Wikipedia is Down

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

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

But yet the pirates love hollywood and can't get enough of it, as any visit to piratebay proves. That's the pirate sanctimony.

Edit: I just checked out pirates bay to get a sense of that phenomenon and they're hilariously public about being anti-SOPA. Hey Piratebay, maybe leave that fight to Wikipedia and others. I won't get into the stupidity of their Michael Jackson comparison, but, it's got a few logic issues.

[WVUFAN]

By the logic of some on this thread, recording a movie/tv show on DVR and fast forwarding through the ads is piracy, as is recording a song being played over the radio.

What gets me is the people who ACTUALLY should be the ones demanding that piracy be stopped ... really aren't, and that's the actual ARTISTS who make the movies, sing/write the songs.

You're not seeing Tom Hanks doing PSA's about how SOPA should be passed. You don't see Lady Gaga screaming to the heavens about how thepiratebay.org is costing her money.

When those people come to the table, I'll listen. I have, and will continue to do so, take as much money as I possibly can from the RIAA and MPAA. These are the same slimes that sued a 6 YEAR OLD BOY for downloading songs. They sued a 12 year old boy for downloading the Hulk movie. Mind you, these kids didn't distribute anything, they simply downloaded and watched a song/movie.

Screw them.

[Pumpy Tudors]

lol

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

By the logic of some on this thread, recording a movie/tv show on DVR and fast forwarding through the ads is piracy, as is recording a song being played over the radio.

What gets me is the people who ACTUALLY should be the ones demanding that piracy be stopped ... really aren't, and that's the actual ARTISTS who make the movies, sing/write the songs.

You're not seeing Tom Hanks doing PSA's about how SOPA should be passed. You don't see Lady Gaga screaming to the heavens about how thepiratebay.org is costing her money.

When those people come to the table, I'll listen. I have, and will continue to do so, take as much money as I possibly can from the RIAA and MPAA. These are the same slimes that sued a 6 YEAR OLD BOY for downloading songs. They sued a 12 year old boy for downloading the Hulk movie. Mind you, these kids didn't distribute anything, they simply downloaded and watched a song/movie.

Screw them.

Hows this: I have seen creators and producers of shows talking about how they hate piracy and thats a problem so they want piracy to stop. They then say they dont support sopa because they dont like how its written. SOPA and Piracy can both be bad.

[SirFozzie]

Hell, the thing that caused megaupload to be square in the sights of MPAA/RIAA was the rap-hip/hop mogul (who coges by the nom de plume Swizz Beats) who owned MegaUpload getting his rap friends (Kanye West, will.i.am, Snoop Dog) to record a video in support of the service.. which pissed off Universal Music Group something fierce, who is using copyright grounds to block the video.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Hell, the thing that caused megaupload to be square in the sights of MPAA/RIAA was the rap-hip/hop mogul (who coges by the nom de plume Swizz Beats) who owned MegaUpload getting his rap friends (Kanye West, will.i.am, Snoop Dog) to record a video in support of the service.. which pissed off Universal Music Group something fierce, who is using copyright grounds to block the video.

the people behind megaupload also started a de-facto distribution network in form of a streaming service for music which would essentially allow musicians to actually participate in the earnings in a big way, in a way bypassing record labels alltogether.
Plus according to one of their founders/leader/whatever they were in the process of filing complaints on their part.

Really, if you look into it a bit it i don´t see anybody looking good here on either side.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

the nom de plume Swizz Beats

I just love "nom de plume" sitting right next to "Swizz Beats"

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Hell, the thing that caused megaupload to be square in the sights of MPAA/RIAA was the rap-hip/hop mogul (who coges by the nom de plume Swizz Beats) who owned MegaUpload getting his rap friends (Kanye West, will.i.am, Snoop Dog) to record a video in support of the service.. which pissed off Universal Music Group something fierce, who is using copyright grounds to block the video.

How noble. Sell the rights to your songs for a big pile of money and THEN support violations of those rights once you've unloaded them.

People are free to make music and distribute it freely on the internet, and to give anyone the right to copy it, do whatever they want with it. (unless you accept piles of money to give that copyright to someone else). They don't want to. Just like the pirates, they want both sides of it. They want the big money from the labels, but they still want pretend they're the "good guys" and the labels are the bad guys.

