I hope it passes, I'm sick of seeing my girls' content all over pirate sites and tubes

Benjamin Franklin

again this is why i say we should put an amendment in this bill that voids the copyright privileges of any copyright holder who abuses these new rights to take down authorized activities (fair use/ non infringing activities/authorized activities).

the only people who have a problem with this are those that know that they will use it to destroy freedoms (either on purpose or "accidentally") and as a founding father once said

those people deserve to be punish for they tyranny.

Robinson Crusoe did all his work alone

http://niclikesausten.files.wordpres...son_crusoe.jpg

Thats what clothes look like made by a person on his own.


But most people live in societies, and work in groups. A TV series like "The Wire" involves a hundred or more highly trained and experienced artists and technicians.

New technology has made it possible to record music at home, make films etc...has this led to a flood of great works?

Has the new technology produced some interesting new work? yes say "Monsters" but although made very cheaply and small crew, made by people trained in the film industry, and still costing tens of thousands of dollars.

In my world both arms dealers and the people that use to guns go to prison.

PS please don't use my real name, thanks.

Really getting lost about what this has to do with internet piracy?

Yes. Possibly not to your taste, but millions and millions of people disagree with you.

Sadly, this new law, if you read it, is about closing down the arms dealers because someone at the MPAA says so. This is why I think it is bad. I am astounded you of all people are in favour of the censoring the internet.

Sorry, as it is on your whois, and everyone knows your name, I didn't think you were still trying to get people to think you're a woman. My bad.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the bill.

Please finish this sentence:

"I think letting hollywood censor the internet with no due process is good because..."

If it were applied it wold mean a lot of those advocating nothing should be done, would have to buy instead of get it for free. some wouldn't be able to make a living pirating.

If that rule would of been applied to online porn. This would be an very lonely place? Most of them are still working from their living rooms, bedrooms or the basement of their Mum's house.

This law or one like it will pass. Live with it or go get another job. The last people who will have any say in the matter are the people in online porn.

http://www.mrgreg.org/images/misc/old_man_cloud.jpg

My excuse is being old. Their's is ?????????????????????????????

Scared they might lose an income source is the only one I can think of.

Most copyright holders don't give a fuck about your freedoms. They want your money and they want it in any way they can get it. Those with the money make the rules and so long as that is the case there will never be an amendment like you want. You are living in dream land. No company is going to put themselves at risk like that. They don't see it a tyranny, they see it as protecting their product.

When people start to research the possibility of developing a new product. They have to calculate it's sales and profit potential.

If that sales and profit potential is reduced by copyright violation. They are hindered and spend less. Everything GG is using to type his babble on this board went through this process. If the piracy had a bad effect on R & D. He wouldn't have a computer which can do what it does, wouldn't have programs that let him do what he does.

Copyright is good. It means a drugs company can spend millions on R & D for a drug, same with computers, cars, airplanes and even biscuits in the supermarket.

Imagine a world where GG gets his way and there's no such thing as copyright. Or is he saying it's only for online?

So if I have the formula for a new cancer drug that cost 10s of millions to R & D. I can share it on the Internet?

No the pirated philosophy is simple. Others can pay so I can get it for free. The last thing he wants is to have what he campaigns for. It would mean much fewer would bother to produce new things.

And I think you got the Ben Franklin quote wrong.

He said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

He also said a variation of that: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Somehow I don't think he was talking about your freedom to see torrent sites as a "cloud backup system" for your content.

If Gideon got his way there would be no TV shows, movies or much in the way of music/radio.

Gideon would have it so that if Sony decided to sue people who were illegally downloading their content and they filed 10,000 lawsuits and 9,999 of them were correct and ended up with them winning in court or settling out of court, but one of them happened to be where someone innocent was accidentally charged then Sony has to give up all of their copyrights. So all of their movies, music and TV shows now become public domain and their source of income is gone.

So what would happen is that companies would simply not do anything about piracy. They would be forced to just let it happen for fear that they might accidentally charge the wrong person and lose everything they have. When there is absolutely no deterrent and everyone knows they can't come after you piracy would explode to the point where many companies would simply either stop making content or they would make it so cheap and so low budget that it sucked, but they would be forced to to do so because the window of actually making money on it would be very small.

As we actually know each other, you know that the reason I don't use my real name.

I wonder why you have to be a dick about it.

