Wikipedia is Down

[SirFozzie]

Here's how far SOPA goes overboard.

Let's say for some reason you upload 10 Michael Jackson videos to YouTube. You are now liable for a five year jail sentence. Which is a year longer then the doctor who was found guilty in Jackson's death!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

The Angry Pirate
When a chick is giving you head and you pull out and blow it in her face, then you hit her in the knee and she is jumping around covering one eye.

I'M NOT SUBSIDIZING YOUR GLASS BOTTOM BOAT FETISH JEDI!1!!

DON'T CENSOR ME!

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i stole that angry pirate joke from patrice o'neal. and he'll never see a dime. RULES MEAN NOTHING TO ME

fuck the police

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Breaking News @BreakingNews 13m
AP: One of world's largest file-sharing sites, http://Megaupload.com, shut down; company workers indicted

If megaupload is the site I was thinking of, it was one of those sites that I never even considered would be targeted. I always thought of it as a site people too cheap to pay for web hosting would use to host files.

I remember downloading a few hundred mb of Football Manager logos/photos from one of the addon sites and being frustrated because I could only download one thing at a time at incredibly slow speeds.

[StLee]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I am really talking about people outside the US downloading TV shows (and maybe people in the US downloading UK shows). There are a large number of TV shows that it has never been possible to watch legally in the UK (off the top of my head, Parks and Rec, and it took years for Chuck and Community to debut over here).

That's the same deal here in Korea. I can watch just about any TV show (most times much later) or movie (most times right when they are released on DVD) that comes out on cable, and I do. Shows I saw on Korean cable hooked me to those shows, which I have downloaded to watch more along my pace of viewing. I don't think I did anything wrong because I have the shows available to me. I CAN watch them through my cable subscription on TV. But I download to watch when I want. What's the difference between that and DVR?

When I lived in America, I recorded things all the time. At first it was on VCR. Then I got a DVD burner. Finally I had a DVR. I don't see a difference, but some people would define a difference between DVRing and downloading and call people like me a pirate. In my book, I pay for the shows and movies when I pay my cable bill.

[whomario]

What about websites like photobucket, are they going to be in trouble as well ?

of course megaupload was used for piracy, but it was also used for a multitude of other purposes. Which to me is the whole problem behind this "war on piracy". Not that i would know an alternative, mind you ...


I also agree with what Ryan and StLee said in regards to TV shows.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

i stole that angry pirate joke from patrice o'neal. and he'll never see a dime. RULES MEAN NOTHING TO ME

fuck the police

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by StLee

When I lived in America, I recorded things all the time. At first it was on VCR. Then I got a DVD burner. Finally I had a DVR. I don't see a difference, but some people would define a difference between DVRing and downloading and call people like me a pirate. In my book, I pay for the shows and movies when I pay my cable bill.

I get it and its certainly not as big a deal in my personal mind.....but by downloading you are more than likely not seeing ads, even for a second as you fast forward past them, and THATS what pays for most basic cable shows even more than subscribers. Thats the actual difference, though its certainly still better than my friends who dont pay for television, torrent network and cable shows, and then get pissed when those shows get cancelled.

[CrimsonFox]

F*** This s***

Hollywood threatens Obama over SOPA — RT

[CrimsonFox]

and....uh oh...

Anonymous attacks WhiteHouse.gov after taking down Department of Justice and others — RT

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

F*** This s***

Hollywood threatens Obama over SOPA — RT

I'm sure Obama is shaking in his boots. He gets to make his base of voters happy by not supporting it, and Hollywood essentially kills the talking point that he's tied in with the Hollywood elite. Nice threat Hollywood.

[JediKooter]

WELCOME TO HOLLYWOOD!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Breaking News @BreakingNews 13m
AP: One of world's largest file-sharing sites, http://Megaupload.com, shut down; company workers indicted

The indictment is kind of an interesting read and relevant to this discussion. It shows the legal theories the government can use to go after this stuff and how the big pirate sites don't just sit back and let the pirates do their thing, they actually facilitate and try to conceal it. (it also might provide a template of how sites can avoid prosecution).

MegaUpload.com Indictment—PDF - WSJ.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Let's say for some reason you upload 10 Michael Jackson videos to YouTube. You are now liable for a five year jail sentence. Which is a year longer then the doctor who was found guilty in Jackson's death!

