50 each, you'd continue to pay for them? $100? Because if there is ANY limit to how much you're willing to spend for a product, then must concede that you agree with his underlying point, that if you price a product beyond it's inherent value to the consumer, the consumer will cease to purchase said product.

What does any of that have to do with stealing?


If people want a product that is priced too high, they steal it or find a way to get it cheaper. When piracy is so easy, and the price of your product is too high, why would anyone buy it? Price your products reasonably, make them good quality products, and people buy them.

How dense are you? I mean seriously.... The price/quality of a product has damn near everything to do with stealing. Do you think people shoplift because they can afford something they want? No, they want it but the price is too high. Yet they want it badly enough to try and steal it from the store. Same concept. Price is too high, yet consumers want these products. Courtesy of the internet, theft is easier to get away with than ever. So what reason does anyone have to pay exorbitant prices, when they can just jump online and click download?
 
2012-02-08 11:44:08 AM

Gonz: False equivalence. When you "loan" a song online, you still have access to your copy. I have no problem loaning books. You shouldn't photocopy them and give it out, though.


If you've read the book before lending it out, you still "have" it even as you make it available to somebody else who hasn't paid for it. After all, it's not the mass of paper and cardboard that people are paying for when they buy a book.
 
2012-02-08 11:44:21 AM

Theaetetus: Where? There's nothing like that in PIPA. Got a section number?


Theaetetus: Nonauthoritative domain name servers would be ordered to take technically feasible and reasonable steps to prevent the domain name from resolving to the IP address of a website that had been found by the court to be "dedicated to infringing activities.

PROTECT IP Act of 2011, S. 968, 112th Cong. § 3(d)(2)(A)(i); "Text of S. 968,@ Govtrack.us. May 26, 2011. Retrieved June 23, 2011.

Sorry, you're right... Meant to say the DNS seizures without trial. §3(d) is only after a court order, and requires notice to the domain owner.


Maybe I'm misreading the document, but you say "without trial"...all I see mentioned is a court order, which the rights holder could submit to the court without the requirement for evidence/trial/etc, correct?
 
2012-02-08 11:45:20 AM

Strategeryz0r: apparently you will, since you're a spineless consumer who thinks businesses should be supported regardless of what they charge or do.


1. You have no idea what I think.

2. If you cannot make your point without direct insults don't be surprised when people don't give a shiat what you have to say.

Have a nice day.
 
2012-02-08 11:45:54 AM

Theaetetus: RexTalionis: Theaetetus: Where? There's nothing like that in PIPA. Got a section number?

From memory, Section 3(d)?

Seems to say otherwise:
"such operator shall not be required--
(aa) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(bb) to take any measures with respect to domain name lookups not performed by its own domain name server or domain name system servers located outside the United States; or
(cc) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disable by other means; and
(II) nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of such an operator under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.

PIPA (new window) It's also there in the struck out version.


Jayhawke previously asserted: "expected ISP's to play "DNS cop" in some way to help make it more difficult for people to find sites in question."

Which seems to be covered by the section preceding the section you cited:
(i) IN GENERAL- An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address, except that--

Essentially, the section you cited are only limits on what is required of DNS operators, however, in any case, a DNS operator would still have to take some sort of active measure to prevent a domain name to resolve, which would seem to correspond to jayehawk's assertion that PIPA "expected ISP's to play "DNS cop" in some way to help make it more difficult for people to find sites in question."
 
2012-02-08 11:46:17 AM

T.M.S.: What has been stolen and from whom?

I have no idea WHAT was stolen.



And thats the problem with your reasoning, no one is missing anything. Everyone involved has at least what they had before.
 
2012-02-08 11:46:21 AM
OK, I work in the threatre and film inustry. I just wrapped on my (admittedly tiny) portion of Joss Weadon's Avengers. I have a financial interest in not seeing my work pirated and redistributed without getting paid for it. I completely see where T.M.S. is coming from.

But...