I know there's a handful of artists/pirates out there who actually back up their views on copyrights and distribute this stuff, or support the non-commercial stuff, but they're few and far between. The rest are hypocrites. They want the hollywood/big label money and promotion, but they also want to pretend that they're all hip, and evolved, and "new media", and about open distribution - but it's a lie.

[molson]

Originally Posted by whomario

the people behind megaupload also started a de-facto distribution network in form of a streaming service for music which would essentially allow musicians to actually participate in the earnings in a big way, in a way bypassing record labels alltogether.

Is that theoretical or did they actually do that? Because it seems like the bread and butter was a different business model entirely.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by molson

How noble. Sell the rights to your songs for a big pile of money and THEN support violations of those rights once you've unloaded them.

People are free to make music and distribute it freely on the internet, and to give anyone the right to copy it, do whatever they want with it. (unless you accept piles of money to give that copyright to someone else). They don't want to. Just like the pirates, they want both sides of it. They want the big money from the labels, but they still want pretend they're the "good guys" and the labels are the bad guys.

I know there's a handful of artists/pirates out there who actually back up their views on copyrights and distribute this stuff, or support the non-commercial stuff, but they're few and far between. The rest are hypocrites. They want the hollywood/big label money and promotion, but they also want to pretend that they're all hip, and evolved, and "new media", and about open distribution - but it's a lie.

Funny. I thought the corporations bought rights to publish their music, not tell them who they could or or could not support. Talk about contract slavery!

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Funny. I thought the corporations bought rights to publish their music, not tell them who they could or or could not support. Talk about contract slavery!

I'm not sure what your point is, they can say whatever they want unless they signed that away too (which is possible.) And labels certainly have the right to protect what they paid for using legal means. Why wouldn't they. Ya, ya, I know they're so evil and corrupt and everything, which is why all these big-time artists bypass them and distribute their music on the internet freely - they all do that right?

Everybody hates record companies unless they're writing you a check.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by molson

Is that theoretical or did they actually do that? Because it seems like the bread and butter was a different business model entirely.

http://www.killerstartups.com/Video-...r-music-online
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm...111221airvinyl

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by chadritt

SOPA and Piracy can both be bad.

This is lost on many in this thread, but I think is the sensible position.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure what your point is, they can say whatever they want unless they signed that away too (which is possible.) And labels certainly have the right to protect what they paid for using legal means. Why wouldn't they. Ya, ya, I know they're so evil and corrupt and everything, which is why all these big-time artists bypass them and distribute their music on the internet freely - they all do that right?

Everybody hates record companies unless they're writing you a check.

If (insert new artist here) could get away with only distributing over internet or (insert established artist here) could get away with distributing their own music then they would. Facts are, they usually can't as they won't get the airplay or recognition unless they are a established superstar and have the money to form their own label.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is lost on many in this thread, but I think is the sensible position.

no. this is a black and white issue and you either support freedom or you support the terrorists.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

no. this is a black and white issue and you either support freedom or you support the terrorists.

Funny, considering the source

SI

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

this is a black and white issue...

that was racist and i apologize.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Funny, considering the source

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chubby

If (insert new artist here) could get away with only distributing over internet or (insert established artist here) could get away with distributing their own music then they would. Facts are, they usually can't as they won't get the airplay or recognition unless they are a established superstar and have the money to form their own label.

That's true, I know they have a lot of power, but it seems they offer something big of value to huge stars as well, who still do business with them. If you're a big star and don't need the record companies, but still use them, AND speak out in favor of violating the rights they sold to the companies for actual cash - isn't that a little messed up?

It's kind of a weird angle with the new artists too. The people justifying the piracy point to the bad business practices and the wealth of the record companies. They don't talk about the younger acts. So it's OK to ripoff the record companies, but the younger acts, like you say, NEED the record companies. So I don't see how they're not being ripped off also.

Edit: So the labels, for all their faults, seem to be a necessary part of the business still. And I know pirates and many others they're not necessary, but yet, nobody actually steps up with another business model - even the big stars who are in a great position to. No, they like the current system, the money in the current system, AND the street cred from pretending they don't like the labels. Just like the pirates with Hollywood. Damn, Hollywood is evil, but shit, I'm going to keep consuming their movies as long as others pay for them. No attempt to create alternative ways to consume this stuff without copyrights, or whatever the ideal is. They want THIS system.

