Wikipedia is Down

[jbergey22]

For 24 hours in protest of SOPA and PIPA.

They are asking that people contact their local reps in protest of these proposed bills.

Call your elected officials.
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.
Why?
SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.
In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive.
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open Internet.

[sabotai]

FWIW, in case you still want to access Wikipedia:


<dl><dt>Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?</dt></dl> <dl><dd>The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.</dd></dl>

[CrimsonFox]

google isn't really down but they are simulating "downness". Most major sites are doing this. and requesting same. Not a bad idea.

[CrimsonFox]

Who in Congress Supports SOPA and PIPA/PROTECT-IP? | SOPA Opera | ProPublica (http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/)

[rowech]

Can someone explain why this has become such a big deal? I'm not sure what all is packed into this bill and if it's more than what it is presented as. Should we not protect people's intellectual property? Is that what people are fighting -- that we should be allowed to get whatever? Or is it, that the government would then have the right to filter/block certain sites outside of the country who do this and while fine in theory it gives them an awful lot of power?

[Grover]

Good read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/interview-sen-ron-wydens-fight-to-save-the-internet/2011/08/25/gIQAqnHG6P_blog.html

[CraigSca]

What's interesting to me is that the support (or lack thereof) for this does NOT run down party lines. This is the most bi-partisan bill I've ever seen!

[Grover]

What's interesting to me is that the support (or lack thereof) for this does NOT run down party lines. This is the most bi-partisan bill I've ever seen!

This. Would you ever expect to see Pelosi and Bachmann on the same side of anything?

[Barkeep49]

Can someone explain why this has become such a big deal? I'm not sure what all is packed into this bill and if it's more than what it is presented as. Should we not protect people's intellectual property? Is that what people are fighting -- that we should be allowed to get whatever? Or is it, that the government would then have the right to filter/block certain sites outside of the country who do this and while fine in theory it gives them an awful lot of power?
Here's an article which explains the basics: Understanding SOPA: A Simple Q&A for Understanding the Online Piracy Debate - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577167261853938938.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Somehow, much to Wiki's dismay I'm sure, I suspect we'll all survive the day.

I was both shocked & pleased to see that some of the Wiki contributing editors were unhappy with today's stunt.

http://onlineathens.com/national-news/2012-01-17/wikipedia-editors-question-sites-planned-blackout

[CrimsonFox]

These 61 Senators are refusing to meet with their constituents before the critical Jan 24 vote on PIPA/SOPA. Oh Reddit, can you call them? : politics (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/oe3mf/these_61_senators_are_refusing_to_meet_with_their/)

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

[Grammaticus]

Part of the concerns revolve around our agreement to do the same thing for other countries that support intellectual property rights. If a foreign country targets a site, there is a mechanism for the government to shut down a site without legal due process. I basically simplified that. There are articles that layout the issues pretty good. This legislation is basically good intentions, but very poorly executed.

There are already laws that protect intellectual property rights. The intellectual property rights owners and the government are just too lazy to go through the process.

[JPhillips]

It won't stop piracy, but it will allow corporations to shut down and sue websites. It's another example of government as private security for the rich.

[Barkeep49]

I think Piracy is wrong. When I was 18 and a user of Napster, I decided that Piracy was wrong and have sworn off piracy ever since.

That said, I don't think we need another anti-piracy law. The law is clear. Equally clear is that there is plenty of fantastic content creation happening right now. I don't think SOPA is addressing anything but a need for companies to get rich. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad companies can get rich from creating great stuff, but that's not what justifies government regulation and interference.

[ISiddiqui]

On the Wyden interview on Washington Post, here I think is the biggest issue:


EK: As I understand it, another element of these bills is that they would move the burden of policing content to the Web sites themselves. Right now, YouTube, if alerted to pirated content, needs to get it down. Under SOPA and PIPA, YouTube would be responsible for making sure it never goes up in the first place, and liable if they missed a video.
RW: You are describing what I call the “turn Web sites into Web cops” provision. This is a provision that has raised concern about what this is going to mean for innovation. If you’re a small Web site trying to get off the ground and you look at that provision, you put people through this kind of legal burden, which will mean a significant amount of money for anyone trying something new, it will do a lot of damage to innovation. That’s one reason the venture capital folks are speaking out.
EK: This also seems to favor the big rather than the small. YouTube has a legal department now, and Google’s resources are backing them. They could maybe survive this. A start-up competitor to YouTube couldn’t.
RW: You got it. That site won’t be funded. And it gets to the question of capitalistic approaches. Two people in a garage will have to become two people in a garage with a fleet of lawyers upstairs. The other side of this is private right of action, which will allow the big players you’re talking about to swamp Web sites with lawsuits.

[BrianD]

FWIW, in case you still want to access Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency.

Anybody know what would constitute a Wikipedia emergency?

[Logan]

Anybody know what would constitute a Wikipedia emergency?

Deadline on a term paper.

[CraigSca]

I don't think SOPA is addressing anything but a need for companies to get rich.

I think the flip-side to this is that it will not only address the need for "companies to get rich", but will also allow said companies to continue to employ their workers and possibly expand.

I think there are probably other ways to decrease the rate of piracy, but it just seems odd to me to chastise companies for trying to get paid for services rendered.

[Subby]

My 3rd grader heard about SOPA and without any input or prompting from his mother or me, did some research and wrote a letter to his congressman about it. Then he coerced his twin brother into co-signing.

He is very concerned about the future of Minecraft videos on Youtube. :)

[ISiddiqui]

So SOPA stanks, LOL. That's adorable :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

but it just seems odd to me to chastise companies for trying to get paid for services rendered.

It's the new American way, haven't you been paying attention?

You could probably Google that up and get an explanation from a Wiki pa ... oh, wait.

[Rizon]

Wikipedia is still up (not sure when it's supposed to be down) in case anyone is interesting in knowing all there is to know about "LOL". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lol)

[Rizon]

Here is the list of websites (http://sopastrike.com/) protesting Soapa.

Major sites on there such as "LiveLocalCard.com", "Occupybirmingham" and "CelebrityMagnet". Oh, and not sure what we will all do without this guy's (https://www.facebook.com/angadhnanjangud) facebook page for a day.

So sad :(

[Ksyrup]

google isn't really down but they are simulating "downness". Most major sites are doing this. and requesting same. Not a bad idea.

Oh no! When I went to google.com, I couldn't tell if I was on google.com!

[Maple Leafs]

... but it just seems odd to me to chastise companies for trying to get paid for services rendered.
I create content online that I get paid for, and that people sometimes steal and/or use without permission. That's wrong, it's annoying, and it takes money directly out of my pocket.

That said, if I found those people, drove up to their house, and threw a bomb through their front window, I'd absolutely deserve to be "chastised for trying to get paid". Trying to get paid is wonderful, but only if your attempt is a.) within reason and b.) likely to actually work in the first place. These bills fail on both accounts.

[Ksyrup]

I really haven't paid any attention to this stuff at all, but I do know one thing: I now have a craving for sopapilla.

[RendeR]

The single biggest problem with both SOPA and PIPA is the vagueness with which they are written. passing either of these bills creates an immediate slope the slipperiness of which we have never seen before.

These bills are nothing more than big corporations creating a systemic wiping clean of anything they don't want available or even think they might not want available.

As BK stated, this is legal laziness and Government pandering to big money, nothing more.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's pretty obviously a flawed bill if it makes the DMCA provisions look completely reasonable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That said, if I found those people, drove up to their house, and threw a bomb through their front window, I'd absolutely deserve to be "chastised for trying to get paid".

Depends upon what they stole afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Can someone explain why this has become such a big deal? I'm not sure what all is packed into this bill and if it's more than what it is presented as. Should we not protect people's intellectual property? Is that what people are fighting -- that we should be allowed to get whatever? Or is it, that the government would then have the right to filter/block certain sites outside of the country who do this and while fine in theory it gives them an awful lot of power?

Basically it's a big deal because of the bolded. Except as I understand it it's more that the government would have the right to delegate filtering/blocking to private companies too I think? There's some skeezy bit to it like that I believe.

[Matthean]

Anybody know what would constitute a Wikipedia emergency?

I think Google going down would be worse. We might have to use Bing. :lol:

[JonInMiddleGA]

If sites exercised a reasonable amount of responsibility, government involvement in this would not be necessary. Alas ...

[molson]

I haven't read the legislation at all but the U.S has always understandably struggled with the concept of law and borders in a world where the borders are disappearing. Is that really all there is to it - the U.S. shouldn't be able to do anything at all about a company in the Caribbean distributing mass amounts of pirated copyrighted material to the U.S.? That sounds like an antiquated concept my grandfather would come up with. Now, maybe this legislation overreaches even that, I have no idea, but I believe there must be a legal remedy to confront that kind of copyright infringement that can keep up with the pirates (it isn't practical to just engage in a years-long court battle, when the website can just change their name by one letter and continue doing what they're doing).

[cody8200]

The main problem with SOPA is it allows websites to be taken down without due process. It makes user content nearly impossible to allow for small/upstart company's that don't have the ability to check and see what is being done by every one of their users. Basically if this was implemented 5-10 years ago, Facebook, Youtube and many other sites like Reddit would have never have been invented or utilized which means millions of dollars of lost revenue and and a large number of high paying jobs would not exist. It also requires that search engines make the sites impossible to find and that the ISP's limit the sites that are on the blacklist from even being shown to its users.

There are already laws in effect to stop piracy. If a company feels like it is worth the time and money to make it happen, then they should sue and go through the process of protecting their copyright through normal means. What I think is funny is that this will be the thing the public (especially younger people) care about more than any other thing in the coming year. I think the millions of people signing the petition and writing their legislators are all thinking the same thing - why f*ck with something that isn't broken? Everything else the government touches turns into a bloated piece of crap and after hearing the main lobbyist behind the bill are the RIAA, the MPAA and the Chamber of Commerce - it is easy to see why so many politicians support it and so few of their constituents do. Money.

[cody8200]

If sites exercised a reasonable amount of responsibility, government involvement in this would not be necessary. Alas ...

Jon,

This site may not even exist if this legislation went into effect. Every one of those copyrighted images we take from Google Images and use on the Hot or Not segment are copyright infringements. The company with the rights could simply tell the judge he would like the site taken down and that would be it. The search engines would no longer find it. The ISP would block it from being accessible. All because we like to see a few hot pictures of Anne Hathaway or whoever the hell it is this week. And that is what this is really about. Something as stupid as a picture being shown on a website can constitute grounds for the site to be taken down.

[molson]

If a company feels like it is worth the time and money to make it happen, then they should sue and go through the process of protecting their copyright through normal means.

Are companies really able to protect their copyrights by launching expensive lawsuits against against mysterious entities in other countries who can just change website names and locations instantly? Is it just tough shit for the copyright providers because the pirates have found a crime that the courts are ill equipped to deal with? It seems to me that when the criminal is able to outmaneuver justice and continue being criminals, the law enforcement does have to change their approach. I don't know if this is best solution, everyone seems to think not, but clearly an another approach needs to occur.

[molson]

Jon,

This site may not even exist if this legislation went into effect. Every one of those copyrighted images we take from Google Images and use on the Hot or Not segment are copyright infringements. The company with the rights could simply tell the judge he would like the site taken down and that would be it. The search engines would no longer find it. The ISP would block it from being accessible. All because we like to see a few hot pictures of Anne Hathaway or whoever the hell it is this week. And that is what this is really about. Something as stupid as a picture being shown on a website can constitute grounds for the site to be taken down.

I have a hunch that any new anti-piracy legislation, regardless of its reasonableness, would be attacked with cries of "THIS WILL DESTROY THE INTERNET". I just have no idea how to distinguish the unreasonable legislation from the reasonable (and I bet legislators don't either) knowing that hyperbole will be a constant.

Edit: Are we just talking about what COULD happen, assuming unlimited resources and attention? If sufficient piracy laws exist now, then in theory, all of these websites could be shut down right now, it would just take longer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This site may not even exist if this legislation went into effect.

I'm aware of that, and I'm fine with that.

[cody8200]

Are companies really able to protect their copyrights by launching expensive lawsuits against against mysterious entities in other countries who can just change website names and locations instantly? Is it just tough shit for the copyright providers because the pirates have found a crime that the courts are ill equipped to deal with? It seems to me that when the criminal is able to outmaneuver justice and continue being criminals, the law enforcement does have to change their approach. I don't know if this is best solution, everyone seems to think not, but clearly an another approach needs to occur.

I agree when it is international piracy are tougher but this law isn't only for international websites, it includes US based websites as well. This law is like using a jackhammer when a hammer will do.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but what about all the SEC fanboy boards? :D

[Ksyrup]

All because we like to see a few hot pictures of Anne Hathaway

Holy crap, what a waste! If we're going down, let's at least make it for something good.

[cody8200]

Holy crap, what a waste! If we're going down, let's at least make it for something good.

Ha! One of the Not's I see. That being said, it would probably be the copyright owner of Kathy Griffin who takes us down. That woman has to maker money somehow.

[Ksyrup]

Pumpy would never do that to us.

No one should have the right to copy her face, anyway...

[JPhillips]

The bill will do very little to stop the kind of piracy it claims to be attacking. There's already examples of plug-ins that could get around a blocked address, so foreign sites devoted to piracy will still be accessible. What the bill will do is stifle content startups before they can get big enough to challenge the entertainment giants. Hollywood and RIAA aren't as concerned about stopping @1 billion in US piracy as they are protecting their businesses from new competitors.

