Pro-IP act becomes Law..

[Radioguy9698]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/bush-signs-pro-ip-act-into-law/

In a bid to avoid the lowest presidential approval rating in 70 years*, President Bush signed the PRO-IP Act into law today. While not quite on par with, say, an ultimate solution to the world economic crisis, the law will create new jobs, er, one new job: The Intellectual Property Czar.

Backed by the RIAA and MPAA, the PRO-IP Act has drawn criticism for its potential for extreme punishment. In its proposed state, the act could grant the government permission to seize all computers and compatible devices from a home if a single, pirated MP3 was discovered on one of the machines. So, about that approval rating ...

[J Arcane]

Oh for fuck's sake.

So this is what it's come to? We're back to the SJGames raid over GURPS Cyberpunk levels of jackbootery?

Wonder how much money this bill cost the RIAA/MPAA?

[Everyone vs Dinosaurs]

I love* GWB.





* Love, meaning the exact opposite.

[Radioguy9698]

I love* GWB.





* Love, meaning the exact opposite.

i have a deep feeling that somehow he who shall not be named had a hand in this before being disbarred

[Wraith]

Backed by the RIAA and MPAA, the PRO-IP Act has drawn criticism for its potential for extreme punishment. In its proposed state, the act could grant the government permission to seize all computers and compatible devices from a home if a single, pirated MP3 was discovered on one of the machines. So, about that approval rating ...How about a business? If some low-level employee at Microsoft downloads an MP3 illegally...

[Gwinny]

So... so now we all write en masse to our state representatives to show our displeasure, right?

[TheEpicOfTyler]

So, should I be burying my hard drives right now?

[Everyone vs Dinosaurs]

How about a business? If some low-level employee at Microsoft downloads an MP3 illegally...

That is a very good point.




They COULD seize all the computers and electronics... but would they?

[Typical Michael]

So, should I be burying my hard drives right now?

Bury your entire house.

[Generation ABXY]

While I don't agree with everything these people are pushing for (CD to iPod ripping, for example, sounds fine to me), I'm sure the artists (and the people who sign their checks) are happy about this. I'm sure if you were in their position, many of you would be, too.

[J Arcane]

That is a very good point.




They COULD seize all the computers and electronics... but would they?
Of course not. Microsoft gives to both parties equally.

[iHap]

lol I should heavily encrypt all 7 of my computers and publicly share my info and download one single MP3, and hide it in the dozens of hard drives I have. Bwahahaha

[Everyone vs Dinosaurs]

lol I should heavily encrypt all 7 of my computers and publicly share my info and download one single MP3, and hide it in the dozens of hard drives I have. Bwahahaha

I would applaud you. And so would the Joker.



http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6262/joker3iq7.gif

[Atepsflame]

Excellent. It won't be long now until they charge my credit card everytime I watch a dvd or play an MP3. At least I'll still be able to read books all I want! Right? Right?!

[Jeffool]

That depends. Are you going to buy a Kindle?

[ShivaX]

Excellent. It won't be long now until they charge my credit card everytime I watch a dvd or play an MP3. At least I'll still be able to read books all I want! Right? Right?!

Books will be those little handheld computer things you always see in sci-fi movies. If it detects eyes other than yours reading the contents an email will be sent to the FBI with your GPS location and address.

[Everyone vs Dinosaurs]

Books will be those little handheld computer things you always see in sci-fi movies. If it detects eyes other than yours reading the contents an email will be sent to the FBI with your GPS location and address.

And then they will download your eyeballs.

[Whunpo]

I love CoG. On this site, we can openly disagree with this act. I'm guessing on EvAv this thread would have been deleted, or eventual banning would occur.

[Crowe]

Books will be those little handheld computer things you always see in sci-fi movies. If it detects eyes other than yours reading the contents an email will be sent to the FBI with your GPS location and address.

And then they will download your eyeballs.

Rofl. Thanks for the laugh.

Don't think they can do that here in Aus yet!

[Ancalagon]

Rofl. Thanks for the laugh.

Don't think they can do that here in Aus yet!

Ha, wait till ACTA comes out, your government will have to agree to do whatever the RIAA/MPAA wants or it can forget about trading with the USA. Great hey?

[Raen]

As far as I know I'm not screwed over here in the UK just yet. Shouldn't be too long though.

[AniAko]

So... so now we all write en masse to our state representatives to show our displeasure, right?

I wrote mine before it was signed into law.. Surprisingly my they all got back to me, doubt I swayed their decision much.

How is victimizing more middle class citizens (think unruly teenager downloading MP3s and everyone in the house suffering) going to improve fuck-face twat-brained Bush's approval rating? And people wonder why I support Obama.

No, let's get some other technologically challenged fuck-face to run the country. WE ARE in a digital age of interwebs, people who know nothing of emerging or new business models, social structures, communications shouldn't be making decisions about this shit. No, that's right. Hockey mom twat-waffle, putting "country first" Sounds no different than the socialist "Mother Russia" bullshit duing the soviet regime. ME first. ALL of us first. Hot Fuzz anyone? "For the greater good."

Yes, republicans are the bain of progress at this point in history. Not because of their views, but because they're attempting to put people in office that whose experience has expired (or in Pallin's case hasn't started) because "that's the norm, that's the safe way". Not to mention McCain and crew know their supporters are mislead on the facts about Obama (they think he's a terrorist, muslim, etc.) but they don't bother dispelling that. They're feeding off misrepresentation, JUST the fucking morons we want running this country right? Jesus fucking a coconut Christ.

Fucking amateurs.

</Rant> Sorry that was pent up for a while. I've avoided the topic thinking the status quo would start thinking with their heads, but I see more and more to the contrary.

[Mr. Murphy]

While I don't agree with everything these people are pushing for (CD to iPod ripping, for example, sounds fine to me), I'm sure the artists (and the people who sign their checks) are happy about this. I'm sure if you were in their position, many of you would be, too.

There are quite a few artists (Foo Fighters, Saul Williams, Switchfoot, Dave Matthew's Band, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails all come to mind right away) who are just as against DRM as Randall Munroe (http://www.xkcd.com/488/) is. If you do a google search on the subject, even Metallica has recanted on the benefits of DRM.

The only people who benefit from this act are the lawyers who live off of our bloated judicial system, and the record companies that are fighting with every last breath to maintain control over other peoples' art.

[boratika]

Don't think they can do that here in Aus yet!

Got an iPod or other DAP? Have you put music on it but retained that music on your computer? Yes? Congratulation, you've just broken the law!

The old government decided they needed to bring IP laws into the modern era, so they rushed a bunch of, just, brilliant laws including the one at the start of this post. On Melbourne Cup day, so you know they're on the level.

I don't think they can seize your computer for it though.

[roboninja]

*rant*

While I agree with our hatred for the current regime, I doubt things would have gone differently with a Dem in the White House. The Democrats are very tied in with Hollywood, and Hollywood wants this legislation, so they most likely would have got it.

The only way to enact real change in the current thinking is voting for a candidate that is actually different than the status quo. You know, neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as both of those parties are suckling at the corporate teat. But of course, "lol, throw your vote away". I mean, the Simpsons made fun of that thinking more than a decade ago, but it still pervades.

Sorry for the side-track.

[AniAko]

While I agree with our hatred for the current regime, I doubt things would have gone differently with a Dem in the White House. The Democrats are very tied in with Hollywood, and Hollywood wants this legislation, so they most likely would have got it.

The only way to enact real change in the current thinking is voting for a candidate that is actually different than the status quo. You know, neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as both of those parties are suckling at the corporate teat. But of course, "lol, throw your vote away". I mean, the Simpsons made fun of that thinking more than a decade ago, but it still pervades.

Sorry for the side-track.

