Community

CommunityWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

You have not seen the last of SOPA and PIPA (Non suporter btw)

Posted Jan 22, '12 at 9:34pm

wakyswag

wakyswag

175 posts

I belive no one has seen the end of SOPA and PIPA. i agree with parts of it, but they went about it in the worst way.

Posted Jan 22, '12 at 9:39pm

314d1

314d1

3,509 posts

I belive no one has seen the end of SOPA and PIPA. i agree with parts of it, but they went about it in the worst way.

Parts of it? To me, it seemed like an unjust law, and I am glad they didn't pass. Pretty much anything that would allow "conviction" without trial in the United States is an outrage. Not to mention the shear insanity to it, attempting to block off websites for posting copyrighted things is rather stupid, I assume that most of the pirated copies are done by people and not the websites themselves.

So once again, which parts did you like?

 

Posted Jan 22, '12 at 9:43pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,110 posts

ACTA is a similar bill. Both Obama and Bush tried to prevent the text of the bill from being made public.

 

Posted Jan 22, '12 at 9:50pm

Zydrate

Zydrate

394 posts

As long as people step up like they did, we'll be fine.

I still feel that it would be of greater effect if Youtube or google did a real blackout. THAT would send a message.

 

Posted Jan 22, '12 at 9:53pm

master565

master565

3,869 posts

I still feel that it would be of greater effect if Youtube or google did a real blackout

Youtube is owned by google.

THAT would send a message.

And lose millions for google.

 

Posted Jan 22, '12 at 10:23pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,110 posts

And lose millions for google.

SOPA/PIPA/ACTA will cost them much more.

 

Posted Jan 23, '12 at 5:19am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,129 posts

i agree with parts of it,

Just to point out the damage caused by file sharing is completely bogus.
http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-down … al-111202/

The record industry made these same arguments against cassette sharing. It was bogus then and it's bogus now. Those industries still exist despite us being able to record and share.
http://musicbusinessresearch.wordpress. … -analysis/

"It's a finding that surprised us," he says. "We just couldn't document a negative relationship between file sharing and music sales." -Felix Oberholzer-Gee (professor at Harvard Business School)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 … aring.html

Yet despite this the RIAA and MPAA claim the loss of billions.
http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/8c33fb87- … 9b9b44.pdf

I think someone here is lying out a of certain orifice.

 

Posted Jan 23, '12 at 5:58am

Sonatavarius

Sonatavarius

1,218 posts

I can't look at the torrentfreak.com video/site..... can you just summarize it for me?  Websense is always picking the most inopportune things to block off

 

Posted Jan 23, '12 at 6:45am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,129 posts

I can't look at the torrentfreak.com video/site..... can you just summarize it for me?  Websense is always picking the most inopportune things to block off

Here you go.

In Switzerland, just as in dozens of other countries, the entertainment industries have been complaining about dramatic losses in revenue due to online piracy.

In a response, the Swiss government has been conducting a study into the impact downloading has on society, and this week their findings were presented.

The overall conclusion of the study is that the current copyright law, under which downloading copyrighted material for personal use is permitted, doesn’t have to change.

Their report begins with noting that when it comes to copying files, the Internet has proven a game-changer. While the photocopier, audio cassette tape and VCR allowed users to make good quality copies of various media, these devices lacked a in-built distribution method. The world-wide web changed all that.

Distribution method or not, the entertainment industries have opposed all these technological inventions out of fear that their businesses would be crushed. This is not the right response according to the Swiss government, which favors the option of putting technology to good use instead of taking the repressive approach.

“Every time a new media technology has been made available, it has always been ‘abused’. This is the price we pay for progress. Winners will be those who are able to use the new technology to their advantages and losers those who missed this development and continue to follow old business models,” the report notes.

The government report further concludes that even in the current situation where piracy is rampant, the entertainment industries are not necessarily losing money. To reach this conclusion, the researchers extrapolated the findings of a study conducted by the Dutch government last year, since the countries are considered to be similar in many aspects.

The report states that around a third of Swiss citizens over 15 years old download pirated music, movies and games from the Internet. However, these people don’t spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary.

The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn’t. And in the music industry, lesser-know bands profit most from the sampling effect of file-sharing.

The Swiss report then goes on to review several of the repressive anti-piracy laws and regulations that have been implemented in other countries recently, such as the three-strikes Hadopi law in France. According to the report 12 million was spent on Hadopi in France this year, a figure the Swiss deem too high.

The report further states that it is questionable whether a three-strikes law would be legal in the first place, as the UN’s Human Rights Council labeled Internet access a human right. The Council specifically argued that Hadopi is a disproportionate law that should be repealed.

Other measures such as filtering or blocking content and websites are also rejected, because these would hurt freedom of speech and violate privacy protection laws. The report notes that even if these measures were implemented, there would be several ways to circumvent them.

The overall suggestion the Swiss government communicates to the entertainment industries is that they should adapt to the change in consumer behavior, or die. They see absolutely no need to change the law because downloading has no proven negative impact on the production of national culture.

Aside from downloading, it is also practically impossible for companies in Switzerland to go after casual uploaders. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that tracking companies are not allowed to log IP-addresses of file-sharers, making it impossible for rightsholders to gather evidence.

 

Posted Jan 23, '12 at 3:58pm

Sonatavarius

Sonatavarius

1,218 posts

Well I can see some of that maybe being true... I have friends on the internet and non-internet friends (yes, my imagination counts >_>)who download stuff and almost never buy.  Several times I've heard/read "I totally just downloaded Sonata Arctica's "Dream Thieves," "Shy," "Don't Say a Word" illegally... or I get asked "why don't you just download all of their albums like I did?"  "Bands get most of their money from concerts anyway."  Cd's from that band (and I'd imagine most other ones) run from 10-~50 US dollars (retail)depending on the rarity (actually some of the rarest are >100...but those are just for collectors and not actually the price of the song/album).  People may very well go to more concerts in a proportional amount to downloading... but what of all of these bands and people who live in another country?... a country on another continent across the ocean...?  Even if you do make it to one of their concerts when they're over here, I doubt the price of a concert ticket equates to the price of their entire discography.  What about works that aren't from bands?  How does the whole "goes to concerts" thing workout with movies? 

Lets say that a gastroenterologist makes most of her money doing colonoscopies.  Her patients refuse to pay for having feeding tubes put in.  Just because she can still survive and even live more than comfortably off of her colonoscopy money doesn't mean that you can justifiably not pay her for her other services.   

Unless my friends have gone to Europe or across the country to a Sonata Arctica concert (and not told me), then I already know of >$200 (the 200 is the theoretical minimum) that weren't spent on legitimately acquiring cds from just a handful of people with regard to just one band.  I can't imagine the total amount that each person would owe... let alone all of them totaled together.

There's a difference in requesting what's owed you and inflating a loss so as to squeeze out extra money from people who don't actually owe you all that much. 

Even if you can download something for personal use, isn't it true that you're not, in accordance with the law, allowed to redistribute that copyrighted file in mass? so.... putting it up on a file sharing site would be a no go, right?  So are we going to defend one part of the law b/c it is law and then just ignore the other half?

 

Posted Jan 23, '12 at 4:16pm

manarion

manarion

54 posts

its over ( in my opinion), all they care about is money, and getting reelected. They wont get either one of them if they reintroduce  SOPA      or PIPA again.

 
Reply to You have not seen the last of SOPA and PIPA (Non suporter btw)

You must be logged in to post a reply!