Rationalizations seen in this thread by pirates are like lipstick on a pig.

Mass distribution of copyrighted content without owner's permission is piracy. Period.

QFT.

/thread

:2 cents:

I wonder what shade of lipstick that gideongallery and damianj are wearing today. :1orglaugh

really

ask george bush if he gave micheal moore permission to use his speeches in his distributed to millions documentary

ask charlton heston if he gave micheal moore permission to use his speeches in his distributed to millions of people documentary




copyright act has always allowed "mass distribution" for fair use purposes

the only requirement is that it meet the four conditions of fair use

BTW stupid statements like it always piracy is exactly the reason why we need to take away copyright monopoly from idiots who don't know the difference between fair use and infringement

because if you let them keep their copyright they will violate free speech/ and destroy innovation.

I am all for "fair use" as a recognized exception.....stare decisis, bro.

Mass distribution of works that fall outside of fair use is piracy and should be punished.

yes so do we all, but then you do NOT want this bill to become law :)

So which side are you on?

Here is the preamble and sections of the Bill. It is enough to make thieving fucker pirates shit their bitches. Watch them howl and squirm.......:thumbsup


Sections 104 looks like "deer season" will open on pirates sites.:1orglaugh

Worth a read.....Link to Bill

Robbie if you want to accuse me of a crime, wipe the coke off your nose, and accuse me of a crime. Insinuating stuff is so weak. So lame. Didn't think you were a coward, tough man?

You need to learn that being in opposition of stupid, unworkable, offensive laws that will cripple the internet, is not the same thing as being a pirate.

I don't like race crime, doesn't make me black.

Think this stuff through man.

It'll work for porn too because they'll bring down sites like thepiratebay and filesonic that steal from both mainstream and adult. It'll work for porn because it'll reduce overall piracy numbers, meaning less posters, less sites to upload stolen shit too, less services that live off of providing piracy sites with something and less of many other opportunities for pirates overall. That will make them weaker and easier to take on by us too. It'll also provide with new guidelines and court precedents for UGC sites that can be enforced by adult industry attorneys upon porn piracy sites too.

Damian is right that piracy in the form of Joe Smith sharing his music with his friends won't ever be stopped and maybe it should never have been.


The problem is that whole businesses have been built on creative product that was not created or paid for.

Google being one of the main culprits. So we have two strong lobbyists, the old entertainment industries and the new INTERNET companies. The Hollywood companies want to enforce a privatized INTERNET, where everything is paid for at point of use. Like Murdoch's newspapers and pay sites.

If it is not possible to get paid at the point of use, when the product is downloaded and viewed, then the only other way of funding the producers will be to make all users of the INTERNET pay to use the INTERNET, which will then be distributed to the creators.

Or creative people are paid to produce by the State and it is accessed by all, this may sound Utopian but it is how the BBC works and they have no problem with the INTERNET or funding.

so you bald face lied when you said mass distribution is piracy period

you really meant to say mass distribution not covered by fair use is piracy

well that exactly what i have been saying from the beginning



agreed

all i am saying is if you don't apply a penalty when a scum sucking copyright holder misrepresents fair use as infringement and abuses the laws to take out free speech or hurt innovation.

making those scum bags and only those scum bags give up their copyright forever (and therefore their ability to abuse the law again) is totally fair.

so explain if you are perfectly willing to respect fair use, why do you want to protect the scum bag copyright holders who are going to deliberately abuse the law to destroy free speech, and innovation.

remember you completely blunt all of the objections to the bill by having such a clause

if someone says in can be abused to .....

yes but only once, after that copyright holder will lose all copyrights and never be able to do it again.

Every other copyright holder will know the penalty and be very very careful to never abuse free speech.

neither i want balance

i want the penalty for stomping on fair use to be equally great as the penalty for TRUE infringement.

if you want laws so strong that they could be abused to kill innovation, and fair use
because you need them to protect your legitimate business interests

then they should totally wipe out the scum bag copyright holders who try and abuse them to destroy legitimate competition.

as i said before

the only people who object to such a balance are those people who know they are going to abuse the laws to kill competition and innovation.

