• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SOPA, change the implementation

Dancing David said:
My personal take would be that if a user posted a link to an illegal site, then just a request to remove that link would be adequate.
Click to expand...
Reasonable situations are not what get challenged in court. Let's take this a step further.

What if those kinds of links are added at a rate faster than they can be found by outside sources and requests can be made? Can you legally force website owners to act as an extension of law enforcement to police their own sites? What if they don't have the manpower to do so or don't have the inclination to? What options should be available then?

I would argue that this is unenforceable without the ultimate threat of shutting down the website. However, it doesn't solve the problem (the linked to content is still available) and it opens the door wide for abuse.

To go to the root of the problem, there are essentially two options:
  1. Never make your intellectual property in digital format
  2. Incentify enough of your consumers to not pirate the content to make it worth your while to produce it and just accept that the rest will steal it.
 
Not sure if it was posted before or elsewhere, but this just in - U.S Shuts Down Megaupload.com and hackers retaliate.

Thing is, if the government at the behest of the movie/music industry could do this without SOPA and PIPA, then what are they complaining about? And how did they come up with the $500 million the movie/music industry was supposedly cheated out of? How did they know that if users couldn't download them for free they would have bought them? What are their methods?

And again, why do we need PIPA and SOPA if the government can already do this?
 
Last edited:
Zelenius said:
How did they know that if users couldn't download them for free they would have bought them?
Click to expand...


As someone against the abusive actions of organizations like the MPAA and RIAA, and a sometimes-"pirate" (less now than when I was younger), but still sympathetic to the overall copyright issue, I've used that argument in the past.

However, lately I've been feeling that that particular argument doesn't actually hold much water, and is a bit of a red herring. That they wouldn't buy it if they couldn't download it for free is completely irrelevant. The mere act of downloading the material indicates a desire on the part of the individual to possess said material. I'd say that's the best indication of a potential lost sale you're going to find. The bigger point, however, is that the individual possesses the material without having paid for it. Period. There's really no way of weaseling around that fact.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
As someone against the abusive actions of organizations like the MPAA and RIAA, and a sometimes-"pirate" (less now than when I was younger), but still sympathetic to the overall copyright issue, I've used that argument in the past.

However, lately I've been feeling that that particular argument doesn't actually hold much water, and is a bit of a red herring. That they wouldn't buy it if they couldn't download it for free is completely irrelevant. The mere act of downloading the material indicates a desire on the part of the individual to possess said material. I'd say that's the best indication of a potential lost sale you're going to find. The bigger point, however, is that the individual possesses the material without having paid for it. Period. There's really no way of weaseling around that fact.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If they didn't want to possess it, they'd just stick to watching streaming video.
 
pipelineaudio said:
And sorry, the janitor at the club is as much a part of "the music industry" as the imaginary cigar smoking fatman
Click to expand...


Nope, sorry. Not buying your nonsense. You'll have to provide at least a little evidence in support of your bizarre definition of the phrase before I reconsider. So far, you've been curiously reluctant to support your notion and instead soldier on with a "because I say so" attitude.

Using your truther logic to claim "the music industry" is some giant nameless, faceless untouchable entity just makes you sound like a paranoid loon
Click to expand...


Lol... The use of any label referring to a group must turn your stomach. Don't dare refer to "Christians" or "atheists" as responsible for anything in pipelineaudio's presence; you're likely to get a severe tongue lashing. :rolleyes:

Would "elements within the music industry" be more acceptable to your hyper sensitivities, or would you instead require everyone to list those elements every time they were referenced?
 
Last edited:
Bram Kaandorp said:
Exactly. If they didn't want to possess it, they'd just stick to watching streaming video.
Click to expand...

^^ This

If you look at most "legit" streaming sites ads are available or comercials are added. Playlist.com comes to mind as well as hulu and crunchyroll.

Which is probably paying for the distrubution rights or is hosted by the content owner.

Personally I could care less about a few seconds of waisted time viewing ads or comercials as long as I don't have to shell out money to "own" it. Just like a pay service that allows me to watch things legally with out having to "own" it.

We already have that don't we? (Over the air TV,Cable,Satelite) Now I don't want to argue quality here ^.^

The controls and regulations are tighter and more restricted on broadcast than on the internet.

The Internet does have avenues of control but no where near what broadcast has.

Which is not a vote to "tighten" the internet mind you or give somebody an half-cocked kill switch.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Would "elements within the music industry" be more acceptable to your hyper sensitivities, or would you instead require everyone to list those elements every time they were referenced?
Click to expand...

It would at least be accurate. Remember, I came into this because of the specific objection to the lie told that "music studios" were repsonsible for SOPA. You guys want to go off on Truther tangents about the nameless faceless "music industry".

It is just as accurate to say "air breathers are responsible for SOPA" as it would be to blame "the music industry"

"The music industry" is composed of many different disciplines, who's motivations are often 180 degrees at odds with each other. On just about any given issue, you will find half of the industry on one side and the other half diametrically opposed

I know there's an E in JREF, but its hard to educate on this subject when people have a personal bias against learning what it entails. I'm kind of done with it until people decide they want to if not be open minded, at least make a pittance of an effort at learning some of the basics.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
So let me ask you this: If SOPA and PIPA and all these harsh laws were to become accepted and implemented, would this at least mean that scam sites such as www.usafis.org could be completely eradicated?