It's always the "but..." that screws things up, isn't it (insert lewd joke here)? The long and short of it is that as long as there is a way to reduce something to a series of 1's and 0's, and as long as there is a way for people to transmit those 1's and 0's to each other, there is nothing ANYONE can do to stop piracy.

To stop the piracy, you have to cut away the people's ability to do one of those two things, full stop. Clearly, there's no way to stop people from reducing content to those pesky 1's and 0's. You can, however, stop their ability to transmit them to a large audience. People will still pirate those 1's and 0's via pure physical transaction (watch sales of very cheap flash drives loaded with content on eBay suddenly shoot up, for example), but their ability to disseminate as easily can be curtailed.

The trick of it is, unfortunately, that there's NO way to curtail people's ability to disseminate 1's and 0's that infringe copyright while still allowing them to transmit 1's and 0's in a slightly different order that DON'T infringe copyright.

So, haters of piracy (specifically you, T.M.S, since I otherwise grok your complaints about piracy), how exactly do you propose to do this without limiting the ability of the people to trade their 1's and 0's that don't break copyright? Because it's become very, VERY clear that they aren't going to stand for that ability to be taken away...and we've established already that that is the ONLY real way to stop piracy at this point.

I'm not arguing that piracy isn't bad (although I'd prefer to see business models adapted regardless, the way we've done in live theatre and low-budget film-making). I'm not even arguing that it isn't stealing (although I believe it's legally separate). I'm saying that, from a practical perspective, MPAA/RIAA/ETC need to get the fark over it and update their models, because we CANNOT do the things that are neccessary to stop it.
 
2012-02-08 11:47:16 AM
Hey Mr. RIAA CEO...yeah, we're all guilty, but Jesus died to forgive our sins, so we all have a free pass!
 
2012-02-08 11:49:44 AM

T.M.S.: Strategeryz0r: apparently you will, since you're a spineless consumer who thinks businesses should be supported regardless of what they charge or do.

1. You have no idea what I think.

2. If you cannot make your point without direct insults don't be surprised when people don't give a shiat what you have to say.

Have a nice day.


When someone keeps bringing up the same point over and over, and you refuse to acknowledge the underlying argument. Instead focusing on a small snippet from each piece. Then yes you're going to be called the idiot that you are. Everything you keep repeating makes you look like someone who thinks a business should be supported regardless of what they charge, and the consumer should roll over and take it. When you can't even understand the basic principle that people will steal goods that are priced too high, when stealing is so easy, then how can you expect to be taken seriously?

Perhaps if you could actually make a point, you wouldn't find people attacking you.

I will, thank you :)
 
2012-02-08 11:50:26 AM

jayhawk88: Oh man, this op-ed is just the gift that keeps on giving:

Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works.

IT CERTAINLY IS, Mr. "Piracy costs us $11 gazillion dollars a year".


Ahhh, finally an excuse to use that new "Smart" button thingy! Hooray!
 
2012-02-08 11:51:59 AM

downtownkid: Listen, I understand that it's just FARK and people will post anything to buttress their argument, but did you just actually argue in favor of the intelligence of the American public? You ought be ashamed.


Nope.

downtownkid: Do you REALLY think the majority of people who came out against SOPA/PIPA fully understood it? In this very thread there are a handful of people who are clearly pretty invested in the issue and even here the vast majority clearly have a very loose understanding of the technical issues.


I agree with that. The point I was trying to make is that we can't change whether or not the general population really understands the issues behind the bill. Let's face it: people already vote for and argue for or against bills and ideas they only partially understand, if at all.

Yeah, tactics like the SOPA blackouts could be used for nefarious purposes. But when we've already got half-truths and blatant lies in politics, I don't see how the blackouts are any worse than other ways of communicating a political agenda.
 
2012-02-08 11:52:25 AM

jayhawk88: Theaetetus: Where? There's nothing like that in PIPA. Got a section number?

