ding dong sopa dead
 

http://www.examiner.com/computers-in...use-kills-sopa

1 down 1 to go.

http://i42.tinypic.com/307m7mc.jpg

.

Just passing by ...

Poor Robbie, now he's not going to be making sales like it was 1997 again. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

He just needs to join Hands Free Adult and go relax. :upsidedow

Edit: I was going to start this thread earlier but said fuck it. Tired or everyone telling me it's sure to pass no matter what happens.

Nauli Kriya? :upsidedow

From the article linked to above:
"Reddit in particular has been influential in turning the tide against SOPA and PIPA, and is a good demonstration of how the Internet enables Democracy."

copyright infringement = democracy?

This issue has only two real sides: original content producers vs. freeloaders
(in this business, we could use "paysite owners and affiliates vs. deadbeat surfers")

Folks that generate and deliver media of value deserve to be paid

Folks that only know how to steal the work of others, oppose this.

What a load of shit. I am against piracy AND this bill.

Also, one might take notes from pirates who have improved the delivery method and user experience. People are paying for these file lockers even after choosing not to pay for your websites. If you offered a delivery method and price they found equally agreeable maybe they'd give that money to you. :thumbsup

glad to see as a "journalist" lol you maintain your objectivity and a critical mind. i'm sure a press release somewhere will be sent that you can rewrite for your "story."

No idea, stolen content.

.

If you think the only people that support killing this bill are thieves, you are a class A dipshit

:1orglaugh

you mean like the songs that are traded, that sell for 99 cents on itunes?

Or

people that understand how DNS works vs people that don't

or

people that want the government to censor the internet vs people that don't

or

people that think anyone should be able to get their competitors websites shut down in 5 days with no judicial process vs those that don't

If you *honestly* think that everyone that opposes SOPA is pro-piracy, I pity your lack of comprehension of the issues at stake here.

That's not really accurate.

Fileshare sites don't have any better "delivery method" they are just cheaper because they have zero production costs.

You can steal anything and sell it for $1 and it's still going to be profitable to you. Doesn't mean it's at any kind of sustainable price. If all the stolen content forums want to be all about protecting their "right to share information"...why go the fileshare route at all? Why don't they just give the content they have stolen away for free? Surely just hosting zips on your server with a direct download link is a better method of delivery than going through a fileshare site and waiting 60 secs for the download to start while being blasted in the face with ads. Then having to login etc.

It's a bunch of bullshit.

I do. But as a U.S.-based content producer and intellectual property rights holder, I also see the truth of it...

Show of hands: how many SOPA bashers here are copyright holders? Any? Nuff said.

I never said that "the only people that support killing this bill are thieves"

But to be certain, every thief opposes it...

I am a producer and I do not support SOPA. I don't think government should have the right to censor the internet to that degree. I do believe that anyone making money off piracy should be held accountable, though. The credit card companies, the processors, the hosts, ad networks, etc. I think that's what the law should target, not blocking DNS.

I believe that is a fair compromise that would only target illegal sites and not screw with the integrity of the internet overall for everyone else.

Well, I guess this guy has nothing to worry about now that SOPA is dead.

http://news.yahoo.com/british-studen...190210246.html

:1orglaugh

I have produced and own copyrighted material. I am against the bill that was SOPA.

File lockers are popular because they offer a better delivery method? ROFL

If you like stealing stuff or getting stuff for free, just admit it, I don't have a problem with that. It's when people try to make this into some sort of complicated argument regarding business models and free speech is when it gets silly.

Maybe I just hang around honest people in real life, but everyone I know who torrents content just says they do it because it's free. I never argue with them or even have a problem with them because at least they are being honest. If you like free stuff and there is a legal loophole to get what you want, go ahead and do it, but don't try to make it out like doing so makes you some sort of future-savvy businessman or freedom fighter who is fighting for all of our freedom in the digital age.

If you want to fight for freedom, go ahead and do it. But torrenting the latest season of Dexter because you are too poor to afford Showtime or the DVD box set doesn't make you the next MLK.

At least be honest with yourself. That's really my only issues with this whole debate, the people who fool themselves into thinking they are part of something larger in order to rationalize their own theft. There are certain things I can't afford like yachts and super cars, but if I could get them for free by stealing with no repercussion, I just might do it. But at least I would admit that I just stole them, I wouldn't weave some convoluted Robin Hood type argument to rationalize my theft.

