The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
from the let's-walk-through-the-reasons dept
There's been plenty of talk (and a ton of posts here on Techdirt) discussing both SOPA (originally E-PARASITE) and PROTECT IP (aka PIPA), but it seemed like it would be useful to create a single, "definitive" post to highlight why both of these bills are extremely problematic and won't do much (if anything) to deal with the issues they're supposed to deal with, but will have massive unintended consequences. I also think it's important to highlight how PIPA is almost as bad as SOPA. Tragically, because SOPA was so bad, some in the entertainment industry have seen it as an opportunity to present PIPA as a "compromise." It is not. Both bills have tremendous problems, and they start with the fact that neither bill will help deal with the actual issues being raised.That main issue, we're told over and over again, is "piracy" and specifically "rogue" websites. And, let's be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? Much of the evidence suggests that it's not an enforcement problem and it's not a legal problem. Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all -- and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement. That's because the reason that there's infringement in the first place is that consumers are being under-served. Historically, infringement has never been about "free," but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology.
Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we've seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They're able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.
And, as we've seen with near perfect consistency, the best way, by far, to decrease infringement is to offer awesome new services that are convenient and useful. This doesn't mean just offering any old service -- and it certainly doesn't mean trying to limit what users can do with those services. And, most importantly, it doesn't mean treating consumers like they were criminals and "pirates." It means constantly improving the consumer experience. When that consumer experience is great, then people switch in droves. You can, absolutely, compete with free, and many do so. If more were able to without restriction, infringement would decrease. If you look at the two largest contributors to holding back "piracy" lately, it's been Netflix and Spotify. Those two services alone have been orders of magnitude more successful in decreasing infringement than any new copyright law. Because they compete by being more convenient and a better experience than infringement.
Finally, even if you disagree with all of that, and believe that the problem is enforcement, SOPA and PIPA, won't be effective in dealing with that. The internet always has a way of routing around "damage" no matter how hard people try to stop it, and the approach put forth by these bills is a joke. It's hard to find anyone with technology skills who thinks that they will be effective. Every "blockade" has an easy path around it, and the supposed "anti-circumvention" rule in SOPA will never deal with the more obvious paths around things like DNS blocking (use a different DNS or a perfectly legal foreign VPN system). The private right of action efforts are also mistargeted. They're based on the premise that infringement is done for monetary reasons. It's amusing that just a few years ago, these same industries insisted that music and movie fans never wanted to pay anything any more, but now they're claiming that these same people are paying for cyberlockers all the time? That's simply not credible. And if there's so much money to be made, the studios and labels would be opening their own cyberlockers. Either way, we've watched this game of Whac-a-mole for over a decade. It doesn't work. Every site that is shut down leads to half a dozen new ones that spring up. This is not how you tackle a problem: by making the same mistake made over and over again in the past.
So... SOPA & PIPA don't attack the real problem, do nothing to build up the services that do solve the problem, and won't work from a technological standpoint. And that's just if we look at the what these bills are supposed to do.
The real fear is the massive collateral damage these bills will have to jobs, the economy and innovation.
- The broad definitions in the bill create tremendous uncertainty for nearly every site online. This sounds like hyperbole, but it is not. Defenders of the bill like to claim that it is "narrowly focused" on foreign rogue infringing sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. While PIPA targets only foreign sites, the mechanism by which it does so is to put tremendous compliance and liability on third party service providers in the US. SOPA goes even further in expanding the private right of action to domestic sites as well. We've already seen how such laws can be abused by looking at how frequently false takedown claims are made under the existing DMCA. Of course, under the DMCA, just the content is blocked. Under SOPA all money to a site can be cut off. Under PIPA sites will just end up in court. Or, with both laws, an Attorney General can take action leading US companies to have to effectively act as network nannies trying to keep infringement from being accessible. None of this is good for anyone building a startup company these days. The massive uncertainty around this, combined with the need for a huge legal department sitting in "the garage" as a startup begins, will certainly slow down the pace of innovation in the US, while likely driving it elsewhere.
And the definitions are ridiculously broad. Under SOPA, you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if the core functionality of your site "enables or facilitates" infringement. The core functionality of nearly every internet website that involves user generated content enables and facilitates infringement. The entire internet itself enables or facilitates infringement. Email enables or facilitates infringement. They have significant non-infringing uses as well, but the definition leaves that out entirely. Under SOPA, there's also a risk if you take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement on a site. Of course, it's not at all clear how one takes deliberate actions to avoid taking action. The only way to read this clause from a tech company perspective is that it requires proactive monitoring, which is effectively impossible for a user generated content site. PROTECT IP's definitions are equally broad, again using the "enabling" or "facilitating" language. - The risk of these broad definitions on perfectly legitimate companies is not theoretical: Defenders of both bills continue to insist that they're only meant to deal with the worst of the worst. If that were really true, the definitions would be a lot tighter and a lot more specific. Even if this is the intention of the authors of both bills, the simple fact is that the very broad definitions in the bill, mean that any entrepreneur today will need to take significant compliance costs just to avoid the possible appearance of fitting the criteria.
Defenders also like to brush off the idea that a bill like this would target something like YouTube. But we know that's not accurate since Viacom is still engaged in a huge lawsuit against YouTube, in which Viacom's claims certainly appear to cover the definitions found in these bills. While it seems unlikely that anyone would try to shut down YouTube completely, given the public outcry it would create, the real fear is what happens to the next YouTube, or just the fear that a rights holder could strike into any company by threatening them under the private rights of action in each bill. It becomes a form of legalized extortion. Threaten to bring action under these bills, and watch tech companies crumble.
And, already there are indications that companies are interested in bringing broad actions for infringement against organizations that most people would consider perfectly legal. Advertising giant GroupM recently asked its entertainment industry customers to compile a list of "sites dedicated to infringement," not unlike what's found under PROTECT IP. Universal Music, Warner Bros. and Paramount were three key providers to that list, which ended up covering a large number of perfectly legitimate sites including the famed Internet Archive (widely recognized as the library for the internet). It also included numerous innovative startups that are frequently used by content creators to get their works out, such as SoundCloud and Vimeo. Even more worrisome, it included a variety of publications and blogs, including Vibe Magazine, the quintessential hip hop and R&B magazine founded by Quincy Jones, as well as Complex, a popular lifestyle magazine recently recognized as one of the most valuable startups in New York.
Even worse, it appears that Universal Music also included the personal website of one of its own top artists, 50Cent. The hiphop star has a personal website as well as a website owned by Universal Music. The personal website is much more popular... and it appeared on the infringement list. Suddenly, you can see how letting companies declare what sites are dedicated to infringement can lead to them looking to stifle speech and competition.
Similarly, Monster Cable, who has stated its support for PROTECT IP, has put together its own list of "rogue sites" and it, rather stunningly, includes sites like eBay, Craigslist, Costco and Sears. It even includes consumer rights groups like Which? in the UK, and various popular shopping search engines like PriceGrabber.
These companies clearly take an expansive view of what constitutes "dedicated to infringement," and have no problem suggesting they would like to stop these sites. Internet companies and site owners have every right to be extremely afraid of what laws like PIPA and SOPA would do when they give much more power to these private companies to take actions that could shut down these sites, tie them up in court or merely cut off their funding and advertising.
- That uncertainty has very real and quantifiable effects on jobs in this country. President Obama has noted that the internet adds approximately $2 trillion to the annual GDP (pdf). The amount of jobs created by the tech industry are massive, and represent a large percentage of all new job creation today. IDC has predicted 7.1 million new jobs and 100,000 new businesses created in the next four years from the tech sector. An astounding 3.1 million people are employed thanks to internet advertising -- jobs that simply did not exist a decade ago.
And these jobs go way beyond just the jobs at tech companies themselves. The important thing in tech platforms is not in how many jobs are at those companies, but how many jobs they enable elsewhere. eBay has been said to have empowered 750,000 people to build their own small businesses. Facebook's app platform has, by itself, created somewhere around 200,000 new jobs (pdf). It's likely that Apple's iOS app platform has created significantly more than that, given how popular it is. Google's tools have been shown to create $64 billion (with a b) in additional economic activity.
Do we really want to stifle all of that growth and activity with regulations that will stifle innovation and jobs, even (as noted above) as the evidence shows that merely adapting and providing a better service makes everyone better off? - That uncertainty has extreme and quantifiable effects on investment in new startups. A very detailed look at the uncertainty in the cloud computing space, prior to and after the decision in the Comedy Central v. Cablevision case, which effectively set the framework for the legality of cloud computing, showed much greater investment when the law was clarified to be in favor of letting these new services thrive. Take that away, and investment in this engine of growth likely would be much lower. Considering that politicians claim to be so concerned about the economy and jobs these days, the idea that they would push forth a bill that quantifiably would reduce investment in one of the only sectors creating new jobs is really stunning.
- Broadly expanding secondary liability is a dream for trial lawyers, but will be a disaster for business. There's been a move, associated with these bills to somehow demonize important concepts of safe harbors from secondary liability. The suggestion is that secondary liability somehow "allows" bad activity. Nothing is further from the truth. Illegal activity is still illegal. The point of safe harbors from secondary liability is blaming the party actually doing the action that breaks the law. We don't allow people to sue AT&T because the telephone was used in commission of a crime and we don't sue Ford because someone crashed their pickup truck into another car. Liability should be properly applied to the parties doing the action that breaks the law. The safe harbors have just made that clear -- and allowed innovation to flourish. Empirical studies have pointed out that "the rich informational ecosystem we know today... is a function of the 'breathing space' Internet intermediaries currently have under the law."
Other studies have shown that pulling back on such secondary liability safe harbors would mean that investors would need an astounding 13x to 20x return on investment to make the risk worthwhile. That triples or quadruples the standard risk level that most angel investors deal with.
The key way that both PIPA and SOPA function are to drastically scale back that breathing space, by attaching secondary liability and compliance costs to US companies, in an attempt to keep users from infringing via other sites. That would represent a massive shift in the legal framework that has allowed the internet to flourish, and yet no research or studies have been done to look at the possible impact of all of this. - The technical measures described in both bills is tremendously problematic. Looking to use DNS blocking is just a bad move. It's why a group of core internet infrastructure experts spoke out very early on (about COICA, in the pre-PIPA days) to explain how DNS blocking would set back a decade or more's worth of work on online security standards, would make people less safe online, and has the risk of fragmenting the internet. It's why the founder of the world's largest independent DNS provider, OpenDNS, in charge of protecting one-third of all schools in the US, has noted that under these laws, he likely wouldn't have started the company, or might have started it in another country.
- Having a judge determine the best network architecture is a bad idea. SOPA's attempt to address the "DNS blocking doesn't work" argument by adding a vague standard in which courts can order sites to take "reasonable measures" to block even more is also not encouraging. Does anyone really think that we want some judges determining what are "reasonable measures" for managing how the internet works? Wouldn't it be better to trust the long line of experts, drop any thought of DNS blocking, and move on?
- Going down the slippery slope of censorship is fraught with peril, both domestically and abroad. Supporters of the law get angry any time people bring up censorship, but as law professor Derek Bambauer has made clear, any effort to block content is a form of censorship. What we can argue is whether or not this form of censorship makes sense or is a policy that people think makes sense. But no one should deny that bills that lead to blocking access to websites is a form of censorship.
There is reasonable debate as to whether or not this level of censorship goes violates the First Amendment. Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has argued that it does violate the First Amendment. Well over 100 of the country's top legal scholars have made the same argument. Arguing on the other side is well respected First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams... but even he admits that under SOPA and PIPA protected speech would get censored. He just deems that as acceptable collateral damage, as being merely "incidental." We can argue over whether or not it really is incidental, as we've already seen actions against sites under current law that seek to stifle large amounts of protected speech outside of any infringement. - The functional setup of such site blocking -- via DNS blocking -- is effectively identical to how the Great Firewall of China works. While the intended purpose is obviously different, the actual mechanism for blocking is nearly identical. This creates significant cover for repressive regimes to resist any diplomatic efforts by the US to push back against attempts by the US to promote internet freedom. Furthermore, we have seen how countries, such as Russia, have used copyright law to censor political opposition, using the law to go against activists challenging the government. Even if the intended purpose of SOPA and PIPA are to protect against infringement, opening up the door to censorship for one purpose makes it nearly impossible to avoid it being used for other purposes. It also basically gives the perfect blueprint for repressive regimes. They merely need to claim that their Great Firewalls are designed to stomp out infringement, and then can use it to intimidate and block political opponents. Adding to that is the massive expansion of the diplomatic corp. pushing for greater enforcement, and it's almost as if we're begging countries to set up their own Great Firewalls that will certainly be abused.
- Countries abroad are watching us, and already noting the seeming hypocrisy concerning our statements. Media in other countries, who already are known for suppressing speech and censoring the internet, are already mocking the US for even considering such legislation at the same time as the US State Department claims to be promoting internet freedom. Talking about the importance of internet freedom on the one hand, while pushing countries to put in place the very tools that will be used to undermine internet freedom is not a particularly consistent message. This can be seen in VP Joe Biden's recent speech on internet freedom that presents all the arguments for why SOPA and PIPA should not be supported (in an unintended manner).
- Changing what counts as a felony for copyright, without understanding the implications or common usage of technology puts many at risk. This does not apply directly to PIPA, but its companion legislation in the Senate, S.978. Similar provisions are found in SOPA as well, making certain forms of "streaming" a felony. Supporters of these actions insist that they're merely harmonizing criminal and civil copyright laws, since the felony parts of the criminal copyright statute cover reproduction and distribution, but not performance. What they fail to recognize (or admit) is that there's a reason why performance rights were left out, and it's because it's pretty ridiculous to think of a felony performance in normal contexts. But it becomes even more troublesome in the online context, because "performance" is so vaguely defined in an era when streaming works via a simple one-line embed. To embed a video is no different -- from a technical standpoint -- from linking to a video. And most people would have significant problems with the idea that you could face five years in jail for merely linking to content you have no control over. Yet, the streaming portions of SOPA and of S.978 make that entirely possible. Merely putting a single line of code on a site, pointing to content on another server that you have no control over, potentially makes you a felon. This will have massive unintended consequences and puts at risk millions of Americans who embed videos all the time.