Is everybody sure that's not already true? I'm not a fan of SOPA but I also think some of the worst case scenarios are assuming that the federal government will, for the first time ever, exercise its discretion to prosecute 100% of the cases it learns about, and it assumes that every copyright owner of any type will act against every single use of their work worldwide. Which I believe they could already do, SOPA just facilitates it and adds some new enforcement weapons. And gives more power to to the government to do stuff pre-conviction.

I mean, the government could already do some crazy shit, assuming unlimited resources and ambition. Slippery slope arguments can sound desperate.

[SirFozzie]

That's the thing. some of the dream bills gives copyright holders the right to file a private right of action, which could include criminal charges

[k0ruptr]

Fuck. Anonymous has been destroying a bunch of Gov websites with DDOS attacks today after mega upload got taken down. Idiots, thanks for helping prove the points of the congressmen. They were probably counting on it to show how easy it is while they sway the minds of the congressmen that are anti SOPA.

[Icy]

The end of internet freedom seems getting closer. You have SOPA in USa, we have the SINDE law in Spain that has been approved and will start to be applied on March and it's similar to SOPA.

Basically the Gov can close any website when they want and before a lawsuit, not letting the website owner to defend himself unless he starts a lawsuit against the gov.

The question is... where does it end? Can't Google be closed for the same reason? If you search for illegal pics or videos in Google, they are found easily, so Google is providing access to those ilegal files too...

Megaupload was the pirates paradise but it was also legally used by a lot of users and companies to host and share their own files.

Imho goberments are using the copyright escuse to have the power to close any website when they want, the censorship made easy.

There are talks in different forums about the possible creation of an "alternative internet", with it's own DNS and proxy servers outside the govs control. By now just a simple idea, but technically possible.

About Anonymous actions, yeah they are just like terrorists trying to prove a gov that they are wrong, it does exactly the opposite.

[RainMaker]

While I'm against SOPA and other bad legislation that censors the web, lets stop pretending this takedown of MegaUpload was some end of internet freedom. It's people butthurt that they can't steal shit from people anymore. I'm sorry for those who used it legally (although buying something from a guy convicted of credit card fraud is pretty dumb), but you have about a thousand alternatives out there right now.

[Ksyrup]

I didn't really know the history behind Megaupload and how many celebrities have publicly supported it. But I found it pretty damn hilarious that 4 people were arrested, but not the CEO - who just happens to be Alicia Keys' husband. I realize the guy might be nothing more than a high-profile figurehead, but since when does the CEO escape charges but others gets arrested? The site is seemingly illegal at its basic core. It's not like a few people were arrested for embezzling someone's money and only they knew about it.

I just thought that was awfully convenient.

[k0ruptr]

One thing I can't get my head around.

There is no stopping piracy, people steal and will find ways to do it , and I'm pretty sure this has been happening since the beginning of time. Most people I think realize this, yet they expect us to believe that these bills are needed, and will work.

So it's either

A: The Pro PIPA and SOPA officials are that ignorant and dumb.
as much as I want to believe this is true, I feel they have to have some kind of sense.

or
B: They can package so many bylaws and fine print into these bills that they pretty much can do whatever they want to the internet in the US.

makes sense. stopping piracy is the front, censorship and control is the goal.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

One thing I can't get my head around.

There is no stopping piracy, people steal and will find ways to do it , and I'm pretty sure this has been happening since the beginning of time. Most people I think realize this, yet they expect us to believe that these bills are needed, and will work.

So it's either

A: The Pro PIPA and SOPA officials are that ignorant and dumb.
as much as I want to believe this is true, I feel they have to have some kind of sense.

or
B: They can package so many bylaws and fine print into these bills that they pretty much can do whatever they want to the internet in the US.

makes sense. stopping piracy is the front, censorship and control is the goal.

I don't think that SOPA and PIPA were ever about piracy for the entertainment industry, it's more about control. The internet is a danger to the complete control the RIAA and MPAA have had over the market. The powers that SOPA and PIPA would grant them are a way to take back control of distribution. Piracy is a convenient boogie man for them, it's the reason they give for pushing bills that grand them control and artist for needing to stick with them.

For an example, look the Louis CK releasing a video of a stand up performance on his own. He said that whenever he talked to someone in the industry about releasing a DRM free video on his own that he couldn't do that, it would end up on torrents and everyone would pirate it. Instead he wound up selling his video for about a third of what a DVD would go for and made $1 million in revenue and half a million in profit in less than two weeks. Artists being able to do that and cut them out of the equation is what terrifies the entertainment industry more than piracy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I don't think that SOPA and PIPA were ever about piracy for the entertainment industry, it's more about control. The internet is a danger to the complete control the RIAA and MPAA have had over the market. The powers that SOPA and PIPA would grant them are a way to take back control of distribution. Piracy is a convenient boogie man for them, it's the reason they give for pushing bills that grand them control and artist for needing to stick with them.