Theaetetus: Nonauthoritative domain name servers would be ordered to take technically feasible and reasonable steps to prevent the domain name from resolving to the IP address of a website that had been found by the court to be "dedicated to infringing activities.

PROTECT IP Act of 2011, S. 968, 112th Cong. § 3(d)(2)(A)(i); "Text of S. 968,@ Govtrack.us. May 26, 2011. Retrieved June 23, 2011.

Sorry, you're right... Meant to say the DNS seizures without trial. §3(d) is only after a court order, and requires notice to the domain owner.

Maybe I'm misreading the document, but you say "without trial"...all I see mentioned is a court order, which the rights holder could submit to the court without the requirement for evidence/trial/etc, correct?


No, they still have to follow the requirements under the federal rules of civil procedure, which include proper service, time to reply, discovery, etc., as well as the constitutional requirements of due process. The nearest thing is that they can a temporary restraining order, but that still has its own requirements under the rules (new window).
 
2012-02-08 11:53:04 AM

Ehcks: T.M.S.: This is not theft.

How is it not theft?

When someone is a thief, their victims lose what was stolen.

When someone copies something, no one lost anything.


I have asked this question before but never been given a proper response.

Someone very close to me is a major publisher of science fiction and fantasy books. Many years ago she was sent a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone.

From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author. Just as long as she returned the 50 cents worth of paper it was printed on.

I mean she was only selling copies. The author got back the actual stack of paper so nothing was stolen.

If you were the author would you have been OK with that?
 
2012-02-08 11:54:24 AM

RexTalionis: Jayhawke previously asserted: "expected ISP's to play "DNS cop" in some way to help make it more difficult for people to find sites in question."

Which seems to be covered by the section preceding the section you cited:
(i) IN GENERAL- An operator of a nonauthoritative domain name system server shall take the least burdensome technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent the domain name described in the order from resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address, except that--

Essentially, the section you cited are only limits on what is required of DNS operators, however, in any case, a DNS operator would still have to take some sort of active measure to prevent a domain name to resolve, which would seem to correspond to jayehawk's assertion that PIPA "expected ISP's to play "DNS cop" in some way to help make it more difficult for people to find sites in question."


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he meant by "play 'DNS cop'," then... I thought he was saying that ISPs would have to continue to make it difficult, rather than simply removing an A record. To me, "playing cop" implies some sort of continued investigation and enforcement. If that's not what he meant, I apologize and retract my objection.
 
2012-02-08 11:56:17 AM

Gonz: Biological Ali: Gonz: I agree with you, with one minor amendment: The artists or whoever represents them can decide whether and how much they want to charge, and consumers can decide whether and how much they want to pay- as long as the consumers are willing to do without the product if they are unwilling to pay.

Why, exactly? Should people stop lending (and borrowing) books too?

False equivalence. When you "loan" a song online, you still have access to your copy. I have no problem loaning books. You shouldn't photocopy them and give it out, though.


I don't think I would have made it through high school or college if I couldn't go to the library and photocopy reference books.
 
2012-02-08 11:56:44 AM

T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author. Just as long as she returned the 50 cents worth of paper it was printed on.


There's a difference between profiting off someone else's work and using it for your own personal entertainment. There area already plenty of laws against that.

Good luck finding a music downloader that tries to sell the music he downloads retitled as if it were his own.
 
2012-02-08 11:56:44 AM

T.M.S.: Ehcks: T.M.S.: This is not theft.

How is it not theft?

When someone is a thief, their victims lose what was stolen.

When someone copies something, no one lost anything.

I have asked this question before but never been given a proper response.

Someone very close to me is a major publisher of science fiction and fantasy books. Many years ago she was sent a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone.

From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author. Just as long as she returned the 50 cents worth of paper it was printed on.

I mean she was only selling copies. The author got back the actual stack of paper so nothing was stolen.

If you were the author would you have been OK with that?



That would be copyright infringement which, like many other things that aren't theft, is against the law.
 