[King of New York]

These bills are not about large, rapacious corporations attacking the peeps. They are about one set of large, rapacious corporations fighting with another set of (aspirationally) large, rapacious corporations, over the fact that the second set of corporations makes its money by taking what the first set of corporations makes, distributing it, and then collecting revenue from advertising that it does not share with the content producers, which is to say, the people who did the actual work. The bills may be flawed, but I find myself sympthizing more with the (loathsome) entertaiment industry than with YouTube over this one.

[Blackadar]

I can't believe that anyone here would support this shit. The biggest thing about SOPA is that it does not require an adversarial proceeding. A content company merely needs to make the allegation that you are a pirate site, and your lose your domain name, with no ability to ever reclaim it. Boom, done, you're gone. No hearing, no judge, no ability to dispute the allegation in court, it's just gone.

[BrianD]

The bill will do very little to stop the kind of piracy it claims to be attacking. There's already examples of plug-ins that could get around a blocked address, so foreign sites devoted to piracy will still be accessible. What the bill will do is stifle content startups before they can get big enough to challenge the entertainment giants. Hollywood and RIAA aren't as concerned about stopping @1 billion in US piracy as they are protecting their businesses from new competitors.

I always find this part of the discussion interesting. People intent on doing bad things are always going to be smarter and more motivated than people trying to stop them from doing bad things. So in reality, measures like this just make it harder for other people to get access in ways that they are supposed to be able to use. The flip-side is that if you don't do anything, you are almost condoning people doing bad things. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I find it an interesting discussion.

[MikeVic]

I can't believe that anyone here would support this shit. The biggest thing about SOPA is that it does not require an adversarial proceeding. A content company merely needs to make the allegation that you are a pirate site, and your lose your domain name, with no ability to ever reclaim it. Boom, done, you're gone. No hearing, no judge, no ability to dispute the allegation in court, it's just gone.

Yeah, I don't like knowing that members of FOFC support this bill. I want content creators to get paid, but from what I understand of this bill, it's way too vague and opens the door for stupid shit (as in potentially sites like reddit, fofc, and other user-submitted sites being shut down with no due process).

No I'm not American, but it will affect me too and I have no say in the bill at all.

[JediKooter]

Well damn! When did congress solve that debt problem and the economy and unemployment? I must have slept right through it. I see now they are moving on to more important issues to tackle.

Piracy my ass. This bill is all about censorship disguised in the sheeps clothing of piracy, plain and simple.

[Rizon]

Anyone know when Wikipedia is going to be down? I'm currently reading about midgets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midgets) and don't want to lose my place.

[JediKooter]

The only thing you can access on wikipedia is: midgets, boobs & bacon.

[Blackadar]

Yeah, I don't like knowing that members of FOFC support this bill. I want content creators to get paid, but from what I understand of this bill, it's way too vague and opens the door for stupid shit (as in potentially sites like reddit, fofc, and other user-submitted sites being shut down with no due process).

No I'm not American, but it will affect me too and I have no say in the bill at all.

Not to mention the potential for abuse is beyond astronomical. Once in full swing, this is an elimination of free speech entirely in the guise of "piracy". Much like we lost so many of our freedoms due to "terrorism" or "drug dealers" so now you can be arrested by the US military without trial within the USA and the government can take your house from you without recourse under the guise that someone in your household was dealing drugs.

In this case, someone creates a website to protest something - Best Buy, Lamar Hunt the Super Bowl - and they have a forum for other people to post their comments. There's nothing to stop Best Buy, Lamar Hunt or the NFL from registering on the site, posting copyrighted pictures and then using SOPA to shut the website down. Is that legal? No. Is that what will happen? Without a doubt and no one will ever know. That's the kind of abuse that will happen under these laws.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm offended by Wikipedia's racism on this one. It stopped working as soon as it turned black.

[Rizon]

I'm offended by Wikipedia's racism on this one. It stopped working as soon as it turned black.

http://boourns.cjb.net/pics/1160718732911zb2.jpg

(this picture is not my own and I have stole it in protest of SOAPA

[cuervo72]

Read this comment on an article posted at MSNBC, thought it was interesting especially given JiMGa's take so far.

SOME right wingers aren't in support of this? I can't imagine why ANY right winger would be in support of this (and I am one). This is about more government intrusion and more government oversight of things they have no business in, things true "right wingers" abhor. Right wingers are about freedom more than they are about profits (but believe people should be free to profit).

[cuervo72]

I'm offended by Wikipedia's racism on this one. It stopped working as soon as it turned black.

:thumbsup:

[Rizon]

The only thing you can access on wikipedia is: midgets, boobs & bacon.

Lies. Raptors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor) and Norv Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norv_Turner) are still up.

Did you know that raptors only were about 30 pounds??

[Ksyrup]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool? I mean, I google things first, and maybe a Wiki entry is among the links I can look at, but I don't think I've ever gone straight to Wikipedia to look something up. If this was reversed, and google was down but Wiki was "blacked out," I'd be much more inconvenienced.

[JediKooter]

Lies. Raptors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor) and Norv Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norv_Turner) are still up.

Did you know that raptors only were about 30 pounds??

Not if they would eat Norv Turner.

[JAG]

From what I heard on the radio on the way to work, some of the legislation would make it so if Google or Wikipedia linked to sites that linked to other sites involved with piracy, Google / Wikipedia could be held liable for copyright infringement. That's patently (pun intended) absurd.

[spleen1015]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool? I mean, I google things first, and maybe a Wiki entry is among the links I can look at, but I don't think I've ever gone straight to Wikipedia to look something up. If this was reversed, and google was down but Wiki was "blacked out," I'd be much more inconvenienced.

I use Wikipedia in a lot of cases.

For example, yesterday we were talking about Jim Irsay and when he took over as the main owner of the Colts. We didn't know so I went straight to Wikipedia and looked it up. That happens a lot for me.

[cody8200]

I thought JimGA was a Libertarian. Well those guys hate this thing - at least according to the Libertarian CATO Institute. This is the government putting it's hands all over your woman kind of thing. I'm all like, "Bitch, get your hands off my sexy internet."

[ISiddiqui]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool?

Yes. Especially if it is something I know there will be a Wiki article on.

[cuervo72]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool? I mean, I google things first, and maybe a Wiki entry is among the links I can look at, but I don't think I've ever gone straight to Wikipedia to look something up. If this was reversed, and google was down but Wiki was "blacked out," I'd be much more inconvenienced.

I'll use google to find the wiki page.

My kids ask me all kinds of stuff all the time. Do I have all the answers? Hell no. But I can get a reasonable synopsis of just about anything on wikipedia. If I need something more in-depth or specific I will search for other sites, at the very least to cross-check wiki.

[Breeze]

From what I heard on the radio on the way to work, some of the legislation would make it so if Google or Wikipedia linked to sites that linked to other sites involved with piracy, Google / Wikipedia could be held liable for copyright infringement. That's patently (pun intended) absurd.

Government and absurd....isn't that redundant?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I thought JimGA was a Libertarian.

Then you haven't been following very closely. I would say he veers totalitarian, which makes his support here completely consistent.

[JediKooter]

Not to mention the potential for abuse is beyond astronomical.

Nailed it right there. The abuse of the DMCA on sites like youtube is beyond ridiculous already. This bill would be the DMCA on steroids, coke, meth & human growth hormones. Oh and all of it is with ZERO due process.

[lungs]

I thought JimGA was a Libertarian.

You MUST be thinking of the wrong person? :)

edit: ronnie beat me to it

[Subby]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool? I mean, I google things first, and maybe a Wiki entry is among the links I can look at, but I don't think I've ever gone straight to Wikipedia to look something up. If this was reversed, and google was down but Wiki was "blacked out," I'd be much more inconvenienced.
Wiki is an encyclopedia, so any time I want to learn about something I go straight there. I used it last night to research SOPA.

I think of it as a jumping off point, and if I want to know more I will either use the links in the article or go to Google.

[DanGarion]

Welcome to China.

[Chief Rum]

Lies. Raptors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor) and Norv Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norv_Turner) are still up.

Did you know that raptors only were about 30 pounds??

Norv Turner is a boob

[King of New York]

One FOFCer whose opinion I would be interested to hear on this is Marc Vaughn. It's very easy for folks whose livelihoods are in no way threatened by internet piracy to label any attempt to deal with it as "censorship." SI certainly has to contend with internet theft of its products, so I wonder what his take is.

Ping: Marc Vaughn

[ColtCrazy]

I use Wikipedia a lot as well. If it's a short, simple answer...like a definition or something, I google it. If I want to know more about someone or something, I Wikipedia it. Those are the 2 I use the most often.

[Rizon]

Ah, imagur is down today in protest, too. Damn.

[Tigercat]

This just in: US entertainment businesses are fine. We still lead the world in creating and exporting entertainment properties. (Film, music, video games, ect.)

So, if we still lead the world in creation and exportation, why do we need new laws and not just enforce the ones we have? And what excuse does anyone with a conservative or libertarian leaning have for supporting this unnecessary bill?

[JediKooter]

Norv Turner is a boob

And he's a horrible head coach.

[mckerney]

And what excuse does anyone with a conservative or libertarian leaning have for supporting this unnecessary bill?

Straight cash homie.

[-apoc-]

Here is the real kicker in how bad these bills are. The government can tell private companies to delist www. piratebay .org from the DNS servers so if you type that in you can not go to the website. However if you simply put the ip address 194.71.107.15 in your browser you can still go there. So it accomplishes nothing since most people who are going to pirate something still can with almost no hassle.

It is a big bloated swing and a miss as usual from the RIAA and congress.

[cody8200]

Then you haven't been following very closely. I would say he veers totalitarian, which makes his support here completely consistent.

I usually stay out of political threads but this one bill crosses the politics with something I actually care about. Must have been thinking of someone else.

[Maple Leafs]

It's very easy for folks whose livelihoods are in no way threatened by internet piracy to label any attempt to deal with it as "censorship."
I don't think anyone is doing that. We're arguing that these specific attempts to deal with piracy are a massive over-reach that would give governments and corporations the power to control free speech without actually addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It is not debatable that if SOPA had been passed in 1998 (whereas DMCA allows for most websites to be protected under "safe harbor") then YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. would not be around. Putting the onus on the website to ensure that no one is posting anything copyrighted would completely stifle these job-creators' ability to actually create jobs.

[Solecismic]

It won't stop piracy, but it will allow corporations to shut down and sue websites. It's another example of government as private security for the rich.

Such a short statement, yet it perfectly encapsulates the problems with this bill.

Congress depresses me. This is a huge problem, and, instead of talking to experts and crafting a narrowly-tailored, reasoned approach, I believe they just let the RIAA lawyers write whatever they wanted.

The Internet is still a lot like the Wild West. We need some laws out there. Piracy and theft and fraud are rampant. You and I are probably savvy enough to go out there and not get hurt, but the vast majority of people aren't. They need protection.

Companies like Wikipedia must accept some responsibility for content if they're going to provide a free forum for people. But how? This blunt-force approach the RIAA lawyers want is unrealistic and will stifle commerce and make life impossible for the little guy.

I'm encouraged by the Obama response, and hope the administration backs it with an appropriate task force and a proposal we can all stand behind. This is not a simple problem, and the solution will be more than a little uncomfortable. Change is necessary.

I wish I had more confidence in the government, because I fear this will go much the same way the health-care debate went, except not along party lines... yet.

[Solecismic]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool? I mean, I google things first, and maybe a Wiki entry is among the links I can look at, but I don't think I've ever gone straight to Wikipedia to look something up. If this was reversed, and google was down but Wiki was "blacked out," I'd be much more inconvenienced.

I didn't even notice, because I surf with NoScript. The site comes up as normal. But I did read their statements about what they were doing and why.

I use Wikipedia a lot. I play in a weekly bar trivia league, and I'm always reading something in preparation. Doubly so this week because the Jeopardy tryouts are/were Tuesday through Thursday. Wikipedia is a great and convenient resource.

[DanGarion]

I find it humorous that proponents to the bill claim it is merely supposed to stop piracy in foreign countries. If that is the case I'm all for it, but that's an all out lie.

[spleen1015]

I find it humorous that proponents to the bill claim it is merely supposed to stop piracy in foreign countries. If that is the case I'm all for it, but that's an all out lie.

Maybe I am stupid, but I don't see how this stops that. Makes no sense to me.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

.org (as in thepiratebay.org) is not a foreign domain anyway.

[EagleFan]

The single biggest problem with both SOPA and PIPA is the vagueness with which they are written. passing either of these bills creates an immediate slope the slipperiness of which we have never seen before.

These bills are nothing more than big corporations creating a systemic wiping clean of anything they don't want available or even think they might not want available.

As BK stated, this is legal laziness and Government pandering to big money, nothing more.

+111111111111111

[chadritt]

I saw a couple of people wondering so I thought Id add some anecdotal evidence at least.

Many of my facebook friends are "Industry people" whos livelihoods ARE affected by piracy, some of whom I have seen post long statements against piracy, and virtually all of them are posting anti-SOPA comments today with quite a few changing their profile pictures to black squares as a protest. None of us like piracy but this isnt a good way to go about things, its just got too many loopholes.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If you saw the "debate" about this on the floor the debaters could not have been less informed about the issues.

I honestly don't feel like they knew what they stepped in until the last few days and would be surprised if more than a handful even read the bill.

[Pumpy Tudors]

if being black is supposed to fix shit, HOW COME I STILL CAN'T CATCH A CAB

[spleen1015]

if being black is supposed to fix shit, HOW COME I STILL CAN'T CATCH A CAB

Because you never wear pants.

[JediKooter]

if being black is supposed to fix shit, HOW COME I STILL CAN'T CATCH A CAB

You should wear a Tebow jersey next time.