If they truly believe the "fucked up" interpretation of fair use are not valid, then they shouldn't have a problem with rolling the dice because they know the courts would never accept them.

In event of a disagreement which will occur, the accepted way of dealing with the issue is through the courts. Stare decisis protects both the "fair use" user and the copyright holder.

Your argument is conjectural since it has not happened. Again, fair use is protected speech.

I don't see how preventing piracy of other peoples' property destroys free speech and innovation. The pirate shares, steals or buys a little existing software code, steals all the content and creates nothing. This is not "innovation" or "free speech".

The content producers are the creators and innovators. If the content producers and intellectual property owners, i.e. "scum bag copyright holders", want to give away the content they own for free, so be it. The IP is theirs to do with as they please.

No free speech issue here that has not already been addressed by the courts and pirates are certainly not innovative.:2 cents:

Sadly, the new bill totally bypasses the courts. This is one issue with it.

Oh, I thought you'd read it? I'll break it down for you, then link to a video that explains it so you don't have to read a thing.

Basically, there is this whole fair use thing in the US. So copyrighted work can be used for parody, for commentary etc. This act kills that totally.

In stifles innovation because start ups will not be able to comply. Can you see Tumblr launching if they had to police every single microblog on their system? Can you see Twitter launching if every link on every tweet had to be policed. How about sound cloud, they'd have to check every track for samples!

We're not talking about Facebook suddenly having to OK every status, pic, post, etc and then Facebook being fucked. They are rich, you say, they can afford it. Yes, probably they could. It's the STARTUPS, the innovators, not the Zucks of the world this bill will cripple.

Hope that helps you understand.

Oh, and it won't stop piracy.

Wow. So many idiots in this thread. Unbelievable.

If you view yourself as an artist, you should really consider yourself very lucky to be able make a living by selling your art. Artists, by and large, do not make much money. That is a fact. Same goes for writers. Any idea how much a staff writer at Vanity Fair makes per year ? Not much at all.

Many of you quite clearly live in a bubble and are not aware these facts, but people with advanced fine arts degrees from Ivy League schools have to fight tooth and nail to get low paying jobs at decent NYC galleries. Columbia journalism grads have to do the same to get low paying jobs as fact checkers for decent magazines and newspapers.

And the money doesn't get much better 10-20 years into their careers either. Any idea why that is? Because everyone wants to work at fucking Vanity Fair but there are only so many positions available, so Vanity Fair pays the least amount that they possibly can without having to compromise on their requisite qualifications.

If you can make even a halfway decent living shooting adult content, you're lucky. A lot of people out there would kill to be in your shoes. Especially if you were able to do so while the market was hot. So stop acting like a bunch of spoiled little cunts. Seriously.

However, if you don't view your content as being 'art', and are in it just for the money, then it's just a job. In that case, do what people in all other industries do when they don't like their salary. Find another fucking job. It's really that simple. If you don't know how to do anything else, you only have yourself to blame, so just fucking deal with it.

Piracy is not going to stop. I mean, it's laughable to think that there will be a day when it just stops. What will happen? Will RYC Eric's RYC bedsheets and RYC cape be displayed in the Smithsonian as RYC Eric readjusts to a life of being Just Eric? Will RedRob bow to kiss the feet of a Diane Duke statue while walking through a Chatsworth park every morning on the way to his $500K salary job? A job he has despite the fact that he's a complete and utter fucking idiot? Is that the end game? As ridiculous as all that sounds, I promise that it's no less a fantasy than whatever it is you clowns are anticipating.

Anyway, I realize this is way above most of your simple little heads, but just felt like procrastinating for a few minutes. Carry on, cunts!

Two more things.

1. RedRob - Who's you're ad rep at the chronicle ? I worked there for a semester in I think 1997 and still occasionally keep in touch with AP (formerly AS) and JC.

2. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT LIKE PORN. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO WAIT FOR THEM TO SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT THE INDUSTRY IS CURRENTLY FACING. IF YOU GIVE THEM POWER, THEY WILL USE IT, AND THERE WILL BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

This is the real point. It's so amusing to me that people who make pornography want the government to have to power to simply remove sites at will with no due process.

DamianJ:
So, if I understand right, you are suggesting that any business model that is underfunded and cannot comply with our laws and regulations should be allowed to startup and do damage to our society in the name of "innovation".

Would you apply this same reasoning to drug companies, food processors and construction companies? What are you going to do when you are poisoned and your condo building collapses.....

In construction, does replacing rebar with recycled plastics justify the results because they were "innovators"?

Personally, I think the same situation applies here.:2 cents:

I don't find the augments against the bill that convincing.

A site that makes nothing original but just enables the downloading of material it does make or own can not be defended. They are just thieves. I don't see the problem in Joe Blogs not being able to access it.

I find a lot more worrying events happening, people being sent to prison for writing on facebook, VOD sites being registered and censored. etc

If you have music in your videos you should pay for it. If "youtube" wants to host everyones videos, let them pay for any copyright it infringes. If it is not profitable shut it down, I don't see it a great cultural loss.

The idea that the Internet is challenging and changing governments is overstated. In fact the way Libya was turned to the Wests advantage shows the opposite, that the Internet is no replacement for real political activists in real parties.

I think that piracy is not something that can be ignored, it has destroyed the music industry and threatens the creative industries. As they are now.

I don't see Google or Hollywood as good guys, but we need to put in place some way that the people who actually creative news, writing, music, pictures and movies get paid.

The big bad bogeyman is coming to get us all.

Let's all go and hide and cry.

How the fuck did Freedom of Speech along with porn exist before the knights of the Internet came to fight for us? LOL

No, not at all. I am saying this proposed law will stifle the ability of startups to create things like soundcloud, twitter, 4 square, wordpress, forums, etc. Try and quote what I say and make a counterpoint rather than wasting your time arguing against things no one said.

Where is anyone suggesting otherwise?

Again, who is suggesting otherwise?

That's like suing a gun manufacturer for someone being shot. And although it might not be to your taste, youtube is giving voices to millions of people.

No it isn't.

Destroyed?

Worldwide Music Industry Revenues (2006 - 2011)
2006 ($60.7 billion), 2007 ($61.5 billion), 2008 ($62.6 billion), 2009 ($65.0 billion), 2010 ($66.4 billion), 2011 ($67.6 billion)
http://www.grabstats.com/statmain.asp?StatID=67

And rather than threaten creative industries, it suddenly gives Joe in his bedroom an potential audience of millions and millions of people to sell his product to. You really cannot possibly argue the internet is bad for creative people.

Again, where is anyone suggesting otherwise.

Take a point and make a counterpoint. Don't just put up straw men. It's meaningless.

Because we didn't let the MPAA and RIAA have the power to remove any media that they wanted to. LOL.

So, are you suggesting that internet startups are somehow different than the rest of society and are deserving of special treatment so they can create new social media without consequences no matter what damage they cause to others?

If startups are underfunded and can't be good law abiding citizens, then I think the idea should be aborted during the initial background research and feasibility studies.

Just my opinion.:pimp

If anything, this post just shows how little you know about art and artists.

Bottom line is, if you've created something and would like to sell it as a product, you should be able to do that without it being pilfered by anyone with an internet connections and low ethics/moral standards. If you've never created anything before, then you probably wouldn't give a fuck.

If someone enjoys an artists, movies, TV show, comic book, etc -- then they should be more than happy to support the artist -- so they can continue to make that art. I guess someone else will always pay for the freeloaders, right?

A Tshirt with a cool design is art, but since its not digital it has to be purchased as physical goods. I'm sure if people could download sneakers and tshirts, they do that also as long as consequences are non-existent.

No once again, quote what I say, make a counterpoint. Your straw men are pointless and make it look like you have no actual argument. I am sure you do. I am sure you can make a counterpoint. Go on. Take something I actually said, and say why that is bad. Off you go. Try this time.

3/10 for effort.

Who is saying otherwise?

Fuck, you guys in favour of this bill you don't understand really need to try and actually make some kind of point rather than discussing things no one is saying.

DamianJ; Where is anyone suggesting otherwise?

In the video you posted. The idea to ban Domains is attacked without saying what should happen to sites whose sole function is hosting stolen material.

DamianJ;Again, who is suggesting otherwise?


Again the Video you posted which give the extreme example of music playing in the background being challenged.