No I agree whole heartedly. People have been talking about Biden's side (Pro-IP support) in the matter. You're absolutely right, we want someone Dem. or Rep. who is "different" who will bring change. I don't agree with most of Obama's view actually, but in my book, he's more likely to bring change than the candidate that promises "things back to normal", and staying on old courses like being energy independent (read: OIL) is the solution to our economic failures. They might not change things to the way I want them, but god damn any change is better than what we have.

[J Arcane]

You know, neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as both of those parties are suckling at the corporate teat.

This right here. At this juncture in time, when it comes to the shit that really matters, don't ever expect anything to be done for the benefit of anyone but the corporations paying the parties' bills.

[Sandman]

I wonder if this would affect where I work....we have students come into the library almost daily and install limewire to download music illegally. Sure we catch them most of the time and yeah the songs don't remain on the computer's hard drive but this could have a big impact on Universities or anywhere there is a public computer with internet access.

[Morangie]

And you though the DMCA was bad.

So... so now we all write en masse to our state representatives to show our displeasure, right?

Unless your letter includes a substantial campaign contribution I don't think they'll give a fuck.

As far as I know I'm not screwed over here in the UK just yet. Shouldn't be too long though.

We've been screwed from the beginning. Technically, though I haven't heard of any prosecutions for it, its illegal to rip a CD here.

[Generation ABXY]

There are quite a few artists (Foo Fighters, Saul Williams, Switchfoot, Dave Matthew's Band, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails all come to mind right away) who are just as against DRM as Randall Munroe (http://www.xkcd.com/488/) is. If you do a google search on the subject, even Metallica has recanted on the benefits of DRM.

The only people who benefit from this act are the lawyers who live off of our bloated judicial system, and the record companies that are fighting with every last breath to maintain control over other peoples' art.

I'm sure, yes, there are some artists who are against DRM, but they really don't have much of a say in it at this point. If it weren't for the labels, they never would have gotten the money required to record in a decent studio, advertise their music or, likely, ever go into production in the first place. Those studios provided a valuable service, and I tend to think they should be rewarded (to a certain extent) for taking that risk.

The record companies defending their "control" over that music helps to pay the bills for a lot of people, including the artists. Believe it or not, they're just as interested in that money - if they weren't, they'd have been content to spend the rest of their days playing in coffee shops and high schools, offering free music downloads at their MySpace or whatever.

And no doubt the lawyers are enjoying this, too, but their job (at least in this case) is only made possible by people breaking the law. If you don't download illegal music or movies than - big shocker - you're in no danger. People like it make it seem like large corporations are evil, money-hungry entities out to crush the little man, but in truth there is a lot of give-and-take that makes the products you enjoy available in the first place.

[Johan]

While I don't agree with everything these people are pushing for (CD to iPod ripping, for example, sounds fine to me), I'm sure the artists (and the people who sign their checks) are happy about this. I'm sure if you were in their position, many of you would be, too.

Most of those artists are LIBERALS too.

Of course, this is a Republican-inspired effort to steal your stolen/infringed-upon copyright material...we all know that. :rolleyes:

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT. I don't worry about drug testing; I don't do drugs. I don't worry about the state taking my kids; I don't abuse them. I don't worry about a lot of shit...because I DON'T DO IT. If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.

[Ghostbear]

Most of those artists are LIBERALS too.

Of course, this is a Republican-inspired effort to steal your stolen/infringed-upon copyright material...we all know that. :rolleyes:

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT. I don't worry about drug testing; I don't do drugs. I don't worry about the state taking my kids; I don't abuse them. I don't worry about a lot of shit...because I DON'T DO IT. If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.

Ah the voice of reason. :rolleyes:

[Generation ABXY]

Most of those artists are LIBERALS too.

Of course, this is a Republican-inspired effort to steal your stolen/infringed-upon copyright material...we all know that. :rolleyes:

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT. I don't worry about drug testing; I don't do drugs. I don't worry about the state taking my kids; I don't abuse them. I don't worry about a lot of shit...because I DON'T DO IT. If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.

I'm going to assume those were pearls of wisdom meant for the site on whole, and not directly at me. After all, I'm for this (I just think I should be allowed to copy my music on CDs to other devices). And, as for the poll, I'm more like you. I don't pay for it, but I don't steal it either - I live off the land. I don't listen to much music in the first place, I watch TV on official sites (or approved ones, like Hulu) and I get my games for free.

[Johan]

Ah the voice of reason. :rolleyes:

What is reasonable about stealing/infringing upon shit and getting away with it?

If you do that, IF you do that, then I say screw you. I pay more for my media because of those who don't pay. I hope you get busted, if you or anyone else does that.

I'm going to assume those were pearls of wisdom meant for the site on whole, and not directly at me.

An excellent assumption.

I have NO sympathy for people who pirate. Absolutely none.

[Savok]

Hey what happens if I watch a shitty WoW PvP music video with Rammstein (again) on Youtube? Do American Special Forces swoop down and take out anyone who's ever seen the thing?

[rifter]

Before Bush could sign this, there were hundreds of senators and congressmen that signed the bill. Remember, the houses are Democrat controlled... so, the bills to reach the President, came from Democrats.

I have written my congressman in this. I doubt anything will get done, but I wanted him to know that supporting IPs for business, at the expense of consumers is NOT something I appreicate.

I also find that a lot of this law, is questionable, and will most likely get struck down by the courts. I think there is a lot of hand-wringing over nothing. The potential scares me, but ultimately, how it is set up, it probably won't cause any problems.

[Generation ABXY]

Hey what happens if I watch a shitty WoW PvP music video with Rammstein (again) on Youtube?

Presumably, just an IQ drop. ;)

[Johan]

Before Bush could sign this, there were hundreds of senators and congressmen that signed the bill. Remember, the houses are Democrat controlled... so, the bills to reach the President, came from Democrats.

You missed the memo...Republicans = bad, Democrats = good. :)

Also, I have it on good authority that if the bailout fails, it's GWB's fault...if it succeeds, credit goes to the Democrats. :D

[Voodoo]

lol I should heavily encrypt all 7 of my computers and publicly share my info and download one single MP3, and hide it in the dozens of hard drives I have. Bwahahaha

Then may I present the tool that I use...

http://www.truecrypt.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt

[wyeast]

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT.

That's fine. But remember that these are the same jackholes who want to ignore/revoke the Betamax decision about fair use. If someone wants to make a personal copy of a movie/music CD they own, so that they don't have to keep buying new DVD's every time their kids wreck the disc, how is that downloading Communism?

[Typical Michael]

That's fine. But remember that these are the same jackholes who want to ignore/revoke the Betamax decision about fair use. If someone wants to make a personal copy of a movie/music CD they own, so that they don't have to keep buying new DVD's every time their kids wreck the disc, how is that downloading Communism?

For reference:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/propaganda_in_the_internet_age.jpg

[Johan]

fair use.

Conflation of two separate issues, and thereby obfuscation. Of course fair use is legitimate.

Taking/making a copy of something you didn't pay for isn't fair use. Mentioning fair use in this discussion obfuscates the reality that far too many buttheads believe they have a right to take what they haven't paid for. It's not a loaf of bread, and you're not starving. You don't have a right to the latest movie, game, or song. If you can't afford it, you can get plenty of stuff legally and free. Try imeem or projectplaylist for music...hulu for movies/television...or any of hundreds of free games on the web.

The universal response to being told a particular behavior is wrong is one of the following:

Rationalization - But...I had to because [insert excuse here].
Projection - They did [insert illegitimate grievance] so I had to.
Denial - I didn't do it!

OR, rarely...

Acceptance - It's wrong to take what I haven't paid for, and I will stop. Period. Just because the RIAA/MPAA are a bunch of assholes, doesn't mean you can rip them off with impunity. Oppose them legislatively, or refuse to buy their product (without subsequently stealing it).

