SOPA/PIPA Petition: Sign this People

[WhiteAccord]

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Already have everyone in my office to sign. It takes 10 secs at most.

[Potter]

Done.

[Vteckidd]

Yoi know this only effects foreign servers right?
You know the language to block US and foreign domain names was dropped right?

You know this amounts to FUCK ALL for censoring the internet right?

You guys should actually read up on the issue rather than blindly posting propaganda you don't even understand.

The bill in it's current form wont do anything to the internet or ebay or google, even if it did, all it would do is block a domain name if they were found to have pirated material, the IP address would still be valid. All they have to do is redirect.

But even so, the language that gives the justice department the authority to shutdown domain names has been ELIMINATED from the bill.

[WhiteAccord]

Yoi know this only effects foreign servers right?
You know the language to block US and foreign domain names was dropped right?

You know this amounts to FUCK ALL for censoring the internet right?

You guys should actually read up on the issue rather than blindly posting propaganda you don't even understand.

The bill in it's current form wont do anything to the internet or ebay or google, even if it did, all it would do is block a domain name if they were found to have pirated material, the IP address would still be valid. All they have to do is redirect.

But even so, the language that gives the justice department the authority to shutdown domain names has been ELIMINATED from the bill.

Correct and Agreed, but in my opinion this is the first stepping stone to internet censorship(Ex. China, N. Korea, Singapore, Etc.)

Today it may be to halt the piracy invasion, tomorrow it may stop you from informing the others what you just informed them.

I prefer to stop gov. growth and their handle on what we can view.

This is about ownership of a free web. The internet will change if these bills passed, or even changed to be watered down and it will not be a good change.

CENSORSHIP IS UNCONSTITIONAL AND WRONG!

[.blank cd]

The bill language is vague. Leaves way too much to political interpretation. You might wanna read the bill and it's implications a little more. This is just old codgy politicians trying to regulate something they know nothing about. Needs better details or it needs to be trashed. It's an underhanded attempt at censorship.

It doesn't sound like he's slinging propaganda to me. Sign the petition or don't sign it.

[Vteckidd]

Oh no the govt is here to steal our guns pirated music LOL

Yeah and Napster shutting down killed pirated music /sarcasm.

My point is this is blown way out of proportion. There is ZERO threat of internet being censored __

[Vteckidd]

On January 12, 2012, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing PIPA, [72][73] and House sponsor Lamar Smith announced [74] that provisions related to DNS redirection would be pulled from their respective bills. [75][76]

Secondly, Mozilla already has software embedded in their browser that would translate blocked DNS into the ip addresses for you.

They couldn't BLOCK anything, they would only redirect you, and even that's been removed from the bill.

Lastly, this bill is aimed at music, movie, drug piracy. Billions of dollars are lost when people sell fake drugs from Canada that kill people.

Movies music, fall of Napster gave rise to iTunes and Amazon. I download movies but buy my music cause of quality.

Somethjng has to give and if they crack down on pirated music so be it.

[.blank cd]

Lastly, this bill is aimed at music, movie, drug piracy. Billions of dollars are lost when people sell fake drugs from Canada that kill people.People also sell bullets that kill people, maybe we should be regulating the ammunition industry some more


Movies music, fall of Napster gave rise to iTunes and Amazon. I download movies but buy my music cause of quality.

Somethjng has to give and if they crack down on pirated music so be it.
The thing is, they want to put a piece of vague legislation that these people aren't too familiar with, and it won't do much of anything to stop filesharing anyway

I have the same stance on the war on drugs, this is the beginning of the war on "piracy". The Internet, while fairly new itself, and still evolving, is an avenue of free speech. We haven't yet totally defined it (mostly because we don't have much of the young generation in a place of such power, probably because such people are smarter than politicians) so we can't really regulate it.

And I don't feel one ounce of sympathy for anyone in Hollywood. Ask me why

[Vteckidd]

You can't equate bullets who are designed to kill with medical drugs which go through rigorous testing to ensure side effects aren't deadly, only to be ripped off and changed with no oversight, sold illegally, and end ip killing someone.

That was the worst analogy ever.

If you buy a fucking bullet and shoot yourself, you expect to die

If you buy Canadian VIAGRA you expect to get a hard on, not a heart attack.

Malpractice is malpractice in any industry.

I don't feel bad for Hollywood either, but they have a point. Copyright material being pirated IS ILLEGAL. You should expect them to fight it.

I have no problem with people getting caught with illegal downloads of copyright material, but there should be standards set, guidelines.

A 16 year old girl downloading Katy Perry's new single shouldn't be treated like thepiratebay.org

[.blank cd]

If you buy prescription drugs on the Internet, you are as stupid as the person that sold em to you. But who am I to tell you what you can and can't do with your body?

[quickdodge®]

I voted for the other petition. Later, QD.

[Echonova]

shouldn't be treated like thepiratebay.orgLove that site.

[RL...]

Any type of governmental internet censorship is a bad thing. It's arguably the best "invention" of all time and must be kept free and uncensored. I've already written to my district's congressman about how i feel about it.

[Vteckidd]

My point wasn't really about whether you're for or against it, my point was don't misrepresent it.