[whomario]

filesonic went offline voluntarily (well, sort of), that´s certainly a sign that there is some fear going around right now.
Right when i was in the middle of downloading a (free) podcast collection (less hassle than downloading it one by one). Couldn´t the FBI waited a couple days ?

kind of an interesting position is the one that bestselling author Paolo Coelho has had for a while now :

My thoughts on S.O.P.A. — Paulo Coelho's Blog

Around the same time, “I found a pirated Russian translation of “The Alchemist”, and we were selling 1000 copies a year in Russia, that’s not very impressive, so I said OK, let’s put the pirate edition online for people to download“. In 2001 “it sold 10’000 copies, and everybody was puzzled, and the next year we went over 100’000″. His publisher had not done any particular promotion.

Paulo Coelho: Why I pirate my own books — Paulo Coelho's Blog

(of course some of his reasoning doesn´t take e-readers into account really, but still)

[Drake]

Coelho was only doing what Cory Doctorow has been doing for a decade.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by whomario

filesonic went offline voluntarily (well, sort of), that´s certainly a sign that there is some fear going around right now.
Right when i was in the middle of downloading a (free) podcast collection (less hassle than downloading it one by one). Couldn´t the FBI waited a couple days ?

kind of an interesting position is the one that bestselling author Paolo Coelho has had for a while now :

My thoughts on S.O.P.A. — Paulo Coelho's Blog



Paulo Coelho: Why I pirate my own books — Paulo Coelho's Blog

(of course some of his reasoning doesn´t take e-readers into account really, but still)

If an author wants to retain their exclusive rights to the electronic distribution of their book, I'm sure they can sign a contract that does that. However, I doubt you could sell your book for as much to a publisher in print form if a company knew people would be copying it electronically.

If you're, say, Random House, and you think a book will sell 100K copies and 200K electronic copies and you get a cut of each, you'll pay $100K to an author for it. However, if you're going to be competing with his free electronic copy, how much less are you going to pay if you don't get that income?

This seems to me, again, like the "I love the system but hate the system" mentality that molson was describing. Yes, you want someone else to publish your book so it gets spots in big book stores and distributed online without having to deal with Amazon or whoever, but you don't want to pay for that service. So, the author wants the bigger upfront paycheck for exclusivity then want to violate said exclusivity. Sounds like if he was getting no publicity, he should have chosen a less inept publishing company who would actually guarantee him publicity.

SI

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

You're not seeing Tom Hanks doing PSA's about how SOPA should be passed. You don't see Lady Gaga screaming to the heavens about how thepiratebay.org is costing her money.

Yeah, as soon as a band like Metallica starts complaining I'll straighten up and fly right. Until then I want my free shit for free.

[panerd]

It's back... this time as CISPA.

CISPA schedule: Debate begins Thursday, vote by Friday afternoon

Hope the surprising opposition (i.e. usually police state bills fly right through with American voter approval) to SOPA and PIPA carry over to this latest nonsense. Of course that must mean I am against keeping people "safe".

[sterlingice]

Hopefully the clusterf that is the Senate will kill this like so many other bills

SI

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hopefully the clusterf that is the Senate will kill this like so many other bills

SI

And then there are those that are critical of this alledged "do-nothing" Congress. Congress needs to continue to "do-nothing" in this manner.

[sterlingice]

I would rather there be helpful measures coming out of Congress. However, this is not my idea of helpful so "do nothing" sounds good to me

SI

[panerd]

Finally some of the liberal social policy I had hoped would come from this administration. How about tackling online gambling and pot next?

CISPA cybersecurity bill gets veto threat from Obama | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[sterlingice]

Here's some fun info that came out of the Sony hack:

Project Goliath: Inside Hollywood's secret war against Google | The Verge
TLDR: MPAA ticked at Google and worried new laws will get SOPA/PIPA-like backlash; instead they are trying to find other ways to use existing laws to do the same thing
Google's a bit ticked because they are targeting DNS and trying to block it with help from (pause for fake surprise) Comcast

SI