Stupid Ways the Government is Trying to Screw the Internet

[Kirkreng]

Well your claims are based on facts and if you cannot give evidence to show those facts are actually true then you have nothing to base your claims on.

[BTGBullseye]

I can't give evidence because none of it is available online. This problem I have already mentioned.

[Kirkreng]

But than you can't expect us to believe your claims.

[BTGBullseye]

Then you believe everything that the MPAA or RIAA say, without question?

[Kirkreng]

You're putting words in my mouth. All I said was that you can't expect anyone to believe your claims when you simply don't have any proof to back it up. Just because someone disagrees with you on this matter doesn't mean said person instantly is against all of what you say.

[BTGBullseye]

I have proof, however it can't be shown through the internet at this time... How many times must I say this? I even gave a longer-winded explanation for why this is a few posts back.

[Kirkreng]

That is fair and good but you can't expect anyone to believe you if you can't show any proof. No matter what reason there is for you not being able to show proof.

[Doom Shepherd]

"I have evidence. No, you can't see it." -- Joe McCarthy.

[BTGBullseye]

I understand that proof is compelling, but bear in mind that proof is very easy to fake.

[Ross Scott]

This is my point. Pirates are the cause of congress over-reacting.

I'd say not directly. It's more that the RIAA or some other similar organizations is all but writing the legislation for this, then trying to get it through congress. I mean while piracy is a big problem for various industries, last time I checked, the music, movie, and game industry isn't in danger of collapsing and disappearing. I mean let's not forget the kind of people who are behind this:

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html

 

These are not demands from reasonable people. Even if piracy magically dropped 90%, we might still see similar efforts trying to be passed. I'm not saying pirates are in the right and piracy isn't a problem, but the RIAA alone has spent over 90 million on lobbyists over the past 10 years. That kind of money is kind of insane and lends towards congress being a mix of plutocracy along with the democratic process. My guess is if that kind of money wasn't being spent on representatives, this bill wouldn't even exist. An analogy to what this bill is like would be the Postal Service wanting the power to shut down any email address that they deem related to spam, even if there is zero evidence. I think piracy is a lot like spam mail. Yes, it is an ongoing problem, yes you can fight it, but you're never going to eliminate it and trying to do so by killing people's email addresses would do almost nothing to stop it and hurt legitimate email users more than spammers.

 

If you want to look at the root of it, I'd say this legislation is ultimately the result of the entertainment industry wanting business practices to return to how they were before the internet or even cassette / VHS tapes. Congress is only overreacting because they're largely being paid to do so.

[Michael Archer]

Ross, can you really blame them? I mean, sure, those are outlandish claims they're making (e.g. they're claiming that stealing Michael Jackson's music is worse than killing him--I thought that was hilarious), but you have to look at it from their perspective. We live in a society where the status quo is simply to steal music that you want. It surprises me, that I'll be out with people--one will mention a song they like and then they'll say "I'll send it to you." Itunes has made it so easy to obtain music--for the most part, it's even DRM-free. The pirates are stealing for the sake of stealing.

 

I think the RIAA don't care so much about the money as they do setting an example. They want to show that people stealing their songs will not be accepted by them. That's why the claims are so large; so people pay attention. You can argue that it's not really that effective, but I'm thinking that that's their motive.

 

Michael. You *must* know that piracy is natural market response to unnatural anti-competitive restrictions imposed on it by a group of manipulators.

 

Same way that shoplifting is a natural response to the fact that people can't afford or want to pay for things?

 

You do like capitalism - you must be able to see that the way the Western IP laws are structured, they are rather more like an extreme form of feudalism.

 

Are you kidding? Western IP laws are the most profound laws that have always existed. I especially like the British copyright laws: last time I checked, British copyrights lasted for life, and then fifty years after death.

 

I really fail to see how its feudalism.

 

You should also be able to see that the recent onslaught of bills to "protect" the IP industry has nothing to do with eliminating "piracy" but is directed at consolidating control over the use of information (any information) in the hands of a small oligarchy.

 

They're only concerned about things they legally own the copyrights too being misused. I think they don't want to censor the internet, rather, they've pushed Congress to make stricter laws and penalties for stealing intellectual property and Congress overreacted a bit.

 

Of course I take pride in not paying for overpriced shit. Why wouldn't I?