People saying the internet will be shut down or censored don't understand the bill and what it says.

Blank. Without SOME regulationdrugs would kill. I find it funny you're on the "let businesses operate with no regulation" side suddenly

[.blank cd]

I'm not against all regulation, and I'm not for all regulation either. I like to look deeper into regulation, to see who it protects, and who it gives all the power to. While I do download some music without paying for it, I'm kinda ok with record labels suing p2p sites for profiting off their product. music rights is still something I'm on the fence about, but that's another issue entirely. This bill does nothing more than broaden the powers that Hollywood and the government already have. Sure, they might not start censoring stuff right away, but do you trust that since they're already stretching the powers they have, that they won't try to stretch this as far as they can?

And I'm not so sure zero regulation on drugs would kill more people. If there were no regulation on heroin tomorrow, would you die from it? Do you think that if the gov't treated weed and coke like cigs and alcohol, it wouldn't put some drug dealers out of business?

[RL...]

The internet should not be regulated by the government. That's all there is to it, it's that simple.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm not against all regulation, and I'm not for all regulation either. I like to look deeper into regulation, to see who it protects, and who it gives all the power to. While I do download some music without paying for it, I'm kinda ok with record labels suing p2p sites for profiting off their product. music rights is still something I'm on the fence about, but that's another issue entirely. This bill does nothing more than broaden the powers that Hollywood and the government already have. Sure, they might not start censoring stuff right away, but do you trust that since they're already stretching the powers they have, that they won't try to stretch this as far as they can?

Would you be OK with someone giving away copies of a book you wrote without paying you for it? What about a new computer program you spent the last year working on that would rival iTunes?

And I'm not so sure zero regulation on drugs would kill more people. If there were no regulation on heroin tomorrow, would you die from it? Do you think that if the gov't treated weed and coke like cigs and alcohol, it wouldn't put some drug dealers out of business?[/QUOTE]


In this case a lot more people would end up dead. I do believe there would be more junkies running around. Everyone knows the effect of meth and heroin, yet every day more people start it. If you make it easier and safer to get, it will lead to more expiramental use, that wold lead to more addicts, that would lead to more crimes committed by junkies to support their habit.


BTW, I am all for decriminalization of anything less than trafficking charges. Small time dealers and users are a dime a dozen and you could never arrest and lock up enough of them to make any dent in industry. The way to make a dent is to find the actual traffickers who deal in large quantities.


The internet should not be regulated by the government. That's all there is to it, it's that simple.


The internet is already regulated by the FCC.




I actually agree with the premise of these bills, but as usual, congress screwed it up. I swear, those idiots we sent to DC could take the most well intentioned idea in the world and turn it into a massive clusterfuck that is absolutely useless against the problem and adversely affects everyone else.

[.blank cd]

Would you be OK with someone giving away copies of a book you wrote without paying you for it?Writers do this all the time. As a matter of fact they have dedicated facilities where people pick up those free books, and here's the kicker, THE GOVT PAYS FOR THEM!

Talk about socialism.

[Vteckidd]

^^^^yeah but they CHOOSE to give it away free.

What if people want to be compensated for their work.

[.blank cd]

The writer doesn't get to choose to be compensated for his work, the content of the work decides that. Same thing goes for music.

[Vteckidd]

You're flat out wrong.

People write a book and decide what they want to do with it. They can publish it and sell it, give it away for free or never show it to anyone.

People get paid for talent and personal work, they should be able to protect their ideas.

If what you say is true then plagiarism wouldn't exist.

Music is the same way. People compose, write, produce and want to be compensated. If someone steals their work they should be held accountable.

Time is money.

[Vteckidd]

Furthermore you dodged Jimmy's question by going off on some tangent about govt books.

The question is, if you made your livelihood writing, and someone blatantly copied your work and gave it away for free without you being compensated, stealing your money and ideas, would you be OK with it?

[.blank cd]

You're flat out wrong.Nope. If you know anything about the music or book industry, you know it's a little more involved than a writer asking a publisher "hey, print this". If your content sucks, no publisher/label is gonna pick you up.

Plagiarism and piracy are two different things.

I didn't dodge anyone's question. I answered it. Here it is in detail. If I wrote a book, and a publisher decided to print it, I make what I make and that's that. Authors can't and don't go into writing expecting to make a living because most of the time it doesn't happen. The publisher pays you a cut on top, then you get some of the back end sales. If someone takes their copy they bought and gives it to someone else, that means one more person read my book, if I'm a quality author, that's my ultimate goal anyway.

If I write a song an a label decides to pick me up, I make a signing bonus and a little of CD sales on the back end. The thing about music is that they make little on the physical/digital media. Most artists make their money on endorsements and touring. If someone gives the item that they purchased to someone else, that means one more person heard my music, if I'm a quality musician, that's my ultimate goal anyway. Musicians also don't learn music for the money, they are musicians first, money makers second.

[Vteckidd]

You seriously have no clue.

Publishers and record labels make money, they sign you. If you keep taking their / your property and they keep losing money there is no incentive to keep "signing" people.

You act like businesses just shit money out and stealing their property has no consequence to anyone.


