Infringement by Streaming might become a Felony - Page 9

On June 16 2011 11:12 naonao wrote:

Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute.

On June 16 2011 11:19 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:
Everyone will die. All the money and wealth you accumulate when you are gone won't be in your possession. Money, objects, items all go away but what sticks are the things you do that enable your fellow humans. It is selfish and goes against the best wishes of the human race to only allow people privileged enough to be born into a scenario where they can pursue a decent job access to an idea and even more so to prevent them from expanding on it. Single minded selfishness hinders world wide development.

On June 16 2011 11:04 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:
Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket.

Selfishness hinders world wide development?

Man, what a claim! So every major innovation or invention has been created for altruistic purposes, and not for at least some aspect of personal gain?

So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?

On June 16 2011 11:19 KomradeKevin wrote:

Einstein did not study physics for a profit. The Wright Brothers did not invent flight to make money from it. The best inventions/innovations in the world today were not spawned by desire to make money. Starting to get into why capitalism is not the most efficient way to share resources and provide for the most people possible.
The artists don't actually make the amount they should because it gets diluted through an unnecessary corporate structure with too many people being bosses and not enough providing a service or creating a good. Basically copyrights only exist as a way of censoring what thoughts make it to public back when literacy became more common. They claim it is about money but the people saying that have plenty. It is about control and power. They need to stop instituting bandwidth caps and trying to pass legislation to keep internet streaming lower percentage of bandwidth usage. Streaming video is currently 20% of the world's bandwidth. And during peak times in the US it can get much higher. They can't figure out a way to make streaming profitable compared to the companies and individuals who already are. They are scared that their companies will die. If companies are not allowed to go by the waste-side when they are no longer useful/profitable then you take away the very basis of capitalism(free market) but keep the bad side effects or real world capitalism like the only motivation being money instead of improving society in some way. These ever increasing copyright laws are similar to not allowing the starving people in the world eat because they don't have money. There is no food shortage, there is a money shortage in Africa. If they had money, they would not be starving. There is plenty of extra in the first world but it costs money. You cannot listen to that song or hear that speech or watch that sport because you don't have enough money even though it costs almost nothing to stream it and they can get ad revenue still. Think about it, who steals a bunch of music or food if they have the money to pay for it to begin with? Of course people would rather be able to pay but it is not always possible. The problem being that even though the ability, technology, and manpower exist, if the money isn't there neither is whatever could have been. An example of this would be the lack of true high speed fiber optics throughout the US. No reason it isn't there yet other than the money for it isn't there. Isolated areas are still choosing satellite or dial up because they do not represent a big enough customer base to justify allowing them access to the internet. There is still cable tv in a lot of these areas here in Kansas, but the cable companies don't offer internet, only tv.
At what point do they really need more money and at what point can we learn to share? Information should be free. We should stop holding back our own development because of a lack of money, which was created to make trade easier, it is now not necessary and only creates problems. On a side note, we have the technology, raw materials, and manpower to replace 50% of all jobs by computers/robots. The reason we cannot do this is because how would that 50% be able to pay for things if they have been replaced? This is why we are in the beginning of the next stage in human evolution. I can't wait until a system like the Federation of Planets is our governing body and educating the youth is a top priority.

On June 16 2011 11:27 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:
I said hinders not prevents. Eventually that person will die and he will lose royalties to his product but this is a lifetime. Snowball these lifetimes and it is a very large amount of hindrance. Hes throwing steel mesh into the gears of development.
You are raised in a capitalistic society, consider the phrase:
"How do you look outside of what is to you everything?"
-Stephen Colbert

On June 16 2011 10:50 abominare wrote:


You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron.

People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you.

On June 16 2011 11:24 BlackJack wrote:


I know what your point is. There is no reason for me to argue with your point because we probably have a fundamental difference of opinion that we will never agree on. You say it's not a legitimate business and I say that it is, where can we go from there? Not very far.

So back to creativity and innovation. I am aware that Hollywood is not the only place that makes movies. Are you saying that it's okay if Hollywood is ruined because other places will make films on the cheap?

On June 16 2011 11:32 KomradeKevin wrote:
Neither one of them was motivated by money to invent. They had the inspiration in them already. If I enjoy writing computer programs and happen to get a job writing computer programs, the reason I am doing it is not the fact I am getting paid. The payment only allows me to function and stay alive.

On June 16 2011 11:03 abominare wrote:



I er, uh, you know what you obviously didn't read her work so I'm not going to explain why you fail at trying to use that joke.

Ayn Rand was also and idiot.

IP laws are a requirement of a capitalist society regardless, you can't have a functional western marketplace without them. I mean sure we can totally go back several thousand years to an agrarian city state society but I like how it is now.

On June 16 2011 11:34 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:
Let us talk about selfishness then. In North Korea the government is selfish when considering the quality of life for Kim Jong il and the average citizens quality of life. Wouldn't you say if Kim Jong shared more like computers, Internet, and free speech he would enable his citizens to do more then be oppressed and maybe create intuitive works other then synchronized dancing?

Sure, but that's not what we are talking about.

You are ignoring the point brought up before by other posters (repeatedly) which is that game companies wouldn't make games if they didn't make money. Private medial research involving massive expenditure wouldn't occur if profit incentives didn't exist. The list goes on.

If you are trying to say selfishness only inhibits these innovations, we can just as easily say it was that selfishness that allowed these inventions to occur in the first place, and without selfishness, such innovations would be considerably more rudimentary at best.

Does the enforcement of copyright laws stifle creativity? Who knows? Any proof? Any examples? Give me an example of medical science where copyright laws have a proven hindering effect on further innovation, because we could easily list a hundred other examples were copyright laws could be argued to have the opposite effect (to reward R&D efforts by corporations by ensuring profits over their creation)

On June 16 2011 11:41 cfoy3 wrote:
The idea of private propery is one of the core values of Western Societies. Many of you have made compelling arguments for why we should do away with it, however that is not what I feel should be debated right now. You are arguing to radically restructure our society, this bill is about a single issue, whether watching someones IP is illegal withing our society. The answer is yes. You could argue that the society is wrong, and the starting philosospies are incorrect-the right to property-but that does not apply to this one issue. If you want the law repealed you must argue against it within our current society.
P.S.I do like The Next Generation and I do hope one day that humanity does develop such a system. However, I feel such a system will only arise once their is a massive over abundance in all resources-energy,food and space. Once we have a situation where no one lacks, then such a system may develop. However, current practical necessitous, I feel , prevents such a system from developing.

On June 16 2011 11:52 Nothing-to-No-One wrote:

Let's talk about the medical industry. Now let's say your a poor Nigerian boy outside of the reach of missionaries and charities. One day you get a flu badly and because you can't pay a hospital fee to have yourself treated you die. Sound fair? Those game companies are lacking passion, incentive corresponding to their career, aspiration, and motivation in the first place if the only incentive is money. They will do what the have to to get a paycheck and sure some people will end up passionate and this is where good games come from. However there is a graveyard of video games that are crappy because there was no passion behind them and these are the ones made by people who live only for the paycheck. Related is the fact that a lot of top game producers have unpaid overtime. To stay in that job would mean the money is not the issue and it's the game that is the issue.

On June 16 2011 11:56 xarthaz wrote:
What is the reason of property? Why should property rights be enforced, at all? This is the fallacy that makes people believe in IP. Regular property has a serious reason for its enforcement - it is the only nonviolent way of using it, as property is exclusive in its use.

Intellectual property however does not need to be enforced to be used in non violent manner - everyone can use it together without excluding each other. As such, the entire basis of justification of IP is eliminated, and the big scam of intellectual property is proven.