The Player Piano
“I foresee a marked deterioration in American Music…and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations by virtue – or rather by vice – of the multiplication of the various music reproducing machines” -- John Philips Sousa, 1906
The Video Cassette Recorder
"But now we are faced with a new and troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life, and we are facing it from a thing called the Video Cassette Recorder" -- MPAA President Jack Valenti in 1982
Cassette Tapes
"When the manufacturers hand the public a license to record at home...not only will the songwriter tie a noose around his neck, not only will there be no more records to tape, but the innocent public will be made accessory to the destruction of four industries" -- ASCAP, 1982
Digital Audio Tape
The Mp3 Player
“Diamond's product Rio was destined to undermine the creation of a legitimate digital distribution marketplace..." -- RIAA President Hillary Rosen in 1998
The Digital Video Recorder
"It's theft...Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming." Turner Broadcasting CEO Jaime Kellner in 2002
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bad ideas, censorship, copyright, economy, investment, jobs, pipa, protect ip, secondary liability, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
seems fitting somehow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Videos not available"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/43724/how-to-view-netflix-watch-instantly-in-xbmc/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It works great if you are running XBMC on Windows or MacOSX (I have a XBMC running on a Windows virtual machine and it works fine.) It does not work natively on Linux. However, since they ported it to Android, I cannot see how difficult it would be to port it to Linux but the source isn't available for the open-source guys to get it working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ABC opted to NOT put season 2 online after the episodes aired. I don't know why they did that, but I missed the complete second season because I missed the season opener and they didn't put them online.
'V' is not available to stream on Netflix either, nor is it on Hulu. It is on Amazon though, but I'm not going to give ABC $2/episode. I'll wait until the Blu Ray edition hits $9.99 then buy it.
There's your answer why some people download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, the same thing happened to me. I decided to watch the show because I liked some of the actors. It wasn't bad, worth watching if it's free (even on a time delay), but certainly not something I would pay for.
When it was on Hulu, I put it in my queue, and watched it when it came on. Every time I watched it, ABC got advertising money (and I'm more than happy that they did). When it was taken off Hulu, they didn't get that ad money anymore.
I didn't download any of it. I haven't watched the second season at all, and probably won't.
I'm sure many people did start downloading it when it was taken off Hulu, though.
In pure economic terms, what is the difference between them and me?
Nothing whatsoever. Either way, ABC didn't get paid.
And the results speak for themselves. The show was cancelled. A large part of that was the loss of viewers, and pulling it off Hulu certainly made a difference. Would it have made enough of a difference to leave it up? Well, now we'll never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not everything is available or easily available. Where is the ad-supported online movie database of every movie from before the 90's? Oh right, they'd still trying to sell $5 DVDs of movies that been out for 50 years when there's a marginal cost of $0 to distribute it digitally. It's also not necessarily about quantity either. Netflix and Hulu have scores of B movies that few want to watch, but there might be a particular film someone wants to see that isn't available except through bit torrent.
And it's not stealing - it's copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact one might convincingly argue that P2P networks are the most cost-effective and efficient way of cataloguing and maintaining a cultural archive. The "pro-copyright" argument would be much more convincing if the standard copyright length was 36 months with options to renew at 12-month intervals if commercial viability can be demonstrated at each interval, to a maximum of ten years. Our society is moving faster than ever- so why should we be extending the amount of time we have to lock away our culture for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges.
Mike, your reasoning behind this is the shortest of any in the list, but (IMHO) it is absolutely the most important.
Judges are not required to have any sort of technical knowledge, and having a non-technical person making decisions that affect technology is a disaster in the making.
In 2004, a judge ordered a New Jersey ISP to "give" some non-portable IP addresses to a former customer. Regardless of the fact that it was explained to him that it was a technological impossibility, he still ordeded nac.net to do it.
Decisions about technological architectures need to be made by technologists, not lay-people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most important reason ...
"we don't sue Ford because someone crashed their pickup truck into another car"
The people/groups trying to protect their content, ( and they have every right to do so ), have decided it is too difficult and/or expensive to go after actual law breakers. It is far less expensive to put that burden on the service companies that said lawbreakers utilize to commit their crimes.
Beyond that I agree with many opinions that the content holders could do a better job of making their content available to people in ways that the people want to use it and would pay for it. As a result the content holders could net more income (with the potential of smaller margins), but then they could also be free of much of the cost of trying to buy legislation that no-one wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why it's right!
The fact is that there are sleeze bags who profit by ignoring copyright rules. I don't care whether they get fined $150,000 or $50, but a functioning society has to punish those who cheat the system. And that's what Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware are happy to do.
So let's flip this around. Everyone here keeps mouthing platitudes about how they really care about the artist and how they really want to support the artist, but everyone here is dead set against any kind of punishment what-so-ever.
So what do we do about the ISOHunts? What do we do about the USENET sites? What do we do about the Torrent sites? They're making money selling access to content and they're sharing NOTHING with the people who do the real work. If not now, when? If not the SOPA or PROTECT-IP, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
The sign of a bad law is not how effectively it accomplishes its goal, but how easily it is abused.
I don't even think these two are setup to be effective at their stated goals, but worse both of these laws are setup to be ripe for abuse. It's virtually assured that they will be with how vague they are and how SOPA gives huge powers to the content industry that feels it has the most to gain by taking an extrememely draconian interpretation.
The unintended consequences are huge and have the potential to be quite disasterous for the US economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
Content owners need to identify infringing content, and send DCMA notices.
Oh I’m sorry, that cut on your finger will require removal of your entire arm.
"The fact is that there are sleeze bags"
Sleaze bags? K. If you say so. /sarc
"but a functioning society has to punish those who cheat the system"
That’s a laugh, and if true all of Congress would be in jail, ok maybe not all, but most.
"but everyone here is dead set against any kind of punishment what-so-ever."
STEP AWAY FROM THE GLUE. No one ever mentioned that. Just punishments for the crime committed is what I recall. I know that concept is foreign to you.
Tsk tsk:
They're making money selling access to content - and providing users with a free distribution channel. To paint all content distributed through those channels as illegal is intellectual dishonesty.
"with the people who do the real work."
LOL. Please enlighten us to who YOU think that is.
"If not now, when? If not the SOPA or PROTECT-IP, what?"
It was called the DMCA. It is just not enough for greedtards.
Sorry boB. Failtards strike again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
So you get a choice. Either the State department pressures the local government to shut down the sites or we shut them off at the border. Or the content creators are forced to sell t-shirts to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
Bob, this is why no one takes you seriously. No one has suggested that anyone be "forced to sell t-shirts to make a living."
If you can't debate honestly, why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
Live- love- laugh
Love life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
First we have to decide who we want to bring criminal copyright infringement against. If we only want people who are profiting off of it to be able to catch criminal charges we have to write it that way. As the law stands there is no difference between me emailing a movie to my friend and someone who runs one of the few profitable pirating sites. Personally I think end-users should only be civilly liable and those who profit can be criminally liable, but write the law clearly one way or the other; don't say this law only targets big pirate sites and write it so anyone uploading to youtube could be charged.
Secondly don't remove due process. File a formal complaint and let the states attorney bring charges. If they are some out of country website that won't respond then fine shut them down, but give the registered owner time to respond to the claim and decide whether or not they want to fight it.
I would go on but I just realized I am talking to a guy who uses terms like big hardware and big search so you know what, forget it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
Is that the "robin hood" rule ? you are allowed to steal from the rich as long as you give to the poor ?
Of course, if you only see the making of money as 'the profit' from your act, and do not realise that the movie you copied and sent to your friend, you might not directly profit from it, but your friend may watch the movie you sent him and not go and watch it at the movies.
So he has profited from your illegal copying.
He might even buy you a beer for giving him that movie the next time you are at the pub, you have profited from your crime.
He might be you 'friend' because you give him free movies, you are profiting from that friendship by the proceeds of crime.
So is it ok to murder someone as long as you do not make any money out of it ?
Does the laws in your country say "you have to follow all our laws unless you can prove you are not making any money from it.
Do you also have to prove your crime does not deny someone else from getting money ?
So if I gave your credit card details to someone else, for FREE, (therefore not profit from it), would it be ok for the person I gave those details too to draw all your money out of your account ?
Show me a law that states it is legal to break that law as long as you can show you are not profiting from it ? good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When to break the law
We have the Right to Free Speech, granted to us by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution (in the USA of course). And yes, I'm going somewhere with this, we have to use this Right with some Responsibility.
Here's my situation. Suppose I'm a signal processing engineer. I apply for a job with Large Defence Contractor. I spend some months in Limbo waiting for my Top Secret (or above!) clearance to come through. Since I'm clean as a whistle, it just takes time for the sweaty guys in brown suits to talk to my Scoutmaster, the Pastor of my church, my university advisor and the my friends in the Church choir.
Wow! What a thrill! I go into a controlled facility without any windows! I exchange my black-dot (Top Secret clearance! My heart runneth over with pride!) badge for my inside bad indicating what compartment(s) I can see. I stride forcfully into the facility, only to be amazed by the sight of people lighting cigars with $100 bills! Nobody appears to do any useful work at all. All the fancy, multi-core workstations run a networked flight simulator! Some of my new colleagues are "pole dancing" while the blue warning lights blink furiously! Nudity! Oh, my sensibilities!
I feel that despite having signed many contracts and oaths to never reveal what goes on in a closed facility, I must "blow the whistle" on this amazing abuse of taxpayer trust! But when I go to talk to the local newspaper about this, I have committed multiple felonies. I will do it anyway, as I feel that a higher obligation than "the law" exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
Do you have friend anxiety? Do you suspect that your friends are only your friends because you give them pirated movies? Neither do we. We give each other beer because we are human beings who care about each other and want our friends to be happy. Ironically, that's the same reason we give our friends copies of movies, rather than giving them strange looks and saying "I'm sorry, I can't give you this movie because you haven't paid for it. I paid for it, but only so that I could see it. If you see it too, then the entertainment industry could suffer. I think you should just go to the store and buy your own movie."
I have a stepfather who thinks that digital piracy is stealing (rather than copyright infringement). He has always been disgusted by it, because he doesn't understand how it works. I'll explain!
Digital piracy is sharing. But not like the sharing of one's toys, in which case the toy is given to one's friend and one does not have the toy any more. It is sharing in the same way that when you teach your friend a new game, it is sharing. Now you can both enjoy the game. If digital piracy was stealing, it would be different. If it was stealing, then I would be going to the toy store to steal a toy for my friend. Every single time I gave another friend a toy. The industry likes to say that digital piracy is like stealing because it plays to our sensibilities (THIEF!!!!). Not because it is rational, because it isn't. The thing that must be remembered is that digital content is much different from a toy or a game. It is digital. It can be copied. It doesn't have to be in one place at a time, and to have more than one copy, none have to be stolen. It is not like toys. I give my friend a copy of my toy, but I didn't steal it. Get it? The toy store didn't get paid for the toy. But they weren't going to get paid for the toy anyway, because I am not a customer of the toy store. If the toy store did not assume that I make 3x the income that I make, perhaps they would sell their product at a lower price. (Or maybe not - it doesn't matter, since the decision to buy the toy or not is mine, and is SEPARATE from the decision to download the toy from peers)
Example of a toy: Microsoft Office. Great example. Works great, is widely used. Costs too much. Solution? Get it for free.
The problem is a bad business model here. They are trying to sell what their custemers are giving away copies of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
What happens if only, say, 100 toys are actually sold, but 10,000 'shared' digitally ? It's likely that the company making the toy will either go bust, or stop making toys. OK, maybe their total possible market is 1000 toys, and 9000 of those shares aren't 'lost sales', but the chances are, some of those 9000 are customers who would have bought the toy, but don't have to, because they can get it free. So there are some lost sales in the shares- enough, maybe, to have allowed the maker to go on making the toy.
Just because record labels are over the top in claiming all piracy is lost sales doesn't mean that all free downloads never are. Of course some are. In the days of cassette copies, people did it cos it was cheaper than buying vinyl. Now people do it cos it's free.
There's nothing 'special' about digital that means the effort and investment that went into making the music is any less than it was when it was made on vinyl or CD. Yes, the costs of getting it to the market are substantially less, but even with social media tools, the time and money spent on promo (always more than manufacturing) is just the same, and with such a crowded market you have to work even harder.
There is a cost behind those digital files. And if the artist doesn't get a return on enough of them, or (as I've said above) finds strategies that work in terms of selling something you are prepared to pay for (not easy), then the artist may well stop producing the work.
Besides, there is, I think, a moral question which should be addressed. Sometimes those who argue that digital sharing is always 'sharing', never stealing, assume that simply because it is digital rather than physical, the consumer has the right to enjoy it for nothing, and give nothing back to the artist in return for that enjoyment. And that this one way transaction is morally acceptable. I'm really not sure that it is.
I'd agree that artists should not expect to get paid for every single shared file. But what we hope is there are still enough people prepared to give something back in return for the pleasure we give them. It simply isn't reasonable to expect us to carry all the costs and then just give it to you all for nothing, just because it happens to be digital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
For an answer I will give you this:
When few people infringe because it is easier not to, then it becomes very difficult to make money off of advertising to infringers. I'm just sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
If the law is crafted in such a way that this is possible, the law is poorly written. If you think that leaving such a possibility open is okay, you are a part of the problem. It's better to endure the possibility that the guilty will go free than to allow the possibility that the innocent will be punished.