But occupy people don't get that, they hate rich people then bitch about no jobs. Their argument /mentality proves how little they know

[Vteckidd]

Your Utopia world doesn't exist. People do work to make money

[.blank cd]

You seriously have no clue.

Publishers and record labels make money, they sign you. If you keep taking their / your property and they keep losing money there is no incentive to keep "signing" people.
I didn't say publishers and record labels didn't make money, but they don't make money signing artists they can't sell. Did you read my comment?

[.blank cd]

It sounds like you think artists and record labels are one in the same person. I would have a completely different answer if you asked me if I was a label exec.

[Vteckidd]

You're right, they gamble/invest in a person.

They THINK they don't KNOW. SO if they invest money in someone, and their investment gets cut down from ONLINE PIRACY then why should they invest in someone again?

You act like publishers and the record labels know superstars before the fact, they don't.

[Vteckidd]

If they commissioned you to write a novel , and they don't recoup their investment because of theft, then you'll never write again, and neither will anyone else.

You think books and CDs magically fucking appear?

You think an author writes a book and it magically turns into paperback?

Businesses front that cost, in hopes of making money. If an author cares about reaching the most people he wants to get paid to write , he cannot get paid to writeif the business sees no investment return to be made.

Maybe in your world people don't have bills to pay or lives to live, or maybe the govt just provides it all. I just know how the real world works

[.blank cd]

I'm totally confused. Didn't I just say all of that?

[.blank cd]

Basically, when you download a song, you're taking from record companies, who are in turn stealing from the artists. That's why you see a big push from the RIAA and not from the artists themselves

But downloading Jay-Zs latest single is the equivalent, to his pocket, of you taking the pennies he accidentally dropped on the floor.

[.blank cd]

Your Utopia world doesn't exist. People do work to make moneyIt's funny, because in my world, there are people that work because they are good at what they do and money comes second. I guess the funny thing is that my world is reality.

[BanginJimmy]

Writers do this all the time. As a matter of fact they have dedicated facilities where people pick up those free books, and here's the kicker, THE GOVT PAYS FOR THEM!


If those books are given away, what is the govt paying for?



The writer doesn't get to choose to be compensated for his work, the content of the work decides that. Same thing goes for music.

Yes, the writer chooses to be compensated for his work. That is what signing a book deal is. Do you really think Stephen King and Tom Clancy write for free? No, they signed a deal with a publisher for write this number of books. When they signed that deal, they got a check for this much money from the publisher. The publisher decided how much to pay him based on previous sales. What if publisher A isnt offering as much as the writer thinks he is worth? Thje writer simply says no thanks, and takes his reputation and product to another publisher to get their offer.


Nope. If you know anything about the music or book industry, you know it's a little more involved than a writer asking a publisher "hey, print this". If your content sucks, no publisher/label is gonna pick you up.

This is true. If you knew anything about the industry though, the publisher only cares about projected sales, no content. Even mediocre at beast content will get a big contract if his/her reputation will bring in big sales.


Plagiarism and piracy are two different things.

They are different, but in this context they are the same. Either way, the person who produced the product is not being compensated for their work.




Authors can't and don't go into writing expecting to make a living because most of the time it doesn't happen.

So you think Clancy and King dont expect to make money off a book they write?


If someone takes their copy they bought and gives it to someone else, that means one more person read my book, if I'm a quality author, that's my ultimate goal anyway.

No, an authors goal is to write books that people will pay for. Just like any other job, they are in it to make money. Most probably fall into that elusive category of those that actually enjoy doing what they do for a living but dont make that out to be anything more than that. It is still their job.




If I write a song and a label decides to pick me up, I make a signing bonus and a little of CD sales on the back end. The thing about music is that they make little on the physical/digital media. Most artists make their money on endorsements and touring. If someone gives the item that they purchased to someone else, that means one more person heard my music, if I'm a quality musician, that's my ultimate goal anyway. Musicians also don't learn music for the money, they are musicians first, money makers second.


They artist make make more money off touring, but the label makes their money off sales. I dont care if it is Jay Z, Eminem, Lil Wayne collaboration CD with Dr. Dre and Timberland producing. If they say they are going to release the album for free, there isnt a single record label that is going to sign them. Why? Because the label is going to lose money in the deal.

[BanginJimmy]

Basically, when you download a song, you're taking from record companies, who are in turn stealing from the artists.

Please explain this. How is a record company who signs a contract to an artist for x number of CDs, they pays him 10 mil for those CDs stealing from him?



That's why you see a big push from the RIAA and not from the artists themselves

Thats because they have little to gain or lose in the fight. Look at the self published and self produced artists and you will find a massively different stance.


downloading Jay-Zs latest single is the equivalent, to his pocket, of you taking the pennies he accidentally dropped on the floor.

How about if the label that produces, markets and sells his albums cut his next contract by 50% because sales have dropped because of piracy?

[BanginJimmy]

It's funny, because in my world, there are people that work because they are good at what they do and money comes second. I guess the funny thing is that my world is reality.


How many plumbers and roofers do you know that do it because they love the work? How many pro athletes do you think would be pro athletes if they made 100k a year instead of a million? How many Hollywood actors would put up with all the BS for 50K a year?


