|
|
On December 16 2011 08:10 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:07 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 08:03 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 07:59 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 07:55 Zalithian wrote:
I just had a debate with someone in my family who I thought was fairly intelligent. I explained to them how this won't stop piracy, how it will criminalize things that are harmless and silly, how the poor little movie industry made more money in 2010 than the GDP of half the countries in the world (individually), among other things.
Every point I made was refuted with an appeal to emotion or a default to "stealing is wrong."
Shows how little most people understand this. Underestimating the stupidity of people is in itself very stupid. Nah, that's a weak argument though. The movie industry (and music) have all been hurt pretty badly by piracy and they have to keep increasing ticket prices to make similar profits. That, and population growth, are the only reasons they haven't lost a lot of money comparatively (although the music industry is a fragment of what it used to be now). Piracy is a very real problem, but SOPA is foolish and won't stop it. I wouldn't be opposed to reasonable and well-planned anti-piracy legislation necessarily. I would argue the movie and especially music industries have been hurt because they refuse to shift to the modern era. It's obvious the MPAA/RIAA exaggerate their claims to try and garner sympathy. Every pirate download is not a lost sale. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to get stuff for free, but using flawed methods to skew statistics for sympathy is not right either. Unless I'm understanding SOPA improperly, you could go to jail simply for using a copyrighted song in a video and uploading it to youtube. Is that incorrect? And the main point is that this bill, especially the DNS portion will not prevent piracy or access to those websites. Oh yeah of course piracy is way overstated, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable and you can't blame companies for trying to protect their revenue stream. I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument and why it may have no been as compelling as it could be. And SOPA is idiotic. No argument here -- it doesn't actually address piracy itself in any meaningful way and goes way overboard with punishments regulations. I'm against SOPA far more than I'm against piracy, but neither are justifiable as good things. Sidenote: I pirate music and movies all the time and feel bad about it. It's okay because I generally try to buy what I enjoy though. True. It wasn't the crux of my argument however. But I think most people would lose sympathy for an industry that took in more money than the GDP of half the countries in the world. That said, of course my main points were that this bill would be ineffective while having negative impacts in other areas as I explained those. All were met with the same generic response about how stealing is wrong, which is just depressing. Agree with the rest of your stuff.
Technically piracy isn't even stealing. + Show Spoiler +
|
On December 16 2011 08:14 Kevan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 08:07 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 08:03 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 07:59 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 07:55 Zalithian wrote:
I just had a debate with someone in my family who I thought was fairly intelligent. I explained to them how this won't stop piracy, how it will criminalize things that are harmless and silly, how the poor little movie industry made more money in 2010 than the GDP of half the countries in the world (individually), among other things.
Every point I made was refuted with an appeal to emotion or a default to "stealing is wrong."
Shows how little most people understand this. Underestimating the stupidity of people is in itself very stupid. Nah, that's a weak argument though. The movie industry (and music) have all been hurt pretty badly by piracy and they have to keep increasing ticket prices to make similar profits. That, and population growth, are the only reasons they haven't lost a lot of money comparatively (although the music industry is a fragment of what it used to be now). Piracy is a very real problem, but SOPA is foolish and won't stop it. I wouldn't be opposed to reasonable and well-planned anti-piracy legislation necessarily. I would argue the movie and especially music industries have been hurt because they refuse to shift to the modern era. It's obvious the MPAA/RIAA exaggerate their claims to try and garner sympathy. Every pirate download is not a lost sale. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to get stuff for free, but using flawed methods to skew statistics for sympathy is not right either. Unless I'm understanding SOPA improperly, you could go to jail simply for using a copyrighted song in a video and uploading it to youtube. Is that incorrect? And the main point is that this bill, especially the DNS portion will not prevent piracy or access to those websites. Oh yeah of course piracy is way overstated, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable and you can't blame companies for trying to protect their revenue stream. I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument and why it may have no been as compelling as it could be. And SOPA is idiotic. No argument here -- it doesn't actually address piracy itself in any meaningful way and goes way overboard with punishments regulations. I'm against SOPA far more than I'm against piracy, but neither are justifiable as good things. Sidenote: I pirate music and movies all the time and feel bad about it. It's okay because I generally try to buy what I enjoy though. True. It wasn't the crux of my argument however. But I think most people would lose sympathy for an industry that took in more money than the GDP of half the countries in the world. That said, of course my main points were that this bill would be ineffective while having negative impacts in other areas as I explained those. All were met with the same generic response about how stealing is wrong, which is just depressing. Agree with the rest of your stuff. Technically piracy isn't even stealing. + Show Spoiler +
Trust me. I explained that too. All futile.
|
This is the most insane thing I have ever listened to. This idiot is in a position of power? What the hell is wrong with this world.
|
On December 16 2011 07:55 Zalithian wrote:
I just had a debate with someone in my family who I thought was fairly intelligent. I explained to them how this won't stop piracy, how it will criminalize things that are harmless and silly, how the poor little movie industry made more money in 2010 than the GDP of half the countries in the world (individually), among other things.