[Ksyrup]

If you saw the "debate" about this on the floor the debaters could not have been less informed about the issues.

I honestly don't feel like they knew what they stepped in until the last few days and would be surprised if more than a handful even read the bill.

That is the way the legislative process works in nearly every instance.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Because you never wear pants.
You should wear a Tebow jersey next time.
What if I wear a Tebow jersey and no pants?

[Ksyrup]

What if I wear a Tebow jersey and no pants?

People will see your 3/16ths.

[JediKooter]

What if I wear a Tebow jersey and no pants?

You should be set. Just make sure you have 3 dollars and 16 cents in change to tip the cab driver.

[EagleFan]

You should wear a Tebow jersey next time.

But then he still wouldn't get a cab for the first 45 minutes.

[korme]

Do people really use Wikipedia as a primary search tool? I mean, I google things first, and maybe a Wiki entry is among the links I can look at, but I don't think I've ever gone straight to Wikipedia to look something up. If this was reversed, and google was down but Wiki was "blacked out," I'd be much more inconvenienced.

My mini search bar in the top right of Firefox is pretty much permanently set on wikipedia. I've already searched a few things today, forgetting it is down.

[korme]

.org (as in thepiratebay.org) is not a foreign domain anyway.

How does thepiratebay even exist?

[Glengoyne]

I really haven't paid any attention to this stuff at all, but I do know one thing: I now have a craving for sopapilla.

Oh No. Now I do too.

Curse You Ksyrup!

[korme]

Pumpy Tudors: Derailing good topics, one bad joke at a time

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

How does thepiratebay even exist?

What do you mean, exactly?

It is registered and run by a group in Sweden, on servers in Sweden, but .org is a US domain using the logic from SOPA.

[korme]

What do you mean, exactly?

It is registered and run by a group in Sweden, on servers in Sweden, but .org is a US domain using the logic from SOPA.

I have seen plenty of websites get shutdown before, but thepiratebay just keeps chugging along

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

A little about TPB (http://www.yalelawtech.org/intro-to-law-and-technology/pirates-and-copyrights-and-torrents-oh-my/)

[mckerney]

How does thepiratebay even exist?

For one they host less copyright infringing material than Lamar Smith's site.

[Racer]

Anyone know what the white house's stance on these bills are - i.e. are they something to likely be vetoed?

[CraigSca]

I create content online that I get paid for, and that people sometimes steal and/or use without permission. That's wrong, it's annoying, and it takes money directly out of my pocket.

That said, if I found those people, drove up to their house, and threw a bomb through their front window, I'd absolutely deserve to be "chastised for trying to get paid". Trying to get paid is wonderful, but only if your attempt is a.) within reason and b.) likely to actually work in the first place. These bills fail on both accounts.

I agree - I was referring more to the original posting that "it's just companies trying to get rich." I'm not for the legislation, but I just find it odd to hold a company to the fire for wanting to get paid for services they provide.

[DanGarion]

That is the way the legislative process works in nearly every instance.

Well you know what they say.

Money ████ ██████ ████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████.

[DanGarion]

For one they host less copyright infringing material than Lamar Smith's site.

Exactly, basically this is the same battle we had many years ago when people bitched about the Anarchist Cookbook being accessible online. The Pirate Bay does not host files.

[ISiddiqui]

It seemed like Obama wasn't going to say anything, but after today he's come out against SOPA.

[Rizon]

I don't understand ... I've been able to view Wikipedia all day long. I thought it was supposed to be down?

[SirFozzie]

they make it somewhat easy to get around, if you disable javascript or adblock the page, it works normally.

[Rizon]

they make it somewhat easy to get around, if you disable javascript or adblock the page, it works normally.

Ahh ... yes, I have JS disabled.

[molson]

It's interesting how SOPA has changed the context of the debate here. We've had a lot of spirited debates here about piracy in general. There weren't more than a few people outright defending piracy, but a lot of people downplayed it, saying it wasn't a big problem, that copyrights were too expansive, and it was up to the content creators to change their business plan. SOPA has shifted the line of debate to a place that really benefits those more tolerant of piracy. Assuming it's as unreasonable as people say, and that it would immediately cause all these problems, then you'd have to be a real wackjob to stand up for intellectual property now. I think you see the same kind of things in political debates a lot of times, where the strategy is to move the line of debate to where most people are on your side of it. I'm not saying that SOPA is a conspiracy of the Swedish pirate party, but, I do think it's bad news for those anyone who creates and/or owns intellectual property. SOPA won't pass, but the taint of those "god damn elite rich people" is going to hinder legitimate protection of intellectual property for a while. (once anyone plays the "god damn elite rich people" card there's a contingent of people who will now be on your side forever regardless of the issue).

Edit: There's just something uncomfortable to me about the masses rebelling against copyright and intellectual property protection, even if a particular attempt at that protection is foolish, and even if the RIAA is really just to blame for it all. So ya, RIAA and others are losing the cultural battle by setting up the line of debate in a place where it's very difficult for those who care about copyright and intellectual property protection to defend it.

[Grover]

I'm offended by Wikipedia's racism on this one. It stopped working as soon as it turned black.

Rarely do I laugh out loud at something I read on the internet. This is one of those rare times.

Should I feel a little guilty?

[Grover]

Lies. Raptors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor) and Norv Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norv_Turner) are still up.

Did you know that raptors only were about 30 pounds??

I can't check wikipedia, but I believe the Utah Raptor was quite a bit larger and more akin to the raptors seen in Jurassic Park.

[molson]

The Pirate Bay does not host files.

Is that really a meaningful distinction? Does it really matter, in any practical sense, whether they actually host the file? This is where the law is behind reality. I know the the pirate bay supporters love to hang their hat on this, but what difference does this really make in terms of intellectual property and pirating stuff?

Edit: It kind of reminds me of a drunk driver who pulls into a parking lot and laughs, "can't get me know, I'm on private property!" That might have been true to the letter of the law in early statutes, but the law quickly evolved around it because the real harm we're trying to prevent there is drunk driving. The law needs to similarly evolve around similar meaningless distinctions regarding hosting when the real harm we're trying to prevent is intellectual property theft. SOPA might not be the way to do it, but the status quo is ridiculous.

[SirFozzie]

It's interesting how SOPA has changed the context of the debate here. We've had a lot of spirited debates here about piracy in general. There weren't more than a few people outright defending piracy, but a lot of people downplayed it, saying it wasn't a big problem, that copyrights were too expansive, and it was up to the content creators to change their business plan. SOPA has shifted the line of debate to a place that really benefits those more tolerant of piracy. Assuming it's as unreasonable as people say, and that it would immediately cause all these problems, then you'd have to be a real wackjob to stand up for intellectual property now. I think you see the same kind of things in political debates a lot of times, where the strategy is to move the line of debate to where most people are on your side of it. I'm not saying that SOPA is a conspiracy of the Swedish pirate party, but, I do think it's bad news for those anyone who creates and/or owns intellectual property. SOPA won't pass, but the taint of those "god damn elite rich people" is going to hinder legitimate protection of intellectual property for a while. (once anyone plays the "god damn elite rich people" card there's a contingent of people who will now be on your side forever regardless of the issue).

Edit: There's just something uncomfortable to me about the masses rebelling against copyright and intellectual property protection, even if a particular attempt at that protection is foolish, and even if the RIAA is really just to blame for it all. So ya, RIAA and others are losing the cultural battle by setting up the line of debate in a place where it's very difficult for those who care about copyright and intellectual property protection to defend it.

It's two pronged.

One: The Lobbyists for the RIAA/MPAA are basically writing these bills. If it seems like a monopolist's wet dream, that's why. It's a basic wishlist for those in those fields.

Two: It's also attempting to wear down the citizens on it. You keep producing more and more ludicrous bills "Three strikes!" "The US gets to shut down foreign sites it doesn't like without a court order", etcetera, that the then try to sneak something in that SOUNDS reasonable (compared to everything that came before it) that they get more then they should.

Or on numerical terms, on a scale of 0-100, they're proposing whacky things that qualify as 125 or 150, that when they comeback with a 75, you think they're right in the area. (funny, when I think about it, it's kinda like a certain political party, right?)

Actually, in all seriousness, it's good to see the R's fleeing the sinking ship that is these bills, and I'm disappointed to the D's clinging on desperately.

[cody8200]

It seemed like Obama wasn't going to say anything, but after today he's come out against SOPA.

Not exactly true. The White House actually said they were against the legislation as written 2 days ago.

White House Responds to Anti-SOPA Petition (http://mashable.com/2012/01/16/white-house-sopa-petition/)

[ISiddiqui]

Is that really a meaningful distinction? Does it really matter, in any practical sense, whether they actually host the file? This is where the law is behind reality. I know the the pirate bay supporters love to hang their hat on this, but what difference does this really make in terms of intellectual property and pirating stuff?

Edit: It kind of reminds me of a drunk driver who pulls into a parking lot and laughs, "can't get me know, I'm on private property!" That might have been true to the letter of the law in early statutes, but the law quickly evolved around it because the real harm we're trying to prevent there is drunk driving. The law needs to similarly evolve around similar meaningless distinctions regarding hosting when the real harm we're trying to prevent is intellectual property theft. SOPA might not be the way to do it, but the status quo is ridiculous.

Well it kind of matters. It is hard to police every file on your site, especially when you don't host it. I think it'd be impossible for say, Youtube, which does host files (through uploads) to go through every one to find out if the file violates copyright.

[chadritt]

It's interesting how SOPA has changed the context of the debate here. We've had a lot of spirited debates here about piracy in general. There weren't more than a few people outright defending piracy, but a lot of people downplayed it, saying it wasn't a big problem, that copyrights were too expansive, and it was up to the content creators to change their business plan. SOPA has shifted the line of debate to a place that really benefits those more tolerant of piracy. Assuming it's as unreasonable as people say, and that it would immediately cause all these problems, then you'd have to be a real wackjob to stand up for intellectual property now. I think you see the same kind of things in political debates a lot of times, where the strategy is to move the line of debate to where most people are on your side of it. I'm not saying that SOPA is a conspiracy of the Swedish pirate party, but, I do think it's bad news for those anyone who creates and/or owns intellectual property. SOPA won't pass, but the taint of those "god damn elite rich people" is going to hinder legitimate protection of intellectual property for a while. (once anyone plays the "god damn elite rich people" card there's a contingent of people who will now be on your side forever regardless of the issue).

Edit: There's just something uncomfortable to me about the masses rebelling against copyright and intellectual property protection, even if a particular attempt at that protection is foolish, and even if the RIAA is really just to blame for it all. So ya, RIAA and others are losing the cultural battle by setting up the line of debate in a place where it's very difficult for those who care about copyright and intellectual property protection to defend it.

Or it could be that people just want intellectual property protected without infringing on other rights. I have friends who are concerned about losing their jobs partially due to piracy, actually its a concern of mine as well on some jobs, and theyre still protesting these bills and writing their representatives because theyre against whats being proposed.

[Atocep]

Well it kind of matters. It is hard to police every file on your site, especially when you don't host it. I think it'd be impossible for say, Youtube, which does host files (through uploads) to go through every one to find out if the file violates copyright.

Yet that is exactly what SOPA would ask Youtube to do.

If SOPA were to pass forums as we know them would likely cease to exist. Even if Ben were to police this site to the very best of his ability and everyone here agreed to never post anything copyrighted all it would take is one banned person with a grudge to post something copyrighted and report the site.

Youtube would cease to exist, Wikipedia would likely cease to exist, Reddit would cease to exist, along with every other user driven website.

Democrats and republicans are split on damn near everything but when Hollywood and the music industry dumps nearly $100 million behind a bill senators on both sides are lining up to support it.

I'm not entirely comfortable with a group of people older than my mother deciding the fate of the internet. Especially when those same people are getting financial motivation from those that are proposing the bill.

[CrimsonFox]

Wil Wheaton wheighs in

Today the US Senate is considering legislation that would destroy the free and open Internet. - WWdN: In Exile (http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2012/01/today-the-us-senate-is-considering-legislation-that-would-destroy-the-free-and-open-internet.html)

[molson]

Well it kind of matters. It is hard to police every file on your site, especially when you don't host it. I think it'd be impossible for say, Youtube, which does host files (through uploads) to go through every one to find out if the file violates copyright.

It'd also be impossible for google to go through all their links too, i get that argument. But otherwise, there is a real, common sense distinction between pirate bay and youtube/google. All copyright infringement does not cause the same harm. Posting a photo on a message board does not cause the same harm as the easy availability of tens of thousands of hours of tv and movies and music and games in perfect quality. the law needs a way to make these common sense distinctions and to shut down, or at least bury a little better, the pirate bays, and the live sports streaming sites. If that's just impossible, and its impossible to go after the users, then i guess we just have to evolve (though it would really suck for a lot of people who rely on some type of protection.)

[Solecismic]

While I wouldn't support this bill as written, the Pirate Bay concept troubles me. I think it requires some sort of answer.

What if there was a person who constantly monitored homes in your neighborhood. He recorded patterns and provided a service where people could pay him a fee, and he would tell them when people are out of town.

He didn't share in the proceeds of any break-ins - he took his fees up top for his information. When the police asked him who bought the information related to a recent break-in, he would tell the police he only accepted cash and had no idea. He even would tell his "customers" that they should not use his information for any illegal activity.

Would he still be liable, legally?

Should dealers in scrap metal be required to take fingerprints and photograph a legal ID before paying for copper pipe or other building materials?

I think this is a clumsy and biased (in that it's supported by a specific set of corporations) attempt to address something that requires real change in how we use the Internet.