Before you say anything stupid, I know there are people that dont make a lot of money that simply enjoy what they do, but we also know they are in the vast minority. I am speaking in genreal terms and really couldnt care less about your friend Jimbo from HS who loves pumping septic tanks.

[.blank cd]

Please explain this. How is a record company who signs a contract to an artist for x number of CDs, they pays him 10 mil for those CDs stealing from him?Because there's another 70-80 mil behind that in fluff that the artist will never see.Not that 10 mil isn't enough money, but all the extra the record companies. I'm gonna sell your music that you wrote for $10 and give you a couple bucks.

And yes, I know theres marketing costs involved.





Thats because they have little to gain or lose in the fight. Look at the self published and self produced artists and you will find a massively different stance.I've talked to them, and for the most part they're largely unaffected by it, and it's just like I said, they'd rather have more people listening to they're music.




How about if the label that produces, markets and sells his albums cut his next contract by 50% because sales have dropped because of piracy?Well RocNation (Jay-Z) pretty much takes care of that so he'd be taking from his own pocket. Once you get up to a level like that, you're pretty much self reliant.

[.blank cd]

How many plumbers and roofers do you know that do it because they love the work? How many pro athletes do you think would be pro athletes if they made 100k a year instead of a million? How many Hollywood actors would put up with all the BS for 50K a year?I know plenty of ball players who would love to play regardless of the salary. That's what pissed me off about the NBA strike. All these divas wanting more money, acting like they were doing such a service for the world, complaining that they were close to broke. I guarantee you out of all the colleges and high schools and what not, I could fire the entire NBA squad and have them all replaced for a QUARTER of what they're making.

Lol. You act like actors, athletes and musicians have been getting paid millions of dollars since the beginning of time. Sorry to say, that's far from the truth

What do you think about the people that aspire to be teachers, firefighters, police, military, EMTs?

[BanginJimmy]

I know plenty of ball players who would love to play regardless of the salary.

I have a very hard time believing that even a #3 DH would be playing MLB for 100K a year not to mention an NBA or NFL player who puts 10x the stress on their body that anyone but a pitcher and catcher does in baseball.


That's what pissed me off about the NBA strike. All these divas wanting more money, acting like they were doing such a service for the world, complaining that they were close to broke. [/quote]

players were actually looking for a higher percentage of basketball related sales, the fruits of their labors.

What do you think about the people that aspire to be teachers, firefighters, police, military, EMTs?[/QUOTE]


Some of them chose a profession they enjoy. Some because their other life plans did not work out. Some because they look at it as a stepping stone. Enlisted military is mostly composed of those that saw it as a way out of a bad situation at home. Whether that be money, crime, lack of other choices. I joined the military because I was in a dead end job with no real hope of advancement and I was too broke for school. The military was always a stepping stone for me as a way to leasrn a trade that could be used outside the military. Officers are a little different. There are a lot of them that also use the military as job training or a way to pay for their college. There are also a great many that are multi generational military that truely enjoy it. That is MUCH more prevelent on the officer side than the enlisted side.

Teachers typically scored low on SAT's and GRE's. Many may have wanted to do something else, but their test scores prevented them from doing so.
http://www.educationnews.org/articles/gre-scores-of-school-administrators-.html

Police and firefighters are kind of like the military. They are kind of a niche profession that attracts a lot of multi generation applicants.

[.blank cd]

I dont know if y'all heard, but the govt has clearly shown that they don't need SOPA or PIPA. They cleverly circumvented US law to shut down Megaupload yesterday (a foreign based server, like the ones they created SOPA for? hmm). Like I said, you give them an inch, they take the circumference of the globe.

[BanginJimmy]

Because there's another 70-80 mil behind that in fluff that the artist will never see.Not that 10 mil isn't enough money, but all the extra the record companies. I'm gonna sell your music that you wrote for $10 and give you a couple bucks.

And yes, I know theres marketing costs involved.

The label takes ALL of the risks. If that artist that signed the 10 mil deal bombs and sells a grand total of 10k albums, he still keeps that 10 mil while the label is out that 10 mil, plus another 10 mil they paid to produce and market that album.





I've talked to them, and for the most part they're largely unaffected by it, and it's just like I said, they'd rather have more people listening to they're music.

Aspiring artists you are probably correct. They need their name out more than anything. Established artists are a different story.




Well RocNation (Jay-Z) pretty much takes care of that so he'd be taking from his own pocket. Once you get up to a level like that, you're pretty much self reliant.

OK Jay Z is a bad example because he is the producer. Obviously you know what I am saying though, your response proves it. You just dont want to confront it.

[.blank cd]

What I'm saying is that the real artists who get into the mainstream music biz don't go into it expecting a bankroll and that it is ultimately up to the quality of the content that decides whether or not you're gonna be a millionaire.

If you look through your iPod, 90% (I'm being really generous here, probably closer to 99%) will see a VERY minimal impact from unpaid downloads of music.