I saw on one of my friends computers that she had 23 gig of MP3 music from the 60s onwards.. all made in professional studios. None made in people's bedrooms... she was not one of your millions.. all obtained from the Internet making Internet companies richer and the music industry poorer.

The internet is censored, they just sent people to jail for what they wrote on facebook.

Do I think the Internet should be a place without laws ? No.

So it follows that the laws should be enforced and sites that break the law taken down.

seriously what exactly about the statement

those who trade in my freedom for their protection deserve to be punished for their tyranny

don't you get.

Every tyrant believes they are not a tyrant
the definition is not mine it the definition of a founding father of your country

slave owners had the money too yet slavery was abolished.
America was founded by revolting against those with the money.

the fact that you admitted there is a risk proves that the you see the law being abused to destroy the freedoms the founding fathers held to be inalienable.

we live in a world where public statements like yours live forever on the internet.

Ask yourself a question do you think you would ever get elected to office if i could put your current quote in a campaign ad against you.


with the tag line "selling out your freedoms to the highest bidder" at the end.

if you think any politician is going to commit political suicide defending that position your dead wrong.

That exactly why every previous bill died or got chopped to hell before it gets passed.

how many of those songs were really just recoveries of previously paid for music

how many of those mp3 were paid for in the past
bought on tape cassette, cd, or recorded off the radio

considering the fact that most of those songs would be discovered on radio and mtv i would bet it almost 100% if not 100%.

How else would they know what songs to download if they didn't hear it from a paid for source.

once it paid for, then recovering it is just fair use.



except we are not talking about an existing law we are talking about creating new law which as both kane and red have both shown is known to destroy freedoms the founding father defined as important.

And before any one advocates it's the "big bosses" protecting what's theirs. Or any similar BS. Think deeper.

One examples apples to many 100s.

Bill Gates amassed a fortune. I read just a moment ago it was $42000000000.000. $42 billion for those who can't count the zeros.

Let's assume for every 2 cents he added to his wealth 98 were spent on Microsoft products. So take $42 billion and multiply it be 49. That's the money that Microsoft generated. Money that employed board members, who owned houses that had to be built, cars that had to be made and toilets that were cleaned by staff.

Microsoft employs 1,000s of people that spend money in their community. Even the guy who cleans the toilets in Microsoft's offices earns money and spend it locally. Even shops selling the Microsoft products employ people, who earn money from sales and spend it again in other shops.

These are huge businesses, some of the few left in the West, and harming them will have huge harmful repercussions.

So as those who think this is a bad law tap away from home. They need to think who they work for, who puts food on their table. The pirates or the big bosses.

Hard concept for those who are one man bands, scraping a living. When you used to employ 8 people. It gets easier to comprehend.

To bring down the laws on copyright would be the most disastrous thing ever. It would mean a guy working out of his flat in Brighton or Moscow, could take someone else's hard work and make money on it. A lot less money than it would of generated and though he will get a return others will get fired.

No system has ever flourished by getting rid of big business and the big bosses. most of the time it ended up with everyone being poorer.

if that your arguement then you are screwed because for every dollar made by the copyright monopoly 7 is made by fair use industries.

fair use industries produce and utilize hard goods like servers, copiers, pvr which require pyysical transportation.

They have much lower profit margins and spend more of their selling price on hiring people therefore have a greater multiplication effect.

if anything if that an arguement for screwing over the copyright monopoly in favor of the business that would make money producing real items.

WRONG on every count.

She is Polish, she had been given it by a friend and didn't know the music. I had been ripped off CDs and copied many many times.

If you buy one Blu Ray that does not mean you have the right to suply the world's pop.

I do not want to defend the present copyright laws, they are very unfair for other reasons.

But theft is not a solution.

Who is suggesting it is?

Let's try again.

"I think giving the power to remove sites from the internet to Hollywood is a good idea because..."

Who said otherwise?

Yes. But this law is bad, ill-thought out, untenable and shit for the many and varied reasons I explained. Would you care to make a counterpoint to any of those things, or do you just want to carry on with the bollocks straw men? Please advise and if it's just straw men I can stop discussing it with you.

so she was someone who could never have been a customer of the record company and therefore there is no possible lost sale at all


1. purpose for the protected free speech expression you should check out these band you would never have heard off if i didn't give you the mp3 to listen too.
2. inferior copy of the original cd
3. individual songs from the cd
4. zero dollar of damage because as you clearly stated she could not /would not have discovered it from any of the paid for mediums.

it an insanely unlikely situation, i would suspect your lying or misrepresenting the level of isolation to fabricate an argument

but doing so establishes the fair use nature of her actions.

It is quite simple, a whole generation have stoped paying for music.

Poland is part of the capitalist system and they have both I tunes and shops. BUT the young generation so not buy from them.

The same can be said of my son and his friends in there 20s they do not pay for music or films.

They don't have the money and they don't have to, they don't.

There is a problem how the creative indsutries are going to be funded.

i've been downloading shit like a motherfucker in case this happens. i think i have enough material for the next 100 years.

You do not see piracy as an issue, that is the difference.

I think you see it the same as home taping, which was a farceical campaign by the music and film industries.

We have two financial groups fighting it out, and we can watch and clap, but I don't see myself as part of either.

As the Internet by nature is social it would be best if it was free and open to all, but this would mean a revolutionary change in our society. Without that the "freedom" of some is just to steal from others. To have a busines based on suppliing content which you don't pay for. This is the point that you don't answer.

It is not just the Corporations that are upset by this but also all the media trade unions who see their members unemployed and wages falling.

that bullshit

crowd funding is exploding

people are paying for music all the time

and it a perfect model to fund creative people

artists are getting more money in kickstarter campaigns than they would get from a record companies signing bonus.

virtual unknowns are start their career sing covers on youtube, and then getting funding to GIVE THEIR SONGS AWAY FOR FREE.

ask for 20k get more than 100k

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...ef=most-funded



ask for 15k get 77k

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...ef=most-funded

ask for 11k get 68k

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...s?ref=category

seriously look at the last one
they sold out of the highest backed option which was 3.5 k for music that was going to be GIVEN AWAY.

can't be a socialist offline and a capitalist online. hard to take your positions seriously.

Statistics seem to demonstrate otherwise.

US Digital Music Revenues (2006 - 2011)
$1.9 billion (2006), $2.8 billion (2007), $3.7 billion (2008), $4.5 billion (2009), $5.2 billion (2010), $5.7 billion (2011)
http://grabstats.com/statcategorymai... &StatCatID=9


The problem is people think this bill is a good idea. Why do you think it is good?

"I'll give you my Facebook when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

"Fair use" is protected speech by the courts. I love people who use quotes that out are of context:

The quote above is misquoted trying to justify theft of intellectual property by pirates. :disgust

This is Mr. Fanklin's original quote concerning justice:

Stand up and end the tyranny of the pirates......

Fuck the thieves, their rationalizations and their efforts to deflect their guilt.:321GFY

Would you stop looking at a digital product the same as physical one? When you buy an album or movie, you're paying the maker's fee to put in it your stupid ear/eyeholes and enjoy it -- and support them so they can make more music/movies(or whatever) that you love to consume.

Just because something is already out in the world doesn't mean you can just make a copy of it and let everyone else see it.

You are so dense, and you just twist logic to make everything suit your utopic idea which is basically a world where you don't have to pay for anything -- which suits a person with no ability to actually create just fine.

--and what the fuck is this "fair use industry" you talk about? Is that how you make your money, by leeching off of those with creativity and talent?

moron i am not saying kill the law

i don't have a problem giving copyright holders all the rights you want to have to fight piracy

long as you take away take the copyright away from the scum bags who abuse it to stomp all over fair use.


your the one trying to defend stealing, by demanding the right to take away the authorized distribution

your the one trying to defend an underfunded business model (higher a good lawyer, buy insurance etc) not respecting the law.

legitimate copyright holders have nothing to fear from such a restriction

reread the quote you used to justify your position against such a counter penalty

now tell me how letting people get away scott free for lying and taking away peoples COURT DEFINED AND COURT UPHELD fair use rights constitutes
"wrong none, by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty"

ah re-read it i don't object to paying for content

i object to paying for it twice

i bought the right to listen to it, i didn't pay for the medium

once i paid for the right to listen to it, it now my right

that the fucking point

btw the one thing pirates can't be called is tyrants because they don't take away anyones right

even the act of forcing your content into the public domain doesn't take away your right to sell your shit

a fact that is proven absolutely by the open source community.

just because someone else can sell your shit doesn't void/invalidate/take way your right to sell it too.

no freedom is taken from you by the pirates ever

only control.

Instead of decimating the internet with fascistic internet regulations you may as well protect your precious content by using watermarks for example and DRM https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hts_management .

By the way as result of this law it is very likely that search engines can not index any sites any more in fear of having their website taken off the air without any judge involved for copying or linking to anything that may be protected.

