https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
Already have everyone in my office to sign. It takes 10 secs at most.
SOPA/PIPA Petition: Sign this People
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
Already have everyone in my office to sign. It takes 10 secs at most.
Done.
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Correct and Agreed, but in my opinion this is the first stepping stone to internet censorship(Ex. China, N. Korea, Singapore, Etc.)Originally Posted by Vteckidd
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!
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.
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 __
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
People also sell bullets that kill people, maybe we should be regulating the ammunition industry some more
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
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
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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?
I voted for the other petition. Later, QD.
Last edited by quickdodge®; 01-18-2012 at 03:42 PM.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
Love that site.
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.
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
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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?
The internet should not be regulated by the government. That's all there is to it, it's that simple.
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 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.
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.
^^^^yeah but they CHOOSE to give it away free.
What if people want to be compensated for their work.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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.
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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.
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
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Your Utopia world doesn't exist. People do work to make money
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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?
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.
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I'm totally confused. Didn't I just say all of that?
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.
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.
If those books are given away, what is the govt paying for?
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.
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.
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.
So you think Clancy and King dont expect to make money off a book they write?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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/article...strators-.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.
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.
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.
Aspiring artists you are probably correct. They need their name out more than anything. Established artists are a different story.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