[Atocep]

It'd also be impossible for google to go through all their links too, i get that argument. But otherwise, there is a real, common sense distinction between pirate bay and youtube/google. All copyright infringement does not cause the same harm. Posting a photo on a message board does not cause the same harm as the easy availability of tens of thousands of hours of tv and movies and music and games in perfect quality. the law needs a way to make these common sense distinctions and to shut down, or at least bury a little better, the pirate bays, and the live sports streaming sites. If that's just impossible, and its impossible to go after the users, then i guess we just have to evolve (though it would really suck for a lot of people who rely on some type of protection.)


I don't think a common sense solution is realistic. It would be abused one way or another.

As much it sucks for a lot of people I think the movie, games, and especially the music industries need to evolve. Are record labels even needed anymore? To me, movie theaters also seem like a dated way of distributing content. For games you're going to see more and more online type content.

Like I said, it sucks for some, but I don't see this really as anything more than evolving to meet the demands of your consumer base.

[ISiddiqui]

It'd also be impossible for google to go through all their links too, i get that argument. But otherwise, there is a real, common sense distinction between pirate bay and youtube/google. All copyright infringement does not cause the same harm. Posting a photo on a message board does not cause the same harm as the easy availability of tens of thousands of hours of tv and movies and music and games in perfect quality. the law needs a way to make these common sense distinctions and to shut down, or at least bury a little better, the pirate bays, and the live sports streaming sites. If that's just impossible, and its impossible to go after the users, then i guess we just have to evolve (though it would really suck for a lot of people who rely on some type of protection.)

And SOPA doesn't navigate that distinction. It just goes to a ridiculous extreme. It may be easier to create some form of notice requirement and then the site has an oppertunity to take it down and do something in regarding that.

[JediKooter]

I can't check wikipedia, but I believe the Utah Raptor was quite a bit larger and more akin to the raptors seen in Jurassic Park.

I thought that was the Toronto Raptors?

[CrimsonFox]

I think this is another shell game and it isn't even a secret shell game. NOw that I know the MPAA is in on this it makes more sense. Easy enough for congressmen to add all kinds of extra things into a "bill about piracy". As this for me was never about piracy but information. Especially ways to let things gov and corporate sponsors do secret from the public. And with the add-in that they could block any and every foreign site they want (especially wikileaks which proably was one of the big things that started this), well so much for checks and balances. It's like what China has done for years and years.

[MikeVic]

It may be easier to create some form of notice requirement and then the site has an oppertunity to take it down and do something in regarding that.

Which I think is what YouTube does? I know I've had videos in my favourites or playlists that disappear due to copyright claims.

[chadritt]

Which I think is what YouTube does? I know I've had videos in my favourites or playlists that disappear due to copyright claims.

Youtube wouldnt even let me upload my editors reel due to copyright issues. Theyve got something in place already, though it could do with some improvements. Vimeo on the other hand let me upload and has kept it up for 2 years.

[mckerney]

I don't think a common sense solution is realistic. It would be abused one way or another.

As much it sucks for a lot of people I think the movie, games, and especially the music industries need to evolve. Are record labels even needed anymore? To me, movie theaters also seem like a dated way of distributing content. For games you're going to see more and more online type content.

Like I said, it sucks for some, but I don't see this really as anything more than evolving to meet the demands of your consumer base.

Thankfully parts of the gaming industry are working on evolving.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pLC_zZ5fqFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Unfortunately the music and movie industries do not seem to be, and pushing for laws like this claiming they're about piracy with the real purpose of keeping themselves in control with their old channels of distribution.

[CrimsonFox]

Which I think is what YouTube does? I know I've had videos in my favourites or playlists that disappear due to copyright claims.

NOt being able to find cool things on youtube would really stink.

And the thing is, finding something on youtube will not and has never prevent me from buying things like DVD. QUite the opposite. When I find great things on youtube it makes me want to buy more.
And very often I do.

[JediKooter]

I think this is another shell game and it isn't even a secret shell game. NOw that I know the MPAA is in on this it makes more sense. Easy enough for congressmen to add all kinds of extra things into a "bill about piracy". As this for me was never about piracy but information. Especially ways to let things gov and corporate sponsors do secret from the public. And with the add-in that they could block any and every foreign site they want (especially wikileaks which proably was one of the big things that started this), well so much for checks and balances. It's like what China has done for years and years.

Exactly. I think I said it in an earlier post, this is censorship disguised in the sheeps clothing of piracy. If the bills really wanted to address and take actual meaningful steps towards combating piracy, the bills would be way better defined and have much much less ambiguity about them. If they were to become law, it would give carte blanche to people/corporations to silence their detractors. Plus the fact that they provide ZERO due process from what I've read.

[CrimsonFox]

:D just type Ksyrup. It'll be okay.

Oh no! When I went to google.com, I couldn't tell if I was on google.com!

[Atocep]

Exactly. I think I said it in an earlier post, this is censorship disguised in the sheeps clothing of piracy. If the bills really wanted to address and take actual meaningful steps towards combating piracy, the bills would be way better defined and have much much less ambiguity about them. If they were to become law, it would give carte blanche to people/corporations to silence their detractors. Plus the fact that they provide ZERO due process from what I've read.

Wasn't it the head of the MPAA that essentially said, "it worked in china, I don't know why there's a problem with it here"?

[JediKooter]

Wasn't it the head of the MPAA that essentially said, "it worked in china, I don't know why there's a problem with it here"?

I have no idea, but, if he did say that, he needs to be on the first plane to China with a one way ticket and his passport torn up and burned as soon as he sets foot over there.

EDIT: This totally reminds me of something someone posted on their Facebook about a year or so ago, complaining about how fast it took China to build a high speed rail or damn. He was saying why does it take so long for something like this in America to be built and that we could learn a thing or two from China. I responded with, "It's easy to get things done quickly when you have slave labor and no OSHA to worry about".

[flounder]

Isn't Google engaging in political speech? I thought large corporations influencing the political process was bad.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Isn't Google engaging in political speech? I thought large corporations influencing the political process was bad.

But instead of just buying political clout, they're creating it with an idea. Or do you really think its the exact same thing?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

entertainment industry is the second largest industry in america (behind defense) and 20 of the 25 largest grossing movies of all time came out during the piracy era.

louis ck put out a special on his website, charged a reasonable price and made more money in a week than he knew what to do with.

[JediKooter]

entertainment industry is the second largest industry in america (behind defense) and 20 of the 25 largest grossing movies of all time came out during the piracy era.

louis ck put out a special on his website, charged a reasonable price and made more money in a week than he knew what to do with.

Yup! I think the industry's biggest problem is they are trying to force mid 20th century business models into 21st century technologies. Since they keep falling flat on their faces time and time again, they've gone back to their old stand by: "Lawyer up". So now, instead of working with the technologies, they are trying to legislate the technologies back to the mid 20th century where they feel the most comfortable. It's a paradigm shift that is going to run them over quite honestly.

[flounder]

But instead of just buying political clout, they're creating it with an idea. Or do you really think its the exact same thing?

Personally, I have no problem with the owners of Google saying whatever they want. I just don't see the difference between what they're doing and taking out a TV or newspaper ad saying the same thing. This is all off topic though. I just found it amusing.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

hollywood can suck fat cocks in hell.

[panerd]

This just in: US entertainment businesses are fine. We still lead the world in creating and exporting entertainment properties. (Film, music, video games, ect.)

So, if we still lead the world in creation and exportation, why do we need new laws and not just enforce the ones we have? And what excuse does anyone with a conservative or libertarian leaning have for supporting this unnecessary bill?

Because they aren't a true conservative or libertarian?

[panerd]

Thirty Years Before SOPA, MPAA Feared the VCR - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/01/18/thirty-years-before-sopa-mpaa-feared-the-vcr/)

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Thirty Years Before SOPA, MPAA Feared the VCR - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/01/18/thirty-years-before-sopa-mpaa-feared-the-vcr/)
my god, they'll kill us all!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png/220px-Home_taping_is_killing_music.png

[mckerney]

entertainment industry is the second largest industry in america (behind defense) and 20 of the 25 largest grossing movies of all time came out during the piracy era.

louis ck put out a special on his website, charged a reasonable price and made more money in a week than he knew what to do with.

Exactly the kind of thing the MPAA is trying to fight against. There's a reason people in the industry told Louis CK he'd have a problem with piracy if he went the way he did. Nevermind the fact that it's barely easier for pirates to share a DRM free file than it is a DVD or Blueray, the issue is how do the recording companies get there cut if he's not selling a $15 DVD.

[CrimsonFox]

my god, they'll kill us all!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png/220px-Home_taping_is_killing_music.png

Actually shitty music is killing music.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

fyi, that was from 1980 crimson. but i agree with your point.

people are slaves to convenience. the internet is convenient (see: amazon)

fix your business model you fucking dinosaurs.

[JediKooter]

my god, they'll kill us all!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png/220px-Home_taping_is_killing_music.png

Think of the children...

[gstelmack]

As much it sucks for a lot of people I think the movie, games, and especially the music industries need to evolve. Are record labels even needed anymore? To me, movie theaters also seem like a dated way of distributing content. For games you're going to see more and more online type content.

Going online with this doesn't stop the pirates, though. As long as people think they deserve a movie, a music, or a game no matter what, ease of access won't kill off piracy. No, we should not go to draconian lengths like this bill does, but that doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting the pirates and the aiders and abetters. I agree with the distinction between Pirate Bay and Youtube/Google, but only because the latter two do take steps once they are notified.

Has anybody brought up the Viacom/Youtube situation yet? Exactly the sort of abuse being worried about with SOPA, and it already happened once.

[Atocep]

Going online with this doesn't stop the pirates, though. As long as people think they deserve a movie, a music, or a game no matter what, ease of access won't kill off piracy. No, we should not go to draconian lengths like this bill does, but that doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting the pirates and the aiders and abetters. I agree with the distinction between Pirate Bay and Youtube/Google, but only because the latter two do take steps once they are notified.

Has anybody brought up the Viacom/Youtube situation yet? Exactly the sort of abuse being worried about with SOPA, and it already happened once.


Hitting random people with fines in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars doesn't do anything to curb piracy. It's a number so big it actually does the opposite of what the intent is. It doesn't scare anyone. It's also damn near impossible to say for certain that someone definitely pirated something unless you find it on their computer. The RIAA bases these lawsuits on IP yet when it was discovered that hundreds of movies and songs were downloaded from RIAA IP addresses their defense was that people are stealing their IP address. The exact same defense they refuse to accept in court.

If the entertainment industry really thought the current business model wasn't working you'd see more of an effort to evolve. This is a combination of flawed thinking (every pirated copy is a lost sale), a play for power, and the protection of a distribution model which maximizes their profits.

[booradley]

Yup! I think the industry's biggest problem is they are trying to force mid 20th century business models into 21st century technologies. Since they keep falling flat on their faces time and time again, they've gone back to their old stand by: "Lawyer up". So now, instead of working with the technologies, they are trying to legislate the technologies back to the mid 20th century where they feel the most comfortable. It's a paradigm shift that is going to run them over quite honestly.

BAM! You nailed it brother.

[chadritt]

Apparently the author of the SOPA bill would have his own website shut down under SOPA. The Author Of SOPA Is A Copyright Violator (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-author-of-sopa-is-a-copyright-violator)

[molson]

entertainment industry is the second largest industry in america (behind defense) and 20 of the 25 largest grossing movies of all time came out during the piracy era.

louis ck put out a special on his website, charged a reasonable price and made more money in a week than he knew what to do with.

This is what I was talking about, this is usually the approximate line in the piracy debate before SOPA moved it way in the other direction.

Legit movies, even online stuff, can still do well, but the whole ideal that "ya, free piles of unlimited stuff won't hurt the people selling the same stuff at all", requires that there are huge numbers of people that either: 1. Don't know how to pirate, or 2. Don't do it because they think it's wrong, or 3. Don't do it because they're afraid they'll get caught. The number of people in group 1 is no doubt decreasing. The number of people in group 2 could really go either way, it's a culture war. Sometimes I think that people are gaining some respect and like to pay for some things if just to support products they like, but I think generally, the concept of copyright is gradually losing that war though. The number of people in group 3 depends on the law, and the degree of enforcement. Ultimately, the people in group 1, 2, and 3 are subsidizing the cost of content for everyone else who doesn't give a shit, because they're keeping the business models viable. The 300,000 people that buy a UFC ppv are making the PPV venture profitable for the UFC, so they'll keep doing them, which allows millions to watch that same PPV for free. Edit: And hey, maybe that old crusty UFC, or the old crusty video game designer should "evolve" and find new ways to make money, but the pirate-tolerant people say that at the same time they enjoy those things as they exist today, in this business model, which does require a strong amount of honest purchases and participation (but not from them).

Any argument that piracy doesn't take any money at all out of Jim Gindin's pocket, or Marc Vaughn's pocket, or any other content creator's pocket, is just mind-blowing to me, I can't believe people actually think that. I guess it's possible that I'm just completely wrong on that, but it's hard to comprehend.

[gstelmack]

Hitting random people with fines in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars doesn't do anything to curb piracy. It's a number so big it actually does the opposite of what the intent is. It doesn't scare anyone. It's also damn near impossible to say for certain that someone definitely pirated something unless you find it on their computer. The RIAA bases these lawsuits on IP yet when it was discovered that hundreds of movies and songs were downloaded from RIAA IP addresses their defense was that people are stealing their IP address. The exact same defense they refuse to accept in court.

I agree, and I'm not arguing that.

