|
On January 23 2012 07:18 Yggdrazil wrote:Bah, Simply let them shut down every single d/l website. When all will be down, they'll happily discover that the movie/music sales won't climb at all, as nowadays people are mostly poor and have no way of paying that much for movie/music... Imagine the look on their faces 
10 Points for Gryffindor!
At least you acknowledge that you pirate to save yourself the money. The vast majority of people posting nonsense about pirating to avoid DRM, because of ease of use/access (because a short trip to a fucking store, or the official website, is so horrendously onerous LOL), unavailability, or better yet "freedom of speech", are absolutely kidding themselves.
The sense of entitlement is ridiculous. Just because someone produces a product, does not affordyou some god-given right to consume it. They set their terms of sale. If you don't like it, live without it.
|
On January 23 2012 11:16 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:12 BlackJack wrote:
Looks like a ton of mediafire links are down. Was looking for a song and kept getting a "this file has been deleted" from every mediafire link and I usually never see that message from mediafire. it's seemed to me that mf is usually pretty diligent about taking down links to more popular copyrighted material, but thats just my experience
I really hope it's just Mediafire doing its routine cleanup of stuff they don't want. If entire services start going down, I'm going to panic. I don't think it's likely, though.
|
On January 23 2012 11:04 NuKedUFirst wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:02 Jibba wrote:
New laws and shutting down illegal, lying file sharing sites is completely different. I'm 100% against SOPA and PIPA, but I have no problem with MU getting what was coming. Even if I watch shows there, I don't feel entitled to them if the site goes down. But wouldn't you rather stuff free? Like.. I spent 50$ on music the other day.. I coulda donated it to cancer research had the music been free.. I think don't feel the internet should be censored.
You wouldn't have donated it though so your argument is pointless. Sure everyone wants stuff to be free, but that's never going to happen without getting something in return no one would make anything and then there would be nothing for free. It's the way the world works and asking if we would rather stuff be free is like asking wouldn't it be cooler if we all had unicorns that we could ride and fly anywhere we wanted?
|
On January 23 2012 11:10 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:07 NuKedUFirst wrote:On January 23 2012 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On January 23 2012 11:04 NuKedUFirst wrote:On January 23 2012 11:02 Jibba wrote:
New laws and shutting down illegal, lying file sharing sites is completely different. I'm 100% against SOPA and PIPA, but I have no problem with MU getting what was coming. Even if I watch shows there, I don't feel entitled to them if the site goes down. But wouldn't you rather stuff free? Like.. I spent 50$ on music the other day.. I coulda donated it to cancer research had the music been free.. I think don't feel the internet should be censored. You could have just donated it to cancer out of the goodness of your heart... why should music be free? someone put effort into making it. I never said it "should be" I said I would rather it free. It's the record labels making most of the cash off of the CDs regardless. I have bills to pay, etc. I can't throw away money. but say if I had extra money with nothing to purchase (music in this example) then I would be more willing to donate, etc. You could just go without music. There's no rule out there that says you absolutely need everything you want. You're not entitled to having the music at all, much less cheaper music. Relevant comic: http://xkcd.com/871/
The other side of that coin is that the artists/media companies are not entitled to a massive profit either. It takes zero effort to make a copy, and a lot of effort to create the original. That's the problem. Once the original has been paid for there is no reason for the creator to earn more. A reasonable term for copyright these days would probably be 5 years, maybe less, because if you haven't turned a profit by then you probably never will. Instead we get perpetual copyright extensions that are completely perverting the original purpose of copyright (provide incentive to create).
It's a complex issue and anyone who pretends it isn't is either lying or an idiot.
|
Meh this is like sticking your finger in each hole that sprouts in a dam. This will inconvenience people until they find another solution. The internet was made for sharing information in every capacity, you can't stop it without severely gimping the internet/innovation. Yeah piracy is wrong and the governments and companies have every right to go after those KNOWINGLY distributing their products illegally. But there will always be a way. The lazies will be the only ones hurt by this. If piracy comes to an end in my lifetime I'd be surprised, I wouldn't be surprised though if companies profit margins shrink after that fact. Let's not kid ourselves, the majority of piracy is done by people without a great amount of disposable income.
That person that pirates your material at 15 eventually grows up to have a job and because of his exposure early on to your product will more than likely spend his money on it in the future. If you spent your teenage years watching movies, you're most likely going to continue that in your 20's and 30's. If you grew up reading that's what you will do the majority of. Either way it'll be interesting how things continue to move forward from here.
|
SOPA and PIPA not passed? Fuck it who cares lets shut down sites anyways.
Love, The U.S Government
|
On January 23 2012 11:24 Detwiler wrote:
SOPA and PIPA not passed? Fuck it who cares lets shut down sites anyways.
Love, The U.S Government
Certain websites should have been shut down a long time ago.
|
This is fucking madness. US congress has gone too far, they should be working for their voters, not their lobbyists
|
On January 23 2012 11:24 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:24 Detwiler wrote:
SOPA and PIPA not passed? Fuck it who cares lets shut down sites anyways.
Love, The U.S Government Certain websites should have been shut down a long time ago.
and be replaced shortly by new ones...
|
On January 23 2012 11:27 themask4f wrote:
This is fucking madness. US congress has gone too far, they should be working for their voters, not their lobbyists
Well it's not like we can stage a rebellion or anything, I mean bringing down the unnecessary people that hurt our everyday lives with brute force seems a bit much. But then again it's not like a petition will do much either.
