Quantcast
SOPA/PIPA - Page 2 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This isn't a pop at you, Robbie.

 

When I were a lad, if I wanted a CD I waited till I had the money to buy it. Nothing has changed, I pay for all my music now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to lie here. I download shitloads of music and movies etc. I cant afford to buy them, so what else am I supposed to do if I haven't got a job? Much better things to be spending my money on.

 

I've done it myself Rob, I'm not judging anyone who does, no way, and I agree with people that say the industry has taken the piss in the past, but I also think the industry will head off a cliff if something isn't done, it's a pragmatic question of saying would I be willing to have my ability to download pirate TV and music taken away if it meant those industries would flourish rather than wither and no longer produce anything at all for me to enjoy? And the answer's yes.

 

We're moving towards a situation where people will just be uploading their own music, books, journalism etc for mass consumption for nothing - and good for them - but you're really going to lose that professional quality from so much of it. Big business will find other ways of making money if people are just going to keep ripping off their shit, and it'll be the people with talent that suffer IMO. All very well if you want to play the guitar and have half the world to download it for nothing, but what if you actually want to make a living out of a rare talent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've bought movies and albums after I downloaded them. Those I didn't like, I dumped them off. No point in wasting money, or HD space on them. But there's no doubt, I've bought more than I would have otherwise, having given them a watch or a listen and found them worthy of spending money on.

 

A pity I didn't have the facility of doing it many years ago when I bought several duff albums on the strength of one song. I might have had more money and been more inclined to shell out on more worthy artists and albums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I have ever purchased a movie or music that I had already downloaded illegally unless there was some quality issues. I hear the whole try it before you buy it argument all the time from people to justify illegal downloading but I find it hard to believe that many people actually go out and purchase films and music they already have. I use torrents but mostly for things like British television which really is not going to show up in the US in most cases or 3d movies which are overpriced. Really find it hard to believe that you could try to justify illegally downloading released music when you can buy each individual track cheaply and most likely sample beforehand.

Edited by Beantown Red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a crap analogy and very far from the truth. The issue we have is that because the internet is completely distributed there is no one authority that can police it. No one group responsible for ensuring it is not used for illegal activities. The problem is that everyone wants to leverage the internet to make money but no-one is prepared to pay the cost.

 

First the entertainment industry tried to handle this issue by DRM but people worked around that too quickly and they couldn't/wouldn't keep up.

 

Then they tried to foist the issue onto ISPs etc to get them to monitor user traffic for illegal stuff. But they didn't want to pay the cost.

 

So now they are trying to get the likes of google and youtube to participate in checking out if content they themselves host is illegal. I mean after all they are benefiting from people shuffling around illegal content so why shouldn't they share the burden?

 

This whole free speech vs. corporate america is a red herring. This is corporate america losers (hollywood etc) vs. corporate america winners (ISPs, youtube, google etc) and neither side has a business model that includes paying for the benefit they are receiving.

 

This isn't about whether piracy is wrong. Of course it is and of course it is a problem. I think everybody on this thread has seemed to have lost the point. Nobody is condoning piracy. It needs to be combated.

 

But this is not the answer. These bills are fucking stupid. You are right, nobody does police the internet. And neither should anybody have the right to.

 

If ISP's, and Hollywood, suddenly have the right to shut down or limit access to any website on a whim, with the need for no evidence, no trial, we'll end up like china. And though you may think your stance is noble, I very much doubt you'd keep it if you had 5GB worth of your files on DropBox legally, which you paid a monthly subscription to keep...only for Sony Entertainment to feel that some dickhead in Siberia stole their product and decides to whipe the whole site a la MegaUpload.

 

Similarly, you might use SoundCloud, legally, to promote your music. Hey you may even need it as an essential tool to make a living. But JohnDoe100 decided to use it to leak the new Jay Z album so bye-bye SoundCloud, and any legitimate users.

 

Why should the US have the right to police what is essentially a global right? The US do not own the internet, nor do they have any jurisdiction over the millions that use it. If piracy wants to be stopped, it must be done on a case-by-case basis, or alternative technology must be made to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also find it fairly ignorant to say that YouTube, DropBox, etc, are just another arm of "corporate america". Of course they live for profit but the Tech Industry live more-so for innovation.