2012-02-08 11:56:59 AM

T.M.S.: If you were the author would you have been OK with that?


Regardless of whether or not the author would have been okay with that, it still would not have been theft. That's the whole point.
 
2012-02-08 11:57:01 AM

T.M.S.: From what you say it would have been perfectly legitimate copyright infringement for her to publish the manuscript without compensating the author, not theft.


That's the difference... Legally, it's a different illegal action than theft. Colloquially, "theft" is used for both, though.
 
2012-02-08 11:57:22 AM
That is the same BS rhetoric that he was blasting out in the 2000s. He was more than willing to support a grossly overhanded bill that had implications far beyond censorship.

It would have allowed entire swaths of the internet to be destroyed.

Music sales are down because people don't want to buy shiatty music. That's the bottom line. Internet sales prove this. People would rather spend 99 cents for a single song they like than buy an entire album of payola.

Sherman. You are a terrible person and I hope you get what's coming to you.
 
2012-02-08 11:57:32 AM

Desmo: sprawl15: FTA: "Perhaps this is naïve, but I'd like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives. "

I know I told you I'd make breakfast in bed, but you didn't like the bowl of vomit that I gave you. Maybe it's naïve, but you should feel some responsibility to come up with a constructive alternative instead of calling me a crazy biatch.

this, lol


The "constructive alternative" is that you give up, apologize to the country for your misguided leadership, resign from all lobbying efforts, and spend some time at your parents' graves pondering where you went wrong.
 
2012-02-08 11:58:45 AM

Strategeryz0r: Do you think people shoplift because they can afford something they want? No, they want it but the price is too high.


No, shoplifting is often rooted in psychological problems - kleptomania, for a non-clinical term. Winona Ryder, for example, didn't steal clothes because she was hurting for money but because she had a serious issue with thrillseeking.

Online copyright infringement has more to do with artificial and imaginary barriers to access.
 
2012-02-08 11:59:36 AM

Ehcks: There's a difference between profiting off someone else's work and using it for your own personal entertainment. There area already plenty of laws against that.

Good luck finding a music downloader that tries to sell the music he downloads retitled as if it were his own.


Yeah, but that difference is criminal infringement vs. civil infringement, not legal vs. illegal.
 
2012-02-08 12:00:08 PM

FightDirector:

So, haters of piracy (specifically you, T.M.S, since I otherwise grok your complaints about piracy), how exactly do you propose to do this without limiting the ability of the people to trade their 1's and 0's that don't break copyright?


I honestly have no idea. It's not my job to figure those things out.

But what we have right now is an extraordinary sense of entitlement to other peoples property.

And as some one who makes his living licensing work I have a problem with that.
 
2012-02-08 12:01:30 PM
www.visualphotos.com

Look at this horrible thief, depriving hard-working content creators of their just due! Truly, he should be in jail, and this edifice of crime he is utilizing should be burned to the ground without even the benefit of a fair trial!
 
2012-02-08 12:02:43 PM

T.M.S.: FightDirector:

So, haters of piracy (specifically you, T.M.S, since I otherwise grok your complaints about piracy), how exactly do you propose to do this without limiting the ability of the people to trade their 1's and 0's that don't break copyright?

I honestly have no idea. It's not my job to figure those things out.

But what we have right now is an extraordinary sense of entitlement to other peoples property.

And as some one who makes his living licensing work I have a problem with that.


Yeah I have a problem with music companies, and movie companies controlling everything an artist has made forcing them quicker into poverty, while making them a quick buck which turns out "no profit" on their record books.
 
2012-02-08 12:03:01 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Strategeryz0r: Do you think people shoplift because they can afford something they want? No, they want it but the price is too high.

No, shoplifting is often rooted in psychological problems - kleptomania, for a non-clinical term. Winona Ryder, for example, didn't steal clothes because she was hurting for money but because she had a serious issue with thrillseeking.

Online copyright infringement has more to do with artificial and imaginary barriers to access.