If the entertainment industry really thought the current business model wasn't working you'd see more of an effort to evolve. This is a combination of flawed thinking (every pirated copy is a lost sale), a play for power, and the protection of a distribution model which maximizes their profits.

You said they needed to evolve, going more online, and I'm arguing that specific point. Yes, the industry is doing okay, but that doesn't mean piracy is okay or we shouldn't do something about it. I don't mean SOPA, I don't mean the stupid RIAA lawsuits, but just because the various industries have come up with stupid measures to fight piracy, doesn't mean you stop fighting piracy, even if your business model is evolving along with new technology.

The real fundamental "decline of Western Civilization" problem here is the number of people who think they have a right to things (movies, games, a house beyond their means, a car, your money, etc) seems to be growing at a pretty good clip. If you don't like how a movie / TV show / game / song is being distributed, DON'T VIEW/LISTEN/PLAY!

One example given in one of the articles I read on this was essentially "the big game is blacked out in your area, so a buddy streams it to you, he could go to jail!". I'd argue that with or without SOPA, he ought to be held legally liable, and so should you. Fines or jail can be debated, but you did not have any inherent RIGHT to that content, and he did not have any inherent RIGHT to distribute it. Walk away, go find something else to do, protest by becoming a fan of something else. But you don't have the RIGHT to watch it anyway. They want to be stupid in how they distribute it, stop watching it, they'll change or go away. I don't have the NFL network or cable, so I gave up Thursday night NFL games and most college football. Oh well, I watch other shows I can get legally and play more games.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

eh, i'm done here. i get to emotional about this shit. my point is:

quality product. respected provider. reasonable price. convenient delivery.

some people will pay. some people might pay. some people will never pay. focus on the first 2.

[molson]

some people will pay. some people might pay. some people will never pay. focus on the first 2.

That's a great system for those who never pay, and a shitty one for those that do and that subsidize the whole thing (all while the first 2 criticize companies not "evolving," as they accept the benefits of the subsidization.)

Edit: I think a true believer pirate, or true believer pirate supporter, should only consume entertainment and products that are utilizing these "evolved" business methods that piracy really can't touch, instead of benefiting from the old-fashion, misguided companies with antiquated business plans. I know there are a lot of true believers out there, and its an interesting perspective, but I think 99% of people who pirate (as I admit, I've done occasionally, though I consider myself reformed now), just do it for the free stuff. Which really doesn't make you a bad person either, but let's call it what it is.

[EagleFan]

All these possible laws do is bow to big business and harm small business. Allowing big business to legislate is even more scary than big government.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

That's a great system for those who never pay, and a shitty one for those that do and that subsidize the whole thing (all while the first 2 criticize companies not "evolving," as they accept the benefits of the subsidization.)
subsidize what??? those people were NEVER GOING TO BUY YOUR SHIT. EVER.

at the least there's-

wanna see the new gaspar noe flick?
who the fuck is gaspar noe?

vs.

wanna see the new gaspar noe flick?
fuck yes! i downloaded enter the void. his shit has to be seen in theaters.

[JediKooter]

BAM! You nailed it brother.

I have my moments. :)



Any argument that piracy doesn't take any money at all out of Jim Gindin's pocket, or Marc Vaughn's pocket, or any other content creator's pocket, is just mind-blowing to me, I can't believe people actually think that. I guess it's possible that I'm just completely wrong on that, but it's hard to comprehend.

Oh I'm sure there are people that think that. Which is definitely crazy. I just think that the amount that is claimed to being lost, isn't as high of a percentage as advertised.

[molson]

subsidize what??? those people were NEVER GOING TO BUY YOUR SHIT. EVER.



Not a single one?

Even if you're right, that piracy has never directly impacted anyone's business, ever, pirates are still benefiting greatly from people who do pay for that content. Shit costs money to make. If you refuse to participate in that process, others who are participating are subsidizing you, whether you were going to buy it or not. You're benefiting from a system that they're paying for, all while mocking how "un-evolved" it is.

[Logan]

Not a single one?

Even if you're right, that piracy has never impacted anyone's business, ever, pirates are still benefiting greatly from people who do pay for that content.

Subsidizing means that those paying are paying a higher price because of piracy. So a video game that would normally be $57 goes for $60 because of piracy. Yeah, I don't buy that...they charge $60 because that's what customers would pay. If they could charge $65, they would. If they could charge $70, they would.

[chadritt]

subsidize what??? those people were NEVER GOING TO BUY YOUR SHIT. EVER.

at the least there's-

wanna see the new gaspar noe flick?
who the fuck is gaspar noe?

vs.

wanna see the new gaspar noe flick?
fuck yes! i downloaded enter the void. his shit has to be seen in theaters.

What about the stuff thats free and is STILL being pirated, like network TV shows? The people who worked on that need people to watch shows the legal way so they can stay employed.

Then of course theres cable tv shows being pirated which is a whole other issue but I guess youd view that the same way "Sure theyre pirating but its not like they would ever pay for cable, theyd rather watch nothing"

[Atocep]

You said they needed to evolve, going more online, and I'm arguing that specific point. Yes, the industry is doing okay, but that doesn't mean piracy is okay or we shouldn't do something about it. I don't mean SOPA, I don't mean the stupid RIAA lawsuits, but just because the various industries have come up with stupid measures to fight piracy, doesn't mean you stop fighting piracy, even if your business model is evolving along with new technology.

I wouldn't argue that you stop fighting piracy, but I do wonder if it's reached the point where people just don't take piracy seriously because of the actions of the RIAA and the MPAA.

I also wonder if they'd have more success if they'd stop trying to convince people that piracy is one of the worst crimes imaginable and instead attempted to go after people by treating it more like a speeding ticket. As long as the RIAA and MPAA are the representatives though I don't think anything is changing without draconian measures being forced upon people.

The real fundamental "decline of Western Civilization" problem here is the number of people who think they have a right to things (movies, games, a house beyond their means, a car, your money, etc) seems to be growing at a pretty good clip. If you don't like how a movie / TV show / game / song is being distributed, DON'T VIEW/LISTEN/PLAY!

Both sides are at fault for a lot of things. No, they have no right to watch or play a game. However, just because someone does it doesn't mean that's a lost sale. It's an out of touch approach by people that don't understand the way things work or it's just a blatant lie to protect their interests. Pirating is huge issue in Korea and Russia because a lot of games aren't released there and it's created a culture that doesn't expect to pay full price for anything. The point is, though, that when I'm being told by these companies how many times something is pirated and how much revenue is lost because of it I know they're full of shit because a significant portion of that number comes from people that don't have the ability to pay money for the game if they wanted to.

You have one side that feels they have a right to these things and another side that gives misinformation on the impact of piracy to try to gain support.

[mckerney]

I wouldn't argue that you stop fighting piracy, but I do wonder if it's reached the point where people just don't take piracy seriously because of the actions of the RIAA and the MPAA.

I also wonder if they'd have more success if they'd stop trying to convince people that piracy is one of the worst crimes imaginable and instead attempted to go after people by treating it more like a speeding ticket. As long as the RIAA and MPAA are the representatives though I don't think anything is changing without draconian measures being forced upon people.

It's tough to take the MPAA seriously when they have the message of, "Don't pirate, because you're hurting the little guy who worked on set," while at the same time actors in Return of the Jedi were being told that they wouldn't be getting paid residuals because the movie still hadn't made a profit.

[Atocep]

Not a single one?

Even if you're right, that piracy has never directly impacted anyone's business, ever, pirates are still benefiting greatly from people who do pay for that content. Shit costs money to make. If you refuse to participate in that process, others who are participating are subsidizing you, whether you were going to buy it or not. You're benefiting from a system that they're paying for, all while mocking how "un-evolved" it is.

Piracy definitely has had impact an impact on some. That's obvious as far as I'm concerned. With entertainment revenues up someone, somewhere is benefiting though.

I would be interested to see if outright removal of piracy would actually end up having a negative impact on entertainment revenue (I don't want find out from seeing SOPA/PIPA passed though). The studies I've seen have shown that the average person that pirates tends to spend more on entertainment than the average person that doesn't. I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA would argue that would just mean they spend even more, but I seriously doubt that's the case.

[Buccaneer]

The bill will do very little to stop the kind of piracy it claims to be attacking. There's already examples of plug-ins that could get around a blocked address, so foreign sites devoted to piracy will still be accessible. What the bill will do is stifle content startups before they can get big enough to challenge the entertainment giants. Hollywood and RIAA aren't as concerned about stopping @1 billion in US piracy as they are protecting their businesses from new competitors.

You and I agree on something. Supporters just don't understand how government legislation works in reality, usually deviating towards the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Buccaneer]

I thought JimGA was a Libertarian. Well those guys hate this thing - at least according to the Libertarian CATO Institute. This is the government putting it's hands all over your woman kind of thing. I'm all like, "Bitch, get your hands off my sexy internet."

I had never, ever equated Jon to be a libertarian.

[bronconick]

Brick and mortar stores have to deal with stockloss. Ruined, stolen, defective items that end up written off and hurting their bottom line. They are never going to make that # zero. At a certain point, they try to get it as low as reasonably possible without spending billions and demanding that the government strip search people leaving the store.

The movie and music industries need to find that balancing point. I think the gaming industry is closer to it. What they're proposing is so far past that point it skips past anti-piracy and approaches censorship and limiting free speech.

[JPhillips]

I think it's important to remember that the idea of getting rich off of art is a recent phenomenon. Most of the history of Western art is full of people stealing IP from other artists. There's no evidence that art is either better or worse with strict copyright protections.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Not a single one?

Even if you're right, that piracy has never directly impacted anyone's business, ever, pirates are still benefiting greatly from people who do pay for that content. Shit costs money to make. If you refuse to participate in that process, others who are participating are subsidizing you, whether you were going to buy it or not. You're benefiting from a system that they're paying for, all while mocking how "un-evolved" it is.
somewhere, deep in the catacombs of the warner bros studio, joel silver receives a cocaine enema from an underage prostitute whilst negotiating the 3D reboot of the matrix franchise starring shia lebouf.

a single tear runs down his cheek

mai lei: what wrong mr. silver?
joel silver: (sob) people. people are stealing from me mai lei.
mai lei: who?
joel silver: thieves! pirates! people who won't pay for my art! oh god (weeps)
mai lei: don't a worry mr. silver. a man. he fight for you.
joel silver: (sniffle) who?
mai lei: his name... is molson.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XWHOF_0-6Hg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[JPhillips]

You and I agree on something. Supporters just don't understand how government legislation works in reality, usually deviating towards the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Where we disagree is that I don't think those are unintended consequences.

[chadritt]

You do realize that other people get paid based on the success of a film or show besides the super super rich right? Theres a ton of people working on every film or tv show and while the MPAA may be too hypocritical to listen to they actually have a decent enough point on this.

Hate Joel Silver, James Cameron, and the Weinsteins all you want but theyre not representative of this town.

[bronconick]

I'd be willing to bet that scummy accounting practices in Hollywood have cost those tons of people more $ over the years than pirates have. The MPAA can remove the plank from their own eye before telling the rest of us what to do.

[Young Drachma]

<object width="526" height="374">
<param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/>
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param>
<param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param>
<param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talk/stream/2012S/Blank/ClayShirky_2012S-320k.mp4&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/ClayShirky_2012S-embed.jpg&vw=512&vh=288&ap=0&ti=1329&lang=en&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea;year=2012;theme=master_storytellers;theme=media_that_matters;event=TEDSalon+NY2012;tag=Business;tag=Technology;tag=creativity;tag=media;tag=politics;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" />
<embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="526" height="374" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talk/stream/2012S/Blank/ClayShirky_2012S-320k.mp4&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/ClayShirky_2012S-embed.jpg&vw=512&vh=288&ap=0&ti=1329&lang=en&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea;year=2012;theme=master_storytellers;theme=media_that_matters;event=TEDSalon+NY2012;tag=Business;tag=Technology;tag=creativity;tag=media;tag=politics;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;"></embed>
</object>

[RainMaker]

It'd also be impossible for google to go through all their links too, i get that argument. But otherwise, there is a real, common sense distinction between pirate bay and youtube/google. All copyright infringement does not cause the same harm. Posting a photo on a message board does not cause the same harm as the easy availability of tens of thousands of hours of tv and movies and music and games in perfect quality. the law needs a way to make these common sense distinctions and to shut down, or at least bury a little better, the pirate bays, and the live sports streaming sites. If that's just impossible, and its impossible to go after the users, then i guess we just have to evolve (though it would really suck for a lot of people who rely on some type of protection.)

Who decides that distinction? Go to Google and type any song/movie/TV show followed by torrent. How is that much different than what Pirate Bay does? And despite YouTube's attempt to say they are for regular people, their founders admitted in internal e-mails that copyrighted materials were driving the traffic to the site.

My point is that it's impossible to set that distinction. If FOFC members started posting links to pirated games, how many would it take before they were considered Pirate Bay? It's a tricky issue that isn't black and white. A lot of the sites under this microscope work in shades of grey.

[mckerney]

I'd be willing to bet that scummy accounting practices in Hollywood have cost those tons of people more $ over the years than pirates have. The MPAA can remove the plank from their own eye before telling the rest of us what to do.


"We'll send you a check as soon as we make a profit off of Return of the Jedi. We only brought in $475 million for the world wide box office, we've got plenty of bills to pay after spending $32 million on production."

[RainMaker]

subsidize what??? those people were NEVER GOING TO BUY YOUR SHIT. EVER.


This is such a BS excuse. Half empty sports stadium. Should those who weren't going to buy a ticket be allowed in for free? What about at a movie theater or concert? I would never buy a ticket to see Bon Jovi play, so shouldn't I be allowed to see it free?