Think about how many songs you've downloaded and didn't pay for, and think of how many albums you've bought as a direct result of the song you downloaded. What about all the songs you've "downloaded" that turned out to be garbage music anyway? The last CD I downloaded was the leak of Tha Carter 4. I don't like little Wayne in the first place, but I downloaded it anyway and, surprise, the album was garbage, if it was any good, I would have purchased the lossless version from apple (cause I'm a stickler for sound quality) So in the end, neither Wayne, nor his label would have seen a red cent from me anyway

[BanginJimmy]

What I'm saying is that the real artists who get into the mainstream music biz don't go into it expecting a bankroll and that it is ultimately up to the quality of the content that decides whether or not you're gonna be a millionaire.

Are you honestly saying that Jay Z stopped slinging crack and started making music without the intention of making money? Do you honestly think I am that stupid?


If you look through your iPod, 90% (I'm being really generous here, probably closer to 99%) will see a VERY minimal impact from unpaid downloads of music.

We have already been over the fact that the individual artists dont see a meaningful impact from illegal downloads. The labels do see the impact though and it does have an effect on their contracts.


Think about how many songs you've downloaded and didn't pay for, and think of how many albums you've bought as a direct result of the song you downloaded. What about all the songs you've "downloaded" that turned out to be garbage music anyway? The last CD I downloaded was the leak of Tha Carter 4. I don't like little Wayne in the first place, but I downloaded it anyway and, surprise, the album was garbage, if it was any good, I would have purchased the lossless version from apple (cause I'm a stickler for sound quality) So in the end, neither Wayne, nor his label would have seen a red cent from me anyway


I've never purchased an album as a result of music I illegally downloaded. Back when I did download music, I had a site I used that you got uncompressed, CD quality music. The site is likely down now even if I could remember the name of it.

[.blank cd]

Are you honestly saying that Jay Z stopped slinging crack and started making music without the intention of making money? Do you honestly think I am that stupid?Jay was well off financially before he went into the music biz. Jay is a notable exception. He pretty much got himself off the ground as far as hip hop goes, but he was still a talented lyricist selling tapes and being a backup singer before he saw his first mainstream music dollar.

[bu villain]

Here is my quick stance on why sharing music should not be illegal:

No one can truly own a sound or an idea and generally the sharing of knowledge and art should be encouraged unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Copyright is not an inalienable human right but simply a societal agreement to promote the development of music. Remember copyright is a very new invention in the history of man and yet there have been musicians for millenia.

The copyright for music supports a particular business model which is selling a recording. This is not the only business model for music (e.g., merchandising, endorsements, shows, etc). Thus with all the possible ways to generate revenue from (or incident to) being a music creator, I no longer feel the reason for music copyright is compelling. In my opinion, the value of allowing free sharing of music, outweighs the need to incentivize music making.

[.blank cd]

Here is my quick stance on why sharing music should not be illegal:

No one can truly own a sound or an idea and generally the sharing of knowledge and art should be encouraged unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Copyright is not an inalienable human right but simply a societal agreement to promote the development of music. Remember copyright is a very new invention in the history of man and yet there have been musicians for millenia.

The copyright for music supports a particular business model which is selling a recording. This is not the only business model for music (e.g., merchandising, endorsements, shows, etc). Thus with all the possible ways to generate revenue from (or incident to) being a music creator, I no longer feel the reason for music copyright is compelling. In my opinion, the value of allowing free sharing of music, outweighs the need to incentivize music making.

This

[BanginJimmy]

Here is my quick stance on why sharing music should not be illegal:

No one can truly own a sound or an idea and generally the sharing of knowledge and art should be encouraged unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Copyright is not an inalienable human right but simply a societal agreement to promote the development of music. Remember copyright is a very new invention in the history of man and yet there have been musicians for millenia.

The copyright for music supports a particular business model which is selling a recording. This is not the only business model for music (e.g., merchandising, endorsements, shows, etc). Thus with all the possible ways to generate revenue from (or incident to) being a music creator, I no longer feel the reason for music copyright is compelling. In my opinion, the value of allowing free sharing of music, outweighs the need to incentivize music making.


I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.


Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture?

What about the next generation of processor for your computer or smart phone? Yep free for everyone.

[.blank cd]

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.I definitely understand. The concept is hard to grasp, but enlightening once you come to terms with it



Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.There are actually FREE alternatives to windows that are actually vastly superior that have been around for a good while. Has windows gone out of business yet?


I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing ventureHow long do you really think Hollywood will remain in business charging $20/ticket to watch a movie when I can wait a few weeks and rent it from Redbox for $1 and play it in the comfort of my own home, where I have better, cheaper concessions, better screen, better sound, and I dont have to deal with people talking/texting/baby crying? They're killing themselves slowly, but a lot faster than piracy is killing them.

[BanginJimmy]

I definitely understand. The concept is hard to grasp, but enlightening once you come to terms with it

You actually think thats enlightening? I hope I would never have to come to terms with a reality in which my intellectual property is free for anyone to use and I get no compensation for it.



There are actually FREE alternatives to windows that are actually vastly superior that have been around for a good while. Has windows gone out of business yet?

I dont care as it has nothing to do with this conversation. I asked if you think Bill Dbees should be required to make Windows free for everyone to use.