Every point I made was refuted with an appeal to emotion or a default to "stealing is wrong."
Shows how little most people understand this. Underestimating the stupidity of people is in itself very stupid.
I can follow that logic. The one of the family member who lost your presumption of intelligence with a moral stance on this. I preface this by saying I don't think this law comes close to protection of intellectual property and piracy online. More talk needs to be had on this. The recourse to law is the courts, but in this appearance, you ban it first, and then you have to go through the courts for recourse. In America, we have ample precedent for presuming the innocence of the defender subject to proving beyond reasonable doubt, his/her guilt.These sort of statutes seize first, due process be damned. Wrong approach.
I don't subscribe to the belief that if you earn --that much-- money, losing a very insignificant portion of the whole to piracy. Also known as, they earn so much, they aren't hurt by losing a little bit. It's stealing and it's illegal. Just like every American participating here has the right to keep as much money as he earns (minus taxes) no matter what amount, and in how much surplus over bills it amounts to. I cannot intellectually stand on doing nothing to companies whose property is stolen and still expect police forces to protect my own property from fraud and theft.
[Right now on the stream a Congressman is arguing to protect copyright infringement of pornography last on the list of prosecution. Another strike as to how this is political and not a judicial approach. Whoever is most politically powerful gets his industry on the A-list of prosecution list.]
|
On December 16 2011 08:16 Exarl25 wrote:
This is the most insane thing I have ever listened to. This idiot is in a position of power? What the hell is wrong with this world.
Which idiot?
|
United States149 Posts
"the internet is for porn" was amusing, at least made these debates slightly more bearable. Still, this bill looks like it is going through the committee and that scares me
|
|
|
OH MY GOD, did Ms. Lofgren just use the typical anon name for americans? Mr Smith? Saying that Mr. Smith was using pornography?
Did she forget that the chairman is named Mr. Smith, or did she do that on purpose?
|
On December 16 2011 08:14 Kevan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 08:07 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 08:03 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 07:59 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 07:55 Zalithian wrote:
I just had a debate with someone in my family who I thought was fairly intelligent. I explained to them how this won't stop piracy, how it will criminalize things that are harmless and silly, how the poor little movie industry made more money in 2010 than the GDP of half the countries in the world (individually), among other things.
Every point I made was refuted with an appeal to emotion or a default to "stealing is wrong."
Shows how little most people understand this. Underestimating the stupidity of people is in itself very stupid. Nah, that's a weak argument though. The movie industry (and music) have all been hurt pretty badly by piracy and they have to keep increasing ticket prices to make similar profits. That, and population growth, are the only reasons they haven't lost a lot of money comparatively (although the music industry is a fragment of what it used to be now). Piracy is a very real problem, but SOPA is foolish and won't stop it. I wouldn't be opposed to reasonable and well-planned anti-piracy legislation necessarily. I would argue the movie and especially music industries have been hurt because they refuse to shift to the modern era. It's obvious the MPAA/RIAA exaggerate their claims to try and garner sympathy. Every pirate download is not a lost sale. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to get stuff for free, but using flawed methods to skew statistics for sympathy is not right either. Unless I'm understanding SOPA improperly, you could go to jail simply for using a copyrighted song in a video and uploading it to youtube. Is that incorrect? And the main point is that this bill, especially the DNS portion will not prevent piracy or access to those websites. Oh yeah of course piracy is way overstated, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable and you can't blame companies for trying to protect their revenue stream. I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument and why it may have no been as compelling as it could be. And SOPA is idiotic. No argument here -- it doesn't actually address piracy itself in any meaningful way and goes way overboard with punishments regulations. I'm against SOPA far more than I'm against piracy, but neither are justifiable as good things. Sidenote: I pirate music and movies all the time and feel bad about it. It's okay because I generally try to buy what I enjoy though. True. It wasn't the crux of my argument however. But I think most people would lose sympathy for an industry that took in more money than the GDP of half the countries in the world. That said, of course my main points were that this bill would be ineffective while having negative impacts in other areas as I explained those. All were met with the same generic response about how stealing is wrong, which is just depressing. Agree with the rest of your stuff. Technically piracy isn't even stealing. + Show Spoiler +
Umm, yes it is. Legally speaking, theft is simply taking someone else's property. That means if someone owns a copyright, you cannot take copyright protected materials.