Just because you weren't going to buy something doesn't mean you should get it free.

That's in no way a support of SOPA which is terrible. Just tired of excuses for theft.

[mckerney]

This is such a BS excuse. Half empty sports stadium. Should those who weren't going to buy a ticket be allowed in for free? What about at a movie theater or concert? I would never buy a ticket to see Bon Jovi play, so shouldn't I be allowed to see it free?

Just because you weren't going to buy something doesn't mean you should get it free.

That's in no way a support of SOPA which is terrible. Just tired of excuses for theft.

It's not being used as an excuse for the actions of those people, it's a reason that we shouldn't used stopping piracy as a reason for things like the online censorship that SOPA would bring.

[mckerney]

MPAA: SOPA, PIPA Blackouts Are 'Abuse of Power' | News & Opinion | PCMag.com (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399019,00.asp)

This is right up there with, "If web censorship can work in China..."

[CrimsonFox]

Bahahahaha

SOPA Author Lamar Smith: Copyright Violator? | WebProNews (http://www.webpronews.com/lamar-smith-vice-2012-01)

[mckerney]

It's not being used as an excuse for the actions of those people, it's a reason that we shouldn't used stopping piracy as a reason for things like the online censorship that SOPA would bring.

To expand, his point wasn't, "you never would have bought this anyway, so it's okay if you decide to pirate it." It was more from the perspective of the content owner, some people are going to pirate what you make and even if you were 100% able to guarantee that those people wouldn't be able to pirate it they wouldn't anyway. So instead you should focus on what you can do for your customers and the people who might buy your product. But too often it's, "How can we stop those people from getting this for free?" instead of, "How can we get these people to buy our product?" And usually when attempting to stop people to get the product for free they hurt the people who did pay.

For an example of that look at the DRM Ubisoft put on Anno 2070, where there's a 3 machine activation limit, but any changes to hardware uses another activation. That means is someone plays the game on multiple machines and changes the hardware in them, they could be left without the ability activate the game and play what they paid for. Meanwhile the game has been cracked and there's no restriction on people who decide to pirate the game. So paying customers are harmed, people who might buy the game or might pirate it have more reason to pirate the game because they'll get a better service from pirates than they will Ubisoft, and no harm was done to those who weren't going to pay for it anyway. If you ask me that's not really a good way to fight piracy, and SOPA and PIPA seem like extreme version of that except they fuck over everyone.

[RainMaker]

I agree that it shouldn't be an excuse for bad legislation. I don't support the legislation either. But I do think piracy is an issue and we shouldn't throw our hands up and say "well they weren't going to buy it anyway so who cares".

As for your example, I support DRM. And unfortunately, if you don't like the rules set forth in it, don't buy the game. Not being as convenient as you'd like is not an excuse to theft. I don't like having to go through the hassle of scanning my drivers license everytime I buy cold medicine, but that doesn't justify me stealing the drugs from the store.

If you don't like DRM, be upset with the people that pirate games, not the people trying to protect their creation. And if you don't like how a company does DRM, don't buy their creation. The DRM is just another bullshit excuse used to steal stuff. While I'm sure there are problems with it at times, it's really minor.

[Atocep]

I agree that it shouldn't be an excuse for bad legislation. I don't support the legislation either. But I do think piracy is an issue and we shouldn't throw our hands up and say "well they weren't going to buy it anyway so who cares".

As for your example, I support DRM. And unfortunately, if you don't like the rules set forth in it, don't buy the game. Not being as convenient as you'd like is not an excuse to theft. I don't like having to go through the hassle of scanning my drivers license everytime I buy cold medicine, but that doesn't justify me stealing the drugs from the store.

If you don't like DRM, be upset with the people that pirate games, not the people trying to protect their creation. And if you don't like how a company does DRM, don't buy their creation. The DRM is just another bullshit excuse used to steal stuff. While I'm sure there are problems with it at times, it's really minor.

The problem with intrusive DRM is there's absolutely no proof that it does anything to deter piracy and common sense says that, if anything, it's driven people to explore piracy.

If they want to put it in their games, that's fine. I don't play Ubisoft games for that reason. Ubisoft, though, constantly takes shots at the PC community in magazines and other interviews blaming piracy for their lack of sales rather than accepting that their DRM likely plays a major role in it.

[StLee]

I'm curious about people's opinions of what exactly pirating something is.

For instance, if you download a movie to your computer, watch it, and delete it, is that piracy? Or must one make a profit to pirate?

[Grammaticus]

To expand, his point wasn't, "you never would have bought this anyway, so it's okay if you decide to pirate it." It was more from the perspective of the content owner, some people are going to pirate what you make and even if you were 100% able to guarantee that those people wouldn't be able to pirate it they wouldn't anyway. So instead you should focus on what you can do for your customers and the people who might buy your product. But too often it's, "How can we stop those people from getting this for free?" instead of, "How can we get these people to buy our product?" And usually when attempting to stop people to get the product for free they hurt the people who did pay.

For an example of that look at the DRM Ubisoft put on Anno 2070, where there's a 3 machine activation limit, but any changes to hardware uses another activation. That means is someone plays the game on multiple machines and changes the hardware in them, they could be left without the ability activate the game and play what they paid for. Meanwhile the game has been cracked and there's no restriction on people who decide to pirate the game. So paying customers are harmed, people who might buy the game or might pirate it have more reason to pirate the game because they'll get a better service from pirates than they will Ubisoft, and no harm was done to those who weren't going to pay for it anyway. If you ask me that's not really a good way to fight piracy, and SOPA and PIPA seem like extreme version of that except they fuck over everyone.


Which brings up a related issue. If you buy a game and install it. Later you upgrade your PC and it does not work due to DRM. You download a crack that lets you continue playing. Is that Piracy? Should that be against the law?

Another issue. If you have someone add a mod chip to your xbox that allows you to play discs that are not copyrighted, should that be against the law?

[Grammaticus]

I'm curious about people's opinions of what exactly pirating something is.

For instance, if you download a movie to your computer, watch it, and delete it, is that piracy? Or must one make a profit to pirate?

I'm pretty sure that would meet everyone's definition of piracy if you did not pay for the movie when you downloaded it. Your profit was the price you did not have to pay to watch it. Or the enjoyment you gained watching the movie without paying.

Maybe you should have asked, if you download the movie Highlander 2 for free, watch it and then delete it, is that piracy? Maybe not.

[Atocep]

Which brings up a related issue. If you buy a game and install it. Later you upgrade your PC and it does not work due to DRM. You download a crack that lets you continue playing. Is that Piracy? Should that be against the law?

Another issue. If you have someone add a mod chip to your xbox that allows you to play discs that are not copyrighted, should that be against the law?

The last Ubisoft game I played was Rainbow 6 Vegas. I paid for the game. 2 of my friends decided to Pirate it. They were able to play online perfectly fine with no problems. I couldn't connect to any servers so I downloaded the cracked .exe to use with my legal copy and I was able to play online perfectly fine.

I have not and will not play another Ubisoft game. They can go to hell.

[RainMaker]

The problem with intrusive DRM is there's absolutely no proof that it does anything to deter piracy and common sense says that, if anything, it's driven people to explore piracy.

If they want to put it in their games, that's fine. I don't play Ubisoft games for that reason. Ubisoft, though, constantly takes shots at the PC community in magazines and other interviews blaming piracy for their lack of sales rather than accepting that their DRM likely plays a major role in it.

That's their problem, not yours. If their DRM costs them sales by people who find it too intrusive, you shouldn't be concerned with it.

So lets take this theory that DRM causes people to pirate a game. If that was the case, wouldn't people buy the DRM version and then pirate it? That would be the moral thing to do. They get their money for their creation and you get the DRM-free version. But that doesn't happen and you know why? Because it's not about DRM, it's about people wanting shit for free.

[Atocep]

So lets take this theory that DRM causes people to pirate a game. If that was the case, wouldn't people buy the DRM version and then pirate it? That would be the moral thing to do. They get their money for their creation and you get the DRM-free version. But that doesn't happen and you know why? Because it's not about DRM, it's about people wanting shit for free.

Free would be a convenience that comes along with pirating it. Do you really think DRM that prevents you from playing online, scans your computer, limits the installs you have and uses an install when you change video cards doesn't lead people to piracy? Not everyone, but I've been a pretty serious PC gamer for going on 20 years and I see all sorts of reasons for Piracy. I see people that do it because it's free, people that do it to try out a game before they buy it, people that do it because of DRM, people that say they do it because of DRM but really want it for free, and all sorts of other shit. I'm 100% certain that everyone doesn't just pirate shit because it's free. Maybe the majority, but definitely not everyone.

If people continually have poor experiences while purchasing your product because of bullshit DRM and still want to play your games they're not going to pay you a damn dime for them when they can pirate them. I'm not defending it. I'm saying people that support intrusive DRM are completely out of touch with what actually works and what doesn't.

DRM does not work. 99.9% of games are cracked within 2 days of release. You're doing nothing but screwing over your paying customers and giving them incentive and what they're going to rationalize as a good reason to not pay for your games.

[molson]

"We'll send you a check as soon as we make a profit off of Return of the Jedi. We only brought in $475 million for the world wide box office, we've got plenty of bills to pay after spending $32 million on production."

It's true that current system of "pay if you want to" isn't going to make the entertainment industry collapse. There will still be people making tons of money. The 3 groups of non-pirates I identified above that keep the entertainment industry running will probably never decline to a level that dramatically impacts the mega-successful entertainment industry entities.

But that doesn't mean the system is fair for the paying customers that support the non-paying customers' experience, and I don't think that's an irrelevant consideration. It just seems really backwards to me. The pirate apologists claiming, with good arguments, that piracy doesn't effect anything that much - don't seem to understand that that's ONLY true because there's people out there who aren't willing or able to pirate, and who do pay for this stuff.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe pirates and pirate apologists should be a little less whiny, self-righteous and arrogant, and maybe do some occasional light yard work for people who fund their free unlimited entertainment orgy. The orgy will continue on, but ONLY because there's people out there who strongly disagree with them on this issue, or just have a different perspective of the nature of copyright. That's why I think the "pure" idealist pirate shouldn't be partaking in any entertainment options that are supported by paying customers. If money for art or the concept of copyright offends your sensibilities, start your own scene where where the only cost is incurred by the creators. I bet there'd still be some cool art, and you'd actually be sincerely living your ideal, rather than proclaiming it but still leaching off those who play by the rules.

[CraigSca]

To me, this is a sociological discussion. I wonder if this is more of a social more issue - will we one day think that stealing, no matter how "justified", is just that - stealing. Whether the MPAA or whoever is considered "evil" or not - wrongs perpetrated by the MPAA do not justify the wrong of pirating a motion picture. I just wonder, will we one day be unable to lay down to sleep at night thinking that the pirating of a movie/song/game doesn't effect anyone?

[RainMaker]

Free would be a convenience that comes along with pirating it. Do you really think DRM that prevents you from playing online, scans your computer, limits the installs you have and uses an install when you change video cards doesn't lead people to piracy? Not everyone, but I've been a pretty serious PC gamer for going on 20 years and I see all sorts of reasons for Piracy. I see people that do it because it's free, people that do it to try out a game before they buy it, people that do it because of DRM, people that say they do it because of DRM but really want it for free, and all sorts of other shit. I'm 100% certain that everyone doesn't just pirate shit because it's free. Maybe the majority, but definitely not everyone.

If people continually have poor experiences while purchasing your product because of bullshit DRM and still want to play your games they're not going to pay you a damn dime for them when they can pirate them. I'm not defending it. I'm saying people that support intrusive DRM are completely out of touch with what actually works and what doesn't.

DRM does not work. 99.9% of games are cracked within 2 days of release. You're doing nothing but screwing over your paying customers and giving them incentive and what they're going to rationalize as a good reason to not pay for your games.

I would imagine there are people who don't pirate for the free aspect. But how many of those are buying the game anyway and then just getting the convenienct pirated copy? What percent do you honestly think that makes up of the gaming community?

Lets take a look at music. Numerous places are selling DRM free music these days. You can literally click a couple buttons on any device you have and get it. They'll even store it on a cloud for you and sync it up on your other devices at no charge. There really isn't a more convenient and easy way to do it. Yet I see a lot of music on Pirate Bay. What's their excuse?

[mckerney]

What about the stuff thats free and is STILL being pirated, like network TV shows? The people who worked on that need people to watch shows the legal way so they can stay employed.

I'm curious on that, if someone is a non-Nielsen household what the difference between watching a prime time NBC show or downloading it the next day?

[mckerney]

I agree that it shouldn't be an excuse for bad legislation. I don't support the legislation either. But I do think piracy is an issue and we shouldn't throw our hands up and say "well they weren't going to buy it anyway so who cares".

As for your example, I support DRM. And unfortunately, if you don't like the rules set forth in it, don't buy the game. Not being as convenient as you'd like is not an excuse to theft. I don't like having to go through the hassle of scanning my drivers license everytime I buy cold medicine, but that doesn't justify me stealing the drugs from the store.

If you don't like DRM, be upset with the people that pirate games, not the people trying to protect their creation. And if you don't like how a company does DRM, don't buy their creation. The DRM is just another bullshit excuse used to steal stuff. While I'm sure there are problems with it at times, it's really minor.

Someone who should know the gaming industry pretty well and has a pretty direct interest in people not pirating would disagree on people just wanting it for free. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pLC_zZ5fqFk#t=65s)

[molson]

I'm curious on that, if someone is a non-Nielsen household what the difference between watching a prime time NBC show or downloading it the next day?