How long do you really think Hollywood will remain in business charging $20/ticket to watch a movie when I can wait a few weeks and rent it from Redbox for $1 and play it in the comfort of my own home, where I have better, cheaper concessions, better screen, better sound, and I dont have to deal with people talking/texting/baby crying? They're killing themselves slowly, but a lot faster than piracy is killing them.


Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

[Vteckidd]

Ever think ticket prices increase because of theft? Gasp!

LOL its not even worth arguing because their concept of how business invests and works is so absolutely wrong they can't comprehend simple supply and demand economics.

They act like an artist makes 1 deal and then its out of their hands, and in their world, people are driven by fuzzy feelings and warm hearts.

Yet every rapper talks about how rich they are.

[Vteckidd]

This

Its nice rhetoric but its not how the world works. We pay people for talent, which society usually determines.

Its perfectly OK for people to want to be rich, and to do something to be rich.

Kanye makes music to BE RICH. Not cause he gives a shit about telling you some particular message.


N***as in paris , while i love the song, is hardly a fucking intelligent conversational piece. Its a song bragging about HOW RICH THEY ARE.

Labels an publishers decide what to pay people based on what they think they can make. Compensation is based in investment projection,demand, marketing, etc.

Music is an artistical expression which IS protected by copyright. It is intellectual property. Courts have already determined this.

[RL...]

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.


Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture?

What about the next generation of processor for your computer or smart phone? Yep free for everyone.

Exactly....what bu said makes no sense at all. I guess Bu wouldn't mind working for free? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

[.blank cd]

Kanye makes music to BE RICH. Not cause he gives a shit about telling you some particular message.I'm not sure if you know this, but that's pretty far from the truth and how it actually works, and hardly a
minuscule scope of Kanye's lyrical or musical repertoire. If you're basing it on the lyrics of one song, that that's pretty short sighted. If what you said was true, any and every idiot who decided to rap or punch a soundboard would be millionaires. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. He may continue to make music now that it makes him money, but he knew before he got into it that this business isn't guaranteed.

[Vteckidd]

Then you're absolutely fucking retarded, to be polite.

I probably listen and know more hip hop and music in general than most anyone. I'm well aware of kanyes lyrics.

People like being musicians sure, but they also expect to be compensated.

[Vteckidd]

Have you ever listened to LAST CALL

He raps about how BROKE AND POOR HE WAS, GETTING EVICTED, HOPING HIS NEXT BEAT WOULD GET HIM PAID.

So spare me the rappers of the world unite bullshit

[Vteckidd]

Common prob delivers a message more, but even he is motivated by being successful.

If what you say is true, then they would all refuse the MILLIONS IN DOLLARS they make

[quickdodge®]

I probably listen and know more hip hop and music in general than most anyone.

Goddamn tall wor............ohh...I see it now. You said "most anyone," lolol. Carry on. Later, QD.

[bu villain]

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.


Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture?

What about the next generation of processor for your computer or smart phone? Yep free for everyone.

I didn't say anything about software or movies so I'm not sure why you brought that up. And a processor? That's hardware, even more irrelevant to my argument. I'm not sure why you are all so upset about my stance. It's simply my opinion that I would rather live in a country that allows music to be shared freely even though it will likely come at a cost of less music being produced. If by chance I am wrong and all music creation would cease without the ability to sell a CD or digital download, then I would have to rethink my position. I don't see this as a moral issue, just as an issue of how much we need to incentivize the creation of art.

Dance movements aren't protected by intellectual property laws. Do you think they should be so dancers can make more money off their art? Or do you feel musicians deserve more protection than other artists?

[Vteckidd]

If a person wants to copyright their dance moves they should be able too

[bu villain]

If a person wants to copyright their dance moves they should be able too

I disagree. The freedom to move your body in any way you want is more important than giving dancers another way to make money...(waiting for outrage)

[.blank cd]

::waiting for the day when all dance moves are copyrighted and I can't walk to my car without getting sued::

[Vteckidd]

I disagree. The freedom to move your body in any way you want is more important than giving dancers another way to make money...(waiting for outrage)

I should have been more clear.

If someone comes up with a form of choreography that is unique and uses that in a show or something should be able to protect it somehow


Meaning a kid at a club doing the moves isn't liable, but someone who copies it and creates an identical show for profit should be liable

[Vteckidd]

Dancing is like painting, its hard to copyright

Music itself isn't copyrighted. Its the physical media that is. If you sing a kanye song you aren't stealing, cover bands aren't stealing.

Copying media without purchase is stealing

[.blank cd]

So a guy walks into the Atlanta Journal Constitution headquarters and buys a paper for $2, he parks himself across the street with his own copy machine, runs off 1000 copies of it and says "hey everyone, I've got the AJC for free, come get it". So all of the customers who were gonna go inside and get the AJC instead goes to him and gets a copy for free.

Let's say you left your wallet at home and only had $5 in your pocket. You're hungry but you want a copy of the paper too. You can get a sandwich for $5, but if you buy the paper, you can't. So you go pick up a copy from this guy and still get a sandwich.

Who is at fault there?

[Vteckidd]

The Guy is stealing. He's at fault, not the person getting it for free IMO.