Good post.

.

Now it's time for PIPA

I wouldn't use iTunes if the songs were free. I said a delivery method and price point that they agree with. Also, you will never get rid of all piracy but if you do things right it will not be something you are concerned about.

Look guy, I was not just saying I hate piracy for the hell of it. I don't like it and I don't take shit that doesn't belong to me. I'm sitting here editing images in that piece of shit GIMP right now because I won't go download Photoshop for free.

And yes, they have a better delivery method. They are like Steam for all types of files and either let you download the shit for waiting and getting ads in your face or they charge you a low fee to get the content without it being a pain in the ass. My point was that customers pulled out their credit card and paid for that because they agreed with the price and service. They pull out their credit cards in bulk on Steam and even buy shit they never use when the price is right.

No matter how much you fight it you are going to have to pick between doing the same shit and dealing with the lower sales you'll see as time goes on or adjusting to the new market. The only way porn sales would increase without offering something that more customers actually value enough to pay for would be for everything pirated to magically fall off of the internet. You can make 5000000 points about how it is wrong and you still won't make that happen so now what?

Also, the price point that porn surfers find agreeable might not be agreeable with you. Shit happens, things change, you won't stop that. :2 cents:

What amazes me is the lengths that people will go to just to save a few dollars. My brother's son has downloaded a ton of music illegally. In the process of doing so he got their computer so infected with spyware and viruses that it took me three hours to get it working right again. So I am talking to my brother and explaining that this could turn out bad if the boy gets caught. My brother agrees, but his son and my brother's wife are both fully convinced that since it is available to download it is free and they are not doing anything illegal.

So I block a bunch of the sites that they use to download stuff and the boy spends hours trying to find new sites to download from. I tell him about Spotify and Pandora and some other free music sites or even sites you can pay a few dollars for and get unlimited music and it was like I had asked him to spend a million dollars. He would rather spend hours trying to hunt down the songs he wants than pay a few dollars a month or even use a legit free music service. When I mentioned he could just buy them at 99cents per song it was almost like I had insulted him. It is a strange mentality.

Yeah, god forbid that any honest (i.e. not tube sucking) webmasters and/or content producers might turn a profit.

We can't let that happen now can we, right tube boy?


.

You are such a fucking idiot. You keep mentioning tube as if it means I steal shit to post on my website and you are wrong.

What's the deal with the idiots all having some baddog shop in their avatar?

The difference is that Steam pays the developers of the games. It's great fileshare sites have found this "great delivery method", however they should be paying the developers of the content out of those profits, as well. The catch is that doing so would force them to charge more where they would no longer be able to sustain that price point.

What the fileshare people are doing wrong has nothing to do with my point. The people will pay if the price point and delivery method is OK with them. Whether or not fileshare companies are stealing stuff is not something that can be fixed today so what is everyone going to do in the meantime?

I'll tell you what, the same shit they were doing last year while complaining the entire time. Does it help?

I'm surprised no whales have hired some hackers to attack and rid the world of content theives. it's not like they would have a legit standing in court.

This must be the end of the parade cuz I see the horse shit.

Look at the Louis CK case...dude did EVERYTHING the whiny freeloaders ask for. Pay the artist directly, pay via paypal, stream it, download it, cheap as fuck price, Louis CK profited very little himself, no geo blocking. For over a month now 1000s of freeloader fucks have been seeding the torrent non-stop. Go look at the comments on TorrentFreak "love Louis CK and his standup is great, but free is better, torrented it"..."dude is rich and makes enough money as it is, fuck him"

Simple fact is entire empires are being built by using others works without their consent. You can throw all the benchmarks up you want content creators to hit and there will still be entire criminal networks out there trying to make themselves millions and pay no production costs and give nothing back to the content creators. This is what these laws are meant to do, give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these criminals. No one is going to use SOPA to deprive you of cute kitten videos on YouTube, despite what the freeloaders and piracy enablers want to scare you with. No matter how you slice it if pirates see you making $1000 off your content they would rather they be making $1000 off your content.

That is reality man.

What is your definition of very little? He made a ton of money, gave a bunch to charity and still owns the rights to his content so he can put out DVD's etc.

