22 Replies Latest reply: Jan 18, 2012 2:48 PM by platinumb RSS

I have changed opinions on the Piracy bills (SOPA, and PIPA)

triiviium-

Many have in a way raged/flamed me for good reason; I didn't do my research plane and simple. Thanks to nuttin2say, I have now switched my opinions and I now see why and how it will hurt the Internet. Originally the way I saw it in my head was not the way many of you see it.

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

    So basically let SOPA destroy Youtube.

    • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
      triiviium-

      How would it destroy youtube? Please explain we are all waiting to hear.

      • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

        May have gotton that mixed with bill s.978.

      • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

        No more videos of game play.

        No more music videos.

        No more videos containing media protected by copyright.

        Granted all of this falls under if a company would want ownership of said videos. Which anyone with half a brain knows they would. If you think large corporations care about whether or not your entertained your deluded. They just want your cash.

        Can't use them because they are "pirated"

         

        Bye-bye youtube.

        And what kind of business could you possibly have that would be hurt by a temporary blackout of google and wikipedia?

         

        Also read zackyd's post about how this will hurt small businesses. Only corporations who can pay for the research will be selling digital information anymore since their tech will be the best and it would essentially become illegal for anyone to even research it. Knowledge is condensed and corporations control information and in turn WHAT YOU BUY. (If I'm understanding what he's saying properly)

        • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
          wsb991

          If a youtube user so much as posted a comment in a video comment or there profile or anywhere on youtube giving away copyrighted info such as...

           

          Sentences from a book,

          A few lines of code,

          A copy righted picture (Any company logo, work of art digitally or hand drawn)...

          of which the creator has not optioned out of his right of full ownership.

           

          could lead to youtube being blocked.

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

    still against sopa, its too board and vague to not be abused like the dmca already is, sorry but the mfiaa can't and won't control the internet as long as their are tech nerds alive. the dmca is enough because it allows the mfiaa to issue a warning to a site but nothing can happen unless they get a court case.(which is fine)

     

    Now i would like section 12 of the dmca to be revisied as it blocks means of fair use by making tools for decoding techology illegal which means people can't learn from other people's creations or have programs like decss which used to be needed on linux systems to watch dvds.

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

    It is your product?  Lol, yes, lets just let them censor the internet.  That is a GREAT idea.  Ahhhh, some people these days.

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
    JEadz

    The Internet is the last place where free speech truly applies and now you want to give the government powers to interfere with that?

     

    are you a moron?

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
    iif0xh0undii

    triiviium,

     

    Those that oppose the bill do so because of how it is written, not for what it aims to accomplish. Do a bit of research.

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
    avengedyesterday

    Like foxhound said what it aims to do is great. But like most bills in America it is going for overkill. What game company in the world would be against anti-piracy? It's a pretty good sign when all of them are completely against it. The bill just steps way beyond the boundries.

     

    Just to let you know, if this was to pass you wouldn't be allowed to post call of duty game plays on your channel.

    • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
      triiviium-

      I will agree it may be overkill. But everyone interprets things in different ways, everyone will have an opinion. Like FOX said yes I have not done to much research and you may say well I spoke to soon. I have not read the bill mainly because im sure it is a stack of paper 3 feet tall. What I am trying to mean in this whole thread that yes the Internet is a free domain but all of the stealing and piracy that goes on on peoples things is getting out of hand. We all know the GOV. wrights things in a way that no one can understand to hide things between the lines but something needs to take place.

       

      Just to get this clear in my head why wouldn't you be able to post COD gameplay on youtube. If Activision gives free domain over it then they cant regulate it right? And being that COD allows you to link and upload gameplay they would give overall permission to anyone to post/upload videos. Plus Activision always loves free advertising right?

      • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

        but the dmca does the samething but make its so courts have to get involved, which is a good check and balance. Now remove artical 12 of it and the law is perfect cause it allows free research and backwards enginnering but still makes pirating illegal. (trust me i've written a 5 page paper on the dmca. Granted is was mainly about article 12(3pages) and my resorces were mainly EFF,stanford.)

      • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

        triiviium- wrote:

         

        We all know the GOV. wrights things in a way that no one can understand to hide things between the lines but something needs to take place.