People need to grow up. Stuff that's not for free...ISN'T FREE.

how is that downloading Communism?

Dear God...I have no words.

[rifter]

Conflation of two separate issues, and thereby obfuscation. Of course fair use is legitimate.

Taking/making a copy of something you didn't pay for isn't fair use. Mentioning fair use in this discussion obfuscates the reality that far too many buttheads believe they have a right to take what they haven't paid for.

Actually, fair use IS legitimate discussion. Did you, by chance, read the article, or the other one that guy did? I think there is a lot of sensationalism in there, but I think there are some concerns.

Is it fair use, if you buy a game, and it has a cool sound-track, to burn it to CD to listen to in the car? If you buy a CD, that is fair use, but by the wording, it doesn't sound like this is.

the RIAA chips, slowly at rights, and has already started slipping in wording, that having more than one copy of a song that you "own", means you are pirating it (copying it from CD to ipod, for instance). They recanted after it was brought out, but you can see the direction they are going with it.

QUITE honestly, I do think piracy for political motivations is ok... not down with the other ones, but you have to know what you are getting into. I tend to just buy games I am less interested in, that avoid DRM... than pirate games I want, that have DRM. But, to each their own.

I think you miss a big part of this argument, if you discount the fair use view on this. There are already EULA on software, that make it so you can't review them... or there has in the past. I am not 100% sure if that practice got shut down or not. Fair use, and IP are intimately interwined. You can't address one issue, without the other.

I guess the other issue I have, is the HUGE ass penalties for breaking THIS law, that quite honestly, doesn't truely HURT anyone... vs, say, punching someone walking down the street, randomly. The penalty NEVER is in proportinate to the crime. I think that is the big problem a lot of people have with the RIAA/this bill.

[Johan]

QUITE honestly, I do think piracy for political motivations is ok

I think you miss a big part of this argument

I got exactly what I expected and needed to.

Rationalization.
Justification.

You steal shit you didn't pay for and you deserve to get busted. Period. Fair use is a totally different issue from taking what you never paid for. Fair use involves your use of media you have paid for, not taking what you never paid for. :rolleyes: Fair use is a legitimate issue with difficult questions attached to it; piracy is not a difficult issue. You take; you don't pay.

Which you admit you doing. With "good" excuses. Honestly, that's just bullshit. You take something you don't pay for and you deserve to get busted. You'll have no sympathy from me at all. You make the media I buy MORE EXPENSIVE as a result of your selfish, self-justified behavior, as do others like you. :rolleyes:

Seriously...anyone here who does that deserves to get busted. It's not bread, and you're not starving. You don't deserve free shit when others pay. Pay your own way.

[rifter]

You steal shit you didn't pay for and you deserve to get busted. Period. Fair use is a totally different issue from taking what you never paid for. Fair use involves your use of media you have paid for, not taking what you never paid for. :rolleyes: Fair use is a legitimate issue with difficult questions attached to it; piracy is not a difficult issue. You take; you don't pay.


I am a little disturbed at your complete and total lack of reading comprehension. Let me quote this part for you.


QUITE honestly, I do think piracy for political motivations is ok... but you have to know what you are getting into. I tend to just buy games I am less interested in, that avoid DRM... than pirate games I want, that have DRM. But, to each their own.



Which you admit you doing. With "good" excuses. Honestly, that's just bullshit. You take something you don't pay for and you deserve to get busted. You'll have no sympathy from me at all. You make the media I buy MORE EXPENSIVE as a result of your selfish, self-justified behavior, as do others like you. :rolleyes:

Seriously...anyone here who does that deserves to get busted. It's not bread, and you're not starving. You don't deserve free shit when others pay. Pay your own way.

I disagree with draconian DRM. PERIOD. I honestly don't have a HUGE problem with pirating a game people want to play (spore), and not buying it untill they patch/strip the DRM, or, drop the price low enough for someone to justify their time removing the DRM and its effects on their system.

If you would look above, I don't do that stuff, I just can't say I am tough on those that do. I have bought both of Stardock's past 2 games, because they support the no-DRM model. I DO spend more, than I would normally spend, to support those products. So, when you want to get self-righteous, get self-righteous at the proper people.

Also, blindly paying $60 for a $20 game... is NOT good behavior, it is very stupid. Your reasoning, completely disturbs me... that you do NOT even acknowlege that consumers have rights, not just the IP holders. Honestly, I will always believe that consumers should have greater protections than companies.

And, I never ONCE said any of the above was part of fair use. I disagreed that fair use and IP protection were two seperate issues.

[Reverant]

The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority.

Oh my fucking God. As the president of the United States, I would not give a SHIT about copyright issues and intellectual property. Our government does not need another addition to the bureaucracy, especially a role that caters to the whims of Hollywood and the recording industry.

[Johan]

I am a little disturbed at your complete and total lack of reading comprehension.

I'm an English teacher; your writing sucks. Here:

I tend to just buy games I am less interested in, that avoid DRM... than pirate games I want, that have DRM. But, to each their own.

If you meant to say RATHER THAN, as in "I do this, and not that," you should have said it. As you wrote this sentence, it sounds like you made a typo, and I read it as such, and therefore actually meant...

"I buy games that avoid DRM..."

THEN

"I pirate games I want that have DRM."

Your writing/grammar/spelling suck, OR you pirate games. One or the other. Your fault. Not mine. :rolleyes:

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Bury your entire house.

Done.
morecharacters

[Savok]

Some jerkoff's MySpace page has his favorite god awful song on it, to hear it, it had to be downloaded to your temporary internet files folder. Can your computer be seized for viewing said jerkoff's page I wonder.

And yes Johan, we know you're a school teacher. As a Republican you're supposed to be about smaller government by the way, the less bullshit the better.

[Johan]

As a Republican you're supposed to be about smaller government by the way, the less bullshit the better.

I'm not a Republican; I'm a conservative. The two are vastly, fundamentally different. Republicans are no longer about "smaller government." They're complicit in expanding it, and the deficit, to astronomical proportions. I'm also socially conservative, but less so governmentally/fiscally. In other words, I support the government nailing people who rip shit off. How hard they get nailed is another question, but I have no sympathy for them.

BTW: As has already been pointed out, this bill passed through Democratic hands with Democratic support.

[Generation ABXY]

I'm not a Republican; I'm a conservative. The two are vastly, fundamentally different. Republicans are no longer about "smaller government." They're complicit in expanding it, and the deficit, to astronomical proportions. I'm also socially conservative, but less so governmentally/fiscally. In other words, I support the government nailing people who rip shit off.

BTW: As has already been pointed out, this bill passed through Democratic hands with Democratic support.

Sad, but unfortunately so very true...

[Savok]

I'm not a Republican; I'm a conservative. The two are vastly, fundamentally different. Republicans are no longer about "smaller government." They're complicit in expanding it, and the deficit, to astronomical proportions. I'm also socially conservative, but less so governmentally/fiscally. In other words, I support the government nailing people who rip shit off. How hard they get nailed is another question, but I have no sympathy for them.

BTW: As has already been pointed out, this bill passed through Democratic hands with Democratic support.
Which is my point and the Republican's problem, all the old school conservatives have been forced out by asshole neocons.

You're supposed to be the counter-balance to the Democrat's wanting to fuck with everything, it's no wonder your country's a mess and Obama is in the lead, there's no one to oppose him.

The problem you have is that you haven't quite grasped that no one has any idea what they're doing with new age of technology. The laws can't fathom the Internet, companies can't fathom it, and assholes are using this confusion to take away your rights.

And now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg)

[Johan]

And now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg)

I love Weird Al.