As for the rest, DMCA's are abused and SOPA would be too. How about fix one piece of shit before piling on more?

By the way, I said SOPA is a piece of shit that should not pass and I do not think it will. I personally do not reall care if it passes or not, I am not lobbying Congress and aside from GFY I don't even talk about it.

I do think people are spending enough time and energy on hoping this goes through that they could have tried something new and figured out where it might take them instead.

I think his point is that yes file lockers can provide a service that offers a delivery method that the customers want at a price they are willing to pay, but if they were forced to actually pay for the content that they distribute then they would have to raise the price and it likely would no longer be a price people are willing to pay

Yes, going after the money is what would curb piracy. But thats not what Hollywood wants.

Whole point of SOPA was to turn the internet into a watered down, boring, monopolistic, cable tv model. Along with cutting off the free flow of information and silencing speech. Not sure why the smaller companies thought they would benefit from a bill like this.

However, The Open Act bill, would stop the flow of money to the pirates, while still keeping the internet open and allowing everyone to compete. But if Hollywood ends up rejecting this bill, or any other future bills that would deal specifically with cutting off the money to pirates (the whole point of piracy=money), then thats when u know Hollywood is full of shit and nothing but a buncha control freaks, bent on turning the internet into crap, so long as they own it...

well that a bald face lie, i pay for showcase and download dexter from the torrents

Instead of recording the show on a 24.95 month pvr and waiting until the season is over

i simply torrent the season after the last episode has aired.

DMCA's are abused, there are penalties for doing so. Speeding laws are abused, there are penalties for doing so. Children are abused, there are penalties for doing so. Writing bad checks is abused, there are penalties for doing so. However, speeding laws don't penalize you for hit and run, thus we have hit and run laws. This is about the 100th thread I think you've tried to hype this DMCAs are abused thing and I'm just going to keep having to point out how there are penalties for doing so, maybe eventually you'll absorb that info. *hope*

DMCA (which is now a pretty old law in tech time) worked ok on some aspects not others. You should read about how the tech firms fought and lobbied hard against neutering parts of the proposed law that if they were in place now would lessen the need for SOPA. But I digress. In many ways SOPA is a fix of the DMCA law. And before you jump on some DNS-blocking rant, I'll say again, I don't think that part is good or even needed. If you want me to tell you the areas that DMCA doesn't cover that need fixing, I will. First of all, overseas criminal commercial copyright infringement rings don't care about DMCA takedown notices. Secondly, payment processors have been mostly excluded from liability (or even action) in DMCA law. Thirdly, advertising networks have been left out from DMCA laws. Fourth, the whole idea of streaming wasn't really around when the DMCA law was written, broadband wasn't even really around then so the idea of illegally streaming UFC 141 to millions of people wasn't considered in DMCA law. Fifth, no one could have imagined what broadband + the safe harbor of user generated content would create where a site can simply play dumb. In fact, one of the problems with the DMCA law is that sites are encouraged to play dumb even when they know something is infringing or risk losing safe harbor, something that Fabian has brought up many times when it comes to sites like Pornhub. That's a problem with the law.

Nearly all of these are attempting to be addressed by the current SOPA or PIPA or OPEN bills. They aren't re-writing the parts of the DMCA that work because there's no need to. Pirates (criminals - I'm not talking about cheap downloaders and neither are these bills) adapted to the DMCA law and found/made loopholes that enabled their criminal ways to continue. Thus you have to update the laws. No doubt they'll adapt again (the market for Ukranian ad networks will surely explode), and a few years from now we'll be discussing this again. No one with an ounce of pragmatism says "this will be the end to piracy", piracy will always be there, but having the tools to prosecute the worst offenders and disrupt their businesses will not only move some of them to other lines of 'work' but it will affect the availability to your average joe. Not a perfect bill to be sure, but then again, what is?

Im afraid is a culture thing specially amongst the younger generation I had the exact same thing with my two kids, All thier freinds at school used to do it so they just followed, but what did suprise me was just how much they knew to get the rips. Now they are both adults they have both stopped doing it and my daughter now pays for music from Itunes, but like i said in my other post it wouldent suprise me if my son and all of his mates are now doing the same thing with porn. Its going to be very hard to change society about the way they think its thier right to take what they want from the internet whithout paying for it.