And it's a win/win for the government as well. They get the kickbacks from the industries and they now also get more control over the internet. No due process is a censors dream to have.

[k0ruptr]

Exactly. More people need to realize this.

[CrimsonFox]

yup, yup, and yup. And they want to stop grassroots movements and knowledge getting out and such.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

somewhat off topic, but i was ranting about hollywood today and someone reminded me that movies don't actually make money link

The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.

Confused? Imagine you're running a lemonade stand with your buddy Steve. Your mom says you have to share half your profits with your sister. But you don't wanna! So you pretend your buddy Steve is actually a corporation -- call him Steve, Inc -- charging you rent for the stand, the spoon, etc. "Dang, mom, I don't have any profits, I had to pay it all to Steve, Inc!" you say when you come home. But the money isn't gone. It's as good as yours -- in your best friend's pocket.

So: "Return of the Jedi" is a $475 million lemonade stand.

[JediKooter]

After all, any 'normal' business, would no longer be in business if everything they did lost money. I don't weep one wet tear for them.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

somewhat off topic, but i was ranting about hollywood today and someone reminded me that movies don't actually make money link

i like your rants actually. And I don't actually give a flying f*** if mpaa loses money. Now if they gave more to their actors/writers/directors when they are making their billions of dollars on merchandise and dvd sales then I'd actually be on their side. But they are already profiting from other people's talents.

Also, I've said before that I have never believed piracy takes money away from them. Having met people that pirate, they don't seem to care about what they are watching. It seems like the whole point is to pirate it and just have something to watch while doing other stuff. But they would never buy it otherwise. Myself when I find something online, it just makes me want to go buy a copy so I can have a good version of it.

[Grover]

Anonymous has taken some websites down early this morning (late tonight?)...

justinbieberweb.com
selenagomezweb.com
paulafernandez.com.br

I'll let you know if any of my other favorite sites are taken down. (before someone else makes the joke)

[molson]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

i like your rants actually. And I don't actually give a flying f*** if mpaa loses money. Now if they gave more to their actors/writers/directors when they are making their billions of dollars on merchandise and dvd sales then I'd actually be on their side. But they are already profiting from other people's talents.

Also, I've said before that I have never believed piracy takes money away from them. Having met people that pirate, they don't seem to care about what they are watching. It seems like the whole point is to pirate it and just have something to watch while doing other stuff. But they would never buy it otherwise. Myself when I find something online, it just makes me want to go buy a copy so I can have a good version of it.

Ya, and they only pirate stuff because Darth Vader didn't get his residuals.

But seriously, the "good version" thing - can't you get a perfect copy of any music or song or TV show or game for free (and sometimes with game, the pirated version is actually better because you don't have the copy protection stuff)? Just without the packing materials? A lot of people say, "I pirate it and then if I like it I buy it". I'm curious - why? Why would you buy something you already have? Is it a moral thing, or do you like the packaging? If you could get a pirated version that contained the exact package as well, would there be any reason to buy it?

It seems like a disconnect to me. People might think pirating is OK, but then they say they'll that they buy something if it's any good. If pirating is OK, why bother?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And it's a win/win for the government as well. They get the kickbacks from the industries and they now also get more control over the internet. No due process is a censors dream to have.

And the fun part is it's the Dems with their Hollywood connections that are pushing this so hard. I thought the Repubs were the big censors / control freaks?

To be fair Obama has come down hard against it, which is a plus in his favor.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, and they only pirate stuff because Darth Vader didn't get his residuals.

But seriously, the "good version" thing - can't you get a perfect copy of any music or song or TV show or game for free (and sometimes with game, the pirated version is actually better because you don't have the copy protection stuff)? Just without the packing materials? A lot of people say, "I pirate it and then if I like it I buy it". I'm curious - why? Why would you buy something you already have? Is it a moral thing, or do you like the packaging? If you could get a pirated version that contained the exact package as well, would there be any reason to buy it?

It seems like a disconnect to me. People might think pirating is OK, but then they say they'll that they buy something if it's any good. If pirating is OK, why bother?

I don't know how to pirate anything. I don't like watching Tv show/movies on my computer.

Would rather have a DVD that way I get all the dvd extras and stuff too.