America isn't just fucked because of our lousy politicians. We're screwed because, fundamentally, we live a lifestyle we can't afford, and have done so for several decades. Spending more than you produce, year after year, is unsustainable. Eventually, the creditor figures out your ass is broke.

We're broke.

[mister slim]

Is it fair use, if you buy a game, and it has a cool sound-track, to burn it to CD to listen to in the car? If you buy a CD, that is fair use, but by the wording, it doesn't sound like this is.


I wonder if it's even legal for me to listen to the soundtracks for my PS1 Wipeouts. I doubt Sony's licensing for the game included soundtrack-as-CD use.

[boratika]

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT. I don't worry about drug testing; I don't do drugs. I don't worry about the state taking my kids; I don't abuse them. I don't worry about a lot of shit...because I DON'T DO IT. If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.
The problem with this is the definition of stealing in the eyes of the law, if it is accurate and is it subject to change.

While I realise we are discussing US law, I think my previous post is a good example of government failing to understand technology as it exists now. here, If I purchase a song from iTunes, download it to two computers and then add it to an iPod without deleting it from the computer, I'm am adhering to the terms of service and DRM. I am, however, seen by the law to be pirating the music. This is a law that came into effect 2-3 years ago. Someone in this thread mentioned it is technically illegal to rip a CD in the UK, though playing a CD isn't how the technology works any more. I've been doing some googling, but have been able to determine what specifically constitutes piracy. We can both agree though that downloading something just because you don't feel like buying it is wrong.

The problem you have is that you haven't quite grasped that no one has any idea what they're doing with new age of technology. The laws can't fathom the Internet, companies can't fathom it, and assholes are using this confusion to take away your rights.

You and I rarely see eye to eye on issue, so I think the fact that we are in complete agreement on this has to say something.

[boratika]

Another discussion point: What if something is not legitimately available?

[squirrelTactics]

I'm an English teacher; your writing sucks.\

If you're going to be a douche about grammar, use a semicolon properly.

[Whunpo]

Another discussion point: What if something is not legitimately available?

Or are available, but not for a a reasonable price. My favorite album had about 500 albums pressed, and then was never pressed again. I saw it on Ebay for $600. I don't even have a record player. Fuck that.
Not to mention the fact that none of the Ebay money would go to the artists.
However, I do buy music legitimately from some of the Artists who played on that album. If I have to torrent an album because I cannot find it in stores, I make a mental IOU, and if given the opportunity, I will pay it back.

[Johan]

If you're going to be a douche about grammar, use a semicolon properly.

I did. Get educated. Semicolons combine two independent sentences; those were two independent sentences.

Damn! I did it again! Properly! :rolleyes:

Also, if you're going to quote me, don't add random symbols to the quote. Finally, if you want to call someone a douche, you had better be correct in your stated reason.

Douche.

[Ancalagon]

I love Weird Al.

America isn't just fucked because of our lousy politicians. We're screwed because, fundamentally, we live a lifestyle we can't afford, and have done so for several decades. Spending more than you produce, year after year, is unsustainable. Eventually, the creditor figures out your ass is broke.

We're broke.

Dont bring your broke ass down to Africa asking for handouts now, ya hear?

[AniAko]

Most of those artists are LIBERALS too.

Of course, this is a Republican-inspired effort to steal your stolen/infringed-upon copyright material...we all know that. :rolleyes:

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT. I don't worry about drug testing; I don't do drugs. I don't worry about the state taking my kids; I don't abuse them. I don't worry about a lot of shit...because I DON'T DO IT. If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.

Check out the bold sentence in your quote. It's baseless asshole assumptions like that that has led to DRM. Yes I resent that statement, and no I don't steal media. I've had to fix Sony rootkit-ed machines before, not fun.

The Pro-IP act holds a GOOD potential of criminalizing innocent people and massively invading privacy. I hate the "I don't do bad things so I don't care" attitude. If you had an inkling of what privacy invasion potentially leads to, maybe you'd think differently. I suggest reading up on Western Europe civilizations during the mid 1900's

[Goronmon]

You steal shit you didn't pay for and you deserve to get busted. Period.
The PRO-IP Act would drastically alter US copyright law by increasing the amount of statutory damages that could be awarded to rightsholders. For instance, someone copying a 50 songs from a boxed set could be liable for $7.5 million in damages instead of the current $150,000.I honestly don't understand how any reasonable person could think this was a good thing.

[ShivaX]

I honestly don't understand how any reasonable person could think this was a good thing.

You just aren't getting a giant fucking check from the RIAA to make it a law.

Trust me, if you had one of those checks, this would be a fucking awesome idea.

Add on Johan's mentality about it and its not hard to get there really.

[Johan]

It's baseless asshole assumptions like that that has led to DRM.

It's not baseless. It's based on the repeated admissions of dozens of members here and at the other site. I didn't force anyone to admit it, or do it. :rolleyes: Oh, but people have terrific rationalizations, as some do here in the thread, for taking stuff they didn't pay for. Just great excuses. :rolleyes:

I hate the "I don't do bad things so I don't care" attitude.

I don't do THIS, so I don't care about THIS. You steal shit, you deserve to get busted. Period.

If you had an inkling of what privacy invasion potentially leads to, maybe you'd think differently. I suggest reading up on Western Europe civilizations during the mid 1900's

I suggest moderating the hyperbole. This is not the end of civilization, nor is it an invasion of privacy. You don't have a right to privately break the law. So sorry...move to an island.

I honestly don't understand how any reasonable person could think this was a good thing.

Let me reacquaint you with my own words:

In other words, I support the government nailing people who rip shit off. How hard they get nailed is another question, but I have no sympathy for them.

It's perfectly reasonable to want people who take stuff without paying to get busted. People tend to NOT take stuff when they know they can get busted. Also, I have to pay MORE to cover for those who steal. Screw that.

Add on Johan's mentality about it and its not hard to get there really.

My mentality:

Don't take shit you didn't pay for.
Pay for the shit you take.
No need to worry, if you do both of the above.

:rolleyes:

This is a simple issue...DON'T TAKE STUFF YOU DON'T PAY FOR. Period. This isn't food, and you're not starving. You don't have a right to FREE. You want free? Go to...

Hulu
Imeem
Projectplaylist
hundreds of free games on the net.

[ShivaX]

My mentality:

Don't take shit you didn't pay for.
Pay for the shit you take.
No need to worry, if you do both of the above.

:rolleyes:

This is a simple issue...DON'T TAKE STUFF YOU DON'T PAY FOR. Period. This isn't food, and you're not starving. You don't have a right to FREE. You want free? Go to...

Hulu
Imeem
Projectplaylist
hundreds of free games on the net.

No. I get that.

What you're ignoring is that these are the people that say what you paid for isn't good enough. If you buy a CD they say you can't put the music that you paid for on your mp3 player or computer. That if you do that, you're "stealing" from them. You know... the guys you gave money to for a product. If you rip some CDs to your computer they think you are a criminal and should pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars for it.

Of course its hard for them to prove that you've done it if you aren't doing anything obvious like hosting a torrent of those files, but the point is if they somehow got access to view them they could sue you for everything you have for "misusing" their product. If these guys had their way DVRs and TiVos would basically be instant crimes. Mp3 players are contraband if you don't buy your songs off their website.

Its the logic of "its stealing" without bothering to look at what the RIAA considers "stealing" that lets them try to pull this shit and to get laws passed to enable them to do it. Thats what I meant by your "mentality."

[Johan]

What you're ignoring is that these are the people that say what you paid for isn't good enough.

I understand this, and the answer is really simple, though uncomfortable for people who want the product but don't want the restrictions; don't buy it (and, of course, don't take it for free either).

If I don't like a product as it is offered, I am well within my rights to just not buy it. However, I don't have the right to take the product for free. If I don't like the strings attached, that's not an excuse to steal/infringe. That's an illegitimate line of reasoning.