"Do you think that we should outlaw pepper spray just because some jerk misused it?"
In the least, I think less-lethal weapons should be outlawed from use on non-violent suspects as compliance devices.
"The fact is that there are sleeze bags who profit by ignoring copyright rules."
The fact is that there are sleaze bags who profit by abusing copyright laws. Would you support legislation that enforced the rights of artists against record labels and movie studios? Where is the sweeping legislation to counter the abuses of the DMCA takedown notices?
"Big Search" is agnostic. Search engines catalog data and supply results. If the data didn't exist, the search engines wouldn't report its existence. There's no such thing as "Big Piracy." There isn't a vast international conspiracy of corporations in league to defraud the world of its intellectual property... unless you count all the RIAA and MPAA-type organizations around the world. "Big Hardware" is just as agnostic as "Big Search." You can't blame hardware manufacturers for what customers do with their products. You can't blame a bucket manufacturer because someone bought a bucket and put illegal drugs in the bucket.
"So let's flip this around. Everyone here keeps mouthing platitudes about how they really care about the artist and how they really want to support the artist, but everyone here is dead set against any kind of punishment what-so-ever."
Again, where is your support for separate legislation to punish media companies for abusing artists? Where is the legislation to curb Hollywood accounting practices that keep royalties out of the hands of people who work on a movie? Put your legislation where your mouth is.
"So what do we do about the ISOHunts? What do we do about the USENET sites? What do we do about the Torrent sites?"
All of these have legitimate uses. Target the users, not the tools.
"They're making money selling access to content"
Some of them are, some of them aren't. I don't recall being asked to pay for a membership to a torrent site. But tell me, why aren't media companies making that money by selling access to convenient content instead? If the pirates can make that money, so can the big media companies...
"and they're sharing NOTHING with the people who do the real work."
Big media companies hardly share anything with the people who do the real work.
"If not now, when? If not the SOPA or PROTECT-IP, what?"
As soon as copyright duration is shortened back to a reasonable length (no more than 15 years), copyright law is rewritten to codify fair use as grounds for dismissing lawsuits before they are allowed to occur and creates penalties for abuses when copyright holders should know better what is and what isn't actual infringement and when the big media companies take cues from the pirate business models they claim are making all their profit to give customers cheaper and easier and more consistent access to content with DRM or extortion schemes or expirations, we can start talking about negotiating some harsher enforcement laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
That entire sentence is so wrong and a crock of sh*t I don't know why you even wrote it.
Everyone here is NOT dead set against any kind of punishment whatsoever. What they ARE dead set against is SOPA and PIPA and how problem riddled they are. What people ARE dead set against is these two acts, which will do nothing to actually stop infringement.
In fact, people keep saying we need to do more and we need to do more. Yet conveniently seem to ignore the fact that laws are already on the books to deal with infringement. More isn't needed to be done (as in passing worse laws), we need to enforce (properly) the ones we already have.
"So what do we do about the ISOHunts? What do we do about the USENET sites? What do we do about the Torrent sites? They're making money selling access to content and they're sharing NOTHING with the people who do the real work. If not now, when? If not the SOPA or PROTECT-IP, what?"
Well, what a sane and rational personal would do is copy them. If they can make money, why can't you? If Netflix, Spotify, and iTunes can all compete with "free", what's the problem? Or are you saying that they CAN NOT compete? Because evidence shows they are doing exactly that. In fact, evidence shows that the more legal, convenient services put out there, the less infringement you find occurring. Hmm. How f*cking crazy is that?!
What you do about "rogue sites" is beat them at their own game. They're not necessarily easy for the laymen to use or understand. But iTunes and Netflix are. So what do you do? Compete. Adapt. Give the goddamn people what they want. Your products at reasonable prices in formats they want. You don't dictate to the market. The market dictates to you. The market is already telling you and showing you what it wants. So just listen to it.
It really isn't hard to figure out. Unless you're willfully blind and/or ignorant.
As for SOPA/PIPA, "what" is the better option. You want something along those lines? Make something that DOES NOT have vague and broad definitions in it. Make something that targets things specifically. Something that isn't what it currently is, which is a joke. Look up above at the article. Mike clearly points out all the problems with those two acts. So why not address them? Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "See! You just don't want us to do anything at all! You want to keep stealing!" No one is saying that. Not even remotely. People are very clearly (yet again) saying what the problems are, unless you're an idiot, it shouldn't be too hard to fix the problems.
I'm done with my comment. Chances are you or some AC will still NOT GET IT and/or then put a major spin on everything I said and come back with "you just want to keep freeloading" or something along those lines.
I think NOFX said it best with the entire lyrics to one of their songs, as well as quite bluntly with the song's name, "Dinosaurs Will Die".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
Laws are supposed to protect the innocent -- these laws encourage the abuse of the innocent and protect the abuser. There are absolutely no penalties for misusing these laws. All the penalties are on the accused, even if they are completely innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
I know that the real supporters of legislation like SOPA and PIPA will never believe this until they can quantifiably witness it but the way to minimize the copyright infringement problem is to make it not worthwhile to infringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
It is utterly simple. Out compete them. The content companies could have a tremendous advantage and nearly put torrent sites out of business in a few days if they were willing to pull their heads out of their asses and compete.
You want to get me to stop torrenting my favorite TV shows each week? Let me download them in a good quality format the moment they start airing and charge a reasonable price straight from the network's home page. You put it up, I'll get my credit card.
You want to get me to stop torrenting a movie that's still in the theaters? Let me download it in a good quality format on release night for a reasonable price.
Music? Well, I don't really torrent music very much anymore since I started using Pandora, but I'll stop altogether if I can (again) get a good quality mp3 or flac download of a band's entire catalog (and please decide on a standard format for file names and all the meta data tags) for a reasonable price ($1 per song is 10-20 times too expensive).
There is no technical or economic reason why what I've mentioned is either unreasonable or unfeasible. So, get on it, and I'll get my credit card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
If the likelihood of misuse is tremendously high, and the benefit of the actual law is minimal, then that certainly seems like an issue, no?
The fact is that there are sleeze bags who profit by ignoring copyright rules. I don't care whether they get fined $150,000 or $50, but a functioning society has to punish those who cheat the system. And that's what Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware are happy to do.
Every time you bring out those "Bigs" you look really stupid. No offense, but just saying. If you want to have a serious conversation, it would help for you not to look clueless. None of those are "cheating the system." And if the problem is from the industry not adapting, then why do you want to punish those pushing the industry forward? Makes no sense.
So let's flip this around. Everyone here keeps mouthing platitudes about how they really care about the artist and how they really want to support the artist, but everyone here is dead set against any kind of punishment what-so-ever.
So what do we do about the ISOHunts? What do we do about the USENET sites? What do we do about the Torrent sites? They're making money selling access to content and they're sharing NOTHING with the people who do the real work. If not now, when? If not the SOPA or PROTECT-IP, what?
I thought I stated that in the post: you out-compete with them. It takes work, but it's really not that hard. Look at the way Americans flocked to Spotify when it finally launched here. Look at how it's being used massively across Sweden, home of the Pirate Bay. Compete and win. No matter what, the sites you hate can't compete with a *good* authorized site. People would prefer to go to the source -- but they don't right now because the authorized sources come with too many problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
You either repeal copyright law or enforce it.
Anything less is a mockery of law, and by extension, a negative commentary on society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why it's right!
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-blogger-law-student-raided-by-police-for-file-sharing-articl es-111121/
Either way, your post makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
How about the ones who keep extending copyright, perpetually breaking agreement with the public?
What incentive does the public have to continue allowing copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
first of all get informes if you try to make a point
seond of all, as said so many times before you dont take care of a zit by removing your face so why take care of copyright infringement by removing basically every site that allows people to post stuff on
think before you talk/write
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
2) Some content simply isnt worth its price. Covering it with laws instead making it better makes people pirate it more. It's just how human react when they are unconvienced and then forced into thinking something is like this or that.
3) Piracy is not as big issue as it is made out to be. It's been as long as digital content exist, yet music, movie, game industry still exist and as a matter of fact keeps evolving.
4) Just because someone is a seemigly poor indie developer doesnt mean he has entire world agianst him and can only dream about success unless SOPA will come and save him. Example: Minecraft, in terms of graphic the most primitive 3d game in this generation, piss easy to pirate both single and multiplayer. Did it died and Notch went bankcrupt? No! He's a rich man now thanks to the fact that his game is creative and the very same "rogue" his gamess made people believe that simply by seeing what is possible in that game. Every Indie developer CAN succed, Not every Indie developer WILL succed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
I think you meant musicians, right? You are too naive! Look. This whole thing is being pushed by the commercialization channels. They used to make a lot of money by controlling the distribution channels.
The music you used to listen to had been choosen by few people who market it aggresively on those channels and profited a lot on that. A small percentage went to the artist. Didn't you know you this?
Well, music is information (Sheet music is just information to play a piece). The digital age you live in has been made possible by the ability of easily copying information from one place to another: this copying allows you to read this page! It is really too easy. So... my dear, the entertainment industry will have to reinvent itself because copying is everywhere and makes the digital age to work.
Some artists are actually embracing it and jumping the (old) middle-man creating new ways to make a living and share their talent at the same time.
But the middle-man is seeing its role vanishing and now screams in despair. As the article says, they have to innovate and serve... or die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
There will come a day when you regret wasting so much of your precious life here on earth protecting that which was never yours to protect, and guarding against villains which never existed when you could have loved life and your place in it. You will regret not having spent time getting to know your neighbor, or really listening to that tired old story a grandparent repeated one too many times instead of finding a new means to repress a free exchange of information and technology for the sake of perceived financial gain.
True prosperity can exist ultimately ONLY in the absence of oppression. Although it may appear that these conditions co-exist, it is only temporary. One must decrease as the other grows and this can be seen in a broader spectrum. If we , as a people, are going to pass any more laws which serve to shut down the natural organic expansion of a free market, we must accept our responsibility as an oppressive force which seeks failure on a grand scale.
Why would anyone co-sign such a death sentence? It takes courage to NOT BE GREEDY in the US today. But if we can face it head on without delusion and see it for what it is, truly, I do not believe any one of us , to a man, would choose failure, oppression, despair and death over prosperity. Everything else is folly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right! (& why you're wrong!)
Here's an example: a disenfranchised teenager writes and draws fan comics and posts them to corresponding fan websites (Facebook, Youtube, DeviantArt) and then the corporation that owns the entity that the teen draws about finds out that this kid has been "infringing" on their content and decides to charge him as a FELON.
Now tell me, where is the justice in that? No one who was supposed to get punished got punished. That is how it WILL be, because pirates don't give a damn and will keep doing what they do. "Just because they make it hack-proof, don't mean we aint gonna hack it." hmm wow, sound like the pirates, and oh GOD I just quoted Bioshock?! Even though I didn't make a cent I should be charged as a felon?! What I just did there is called "Freedom of Speech" the First Amendment. For now we still have that protection, but you seem to be advocating for corporations to dictate what we are allowed to say/post/think/feel/ etc.
Here's a video explaining how these acts are atrocious and need to be vetoed: http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why it's right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Bob
You realise that torrent sites and usenet sites aren't just dedicated to piracy, right? A LOT of open source software is distributed via bittorrent (Linux especially), and independant artists and photographers upload their works to torrent sites and usenet servers in order to make their works available to everyone. I've uploaded a few of my photo sets myself because my favorite bittorrent site is the best way to distribute them.
Go after the infringing content itself, not an entire site or server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
You don't have a choice in the matter unless you want to institute a totalitarian regime.
If you only see pirates as pirates and not as under-served customers, then I suppose you couldn't see that the best solution to the problem involves changing your behavior, not that of the pirates.
Pirates are under-served customers. Pirates exist not because new technology came out. People pirated with old technology. Newer technology just made it easier and better quality and more efficient.
The one thing that big media companies can change is their own behavior. They have abused the public trust. They have lobbied and bought legislation that put the public at the disadvantage as far as copyright is concerned. They have sued and vilified people who want to enjoy their content.
If the pirates are supposedly able to profit off of the content, why can't the big media companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
The standard response to this by SOPA supporters, I am not but we know ootb wont answer you, is that pirates only profit because they didn't have to pay to make the content in the first place, which implies they don't really make that much money. But of course when no one points this out they are happy to claim these sites make millions of dollars a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
It still makes no sense other than in the scenario that they simply can't conceive of other ways of doing business than the ways they have been doing it for decades.
Another possibility that isn't mutually exclusive with the first is that they over-value their product and refuse to accept less than "too expensive" as their retail price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
The artist made the content, the **AA's just claim ownership, give them a big 'loan' for their work (that all costs will be taken out of before the artist gets any profit), then charge them outrageous rates for simple services (album breakage? seriously....?).
So in reality the Artists are the ones who PAID to make the content, the **AA get to claim ownership and make all the profit off the content while paying the artists 'loan' off at pennies on the dollar ($.10 of the $10.00 for the CD goes to the artist, but all costs for producing the CD's were charged to the Artist's 'advance', so the artist gets to pay for the costs with 1% of the revenue, while the **AA's get to claim the other 99% and say they didn't make enough to 'recoup' the artist....
I think I see the real issue now, the **AA are the pirates and they are jealous of the competition, so they are buying the laws to limit their competition. Makes total sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Obviously they are making enough to pay the recurring costs or else we wouldn't be having this discussion because content wouldn't be getting produced. In fact, the earnings statements show that they are profiting quite nicely despite these supposedly severe losses to copyright infringement. The lawsuits from artists complaining about unpaid royalties or contract violations or accusations of creative accounting show that they are profiting and keeping their costs low by not paying artists as much as they should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
You are absolutely correct, for once (shockingly), OotB. However, the WANT of CUSTOMERS DOES equate to industry MUST change.
