Posts
45
Joined
2/3/2010
Location
USA
Edited Date/Time
1/27/2012 10:42am
Edit: Well, looks like I didn't look far enough back for an existing thread on the subject. Links are still good though.
If you haven't already, please take a few minutes to read about the bill, why its a piece of garbage, and then possibly do something about it (sign Google's petition, mail/call your congressman, share on facebook, etc...).
Google - End Piracy, Not Liberty
Another site for some info on what you can do
"See, I don't know why everyone is worrying about this whole SOPA thing. China has a censored internet, and you never hear about them complaining......"
If you haven't already, please take a few minutes to read about the bill, why its a piece of garbage, and then possibly do something about it (sign Google's petition, mail/call your congressman, share on facebook, etc...).
Google - End Piracy, Not Liberty
Another site for some info on what you can do
"See, I don't know why everyone is worrying about this whole SOPA thing. China has a censored internet, and you never hear about them complaining......"
http://www.thumpertalk.com/
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
prove it.
They completely fail to take into account (intentionally choose to ignore) that most of that happened because it costs nothing. Nobody wanted to buy the shitty music that was being put out...but since it was free they got copies of it. And just like most albums that are purchased, only 1 in 10 songs were worth a shit.
Obviously there was some loss of sales, but the reality is that media was changing. Music was becoming canned and overproduced and people were losing interest, plus you had the video revolution. People were spending money on DVDs and other forms of entertainment. But the music industry chose to scapegoat the consumer because they suck giant hairy shit stained balls.
There needs to be a reasonable middle ground--but the bottom line is trampling on people's rights (be it consumers or producers) is a bad answer.
Instead of "Innocent until proven guilty," it's just "guilty."
Combating piracy is something that needs to be done, but this isn't the correct way to do it.
If I write and sing a good song, and someone buys my CD, then puts a copy of that CD online and then there are millions of downloads, am I losing money or not?
How is that fair to me?
If I made and sold blueprints on how to improve your race bike's HP by 10% through building your own pipe, and someone scans and puts those blueprints online, and millions of people download and build their own pipes, how is that fair to me and my intellectual property?
I am not necessarily arguing, I am trying to understand the logic of people thinking they can take intellectual property and redistribute it at their own discretion, free of charge, resulting in my loss of earnings due their decision.
If you decide you don't like my business and burn it to the ground and I lose money, that is not legal.
If I don't like you selling puppies and I break in and release all the puppies, that's not legal.
Why is it legal to just give away my livelihood because you feel like it, regardless of the financial damages it may cause me?
Why can you intentionally damage my business, resulting in my financial losses without any culpability?
Jonathan Lamy, RIAA's Senior Vice President of Communication, posted this tweet earlier today and has since deleted it. I don't know if “dick move” even begins to describe this.
craig's list
tumblr
It's not right for someone to share your CD (it sucks btw), but your argument is that millions downloaded instead of millions buying it. Most of the people that downloaded probably would not have purchased it...so how much did you actually lose?
Never mind...you won't address the question...it's tangent time.
Is the basis of the argument solely on how much is lost, not on the fact that monies were lost in the first place?
By proclaiming it to be this large number and by putting it on the lowest common denominator (the consuming public), they can get these draconian laws passed which functionally ties the hands of the consumer such that the cost of everything will go up--we'll be charged a fee for each time we listen to a song.
If the RIAA had it's way, the would not allow you to make a copy for personal use/backup of a CD that you purchased. Is that fair? If you wanted to listen to said CD on a different medium (say your iPod), you'd have to buy the music again. Is that fair?
That's what they want pushed through. The ability to gouge the consumer every second of the day.
I look at CD's like a typical EULA, if I copy for my own use, that is fine. I believe music should be same. If I buy a CD and want to put those songs on my iPhone, I have paid for the songs and that should be legal.
But I bought the CD, so that is not what we're talking about.
This is about people downloading intellectual property without paying for it.
How is that fair or right to the creator or owner of that intellectual property?
That is my question
Pit Row
If you don't know by now that the federal government acts in the best interest of big money, then you're just not getting it. Go take a look how top execs rotate in and out of government positions, all with the objective of biasing the laws in favor of their industries, just so they can make more money.
The federal government should not be fucking with this. It should be left in the hands of the regular court systems.
Piracy is obviously wrong, but this goes too far, as you know.
For that matter, it's pretty easy to look at sales trends before and after the internet piracy became big. You can see what sales were for top billed and promoted artists before, vs. the same kind of artists with the same promotions after. As everyone knows, the difference in sales and bottom line is stark.
You can try to make explanations until you are blue in the face about how the music was bad and that's why sales were down, but we also all know that you're lying when you do so. The internet file sharing has caused people to lose their propriety and sense of right and wrong. It's "all free all the time". Theft is no longer considered theft by music and movie stealers.
https://youtu.be/2zCNa1XSwdw
This circle jerk of an effort at a discussion is stupid. I plainly and flatly said:
It's not right for someone to share your CD
And OBVIOUSLY a semi-intelligent monkey would understand that NOBODY here is arguing that piracy is good or ok. So, why continue to argue that point? Are you that simple minded? I don't think so. This is about certain laws that will infringe upon people's rights.
And to say, it's always been legal for fair use...the RIAA doesn't think so. And they'll keep plugging away to prevent it. Why do you think they issued videos and music with copy protection??? And breaking that protection is ILLEGAL. Why do you think they fought labeling the material that has copy protection on it? Just food for thought.
I asked a question about fairness and you do not like it being asked.
IT IS NOT FAIR FOR SOMEONE TO STEAL SOMEONE ELSE'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
that work for you? Can we move forward?
On the other site, I asked you a direct question. You are supporting a site that according to this law supports piracy. You are complicit. You should be thrown in prison. Is that about how you see it?
This same Class of Fucktards that shit all over the Constitution with "The Patriot Act" & the 2011 NDAA have allowed themsleves some pretty fuckin' wide & "blind" lattitude.
Fuck them. Quite frankly, it's kinda foolish of us to keep going down this path of asking Big Brother to protect us while we sit on our fat asses. If someone steals your shit...YOU go after them.
As to "Intent"...
Any ONE OF US can list an example of where our wonderful gov't has fucked us with "intent"...from Tax Law to stupid fuckin' "Wars"...
I'm not taking sides with ANYONE, well, Except Ben Franklin.
We are a bunch of fucking pussies.
I see on this page, as I type this, a Mitt Romney ad, a KLM airlines ad and a Factory Effex ad, is it your contention that they too are "complicit?"
Advertisers are not responsible for content
So, we agree it is not fair for people to steal another person's intellectual property, so why can't it be protected? What's wrong with protecting it, which has been my question all along.
We agree stealing it is bad, so why is protecting it also bad?
Ok, go back and quote where I said protecting content is bad?
Post a reply to: SOPA/PIPA