Its the logic of "its stealing" without bothering to look at what the RIAA considers "stealing" that lets them try to pull this shit and to get laws passed to enable them to do it. Thats what I meant by your "mentality."

I'm not getting into the whole difference between stealing/infringing, because that's a separate issue from the essential reality of taking something for free.

As far as the parameters of what is considered fair use and what is "stealing/infringing," that's a political issue, and both the Democratic and Republican parties have apparently taken their stance on the side of the RIAA/MPAA. The question of what is fair use is another issue that is separate entirely from merely taking something for free. Free is not "fair use" unless it's offered free by the legal rights-holder.


As I said earlier, the question of severity of consequence is a different issue, in my mind, from the reality that SOME consequence is deserved, and it should be enough of a consequence to actually modify behavior and preempt illegal behavior.

The fundamentals of this issue are simple. Don't take stuff for free when it's not free. The tricky part is in severity of consequence and in the parameters for fair use. Fair use doesn't mean "free" however, as I said.

[AniAko]

It's not baseless. It's based on the repeated admissions of dozens of members here and at the other site. I didn't force anyone to admit it, or do it. :rolleyes: Oh, but people have terrific rationalizations, as some do here in the thread, for taking stuff they didn't pay for. Just great excuses. :rolleyes:[\QUOTE]

That is baseless. You don't have hard stats so just drop it. You were offensive in your approach and I have every right to confront you on that.

That attitude of is the same that has led us to this problem. Piracy has always been a problem. NOW piracy AND DRM are a problem because people think the "fuck it, burn 'em" mentality is a viable solution for any case.

[QUOTE=Johan;32564]I don't do THIS, so I don't care about THIS. You steal shit, you deserve to get busted. Period.

The "I don't care about this" attitude is that of yours toward the PROI-IP act, NOT piracy. Just so we're clear, I was not referring to piracy. I (as should be the rest of this thread) are talking about the PRO-IP act, and how it severely overreaches and misaligns power. I never once condoned the piracy of any media in what I said, in fact my official stance is to attempt to abolish piracy through several reasonably attainable means (different topic)

I suggest moderating the hyperbole. This is not the end of civilization, nor is it an invasion of privacy. You don't have a right to privately break the law. So sorry...move to an island.


The PRO-IP act is a gross invasion of privacy as well as an overreaching of the gov't, AS WELL AS an unnecessary cost this gov't shouldn't be spending money on. Once a scale is unbalanced, it doesn't take much more to tip the scales. People have already brought up fantastic points. What if my roommate steals music on his PC? They get my PC for free, and THAT is a gross overreaching of power and invasion of privacy.

The PRO-IP act is trying to stymie piracy by making the exposure and cost of doing so out in the wide open, in hopes that it will act as a deterrent. Deterrents don't work in that kind of market model. This act will fail at what they're trying to do, in the meanwhile enabling entities with powers they shouldn't have. So it's cyclical: gov't gets more Orwellian, problem doesn't get fixed, gov't takes more control as a result. Damn straight I have the right to be concerned.

Laws prohibiting actions easy to commit don't deter people, INCENTIVES do.
Look at jaywalking. It's illegal yet people do it when there's a cross walk withing spitting distance. The problem wasn't being addressed appropriately. Most people don't like waiting for the lights to change. So they start installing those buttons to let the light know pedestrians are waiting. Novel approach, and far more effective than the law alone.

Incentives apply to the media industries as well, but they're not trying hard enough. Artists are taking the right roads with extra content, special add-ins, store promotions, unlock codes, etc. and will be successful. Crotchety business men who can't break their 1920's mold and adjust to new market trends and business models deserve, and WILL die off. It's called progress, and the PRO-IP act is one of the roots inhibiting it.

[Goronmon]

What is reasonable about stealing/infringing upon shit and getting away with it?Actually, I think a couple of things about it are reasonable from my point of view.

1) I mainly download TV shows. Since TV reception is poor in my apartment I generally don't bother watching TV and rather grab the torrent off the web later. I have a hard time feeling bad about this because you can watch TV for free already. However, it's considered piracy/stealing/infringing/etc.

2) I've spent more money on media than I would have if I didn't grab torrents of shows. The other thing I mainly pirate is anime. The crazy prices on most stuff means I absolutely will never buy any anime without watching it first. I've just recently spent $200 on DVDs that I never would have purchased if I had not watched before hand. This is at absolutely no cost to the distributors/artist/etc. My downloading of media has zero impact on the profits of any person or company.

You may consider this points unreasonable, but I find it hard to feel guilty about it. I also generally avoid pirating music and movies.

[ShivaX]

I understand this, and the answer is really simple, though uncomfortable for people who want the product but don't want the restrictions; don't buy it (and, of course, don't take it for free either).
Well sure, but since this basically covers all media in every form thats like saying "Don't do anything ever for recreation" in a lot of ways, but fair enough.

As I said earlier, the question of severity of consequence is a different issue, in my mind, from the reality that SOME consequence is deserved, and it should be enough of a consequence to actually modify behavior and preempt illegal behavior.

The fundamentals of this issue are simple. Don't take stuff for free when it's not free. The tricky part is in severity of consequence and in the parameters for fair use. Fair use doesn't mean "free" however, as I said.

Sure I agree with that. Though the punishment should still fit the crime and I don't think in this case it does. If one of your kids downloads a song off the internet it shouldn't result in thousands and thousands of dollars and the loss of every device in your home that might be able to use the files.

Just like we don't cut off people's hands for stealing and we don't stone people for adultery in this country. The whole fair use thing is pretty big though. What if you make some Halo movie and put music in it and the RIAA finds out? Well they say that they can sue you for thousands and take all your electronic devices, etc, etc. Its an extremely slippery slope that most of Congress is too clueless to really understand. They hear "its stealing" from the RIAA and say "well, shit, stealing is bad" and don't look any deeper than that.

[Johan]

That is baseless. You don't have hard stats so just drop it. You were offensive in your approach and I have every right to confront you on that.

I don't have hard stats, but I have concrete admissions from many people here. If that's offensive, so be it. It is the truth.

That attitude of is the same that has led us to this problem.

It's not the attitude toward piracy that has led us to this "problem." It's the piracy itself that has led us to this problem, as well as the difficulty of creating technological barriers to piracy which are also seamless/unobtrusive to legitimate customers.

Piracy is the initial problem, not the response. The response is disproportionate, but that is a separate issue from the piracy itself.

Laws prohibiting actions easy to commit don't deter people, INCENTIVES do.

While what you say is certainly reasonable, I disagree with this fundamental assertion upon which it rests. BOTH are necessary; prohibitions and incentives.

In fact, prohibitions can serve as incentives for particular behaviors.

And people need to stop treating media like it's food and they're Robin Hood.

Just like we don't cut off people's hands for stealing and we don't stone people for adultery in this country.

The response is disproportionate; that's true. I'm no fan of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm also no fan of Congress. I'm also no fan of pirates.

I like Ninjas.

[Goronmon]

And people need to stop treating media like it's food and they're Robin Hood.That's going to be a hard task to accomplish. Take music for example. Radio is free. Listening to other people playing a CD/mp3 is free. Someone lending you a CD is free. Many people don't see making a copy of some MP3's as any different.

[ShivaX]

That's going to be a hard task to accomplish. Take music for example. Radio is free. Listening to other people playing a CD/mp3 is free. Someone lending you a CD is free. Many people don't see making a copy of some MP3's as any different.

Those people need to just count how many hard copies they start with, then count how many they have at the end. If the number is the same, everyone is good. If that number increases then theres a problem. If it goes down... then your stereo just ate my tape.

