|
Post by syaoranvee on Nov 20, 2011 1:47:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 20, 2011 1:49:45 GMT -5
It's what most pro-piracy arguments boil down to, in my experiences. Also, a nitpicky note, but I'm pretty sure that "happy birthday" is public domain. No, it's not. www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 1:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 20, 2011 1:59:40 GMT -5
I'd ask for what study these came from, but how well to they fare witht he law of large numbers? Companies make trillions, and hire millions. It could just be a small percent in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 2:01:36 GMT -5
Oh hey! Another article mentioning doubt about piracy reports! From a more reputable source, too. www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2193332,00.asp
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Nov 20, 2011 2:11:55 GMT -5
How would you apply his "give them a service better than what the pirates give them" principle to movies or tv shows or comic books or music, where you can download products every bit as high quality as are legally available for absolutely free? How about simultaneous global release dates for starters? Then we can move on to allowing me to buy a digital download of a movie when it's still in theatres, instead of having to wait for the DVD/Blu-ray release. Then maybe the music industry can sell me new songs at the same time they give them to radio stations to play, instead of making me wait a couple of weeks for an album to be released.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Nov 20, 2011 2:14:45 GMT -5
Pick up a sesame seed but lose sight of a watermelon.
|
|
|
Post by sadhuman on Nov 20, 2011 2:31:02 GMT -5
Piracy is a big deal but this isn't going to stop it in anyway what so ever. And if the server for the website is not in America no matter what American law says they can't touch it.
I happen to do Let's Plays of games on Youtube (these are older games that I played when younger not brand new games) should I be called a pirate? What I do is in fact Fair Use, I am commentating over the game something Fair Use laws say is perfectly fine. But it would seem a law like this one would take a different few how is that in any way fair?
If I pirate a game and never buy it the company that made it makes no money off of me...but the same thing happens if I buy a game second hand. Should buying second hand games be illegal? What about if I lend my friend a game and he plays it all the way through and never buys it...is that illegal?
Look at stuidos that don't use DRM, Projekt and GoG both don't use DRM both are making money. The Witcher 2 was a great seller and no DRM on it, not to mention indie game makers who often ignore or encourage piracy of their game hoping that the people who pirate today will buy tomorrow. Treating people who buy your game with their money like a pirate, slapping harsh DRM's on the game they just brought leads to them acting like pirates. Treating your customers with DRM free or less intrusive DRM leads to customers who keep coming back, or who pirate and then buy your game to support you. Piracy is still wrong and people shouldn't do it, but the industry should be trying to lure people back not lock the people left up in harsh rules.
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Nov 20, 2011 3:00:02 GMT -5
Don't worry too much about it. President Obama says he'll veto it if it gets to his desk. Of course, it shouldn't be allowed to get that far, but still... That was for net neutrality, not this, unless you have a source. I thought this was that. Oh well~
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 20, 2011 4:12:01 GMT -5
Is there a way you could prevent piracy, without taking the ridiculous steps that this bill does to shut down any website which even mentions copyrighted material? If stopping piracy is what you want, fine. The way this act would work a company suspected of piracy could be shut down, and just like DMCA notices are currently used you can bet your bottom dollar that some of the people issuing them will be doing so just to shut people up. That includes repressive regimes.
For my money giving musicians and other artists money for their hard work is nice ok and good, but the price for that shouldn't be giving asshole censors a free hand to censor anyone they fucking want!
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 4:14:38 GMT -5
For my money giving musicians and other artists money for their hard work is nice ok and good, but the price for that shouldn't be giving asshole censors a free hand to censor anyone they fucking want! The worst part about corporations like the RIAA is that they pay these song artists pennies for each album sold. That means that for each album you buy, less than 1% actually goes to the artist. The real money they get is from concerts. There's something just not right about it.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Nov 20, 2011 4:59:17 GMT -5
Showing a few clips, and singing songs =/= piracy. And under the law, yes it does. And this is exactly why so many people are rooting for the pirates. In the current state of things, everyone infringes on copyright laws several times a day. This kind of law would only make the situation even more ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Nov 20, 2011 5:15:49 GMT -5
The internet has fundamentally changed how things work, cutting out a lot of middlemen, and I have a very hard time giving a fuck about those people. Especially when they're lobbying the government to take draconian action to artificially prolong their obsolete jobs. And if the next big movie has a $90M budget instead of $100M, in exchange for freedom on the internet, I'm OK with that. I, for one, see a lot of proxy use in the future if this abortion of a bill passes. Also, what media company does syaoranvee work for, so I can boycott them?
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 20, 2011 9:17:51 GMT -5
It infringes upon copyright to sing happy birthday in a public forum or for me to play a DVD in my living center's common area. It goddamn well violates copyright to put clips up on Youtube or sing copyrighted songs. Internet reviewers can get away with stuff on fair use grounds, but some of them really push it. Everyone, not just reviewers, has the ability to use copyrighted material on fair use grounds. The issue comes not from using the material, but from using the material to make money (without paying the original owner). Song parodies, independent game reviews, fanfic... Those all fall under fair use.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Nov 20, 2011 9:46:31 GMT -5
Though I can see where you're all coming from in talking about piracy, I should point out that I started this thread because the bill, if passed, would for all intents and purposes have shut down the Internet. The bill was specifically worded so that the accusers could ignore due process, meaning that only an accusation of copyright infringement, but no proof, would be needed to get a website removed from the Internet, and the people whose websites were removed would have no legal recourse even if it's clear that there were no copyright violations. A site could also be taken down if the copyright holder judges that a site "isn't doing enough" to stop violations, even if there were no violations made by the actual webmaster. There's a reason that this bill was opposed by Google, Twitter, Facebook, Viacom, and more or less the entire computer industry. None of those companies are very supportive of piracy. However, there is good news. The bill is almost certainly not passing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlDP9-4Uk5Y
|
|