So the people are caught in this, I want to fight but I can't really fight situation. =/
|
On January 23 2012 11:16 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:10 Zeke50100 wrote:On January 23 2012 11:07 NuKedUFirst wrote:On January 23 2012 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On January 23 2012 11:04 NuKedUFirst wrote:On January 23 2012 11:02 Jibba wrote:
New laws and shutting down illegal, lying file sharing sites is completely different. I'm 100% against SOPA and PIPA, but I have no problem with MU getting what was coming. Even if I watch shows there, I don't feel entitled to them if the site goes down. But wouldn't you rather stuff free? Like.. I spent 50$ on music the other day.. I coulda donated it to cancer research had the music been free.. I think don't feel the internet should be censored. You could have just donated it to cancer out of the goodness of your heart... why should music be free? someone put effort into making it. I never said it "should be" I said I would rather it free. It's the record labels making most of the cash off of the CDs regardless. I have bills to pay, etc. I can't throw away money. but say if I had extra money with nothing to purchase (music in this example) then I would be more willing to donate, etc. You could just go without music. There's no rule out there that says you absolutely need everything you want. You're not entitled to having the music at all, much less cheaper music. Relevant comic: http://xkcd.com/871/ Not to mention Pandora and YouTube.
Odd logic your using there, its wrong to share with FS but its ok with Pandora and Youtube?
No matter what way you put it youtube is down there with FS, its the exactly the same thing. Youtube pays uploaders, FS pays uploaders, Youtube removes copyrighted material, FS removes copyrighted material. Therefore you should agree that Youtube should only allow private access just like FS does. Have fun with that.
If you use youtube to stream music from non-affiliated channels, then you have no real basis to back up the removal of Megaupload and FS sharing. Its exactly the same thing, I guess some peoples views are distorted by authoritarianism.
On January 23 2012 11:10 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:07 NuKedUFirst wrote:On January 23 2012 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On January 23 2012 11:04 NuKedUFirst wrote:On January 23 2012 11:02 Jibba wrote:
New laws and shutting down illegal, lying file sharing sites is completely different. I'm 100% against SOPA and PIPA, but I have no problem with MU getting what was coming. Even if I watch shows there, I don't feel entitled to them if the site goes down. But wouldn't you rather stuff free? Like.. I spent 50$ on music the other day.. I coulda donated it to cancer research had the music been free.. I think don't feel the internet should be censored. You could have just donated it to cancer out of the goodness of your heart... why should music be free? someone put effort into making it. I never said it "should be" I said I would rather it free. It's the record labels making most of the cash off of the CDs regardless. I have bills to pay, etc. I can't throw away money. but say if I had extra money with nothing to purchase (music in this example) then I would be more willing to donate, etc. You could just go without music. There's no rule out there that says you absolutely need everything you want. You're not entitled to having the music at all, much less cheaper music. Relevant comic: http://xkcd.com/871/
How is that a relevant comic?
|
On January 23 2012 11:27 themask4f wrote:
This is fucking madness. US congress has gone too far, they should be working for their voters, not their lobbyists
On January 23 2012 11:24 Detwiler wrote:
SOPA and PIPA not passed? Fuck it who cares lets shut down sites anyways.
Love, The U.S Government
There seems to be a misconception about what happened. The US government did nothing to Filesonic to make them shutdown the filesharing portion of their website, Filesonic has done that by itself, because of fears of being just like megaupload. This is the exact thing the governement wanted to do, make megaupload a example case and make other companies crack down on the illegal filesharing on their own.
|
On January 23 2012 11:27 themask4f wrote:
This is fucking madness. US congress has gone too far, they should be working for their voters, not their lobbyists
omg taking down companies who make money by being an illegal distribution center for shit that normally costs money to get. Having rewards for sharing files esp more money for larger files just make it look like you want to move games and movies
|
United States22883 Posts
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit.
|
On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit.
Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels.
|
On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit.
He said from non-affiliated channels. AKA some randy taking the music he bought and putting it on youtube, not the artist or record company's channel.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels.
Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album.
|
On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. Artist gets your hit.
If I load an entire album of an artist that auto-playlists, but the uploader is not affiliated with the artist what do you call that?
I can download entire albums of youtube at high quality, maybe not flak but still FS quality.
Its the same thing.
|
On January 23 2012 11:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels. Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album.
In my opinion it is. I could easily download 1000s of songs a day using only youtube.
Granted, with movies and games you can't (as movies don't last long on YT) but when it comes to music it's just as bad as any other file sharing site.
|
On January 23 2012 11:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels. Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album.
Same as Filesonic, all filehosts do this even Megaupload, what's the difference?
On January 23 2012 11:37 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:27 themask4f wrote:
This is fucking madness. US congress has gone too far, they should be working for their voters, not their lobbyists omg taking down companies who make money by being an illegal distribution center for shit that normally costs money to get. Having rewards for sharing files esp more money for larger files just make it look like you want to move games and movies
Youtube also pays uploaders, even illegal ones until they get shutdown. Then again all filehosts shutdown illegal hosters, just like youtube. I guess the only difference is Youtube has google's money and so can do it quicker. Doesn't mean Google is the only one that has a right to create a file sharing site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