Because if they can't even guarantee that, then this law is in fact nothing but useless crap that does nothing except destroy the little freedom of speech we have.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, Ron. If this is implemented what are the chances that scam sites will be blocked as urgently? And if someone wrote a review on a scam site, what are the chances that the scam site can shut down the reviewer? And what if someone on this forum decided to warn everyone about a scam site like Ron did above, and then all of JREF were shut down because of Ron?
 
Christian Klippel said:
Uh, and that would be needed why exactly? After all, there are already plenty of laws regarding copyright and what sanctions are possible if someone violates those laws.

There is absolutely no need for any new bill or law. use the existing ones first, and if for some strange reason they are not sufficient, then (and _only_ then) think about new ones.

The content industry has slept for far too long. Adapt or die, simple as that. Instead of making use of new technology, they actively fight it wherever they can. They harass and squeeze legit customers, that has to stop.

See, if i buy a DVD or BD or whatever, the first thing that is annoying are the previews of upcoming movies. Most of the time those can't be skipped. Then i am harassed by lot's of legal warnings, that can never be skipped at all. In fact, what they do is telling me "We think you are a criminal, bow down to our might or else...". After wasting lots of time, because nothing can be skipped, i am finally able to watch the movie. Well, if i am lucky, that is, and that insanely DRM crap decided to be OK with my setup.

Compare that to someone who downloads a movie: Click "play" and be happy!

Remember the DRM-trojan-horse debacle from Sony a while back? Where they put malware on audio CD's that infected computers? What about some laws against such things? Like, having them pay bucketloads of money for such stupidity.

What about some laws that gives the customer the guarantee that whatever media they buy, it will play just fine? What about some laws that prohibits those companies from restricting the way i can access the media and content that i have just bought? What about a law that allows me to circumvent that DRM crap so that i can make those things, which i legally bought, play fine on my system?

Now, _that_ would be something i would welcome. But no, not new laws that are designed purely to harass and limit the users even more. Keep that crap out of the internet, there is way too much potential for abuse. And just look at all the DRM crap to see that they _will_ abuse any and all "rights" they can get. Censoring sites on the internet just because some company says so? Without any legal proceedings beforehand? Without hard evidence?

Never!

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
pipelineaudio said:
It would at least be accurate. Remember, I came into this because of the specific objection to the lie told that "music studios" were repsonsible for SOPA. You guys want to go off on Truther tangents about the nameless faceless "music industry".

It is just as accurate to say "air breathers are responsible for SOPA" as it would be to blame "the music industry"

"The music industry" is composed of many different disciplines, who's motivations are often 180 degrees at odds with each other. On just about any given issue, you will find half of the industry on one side and the other half diametrically opposed

I know there's an E in JREF, but its hard to educate on this subject when people have a personal bias against learning what it entails. I'm kind of done with it until people decide they want to if not be open minded, at least make a pittance of an effort at learning some of the basics.
Click to expand...

In general, large organizations representing the music industry are responsible for SOPA. There's no ambiguity about that. If you want to say that your local music studio doesn't support SOPA that's fine, but don't pretend we are inventing conspiracy theories.
 
Richard Masters said:
In general, large organizations representing the music industry are responsible for SOPA. There's no ambiguity about that. If you want to say that your local music studio doesn't support SOPA that's fine, but don't pretend we are inventing conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Name ANY music studio responsible for SOPA...hell name ONE that even supports it

ONE organization that tangentially represents a very very very small part of the music industry (the RIAA) supports it. Another, concerned more often with removing mechanical rights from artists (NAB) also seems to be in support. The number of people in "the music industry" that support NAB's goals to deprive musicians is frightfully small indeed

Now, what about the two biggest names that are on the tip of everyone's tongue, NAMM and AES? Do they support it?

It is just as accurate for me to see the english support child molesters because some child molestors are english
 
pipelineaudio said:
Name ANY music studio responsible for SOPA...hell name ONE that even supports it

ONE organization that tangentially represents a very very very small part of the music industry (the RIAA) supports it. Another, concerned more often with removing mechanical rights from artists (NAB) also seems to be in support. The number of people in "the music industry" that support NAB's goals to deprive musicians is frightfully small indeed

Now, what about the two biggest names that are on the tip of everyone's tongue, NAMM and AES? Do they support it?

It is just as accurate for me to see the english support child molesters because some child molestors are english
Click to expand...

I've never heard of NAMM and AES until today. However, I have heard about almost every single member of RIAA here:

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_members

ETA: and http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board
 
Last edited:
pipelineaudio said:
You think those are studios?
Click to expand...


They're technically record labels. Are you looking for the brick-and-mortar buildings that do the actual recording? How many times do you think you can split a single hair before it amounts to nothing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom