New Anti-Piracy Law

[Clarkin]

You know if you see a Van in a parking Lot selling bootlegs CALL THE FEDS! They will show up!

It's not about supporting the artist or movie maker it's about supports a local business!

If there is NO WAY to obtain it other than downloading then do it. If you can buy it from a store BUY IT! 11 yrs ago think back to how many CD stores closed down because of Napster! I know the media protrayed it as the artist is loosing money, but that CD store mployeed 8 people, there were 10 CD shops in my area that went under from Napster and other P2P programs, if you can not do the math that is 80 people that lost their jobs, then the owners that lost their job, then there's the landlords that lost tenants! so 100 people in one small town lost their livily hood from Napster. Now multiply that buy all the towns n cities in the US alone and you have maybe 1/2 a million people lost their jobs! Real fucking cool aint it!

[pixiedust]

I got my account locked last night by Suddenlink. Afetr Dl'ing Get Him To The Greek, it is obviously monitored by NBC and they sent a letter to my ISP. I will just be more careful with NBC material, heck I didnt even really want that stupid movie.

Still a Pirate!

~pixie~

[lilJester]

Trent Reznoris speaking his mind as an ARTIST about the anti Piracy.

[Leilin]

Trent Reznoris speaking his mind as an ARTIST about the anti Piracy.

... which brings up a very good point.

If you think that anything covered by the RIAA actually goes towards the artist past a fraction of a percent, you're incorrect in that assumption.

That being said, if you download independent music from an active independent label with an easy source, you should really reconsider. Many of those labels actually provide their own methods of purchase (which go directly to the artist in double-digit percentages, if not majority) and, if you like audio quality, downloads directly from the label are much less prone to glitches than downloads from torrent sites, in my experience.

But do whatever you do. I get music directly from the artist when I can and label otherwise because it's part of my livelihood to have music which doesn't sound like crap. Audio quality is crucial. As for telling others what to do? Do what you will do, but know the risks.

[drynot]

Well guys...you do what you have to do....

If I'm a sucker for supporting my local movie theater and my local record shop...then so be it.

[Clarkin]

Well guys...you do what you have to do....

If I'm a sucker for supporting my local movie theater and my local record shop...then so be it.

Facebook Like

at least someone understands....

[curiositykilledthecat]

It's not the studio's doing to charge $20.00 a show, it's the theatre charging that amount. It's a convoluted mess as the theatre makes all their money on concessions and the ticket pricing is an average figure based on what it would cost to recoup losses/expenses on a movie. In other words, when a movie bombs iyt hurts more than the studio. As for torrents and isp's, Comcast has admitted to selling cpni for years and cox throttles, so they all do crazy bullshit. The trick is to use their network but not their merchandise so you can have more control over what information actually gets out. I'm not a networking wiz, so I don't know what to tell you, other than if you are abusing the system you will get caught. It's not the guy/girl who downlaods Avatar and an old school film, it will be the idiot who downlaods the entire works of Kevin Smith or several hundred movies who will get caught. I might also suggest using a different torrent as it sounds like some bigwigs have infiltrated the one you use.

[Leilin]

It's not the studio's doing to charge $20.00 a show, it's the theatre charging that amount. It's a convoluted mess as the theatre makes all their money on concessions and the ticket pricing is an average figure based on what it would cost to recoup losses/expenses on a movie. In other words, when a movie bombs iyt hurts more than the studio. As for torrents and isp's, Comcast has admitted to selling cpni for years and cox throttles, so they all do crazy bullshit. The trick is to use their network but not their merchandise so you can have more control over what information actually gets out. I'm not a networking wiz, so I don't know what to tell you, other than if you are abusing the system you will get caught. It's not the guy/girl who downlaods Avatar and an old school film, it will be the idiot who downlaods the entire works of Kevin Smith or several hundred movies who will get caught. I might also suggest using a different torrent as it sounds like some bigwigs have infiltrated the one you use.

Small correction: Uploads, not downloads. There is currently no legal way to enforce downloads, despite the hysteria in the press.

[Aina]

Stealing is stealing. Period. (or end of story as we are apt to say in the UK)

[lilJester]

If an artist (such as NIN) says if you can find it, DOWNLOAD IT, is that STILL theft? I have almost their entire catalog minus a few remix's that in general on disc or soft copy are just HARD to come by anymore, but the creator/owner of it.... says take it if you can get it. That still theft?

[Diapered Jason]

If an artist (such as NIN) says if you can find it, DOWNLOAD IT, is that STILL theft? I have almost their entire catalog minus a few remix's that in general on disc or soft copy are just HARD to come by anymore, but the creator/owner of it.... says take it if you can get it. That still theft?

I think his discography is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike licence. Basically Trent is licensed to do whatever he wants with his work as long as it is for noncommercial purposes and follows a few other small attached strings. So, it is not stealing in that case.

[Bettypooh]

The main complaint I see towards COICA is the old innocent till proven guilty argument, which will still hold true with the new bill. The only difference is the website will be removed before a court hearing, which I think is legal. I think is sort of like how a person committing a robbery goes to jail before a court hearing.

The other complaint I see is centered around what this bill may lead to. Oh, in time it will allow the Attorney General to do whatever he wants. Let me tell, that is the most stupidest argument, and it is scare tactic that is used all the time.

The legal process causes the arrested to go to jail until assurance satisfactory to the court is made that they will show up for trial (bail or bond). This is separate from the claimed offense. You're right though, the person or office given the power will not use it fairly- they never do and never will That is the exact reason our Constitution prohibits the holding of such power by a person or small group, and why the process for use of that power has so many 'steps' where the process can be questioned But the interpretation of the Constitution is held by a small group who cannot be made to answer for their errors..... and they are political appointments!

Much like with Kevin Mitnick, when the government comes across something they fear and don't know enough about they go to excess- even illegality- and instead of learning they go paranoid nutso While the illegal DL'er bears some responsibility (same as the receiver of stolen goods) the real crime is being committed by the UL'er who put the goods out there ( the seller of stolen goods) Without the UL'ers there can be no DL'ers, and thus no crimes. Thing is, getting those UL people isn't easy, and with widespread open file sharing (like Napster), there are so many criminals they cannot deal with them without putting forth a lot of effort. And we KNOW that the Government is allergic to effort Another issue is that this is an international matter, but it isn't being dealt with that way While I am still against illegal DL's, our freedom from unjust action is being taken away and we are going to be considered guilty until proven innocent once again. Welkome to 21st Century Amerika..........comerade!

Bettypooh

[Diapered Jason]

The legal process causes the arrested to go to jail until assurance satisfactory to the court is made that they will show up for trial (bail or bond). This is separate from the claimed offense. You're right though, the person or office given the power will not use it fairly- they never do and never will That is the exact reason our Constitution prohibits the holding of such power by a person or small group, and why the process for use of that power has so many 'steps' where the process can be questioned But the interpretation of the Constitution is held by a small group who cannot be made to answer for their errors..... and they are political appointments!

Much like with Kevin Mitnick, when the government comes across something they fear and don't know enough about they go to excess- even illegality- and instead of learning they go paranoid nutso While the illegal DL'er bears some responsibility (same as the receiver of stolen goods) the real crime is being committed by the UL'er who put the goods out there ( the seller of stolen goods) Without the UL'ers there can be no DL'ers, and thus no crimes. Thing is, getting those UL people isn't easy, and with widespread open file sharing (like Napster), there are so many criminals they cannot deal with them without putting forth a lot of effort. And we KNOW that the Government is allergic to effort Another issue is that this is an international matter, but it isn't being dealt with that way While I am still against illegal DL's, our freedom from unjust action is being taken away and we are going to be considered guilty until proven innocent once again. Welkome to 21st Century Amerika..........comerade!

Bettypooh

Yep, I remember John Ashcroft, so I know the risks involved with giving the Attorney General more power. Still, I think we should be a little more optimistic.

[Bettypooh]

Yep, I remember John Ashcroft, so I know the risks involved with giving the Attorney General more power. Still, I think we should be a little more optimistic.

I'm neither an optimist or pessimist- I'm a realist and it stinks like to me

Bettypooh

[Diapered Jason]

I'm neither an optimist or pessimist- I'm a realist and it stinks like to me

Bettypooh

Well Bettypooh, the interpretation of reality seems to be a point of view. Declaring oneself to be a realist, especially when it comes to politics, is probably an oxymoron.