The Guy purposefully stealing the paper, reproducing it without consent, and giving it away is wrong.

The guy taking a free copy, is just being smart.

I don't think the RIAA should gop after individual downloaders, rather the sites who knowingly host illegal copyright material.

RIAA and Hollywood also need to find a way to secure their assets, its on them to invent a technology that will better protect their property.

[Vteckidd]

In your example the guy making copies has intent, intent to defraud and steal.

The $5 guy just wants the cheapest product he can find

Remember when we all used to copy tapes, or record radio songs in the 80s, technically that was stealing. Or rent VHS tapes and "dub" them? Stealing.

Difference is back then you were severely limited to who you could share physical media with. It was usually friends and people in close proximity.

Now, you can share 1 "dub" with 10,000,000 people you don't even know. The problem is far greater now thanks to technology.

I never though the guys selling fake Gucci purses new York really effect GUCCI because the fake copy quality is not up to par.

Music, it can be identical to the original media

[.blank cd]

The Guy is stealing. He's at fault, not the person getting it for free IMO.

The Guy purposefully stealing the paper, reproducing it without consent, and giving it away is wrong.But this guy didn't really steal anything. He went in and legitimately purchased a real copy of the paper, which paid for AJC's inks, manpower, paper, etc, and he's not claiming it as his own IP. He has his own copy machine and his own paper.

What if instead of giving it away, he charged 25 cents for it?

[Vteckidd]

But this guy didn't really steal anything. He went in and legitimately purchased a real copy of the paper, which paid for AJC's inks, manpower, paper, etc, and he's not claiming it as his own IP. He has his own copy machine and his own paper.

What if instead of giving it away, he charged 25 cents for it?

I totally get what you're saying, but its still viewed as theft

[.blank cd]

I totally get what you're saying, but its still viewed as theft

Are you sure? So if I go inside AJC, purchase a paper, and then leave, I should be charged with theft?

[Vteckidd]

Are you sure? So if I go inside AJC, purchase a paper, and then leave, I should be charged with theft?

No that's legal. But if someone from the AJC found you selling or distributing copyrighted material to other people without them paying for it, then yes, that's is considered illegal.

Ever watch an NFL or NBA game, there's always that 10 second "ant copying, taping, reproduction of this broadcast without express written consent constitutes blahblahblah".

Purchasing the paper is fine, copying it is illegal, copying it to distribute is illegal.

In your scenario the second he copies the paper he is Technically violating copyright law

[Vteckidd]

That is of the paper is protected by that law

[ISAtlanta300]

::waiting for the day when all dance moves are copyrighted and I can't walk to my car without getting sued::

As long as you're not making money off of it, You won't get sued.

[ISAtlanta300]

I should have been more clear.

If someone comes up with a form of choreography that is unique and uses that in a show or something should be able to protect it somehow


Meaning a kid at a club doing the moves isn't liable, but someone who copies it and creates an identical show for profit should be liable

Key word there. For Profit. VtecKidd hits the nail on the head.

[ISAtlanta300]

I never though the guys selling fake Gucci purses new York really effect GUCCI because the fake copy quality is not up to par.



Unless he is using the Gucci name, design, or logo... which is copyrighted.

[ISAtlanta300]

But this guy didn't really steal anything. He went in and legitimately purchased a real copy of the paper, which paid for AJC's inks, manpower, paper, etc, and he's not claiming it as his own IP. He has his own copy machine and his own paper.

What if instead of giving it away, he charged 25 cents for it?

He won't get in trouble if he is not making money off of it. Just like you can get yourself free USA Today's newspapers at airport lounges or in your hotel room. Or read books for free at your local Barnes and Nobles.

If he charges .25 cents for it, it's stealing intellectual property.

** CORRECTION: In your case, since he made COPIES, he can actually get in trouble. Like Vteckidd says, he is reproducing and distributing copyrighted content without explicit permission from the author(s).

It all boils down to intent. If he buys the paper and takes it to his office and puts it on the desk in the break room for everyone to read if they want to, that's fine.

If he makes 10.000 copies, he is REPRODUCING a copyrighted content, which is wrong.

[.blank cd]

If he makes 10.000 copies, he is REPRODUCING a copyrighted content, which is wrongso you're arguing that the act of reproduction for profit and/or personal gain makes it illegal, correct?

[Vteckidd]

so you're arguing that the act of reproduction for profit and/or personal gain makes it illegal, correct?

when the work belongs to someone else yes.

Plagiarism is stealing from another author, copyright really goes to the intellectual property, rights, media, money in works.

In your scenario, the SECOND the guy makes copies of the paper, he is TECHNICALLY doing something illegal and is liable. the AJC pays people to write, they then sell what they write , if you buy from them, no one is saying you cant let your buddy borrow the sports section at work. But if you go out an willingly and maliciously reproduce their product that could threaten their business, they CAN sue you and i bet you would be found guilty.

Do you think the RIAA cares if you let me borrow the newest Katy Perry cd? no, they dont. But they do care if you decide to uplaod the CD to a File Sharing service and distribute it for free to hundreds of thousands of other people.

the reproduction for profit of someone elses COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL is illegal, so is giving it away for free.

