[Shinrei]

Again?

Attached File(s)

•  house.jpg (145.84K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[worry]

HoosierDaddy, on 02 December 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

worrywort, on 02 December 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Indeed, you should spend the entirety of the very little time on earth you have listening only to the music and watching only the movies you can afford. What good is a death bed if you don't have regrets to cuddle up with?

I don't really buy the Jean Valjean here. This isn't life or death and to pretend to place these things on such a level as to qualify this as a "quality of life" argument is fairly preposterous. One can enjoy quite a high quality of life without pirating protected music, movies, or anything else.

If were going to argue for the Revolution, well, let's go ahead and leave the music and movies out of this shit and go straight to money: Interpretative Dance. That's where the money is really at.

Of course it's preposterous, but no more preposterous than taking the hardline stance on the other end just for the sake of it. It's laughable to pretend downloading an mp3 is the same as stealing a car, or depriving a person of their private property, or that any of this should weigh heavy on people's consciences. Is it less ethical than stealing food to save your family? Yeah sure, but so what? So is working 80 hours a week to feed the kids you never see. So is jaywalking. What exactly is the intention of all this blustery language about how low level piracy is as stealing (as if stealing was uniform) and you ought to feel ashamed, blah blah blah, soapbox nonsense? Just to make the downloader feel guilty? And now that you've accomplished that, what next? Should they be formatting their mp3 players? Turning themselves in to the authorities? Cuz we certainly can't stand the idea of anyone getting away with anything. And so that calls for granting the attorney general unilateral power over banning non-US websites, eliminating the need for warrants, easing the burden of proof from actual law enforcement, casting a gigantic net to catch some pretty small fish, and forcing private sector companies and individuals to become legal watchdogs.

I mean we're still talking about the bill in question right? Obdi made it perfectly clear that he wasn't necessarily supporting the bill, but then what's the point of the guilt trip? If people weren't pirating in the first place, these draconian measures wouldn't be necessary? Well, they aren't necessary, at all, ever, regardless of how many people are pirating media. And really, the act of piracy itself isn't motivating these lobbying groups anyway. The music industry didn't delude itself into believing piracy was the cause of its shrinking profits...it consciously feigns that excuse while it's actually just the fact that they can no longer rely on blind purchases of albums full of filler and one or two worthy singles. Let's not forget that the music industry colluded and price-fixed/gouged the consumer for a couple decades there with absolutely zero legal consequence, in tandem with the blind buy system. And as I recall, record stores were going out of business quite a bit before mp3 players became the rage; in fact I would place the timing right along side the trend of allowing customers to preview CDs at in-store earphone kiosks...and big surprise, they chose NOT to buy a lot of what the big labels were selling. I would say this is somewhat the case with the movie industry too, though not exactly a perfect fit. Not to mention wages being stagnant while cost of living has skyrocketed, all that kind of stuff. None of which makes this a pro-piracy argument, by the way. Just kind of baffled at the hardline anti-piracy fingerwagging.

[JLV]

To be perfectly clear, I reached a point in my life about a year ago that I decided that pirated of music was against my personal morals.

But I still pirate, I think. I know I copyright infringe. Whenever I want a new music album I watch (listen) to most of the songs on youtube first to make sure I want to buy it from iTunes.

That's still infringement, right? And it doesn't go against my personal morals.

But back to the point of discussion, this bill. From what I've been reading, the governing bodies fucking love it. Doesn't seem like ANYONE outside the government and industry likes it.

Seems like most of America's actions, doesn't it?

[worry]

Well if you've ever visited the Awesome/Funny/etc photos thread in the Phoenix Inn, then you most assuredly are guilty of breaching copyright, so there you go. In fact, it's likely that the vast majority of avatars used on this forum include content that isn't actually owned by the persons using them, which I suppose makes us all thieves. I wouldn't urge you to lose any sleep over it though.

[Illuyankas]

Software copyright needs a massive overhaul anyway, regardless of the antipiracy measures. Just imagine the potential from companies only being able to sit on specific software uses without paying an exorbitant fee for half the time? We'd have much more advanced programs and less shitty developers and producers, for a start.

Also, Obdigore:

Quote

You are right, you deserve everything you could ever want just because you exist. I cannot afford to drive all the cars I want, I'm just going to go borrow them overnight from dealerships when they wont be missed. Sound good?

Hey that 350 foot Yacht you have, I'm going to take it for a week while you are Skiing in Switzerland, I mean I'm not depriving YOU of it since you weren't using it at the time. Sound good?

That is a nice bed, I'm going to sleep in it while you are at work. Sound good?