I bet there's a strong correlation between those who pirate network shows and those who pirate music and movies and games. It's part of their habits, its what they do. They don't look to TV or Amazon or B&N for their movies and shows and music, they go right to pirate bay. I suppose one could theoretically have their own personal moral "privacy code" where they pirate the shit out things that are free anyway, but nothing else. But I'm just guessing that's a pretty rare phenomenon, a minimal number of people compared to those who just pirate whatever they can get their hands on.

A network executive would probably have a more technical answer about lead-ins and TV viewing habits.

[molson]

Someone who should know the gaming industry pretty well and has a pretty direct interest in people not pirating would disagree on people just wanting it for free. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pLC_zZ5fqFk#t=65s)

If you guys are right though, isn't that exactly what he SHOULD say to limit piracy?

Edit: (i.e, this is just the strategy that this company is using...it's probably better than other strategies, but it doesn't follow that piracy doesn't impact business, and it doesn't justify the minimization of this issue.)

[Atocep]

If you guys are right though, isn't that exactly what he SHOULD say to limit piracy?

Hasn't Gabe backed it up though? When bittorrent releases it's annual list of most pirated games you never see Valve games on the list. They have non-intrusive DRM. They're about as consumer friendly as you can get considering Gabe will respond to pretty much anyone that emails him. He's also been consistent on the piracy issue for years.

Look at how Ubisoft treats the PC community. They put intrusive DRM in their games. They constantly whine about piracy. They initially cancel Ghost Recon Online and say it's because of piracy before deciding to release it as a free to play game. Their games are among the most pirated games.

It's all anecdotal of course, but even when your going around gaming forums you don't see much backlash when people openly admit they pirate Ubisoft games while saying you pirate Valve games is going to draw all sorts of criticisms.

I believe Steam just had it's 7th straight year of 100% revenue growth. They're obviously doing something right at Valve and their approach to piracy probably plays a role. They've built an incredibly loyal following.

[molson]

Don't we all know the guy, or many guys, that have hundreds of pirated movies burned to DVDs, thousands and thousands of pirated songs on their hard drive, and they share everything with their friends? I've known quite a few people like that. Obviously, they wouldn't have bought most that stuff if they didn't pirate it, but they haven't bought ANYTHING. The pirating habits and lifestyle has reduced the amount of money they spend on movies and music to ZERO. I just don't believe that these people are the exception, and that there's all these people pirating something, and then buying a legit copy if they like it. That's just crazy talk.

[molson]

Hasn't Gabe backed it up though? When bittorrent releases it's annual list of most pirated games you never see Valve games on the list. They have non-intrusive DRM. They're about as consumer friendly as you can get considering Gabe will respond to pretty much anyone that emails him. He's also been consistent on the piracy issue for years.

Look at how Ubisoft treats the PC community. They put intrusive DRM in their games. They constantly whine about piracy. They initially cancel Ghost Recon Online and say it's because of piracy before deciding to release it as a free to play game. Their games are among the most pirated games.

It's all anecdotal of course, but even when your going around gaming forums you don't see much backlash when people openly admit they pirate Ubisoft games while saying you pirate Valve games is going to draw all sorts of criticisms.

I believe Steam just had it's 7th straight year of 100% revenue growth. They're obviously doing something right at Valve and their approach to piracy probably plays a role. They've built an incredibly loyal following.

Didn't they get that loyal following precisely by acting differently from everyone else? Are you saying that if everyone had that business model, Pirate Bay would just disappear or substantially decline, and the concept of piracy would just leave our culture?

Edit: I think they caught a nice niche and have developed that cult following because of the environment they're in. It's interesting what you say about the gaming forums. People are willing to spare the company they like the most and pirate the shit out of everyone else. That is a genius business model, but I think only a small minority of companies can successfully be in that "loyal spot" at a time. The pirates aren't going to be loyal to everyone and pay for everything.

[Atocep]

Didn't they get that loyal following precisely by acting differently from everyone else? Are you saying that if everyone had that business model, Pirate Bay would just disappear or substantially decline, and the concept of piracy would just leave our culture?

Speaking for gaming, because it's an area I know a lot more about than movies, music, or tv shows.

I believe you'd see a noticeable drop in Piracy if people took Valve's approach. I don't think it's ever going completely away, but I don't know if that's such a bad thing for developers. As I mentioned earlier, studies have shown people that pirate games/music tend to also spend more than your average person that games or listens to music. Do the industries really want to fine/jail these people and completely remove the money they're spending from the equation?

Gaming revenues are WAY up over the past 10 years. Is piracy taking revenue out of that or is it a reason revenues are up? Some developers are getting hurt. I'd guess makers of niche games that don't have a broad audience for the people that pirate to spread word of a game to are going to be the hardest hit.

I honestly believe, as crazy as it may sound to some, that gaming revenue would drop over time if piracy was complete eradicated.

[mckerney]

If you guys are right though, isn't that exactly what he SHOULD say to limit piracy?

(i.e, this is just the strategy that this company is using...it's probably better than other strategies, but it doesn't follow that piracy doesn't impact business, and it doesn't justify the minimization of this issue.)

I'd say a system similar to what Steam has is sufficient, an account or CD key that games with the ability to install as many times as you like and play offline. As far as strength of copy protection Steamworks goes it's pretty weak, it isn't going to give cracking groups any problems. As far as what to do to limit piracy, I think it's pretty clear what he said he wants to do. Instead of asking, "How can we get people not to pirate this," focus on, "How can we get people to pay for this?"

[mckerney]

Didn't they get that loyal following precisely by acting differently from everyone else? Are you saying that if everyone had that business model, Pirate Bay would just disappear or substantially decline, and the concept of piracy would just leave our culture?

Edit: I think they caught a nice niche and have developed that cult following because of the environment they're in. It's interesting what you say about the gaming forums. People are willing to spare the company they like the most and pirate the shit out of everyone else. That is a genius business model, but I think only a small minority of companies can successfully be in that "loyal spot" at a time. The pirates aren't going to be loyal to everyone and pay for everything.

Did they get the following just by acting differently than everyone else, or were they the only ones acting the way customers wanted. And they're not seeing massive profit increases just because people aren't pirating their games, I'd be shocked if they aren't making far more selling other developers titles than they are their own.

[RainMaker]

Why is there so much music on Pirate Bay? No DRM, super convenient, they'll even store it and sync it to all your devices.

[mckerney]

Look at how Ubisoft treats the PC community. They put intrusive DRM in their games. They constantly whine about piracy. They initially cancel Ghost Recon Online and say it's because of piracy before deciding to release it as a free to play game. Their games are among the most pirated games.

A correction on Ghost Recon, the free to play Ghost Recon Online game is a separate project from Ghost Recon Future Soldier. Additionally, there's since been an announcement that there are plans to release Ghost Recon Future Soldier in addition to Ghost Recon Online.

At companies like Ubisoft it seems like piracy is the reason given by suits when the project they over saw wasn't a success on PC. What was the reason the game that was rushed with a poor PC port released 3 months after the console version unsuccessful? Uh, it was the pirates. Nothing we could do about it.

[chadritt]

I'm curious on that, if someone is a non-Nielsen household what the difference between watching a prime time NBC show or downloading it the next day?

My understanding, based on the few somewhat confusing conversations ive had with my bosses throughout the years, would be that watching live is the preference, followed by watching on a DVR preferably without skipping commercials, and least preferable is watching online. Essentially as long as you watch it legally they dont care much about the specifics.

The only thing that personally confuses me is that I personally wouldve thought DVR and online would trump live viewings for non nielsen households but thats not the impression ive gotten.

[Ryan S]

I bet there's a strong correlation between those who pirate network shows and those who pirate music and movies and games. It's part of their habits, its what they do.

Maybe in the US, but not so much overseas. Many people will download TV shows because they will never air in their country, or they will be years behind. I have downloaded plenty of TV shows, but I don't download movies or games.

If there was an inconvenient way to pay for this (without charging crazy money), I think it would be very successful.

[SackAttack]

If there was an inconvenient way to pay for this (without charging crazy money), I think it would be very successful.

I dunno. I was under the impression that saddling the consumer with inconvenience is a large part of the problem to begin with. :D

[mckerney]

Maybe in the US, but not so much overseas. Many people will download TV shows because they will never air in their country, or they will be years behind. I have downloaded plenty of TV shows, but I don't download movies or games.

If there was an inconvenient way to pay for this (without charging crazy money), I think it would be very successful.

I did the same for Snuff Box and Darkplace. Tried to find a way to buy it but couldn't find a region 1 DVD for it.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

sanctimony. sanctimony everywhere.

there's sectags on everything at the mall. people steal shit. people have always stolen shit. and yet there are still malls.

it's not about loss it's about opportunity. some people get it. some don't.

the problem with the gaming industry is the same problem with every industry. a new market emerges. there's a fuckload of initial opportunity and in ten years a handful of companies own everything. independent developers are struggling because independent developers are supposed to struggle.

but it someone's fault. it's pirates or unions or immigrants or protestants or anybody except where the core problems lie.

put the entire internet under glass. i don't give a fuck. i've got plenty of books* to read

*books from the library. 30 year old books. that are still in perfect condition. writers and publishers won't see a dime from me. muahahahaha!

[Blackadar]

Don't we all know the guy, or many guys, that have hundreds of pirated movies burned to DVDs, thousands and thousands of pirated songs on their hard drive, and they share everything with their friends? I've known quite a few people like that. Obviously, they wouldn't have bought most that stuff if they didn't pirate it, but they haven't bought ANYTHING. The pirating habits and lifestyle has reduced the amount of money they spend on movies and music to ZERO. I just don't believe that these people are the exception, and that there's all these people pirating something, and then buying a legit copy if they like it. That's just crazy talk.

Actually, no. I don't know that guy. Can you introduce us? :)

[Logan]

Yeah I don't know them either. Although my college roommate seemed to spend every non-sleeping, working, studying minute burning DVDs. Hundreds. He'd pop a disc in, start burning, go to class, run back into the apartment, pop it out and put a new one in, run out to class, come back and repeat.

I think he watched about 3 movies that year.

[molson]

Why is there so much music on Pirate Bay? No DRM, super convenient, they'll even store it and sync it to all your devices.

I think people buy CDs and then pirate the audio file just as a backup. :rolleyes:

[molson]

sanctimony. sanctimony everywhere.

there's sectags on everything at the mall. people steal shit. people have always stolen shit. and yet there are still malls.



Ah yes, the "sanctimony" card. There will always be an entertainment industry, and those squares who have issues with piracy that you insult will continue to fund it for you. I don't think piracy makes anyone a bad person and I don't think its ultimately a big deal, but I do obviously get a little frustrated by people who can't just be happy with the free stuff - they will stand on their soapbox and proclaim its actually the FAULT of companies, and the fault of people with different perspective on copyrights that actually FORCE them to pirate. And then on top of all that they have to deal with the self-righteous assholes who think you should generally pay for stuff. The pirates are just innocent victims, really.

[Ksyrup]

I often pirate new music before it's officially released, just so I can hear it ASAP. When it comes out, if I like it, I buy it. I don't just keep what I pirated. I'm sure I'm in the minority in that respect, but for me, pirating is mainly a way for me to freely listen to new music I've never heard and to get music I want before I am allowed to buy it. It doesn't really affect my purchasing in a negative way at all.

[molson]

Yeah I don't know them either. Although my college roommate seemed to spend every non-sleeping, working, studying minute burning DVDs. Hundreds. He'd pop a disc in, start burning, go to class, run back into the apartment, pop it out and put a new one in, run out to class, come back and repeat.

I think he watched about 3 movies that year.

Oh ya, the content hoarders, they were fun.

The guy I knew in college, he eventually worked at Microsoft, he was like the pirate dealer for the whole floor. In the mid to late 90's this was amazing stuff, you could tell him you wanted this movie, or this game, or this album, and he get it for you. For the whole floor. Nobody was buying DVDs or CDs and games at Walmart, nobody, you just went to this guy. Content just wasn't something you had to pay for anymore, it was a great time. Who knows, maybe that turned everybody into video game addicts and now they pay for stuff and it ultimately helped the gaming industry, I have no idea. But clearly, we were all motivated by the free stuff, being able to check out everything and anything. Reading this thread, maybe we were the only ones that felt that way.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Ah yes, the "sanctimony" card. There will always be an entertainment industry, and those squares who have issues with piracy that you insult will continue to fund it for you.
easy there joe arpaio. this may surprise you but not everyone on welfare looks like precious' mom and not everyone that defends piracy is an entitled brat (or even a pirate)

but i agree with you. people shouldn't steal. i mean, every marketplace in the history of marketplaces had had to deal with theft but this is different because... well, lawyers. lawyers and children. but mostly lawyers.

the thought of a world where my kids won't be able to pay $17.99 for a copy of bucky larsen born to be a star or 11.50 for a ticket to kung fu panda 6 is just... shudders

and trust me, you've never subsidized anything for me. unless you buy pallets. cuz i totally steal pallets from behind lowe's

[sterlingice]

easy there joe arpaio. this may surprise you but not everyone on welfare looks like precious' mom and not everyone that defends piracy is an entitled brat (or even a pirate)

but i agree with you. people shouldn't steal. i mean, every marketplace in the history of marketplaces had had to deal with theft but this is different because... well, lawyers. lawyers and children. but mostly lawyers.

the thought of a world where my kids won't be able to pay $17.99 for a copy of bucky larsen born to be a star or 11.50 for a ticket to kung fu panda 6 is just... shudders

and trust me, you've never subsidized anything for me. unless you buy pallets. cuz i totally steal pallets from behind lowe's

Well, I hear that two wrongs make a right. That seems to be what you can boil down almost all of the piracy moralizing here to. "They're jerks so it's ok to pirate from them".