At this point it's just semantics but the general idea lies in economic concepts. When you pirate something, that represents a lost sale. Now of course not every download really represents a lost sale because people download things they never would've bought, but clearly there is a trend of sales being lost if you look at any objective measurements so it is happening to some extent. Music sales have plummeted to the point that a Billboard top 10 album can sell 10000 copies (including digital sales) and still chart when these used to all be platinum certified.
This is precisely why copyright infringement is so tricky and is still being worked on constantly. Without copyright protection, entire industries will die and content would simply stop being produced. That said, it's really hard to enforce the law in these situations and even then it's not clear how to enforce it fairly.
|
So the manager's amendment can get through but nothing else? Shocker.
|
On December 16 2011 08:18 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:16 Exarl25 wrote:
This is the most insane thing I have ever listened to. This idiot is in a position of power? What the hell is wrong with this world. Which idiot?
Yeah, they're all idiots >.>
|
I'm pretty sure Polis introduced this amendment just to show the absurdity of what could happen if the bill passes, and to get some of these jackasses on the record saying they are fine with our government spending millions of dollars to defend the pornography industry.
|
Oh Mr.Polis with the emphatic answer as always.
|
On December 16 2011 08:26 Duravi wrote:
I'm pretty sure Polis introduced this amendment just to show the absurdity of what could happen if the bill passes, and to get some of these jackasses on the record saying they are fine with our government spending millions of dollars to defend the pornography industry.
They dont really care since they wont be held accountable most likely.
|
On December 16 2011 08:27 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:26 Duravi wrote:
I'm pretty sure Polis introduced this amendment just to show the absurdity of what could happen if the bill passes, and to get some of these jackasses on the record saying they are fine with our government spending millions of dollars to defend the pornography industry. They dont really care since they wont be held accountable most likely.
if it is put on record, it shows they voted yay or nay for it, and can be used as record in the future.
|
On December 16 2011 08:33 Kazeyonoma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:27 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 08:26 Duravi wrote:
I'm pretty sure Polis introduced this amendment just to show the absurdity of what could happen if the bill passes, and to get some of these jackasses on the record saying they are fine with our government spending millions of dollars to defend the pornography industry. They dont really care since they wont be held accountable most likely. if it is put on record, it shows they voted yay or nay for it, and can be used as record in the future.
Yes but will they really suffer any consequences or just get embarrassed by their peers? If so then great, but a lot of times it's just something other politicians use to try and criticize them as they campaign.
|
On December 16 2011 08:34 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:33 Kazeyonoma wrote:On December 16 2011 08:27 Serpico wrote:On December 16 2011 08:26 Duravi wrote:
I'm pretty sure Polis introduced this amendment just to show the absurdity of what could happen if the bill passes, and to get some of these jackasses on the record saying they are fine with our government spending millions of dollars to defend the pornography industry. They dont really care since they wont be held accountable most likely. if it is put on record, it shows they voted yay or nay for it, and can be used as record in the future. Yes but will they really suffer many consequences or just get embarrassed by their peers?
Pretty useful material for debates, attack ads, etc.
|
On December 16 2011 08:22 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:14 Kevan wrote:On December 16 2011 08:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 08:07 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 08:03 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 07:59 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 07:55 Zalithian wrote:
I just had a debate with someone in my family who I thought was fairly intelligent. I explained to them how this won't stop piracy, how it will criminalize things that are harmless and silly, how the poor little movie industry made more money in 2010 than the GDP of half the countries in the world (individually), among other things.
Every point I made was refuted with an appeal to emotion or a default to "stealing is wrong."
Shows how little most people understand this. Underestimating the stupidity of people is in itself very stupid. Nah, that's a weak argument though. The movie industry (and music) have all been hurt pretty badly by piracy and they have to keep increasing ticket prices to make similar profits. That, and population growth, are the only reasons they haven't lost a lot of money comparatively (although the music industry is a fragment of what it used to be now). Piracy is a very real problem, but SOPA is foolish and won't stop it. I wouldn't be opposed to reasonable and well-planned anti-piracy legislation necessarily. I would argue the movie and especially music industries have been hurt because they refuse to shift to the modern era. It's obvious the MPAA/RIAA exaggerate their claims to try and garner sympathy. Every pirate download is not a lost sale. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to get stuff for free, but using flawed methods to skew statistics for sympathy is not right either. Unless I'm understanding SOPA improperly, you could go to jail simply for using a copyrighted song in a video and uploading it to youtube. Is that incorrect? And the main point is that this bill, especially the DNS portion will not prevent piracy or access to those websites. Oh yeah of course piracy is way overstated, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable and you can't blame companies for trying to protect their revenue stream. I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument and why it may have no been as compelling as it could be. And SOPA is idiotic. No argument here -- it doesn't actually address piracy itself in any meaningful way and goes way overboard with punishments regulations. I'm against SOPA far more than I'm against piracy, but neither are justifiable as good things. Sidenote: I pirate music and movies all the time and feel bad about it. It's okay because I generally try to buy what I enjoy though. True. It wasn't the crux of my argument however. But I think most people would lose sympathy for an industry that took in more money than the GDP of half the countries in the world. That said, of course my main points were that this bill would be ineffective while having negative impacts in other areas as I explained those. All were met with the same generic response about how stealing is wrong, which is just depressing. Agree with the rest of your stuff. Technically piracy isn't even stealing. + Show Spoiler + Umm, yes it is. Legally speaking, theft is simply taking someone else's property. That means if someone owns a copyright, you cannot take copyright protected materials. At this point it's just semantics but the general idea lies in economic concepts. When you pirate something, that represents a lost sale. Now of course not every download really represents a lost sale because people download things they never would've bought, but clearly there is a trend of sales being lost if you look at any objective measurements so it is happening to some extent. Music sales have plummeted to the point that a Billboard top 10 album can sell 10000 copies (including digital sales) and still chart when these used to all be platinum certified. This is precisely why copyright infringement is so tricky and is still being worked on constantly. Without copyright protection, entire industries will die and content would simply stop being produced. That said, it's really hard to enforce the law in these situations and even then it's not clear how to enforce it fairly.
Want to know something absolutely CRAZY?
Despite music sales "slumping", apparently millions of Americans are STILL spending all their money on entertainment.
http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Research/MarketWatch/Pages/US-Media-Spending-is-63-Percent-Higher-than-Western-Europe.aspx
The top item of expenditure in both regions was pay-TV cable and satellite subscriptions, but a growing range of paid-for entertainment options was also open to consumers, helping to boost overall numbers. These other options included cinema, physical video purchases, physical video rentals, physical games purchases, physical music purchases, TV-based pay-per-view and video on demand, online video/games/music, and mobile games/video/music.
The 10-year compound annual growth rate, ending in 2010, stood at 5.0 percent for the United States
Now, I'm not an economics expert (yet), but I'm fairly sure 5% growth exceeds inflation over the last 10 years.
That means that all this money being not spent on music is being spent on OTHER entertainment. AND there's EVEN MORE money being spent on entertainment than there was in the past, when music was a big seller!
Now, again, not an economics expert, but if the total amount of money being spent on an industry in general is INCREASING, yet some sectors are DECREASING, that means other sectors are INCREASING.
Also, again, not an economics expert, but isn't there a limit to how much people can spend?
So, while not every pirated copy is a lost sale... if it was to be a sale, where the HELL would the money come from?
Seriously.
Where. Would. The. Money. Come. From?
Tell me where the money would come from that would translate all this piracy into sales. Would it come from... other entertainment?
There's only a finite pool of money to spend on entertainment, and that pool has INCREASED over the last 10 years, while piracy has also become a "major problem". Apparently piracy is the cause of everything, and not the fact that other forms of entertainment have been taking people's disposable incomes.
If everyone bought everything they pirated, then there would be a hell of a lot more debt in the US, since everyone would be spending a hell of a lot more than they could afford.
Unless you have an explanation of where all this extra money could come from to "save" the music industry without it being at the expense of every other form of "entertainment" as defined above, I would like to know, as I'm sure would most consumers and record industry executives.
|
On December 16 2011 08:36 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:22 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 08:14 Kevan wrote:On December 16 2011 08:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 08:07 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 08:03 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 07:59 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 07:55 Zalithian wrote:
I just had a debate with someone in my family who I thought was fairly intelligent. I explained to them how this won't stop piracy, how it will criminalize things that are harmless and silly, how the poor little movie industry made more money in 2010 than the GDP of half the countries in the world (individually), among other things.
Every point I made was refuted with an appeal to emotion or a default to "stealing is wrong."