Those barriers are a big issue, to me at least. If I were to download something that I could not get legally then it cannot be said that the content owner is losing money, since there is no mechanism for me to give them my money for their content.
 
2012-02-08 12:03:31 PM
www.bath.ac.uk

Theft machines! Theft machines, all!
 
2012-02-08 12:05:35 PM
fracto73:

T.M.S.: What has been stolen and from whom?

I have no idea WHAT was stolen.


And thats the problem with your reasoning, no one is missing anything. Everyone involved has at least what they had before.


You should consult with a lawyer on that, and then tell him you're going to stiff him on his consultation fee because nothing physical was taken from him.
 
2012-02-08 12:06:32 PM
I appreciate the need for copyright enforcement, and think it fair the artists are paid for their labor/creativity.

SOPA/PIPA seemed more like red tape applied with a shotgun.

Look, the internet, digital media, etc. makes this very complicated, there's no question about that. Where to apply an enforcement mechanism, how to determine responsibility, how to deal with national boundaries, etc.

And of course, there are so many competing interests. Fair use MUST be reasonably defined - how to easily support quoting and linking to internet interest groups for news and media has to be supported.

It's RIAA's goal to eliminate physical media, that way they can retain 100% control eventually by having all music paid streaming.

Personally, I don't pirate, assuming that you don't count making mix tapes from LP's and CD's that I own. Now with the iPod, I just don't need to do that anymore.
 
2012-02-08 12:07:56 PM
I'm still paying money for musical content. Not because I don't know how to get it for free (hell, even my 75-year-old mom can do that). No... I do it because I'm not so poor that I have to steal what I want.

The RIAA are arseholes, that much is true. But that doesn't mean I've a thief. I'm better than that.

Maybe you're not. Whatever.
 
2012-02-08 12:08:52 PM

maxheck: fracto73:

T.M.S.: What has been stolen and from whom?

I have no idea WHAT was stolen.


And thats the problem with your reasoning, no one is missing anything. Everyone involved has at least what they had before.

You should consult with a lawyer on that, and then tell him you're going to stiff him on his consultation fee because nothing physical was taken from him.



A more analogous example would be if I paid him for his service and then posted it here for everyone else. If you then read that advice would you have stolen from him?
 
2012-02-08 12:09:14 PM

fracto73: Those barriers are a big issue, to me at least. If I were to download something that I could not get legally then it cannot be said that the content owner is losing money, since there is no mechanism for me to give them my money for their content.


For that matter, even if you downloaded something that you could get by paying for it, the content owner could still not be said to be "losing money" (at least not without a drastic redefinition of the term "losing"). The only way the idea of the content owner "losing money" would be applicable is if you wanted to pay, but were somehow prevented from doing so.
 
2012-02-08 12:10:56 PM

T.M.S.: FightDirector:

So, haters of piracy (specifically you, T.M.S, since I otherwise grok your complaints about piracy), how exactly do you propose to do this without limiting the ability of the people to trade their 1's and 0's that don't break copyright?

I honestly have no idea. It's not my job to figure those things out.

But what we have right now is an extraordinary sense of entitlement to other peoples property.

And as some one who makes his living licensing work I have a problem with that.


Believe me, I do too. But I can't in good conscience torch the entire internet to protect it. The internet is specifically designed to allow people to trade those 1's and 0's with each other. I don't think it's even possible to differentiate which 1's and 0's are copywritten and which aren't. At least, not without a human being personally examining EVERY packet transmitted - something I think we can all agree is ludicrous.

The path of least resistance here is forcing a change in business model upon the copyright holders and those people - like you and I - who make a big portion of their living on the licensing of something that can be reduced to those pesky 1's and 0's, because I really do think the alternative ends up shuting down the internet in toto.

Which sucks for us, no question. But I'm not willing to say "fark you, I've got mine" to everybody else who uses the internet. Are you?
 
Displayed 50 of 585 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report