Damian That's like suing a gun manufacturer for someone being shot. And although it might not be to your taste, youtube is giving voices to millions of people.

Well as guns function is killing people in most countries they are very tightly controlled. Are you free to make guns? Try making explosives in your house..tell me how that goes.

To help I think the example would be should car manufacturers be blamed for bank robbers' get away cars?

The answer of course is no. But the situation here is like a car manufacturer making and selling the car for the sole purpose of robbing banks.


DamianJ;No it isn't.

I hope you are right and the Internet will change the world for the better, I don't see the evidence.

DamianJ;Destroyed? (music ind)

talking to technicians that work in music studios


DamianJ;And rather than threaten creative industries, it suddenly gives Joe in his bedroom an potential audience of millions and millions of people to sell his product to. You really cannot possibly argue the internet is bad for creative people.


This is a illusion, most people on the internet visit very few sites. There was an article in the New Scientist about making a "viral video" . they said it was near impossible with 20 hours of video being uploaded every minute. You are just swamped must video just lost in the enormous amount of video online.

In the UK media wages are falling, there are thousands of media graduates unemployed, and people prepared to work for nothing. Hundreds try and make that book, song, movie but the reality is without massive backing 99.9% are doomed to failure. Newer have so many UK independent feature films been made to be watched by nobody.

k - I'll make a point

I will continue to produce my own content and be able to actually sell it

I will not run afoul of this law as I will use only my words, my images, my video, and my designs

I will be able to launch my site with some assurance that the thieves will get their cumuppance when they do steal it and give it away so they can make ad-revenue

my site will be safe from removal under this law


win win win from my perspective

and everyone ran around shouting "adapt or die" when the whole 'piracy-give-it-away-for-free' thing really took off

so I say to everyone who denounces this law (if it should come to pass) "adapt-or-die" :1orglaugh

right in a law that not only bypass the court systems
but also establish complete immunity base on the BELIEF your content was infringing.

you quoted the passage that eliminates people being able to counter sue you for all the damages done.

that the stupidest statement i have ever heard you can't complain about because it has never happened yet

by that definition you should have no right to complain about adding a close that takes away the copyright of any fair use stomping scum bag copyright holder because it hasn't happened yet

so why are you arguing against adding such a clause.


idiot again
prevent piracy doesn't destroy free speech

abusing the laws to take down fair use by pretending it piracy hurts free speech

the penalty i am talking about clearly separates the two

those that abuse lose
those who do not can prevent piracy to their hearts content

again why are you trying to defend the right to abuse the law


Again the only people who would ever fear this penalty are the scum bags who would try and use copyright laws to censor free speech

to abuse copyright laws to take out legit competition

say for example tv shows trying to take down porn parodies of their shows
or
celibrity like SJ using copyright law to take down her nude pictures

or competing tube sites making bogus complaints against their competitors to take them down.

or record companies trying to kill independent stars doing fair use covers of "Their" artist songs.

again why are you defending them.

really not one single element of the story you tell with your scenes has ever been done by a copyright holder before you.

So they didn't SAY it, they just didn't NOT say it?

Fuck come one, you're brighter than this.


Any gun fan will tell you it's purpose is to stop you being killed. You cannot blame the maker of something for a crime that someone commits with that something. Full stop.



So did they tell you the 67 billion I quoted was a lie? Find some citations.


Ah, so because it is hard that means the internet is useless?

As was always the case. People always worked for nothing as runners to get in. Nowadays though, people are empowered to do it themselves with a fucking iPhone. And you think that is bad somehow? I am not sure I get your point. I say the internet is amazing because it has allowed creatives the chance to put there work out there. You think this is bad because...

I'm not talking about t-shirts, son. I'm talking about fine arts and literature. But if you want to talk about t-shirts, I can talk about t-shirts. Check this out.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...-dispute_N.htm

The NFL ended up dropping the suit in this particular case, which I think was the right decision, but having more laws and having more restrictions will likely create a regulatory environment which encourages similar type lawsuits. Doing so discourages entrepreneurial types such as the guy who made those Who Dat shirts.