I now feel old for reliving the loss of many a cassette to other people's janky boom boxes.

[AniAko]

I don't have hard stats, but I have concrete admissions from many people here. If that's offensive, so be it. It is the truth.

Your claim was "MOST" that's not the truth.

It's not the attitude toward piracy that has led us to this "problem." It's the piracy itself that has led us to this problem, as well as the difficulty of creating technological barriers to piracy which are also seamless/unobtrusive to legitimate customers.

Piracy is the initial problem, not the response. The response is disproportionate, but that is a separate issue from the piracy itself.


Piracy is not a problem per se as it is an existence. It will never go away. The thoughts that piracy is both rampant AND severely impacting sales is what has led us to the new DRM problem, and the PRO-IP act (Read: BIG Problem)

The Pro-IP act is riddled with illegal measures based of uneducated assumptions of social trends and technological capabilites. Doing more illegal things on the other party's account isn't the right way to handle this.



While what you say is certainly reasonable, I disagree with this fundamental assertion upon which it rests. BOTH are necessary; prohibitions and incentives.

In fact, prohibitions can serve as incentives for particular behaviors.

And people need to stop treating media like it's food and they're Robin Hood.

The response is disproportionate; that's true. I'm no fan of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm also no fan of Congress. I'm also no fan of pirates.

I like Ninjas.

I agree with you whole heartily, BUT there are already laws making theft of copyrighted materials illegal. The PRO-IP act doesn't further support those laws, it enables entities with illegal powers to overstep and break other laws in order to enforce them. The funny thing is the laws this act breaks are the laws that protect ME. I have a right to have those laws enforced and not skirted by anyone for any reason, unless proved otherwise in a court of law.

When I think of the RIAA/MPAA I always ask... "How could we make piracy legal?" But nobody is trying to answer that question. Due to it's wording most people write it off as an unprofitable solution. So let me rephrase that question:

"How could we make freely available digital content profitable?" That question takes less time, money, and waste of gov't resources to answer.

[Generation ABXY]

That's going to be a hard task to accomplish. Take music for example. Radio is free. Listening to other people playing a CD/mp3 is free. Someone lending you a CD is free. Many people don't see making a copy of some MP3's as any different.

Actually, radio isn't free. When you're listening to it, you're also usually getting advertised at; same thing goes for TV.

[Johan]

Your claim was "MOST" that's not the truth.

That is outright wrong. I said, and I quote:

If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.

I even capped the word "large" to emphasize that I thought a sizable number of people here pirate stuff to some degree. I did not, however, say a majority or most.

I know a large number of people here pirate to some degree, because they admit to it in their posts. Most have what they consider a legitimate "excuse" for doing so, which I think is ridiculous on its face. Anyone can come up with an excuse for breaking a law. If all it took to be exempt from the law was an excuse, we'd be living in absolute chaos.

[ShivaX]

I even capped the word "large" to emphasize that I thought a sizable number of people here pirate stuff to some degree. I did not, however, say a majority or most.

I know a large number of people here pirate to some degree, because they admit to it in their posts. Most have what they consider a legitimate "excuse" for doing so, which I think is ridiculous on its face. Anyone can come up with an excuse for breaking a law. If all it took to be exempt from the law was an excuse, we'd be living in absolute chaos.

Well some people pretend they're being Martin Luther King or Ghandi when they do it. Unjust laws or something or other. I admit I do it occassionally with music to see if I like an album (though more often I've been using things like Pandora). If I don't like something I just delete it. If I do I buy the album and then rip it to my computer (since internet files are generally shit quality anyway).

[Shadowstorm]

The PRO-IP Act would drastically alter US copyright law by increasing the amount of statutory damages that could be awarded to rightsholders. For instance, someone copying a 50 songs from a boxed set could be liable for $7.5 million in damages instead of the current $150,000.

What the fuck.

[Sammael]

I see Johan is just as opinionated as always.

Everyone want to see how quickly Johan changes his tune? Try this scenario on for size...

Johan's eldest child uses the family computer to download the latest and greatest Britney Spears album on a file sharing site, unbeknownst to Johan and wife.
Johan gets a letter in the mail from Big Record Bigwig LLC stating that they demand damages of 1.5 million dollars.
Johan complains how unfair it is.

I know you're saying you don't agree with the huge punishments being handed out, but there is no way in hell that is changing. The idea behind these ludacrous judgements is to deter the public from following suit. It's the music industry's version of the unlucky lottery. The more bad publicity they get for these soulless lawsuits, the better.

This is all karma for them. Between the price fixing in the '90's and the constant artist ripoff jobs they've pulled since the beginning of time, the greed and corruption...

[Ancalagon]

I know you're saying you don't agree with the huge punishments being handed out, but there is no way in hell that is changing. The idea behind these ludacrous judgements is to deter the public from following suit. It's the music industry's version of the unlucky lottery. The more bad publicity they get for these soulless lawsuits, the better.

This is all karma for them. Between the price fixing in the '90's and the constant artist ripoff jobs they've pulled since the beginning of time, the greed and corruption...

Of course, no record company exec worth his salt would suggest that they should improve their business model and get with the times, or that they should look after their public image a little instead of appearing like Evil MegaCorporation #638. I mean, thats the simple solution to their problems, you know, get better at what they do. But hey, lets place the blame on other people instead of looking at ourselves - lets send out a whole bunch of letters to people in the hopes that a few of them confess and provide us with a revenue stream.

I think the central reason for piracy is that people dont see most media as having any value at all. Make people care about it again and they might stop pirating it. DRM is not a good way to make people care.

[Johan]

Johan complains how unfair it is.

You make a very foolish assumption in your post. Several, actually.

1. You assume that my children are old enough to surf the web.
2. You assume that they do so unsupervised.
3. You assume that they have a desire to download illegal copies of games/movies/music.

All three of those assumptions are wrong, and when my kids are actually old enough to surf the web, I am responsible as any parent would be for what I allow them to do on the web.

I've also already pointed out the fine is disproportionate, but it passed with Democratic and Republican support. Good luck changing it.

[AniAko]

I've also already pointed out the fine is disproportionate, but it passed with Democratic and Republican support. Good luck changing it.

Good luck changing it?

The Judicial branch can and WILL overturn the act, it just takes forever before it hits that point, the EFF and ACLU can only take on so much at a time. It'll be thrown out in part (but most likely in whole) the first time someone counter sues for illegal search and seizure.

As for the comment about your children, that's completely naive, which explains why this discussion is still going on.

[Johan]

Good luck changing it?

You yourself admit it will take forever. Good luck changing it.

As for the comment about your children, that's completely naive, which explains why this discussion is still going on.

This conversation continues because I enjoy replying, as do some of you! Also, I am hardly naive. What children are exposed to is the responsibility of their parents. Access to the Internet, unsupervised and unmonitored, is stupid and a setup for all kinds of idiocy. I'm technologically astute and able to prevent what I want prevented. :D

[Sammael]

You make a very foolish assumption in your post. Several, actually.


Ok, so I didn't specify that this was in the future, some time down the road.

If you think you can control your children's access to the internet 100 % of the time, you're fooling yourself.

That's like guaranteeing your kids will never try an illegal drug. You can do your best to steer them away from such decisions, but ultimately it is theirs to make.

[Johan]

That's like guaranteeing your kids will never try an illegal drug. You can do your best to steer them away from such decisions, but ultimately it is theirs to make.

I agree. If I believed that I could control my kids as they get older, naive would be a nice way to refer to me. Stupid idiot would be closer to the truth. :)

[Sl1pstream]

i have a deep feeling that somehow he who shall not be named had a hand in this before being disbarred

That idea is almost as stupid as the law itself.

I guess I'll keep all my piracy for when I get back home then.

[boratika]

You make a very foolish assumption in your post. Several, actually.