Anyways, the bill is frozen in time. It was reported by a committee in November 2010. I do not think it would pass right now as it is a Democratic bill, and Republicans will probably vote down anything the Democrats want in the House. So, there you go.

[Bettypooh]

Well Bettypooh, the interpretation of reality seems to be a point of view. Declaring oneself to be a realist, especially when it comes to politics, is probably an oxymoron.

Anyways, the bill is frozen in time. It was reported by a committee in November 2010. I do not think it would pass right now as it is a Democratic bill, and Republicans will probably vote down anything the Democrats want in the House. So, there you go.

Perhaps it will die from mustiness and old age- many comitteed or tabled bills do but the fact that the concept made it that far towards becoming law means we need to be paying attention and speaking against things we don't like Unless you stand up against wrong you might as well lay down and let them run over you

Bettypooh

[Diapered Jason]

So am I to understand that everyone here thinks the government is incapable of doing any good. That if the government decides to do something, we should stop them, because they may do it wrong or there is some hidden agenda behind it. Well, I think this bill is a good idea. The only arguments that I see against it are political scare tactics. I do not know why you cannot see that.

[Leilin]

So am I to understand that everyone here thinks the government is incapable of doing any good. That if the government decides to do something, we should stop them, because they may do it wrong or there is some hidden agenda behind it. Well, I think this bill is a good idea. The only arguments that I see against it are political scare tactics. I do not know why you cannot see that.

Um... No.

The thought that the government is incapable of doing any good is universally held by people who are incredibly ignorant of the good that the government does each and every single day. There is no situation where somebody who makes such a blanket, ignorantly anarchistic statement isn't either ignoring or purposely twisting facts to say such a thing. Period.

Here's a list of some of government's "evils" before this thread gets out of hand:

Fire departments

Roads

Public Education (Remember, just because America's is in shambles doesn't mean all public educational systems are)

National Defense (See: Public Education)

Police (See: Public Education)

Health Care (See: Every country with successful socialized medicine)

Parks

Equal Rights for people who aren't white.

Suffrage for people who aren't male.

Remember, just because one government does it wrong doesn't mean all do. The recognition of a particular wrong which is supported by a particular government branch, or even several, is not a statement that all government is evil but that this is a case where the government is doing something wrong.

[Bettypooh]

Um... No.

The thought that the government is incapable of doing any good is universally held by people who are incredibly ignorant of the good that the government does each and every single day....

....Remember, just because one government does it wrong doesn't mean all do....

This QFT It's not that they can't or won't do any good, it's that much of the things the US government does beyond the basics are IMHO unconstitutional, and therefore wrong In the words of Thomas Jefferson "The best government is the least government" and what we have now goes well beyond minimal or even moderate Our government is supposed to reflect the will of the majority and be equally fair to all. I don't see that happening here with the torrent question, or with most other things either. To get anything right requires thinking about it correctly (or luck) and I prefer the former Like my 'receiving stolen goods' analogy shows, the torrent DL'er isn't the main problem at all yet they are still (and almost only) focusing enforcement on them It is obvious that the people want torrents and they have very good "raison de etre' " So why not create a method where torrent DL'ers can simply and economically pay the artist the royalties, also giving the recording companies a small cut for their promo work? And why not make the punishment sensible, such as charging the 'receiver' with a double (or triple) royalty penalty plus court costs instead of with a $10K fine that is hundreds of times more than the 'damage' they caused? And with all the major problems we\re having in the US currently, are they doing spending time on this while the big problems aren't being addressed? I'm not so much anti-government as I am anti-stupidity

Bettypooh (who is still saving her pennies to buy the "Move Like This" CD as she listens to "Sad Song" for free on youtube, and who is still against illegal torrent DL's)

[LuvsGurl]

All I have to say is, THIS SUCKS!!!!!!! This is how I get all my tv series and movies that I miss or dont go out to see or the indie films that never get to theaters that are good.

Umm... don't break the law.

Current estimates are that some 50% of internet traffic is illegal downloads. ISPs have a vested interest in stopping it b/c it is eating up bandwidth that could be used for legal activities.