I sometimes see a show on youtube that I would never be able to find on dvd. (or would have to spend like 50 bucks ordering it)

And I watch it. But I don't really have an inkling to download a movie on PC. Way too much space.

That said I never buy dvds new at full price. I always look for extreme sales or used copies.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, and they only pirate stuff because Darth Vader didn't get his residuals.

But seriously, the "good version" thing - can't you get a perfect copy of any music or song or TV show or game for free (and sometimes with game, the pirated version is actually better because you don't have the copy protection stuff)? Just without the packing materials? A lot of people say, "I pirate it and then if I like it I buy it". I'm curious - why? Why would you buy something you already have? Is it a moral thing, or do you like the packaging? If you could get a pirated version that contained the exact package as well, would there be any reason to buy it?

It seems like a disconnect to me. People might think pirating is OK, but then they say they'll that they buy something if it's any good. If pirating is OK, why bother?

I've pirated games that I don't think have a representative demo and then purchased after playing through all the sections important to me. I don't have any problem with that as most any other product I would buy would allow me to either thoroughly test the product before purchasing or permit me to return after several uses.

[mckerney]

YCRFS 9: Kill Hollywood

Hollywood appears to have peaked. If it were an ordinary industry (film cameras, say, or typewriters), it could look forward to a couple decades of peaceful decline. But this is not an ordinary industry. The people who run it are so mean and so politically connected that they could do a lot of damage to civil liberties and the world economy on the way down. It would therefore be a good thing if competitors hastened their demise.
That's one reason we want to fund startups that will compete with movies and TV, but not the main reason. The main reason we want to fund such startups is not to protect the world from more SOPAs, but because SOPA brought it to our attention that Hollywood is dying. They must be dying if they're resorting to such tactics. If movies and TV were growing rapidly, that growth would take up all their attention. When a striker is fouled in the penalty area, he doesn't stop as long as he still has control of the ball; it's only when he's beaten that he turns to appeal to the ref. SOPA shows Hollywood is beaten. And yet the audiences to be captured from movies and TV are still huge. There is a lot of potential energy to be liberated there.

How do you kill the movie and TV industries? Or more precisely (since at this level, technological progress is probably predetermined) what is going to kill them? Mostly not what they like to believe is killing them, filesharing. What's going to kill movies and TV is what's already killing them: better ways to entertain people. So the best way to approach this problem is to ask yourself: what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?

There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo.

It would be great if what people did instead of watching shows was exercise more and spend more time with their friends and families. Maybe they will. All other things being equal, we'd prefer to hear about ideas like that. But all other things are decidedly not equal. Whatever people are going to do for fun in 20 years is probably predetermined. Winning is more a matter of discovering it than making it happen. In this respect at least, you can't push history off its course. You can, however, accelerate it.

What's the most entertaining thing you can build?

[molson]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Also, I've said before that I have never believed piracy takes money away from them. Having met people that pirate, they don't seem to care about what they are watching. It seems like the whole point is to pirate it and just have something to watch while doing other stuff. But they would never buy it otherwise. Myself when I find something online, it just makes me want to go buy a copy so I can have a good version of it.

And on that point too, wasn't the argument for years (including here a time back) was that if these companies simply made this stuff available in convenient ways people would pay for it? Hasn't Netflix and Hulu and itunes done that (at least for the U.S. in the case of Hulu)? Yes, they don't have every movie/tv show ever, but if the "whole point is to pirate it and just have something to watch while doing other stuff", don't Hulu and Netflix satisfy that? And even specifically, I'm guessing if I went to Pirate Bay I could find stuff that I can stream from Netflix if I pay a small monthly fee, and music I can get very easily anywhere.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've pirated games that I don't think have a representative demo and then purchased after playing through all the sections important to me. I don't have any problem with that as most any other product I would buy would allow me to either thoroughly test the product before purchasing or permit me to return after several uses.

OK, but if you have the game for free, why did you then decide to buy it? Is that a moral decision, like, "well, I should really pay for this if I'm going to like it and play it this much", or is in support of the developer, or something else?

[mckerney]

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought | Techdirt

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:

"Those who count on quote '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 check 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,"

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue:

Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

[molson]

Originally Posted by mckerney

YCRFS 9: Kill Hollywood

I like the idea, but those startups are tomorrow's "mean and so politically connected". If they're too successful at it, people will resent it, fantasize about how to take it down, and imagine what the next big thing is.