I don't care to read about all this, but I am going to assume it was a bill that was to stop piracy, but in the end gave to much power and overstepped boundries.

I say that, becasue Craigslist has something about it,

http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA

Freetards and pirates are screamy as fuck.

With a file locker you pay a monthly fee to unlock probably billions worth of content. That's not delivery, that's charging at the door to get in the secret shop in Chinatown selling stolen and bootlegged stuff.

That's the same as saying stores need to change because Chinatown folks do it better.

It's still theft.

Maybe if content owners weren't being robbed blind they'd have money to change things.

The first sentence of my post was in response to you, the rest of it wasn't. I have no idea whether you steal content or not so I wasn't accusing you of that.

But you are missing simple business fundamentals when you argue this topic. For example, saying that it's all about the delivery method and then comparing a file locker to Steam. That's just naive, a file locker has no production costs, the original production company of the content featured on a file locker could not sustain itself copying that business model. Are you suggesting one company produce porn, Hollywood movies, Billboard pop music, popular software, then offer it all on their very own file locker?

That's essentially what you are saying, that one giant media company should produce all of the most popular music, movies, and software then sell it for an all-you-can-eat price on their own legitimate file locker.

Can you not see how silly that sounds?

You and I have had this discussion before and it's nothing personal. But to say that file lockers point to some new business model is just crazy and misses the most fundamental aspects of what a business model needs to succeed.

People steal Mach 5 razors from Wal-Mart and sell them for cheap and I'm sure the customers of those stolen razors love it. But it's not a business model that someone could use or a way to point out a flaw in Gillete or Wal-Mart's business model.

:thumbsup

want to name one person who as been charged with perjury for filing a bogus dmca takedown

an unenforced penalty is not really a penalty

I don't know if you personally steal content or not. You say you don't and I'll take your word for it.

I do know that you defend and do business with tubes that do however.

And that's what defines you as a tube boy to those of us who don't.


For someone with a 2003 join date you are indeed strikingly bereft of all manner of clues.
.

I wish I could name one day of the week that you didn't post your asinine drivel on this board.




.

Gideon, I have you on ignore but in quotes I can see your inane drivel. The penalties for filing a bogus DMCA claim are not just a charge of perjury, since this happens between individuals the penalties are usually civil matters resulting in losing your case ,since there's often a counter notice in place necessitating a court proceeding, to being found liable for monetary damages. You should be on here trolling for the undoing of tax laws since they also require you to swear under penalty of perjury when filing tax returns.

http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of...kedown-request

Furthermore part of the DMCA wording for takedown notices is "I have a good faith belief that" blah blah blah...so there is a distinction between bogus and innocent mistakes. Making a mistake on a DMCA or your tax return is not perjury just because you made a mistake, you have to have specific knowledge contrary to your action.

But you should ask the EFF and the Ukrainian pirates to take it easy sticking their hand up your ass to make you talk.

Sniper Sopa

Amen to that.

All the cocks in these threads who blather on about freedom, democracy, censorship and wishy washy notions about internet hippy ideals are the biggest bunch of fakes.

They just like getting stuff for free.

You Sir get the benefit of my sig....

I don't buy into the whole "government censorship" aspect of it. You use material that is not yours or you don't have permission to use, your site is blocked. Period. Licensing deals/contracts were created for this very reason. In the real world, if you walk into a store and steal something that is not yours, you go to jail, or at the very least are arrested and have to pay a fine. You are not eve allowed to borrow it and display it for a while unless you have permission to do so. Don't see a big difference. In fact, the real world is worse, and we don't see people up in arms about shoplifting charges and how they are censoring their shopping experience by now allowing them to shoplift.

And the "false claims" argument is simply laughable. Guess what happens if you file a false police report? Yea, you get into trouble. Same thing applies here.

The problem is easy to solve. Don't load anything onto your site that you don't own or don't have permission to use. Sure, it may create some extra paperwork and some companies may need to hire more people to deal with it all, but so what? So what if Google, Facebook or Youtube has problems. The best part about Youtube is the real user submitted material anyway. Adapt or die, and I don't care which one you choose. Of course, this simple concept doesn't jive with leeches who make a living off other people's property, but that is to be expected.