[Diapered Jason]

This QFT It's not that they can't or won't do any good, it's that much of the things the US government does beyond the basics are IMHO unconstitutional, and therefore wrong In the words of Thomas Jefferson "The best government is the least government" and what we have now goes well beyond minimal or even moderate Our government is supposed to reflect the will of the majority and be equally fair to all. I don't see that happening here with the torrent question, or with most other things either. To get anything right requires thinking about it correctly (or luck) and I prefer the former Like my 'receiving stolen goods' analogy shows, the torrent DL'er isn't the main problem at all yet they are still (and almost only) focusing enforcement on them It is obvious that the people want torrents and they have very good "raison de etre' " So why not create a method where torrent DL'ers can simply and economically pay the artist the royalties, also giving the recording companies a small cut for their promo work? And why not make the punishment sensible, such as charging the 'receiver' with a double (or triple) royalty penalty plus court costs instead of with a $10K fine that is hundreds of times more than the 'damage' they caused? And with all the major problems we\re having in the US currently, are they doing spending time on this while the big problems aren't being addressed? I'm not so much anti-government as I am anti-stupidity

Bettypooh (who is still saving her pennies to buy the "Move Like This" CD as she listens to "Sad Song" for free on youtube, and who is still against illegal torrent DL's)

What you are saying makes no sense. Thomas Jefferson was from the 18th century, so it is not always correct to apply his wisdom to the 21st century. What we found out over the course of a couple of centuries is the least amount of government is the worst kind of government, because for the most part, without the many regulations, laws, and agencies as well as the many checks and balances, you would probably be dead now. I think what you are really looking for is not a smaller government, but a smarter government. Let me tell, if you decrease the size of government, you will feel it and not in a good way.

Second thing is this bill, which I clearly said congress is not spending time on right now, is a possible solution to the problem you are postulating. It targets the people who run the sites dedicated to copyright infringement (i.e. your blacklist). It does actually reach across borders. As for paying for torrent downloads, that is even more illegal than just giving them away.

The artist, if he has the proper deal with his/her record company can post it on a website for you to download. There is not anything new about this.

I now know exactly where you stand on politics and this only reinforces my reasoning. You have fallen for the scare tactics, that what the U.S. government does is similar to Hilter's Fascist Regime. Do you even know the major group of people who advocate smaller government? Do you even know the major group of people who use these scare tactics on you to persuade you to think their way?

[LuvsGurl]

If they really want to stop illegal downloading the focus should be on lowering the prices of legitimate media to a more affordable level.

Societies can only support items at a certain price level. If the price goes beyond that level incidents of theft rise sharply. Gas prices are a great example of this. When gas went above $3/gal for the first time the rate of gasoline thefts skyrocketed.

Obviously a significant portion of our society feels that paying $20+ for a movie or album is ludicrous, so they steal it instead. If a DVD or CD were only $10 the instances of theft would decrease significantly because more people could accept that value and not spend the time to find and download an illegal copy.

[Clarkin]

Obviously a significant portion of our society feels that paying $20+ for a movie or album is ludicrous, so they steal it instead. If a DVD or CD were only $10 the instances of theft would decrease significantly because more people could accept that value and not spend the time to find and download an illegal copy.

Well let me say that I know someone who ran a CD store that sold every CD for $5.00! that is right FIVE DOLLARS! He still had people complain and bicker and demand lower prices! He even had on a daily occurrence people telling their friends to let them DL a CD for them instead of spending FIVE CHEEZE N SMURFING SMURF SMURF RICE (nice censor huh) DOLLARS! There are people that need to make a living from selling these goods. There is only so Smurfing Cheap you can sell the stuff for!

I say you deserve 1/3 less pay from your job! if you make $12.00 and hour I say you deserve $8.00 and hour! That is exactly what you are demanding of a business!

[Bettypooh]

What you are saying makes no sense. Thomas Jefferson was from the 18th century, so it is not always correct to apply his wisdom to the 21st century. What we found out over the course of a couple of centuries is the least amount of government is the worst kind of government, because for the most part, without the many regulations, laws, and agencies as well as the many checks and balances, you would probably be dead now. I think what you are really looking for is not a smaller government, but a smarter government. Let me tell, if you decrease the size of government, you will feel it and not in a good way.