1. You assume that my children are old enough to surf the web.
2. You assume that they do so unsupervised.
3. You assume that they have a desire to download illegal copies of games/movies/music.

All three of those assumptions are wrong, and when my kids are actually old enough to surf the web, I am responsible as any parent would be for what I allow them to do on the web.
That's a silly response, your children will suddenly be that old in what seems the blink of an eye. This law is theoretically not just a temporary thing.

Stop pretending they'll stay this way forever Johan, it'll only make it harder for you in the long run.:p
This conversation continues because I enjoy replying, as do some of you! Also, I am hardly naive. What children are exposed to is the responsibility of their parents. Access to the Internet, unsupervised and unmonitored, is stupid and a setup for all kinds of idiocy. I'm technologically astute and able to prevent what I want prevented. :D

Let me put forward a scenario: You're child has a mobile phone (lets assume they in their mid-teens at this point in time.) One of their friends sends them an MMS along these lines:

"Here's a song you should totally use for your ringtone!"* - attached is an MP3.

Whether solicited or not, the phone now has a pirated song on it, the internet wasn't involved and it was transferred over monitored channels. Music has been pirated, someone knows it.

Scenario 2) When I was in school, we were already passing MP3s around in the schoolyard, trading playlists like mixtapes before them. It's even easier to do this now with flash drive costing next to nothing. It'll only be easier in the future.

Scenario 3) Your child runs an OS entirely off of an external drive, leaving no traces on the local drive of the computer. Adults and teenagers have very different sleep cycles - They'll be up all night. I doubt you'll be.

If none of those seem plausible to you, I can come up with more (I don't mean this in a snarky way. I mean it entirely on face value)

The act means that any to all of the following can now be seized from your household:

Any PC or laptops
Any iPods or other DAPS
Any mobile phones (we're talking a few years from now, so I'm assuming they'll all be compatible.)
Consoles (all 3 current ones can do this already, I suspect future ones will too)
Handheld systems
TVs (music playback from USB drive/memory card is already a feature on certain TVs)
Stereos - home and car
Fridge (some can do it, stupid as that sounds)
DVD player type things
and so on...

Discuss.

[Johan]

Discuss.

My kids don't have mobile phones and won't. Kids don't need a damn phone. I got by without one.
My internet connection is in my room. Problem solved with that.
My kids are home schooled.

I got it covered, for now. When they're on their own, they can fuck up any way they like. With me? No.

If you steal shit, you deserve to get busted.

Discuss!

:D

[boratika]

My kids don't have mobile phones and won't. Kids don't need a damn phone. I got by without one.
My internet connection is in my room. Problem solved with that.
My kids are home schooled.

I got it covered, for now. When they're on their own, they can fuck up any way they like. With me? No.

If you steal shit, you deserve to get busted.

Discuss!

:D

Man, those are some isolated kids:eek:

Well I guess at this point I should ask how you listen to your music? Do you just play it off of CDs? Have you purchased any digitally distributed music?

[Johan]

Man, those are some isolated kids:eek:

My kids have plenty of friends, but they're also quite young.

Well I guess at this point I should ask how you listen to your music? Do you just play it off of CDs? Have you purchased any digitally distributed music?

I haven't bought a CD in perhaps two or three years. I have a small cd collection I legally ripped to my computer and play on occasion. I have a subscription to XM Radio which I use in my car and through the internet at home. I also utilize Imeem and ProjectPlaylist...and occasionally YouTube or Yahoo Music.

I get all the music I need, for pennies (I pay for satellite radio). I don't need to own music any more. I certainly don't need to steal it. It's just not necessary, let alone right.

[Nerdious]

So bear with me and my confusion I'd just like a clarification.

So before this became law Intellectual Properties were only off-limit for piracy only with the intention of sharing, now it's illegal to have an unlicensed copy at all?

How are they going to prove anything? Invading my privacy?

I'm probably way off base here, just looking for an explanation.

[Karmakin]

So bear with me and my confusion I'd just like a clarification.

So before this became law Intellectual Properties were only off-limit for piracy only with the intention of sharing, now it's illegal to have an unlicensed copy at all?

How are they going to prove anything? Invading my privacy?

I'm probably way off base here, just looking for an explanation.

They really don't have to prove anything there. It's very similar to a SLAPP. The mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to stop people from doing things.

And yes, any backup of any media with even nominal copy protection is considered to be an unlicensed copy. It wouldn't be theoretically difficult to defeat, just show your receipt from when you purchased it.

Oh. You mean most people don't save their receipts? Darn.

The honest truth is that illegal technology is, in most cases, about two steps ahead of legal technology in terms of ease of use, convenience and reliability. It's not even a matter of free vs. not free. It's often a matter of the service being desired not being offered in the first place.

A good example would be the XBox modding scene. The ability to store games on the HD, to be able to choose and play out of a menu, is a killer app. It really is. It's a desired feature that's really only starting to be legitimized.

Generally speaking, what seems to happen, is that illegal technology proves a market desire for IP packaging, which is then legitimized through legal technology. An example would be Netflix, which actually if you think about it the way it is structured, is really just a takeoff of the infinite selection idea. Then you add on to that their download/streaming service for instant gratification, similar to illegal streaming....

You get the picture.

The real problem with draconian IP laws is that it throttles this market evolution. And legitimate interests have shown next to no interest in exploring new ways of getting content to customers, unless they're forced to. This law will stop forcing them to.

That, is a very bad thing.

[ShivaX]

I have a small cd collection I legally ripped to my computer and play on occasion.

The RIAA would say that your collection is illegal and you should be fined or serve jail time for having it. Its horsecrap, but thats the direction they've been pushing for quite a while now.

[Johan]

The RIAA would say that your collection is illegal and you should be fined or serve jail time for having it.

There's no support for that in the law. They can say what they want, but there's absolutely no support for that. That falls under fair use.

[boratika]

My kids have plenty of friends, but they're also quite young.



I haven't bought a CD in perhaps two or three years. I have a small cd collection I legally ripped to my computer and play on occasion. I have a subscription to XM Radio which I use in my car and through the internet at home. I also utilize Imeem and ProjectPlaylist...and occasionally YouTube or Yahoo Music.

I get all the music I need, for pennies (I pay for satellite radio). I don't need to own music any more. I certainly don't need to steal it. It's just not necessary, let alone right.

Sorry, should have phased that in the future tense.

I wasn't trying to imply you were stealing music, but trying to figure out how you go about playing music without stealing it.

It appears these laws don't apply to you, not because you don't steal music, but because you don't collect it.

I guess what I really need to know is how US law defines digital piracy. I've been reading through the bills, but I'm not finding anything relevant. SO if anyone has any insights into this, pleases feel free to share.

Like I said, here I can purchase a song from iTunes, then use it well within the terms of service and DRM, without any other person ever coming into contact with is and still be breaking piracy laws. Similar situations exist in other countries. If the US laws are similarly impractical in their definition, then people who aren't stealing anything may be still be breakin the law unwittingly.

[ShivaX]

There's no support for that in the law. They can say what they want, but there's absolutely no support for that. That falls under fair use.

Well thats what they seem to be trying to change. Fair use is too vauge for them so they're trying to get rid of it so they can get more money from products they've already sold.

There is a (or was) a Fair Use Act floating around in Congress, but finding out whats going on with bills is nearly impossible most of the time. Hell most of this Pro-IP stuff is from early 2007 at best, so its pretty hard to get a handle on what exactly it does other than increase fine by an insane amount.

[boratika]

Well thats what they seem to be trying to change. Fair use is too vauge for them so they're trying to get rid of it so they can get more money from products they've already sold.