Fuel costs, engine and tire wear, chance of crashing and wrecking it.

Again, fuel, chance of disaster, etc.

Getting your filthy body all over their nice clean bed. Wear and tear, haha.

These are all shit examples because they're completely wrong. It's more like using the blueprints of the car, the yacht and the bed with a (really big) 3D printer to make exact replicas to use. The originals are not damaged, taken or removed in any way shape or form. You are preventing potential profit from reaching the owners of the copyrighted material you're duplicating. It's still illegal but your analogies here are pretty terrible.

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 02 December 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 02 December 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

worrywort, on 02 December 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Indeed, you should spend the entirety of the very little time on earth you have listening only to the music and watching only the movies you can afford. What good is a death bed if you don't have regrets to cuddle up with?

I don't really buy the Jean Valjean here. This isn't life or death and to pretend to place these things on such a level as to qualify this as a "quality of life" argument is fairly preposterous. One can enjoy quite a high quality of life without pirating protected music, movies, or anything else.

If were going to argue for the Revolution, well, let's go ahead and leave the music and movies out of this shit and go straight to money: Interpretative Dance. That's where the money is really at.

...

I mean we're still talking about the bill in question right? Obdi made it perfectly clear that he wasn't necessarily supporting the bill, but then what's the point of the guilt trip? If people weren't pirating in the first place, these draconian measures wouldn't be necessary? Well, they aren't necessary, at all, ever, regardless of how many people are pirating media. And really, the act of piracy itself isn't motivating these lobbying groups anyway. The music industry didn't delude itself into believing piracy was the cause of its shrinking profits...it consciously feigns that excuse while it's actually just the fact that they can no longer rely on blind purchases of albums full of filler and one or two worthy singles. Let's not forget that the music industry colluded and price-fixed/gouged the consumer for a couple decades there with absolutely zero legal consequence, in tandem with the blind buy system. And as I recall, record stores were going out of business quite a bit before mp3 players became the rage; in fact I would place the timing right along side the trend of allowing customers to preview CDs at in-store earphone kiosks...and big surprise, they chose NOT to buy a lot of what the big labels were selling. I would say this is somewhat the case with the movie industry too, though not exactly a perfect fit. Not to mention wages being stagnant while cost of living has skyrocketed, all that kind of stuff. None of which makes this a pro-piracy argument, by the way. Just kind of baffled at the hardline anti-piracy fingerwagging.

I don't disagree with any of this.

I, and I'm quite sure a lot of other people, just get sick of the holier-than-thou attitude a lot of pirates (one a notoriously close-minded member of this forum) have at the fact that they are doing nothing wrong at all and sticking it to "the man" or whoever else they shift-blame to when it is they who are in fact in the wrong.

So, while I disagree with the real motive behind this legislation and it's grossly overreaching powers, I don't disagree that they have a justified grievance.

[Silencer]

HoosierDaddy, on 02 December 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

I don't disagree with any of this.

I, and I'm quite sure a lot of other people, just get sick of the holier-than-thou attitude a lot of pirates (one a notoriously close-minded member of this forum) have at the fact that they are doing nothing wrong at all and sticking it to "the man" or whoever else they shift-blame to when it is they who are in fact in the wrong.

So, while I disagree with the real motive behind this legislation and it's grossly overreaching powers, I don't disagree that they have a justified grievance.

Again, it comes down to our situation that everyone agrees on the legality, and everyone agrees the Bill goes to far, we just disagree on the ethics and/or justifications behind either side of the debate (though, again, I do think that the simple fact that piracy is a crime means people should not do it, regardless of their opinion on the 'right' and the 'wrong' of it).

Just a-curious, though, about the bold. I know this debate has cropped up heaps, but I'm blanking on said notoriously close-minded member. PM?

[worry]

Ah, that no doubt predates me. I don't particularly agree with either side of that argument, which is part of my point. It's fuzzier than either side would like, and forcing it to be clear cut or easier at the expense of some more important principles isn't a viable solution. The grievance is justified, but it's also overstated (deliberately) and overreaching, as well as mis-focused on the pettiest wrong-doings (at least with the music industry, which I wouldn't necessarily position alongside movies, books, artwork, software, and games anyway).

[Obdigore]

HD is talking about me.

No, seriously, its the same person he longs to return to the religion forums.

Anyway, yes, it is treated the same as theft in my country. Yes, it is annoying to me that numerous people think that its 'ok' to do it because the music industry is 'a big evil corporation' and that they are fighting for their rights to free music.

Meh I say. MEH!