[lungs]

The only thing I ever got from pirating was a virus or three. No, I wasn't good at it.

[molson]

There's really two different discussions here, I think others have pointed that out earlier.

1. Companies have to evolve to try to continue to succeed in a world where its easier to freely copy and consume owned content. They do need to come up with new ways to make money, and new ways to encourage people to spend money. Some companies and industries will be great at this, some will be terrible at it, just like anything else.

2. But piracy is illegal, it does impact all kind of copyright holders negatively (if it didn't, there would be no need to "evolve"). I think most people to some extent agree that it's also morally wrong (at least those who claim that they buy something if they pirate it and like it, or whatever particular moral code they have).

When you challenge someone on piracy, or when the government brings criminal charges, or when content owners sue (even under existing law), the pirates and pirate supporters always point to #1 as a justification/excuse, but they're 2 completely different things. A company running a poor business model doesn't given one a right, morally or legally, to do something that they wouldn't do if it was a company running a better business model.

And for all this talk about business models, again, it's not like pirates are leading the way. They prefer the status quo anyway, that's why its so disingenuous. The pirate is in a great position today, they do not participate in the current model at all except as consumers, and they get to consume the product paid for by those who are actually participating in this old, politically corrupt system. It won't get any better for pirates than it is right now. Once there's this "new" entertainment model, and the pirates are participating it along with everyone else, they're going to be a lot worse off as far as what they put in v. what they get. When piracy doesn't matter anymore, that's going to suck for the pirates at first. There will have to be "new" ways of pirating so they can leech of the "new" entertainment model without pitching in. (I'm sure they'll figure something out).

Edit: And like I was saying earlier, pirates, with all their claimed super-knowledge about what the entertainment industry is doing wrong, and where it should be going, should be leading the way to the future. If the concept of copyright, or even the concept of consumerist art is such a turn off-, they should get out of it and lead the way forward with non-commercial, independently funded stuff (if their art even requires traditional "funding)", and of course, it should all be open and free and easily copied. Instead of just downloading Hollywood movies while complaining about how corrupt and backwards Hollywood is. I guess this has happened to some extent with some productivity software, but for our movies and TV and video games, we still prefer Hollywood to the Openoffice equivalent, we just don't want to pay for it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: And like I was saying earlier, pirates, with all their claimed super-knowledge about what the entertainment industry is doing wrong, and where it should be going, should be leading the way to the future. If the concept of copyright, or even the concept of consumerist art is such a turn off-, they should get out of it and lead the way forward with non-commercial, independently funded stuff (if their art even requires traditional "funding)", and of course, it should all be open and free and easily copied. Instead of just downloading Hollywood movies while complaining about how corrupt and backwards Hollywood is. I guess this has happened to some extent with some productivity software, but for our movies and TV and video games, we still prefer Hollywood to the Openoffice equivalent, we just don't want to pay for it.

100% agreed. I can't stand when someone says tries to make the argument that piracy of, say, Hollywood movies, is ok because "they charge too much" - it isn't like someone is forcing you to pay the money. And RedBox is only $1! I am no crusader on this (obviously), but bootleg copies really piss me off! We really want to see what Hollywood has put out, but don't want to pay for it.

[sterlingice]

molson, you better articulated what I was trying to post a couple of pages ago

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

molson, you better articulated what I was trying to post a couple of pages ago

SI

Thanks, it took me a few pages to get it out too. Not that I'm necessarily "right" on it or anything, I've just been trying to figure out why I personally have an issue with peoples' view of piracy.

[k0ruptr]

My reason for pirating stuff in high school was always we are poor and broke as shit. It was definitely wrong morally and illegal. It was more like hey that movie looks damn good, and I most definitely cannot afford the gas money for the hour and half round trip + movie tickets to see it. I never really felt bad about it though.

I don't mean to come of as a snobby dick who justifies it that way. It's not like that. I have no idea what I'm trying to say here.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

My reason for pirating stuff in high school was always we are poor and broke as shit. It was definitely wrong morally and illegal. It was more like hey that movie looks damn good, and I most definitely cannot afford the gas money for the hour and half round trip + movie tickets to see it. I never really felt bad about it though.

I don't mean to come of as a snobby dick who justifies it that way. It's not like that. I have no idea what I'm trying to say here.

No, I am pretty much in the same boat. Back when there was no way in hell I could pay 50 pounds for a video game, I would use warez quite a bit. Now I have the money and Steam makes it so easy to get I haven't pirated a game in years. It doesn't make it right at all and I'm not trying to justify it but that's pretty much how it was for me.