Your customer's, as I posted already, have stated what they want. Now you can give it to them and make money. Or you can let someone else do it and make none.
Quality content. (And no, $100 mil spent in making a movie DOES NOT guarantee quality. Before you throw that in there. Also, I don't care how much you spend, nor does anyone else. That's your problem. Not ours.)
Reasonable prices. (This one doesn't need much of an explanation. And NO, no one is saying reasonable with the hidden meaning to be "free". We're just saying DO NOT ask me to give you $20 for a digital copy. Or $50 for a blu-ray disc. Etc.)
Multiple formats. (Not all together, where if we want one, we have to take them all. Like the blu-ray, dvd, and digital copy combo packs.)
DRM Free. (If it's easier to download an "illegal" copy and have it play with no hassle than it is to use the copy you provide, you're failing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
You have to go down to #20 before you hit an all-time-highest-grossing movie that was released pre-1994. It is far more logical to draw the conclusion that the internet is driving box office profits rather than causing people to pirate.
I really fail to see why Hollywood and the recording industry are taken seriously when they whine about all of the people who are staying home. Even at $11 per ticket they can still get folks to turn out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/media/21sundance.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
"Several distributors started shopping before the festival even began ... You’re seeing a lot more people making deals before the festival, in part because the expectations are more realistic ... Fewer filmmakers are surrounding themselves with four middlemen who are all trying to create the illusion of hype. That strategy generally has not paid off in the past."
but but but, piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Similarly, the emergence over the last year of video-on-demand services as a significant revenue generator for independent films has eased the concerns of distributors about dwindling DVD sales.
“The marketplace is now equipped to understand that video-on-demand can add real value to a film’s distribution cycle,” said Kevin Iwashina, managing partner of Preferred Content, a production, sales and finance advisory company."
but but piracy!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
WOW, marcus !
Marcus, it's a LAW !!! not a problem.
Like it or not, (and you dont) your society has decided by majority that certain acts and deeds are considered illegal.
You might know quite a few of those things, they are not 'problems', they are the law.
possibly if there was no law in regard to that thing you could say there is no problems..
But killing someone is not a 'problem' (to be solved) it is an ACT that is against the moral, ethical and legal principles that ALL people live under.
Something becomes a 'problem' when someone decides to not follow the laws and ethics of your society and breaches those laws/rules.
Murder (or the law against it), is not a problem, killing someone is.
I know that just like exceeding the speed limit, and theft and murder that they are against the law, therefore to ME it is not a problem NOT to speed, murder or steal.
Why is piracy a problem, it is not until you commit it.
You clearly are incapable of seeing any act or deed from the perspective of another person, you must therefore be only capable of seeing things for the benefit of yourself ONLY..
so if you kill someone, sure it is not a problem (FOR YOU), but it sure might be a problem for other people.
If you steal it might not be a problem for you, but it might be a problem for others, and HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW if it is or is not a problem.
You're the perp not the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
You know, based on the MAFIAA's current stance that everyone other than the labels and the artists are dirty pirates -- it would seem that the majority of society has spoken and the law needs to be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Are you trying to win Stupidest Comment of the Day? "It's the law!" is the weakest, most intellectually lame argument you could possibly come up with. Would you like us to find you a list of laws that have been repealed because what society believes and supports has changed over time? Laws that allowed slavery and forbade homosexuality are obvious examples, but there are countless more.
"Like it or not, (and you dont) your society has decided by majority that certain acts and deeds are considered illegal."
Do you need a refresher on the meaning of regulatory capture? If you really think copyright laws in their current form came about to satisfy the will of the majority of the population, then you're either too ignorant or too dishonest to participate in this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
A law is a law.
If you break a repealed law what happens to you? if you break a law that is a law what happens ?
laws change over time !!!! does that surprise you ?
Sure, there are law that reflected societies ethics and morals of the time, that no longer apply (society has moved forward), old laws are repealed and new laws are introduced.
Just because not all laws live for all time, does not give you an excuse to ignore any laws that are in place NOW or being introducted now in response to societies requirements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Their refusal to recognize this fact is their problem, not the problem innocent users who are being treated like criminals.
The problem is not "piracy", the problem is new technology. Barring outlawing all new technology from here on out, there is only one solution for the movie industry: Find out how to live with the world as it is not how they wish it to be. Old industries have always had to do that.
If some in the industry can't figure it out and go under, don't worry, there are many others who can and will figure it out. Laws designed to protect the old dinosaurs only delay the inevitable. Soon, the movie industry will be composed entirely of those who happily coexist with the Internet and the new technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
We've always had "new technology" the problem is NOT new technology, Technology is not a problem, it is a solution.
The media industries have been able to adapt and use all new technologies to very good effect, ie make profit from it.
Wax rolls, 78's, LP's, Tape, reel to reel, video, technicolor, surround sound, IMAX, CD's, DVD's, pay per view, and web streaming.
are all the domain of the media, and recording, and movie industries.
What is a problem, and what is ** NOT ** a new technology is human greed.
When the internet was not around and video was, the pirates would buy a bunch of video recorders and pirate that way.
When tape recorders became popular, they would use blank tapes.
Blank tapes, blank Video's, black CD's and DVD's, or space on a hard drive.
Does not change the fundamental fact that the process of piracy has not changed, is still stealing.
Yes, technology changes, and industry changes with it, that is why movies are not still 'silent' and black and white !!..
It is no more easy or harder to break the law and pirate now than it was 20 years ago.
It's Masnicks line that "it's the technologies fault", that is such a weak argument.
When it is clear, it is not the technology that is doing the crime, a gun does not shoot someone, a person with a gun does.
Just because something is 'easy' to do (it has always been easy to pirate, and always will be) does not make it RIGHT !!!
Once again, it comes down to morals and ethics, if you do not have those, and if you only think about yourself then it is ok to do anything you like.
You can always blame someone or something else when you are caught, Masnick will blame the technology, what will you blame.. because of course it could not be YOU who is a scumbag criminal, theif..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
This is exactly the point of what everyone is saying. Go after the person (infringing user), not the "gun" (site or other tool with which they execute the infringement). It's the broad, nonspecific format of these pieces of legislation that are the issue, not their intent. No one is denying that piracy is illegal, they are saying that this legislation does not address its intended target, but causes large collateral damage that is in the interest of no one, which ironically includes the very supporters of the bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
I'm pretty sure that's also been tried against the gun manufacturers, too.
Now on to this.
It's a sad reflection on holding someone personally responsible for their actions or blaming someone/something else. ("The technology made me do it!" )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Not quite. Consumers, for the most part, used them as they were designed to be used. They are full of poison though, with some poison added.
We don't hold Prestone liable for animals drinking it as that is not its' intended use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Simply eliminating piracy will not make people pay more than they already are. Some might, most probably won't. This is due to allocation of funds. People only have so much to spend, and if you take away stuff they get for free, then there is no guarantee that they'll reallocate their funds to pay for it.
The industry is going to have to offer something that will compel people of their own volition to pay them money. Simply offering what they offered before (bits on plastic disks, crappy DRM, etc. ) isn't going to cut it. Rightly or wrongly, p2p, youtube, etc have shown customers what they could be getting, and anything less will not be enough.
So does the industry need to change? No, but if they want to continue making money, they will. Not because of the pirates wants, but because of their customers wants. Pirates, by definition, aren't your customers. Some people will often wear both the customer and the pirate hat, but when they are wearing the pirate hat, they aren't your customer. You have to convince them to be so. Simply taking away the pirate hat, does not make them put on the customer hat.
The want of customers is what a business fulfills. And if the want of your customers changes or you want to attract the potential customers, you're going to have to change to fulfill those wants.
It just goes to show that when you are thinking of enforcement you aren't thinking about making money. You are simply thinking about old times. It didn't work for buggy whip manufacturers, it didn't work for whale oil salesman, and it won't work for the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
OOTB, I have personally told you about many models that work in the movie biz, that are not affected by piracy in the least.
Perhaps that's why Hollywood continues to make more money than ever with every passing year.
At this point, it's pretty obvious that you have no interest whatsoever in helping the movie biz, or any other content creators for that matter. You're just being a contrarian pain in the ass.
You very occasionally make some thoughtful and valid points. Try to focus on those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like China more and more.And then it also sounds like the 1984 scenarios we like to throw around.
No way do we as Americans cave in to this BS brought on by payoffs to corrupt assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'd have thought that after seeing so many game changers over the last 100 years that these businesses would be able to grasp the change and adapt, but here we are again, all they want is to legislate us back to the period of financial gain after they finally embraced the last tech breakthrough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wooden horses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
Clearly, Masnick that does not apply to YOU, or your web site !!!
That's simply not credible. And if there's so much money to be made, the studios and labels would be opening their own cyberlockers. Either way, we've watched this game of Whac-a-mole for over a decade. It doesn't work. Every site that is shut down leads to half a dozen new ones that spring up. This is not how you tackle a problem: by making the same mistake made over and over again in the past.
The real fear is the massive collateral damage these bills will have to jobs, the economy and innovation.
Here you contradict yourself Masnick, how can it be possible that SOPA does not work, and sites are shut down, (but six more start up) and that somehow reduces jobs ?
If one site goes down, and six more replace it, that is MORE JOBS !!!!! . not less....
Plus all those SOPA jobs as well,
If no one pirated songs there would be no requirement to employ 'watchdogs' to reduce that crime.
If no one dropped litter, then there would be no requirement to employ people to pick up litter.
If not one drove their car faster than the speed limit, there would be no requirement to employ police officers to watch for speeding cars.
So according to you Mike if SOPA is not going to work, it therefore will not effect jobs, and if SOPA does work it will increase jobs !!! (the SOPA employees, and the six other site that will start up).
Talk about tryin to argue both sides of the argument, and covering your ass.
I guess if you state that every possible result WILL happen you can in the future state that you were correct !!
Masnick why dont you 'take a position' and stick to it, or dont you have that level of conviction ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
Failed math, son?
How can a pirate site not have any employees?
Has cybernetic intelligence evolved to the point that no human has to program it?
A human has to conceive, create, program, and collect the proceeds.
Or are robots doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
His point would be the "freetard" in the basement doing it for teh Lulz/Finger the **AAs/Freetard Rights.
Hence the "employees" in a business sense would be zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
So its not about piracy it is about, so you like the idea of jobs being created, but only in your country!.
One lost job in the US is more valuable than 6 jobs overseas...
If that was the case, you should do the right thing and shut your site down, so that 6 other people can profit from piracy, and not just one.
According to you and Masnick, the more site that are shut down the bigger piracy will become. Why therefore would Mike come out against SOPA ? or why would you ?
If one site gets shut down and 6 more take its place, GREAT, that should be something to be promoted !!!! especially by Masnick.
Think 6 times the services, and six times the competition !
So if Masnick was telling the truth, he would be right behind SOPA, and want it to get through, then he could show how much of a failure it is..
It does appear that according to Masnick if it comes in it will increase piracy, and if it does not come in it will reduce piracy ! and reduce jobs and competition (between pirates)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
Two reasons.
First, Mike is not pro-piracy. So he has no reason to prefer an outcome which would increase piracy.
Second, the negative effects of SOPA and similar laws on non-pirates are large. Mike, as a non-pirate himself, worries about very bad effect these laws would have on innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
Honestly darryl, you're missing the big picture here, we're not just talking about small websites that as Masnick said "when one goes down, 6 more will pop up"
You're totally missing out on the huge websites such as facebook, youtube, google, etc. that stand could possibly be targeted if SOPA were to be passed. Think about the magnitude of jobs that would be affected by that, and we're not just talking about the people who work for these websites but the other people who's job or business rely on them, they're going to be devastatingly affected, and increase in jobs because of the SOPA will not in any way be able to cover up for these losses.
If you would just take some time to carefully go through the entire article then maybe you might just see all the bs that SOPA and PIPA actually are, they're not really doing much to regarding the problem of piracy, they only open up grounds for abusers to ruin everything else about the internet and it would more probably decrease jobs rather than increase them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs or loss of jobs ? will or will not be effective ? choose.
Please, learn some reading comprehension skills before attempting to read, much less comprehend.
What SOPA jobs? Lawyer brigades, left and right, abusing the powers outlined and granted by this crock of a piece of legislation? The pirates which will set up new sites to compensate for the loss of one site?
Evolve or die. You greedy bastards have been ripping off consumers and artists for years, yet you claim to be looking out in the best interest of the artists? Give me a break. People aren't as naive as they where some 60 odd years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And another thing... SOPA vs Robin Hood vs Skynet
What isn't often discussed is a nifty side effect of the tax.
Ever wonder how 'Rogue traders' can bring down banks? It's not huge transactions going south anymore - but death by a thousand papercuts.
The modern stock market isn't run by people - it isn't the 'walls street' of the 80's with folk running around saying 'Buy! Sell!', it's largely automated. A nice system scraping teeny-weeny amounts of cash with each transaction. A fraction of a point up or down still makes money - if you do it often enough - millions of times a second. However margins on these kinds of trades is extremely low - often less than 0.005% of the total transaction!
Under the new tax it becomes economically unviable. The algorithms will need to change and the entire system will need to radically slow down to make it worth while.
Fewer more considered transactions with a level of diligence attached ironically mean more stable markets. This is a good thing.
Now apply the same thinking to SOPA
In the US 'infringing content' is flagged via the DMCA (digital millennium copyright act). Basically you notify a site that something is dodgy, they then have a short period of time to remove otherwise the host is liable which can cost potentially $150k per infringement. Motivation or what! This takedown process for most of the big content owners is largely automated - they no doubt use search engines to seek out apparently infringing content, index it, format it, approve it and fire it off.