There is a (or was) a Fair Use Act floating around in Congress, but finding out whats going on with bills is nearly impossible most of the time. Hell most of this Pro-IP stuff is from early 2007 at best, so its pretty hard to get a handle on what exactly it does other than increase fine by an insane amount.

They added the word "felony" to a bunch of lines. But those in turn where only adding and subtracting words from other things, etc. etc.

That's about all I can figure.

[Johan]

It appears these laws don't apply to you, not because you don't steal music, but because you don't collect it.

That's incorrect. All laws apply to people within the laws area of jurisdiction. These laws apply to me, and I comply with them. Drunk driving laws also apply to me. Just because I don't get drunk and drive doesn't mean they don't apply. Your logic is confusing.

It's not hard to comply with laws regarding music/movies/games. For example, you can collect music legally, or you can enjoy it virtually for free as I often do.

People don't have to steal it. It's not necessary and it certainly doesn't support the artists in creating future works. Even when I enjoy my legally-free music, I'm supporting the industry to some degree by using sites that make money off of my presence through ads.

Taking it for free does nothing of any good for anyone but the thief.

[Generation ABXY]

The RIAA would say that your collection is illegal and you should be fined or serve jail time for having it. Its horsecrap, but thats the direction they've been pushing for quite a while now.

That's one of my only problems with those people. I mean, I completely understand most of the stuff they're pulling for, but that...that just seems totally unreasonable. In almost every other respect, though, they have my full support.

[mister slim]

I also utilize Imeem and ProjectPlaylist...and occasionally YouTube or Yahoo Music.

Project Playlist is being sued by the RIAA and YouTube's content is generally in infringement of copyright.

[Johan]

Project Playlist is being sued by the RIAA and YouTube's content is generally in infringement of copyright.

When ProjectPlaylist loses, they'll close. I won't shed a tear.
YouTube pulls copyrighted material from the site as soon as it's notified; they're especially good at it now that Google runs them. In fact, they've got more and more licensed material up there intentionally and with full approval of the rights-holders.

Both are currently legal.

[boratika]

That's incorrect. All laws apply to people within the laws area of jurisdiction. These laws apply to me, and I comply with them. Drunk driving laws also apply to me. Just because I don't get drunk and drive doesn't mean they don't apply. Your logic is confusing.

It's not hard to comply with laws regarding music/movies/games. For example, you can collect music legally, or you can enjoy it virtually for free as I often do.

People don't have to steal it. It's not necessary and it certainly doesn't support the artists in creating future works. Even when I enjoy my legally-free music, I'm supporting the industry to some degree by using sites that make money off of my presence through ads.

Taking it for free does nothing of any good for anyone but the thief.
I'd say it's more like how vehicle licensing laws apply to people who don't buy/own cars.

But I really feel like you aren't getting me. I'm talking about two separate things here. One was how these laws will apply to parents/households of children that breach coppyright are affected by these laws.

The other is how these laws affect people who have purchased their music and haven't in any way shape or form shared the music. What I can't ascertain is what they are allowed to do with that music, without any stealing taking place. For example, a person may purchase a DRM-free song off of Amazon and put it on their PC, their laptop, their DAP, their 360, their PS3 and their phone (for an alarm tone that no-one will ever hear, but them. It isn't used as a ringtone.) The music has been purchased. It hasn't been shared with another soul. What I can't figure out is whether this is legal in the US.

No one in this thread has an answer, which I find worrying. It is easy to not break the law if you know what the law is. It isn't as easy if you don't know what the law is and a common sense approach can't be taken with new technology.

[Johan]

No one in this thread has an answer, which I find worrying. It is easy to not break the law if you know what the law is. It isn't as easy if you don't know what the law is and a common sense approach can't be taken with new technology.

That's a very good point, and I think the problem is our lack of legislative leadership in this technical arena (do our senators and representatives have a clue about this technical stuff? Most probably don't), as well as the fact that the RIAA/MPAA would probably like to make it illegal for you to remember the media after you have paid/partaken. :)

[diablopath]

Most of those artists are LIBERALS too.

Of course, this is a Republican-inspired effort to steal your stolen/infringed-upon copyright material...we all know that. :rolleyes:

I have a suggestion. DON'T STEAL SHIT. I don't worry about drug testing; I don't do drugs. I don't worry about the state taking my kids; I don't abuse them. I don't worry about a lot of shit...because I DON'T DO IT. If we took a poll here, I am confident a very LARGE number of you steal games/music/movies. I pay for that shit. If you steal it, you deserve to get jacked.

Just keep in mind, just because you disobey the law does not necessarily mean you deserve the consequences.

There are ways to fight piracy other than this.

[pomeroy]

Which you admit you doing. With "good" excuses. Honestly, that's just bullshit. You take something you don't pay for and you deserve to get busted. You'll have no sympathy from me at all. You make the media I buy MORE EXPENSIVE as a result of your selfish, self-justified behavior, as do others like you. :rolleyes:

Do you actually believe that your media would be cheaper if people didn't pirate? I ask only because I think the companies who create and distribute media want to screw us any way they can and I just can't see things being cheaper if people weren't pirating. I'm not really arguing with you about piracy, but this seems to be a weak argument to me. Legality is stronger.

[Johan]

There are ways to fight piracy other than this.

People break the law when there's no consequence. It's human nature. Consequences provide an impetus for abiding by laws, whether we agree with the laws or not.

Do you actually believe that your media would be cheaper if people didn't pirate?

We'll never know for sure, will we? I certainly do think that, if there were absolutely no piracy at all, that sales would be higher and prices would be lower as a result.

[boratika]

I live in Australia. It can cost up to twice as much to go into a shop and purchase DVDs/Bluray or CDs than to get a single copy shipped from the other side of the planet. I wouldn't hold out much hope of these fellas dropping prices because more people are buying.

[mister slim]

Do you actually believe that your media would be cheaper if people didn't pirate? I ask only because I think the companies who create and distribute media want to screw us any way they can and I just can't see things being cheaper if people weren't pirating. I'm not really arguing with you about piracy, but this seems to be a weak argument to me. Legality is stronger.

The transition from tape to CD indicates no. Production costs went down, ease of piracy went down, prices went up. Same for SACD, though I think that was more due to the limited market.

[Karmakin]

When ProjectPlaylist loses, they'll close. I won't shed a tear.
YouTube pulls copyrighted material from the site as soon as it's notified; they're especially good at it now that Google runs them. In fact, they've got more and more licensed material up there intentionally and with full approval of the rights-holders.

Both are currently legal.

Not really.

Lets just say that you heard a song on the radio, and you want to hear it again. The bands website doesn't have a stream of it, but there's the video for it up on YouTube. You click on the video, and watch it, however it wasn't uploaded by an agent for the band itself.

Under the Pro-IP law, your computer can now be taken from you, as it was used to commit IP theft.

Yes, this is awfully petty and no this probably won't happen very often if at all. But this is what the law is.

Like it or not, big content wants to take activities that most of the public think are ethical and natural uses of content, and make them illegal.

[Raen]

We'll never know for sure, will we? I certainly do think that, if there were absolutely no piracy at all, that sales would be higher and prices would be lower as a result.

Given that record companies consistently moan about sales decreasing without much effect to the price it does indicate that higher sales don't mean cheaper prices. I've been buying CDs for about 6 or 7 years now and the price has been roughly fixed for most of that time.

I live in Australia. It can cost up to twice as much to go into a shop and purchase DVDs/Bluray or CDs than to get a single copy shipped from the other side of the planet. I wouldn't hold out much hope of these fellas dropping prices because more people are buying.

This pretty much holds true for the UK as well, although Amazon are pretty good at keeping their prices consistent. Clothes are particularly band at price inflation. If I want a bands merch I'd rather ship it from the US because it's a) cheaper and b) sites in the UK tend to have about less than half of the US shop, even on the bands official site.