         

        So you admit you cannot read?  It's not like they write bills in Swedish...anyone with a 5th grade reading comprehension level can figure the stuff out.  There is no such thing as invisible ink and script between the lines.  Stop being a steam-piping tool and educate yourself. 

        • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
          triiviium-

          No need to act that way. You do know that every bill passed today has more things in it that have to do with other things then what the bill is actually meant to focus on. Look at the Health care bill, go read that and tell me how much actually has to deal with health care.

          • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......

            triiviium- wrote:

             

            No need to act that way. You do know that every bill passed today has more things in it that have to do with other things then what the bill is actually meant to focus on. Look at the Health care bill, go read that and tell me how much actually has to deal with health care.

            Ok, granted but you're acting like it isn't spelled out in front of you.  If you want to be informed, and make an informed opinion actually take the time to educate yourself before you spout useless rants and eat up precious ban-width.  Otherwise, you can take your fake moon landings, grassy knolls, and Canada is a real country conspiracy theories elsewhere..

      • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
        nuttin2say

        triiviium- wrote:

         

        Just to get this clear in my head why wouldn't you be able to post COD gameplay on youtube. If Activision gives free domain over it then they cant regulate it right? And being that COD allows you to link and upload gameplay they would give overall permission to anyone to post/upload videos. Plus Activision always loves free advertising right?

         

        Huge misconception there, triiviium ... read the EULAs, TOS, etc.

         

        Activision retains the right to pull ANYTHING you create that includes images, etc. of their products. Period. That right ALREADY exists and is enforced regularly.

         

        How many times have you seen someone post a link of some stupid crap they did playing a COD game only to click on that link and discover the video has been pulled from YouTube? I have seen it happen lots of times.

         

        The ONLY reason you don't see it happen more often is because the resources, true, to needed to "police" piracy and "how to cheat" videos is enormous. They can't afford to go after all of these people.

         

        That's why some people, primarily from the entertainment industry, want laws like these: so that  they don't have to spend a dime policing their products. Instead, you the taxpayer, will be paying to protect their "investments."

         

        What's more, as it stands right now, I can't duplicate my copy of MW3 and play it on any other device except an Xbox console. If I want another copy to play on another device I have to pay additional fees. The point is that these laws would strengthen that concept so that eventually you will have to pay to watch the same show multiple times in your house if you watch it on two different televisions (which actually already happens to a large degree with cable and satellite TV).

         

        That is total BS. Why should people have to pay for multiple licenses to use the same product?

         

        But the industry gets away with it because people are not paying attention. Worse, the propaganda out there tries to convince you that you are a thief if you do not pay full price for a product that is reusable by nature ... but you have to pay every time you use it.

         

        Imagine if you had to pay GM the full price of their cars every time you got in it to go to the corner store.

         

        Crazy?

         

        Not really. That is EXACTLY what you  are doing when you pay $60 for a copy  of a game to play on Xbox then another $60 to play the same game on a PS3.

         

        You don't mind because, hey, it's only $60, right? Right.

         

        The competition with Activision is not just Dice and EA Games. Activision must also compete with the pirates out there. That is what keeps the game price at $60 a pop, not the fact that there are other games out there.

         

        In fact, Economics 101 - ANY work of art that is traded is considered monopolistic competition. It is a unique product that only ONE company can sell. That means they have some of the same advantages that pure monopolies have. The greatest difference is that they generally do not have the government enforcing the rules of pure monopolism.

         

        These laws, however, DO enforce pure monopoly theory.

         

        The laws and regulations  in place now are adequate enough. Do not be fooled into thinking they  are not.

         

        Here's the reasoning behind them from the supporters of the laws. In their minds, if I lose 10% (and I'm pretty sure that is way overestimating the amount actually lost to piracy) of my sales to piracy, and I sell 10 million copies, that's $60 million I lost. That's what they want you to think - but rest assured that is not where their thinking stops.

         

        These corporations pay HUGE bucks to economists to figure these things out. What they are really thinking is that, yeah, if I can stop that 10% from being pirated, I can then raise the price to $80 a copy. I will never gain that 1 million customers because odds are if they could afford the $60 I was charging to begin with, they wouldn't bother risking the fines, etc. for stealing my stuff to begin with. And, in fact, when I raise the price to $80 a pop, I might actually lose 500,000 customers so that now I only sell 9.5 million copies.