This automated output is received by site x - the larger of which (google/YouTube etc) will have an automated process which indiscriminately takes the content down. This explains why there are so many false positives across the board.
However painful, the current process does actually require some human interaction as theoretically you can be fined for false claims.
Not ideal but at least it's just taking individual bits of content down and not entire sites.
The whole raison d'ętre of the bill is to shift the administrative burden (of proof) from the content owner to everyone else. SOPA would remove barriers increasing the speed of transaction exponentially and of course the collateral damage associated with it.
The doomsday scenario is what happens when big content write their tool to aid their quest for a rogue-free Internet. Let's just call it Skynet.
Skynet connects to internal content dbase
Skynet searches web
Skynet 'identifies' matches
Skynet emails site, ISP, Search engines, payment processors etc and flags site as 'dedicated to infringing'
Site goes down
Repeat millions of times
Judgement day.
Maybe it's time to slow down a bit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And another thing... SOPA vs Robin Hood vs Skynet
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of startups, I want to start a movie streaming site. I have about $50,000 to invest. Of course, I want to be legal and pay for the rights but my competitors on infringing sites don't pay for those rights.
There are many more small entrepreneurs like me who believe in new distribution models like this but will substantially offering the same product that is offered by infringing sites. We have to pay for rights (a significant cost) and they don't. How do we compete?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What they didn't do is say I can't compete with free so let's just give up and not try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the first thing to do is to oppose SOPA.
If that law passes, that $50K won't even cover the monthly costs of the now-necessary legal team.
Second of all, even if there was no such thing as piracy, no content producers will touch your company for a measly $50K. They'll want a lot more than that simply to license the rights for a month. Think multiple millions if you want to be legit.
Third of all, don't just start "a movie streaming site." You'll have to compete with YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu, who already have deals in place with content providers, and much deeper pockets (they had to, in order to pay the licensing fees).
Instead, think about what your customers want. Convenience, social features, user content uploads, whatever. Give it to them, in the way they want it, at as low a price as is feasible.
If you can get the last part right, it won't matter in the least how much piracy is out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, the first thing to do is to oppose SOPA.
If that law passes, that $50K won't even cover the monthly costs of the now-necessary legal team.
Second of all, even if there was no such thing as piracy, no content producers will touch your company for a measly $50K. They'll want a lot more than that simply to license the rights for a month. Think multiple millions if you want to be legit.
Third of all, don't just start "a movie streaming site." You'll have to compete with YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu, who already have deals in place with content providers, and much deeper pockets (they had to, in order to pay the licensing fees).
Instead, think about what your customers want. Convenience, social features, user content uploads, whatever. Give it to them, in the way they want it, at as low a price as is feasible.
If you can get the last part right, it won't matter in the least how much piracy is out there.
Thanks for your thoughts Karl. I see some problems. By paying for the rights, I will be forced to limit my offerings. I can provide convenience, social features, user content uploads, guest critic opportunities, contests, recommendations, etc. That's no problem. However, because I will be paying for the rights and do not have unlimited funds, my site will be unable to match the breadth of offerings of a site that pays nothing. I'm afraid that will mean that I can't compete. Granted, I think I can offer a better user experience- though some pirate sites are very good at doing this- not offering but a fraction of what they offer will hurt. Also, since I would have to wait until a movie becomes commercially available, I will miss out on a great number of fans who will be attracted to sites that offer the most recent movies that I do not have access to. I see that as a real problem and I am at a bit of a loss to see how I overcome that. Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Netflix called. They said you're wrong.
I will miss out on a great number of fans who will be attracted to sites that offer the most recent movies that I do not have access to. I see that as a real problem and I am at a bit of a loss to see how I overcome that. Thoughts?
Again, Netflix called. They said you've got no idea how this business works. If you provide a compelling service, people will go for it.
The problems you describe -- of movies being held off for video release -- is not a problem for you, it's a problem that the studios need to overcome and start doing day and date release, just like the public demands.
The point being: it's easy to compete with pirate sites if you focus on serving consumers. Consumers *want* to support legitimate services, which is what we've seen over and over again. Pretending you can't compete just shows why you're not in business. A real entrepreneur wouldn't be asking these questions. They'd be building something better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently Masnick thinks Netflix's success stems from pirates switching to them instead of ripping off movies.
I'm sure the rest of the normal world, those that simply like their service, has nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And these people are mutually exclusive of being pirates because...?
P.S. Before you make snide "reality called" remarks, you should look up, y'know, the real world where evidence exists. It's called Media Piracy in Emerging Economies.
http://piracy.ssrc.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No Mike, the point is that any "innovation" in terms of serving customers could easily be mimicked by another site. But again, if that site isn't paying license fees it easily out-competes on price. A recent TorrentFreak article suggested that Netflix's license costs were 1/3 of total revenue.
It is hard to imagine any responsible entrepreneur undertaking a venture where his competition enjoys a cost advantage of 1/3, has access to new product months before he does and must rely exclusively on differentiation to survive.
While there have been many who claim that the solution to piracy is wider and better distribution models, they ignore the fact that the existence of rampant piracy is itself an enormous barrier for entrepreneurs to enter the market. Pirates can enter the market for a few thousand dollars. Any legitimate entity would have to be massively capitalized. That too is a barrier for entrepreneurs to enter the legitimate distribution market. It is one thing to risk $50,000. It is another entirely to put up $5 million or $50 million. If nothing else, the pool of potential entrants into the market shrinks drastically.
Perhaps you can point out some legitimate sites that are capitalized at the level of a pirate site that are making a go of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip- are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml#c1371
You guys really try hard to ignore evidence that directly contradicts what you say don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only people who've never actually innovated say this. People who work in actual innovation know that "mimicking" is pretty useless. First, you rarely understand why something works, so you only mimic the superficial and fail at getting it right.
Second, being second to the market isn't all that helpful if the first person did it really well. The first mover advantage is not to be mocked.
If you want to be successful mimicking, you actually have to *do more*. And that's the kind of innovation we should encourage.
A recent TorrentFreak article suggested that Netflix's license costs were 1/3 of total revenue.
Sounds like the real problem is over aggressive monopoly protection of copyrighted material that allows movie studios to charge a non-market rate.
But that's just me.
It is hard to imagine any responsible entrepreneur undertaking a venture where his competition enjoys a cost advantage of 1/3, has access to new product months before he does and must rely exclusively on differentiation to survive.
Then you know fuck all about entrepreneurship. Look at how many music startups there are out there. Look at how many new entrants in the online movie biz.
Reality says you're full of shit.
Why is it that someone so ignorant of what happens in the startup world now wants to regulate them?
While there have been many who claim that the solution to piracy is wider and better distribution models, they ignore the fact that the existence of rampant piracy is itself an enormous barrier for entrepreneurs to enter the market.
Bullshit. I work with entrepreneurs all the time. Why are so many entrepreneurs against SOPA and PIPA? Because they know what you're saying is bullshit. Building a better mousetrap is a challenge. Pirate sites don't worry legit folks *at all*. Seriously, come to Midem in January, and introduce yourself to me and I'll bring you around to meet with some of the music entrepreneurs, and let you talk to them yourself. They know there are ALL sorts of ways to outcompete with piracy. Piracy is not the problem for them.
It is one thing to risk $50,000. It is another entirely to put up $5 million or $50 million. If nothing else, the pool of potential entrants into the market shrinks drastically.
Entrepreneurs don't think that way. They're driven by the challenge. And if what you said was true, VCs would be for PIPA/SOPA. But they're not. Because they know it makes it MUCH MUCH harder to get the ROI on the $5 million or $50 million they put into a company.
The biggest hindrance for music startups is not piracy. You never (EVER) hear that from the. The biggest hindrance has been *your clients*. The big entertainment industry who refuses to license stuff or only does so at ridiculously high costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bingo.
The plain fact is that if you're a startup with $50K, and want to go legit by licensing content, then it's not piracy you need to worry about.
Sure, you're not going to be able to compete with piracy. In fact, you're not going to be able to compete with anyone. Because you won't have a business.
The plain fact is that media companies don't want to support innovative startups. They believe - not entirely irrationally - that these startups are not revenue streams, but competitors. So in order to even come to the table, you have to wave enough cash at them to overcome their panic that you will cannibalize their business.
Since they hold a monopoly on their content - and since the content producers, collectively, act as a cabal - they create incredibly high barriers to entry into the marketplace. This is the single biggest reason that there aren't more startups in the media industries.
And how will stopping piracy (even if possible) help this situation? It won't. In fact, it will do the opposite: it will consolidate these media companies' power, allowing them to charge even higher fees.
Once piracy enters the picture, on the other hand, things change. In fact, piracy ultimately benefits innovators - not because those innovators are doing anything unlawful, or even want to. Piracy forces the traditional media players to enter a digital marketplace that they would just as soon didn't exist. And in order to compete, they lower their licensing fees.
Look at the digital music business. The original attempts at starting digital music stores (which failed, because they sucked) were started as a direct reaction to Napster. It wasn't until Apple launched iTunes that someone actually had the business sense to make it work. And the labels complained, loudly, about iTunes - and still are. They would rather that iTunes weren't around, but they are forced to accept it, because the alternative is a space filled solely with Napsters or Groksters.
So, even if a business is not involved in any amount of piracy whatsoever, they still benefit from the competition.
That's what free market competition is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds great. Could you introduce me to a couple of your entrepreneur friends who have been involved in movie streaming startups?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA and PIPA IS VERY VERY BAD
youtube-gone
Google-gone
Bing-gone
FACEBOOK-gone
Twitter-gone
and every other website gone because they have the capability to house pirated content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA & PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and MPAA and IFPI should start a $0.00 cost filter ISP
Users would get free access to email, netflix, spotify, pandora, iTunes, Amazon and other authorized sites, but block access to ThePirateBay, block access to ISOHunt and RapidShare, block the use of Vuze, and all the other things they don't like.
Or even better. Start a cheaper unfiltered ISP and start making money off all the infringement users do anyway. I mean they already make money from unsigned artists who have their music on spotify by owning a portion of spotify. How would running an ISP be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Point
How long before Microsoft hunts though OpenOffices source files and finds a line or two of code is the same as one in there Office 2010 and blocks them oh and since them and so many other open-sourced are hosted on http://sourceforge.net/ before they get blocked as stated in the article
"Similarly, Monster Cable, who has stated its support for PROTECT IP, has put together its own list of "rogue sites" and it, rather stunningly, includes sites like eBay, Craigslist, Costco and Sears. It even includes consumer rights groups like Which? in the UK, and various popular shopping search engines like PriceGrabber. "
and
"Even worse, it appears that Universal Music also included the personal website of one of its own top artists, 50Cent. The hiphop star has a personal website as well as a website owned by Universal Music. The personal website is much more popular... and it appeared on the infringement list. Suddenly, you can see how letting companies declare what sites are dedicated to infringement can lead to them looking to stifle speech and competition. "
This is 100% about the big companies getting more money and not about saving jobs or about the artist's.
I understand that piracy is a problem but censoring the general public is not the answer.
Beat those that pirate at their own game offer it to us faster and a a reasonable rate.
I as in probably many other people don't go to the movies because the last thing I want is to pay $13/person to sit with a bunch of strangers in unconformable seats where I can't go to the restroom or get some more popcorn without missing something. But hey give me a quality streamed video I can pause at home within a week or so and I would pay but no have to wait months.
I mean one big step they could make is just cutting down the time between theater and DVD release.
But I guess it better for the government to allow censorship than for the BIG companies to change their business model to fit the times.
I am over these politicians just caring about lining their pockets not the people. Then voting without even truly knowing what it is that they are voting on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Point
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2429-How-SOPA-Threatens-Net-Neutrality
http://ww w.opencongress.org/articles/view/2431-Join-the-Public-Mark-up-of-SOPA
and this one on how this type of censorship has already happened and destroyed the reputations of many reputable mom and pop shops http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/ars-interviews-rep-zoe-lofgren.ars
there is a due process that needs to be followed without that WE THE PEOPLE has no meaning it becomes WE THE CORPORATIONS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The general consensus seems to be that content industries (and I'm simply a lowly musician trying to earn any kind of living) have to offer what consumers want- and the evidence seems to show that what consumers want is free content, or content priced so low that it is, effectively, free.
The problem for musos like me is that these prices are so low they drive up our 'required sales' (for break even) into the multiples of millions, not thousands. Even if I'm my own label(which I am) I need about 100,000 streams per month, every month, to get about $500 per month (which isn't exactly riches)
For most indie artists trying to stay out of the majors' game and make music that isn't top forty bullshit, these numbers are impossible to achieve, we just don't have the promo budget. Nor can we make up the difference with gigs and t shirts, or any other strategy. We make music- that's our 'product' - and if it's priced at a level that 'competes with free' then the returns we get don't justify the investment, and we go bankrupt.
Those of you who constantly tell us to 'adapt' rarely come up with any suggestions as to how we're supposed to do this. Most of us are working on our own, wearing all the hats- web design, artwork, promo, dealing with aggregators etc, and all of that eats into the time available for creating the product. There's also a psychological impact- if we KNOW, up front (as most of us do now) that there's no friggin' way we'll even break even on our productions, then sitting down to write can be a very depressing experience. The point isn't to make money, it's to write good music, but money has to be made- some money- just to make it in the first place. If it never does, then inevitably, the activity feels like a waste of time.
Even if we then see that thousands are enjoying our work (for free) the feeling is that we've just been ripped off. As the labels always have done, and now the consumer, it seems, as well. Fan emails don't put bread on the table if the fan hasn't paid something- and before you tell me about crowd funding etc, believe me, plenty try it and most fail.