Shows how little most people understand this. Underestimating the stupidity of people is in itself very stupid. Nah, that's a weak argument though. The movie industry (and music) have all been hurt pretty badly by piracy and they have to keep increasing ticket prices to make similar profits. That, and population growth, are the only reasons they haven't lost a lot of money comparatively (although the music industry is a fragment of what it used to be now). Piracy is a very real problem, but SOPA is foolish and won't stop it. I wouldn't be opposed to reasonable and well-planned anti-piracy legislation necessarily. I would argue the movie and especially music industries have been hurt because they refuse to shift to the modern era. It's obvious the MPAA/RIAA exaggerate their claims to try and garner sympathy. Every pirate download is not a lost sale. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to get stuff for free, but using flawed methods to skew statistics for sympathy is not right either. Unless I'm understanding SOPA improperly, you could go to jail simply for using a copyrighted song in a video and uploading it to youtube. Is that incorrect? And the main point is that this bill, especially the DNS portion will not prevent piracy or access to those websites. Oh yeah of course piracy is way overstated, but that doesn't make it morally justifiable and you can't blame companies for trying to protect their revenue stream. I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument and why it may have no been as compelling as it could be. And SOPA is idiotic. No argument here -- it doesn't actually address piracy itself in any meaningful way and goes way overboard with punishments regulations. I'm against SOPA far more than I'm against piracy, but neither are justifiable as good things. Sidenote: I pirate music and movies all the time and feel bad about it. It's okay because I generally try to buy what I enjoy though. True. It wasn't the crux of my argument however. But I think most people would lose sympathy for an industry that took in more money than the GDP of half the countries in the world. That said, of course my main points were that this bill would be ineffective while having negative impacts in other areas as I explained those. All were met with the same generic response about how stealing is wrong, which is just depressing. Agree with the rest of your stuff. Technically piracy isn't even stealing. + Show Spoiler + Umm, yes it is. Legally speaking, theft is simply taking someone else's property. That means if someone owns a copyright, you cannot take copyright protected materials. At this point it's just semantics but the general idea lies in economic concepts. When you pirate something, that represents a lost sale. Now of course not every download really represents a lost sale because people download things they never would've bought, but clearly there is a trend of sales being lost if you look at any objective measurements so it is happening to some extent. Music sales have plummeted to the point that a Billboard top 10 album can sell 10000 copies (including digital sales) and still chart when these used to all be platinum certified. This is precisely why copyright infringement is so tricky and is still being worked on constantly. Without copyright protection, entire industries will die and content would simply stop being produced. That said, it's really hard to enforce the law in these situations and even then it's not clear how to enforce it fairly. Want to know something absolutely CRAZY? Despite music sales "slumping", apparently millions of Americans are STILL spending all their money on entertainment. http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Research/MarketWatch/Pages/US-Media-Spending-is-63-Percent-Higher-than-Western-Europe.aspxShow nested quote +
The top item of expenditure in both regions was pay-TV cable and satellite subscriptions, but a growing range of paid-for entertainment options was also open to consumers, helping to boost overall numbers. These other options included cinema, physical video purchases, physical video rentals, physical games purchases, physical music purchases, TV-based pay-per-view and video on demand, online video/games/music, and mobile games/video/music.
The 10-year compound annual growth rate, ending in 2010, stood at 5.0 percent for the United States
Now, I'm not an economics expert (yet), but I'm fairly sure 5% growth exceeds inflation over the last 10 years. That means that all this money being not spent on music is being spent on OTHER entertainment. AND there's EVEN MORE money being spent on entertainment than there was in the past, when music was a big seller! Now, again, not an economics expert, but if the total amount of money being spent on an industry in general is INCREASING, yet some sectors are DECREASING, that means other sectors are INCREASING. Also, again, not an economics expert, but isn't there a limit to how much people can spend? So, while not every pirated copy is a lost sale... if it was to be a sale, where the HELL would the money come from? Seriously. Where. Would. The. Money. Come. From? Tell me where the money would come from that would translate all this piracy into sales. Would it come from... other entertainment? There's only a finite pool of money to spend on entertainment, and that pool has INCREASED over the last 10 years, while piracy has also become a "major problem". Apparently piracy is the cause of everything, and not the fact that other forms of entertainment have been taking people's disposable incomes. If everyone bought everything they pirated, then there would be a hell of a lot more debt in the US, since everyone would be spending a hell of a lot more than they could afford. Unless you have an explanation of where all this extra money could come from to "save" the music industry without it being at the expense of every other form of "entertainment" as defined above, I would like to know, as I'm sure would most consumers and record industry executives.
I think someone estimated all the pirated copies of music/movies/games and the total amount asked for by copyright holders was more than the amount of money in the world.
I'll try to find that article, this one is a bit different.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars
|
Don't worry guys ... pizza will be provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NtcJN.jpg)