 

And it is that type of innovation people benefit from every day without even knowing. The start-ups are born in bedrooms and student houses. Economically, the US have especially benefited from them.

 

Where is the bill which holds-to-account the bankers who nearly destroyed the economy in this past five years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollywood threatens to withdraw funding for Obama over SOPA

 

Members of Mr Obama's traditional constituency in the entertainment industry have been angered after he appeared to suggest that bills intended to prevent the pirating of movies on the internet went too far.

 

Chris Dodd, the former Democratic senator who last year became head of Hollywood's chief lobbying arm the Motion Picture Association of America, said: "Candidly, those who count on Hollywood for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake.

 

"Don't ask me to write a cheque for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

Mr Obama has found himself caught in the middle of a war between Hollywood and his other backers among technology companies in Silicon Valley, who oppose the antipiracy bills saying they are badly drafted and will lead to censorship on the internet. On Wednesday the Wikipedia website led an internet protest by going dark for a day.

 

On Friday, two days after the online protest, the US Congress indefinitely postponed votes on the proposed anti-piracy legislation after support for it among politicians eroded.

 

A statement released by the White House this week expressed sympathy for critics of the legislation, known popularly as "SOPA" (Stop Online Piracy Act). Hollywood executives had assumed they would get the backing, or at least neutrality, of the president and are said to feel "betrayed."

 

Several have reportedly pulled out of forthcoming fund-raisers and one anonymous studio chief told the influential Hollywood website Deadline that they would "not give a dime anymore."

 

Mr Dodd said the issue went "right to the heart of this industry" and accused the White House of being "terribly negative to people in this community." He said Democrats should not make the "false assumption" that Hollywood would be financially supportive this year.

 

Both Hollywood and Silicon Valley donated around $9 million (£5.8 million) to Mr Obama's 2008 campaign and have so far donated around $4 million this time. He is expecting much more to come in over the next several months.

 

This week, after visiting Disney World in Florida to promote tourism, he attended a $35,800-per-ticket fund-raiser at the home of director Spike Lee in New York. First Lady Michelle Obama is expected in Hollywood on Jan 31 for two lucrative private fund-raisers at the homes of supporters. The president himself will visit next month and will have to placate his critics.

 

Barry Meyer, chief executive and chairman for Warner Bros Entertainment, told the Los Angeles Times he and others were "very disappointed" with the White House's response to the bills. He declined to say whether he would not support Mr Obama.

 

"It's important that we register both to the administration and to Congress that this is important to the industry and to the jobs it supports," he said.

 

Mr Obama has faced increasing criticism from supporters in Hollywood, most notably from the actor Matt Damon who has accused him of "misinterpreting his mandate."

Amid the debate over online piracy one of the world's most popular filesharing sites, Megaupload.com, was shut down on Thursday and its founder and several company officials were accused of facilitating millions of illegal downloads of films and music.

 

And this is the kind of precedent this sets.

 

Sounds like a real democracy, doesn't it?

 

Also, Matt Damon is a shit actor. All of his films should be pirated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unsure on this,one of my main issues is that unless I stream sports events I'm unlikely to see them.

I can't get to many games so I stream the games and watch on the computer,why should somebody in France/China etc be able to watch nearly every game but I can't unless Sky or ESPN show them?

I sky offered season tickets to like the NFL do I would buy that rather than stream.

Same goes with Japanese MMA I can either stream the event to watch live or by a DVD online a few days later.

I missed a world title fight from one of the most exciting boxers about last night and will miss loads more this year because nobody in the UK shoes the fight.

 

Music I generally buy except for live concerts that can't be bought in shops.

Films I buy or stream on netflicks etc,I a big film fan and like having the DVDs for the extras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, Matt Damon is a shit actor. All of his films should be pirated.

 

I should neg you for your shameless attack on the superb Bourne films, but the rest of the points you make are excellent, so I shall stay your execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really good debate going on here with some very good points.

I dont want politicians,especially US politicians telling me what i can or cannot watch,i pay a fee to my ISP so my internet is not actually free,the problem is then what that ISP does with the money.

As for music,i understand artists and authors needing to protect their products but there must be some middle ground somewhere.