I mean, its not that hard to comprehend. IF you buy a movie ticket YOURE allowed entry, not you and 5 other people just because you bought a ticket.

but if you buy a bluray you can invite 40 people over, who cares. but if you COPY the movie to distribute, theyll come after you.

[Vteckidd]

Im kinda on both sides of this issue. Have you heard what they are proposing to do in the video game industry? People buy a $65 video game. They play it, they beat it, they sell it back to gamestop for $25, gamestop then sells it for $60, then $50, then $40 etc. Gamestop makes a profit on the same game sometimes 3-4-5 times. The developer only makes it once, the initial sale.

Well, the developers are arguing that its a form of piracy. when the user buys the game at MSRP, and sells it back legally to Gamestop, and then another person buys it "used" , the developers are arguing that they are losing that second customer. The guy who waits a week to buy it used, should HAVE to buy it from the developer, not the gamestop.

I dont know if i agree with that. are they going to outlaw all games for sale on ebay then? are you not allowed to ever sell your video game after you play it? Are they going to make games locked to 1 console for 1 use only? so no replay value? I have no idea how you fix it other than

A) Lower your prices
B) offer some kind of incentive to keep the game.
C) the best way would be to make all games digital downloads tied to your social security number or something. So the game is stored in the cloud and is always for your access, but makes it much harder to "resell" or "redistribute".

[.blank cd]

So then technically it's illegal, but technically its not.

If I set a news paper down in a break room and 50 people read it, it's perfectly legal. One person exchanges money for a packet of information, 50 people read it and acquire the same information for free. If I take that paper and copy it 50 times and set it in everyone's office, it's criminal. Same packet of information, same people reading it

[.blank cd]

Im kinda on both sides of this issue. Have you heard what they are proposing to do in the video game industry? People buy a $65 video game. They play it, they beat it, they sell it back to gamestop for $25, gamestop then sells it for $60, then $50, then $40 etc. Gamestop makes a profit on the same game sometimes 3-4-5 times. The developer only makes it once, the initial sale.

Well, the developers are arguing that its a form of piracy. when the user buys the game at MSRP, and sells it back legally to Gamestop, and then another person buys it "used" , the developers are arguing that they are losing that second customer. The guy who waits a week to buy it used, should HAVE to buy it from the developer, not the gamestop.

I dont know if i agree with that. are they going to outlaw all games for sale on ebay then? are you not allowed to ever sell your video game after you play it? Are they going to make games locked to 1 console for 1 use only? so no replay value? I have no idea how you fix it other than

A) Lower your prices
B) offer some kind of incentive to keep the game.
C) the best way would be to make all games digital downloads tied to your social security number or something. So the game is stored in the cloud and is always for your access, but makes it much harder to "resell" or "redistribute".

This is where the whole IP issue is muddy! You can't say exactly who or what is ultimately the end user!

[Vteckidd]

So then technically it's illegal, but technically its not.

If I set a news paper down in a break room and 50 people read it, it's perfectly legal. One person exchanges money for a packet of information, 50 people read it and acquire the same information for free. If I take that paper and copy it 50 times and set it in everyone's office, it's criminal. Same packet of information, same people reading it

absolutely which i think comes down to what we are both trying to say.

You buy a newspaper and leave it in the breakroom and 50 people read it, no big deal.

You buy a newspaper, copy it, and distribute it to 50 people to read, "illegal".

The problem is the motive of the latter. Both instances have the same outcome, but in example 1, 1 media is shared between 50 people. in the second example, 1 media is replicated and copied to be distributed.

IMO its the act of COPYING that sends them into distress. The RIAA knows that 1 CD being lent through an office building is not something they can ever stop. But what they are deathly afraid of is you copying that cd, then giving it to someone else (while still possessing the original) because then, the piracy grows exponentially. You LOAN 1 CD out, its a very slow and tedious process to spread, and once its done being loaned, the cd is moved on. Or, the person goes out an buys it.

If you COPY that CD and give it to everyone in your building, then they can copy and distribute the copy, so on and so forth. Also, a copy removes the incentive to go out and purchase the original.

Take your break room for instance, leave a newspaper behind. Well if someone WANTS a certain article to keep or bring home, they have to go out an buy the paper. You COPY it, they no longer have to do that.

i believe that is at the heart of the issue

[Vteckidd]

Also. copying allows you to simultaneously distribute the media to 50 people at once for mass consumption. That is far faster than 50 people sharing 1 news paper at a time.

[Vteckidd]

This is where the whole IP issue is muddy! You can't say exactly who or what is ultimately the end user!

i think it comes down to ultimately prices are too high, and games are too fast to complete. The whole reason the used market exists is because people feel its too expensive to buy initially, so they wait till it comes down in price. the only way to really do away with that is to lower your price so it makes gamestop unable to compete. If new games were suddenly $30, not 65, gamestop would have to buy back the games for what, $5-10? People wont do that, and for gamestop to make a decent profit they would have to set the price at $20-25. I believe people would just pay the $30 for the new game at that point, and it would severely kill gamestops revenue.

[RandomGuy]

great post, new link destination up top thx to u