If you don't like Kung Fu Panda 6 for $11.50, you don't have to go. If everyone feels that $11.50 is too much for Kung Fu Panda 6, they stop charging $11.50 for Kung Fu Panda 6 or they stop making them after the first movie. You have no God-given right to Kung Fu Panda 6 just because you don't like how they do business any more than I have a right to anything I don't want to purchase.

You don't see anyone on here short of JiMGA saying "Yeah, we love the RIAA and MPAA so let them go banning IP addresses and slapping million dollar fines on little Jimmy who pirated one song". But, right now, we have the polar opposite where a few arbitrary people get prosecuted while the rest of us could all point you to a site on the internet in 3 minutes where I could download the latest movies, music, and games without any real fear of repercussions. In fact, there's even becoming this moralizing where it's viewed as this victimless crime to evil corporations.

I think most people know I'm no friend of corporations. Citizens United is a mess. I can give you a long and compelling argument about why there is a serious need for substantial Wall Street regulation and reform. And I'm for much more government regulation not less as I believe they are horribly corrupting the political system. But even I recognize that there are issues here that need to be addressed. The current system doesn't work and there needs to be a change.

If Record Company X signs a contract to deliver Song Y, those contracts are pretty ironclad about them having exclusive rights for distribution. You don't like the delivery method or payment or whatever- you don't have a right to that song (with some fair use exceptions), it's really simple.

There's no law that says you have a right to any of this stuff. You don't want to pay for it, don't purchase it and they have to change their delivery method if enough people agree. It's really interesting how the two issues are being conflated together. There seems to be a moralization of "we deserve this item" and it's their fault that they can't protect it versus "they're an awful company so it's ok to steal from them". Just because the night security guy at WalMart makes minimum wage and leaves the door unlocked so someone can steal stuff out of the store doesn't mean we still don't prosecute the theft.

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

Pumpy Tudors: Derailing good topics, one bad joke at a time
I just want to thank you for the badge of honor and the new addition to my sig. Thanks, buddy. :)

[k0ruptr]

What I've been doing when bored. Acronyms are fun!

P revious I nternet P oliticians A bolished

and my favorite

P oliticians I gnorance P retty A mazing

[Ryan S]

I dunno. I was under the impression that saddling the consumer with inconvenience is a large part of the problem to begin with. :D

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).

[k0ruptr]

Not so much now days with Pandora, grooveshark, and the like but
I look back between like 1998 and 2005 , if I hadn't pirated so much music I wonder if I would of even found or even heard or some of the bands and music I love so much. I know I definitely wouldn't of been buying albums and such without hearing them a few play thrus at least (didn't matter much anyway I couldn't afford if I did want to purchase) I'm not too much of a believer in the people who say I pirate and if I like it I go buy it! yea I'm pretty sure thats BS for 95% of them, There has probably only been 3 or 4 albums that I purchased after pirating first. And those are the only 3 or 4 albums I've bought in that time period (last 12-14 years). I am pretty sure however if I had the money to spend I'd buy more, the 5% of them I love. I also know that there is many concerts I've gone to that I wouldn't have likely considered at all if I didn't have the mp3s on my pc. Obviously I broke the law, there is no justifying it. you are on 1 side of the fence or the other, there is no gray area here.

I do enjoy the music though.

I also think they can pass all the laws they want,but I'll bet they won't slow down piracy by even 1%

[k0ruptr]

another thing that I just realized that kind of blows my mind. If I hadn't ever started pirating stuff, and checking out the dark side of the internet, I wouldn't have been nearly as interested in computers. Piracy has allowed me to learn and use Photoshop, develop web sites, learn code and programming and basically is solely responsible for the majority of my computer knowledge, thus leading to the tech support job I just got here in Vegas a week ago.

crazy.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I used to pirate stuff all the time, probably from age 6 to maybe age 17, so we're going back practically 20-30 years. Maybe this is a simplistic view and possibly the minority, but you know what I got out of piracy? Free shit. That's all. It didn't teach me, it didn't help me, it didn't lead to anything. I played free games and listened to free music. Then I just stopped. For a while afterwards, I felt bad about the piracy, but then I got over it. Now it's just part of my past, just like wearing diapers and watching the USFL.

I actually wonder how many young people who are big into piracy will eventually turn out like I did. In a way, I feel sorry for them, because nobody should ever be like me.

[k0ruptr]

I used to pirate stuff all the time, probably from age 6 to maybe age 17, so we're going back practically 20-30 years. Maybe this is a simplistic view and possibly the minority, but you know what I got out of piracy? Free shit. That's all. It didn't teach me, it didn't help me, it didn't lead to anything. I played free games and listened to free music. Then I just stopped. For a while afterwards, I felt bad about the piracy, but then I got over it. Now it's just part of my past, just like wearing diapers and watching the USFL.

I actually wonder how many young people who are big into piracy will eventually turn out like I did. In a way, I feel sorry for them, because nobody should ever be like me.

I wonder as well, after I posted I started thinking about High School and a friend of mine just got interviewed for a graphics job with Adult Swim in Atlanta, I pirated and burned his first photoshop for him, he taught him self thru 4 years of HS and went on to major in Digital Graphics at one of the Cal universities. Amazing.

[Ksyrup]

What were you pirating at 6? Electric Company episodes?

[k0ruptr]

I used to pirate stuff all the time, probably from age 6 to maybe age 17, so we're going back practically 20-30 years. Maybe this is a simplistic view and possibly the minority, but you know what I got out of piracy? Free shit. That's all. It didn't teach me, it didn't help me, it didn't lead to anything. I played free games and listened to free music. Then I just stopped. For a while afterwards, I felt bad about the piracy, but then I got over it. Now it's just part of my past, just like wearing diapers and watching the USFL.

I actually wonder how many young people who are big into piracy will eventually turn out like I did. In a way, I feel sorry for them, because nobody should ever be like me.

I'm pretty sure it lead you to Kathy Griffin and thats worth it in itself.

[Ksyrup]

So piracy is the gateway to Kathy Griffin?

First it steals your morals, then it steals your soul.

[k0ruptr]

What were you pirating at 6? Electric Company episodes?

Leisure Suit Larry. He matured by 7, and the mustache came the following year.

[k0ruptr]

So piracy is the gateway to Kathy Griffin?

First it steals your morals, then it steals your soul.

1. Pirate
2. Kathy Griffin
3. ????
4. Profit!

[k0ruptr]

I'm not proud of my self for pirating stuff, but I am proud of what I learned. I guess I have loose morals.

and I would totally download a car.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What were you pirating at 6? Electric Company episodes?
It's funny you should ask. Two quick stories:

1. When I was 2 years old, I would get pissed off if my mom wasn't in the living room to read the "word of the day" at the end of the Electric Company to me. If I remember correctly, they'd put the word on the screen and say it out loud, but I wanted her to read it to me. If she was in the other room or not paying attention, I'd throw a tantrum. Thinking about it now, I don't know why I got upset. I've known how to read since I was 18 months old. I guess I just wanted to see if she could read, too.

2. I was pirating Commodore 64 games when I was 6. I'd make friends on BBS systems and download games from them. They had no idea how young I was, though I doubt they would've cared anyway. One day when I was probably 8 or 9 years old, I tied up our home phone line for about three hours downloading a file called "Superman" from a BBS with my 300 baud modem. I mean, what little boy wouldn't want to play a Superman game? After three hours, the download finished, and I started the game up. A minute into loading, the title of the game popped up in huge letters on the family's 19-inch TV screen: "SEX GAMES". I had been tricked into downloading an adult game hidden under the name of "Superman." Both my parents were within view of the TV screen, but I managed to turn everything off before they got a look at it. I ended up erasing the game after I restarted the computer, so I never did get to see the actual game.

Eventually, my experiences led me to several more years of pirating and Kathy Griffin. Please don't be me.

[Logan]

Suddenly I'm interested in finding a working C64.

[k0ruptr]

It's funny you should ask. Two quick stories:

1. When I was 2 years old, I would get pissed off if my mom wasn't in the living room to read the "word of the day" at the end of the Electric Company to me. If I remember correctly, they'd put the word on the screen and say it out loud, but I wanted her to read it to me. If she was in the other room or not paying attention, I'd throw a tantrum. Thinking about it now, I don't know why I got upset. I've known how to read since I was 18 months old. I guess I just wanted to see if she could read, too.

2. I was pirating Commodore 64 games when I was 6. I'd make friends on BBS systems and download games from them. They had no idea how young I was, though I doubt they would've cared anyway. One day when I was probably 8 or 9 years old, I tied up our home phone line for about three hours downloading a file called "Superman" from a BBS with my 300 baud modem. I mean, what little boy wouldn't want to play a Superman game? After three hours, the download finished, and I started the game up. A minute into loading, the title of the game popped up in huge letters on the family's 19-inch TV screen: "SEX GAMES". I had been tricked into downloading an adult game hidden under the name of "Superman." Both my parents were within view of the TV screen, but I managed to turn everything off before they got a look at it. I ended up erasing the game after I restarted the computer, so I never did get to see the actual game.

Eventually, my experiences led me to several more years of pirating and Kathy Griffin. Please don't be me.

internet piracy trolling is a such a beautiful art

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

100% of the people in this thread have pirated pornography.

[JediKooter]

100% of the people in this thread have pirated pornography.

But not 100% of the pornography that's out there.

[Kathy Griffin]

Please don't steal my comedy!

[JediKooter]

Please don't steal my comedy!

I'd pirate you. Can you fit on a 1TB external drive?

[Ksyrup]

A post about porno followed by a post from Kathy Griffin. I think I'm gonna hurl.

[Pumpy Tudors]

SORRY FOR DERAILING THIS AGAIN

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Please don't steal my comedy!
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.
But not 100% of the pornography that's out there.
I'M NOT SUBSIDIZING YOUR GLASS BOTTOM BOAT FETISH JEDI!1!!

[Ksyrup]

A post about porno followed by a post from Kathy Griffin. I think I'm gonna hurl.

...myself off a 35 story building.

[DanGarion]

100% of the people in this thread have pirated pornography.

If someone already pirated the copy I have is it really pirated?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

that's not funny. those whores have addic- err kids to feed.

[k0ruptr]

If someone already pirated the copy I have is it really pirated?

of course silly. it's on the same level as when your friend steals a car and then you steal it from him! oh wait he doesn't have the car anymore....I got it! its like your friend steals a picture. and then you go and xerox that bitch like a boss! yea thats it. picture piracy inception style

[k0ruptr]

that's not funny. those whores have addic- err kids to feed.

yea they need to deposit to the similac and crack account.

[cartman]

Here's TPB's take on yesterday:

INTERNETS, 18th of January 2012.
PRESS RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE.

Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would "do for the eye what the phonograph does for
the ear". He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person
to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edisons patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures
in the North american east coast. The movie studios therefor relocated to California, and founded what we today call
Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent.
There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them - like
Fantasia, one of Disneys biggest hits ever.

So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they
circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: "stole") other peoples creative works,
without paying for it. They did it in order to make a huge profit. Today, they're all successful and most of the
studios are on the Fortune 500 list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations - it's all based on being
able to re-use other peoples creative works. And today they hold the rights to what other people create.
If you want to get something released, you have to abide to their rules. The ones they created after circumventing
other peoples rules.

The reason they are always complainting about "pirates" today is simple. We've done what they did. We circumvented the
rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow
people to have direct communication between eachother, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take
over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them).
It's all based on the fact that we're competition.
We've proven that their existance in their current form is no longer needed. We're just better than they are.

And the funny part is that our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of the USA. We fight for freedom of speech.
We see all people as equal. We believe that the public, not the elite, should rule the nation. We believe that laws
should be created to serve the public, not the rich corporations.

The Pirate Bay is truly an international community. The team is spread all over the globe - but we've stayed out of the
USA. We have Swedish roots and a swedish friend said this:
The word SOPA means "trash" in Swedish. The word PIPA means "a pipe" in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence.
They want to make the internet inte a one way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the
rest of us obedient consumers.
The public opinion on this matter is clear. Ask anyone on the street and you'll learn that noone wants to be fed with
trash. Why the US government want the american people to be fed with trash is beyond our imagination but we hope that
you will stop them, before we all drown.

SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the
hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to
mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really.
To fix the "problem of piracy" one should go to the source of the problem. The entertainment industry say they're
creating "culture" but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls
become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching
movies and tv shows that make them think that they're fat.

In the great Sid Meiers computer game Civilization you can build Wonders of the world. One of the most powerful ones
is Hollywood. With that you control all culture and media in the world. Rupert Murdoch was happy with MySpace and had
no problems with their own piracy until it failed. Now he's complainting that Google is the biggest source of piracy
in the world - because he's jealous. He wants to retain his mind control over people and clearly you'd get a more
honest view of things on Wikipedia and Google than on Fox News.

Some facts (years, dates) are probably wrong in this press release. The reason is that we can't access this information
when Wikipedia is blacked out. Because of pressure from our failing competitors. We're sorry for that.

THE PIRATE BAY, (K)2012

[Ksyrup]

Breaking News <S>@</S>BreakingNews <SMALL class=time>13m (https://twitter.com/#!/BreakingNews/status/160083706395111424) </SMALL>
<SMALL class=time></SMALL>AP: One of world's largest file-sharing sites, http://Megaupload.com (http://t.co/TTEGTbjP), shut down; company workers indicted

[k0ruptr]

They realized SOPA and PIPA are not going to pass and said fuck it we will show these pirates!

if only there were 90 million more sites like that. oh wait...