This has never been an easy business, accepted. Only 4% of recorded music has ever made a profit anyway. So our chances have always been slim. But just when it seemed we could have a chance to break the majors monopoly and use new tech to reach fans, that tech itself has shafted our chances of breaking even, even if thousands like our music. Becausr only about one in a thousand, it appears, will actually pay us.
I do understand the complaints about these proposed laws. I understand the point about the majors trying to go back to the past. All I'm asking for is a little understanding back, and that seems lacking. People talk about supporting artists but very few actually do so, and even if they do use Spotify, the returns we actually get, even if we're the label, simply don't pay the costs of making the music, let alone enough to support a family as well.
It's not good enough simply to say 'adapt'. Where to ? How does any muso survive when our 'product' is freely available to anyone ? These are not problems that can be solved by just telling us "live with it". You guys don't have to, it's easy to say that.
We do. We live every day knowing our chances of surviving via our work are trashed, that our industry is dead, and yet still tech people especially keep prodding the corpse with a stick.
Give us a break. We're just trying to make a little music, maybe get enough cash back to live on minimum wage levels while we make some more. But even that basic level of survival is denied us, now. These laws may be full of holes, but all I can tell you us that most musos I know have hung their instruments and aren't making music anymore, it's too much to ask of their families.
And I'm next, probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under these bills YouTube would have to filter out any video that contained any infringing material. What can constitute infringing material you ask? Well just type kid singing to (any artist you want) in the YouTube search-box and 90% have the song playing in the back ground that can be called infringing material.
Not that I am sure they would go this far but I would not want to find out later that they would. We already know they are willing to sue Kids and remove YouTube videos of kids dancing to music http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070725/224422.shtml
American Idle what how do most make it on there they are encouraged by fans on their Facebook or YouTube Chanel to even try out but wait on more than 80% of their channels its them singing to their favorite singer and now they can't post those so they don't get the extra encouragement and never try out.
I work with software and if i come up with a program that is similar to say adobe Illustrator and I have written the code from scratch and start putting it out there for say $50 adobe see this and THINKS (no due process or proof required in this bills just line the pockets of a magistrate judge) it infringes on their copyright they can shut me down by making ISP's block My sites IP address and if I was on a hosted service since its cheaper than a dedicated server and I want to give the product as low as I can and make money when they block the IP they end up blocking all the other users on the same IP woops Now I have to go to court and Prove I am Innocent( wait but I thought you had to be proven guilty not true with these bills) and probably go bankrupt before even making it in the courtroom since I had only sold 20 copies before adobe spotted me and shut me down.
I know your thinking yeah right they would not shutdown all users on the IP think again its already happened (see previous post)
There is a problem with piracy YES but censorship is NOT the answer.
BTW way i feel your pain I want to start a computer business myself but but have to choose am I willing to put my family though the hard times it would take to get it off the ground. At some point we all have to make these choices.
Mine computer stuff second family first. But that's MY choice not Dells or Best Buys because they don't like the fact I don't offer their computers or offer a better service. (Note I don't remember seeing either of them on the list that support the bill just use the companies as examples)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd just like to point out a few reasons why things aren't as bad as you seem to think they are.
the evidence seems to show that what consumers want is free content, or content priced so low that it is, effectively, free.
This is actually not what evidence shows. It shows that people want to pay for things at a price that they think is fair. It doesn't have to be free, but it should be low enough so that they don't have to give up eating for a week to get it. (And in this economy, that's not a very high amount.)
Notice, also, that I said "things," not "content." The content is only half of it. The other half consists of things like convenience, portability, etc. With the arts especially, a large part of that is "community." Music (like most arts) is formost a social activity; and the more you encourage that communication - the more you encourage sharing - the more you'll help create a culture, even if it is a sub-culture (as the "musos" like to say).
I need about 100,000 streams per month, every month, to get about $500 per month
I notice you said "streams." That's part of your problem, right there. Streaming today serves the same purpose as terrestrial radio, not as record stores. Of course, streaming doesn't pay much - but neither would royalties from terrestrial radio. How many radio plays do you think it would take to make $500 per month? Hint: It's a lot more than 100,000 - especially since the royalties paid out from PRO's are weighted, heavily, towards the Top 40.
we just don't have the promo budget.
And here is where file sharing can come in handy. As many people have said, "obscurity is a bigger obstacle than piracy." I'll say more about this in a minute...
Nor can we make up the difference with gigs and t shirts, or any other strategy. We make music- that's our 'product'
I hate to break it to you, but if you can't "make up the difference" with "gigs and t shirts, or any other strategy," then you never would have made any money. The vast majority of artists have never made any money whatsoever from record sales. In this sense, nothing has changed.
Now, don't get me wrong; doing gigs and selling T-shirts are hardly the only other revenue streams out there. Even if you don't perform live, there's work-for-hire composition, licensing options (e.g. video games or movies), etc. It's a lot less glamorous than being a rock star... but, honestly, if you never play live, what do you expect? You wouldn't be able to sell records anyway, even if piracy never existed.
And, in fact, even if you're a studio musician, that doesn't mean you can't do "live gigs." Be a guest speaker for sound-art classes. Curate a DJ night. Host a silent film night, with your music as accompaniment. The possibilities are endless.
Those of you who constantly tell us to 'adapt' rarely come up with any suggestions as to how we're supposed to do this.
Techdirt has already run stories with many, many suggestions on how to adapt. They're mainly in the "Case Studies" section, or you can do a search. Also, Mike has started up the "Step2" site, which is still in its infancy, but nonetheless has a few good suggestions.
If it never does, then inevitably, the activity feels like a waste of time.
Believe me, I know about this first hand. In my case, the secret was to accept the fact that making money from your music was never an option. I did this around 1996 or so. If it makes any difference, I'm making more money off of music now than I was back then (though still not much).
But if you really can't feel like your art is worth something without a little money being made, then I'm afraid you're going to have to start thinking like a businessman. And that involves adapting, like it or not.
Even if we then see that thousands are enjoying our work (for free) the feeling is that we've just been ripped off.
If you're one of the people who grew up in the major label era (like I am), this is a perfectly natural reaction. Prior to the internet, people probably were ripping you off - since the only ones who could distribute music were for-profit businesses.
But that era is over. I'd like you to pay attention to just who is "ripping you off." It is not people who are in it for the money. Nowadays, it is almost exclusively non-commercial, done by ordinary people who happen to like the music, and want to share it with as many people as possible.
So, you need to ignore those feelings, and look at evidence and data. And the data says that those people are not "ripping you off." Every independent study (and even most done by major labels) has shown that people who pirate music buy much more music than people who do not. (In some places, it's an order of magnitude higher.)
Right now, you see 10,000 downloads, and think "hey, that's 10,000 people ripping me off." What you should be thinking - what a smart businessman would think - is "hey, that's 10,000 potential customers." If, say, 8,000 of those downloaders did it just to check you out, because it's free and convenient, than that's 8,000 more potential customers than you would have if file sharing didn't exist. So, file sharing has just increased your market by 8,000 people, without you having to spend a single penny of your promo budget.
And I'd like to ask you a serious question. How much is your music actually pirated? Have you actually tried to look at the number of downloads through pirate sites? How significant are those numbers? I have many friends who own labels and record stores, and some of them absolutely hate piracy. But when you actually try to find their releases on The Pirate Bay, or whatever, they simply aren't there.
For example: If I try to find "Music for MRI Scanners" on any of the torrent sites, I get not one single match. Searching for other albums brings up some matches, mostly from "fake torrent" sites, all of which have zero seeders and leechers. I'd say your problem is not that people are downloading your album for free; it's that they're not downloading it at all. Obscurity, piracy, et cetera.
People talk about supporting artists but very few actually do so
This is not true. If you look at the entire music industry - and not just record sales - then you'll see that people are spending more money now than they have in the past. Taken as a whole, the music industry is growing.
Nor are people buying less music. The number of music purchases has done nothing but go up. The problem is, they are buying more songs a la carte, less full albums, and they are certainly buying far fewer CD's. (Interestingly enough, vinyl sales have also gone up fairly consistently.)
I understand that this is bad news if you are a label (even a "bedroom label"). But it has absolutely zero to do with fewer people supporting artists.
most musos I know have hung their instruments and aren't making music anymore
I've known plenty of "musos," being part of the Boston music scene since 1992, and I can tell you right now, that has always happened. (In fact, it happened to 90% of musicians on major labels, even in the late 1990's.) But if you're smart, you actually have a higher chance of making money now than you did ten years ago.
Hope this helps. If you have specific questions, there are plenty here who would be more than helpful to give you suggestions.
And I'm next, probably.
That's discouraging, but if you're like most artists I know (myself included), you won't be able to stay away for long. That itch doesn't go away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And as it happens, that was a commission, and mostly these days that's what I do - look for commissions, TV, film, library music etc and that's how I'm surviving (just) but it's always been a difficult and viciously competitive game, especially now that 'sync' is just about the last place reasonable money can be made by the average working musician who is neither a rock star, not wants to be.
I suppose my point is that this is what will happen- 'art' music- the good stuff, made for the sake of the music, not the money, simply isn't getting made, because the muso can't afford to make it. It was always difficult to make it anyway, now it's virtually impossible, if you've got any responsibilities to anyone else but yourself. So, yes, it's the dreary round of pitching for ads, pitching for TV, trying to get agents for that work to even talk to you, pitching for anything that might actually pay. And as more and more musos stalk that market, down the price goes, down the budgets go. It ain't easy.
But then, as you say, it never was. I do think it's a shame, tho, that the number of mature artists producing high quality music with high production values, into their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond, is very likely to go down dramatically. As soon as they want a family, the music will have to go, even if they can point to relatively high numbers of listeners which in the past would have been enough to make them 'successful' (ie, they made a reasonable living from their work even if they weren't 'famous')
That's what grates. I accept entirely that if no one wanted the music, then fine, you don't deserve a living from it. But if they do, in their hundreds of thousands, and you STILL can't make a living from that... Then let's just say, it's galling, to put it mildly.
Yes, musos have often chucked it in when they got a bit older. Touring gets tougher, going on stage at midnight or later gets tougher, family responsibilities demand priority. But the ones I know giving up are people who used to sell 50k +, still have fans, still see high streaming rates, still have music to make and plenty of people who want to hear it.
Yet they just cannot see the way forward.
They've tried the crowd funding. They've tried gigging. They've tried t shirts. They've tried every strategy they can think of, see all that promo effort going to torrent, not to them. And they just can't hack it anymore. They've sunk everything bar the house into their music, their spouses have put up with it, their kids have been denied ordinary things for it. But they can't ask them to sacrifice any more, even though it's 'worked' and thousands of people everywhere are into their music.
So they're giving up. It's a damn shame, and your readers should know this.
If you don't pay for music, ever, musicians do, in the end, give up.
They have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting you should say that, since "sync" work is one of the areas of the larger music industry that is growing. Perhaps it's simply not growing in your direction, as it were. Still, keep on that.
I suppose my point is that this is what will happen- 'art' music- the good stuff, made for the sake of the music, not the money, simply isn't getting made, because the muso can't afford to make it.
"Art" music has benefitted tremendously since the Internet (and file sharing) took off. I'm an experimental (noise) musican myself, and I know for a fact that half of the people who come to my shows (and all the experimental shows I attend) wouldn't have heard of most artists at all if it weren't for SoulSeek.
And a growing scene only increases sales, especially at the underground level, where owning a physical record is seen as a badge of identification. I personally know a lot of underground music labels, and while none are very profitable, they all tell me sales are generally better than before. Today, you'll have 10,000 downloads and 1,000 albums sold. Twenty years ago, you'd have zero downloads, and 500 albums sold. You can either view it as 9,000 "lost sales," or a 200% increase in sales. Your choice.
Of course, you also have more labels now than you would in, say, the 1990's, so there's also more competition. That's the cost of democratization.
I do think it's a shame, tho, that the number of mature artists producing high quality music with high production values, into their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond, is very likely to go down dramatically.
I don't. For one thing, anyone with a computer and a $200 sound card can make music that would have been considered "high production" twenty years ago. For another thing, if those guys are doing anything other than collecting artists' royalties, they have more of a chance of making money right now.
Maybe that's why so many underground projects - inactive for years - are now coming out of retirement, doing shows, making recordings, etc.
But if they do, in their hundreds of thousands, and you STILL can't make a living from that... Then let's just say, it's galling, to put it mildly.
It is galling. And, frankly, unbelievable. I know of no artist that has "hundreds of thousands" of fans, and can't make a living... unless you're talking solely about artists' royalties from major label record sales. Of course, in that case, you wouldn't make money on "hundreds of thousands" of fans twenty years ago, either - not because of file sharing, but because of label contracts, which require platinum-level sales to break even.
Even then, if you have hundreds of thousands of people listening to your music, it should be trivial to make a living. It's not like those people aren't spending money. They are. They're spending more money now than they ever were. And since it's on items other than record sales, a higher percentage of that money goes to the artists (providing you steer clear of those "360 deals").
They've tried the crowd funding. They've tried gigging. They've tried t shirts. They've tried every strategy they can think of, see all that promo effort going to torrent, not to them.
More people spend money on live shows now; more people spend money on merch now; and more people are now willing to directly fund artists. And the people who torrent are the same people who are spending more money.
If that promo effort is "going to torrent" (which is a completely meaningless metric), then you shouldn't ask how to keep people from torrenting. You should ask what those musicians did incorrectly, that they couldn't manage to turn people who are more willing to spend money into people who aren't.
If you don't pay for music, ever, musicians do, in the end, give up.
Very true. Fortunately, people are paying more for music now.
So, please, stop browbeating the hoi polloi. They haven't let you down, they don't "devalue" music, they don't think "music should be free," and they aren't unwilling to fund artists. They want to pay for music; they are paying for music. Their spending choices have shifted, that's all.