My music collection is probably 95% over 15-20yrs old music and very little modern stuff. Also when the industry ditched vinyl and went to CDs i was then expected to repurchase my record collection on CD and then make it digital but MP3 has saved me a fortune on that though. I know its illegal in most cases but at least ive been able to get those records back.

As for the TV stuff and sports events,i wouldnt be able to see all that stuff without streamers,some of the tv i watch will never be aired in the uk so thats a bonus too. As for the f******l,maybe if they had a price to watch your own team live all season then i would go for that instead of pooling together for a monopoly that makes it beyond a lot of people to watch the games. The streams are a minute or two behind so its not actually live anyway.

 

Whats the answer? No idea but it isnt going to work with politicians deciding what can and cannot be done on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hollywood can FUCK OFF! Good films make money. Bad films lose money.

 

This is a truth despite piracy.

 

Musicians make money touring. Music companies make their money selling the Musicians stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't a pop at you, Robbie.

 

When I were a lad, if I wanted a CD I waited till I had the money to buy it. Nothing has changed, I pay for all my music now.

 

Maybe, but then again mate, when you were younger, you never had the option to download.

 

I've done it myself Rob, I'm not judging anyone who does, no way, and I agree with people that say the industry has taken the piss in the past, but I also think the industry will head off a cliff if something isn't done, it's a pragmatic question of saying would I be willing to have my ability to download pirate TV and music taken away if it meant those industries would flourish rather than wither and no longer produce anything at all for me to enjoy? And the answer's yes.

 

We're moving towards a situation where people will just be uploading their own music, books, journalism etc for mass consumption for nothing - and good for them - but you're really going to lose that professional quality from so much of it. Big business will find other ways of making money if people are just going to keep ripping off their shit, and it'll be the people with talent that suffer IMO. All very well if you want to play the guitar and have half the world to download it for nothing, but what if you actually want to make a living out of a rare talent?

 

That is a good post. But I dont know how anything can be done really. Even if they close the websites down, they will just pop up anywhere. There is always ways around these things. Its ruining the business, and the same could be said of Journalism (which I'm sure you know about), because articles are available to read for nothing online so there is no need for anybody to run out and buy the paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't a pop at you, Robbie.

 

When I were a lad, if I wanted a CD I waited till I had the money to buy it. Nothing has changed, I pay for all my music now.

 

Did and do myself mate, never really seen the point in watching films and the like on a computer anyway, it's gash. Probably why I've got boxes of DVDs and cds.

 

Not that I'm for massive policing on the Internet though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really good debate going on here with some very good points.

I dont want politicians,especially US politicians telling me what i can or cannot watch,i pay a fee to my ISP so my internet is not actually free,the problem is then what that ISP does with the money.

As for music,i understand artists and authors needing to protect their products but there must be some middle ground somewhere.

My music collection is probably 95% over 15-20yrs old music and very little modern stuff. Also when the industry ditched vinyl and went to CDs i was then expected to repurchase my record collection on CD and then make it digital but MP3 has saved me a fortune on that though. I know its illegal in most cases but at least ive been able to get those records back.

As for the TV stuff and sports events,i wouldnt be able to see all that stuff without streamers,some of the tv i watch will never be aired in the uk so thats a bonus too. As for the f******l,maybe if they had a price to watch your own team live all season then i would go for that instead of pooling together for a monopoly that makes it beyond a lot of people to watch the games. The streams are a minute or two behind so its not actually live anyway.

Whats the answer? No idea but it isnt going to work with politicians deciding what can and cannot be done on the internet.

 

And here is a key plank of the line of shit people are being sold. Politicians will not get to decide. Copyright holders and judges do. And they don't get to decide what can and can't be done on the internet, they just get to decide whether existing laws about the protection of their property is enforced.

 

This line of shit about shutting down websites on a whim, is exactly that. It's the defense of the likes of google and soundcloud who refuse to make the investment necessary to ensure that their services aren't being used to traffic illegal material.

 

It's like your car getting impounded because your brother is using it to sell drugs. Well, it's a pity that's the car you use for your taxi cab business, but if you can't take responsibility to make sure it's not used for drug running, then well you get what's coming to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, but then again mate, when you were younger, you never had the option to download.