Everyone has a right to sell whatever it is that they create, but we're not talking about having content stolen off a hard drive without the producer/photographer having ever seen a dime, were talking about something that has already been sold which therefore indicates that the producer/photographer has made at least some money. Given the current environment, there is really no choice but to factor in the likelihood that it will be duplicated and redistributed without profit, so you have to just make sure you get as much as humanly possible before it leaves your hands. You do have the right to not sell your work, so if you're doing it for the love of the craft and feel as if the end product is more valuable than what the market will bear, don't sell it. Painters and writers have been doing that for years.

It really is a shame that things have to be the way they are but giving the government more power is not the answer. Oh, and in calling me out by saying how little I know about this and that or whatever, blah blah blah, all you are doing is displaying your ability and willingness to speak with authority about something that which you know nothing about.

I admit the bill is overkill, but something needs to be done, Half of it is great, half really sucks. if this is what it takes to stop most piracy, then so be it.

I have seen many of my vids on the net with other peoples watermarks... seriously? and not much anything i can do but have them removed... so what happens to the pirates? what stops them from adding them again? Nothing! Anyone that has a site allowing user uploads should be responsible for them, and all torrent/filesharing sites should be shut down.

The problem is that creatives are very rarely creative on their own. Maybe painters can work on their own.

To make a successful record took not only the band but a recording engineer, other musicians, etc,

To make a film is whole crew of experienced technicians is needed, as well as a large budget. People produce much better when they work in groups. The idea that the internet gives all the chance of fame and fortune is an illusion, like anyone can make it, or anyone can win the lottery.

People who manufacture guns have a responsibility for what their guns can be used for. The only purpose of a machine gun is mass killing. Arms traders have caused genocide in trading guns.

Dow chemicals created Napalm and Agent Orange, they bear responsibility in the chain that makes up a War crime.

If an internet hosting company makes it easy to steal content and make money of it they also bear responsibility.

In the first few years of the Internet a lot of people were very successful because they were the first, it is clear to see that big players and governments are moving in big time. A time to leave the myths behind.

yeah it not like the tools available couldn't allow people to collaborate even thought they have never met



or get funding for their projects from the community/crowd

http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/...ed?ref=sidebar


it is 100 x easier to make a living using the internet then the old way championed by the old school clueless copyright holders.

Does everyone believe we will always have this much freedom on the internet and they will never eventually put some laws into place that ruin it? I don't. I'm sure they will get something slick passed somewhere down the line that will make the internet a lot less 'fun'. The 'net is still in it's infancy after all..

As long as we have to rely on ISPs to connect to each other there's always a chance that what we transfer can be filtered or regulated.

Um, not true at all. Look at the 'stars' youtube has made. ALL are on their own.

http://www.bkserv.net/YTS/YTTop100.aspx?p=1

Mystery Guitar Man is the musician, the engineer, the video editor and the promoter. And he is awesome.

Used to be like that. Now you can get Logic or ProTools on a very cheap machine and make a record as good as anyone.

Now you can go on kickstarter and get your own film funded and made. As Alex Albrecht just did.

Citation needed. SOME People work better in groups. Anyway, the internet has allowed intercontinental collaboration in ways that were unimaginable.

Once again, Maxim, where is anyone suggesting that?

Cool. So therefore those companies need to go to prison when someone is shot, not the person doing the shooting. That is what this bill is saying.

Money controls everything. Right now even though piracy is rampant the big media companies are still doing pretty well. They might not be doing as well as they once were, but they are alive and prospering. If the day ever comes that this is no longer the case I think we will see some pretty heavy handed laws.

I think those laws will eventually come in the form of forcing ISP's to block sites from users and/or removing users who constantly illegally download.

There is no way to fully stop piracy, but if they block a torrent site from all users, the site moves, then they block that one, then it moves again and they block that one eventually it will get to the point where the torrent site likely will give up. Regardless of how many torrent/pirate sites like to make themselves out as some kind free speech/free information advocates, they are really in it for the money so when you take that away from from them will go away.

So in short, yes, I think we could see day where the freedom on the internet is greatly reduced. I could also see a day where copyright laws are rewritten to remove loopholes that pirates use to get around them. If you keep taking the dragon's gold, eventually he will breathe fire on you.