It's not up to them to "change their ways." It's up to you to give them something they value enough to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a terrific post by Andrew Dubber over at New Music Strategies that explains the whole thing:
Should I be worried about piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their experience seems to suggest that finding exactly what it is that consumers will pay for is harder than you think it is. And I suspect that's because these guys are the kinds of artists whose audience are primarily interested in the music, not merch. Merch may work for heavily hyped rap/pop/rock artists where the image/scene/community aspect is as important- or even more important- than the actual music, but it doesn't seem to work for folk/world/jazz artists (who most of these guys are).
And yes, if you make electronica then production costs are low. But if you still need to record 8 live musicians playing simultaneously- and do it well- then you still need a recording studio to do it, and it still costs, tho I accept not as much as before.
There seems to be more resistance to actually getting the wallet out, for these guys, than there is for other artists. Because what their consumers actually want is the music, not merch, and they've already got that, for free.
Playing live, for these guys, rarely covers the cost of doing the gigs, but that's maybe a UK thing. Europe pays a little better, but in the UK it's very, very, hard to make any money playing gigs where the venues for this work are small, and the bands are usually at least 5piece. DJs, yes, bands, no. One act I know have shrunk from a 9 piece to a 4 piece and still lost money on their last tour (and they used to shift 100k of each album and still pack venues) But higher fuel costs etc with no equivalent increase in ticket prices have shafted their margins to the point where it's costing them too much to do the gigs, do they're chucking it in.
In the US it's much easier to make a profit playing live- if you live there- but over here it's getting really hard. A out of town band wanting to play London will have to pay Ł200 emissions charge, on top of Ł50 parking, along with maybe Ł100 fuel costs. So before they've even got to the gig, that's Ł350 costs. Yet the venue they're playing will probably only pay Ł500, tops. For a 5 piece that's Ł30 each, assuming they then drive all night home to avoid hotel charges of at least Ł50 each.
These guys were all doing ok when they could sell CDs. None were on major labels, most made them themselves, or were on indie labels who paid a good enough advance to get the music made with enough left over to pay the rent- just. That income from their recorded music is how they survived, and now it's gone.
They've all looked for ways to part their fans from their money, for anything else other than the recorded music. By your argument, they should have found something, but they haven't.
Yes, maybe they're just thick, and let's face it, musos may be good at music but often they're rubbish businessmen.... But I see this story replayed all the time these days.
Or should they be playing different music ? Is that the problem ? In which case they may as well chuck it in. They play what they play because that's who they are, that's their art. And if it simply doesn't make money any more, then so be it. But I still think they're owed a little more in return for all those files out there being heard and enjoyed by thousands than a " just live with it and find something else people will pay for" argument. Because they've tried fxxxing hard, and they're still not finding it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You may now commence attacking me. No, I'm not a troll, I'm a professional songwriter, come to my town and I'll show you the effects of 10 years of illegal P2P. Then let's take a tour of Silicon Valley to see where the $ went.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, okay. Let's follow the money:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68448_Page4.html
Oh Look! It's actually the supporters of SOPA that have spent 10 to 1 more on lobbying.
It amazes me the dishonesty of SOPA supporters.
(Any one here notice Google's $500,000,000 settlement with the Justice Dept. this fall which exposed their business model with crystal clarity? I didn't think so.)
Um. We wrote about it, repeatedly. We also wrote about why that was extremely questionable.
overlook the fact that Copyright is enshrined in the Constitution,
No. Copyright is not enshrined in the constitution. The right for *Congress to create a copyright system* is... but only if that system "promotes the progress of science" (by which they meant learning.
Anyway, if you want honest debate, try not pulling out ridiculous claims that are easily proven false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good on you for reporting Google's settlement. I'll bet you found any # of ways to be an apologist for them---but I'll go back and read the articles before I state that as fact.
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution; "... securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I have the "exclusive right". I know that's a tough one to swallow.
If no one were making any $ from my songs, fair enough, I lose in the marketplace. But if I can Google my most recent hit and find 100k's of results, 80% of them infringing, most with ads for any product imaginable, with everyone in the chain making $ with every click of the mouse, then I've got a problem and so does Congress. That's why this bill is moving.
I'm serious about anyone here coming to my town. Send me your e-mail address and I'll respond. I'll give you a tour of ground zero of the copyright wars. To many here, this is likley an intellectual abstraction but to those who bet their lives and livelihoods on the protection in copyright law and lost, it's about as real as it gets. I'll e-mail you an official invitation. However, in return I will expect that tour of Silicon Valley to compare how the tech industry has fared over the past 10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Telling (oh so telling) that you leave out the relevant parts of Article 1, section 8.
Let me help:
The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This does not say you automatically have a right to your writings. It says that Congress can -- SOLELY for the purpose of promoting the progress of science (by which it meant "learning") set up a system to secure such rights. That's extremely different than saying, as you do, such rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
I have the "exclusive right". I know that's a tough one to swallow.
Yes. That's not tough to swallow at all. I know the law. Congress has given you that exclusive right. But it's not in the Constitution that you have that right.
If no one were making any $ from my songs, fair enough, I lose in the marketplace. But if I can Google my most recent hit and find 100k's of results, 80% of them infringing, most with ads for any product imaginable, with everyone in the chain making $ with every click of the mouse, then I've got a problem and so does Congress. That's why this bill is moving.
No, the bill is moving because it has money behind it. The vast majority of the populace opposes it. As for the fact that you're too clueless to make money when there's demand for your works... well... you really ought to work on that. But blaming others and trying to fundamentally change the internet because you're bad at business. I don't see that as a reasonable move.
I'm serious about anyone here coming to my town. Send me your e-mail address and I'll respond. I'll give you a tour of ground zero of the copyright wars
Don't know what town you're in, but I've spent plenty of time in "music towns," including Nashville, LA and NY. I spend a ton of time with musicians, have a whole platform designed to help them better make money. So I'm well aware of the what the internet has done -- and that's empower the smart ones to make a lot more money.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
The not so smart ones? Well, again, I don't like the idea of passing bad laws because some people are failures.
However, in return I will expect that tour of Silicon Valley to compare how the tech industry has fared over the past 10 years.
The "tech industry" has fared well, but that's because it adapts and changes with the times, unlike you. I can easily give you a tour of some of the biggest failures of the past decade too. Want to see Sun's old offices? They're now Facebook. SGI? That's Google's offices. Yahoo? Slowly being reclaimed by other companies. I, personally, work in what used to be a Philips Semiconductor building. Lots of *individual companies* have been decimated by a changing marketplace. But the smart ones adapt.
Same thing in the music world. Lots of folks who don't want to change are being wiped out. But MANY more artists are making much more money than ever before. More music is being created than ever before. The idea that music is suffering is a myth. Your own failure to adapt should not blind you to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say congress has gone well beyond "limited."
Maybe someone can define "limited times" for me in regards to authors and inventors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clarification
I just looked at your link and surprise, surprise, your own article shows that this year so far, Google alone outspent the MPAA and the RIAA combined. By far the largest % of Politico's chart was the US Chamber of Commerce. Was that their entire lobbying budget (only a small portion goes to defending intellectual property)? Funny how they received only a passing mention in the article. Good selective fact choosing, but I'm used to it by now.
Thanks for the exchange. I'm off to write another song, which is how I pay the bills, not by blowing my coffee buzz responding to those who will never acknowledge my right to my writings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clarification
Heh. If it was "just" the RIAA and MPAA that were an issue, you might have a point. But raise your nose a bit, and look at how much NBC, Disney, News Corp, Warner, UMG are spending, and you'll notice that it's still a TON more than the tech world.
You're not helping your case. It's pretty well established that the entertainment industry has thrown a TON of money at this. And even if not all of the USCoC's lobbying efforts went to this, A LOT is. The US CoC has set this as one of their key bills to get approved this year. They're spending money like it's going out of style on the hill.
Thanks for the exchange. I'm off to write another song, which is how I pay the bills, not by blowing my coffee buzz responding to those who will never acknowledge my right to my writings.
I never denied your copyright in your writings. Why must you lie? Are you really so insecure in your position that you have to make up lies about your opponents?
Sad. Write another song, but your attitude shows why you're so freaked out. Anyone who reacts the way you do to a changing market place must not have many fans willing to support you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: clarification
I'm not freaked out by a changing market place, I'm disgusted that I have to compete in a black market place, a Cyber Somalia set up and championed by those who profit from infringing uses of my songs, and then I get to hear how I'm failing to adapt. (ps. I don't have "fans" --been there, done that--I'm now a songwriter who makes his living solely from licensed, legal uses of my songs. Until the tech industry respects me and the 100K's of us behind the scenes types who create the content that fuels a large part of the E economy, there's going to be a major grind. There shouldn't be this animosity.)
If the tech world is so brilliant and nimble in the marketplace, why are they so freaked out at the prospect of having to live by the rule of law? The free ride is coming to an end--the closer we get, the louder the bellowing from the Googles of the world. I didn't see your e-mail address? My invitation still stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: clarification
How many of you are out there? 50? 500? 500 000 000?
How much should each one be able to make?
Hate to break it to you, but you have competition. Maybe you aren't good enough for my money.
Your attitude will keep my money out of your hands even if you wrote "Stairway to Heaven."
How many people do you know who have had one career all their life? Ever hear of David Lee Roth?
"During this period, Roth worked as a hospital orderly...
On January 3, 2006, Roth began a career as a radio personality..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lee_Roth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: clarification
# of songwriters? In my personal experience, bout 2/3 fewer than there were 10 years ago. Try this; Add up all those who work behind the scenes to make music, movie, tv, video games, anything that drives traffic on the net, but who get paid zip when their work is infringed. That's a big #. I've been adapting all my life, thanks very much. Like I said, if no one wants my songs, I'll pack it up. But they do, they just don't want to pay for them or acknowledge that there is cost to create them. They'd rather vilify me. Fortunately, Congress doesn't see it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Can you please explain WHY piracy is a problem?
WOW, marcus !
Marcus, it's a LAW !!! not a problem.
"
Yes, murdering people is illegal, not a problem.
Murder on the other hand is or is not a problem based on the frequency and the population. Is 1 murder/year on average a problem for a city of 6 million people? No that city would be extremely proud of such a low murder rate. How about for a village of 50 people? That is a huge problem. Why is piracy a problem? Because the amount of money lost is non-negligible. Now is this really a problem? I don't know, I don't have the numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now if you were talking about the original, that would be different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agian missing the big picture
I will not deny in anyways that you or many others are being hurt by the use of unauthorized copies of your music or others movies, software so on and so forth. And the is what your being hurt the most by not piracy these are two different thing unauthorized copies vs piracy. http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/
But the big point is at no point should NBC, Disney, News Corp, Warner, UMG, or any other company be allowed to censor what sites I or anyone is allow to visit which what these bills are trying to allow without due process.
as in the example I have used before I use rapidshare.com to store and distribute mine and my clients software or documents due to the ease and space limits or file type restrictions on their web host. this is legal use of these type of site though there are many that use these for distributing infringing material. They try hard to remove any file that is proven to be illegal. But if Warner finds one file on rapidshare that MIGHT ( they don't have to prove it does) infringe have it blocked in which blocks my Legal use of the site. This would then hurt me and my clients and keep us from making our living off of our software or documents.
No they should not be allowed to censor a site they should go after the individual that broke the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP S.O.P.A
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is ridiculous
I think you have your answer.
do not pass these 'laws' or you will become as bad as the the dictators trying to cling to power, blocking the internet and mobile communications. do. not. become. dictators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palpatin should DIE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bill retarded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this? Really sounds like a joke to me.
Makes me wonder; do the politicians in your government represent the people that voted, or are they just randomly selected from some sanatorium?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morality of Piracy isn't the issue
All logical arguments for why piracy is in some ways a good thing aside, you have to realize that this is way more of an issue then just "Oh, we need to stop Piracy!" I am not pro-piracy, and I would be open to more direct, less over-reaching laws that don't completely shit all over our first amendment rights.
If they could make a bill that would do that, and also help simulate the innovation associated with piracy due to industries being forced to innovate at the speed of piracy, that would be a miracle.
Unfortunately, I don't see a bill that is meant to benefit everybody equally passing through congress, as they are too heavily influenced by lobbiests at this point.
So, anyways, my point is this: The issue isn't the morality of piracy, it's that this law that is supposedly meant to help fight piracy will have MUCH MUCH BIGGER AND POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES. As the original article stated, the terms under which infringement can be claimed are so vague, that these mega-corporations like Viacom and friends will most definitely exploit them to eliminate competition as much as possible. The end result would be an incredible downturn in the economy, since economic growth is so dependent on technology and the internet nowadays. And, of course, the rapid slowing of innovation in technology due to the risk involved with attempting to innovate.
I know this is all just a re-hash of parts of the article, I just want to make sure people aren't caught up in this "Piracy vs. Morality" argument and turn their eyes back on the real reason this bill is so bad. I would avoid feeding arguments about piracy, since that's clearly not even the real issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't be surprised if this type of trend quickly sparked a less peaceful movement, meaning, violent riots/revolution. That's not an exaggeration, there are already local militia's forming all over the country who fear that they are losing their Freedoms and are prepared to defend themselves, with force if necessary.