So are you ready o loose all your search engine traffic?

Also most of the paysites i paid for is after watching or downloading a pirated movie or picture of their site.
Never joined any website by watching the standard tourpages!

Put the crack pipe down. Now you are just making yourself look stupid. If you can't tell the difference between slavery and pirating you need to sue whatever education system it is that graduated you.

Could I run for political office by telling people that those with the money make the rules and win? Probably not. That doesn't change the fact that it is a 100% true statement.

Why do you think we had a financial meltdown? Because those with the money changed the laws to benefit them so that they could do basically whatever they wanted at the expense of everyone else and they drove it into the dirt.

Bush allowed executives from major oil and power companies to work with Dick Cheney to help shape his energy policy. Lobbyists outnumber elected officials in washington by around 600 to 1. Money runs our system. Hell the supreme court just ruled that companies are people who have freedom of speech protection and can spend infinite amounts supporting or opposing political candidates. It is the dirty secret few people talk about because they like to imagine that we live in a fair society.

Every other bill has failed because it has had flaws it as does this one. Things aren't going to change tomorrow or next week or next month, but if piracy continues to grow and profits continue to shrink things will change and it won't be in your favor.

If you want to preserve your fair use rights you need to tell your pirate friends to stop stealing shit they have no rights to.

New tube sites are launching all day long. Keeping them clean is a good idea, so let's see what happens. lol

LOL @ gideongallery. He's a fucking Canadian who isn't even in this business trying to tell us about the "founding fathers" :1orglaugh

Reality Check: If you stole something from Ben Franklin and tried to monetize it for yourself...he would have hung you from the nearest tree. "Freedom" does NOT equal "stealing"

No gideongallery...you do NOT have any right to steal shit off the internet although you do it constantly. I told you before, your time is running out.
Tick tock, tick tock...

Foreigners stealing USA's intellectual property is a hot-button issue in Washington, DC right now.

I think I'll send our Congress a letter with embedded links so they can see for themselves all the stealing going on. I may even add a few quotes.

Also, I'll mention that the much of the opposition to the legislation seems to be coming from out-of-country....(China, Russia, and CANADA.) I'm sure they will find it interesting.

don't be a douche and out his real name. i agree with your points but makes you seem like a stalker.

he said both

that why i put both quotes in the list

the second one i referenced was as a moral justification for the revolution against the british

the former was to quell the desire to surrender to the british. He had to say the former multiple times in multiple different ways because there were a lot of people who wanted to give up

he wasn't taking about porn either, so what your point
should we outlaw this entire industry.


you realize that you just declared it absolutely guarrenteed that peoples rights are going to get trampled if we put this law on the book right

second

you have already acknowledged that open source proves putting your shit in the public domain doesn't stop you from selling it

so are you deliberately lying here.



seriously moron what about the word NEW rights do you not understand

who said anything about changing all the old ways of taking down piracy

every company has the right to keep using all the old rights already established.



your the one who said

i just gave you two examples where the people with the money didn't get what they want.

if you want another recent example look at yes men pretending to be the chamber of commerce to decry "clean coal"



their exposing of the lies of that lobby group and as a result the bills they were all proposing got killed.

in fact the government reversed some of their long standing opposition to Kyoto agreement


the the problem it only works if you keep the actions a secret
do you think people would have voted bush in if they knew he was going to do this in advance

that exactly why i like things like asking for an amendment that void the copyright of any company that abuses the new permissions ONLY when the new rights are abused

rather then trying to fight

because they object they undeniable prove that the law is GOING TO BE ABUSED.

In advance of the law being passed they say we are going to take away your rights, we are going to do nothing to prevent your rights from getting squashed and the only way you can stop us is to not elect the politicians we have bought with our money.




Personally i will simply support "yes man" approach

agree to give you the innovation killing/fair use killing rights you claim you need to destroy the pirates (and only the pirates) if you put a clause that punishes copyright holders equally for killing innovation /fair use.

And then watch you explicitly admit that the law is going to get abused when you complain about how unfair it is to expect you to do due diligence before using the nuclear option.

make sure to tell them your misrepresenting people who say

fine give copyright holders all these power just put a clause that punishes abusers of the law equally.

as opposing the law.

btw for those of you who missed it



53 million dollar lobbying to get "clean coal" to be entitled to EPA clean energy tax credits was derailed with $3,500 stunt.