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Obdigore, on 02 December 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

So, did you completely ignore my post after that one?

It is stealing (theft) the rights of the copyright holder to distribute it how and when they please, by taking it for yourself.

I don't really care that you pirated something, then purchased it. Did you ever pirate something and then not purchase it? Pirating stuff is annoying. It certainly isn't the 'problem' that the big recording companies claim, but it is an issue, like many others, that can be addressed.

As I noted in that post you seem to have ignored, I certainly do not agree with this bill at all.

I just wanted to mention, I did read the other things you said. I only disagree with you saying that there isn't a real difference between theft and piracy and the way you portrayed anyone who pirates.
The last bit was just my view on the bill itself.

The difference is important from a moral standpoint, but also from a legal one, as here at least they don't carry nearly the same penalty.

I am aware you probably don't care about the way I used it, but I thought it worth mentioning, as bearing in mind that there are a lot of people who use it this way (and a lot of people who intend to do this then don't buy it because they already have it) means there are things that could be done in the industry to reduce piracy (and yes, there certainly are pirates who feel they have a right to everything too, but this could at least help reduce the amount of piracy). Things that aren't this ridiciulously agressive.
A great suggestion I heard/read somewhere is a throwback to the old shareware model. Allow the beginning of your game out for free for people to try. Not a weird demo, the actual full beginning. Then once they reach your designated stop point they can buy the game to continue. Not have to start again, but actually just continue through with what they started.
As a good video I saw said, the industry's best bet to stop piracy is to see piracy like a competitor, not an enemy. Would you offer a product full of DRM that annoys your paying customers when you have a competitor offering the exact same product free of those hassles? Shift thinking to ways to entice your customer base back. Suggestions like the above that make it easier to play the legit version than the pirated one, then offer them the chance to pay for the game once they have invested time in it, and paying for it is simpler than going and finding a cracked version.
It's an especially viable option with programs like steam.

Anyway, I digress. The thread may broach the piracy is wrong/not doing any harm issue, but in reality, regardless of what you think of the issue, this bill is going too far and is just wrong.
As I said, my final point about my dislike for this bill was not in relation to you Obdi. Just my dislike for the bill.

Silencer, I'm pretty sure it's obvious who if you read the earlier posts where they mention the person who referred back to Torrentfreak for their sources...

[Mentalist]

oh, goody, US corps want to own the Internet.

A few years back, Canadian recording industry took Canadian ISPs to court. they wanted the ISPs to compensate them for music illegally downloaded in Canada. The case went up to the Supreme Court. ISPs won. They also decided that any communication, whether origination or ending in Canada would be considered illegal if the content infringes copyright, but ISPs themselves are not liable for the content they host, unless they are aware it's illegal and fail to do smth about it. there is, however,no duty placed on them to make the inquiries--basically, the Supreme Court refused to assume that all content on the internet is illegal, until proven otherwise.

and last I checked (about a week ago: i'm writing a paper on copyright law, actually), copyright infringement IS different from theft. one is regulated by the Copyright Act, the other by the Criminal Code. At least in Canada.

As for enforcement worldwide: we do have the WIPO convention about copyright of data. I think it has less than 90 members right now. out of the nearly 200 countries worldwide.

wrt to the bill: since it gives corporations power to deal with somethign that should be done by the government via regulation, I oppose it. As a reformed pirate, I realize the issue piracy is, although I do consider the laments about "$100 billions in losses" to be pure BS, since there is no definite proof that the numbers (generally derived off torrent trackers) can be reliably converted into lost sales. And I don't believe that this will actually be all that effective, since the pirates are an inventive bunch, and will find other ways of distributing the info. I have no doubts, however, that the cost of maintaining such a system of surveillance and control will inevitable be passed on to the individual internet users, pirates and non-pirates alike.

Not to mention that this law pretty much throws out presumptions of innocence out the window. by doing this, the corportaions impose the duty on content hosts to ensure their content is legal. in other words, it becomes a base assumption that "Internet users are pirates, and the content they upload and download needs to be inspected". Which is in itself, a major human rights violation.

I'm also quite intrigued by the fact that pharmaceutical giants are involved in this. is there a way to pirate patents now?

[dktorode]

those poor musicians.
i mean....when JT has to leave the industry to take up acting because of piracy then you know how bad it is.

cant afford their Bentley's and have to settle for bmw's and mercs....aawww shame...really makes me feel bad!
Reminds me of that vanillla ice dvd i copied that one time.
no wonder the guy is so fucked up these days.
all my fault.
should not have recorded him on that tape on the radio.

poor guy.