         

        But the company still gains. They end up with a net gain of $180 million.

         

        This is not about benefiting the consumer at all.

         

        What's more, like I keep saying - these laws prevent other creativity from entering the industry. If Activision had to pay Atari for rights to make video games in color, that would again increase the cost of production.

         

        It doesn't matter whether or not the same code is used or not. What matters is the "theft of creativity and ideas."

         

        That's pretty effing vague, man. Like I said, that covers EVERYTHING.

         

        I can go on all day about this because it ticks me off so much. Believe me, I am all about capitalism and giving credit where credit is due and I think people should get paid for their work and/or creativity.

         

        But that is not what this crap is out to protect. Not even close.

         

        For that matter, here's something to chew on. Until Anonymous started threatening Sony, Sony supported SOPA.

         

        Well that is really interesting.

         

        It's interesting because with your membership (which is 100% free) to the LA County library, you can download three free songs a week, every week, from the library.

         

        But you're only going to get songs by artists that were under contract with Sony when the song was recorded.

         

        Now how the f**k are you going to tell me that a company like Sony is worried about piracy when they give out music for free???

  • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
    nuttin2say

    Sorry but I oppose this total BS - and I'm one that is not a fan of "liberalism."

     

    And I oppose it not because of the way it is written, but on principle alone.

     

    This is not a complicated issue. The laws necessary to deal with piracy and plagerism are already out there. This is nothing more than a power grab by people that are already in the entertainment industry; an effort to keep out newcomers.

     

    What most people do not realize is that literature is extremely repetitive. For example, Apocolypse Now borrowed from Heart of Darkness. The argument can be made that Call of Duty games borrowed from the original idea of the old Operation Desert Storm games. These sorts of "thefts" go on constantly in the world of literature and entertainment.

     

    Under this type of power grab, the descendant of Daniel Defoe can argue that he created the concept of the novel. Anyone that immitated what he did with Robinson Crusoe, writing a story in novel form, STOLE from his original idea.

     

    This is stupid and a very bad direction for the entire world to head into. It places extreme limits upon creativity.

     

    Sorry, but after a lot of consideration, I do join sides with organizations like Wikipedia, Google and others.

     

    This crap can have AOL, or better yet, NetScape make a sudden miraculous return to the top of the industry. Why? Because they were the pioneers of what we see on the internet today. They would have the ability to come and sue Google, Yahoo and others for "STEALING" their idea - when that is not at all what happened.

     

    Furthermore, these laws are completely contrary to current patent and copyright law. Just because someone invented the windshield wiper back in the days of Henry Ford does not mean someone cannot come along and say, "Hey, I can improve that device by making it intermittent." The guy that creates an improvement upon an idea deserves credit and payment for doing so.

     

    These laws prevent that from happening. They tell a person with an idea to improve upon a work of art or science or anything else that would normally get a patent or copyright that they do not deserve anything for improving those things.

     

    These laws will totally ruin not just the American economy, but the world economy. This is very greedy step into a very dumb direction.

     

    Say  NO to SOPA, etc.

     

    It ruins creativity. Period.

    • Re: Do not SUPPORT GOOGLE WIKI OR ANY OTHER.......
      triiviium-

      Nutin2say,

       

      Thank you for remaining civil and educating me some more. I am by no means in support of liberalism. I now see by your explanations why these bills are harmful. The way I was seeing it in my mind was wrong thats why I was going in the direction I was going. I have now switched opinions and when I get some time I am going to read the WHOLE bill(s).

  • Re: I have changed opinions on the Piracy bills (SOPA, and PIPA)
    rwcgillam

    I'm all for the basic principle, but it needs to be worded to address what it was meant to address.  It's too vague and even if today they say "all we want to do is end internet piracy", 6 months from now they could use the law to support taking away something else completely unreleated to pirating songs or books from the internet. 

     

    Reword it and I might support it, but the way it stands now, I am totally against it.

  • Re: I have changed opinions on the Piracy bills (SOPA, and PIPA)

    Nah, I'll stay against it as this will destroy an already growing world.