The people of a society can only endure so much before they say enough is enough and take more direct and potentially violent action, and I am worried we are much closer to that point then we would like to believe. Just look at Greece, they recently reached the apex of that point, and it was because of similar issues of bad governing that we are experiencing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down with sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this should not happen ,we depend on pirated free matterial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is similar to the way the Nazi's were able to subtley destroy German Freedoms until it was too late. I'm not saying we are going down that path, I'm just saying, the ability to exploit this stuff is a very slippery slope. Private ownership of media is really dangerous in the wrong hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Publishing
And what site can realistically police all of its content. We rely on takedown notices because it is not possible for a company to be aware of every copyrighted piece of material to recognize that it may be violated. Nevermind the fact that copyright is something you don't have to file for, but automatically own when you create and publish a work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHARE...STOP SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA (lol)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foolish media companies
Companies should always listen to customers and give them what they want. Look at Netflix. They were making tons of money for a decade straight. Then they raised the price and consumers backlashed against them. Netflix held firm and gave them the middle finger. As of today, their stock has dropped from $300 per share to $70. That's a 75% decline! Never piss off customers.
Media companies should be happy with the billions (trillions?) of dollars they make. Sure, some people are going to pirate some stuff. But do you think that those people who pirate are going to magically start buying tons of movies and music? No, they will find other ways. They will go back to copying DVDs or buying bootlegged copies for next to nothing. Or share media from their computers on a smaller scale through VPNs or file hosting sites. The people who pirate are not going to make a complete turnaround because of SOPA.
The losses they cry about are fictional losses because they were never destined to make that money. The only money they will ever make is from customers who willing want to buy their products. Answer to this: give customers what they want!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rediculous
People like myself running legitimate businesses online such as my Free FundRaising Widgets, offering needed services to people all across America and the world would be put under incredibly pressure and the possibility that a site could be shut down or even some kind of legal action for merely linking in some way to content on another site, embedding a video or what ever would cause many small business owners like myself to drastically rethink even having online businesses at all, the risk wouldn't be worth it, so In short it would as has been said, kill the growth and advancement in this industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why not?
Why did you bother to comment then?
I guess it is okay to just dismiss your opinion then. It is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough is enough!
Soon, REVOLUTION will be the ONLY answer to all this mess!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough is enough!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!haarp!!!!!!!!!!!!$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!!$$$$$$$$
What are the human gods doing?
Why doesn't their people know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPP & POOPOO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Babble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
piracy
What they call piracy is a scam in itself how many more ppl went to a concert or got memorbilia due to downloading from a p2p network, how many people said I like this artist and baught the wole albumn. Don't let these ppl fool you the very word "pirate" is also now in the same terms of "hacker" or bushes fav term WMD and yes right now there is a computer somewhere flagging tbose words guess what this free country is starting to get repressed! The freedom of speech the right to bare arms the right to assemble the right to share.
Alll of these things are getting more and more repressed and opressed. Oh and btw guess what "piracy" has been happening scince music and video have been around just like forgery and oppresion by the man when something don't click a certain way keep oppressing and the people will keep rebelling. Its just an.other sham to get our attention off the real matters at hand like oh I don't know war,let's spend taxpayers money on whatever we want.or in cali 10 mil a year just to find and destroy pot plants......really?
Oh how bout these guys spend a lot of money on hbookers or get cuaght doing drugs you see these guys in jal or prison eff no! Ten commandments on the judges steps had to take it down why because someone was offended! Oh go tell that to the supreme court! Btw our beloved nation was founded on those values. So sharing aido video yeah keep blocking it and there will always be away around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote more tech developers into Washington
No taxation without representation, no legislation without expertise.
I say vote more tech developers into Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there is any PIPA simular bill is pass, it is like take our right away from free of speech, and our men and women fight a broad the world to protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA & PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA/PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This artical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This artical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's theft...Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming." Turner Broadcasting CEO Jaime Kellner in 2002
________________________________________________________
In response to the above quote...How can it be theft if I have paid for it? I pay for my subscription to watch TV and have the right to pass ir up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SERIOUSLY!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SERIOUSLY!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another thing to think about. Their is a thing called parody and satire. Everyone knows what parody and satire is right? The internet is full of parody and parody follows the law of fair usage. The SOPA can hurt parody and satire works because of course content is used from another work and be deemed infringement. Easy way to abuse the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please dont pass S.O.P.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please dont pass S.O.P.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?!
So this may actually be passed? I will protest the Internet then. That also means my blog will be shut down. Fuck it, I don't make money from it anyway.
So....Blockbuster can sue Netflicks because of this? Then Bell Co. can sue Verizon? And the maker of MP3 can sue Apple? Fuck. No new inventions for us. We are certainly screwed for the years to come. I understand that businesses would like this, but wouldn't this eventually create a monopoly? Then we would be like we were in the 20's, mostly poor with the super super rich people at the top. The middle class would go away....no more college....lots of death. I'll move to Denmark before that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leave craigslist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anti-piracy legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anti-piracy legislation
How did you learn?
By copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: anti-piracy legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: anti-piracy legislation
Thanks for the info.
You can be my witness if I ever have to prove that I did not knowingly and willfully infringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: anti-piracy legislation
"Whenever people are certain they understand our peculiar situation here on this planet, it is because they have accepted a religious Faith or a secular Ideology (Ideologies are the modern form of Faiths) and just stopped thinking."
-- Robert Anton Wilson"
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/17/raw-quote-in-other-words-if.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anti-piracy legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anti-piracy legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait ten seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cant go on craiglist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cant go on craiglist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its funny......
The decision is up to you of course, but please give me a little insight on what I just told you. I wanna know what you guys think! Email me, HKlove_93@yahoo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop Backpedaling
Why are we in this situation? Why were these bills crafted the way they were, then forcefully rushed through congress? It's staunch supporters provide a not-so-subtle clue. The RIAA, the MPAA, News Corp., and other media companies/conglomerates are all for this and they persuaded a few politicians to take their side.
I think the big question is how long is the American public going to be on the defensive from these media giants who influence the political process? How many different campaigns and tactics can the RIAA, MPAA, etc. try before we have had enough. I think it is time to go on the offensive and take the fight to them.
The whole purpose of copyright extremely simple. It sole reason for being is to allow the creator (of a movie, song, photo, etc.) to be free from copycats (for a limited amount of time) so they can make some money and be encouraged to create more. That's it. In current form it allows creators to keep the copyright for 70 years...after their death. To me this is ridiculous, along with the huge fines levied against individual violations.
I say the next step after the defeat of SOPA and PIPA is copyright reform. I think we have allowed Media companies to define what piracy is, and that needs to change. Only then can we truly confront piracy and maintain the original intent of copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sopaand ptip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree - strongly
Offering 'awesome new services' is plausible response to underlying problem, but not if same business models are in place. I linked to your article on Spotify as example of 'awesome service' and while it is popular, it isn't without criticism. I also got distinct impression that while popular in 2011, Spotify seems to be running into same old same old problems that all internet start-ups run into (how to increase capital). I also would note article that showed two independent labels dropping out from Spotify revenue stream, which ought to tell anyone looking at this whole issue something. But alas, I think such key information will go over the heads of the "stop SOPA cuz its censorship" crowd.
I am member of Netflix, and very much enjoy it, but near end of 2011, it too had it's share of massive criticism. How dare Netflix charge a whopping $8 a month for streaming content? As if consumers thought Netflix would keep a low price point forever and ever, and oh, btw, Netflix will give more to its streaming business model. So, here we have legit biz model charging the price of one theater film for whole month of unlimited movies, and consumers are claiming that is done out of greed ?? !!
Which is my main point in this. It's not the pro SOPA people that are greedy, but instead it is CLEARLY the anti-SOPA people that are either very greedy or very cheap (probably both). They want all the latest content, delivered in a convenient way, prefer it be great content (hence independents can kiss their butt) and they want it for free. I mean is it really too much to ask for it for free? Charge $1 for it, and you must be one of those greedy corporate types. Charge $8 (a month, or more) and we will drop out of your business model because that is just too much money to pay honest artists for their original works of art.
The whole "broad language" stuff on the anti-side is IMO, incredibly misinformed. I'll admit it could go that way, where Big Brother won't let you even think about something that has already been copyrighted, lest you have your head chopped off. But, I'll admit to that brand of fear mongering, right after anti-SOPA people admit that there must have been WMD's in Iraq, because someone said so.
I'm yet to see a viable argument for how SOPA will censor. I've done my research, and am yet to find that. I've seen fear mongering, but nothing viable.
I'm as anti-censorship as they come, and have not met anyone that meets up with my standards of anti-censorship.
So, it is plausible to be pro-SOPA and against censorship. But apparently, the sound bite side of this SOPA debate would have you believe otherwise, while also believing that they are not the greedy ones, and also magically coming away with the belief that they are in favor of dealing with online piracy.
When in reality, they're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree - strongly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey hey
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey hey
http://marrilmcblazen.deviantart.com/
Thaaaaank you again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey hey
http://karasutengu-proyectos.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will afect THA' WHOLE WORLD!!!
(I'm from Portugal and it WILL afect me!!!)
I SAY NOOOO TO SOPA & PIPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pointless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big names like Youtube, Google, Photobucket, Wikipedia; the list goes on... all of them would be shut down. You'd basically anger just about everyone everywhere. And in turn, SOPA would lose a ton of support on anything else (God forbid another scheme of theirs) they could possibly try. Not that I would support them on ANYTHING they do, especially at this outrageous attempt to control the voice of the people!
And then there's the other issue about stopping Internet piracy. This is NOT the way to go about it. You don't restrict everyone's rights because of a few lawless people. And when I say a few, I mean realistically as in thousands could be pirating. To fight piracy, you offer a better service than what the pirates can offer. It is much better (and safer AND profitable) to own legit material rather than pirated material. It's that simple! It's been done many times. When the pirates can't keep up, they drop out. You win. End of discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@jaeheyok
SOPA 통과시키면 좆치러 내가 미국간다 개쉬키들아
SOPA is all kill game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great article and SOPA/PIPA need to be stopped!!
It's like the kid who got benched in High School football because he just wasn't good enough to play first string. That kid grew up and started a company which sells a product on the internet. That adult is still a kid on the inside who still believes he isn't good enough to make it. There isn't a thing wrong with his product. He has just as much of a chance as everyone else. But he figures the only way he is going to be "first string" is if he cheats. So He finds a bunch of scum just like him who have money. They go throw their efforts into finding a loophole to make things "fair" for "everyone". So what ends up happening?
They create/support SOPA and PIPA. A lot of time, effort, and money thrown at lobbyist. Knowing full well that our kind and well informed Senators and Congressmen will just say "why not?".That is until the American public says "F$%@ YOU and the horse you road in on!!"
Okay well maybe not quite like that but the fact still remains that these kind of ballsy moves seem to be forming a trend. Not a very good trend...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sopa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sopa pipa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Iv spent like 5 mins trying to think of what to say to this and nothing really conveys what im feeling... so ill just say f--- SOPA f--- Stupid greedy bastards and, EA sucks also
=3 -8 (its a but and a who who btw)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PSA to combat SOPA and PIPA
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92I0hrYvdjI
Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/35405496
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PSA to combat SOPA and PIPA
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92I0hrYvdjI
Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/35405496
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing
No need to pretend this will infringe on free speech, you'll still have millions of outlets to post YOUR work, or those who wish to post THEIR work for FREE can do so.... stop being whiney little babies, you're wrong, you know it, so stfu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stealing
Way to go on being mature about the whole thing.
"stop being whiney little babies, you're wrong, you know it, so stfu"
This tells me alot about you.
If the people who copy/infringe/pirate other people's work, that person can just sue them, and be done with it.
Passing this bill will basically say the person who posted the work is the criminal; that's why this bill is shit.
It's so broadly worded, it could mean anything. We could counter with something, and you could have a gigantic loophole by saying it means something else than what you just said. Don't murder the sites allowing the stuff. Murder the people getting free things FROM the sites.
If this "person"'s work is "stolen", then why don't they do anything to stop it? I figure if they don't give a shit about what happens to their work, you shouldn't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
성님이 빠따로를 선물하겠당께?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Giant-company Joint Letter.
Okay, let's see who wrote it.
Mozilla
AOL
eBay
Facebook {which is almost COMPLETELY user-run}
Google {Which is also almost completely user-run}
LinkedIn
Twitter {As I said before}
Yahoo! {Imagine all those letters/emails you sent to people just gone, and you can't send anymore because Yahoo! was censored. 76% of people's email accounts in the US are ymail, yahoo, or rocketmail, all of which are Yahoo!}
Zynga. {I believe it's a game developing company. They have alot of their own games MADE BY THE COMPANY ITSELF on Yahoo!, and they have signed a contract allowing the games to be played by Yahoo! users. Passing SOPA/PIPA would incriminate these people who play Zynga games, thus arresting millions of people, and causing civil unrest. They are basically the Facebook of gamesites. Imagine World of Warcraft mixed with Facebook. Zynga is the result.}
I honestly don't see how any other bills like SOPA could even be thought about, and how blind our congresspeople are.
The internet is the last free place on Earth, anywhere.
If we censor it, nothing is true.
Call your representative to protest against any bills similiar to PIPA/SOPA.
Protect your freedom.[/RANT]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA그만합시다 --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA그만합시다 --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA그만합시다 --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is moronic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG blocked on google!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVXCr6upWUo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joke^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
internet
"...First, let's kill all the lawyers!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HELP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home of the what?
Please note that instead of, "The land of the free and the home of the brave," please insert, "The land of the justifiably paranoid and the home of terror awareness."
Thank you for updating your documents. You may be billed by a nationally accredited service through DMCA for this update and for the love of all things Holy, STOP singing the 'Happy Birthday Song' without paying royalties! They WILL hunt you down for that! Warner Chappell bought the rights in 1990. They did not write either the lyrics or the music but they WILL sue you and with the three letter organizations of the U.S. behind them and SOPA making this all possible you might end up with several black SUVs in your driveway on little Suzy's birthday. You have been warned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Protection of intellectual property laws and Sopa are somewhat different, but they all have the same interests. Stop online piracy and internet copyright infringement. Use fastestvpn for save any secure ip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]