[Mentalist]

Lucifer, on 03 December 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 02 December 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

So, did you completely ignore my post after that one?

It is stealing (theft) the rights of the copyright holder to distribute it how and when they please, by taking it for yourself.

I don't really care that you pirated something, then purchased it. Did you ever pirate something and then not purchase it? Pirating stuff is annoying. It certainly isn't the 'problem' that the big recording companies claim, but it is an issue, like many others, that can be addressed.

As I noted in that post you seem to have ignored, I certainly do not agree with this bill at all.

I just wanted to mention, I did read the other things you said. I only disagree with you saying that there isn't a real difference between theft and piracy and the way you portrayed anyone who pirates.
The last bit was just my view on the bill itself.

The difference is important from a moral standpoint, but also from a legal one, as here at least they don't carry nearly the same penalty.

I am aware you probably don't care about the way I used it, but I thought it worth mentioning, as bearing in mind that there are a lot of people who use it this way (and a lot of people who intend to do this then don't buy it because they already have it) means there are things that could be done in the industry to reduce piracy (and yes, there certainly are pirates who feel they have a right to everything too, but this could at least help reduce the amount of piracy). Things that aren't this ridiciulously agressive.
A great suggestion I heard/read somewhere is a throwback to the old shareware model. Allow the beginning of your game out for free for people to try. Not a weird demo, the actual full beginning. Then once they reach your designated stop point they can buy the game to continue. Not have to start again, but actually just continue through with what they started.
As a good video I saw said, the industry's best bet to stop piracy is to see piracy like a competitor, not an enemy. Would you offer a product full of DRM that annoys your paying customers when you have a competitor offering the exact same product free of those hassles? Shift thinking to ways to entice your customer base back. Suggestions like the above that make it easier to play the legit version than the pirated one, then offer them the chance to pay for the game once they have invested time in it, and paying for it is simpler than going and finding a cracked version.
It's an especially viable option with programs like steam.

Anyway, I digress. The thread may broach the piracy is wrong/not doing any harm issue, but in reality, regardless of what you think of the issue, this bill is going too far and is just wrong.
As I said, my final point about my dislike for this bill was not in relation to you Obdi. Just my dislike for the bill.

Silencer, I'm pretty sure it's obvious who if you read the earlier posts where they mention the person who referred back to Torrentfreak for their sources...

to add to this: Gabe Newell pretty much adopted this for Steam. Digital distribution is putting a solid dent in piracy--a fact often overlooked.

[Mentalist]

dktorode, on 03 December 2011 - 01:28 AM, said:

those poor musicians.
i mean....when JT has to leave the industry to take up acting because of piracy then you know how bad it is.

cant afford their Bentley's and have to settle for bmw's and mercs....aawww shame...really makes me feel bad!
Reminds me of that vanillla ice dvd i copied that one time.
no wonder the guy is so fucked up these days.
all my fault.
should not have recorded him on that tape on the radio.

poor guy.

lol, even more cross-posts

Dkt, the copyright laws are not there to protect the artists. they are, and always have been, there to protect primarily the distributor (publishers). It's a small wonder copyright legislature (always legislature, btw, never court decisions--teh history of copyright law is one of legislature made to protect booksellers, in its origin) only emerged with the advent of capitalism. the Printing press had been invented in Europe in 1440. The first copyright statute was passed in 1709.

Copuright is there to protect the publishers. I'm not saying we should abolish it, but i'm firmly against catering to their interests at the expense of more basic freedoms.

[Silencer]

@LH - yeah, it was pretty obvious once HD PM'd me. I'd just...forgotten.

[Illuyankas]

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 12:20 AM, said:

Just a-curious, though, about the bold. I know this debate has cropped up heaps, but I'm blanking on said notoriously close-minded member. PM?

Geniunely thought you'd remember which member we mean, dude.
Even you've argued with her before, I'm sure.
Maybe you've just forgotten?

Whenever you remember you'll kick youself.
I mean if you remember.
No, actually, you don't have Alzheimers.
Don't tell me your memory is terrible?
Cause seriously, it might be at that.
Actually, you might have just ignored all the arguments beforehand.
Somehow.
Terribly worded and thoughtout arguments, to be fair.
Everyone hated them, ESPECIALLY ME.
Really though, you know who we mean.









(PSST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GEM WINDCASTER BUT DON'T TELL ANYONE I SAID THAT)




(oh hell I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet)

(also to hell with your pms)

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 03 December 2011 - 01:52 AM

[JLV]

Even I knew that, and I wasn't even around.

[Silencer]

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

[Mentalist]

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

[JLV]

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.