Second thing is this bill, which I clearly said congress is not spending time on right now, is a possible solution to the problem you are postulating. It targets the people who run the sites dedicated to copyright infringement (i.e. your blacklist). It does actually reach across borders. As for paying for torrent downloads, that is even more illegal than just giving them away.

The artist, if he has the proper deal with his/her record company can post it on a website for you to download. There is not anything new about this.

I now know exactly where you stand on politics and this only reinforces my reasoning. You have fallen for the scare tactics, that what the U.S. government does is similar to Hilter's Fascist Regime. Do you even know the major group of people who advocate smaller government? Do you even know the major group of people who use these scare tactics on you to persuade you to think their way?

You do not know what you think you know- and when you post it, well, you look silly at best :whistling:The 'least government' Jefferson spoke of had nothing to do with the physical size of government, but was saying that the least regulation possible gave the people the most freedom and the best opportunities for improving their living condition. He was not speaking about removing services the people wanted or needed, or prohibiting the having of enough people to administer the wanted laws. That position is every bit as valid as it was 200 yeas ago, and still needs to be applied to all governments for the same reasons.

To sum up my politics I am not Republican, Democrat,Libertarian, Green, or any other established party. I do not follow even the main planks of any established party- nobody yet has it right or anywhere close I do not need to know the things you ask of me because I know that all the established parties have the same problem- they are not standing for what their constituents want; rather they are putting forth an ideology and asking you to support it. That is not representation, that is coercion, and instead of standing for something, the parties waste more effort taking stands against someone else- which is why little good comes from the elected Government I have not fallen for scare tactics, I have simply paid attention to what's going on and seen the truth of it - and promptly became nauseous And it is not yet as bad as with other regimes in history, but it is headed that way Unless harm is certain or extremely likely, in no other area of the law does the government say that being charged must shut you down before you have a trial. It is patently un-American for them to propose doing it now- it is essentially finding you guilty until proven innocent and no provision has been given to recompense those who are found innocent. Just like with wiki-leaks, the act of a government making accusations can cause great harm. If that ability to harm is not restrained they will not stop doing the harm. That 'bigger is right' attitude has been pervading the Government for a long time, and if this is allowed to become law, it will be followed by other areas of the law being treated similarly. I am not anti-government or a wacko- I just have 50+years of watching how things work and seeing what happens when you grant power to anyone in areas they didn't have before It's called human nature and it takes a huge effort to not fall for it. Most people can't even see when they're doing it; an even harder thing to overcome. You haven't got a clue of where my politics lay so stop speculating that you do. Do not put words in the mouths of others- not only is it demeaning it shows your lack of knowledge and consideration This thread is not about arguing people's politics so this will be my last post of that nature here- my position is known and it needs no further justification..

Bettypooh-

Believer in freedom, equality, and the Constitutional way

[Diapered Jason]

You do not know what you think you know- and when you post it, well, you look silly at best :whistling:The 'least government' Jefferson spoke of had nothing to do with the physical size of government, but was saying that the least regulation possible gave the people the most freedom and the best opportunities for improving their living condition. He was not speaking about removing services the people wanted or needed, or prohibiting the having of enough people to administer the wanted laws. That position is every bit as valid as it was 200 yeas ago, and still needs to be applied to all governments for the same reasons.

Was I not referring to regulations when I spoke about the size of government. I think you miss read. Anyways, somebody has to enforce the regulations, so there is a expenditure (a physical size) there regardless. We have tried deregulation and it failed big time. The problem that occurs is the system is abused in the absence of these regulations leading to situations that are very damaging to America. David Stockman, who was the head of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan Administration even said the financial deregulation that was done during Reagan's Administration was a failure. Financial regulation is just one example though. Like I said, it is not a smaller government or even a larger government you should be asking for. You should be asking for a smarter government.

Despite our differences in politics, I mean no disrespect and I realize what I said was out of hand even though I was not referring to political parties, but rather the stigma that smaller government is better, which I think has been very damaging to the economy in our recent history. Still, I apologize Bettypooh though this thread is all about regulating.