 

 

 

That is a good post. But I dont know how anything can be done really. Even if they close the websites down, they will just pop up anywhere. There is always ways around these things. Its ruining the business, and the same could be said of Journalism (which I'm sure you know about), because articles are available to read for nothing online so there is no need for anybody to run out and buy the paper.

 

Piracy has and always will exist. That's a fact. The difference is today, it is too easy. Any joe can do it. They just want to make it hard enough that average joe would rather pay 9.99 a month than jump through hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pirate1262031778.jpg

 

Ninjas can get wenches too. What do pirates know?

 

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

tumblr_loyrf3oAFn1qelcelo1_500.jpg

 

fullsize_10.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ninjas can get wenches too. What do pirates know?

 

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

tumblr_loyrf3oAFn1qelcelo1_500.jpg

 

fullsize_10.jpg

 

I think that's traditionally known as rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here is a key plank of the line of shit people are being sold. Politicians will not get to decide. Copyright holders and judges do. And they don't get to decide what can and can't be done on the internet, they just get to decide whether existing laws about the protection of their property is enforced.

 

This line of shit about shutting down websites on a whim, is exactly that. It's the defense of the likes of google and soundcloud who refuse to make the investment necessary to ensure that their services aren't being used to traffic illegal material.

 

It's like your car getting impounded because your brother is using it to sell drugs. Well, it's a pity that's the car you use for your taxi cab business, but if you can't take responsibility to make sure it's not used for drug running, then well you get what's coming to you.

 

What? This bill states exactly that. Organisations can shut down a website and impound all of their servers on a whim. On an inkling. Without no "due process" or investigation necessary. You're right - its a line of shit, but the line is written in the bill trying to be passed.

 

The distinction you make between politicians and "copyright holders" is based on a fallacy. You cannot seriously believe that Hollywood World and Political World don't have hands in each other's pockets? Stop being so naive.

 

Please explain to me, in regards to any industry or situation, why the USA should be given (or should give companies) the right to absolutely destroy another company without any due process or formal investigation on the basis of a whim? It is a lazy solution to a complex problem and will absolutely harm the internet and those companies invested in it.

 

It is the duty of the copyright holders to protect their product, not the websites on the internet. The websites must co-operate fully, obviously, and do their best to deter it but it is not their responsibility to invest time and money to protect a completely different industry. Especially when the Entertainment industry has been too lazy to take actions themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? This bill states exactly that. Organisations can shut down a website and impound all of their servers on a whim. On an inkling. Without no "due process" or investigation necessary. You're right - its a line of shit, but the line is written in the bill trying to be passed.

 

Here's the bills.

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968is/pdf/BILLS-112s968is.pdf

 

I see mention of court orders, due process, protection of first amendment rights etc, being mediated by the Attorney Generals office, requiring a court order, giving organizations 5 days to comply, only applying to sites dedicated to trafficking illegal material etc. I can't see much about whims though. Point me to the exact place where these bill says exactly what you claim it does.

 

You sir have been suckered! And after all the time tooth has spent trying to educate you about how not to take press releases and corporate PR campaigns at face value. It's a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it fair to suggest that the reason most want to keep it as is is that its actually benefiting more than than harming?

 

It depends who you are doesn't it. Politicians (tax) and copyright holders are losing revenue because of this. America has invested big in intellectual property as part of their national economy so they want to protect that business model (if you like).

 

Consumers are pissed off over-paying for second rate shit.

 

People like google, youtube and Dave Usher recognize that this is an attempt to make them responsible for what users post on their sites. They know they can't afford to examine every post to make sure it doesn't contain a link to a stream of a game.

 

A similar thing happened with craigslist. The DOJ tried to make them police ads in certain sections of the site but the volume was so overwhelming they just exited the business instead.

 

So it's not as simple as harm out-weighing benefit. In the absence of everyone getting together to come up with a win-win, the guy with the big stick is going to start waving his stick around. Which is basically what this is. There are currently no disincentives to trafficking illegal content. So they are trying some basic scare tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK has tighter copyright laws than the US so why don't we prosecute rather than give in to deportation requests? Same with Megaupload, if breaking the law why didn't NZ authorities act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×