The only other time now I will get something illegally is if there is no way I can view it over here in the states. I'll watch a Cardiff City game on an illegal stream just because there's no other way to view it. I completely equate this to people in other countries who can't get a TV show or movie in their locality.

Really, it boils down to two positions for me. One, piracy is piracy and if you are going to indulge, don't try to blame anyone else for it, it's a moral decision you are making. You don't think it's OK to steal Salmon off a store shelf because it's pricey, you can live without seeing a damn movie or playing a video game. Secondly, fuck SOPA and PIPA. Horrible legislation that is a poorly designed power grab by a group of power brokers and their Washington lackeys. I don't think those two positions are mutually exclusive - you can want to see things done about piracy without supporting this kind of censorship.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Really, it boils down to two positions for me. One, piracy is piracy and if you are going to indulge, don't try to blame anyone else for it, it's a moral decision you are making. You don't think it's OK to steal Salmon off a store shelf because it's pricey, you can live without seeing a damn movie or playing a video game. Secondly, fuck SOPA and PIPA. Horrible legislation that is a poorly designed power grab by a group of power brokers and their Washington lackeys. I don't think those two positions are mutually exclusive - you can want to see things done about piracy without supporting this kind of censorship.

Well, I think most of us agree with this paragraph.

That said, the current situation is wrong and needs to be changed. Piracy is way too easy and standard now so there's needs to be something changed.

And there are a lot of people here trying to argue that because these companies are evil, the two arguments are one and the same.

SI

[Grover]

The Legislation That Could Kill Internet Privacy for Good - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Ugh.

[molson]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

My reason for pirating stuff in high school was always we are poor and broke as shit. It was definitely wrong morally and illegal. It was more like hey that movie looks damn good, and I most definitely cannot afford the gas money for the hour and half round trip + movie tickets to see it. I never really felt bad about it though.

I don't mean to come of as a snobby dick who justifies it that way. It's not like that. I have no idea what I'm trying to say here.

For some reason it comes off as the opposite of snobby for me, I'd find it snobbier if you had a long thesis about how it was the hollywood business model and failure to embrace new media that was to blame. Like a criminal that blames society and authority.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Grover

The Legislation That Could Kill Internet Privacy for Good - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Ugh.

I'd be more sympathetic if the author didn't use a law from the turn of the 20th century and Communists (yes, Communists) in the same scare tactics he's trying to protest

SI

[Grover]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'd be more sympathetic if the author didn't use a law from the turn of the 20th century and Communists (yes, Communists) in the same scare tactics he's trying to protest

SI

Yeah, I don't agree using the Communist scare tactic as I consider myself a Socialist politically, but the overall theme of being able to look at anyone user history at anytime just because you're actively seeking people looking at child pornography is a bit nauseating.

It's similar to the FBI/authorities being able to affix a tracking device to your vehicle if they're suspecting you of using/selling drugs. As long as your yard isn't fenced (with a gate to the driveway) in, and your vehicle isn't in a garage they can legally put a GPS on your car to track you. It's too much of big brother.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

HEY GUYS! what's goin on in the thread?

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

sanctimony. sanctimony everywhere.

oh drag. sounds like we need a... FUNK INTERLUDE!!!



did you guys know about this youtube thing? there's like every song ever there. and you can listen to them all. for free! i remember a few years ago when you could only list to 30 second previews. i wonder what changed?

right, so where were we? oh yeah

Originally Posted by insummary

...how dare you tell people how to run their business!
...i'll tell you what you should do...

i see what you did there. although i admit the 'if you don't like it you can leave' argument is bulletproof.

everyone's got their own narrative itt so i'll sum up my thoughts quickly because my download of breakin II: electric bugaloo is almost done.

1. i don't give a fuck about piracy. on my list of societal ills it ranks somewhere between pre-teen cosmetic surgery and steroids in women's field hockey. but please, tell me how this is important-

2. 'because it hurts people'
no, lack of opportunity hurts people. nafta. cafta and the death of fordism hurt people. the entertainment industry has been printing money for over a decade but instead of enjoying their swimming pools filled with cash they're obsessing over the maids keeping the change from the couch cushions. which leads to my next point-

3. fuck hollywood(and all media) in the ass with a rake

4. people are basically good. everyone itt admits to pirating when they were young or poor.

5. industry always resists change. don't break the internet. yada yada see the ted talk from a few pages back

6. things change. tell em bob