 

My mistake. I thought you were taking pride in pirating per se. There's nothing wrong about being proud in the fact that you're spending your money where you see fit. It's only bad when you think you're clever or good for stealing. Carry on.

[BTGBullseye]

The main problem is that they are incorrectly using the title "pirate".

 

We are not really stealing since we do not deprive someone of their rightful possession. We make a copy, then pass it around for no cost. That has no negative effects on anyone except those that think they have a right to be paid for it, even if everyone else thinks that they shouldn't. Real Pirates will torrent something as a way to test it, then buy/donate if they like the program/video/music/etc. I know of no true pirate that doesn't look down on people that just take it in order to never have to buy something they would buy anyways.

 

TL;DR version: If you wouldn't buy it before trying it (for any reason), it isn't bad. If you'd buy it anyways, it's bad.

[Axeldeath]

That has no negative effects on anyone

 

Just like printing money has no negative effects on anyone.

 

inb4 how do i into economics.

[BTGBullseye]

Just like printing money has no negative effects on anyone.

Not the same. Not even remotely.

 

You can't take pirated digital software and buy a meal with it.

[Axeldeath]

Just like printing money has no negative effects on anyone.

Not the same. Not even remotely.

 

You can't take pirated digital software and buy a meal with it.

 

The point is that by distributing it for free you're devaluing the product.

[BTGBullseye]

How are we devaluing the product? The value is there, it doesn't change because of someone sharing it with someone else.

[Axeldeath]

How are we devaluing the product? The value is there, it doesn't change because of someone sharing it with someone else.

 

"If I give away free copies of a game to anyone in the world who wants them I'm not devaluing the product."

 

I'm sure you can figure this one out.

[BTGBullseye]

Not just anyone, anyone intelligent enough to figure out how to get, get it working, and not get a virus in the process. That is a surprisingly small amount of people if you really look at it. The people that crack it make it a bit difficult to make it work for that reason there.

[Axeldeath]

Not just anyone, anyone intelligent enough to figure out how to get, get it working, and not get a virus in the process. That is a surprisingly small amount of people if you really look at it. The people that crack it make it a bit difficult to make it work for that reason there.

 

DURR, HOW DO I INTO DOWNLOADING UTORRENT AND CLICKING LINKS.

 

If you have the internet and you aren't a borderline retard then it is incredibly easy to torrent games, easier than actually buying the game and installing in some cases.

[Vapymid]

Same way that shoplifting is a natural response to the fact that people can't afford or want to pay for things?

 

This is a wrong analogy (albeit much exploited). Copyright infringement is not theft.

 

Consider this

 

According to the media industry position the preson who ripped the CD and uploaded the stuff to Youtube committed copyright infringements at least twice. Youtube has committed a copyright infringement by providing access to an infringing copy. I have committed infringements first by clicking on the link and second by posting a link to it here. Ross Scott infringes the copyright by maintaining a web site which now shows the link (there are few guys who were jailed in Sweden for not more than that). If you click on the link you will also commit a copyright infringement.

 

But where in all that is an equivalent to shoplifting? And what gives anyone moral right to claim that their copyright must automatically extend to all of those processes? Last but not least, who can prove to me that the owner of copyright has suffered any economic loss due to all these infringements as opposed to a net gain as the result of vastly increased coverage?

 

Western IP laws are the most profound laws that have always existed. I especially like the British copyright laws: last time I checked, British copyrights lasted for life, and then fifty years after death.

 

I really fail to see how its feudalism.

 

So you have the lords-copyright holders creating fiefdoms, which are maintained solely through their grasp over the legislature rather than superiority of their economic model or the quality of their product. And you have the vassals-authors and vassals-users who are forced to accept any unreasonable terms imposed by the lords because there are no other alternatives (except the illegal ones). Sounds as anti-capitalist to me as any classic feudal society...

 

Here is a little case in point:

 

The fate of ideas and innovations in IP is decided by courts and not by markets. To the extent that people are resorting to making redundant hardware just to strengthen their legal defence against the rights-holders.

 

They're only concerned about things they legally own the copyrights too being misused. I think they don't want to censor the internet, rather, they've pushed Congress to make stricter laws and penalties for stealing intellectual property and Congress overreacted a bit.

 

This is very idealistic view. Especially the suggestion that the Congressmen have somehow made more effort than they were paid for. LOL. And who do you think wrote the bills? Congressmen, whose qualification rarely extends beyond scmoozing around and making public speeches and whose staff is mostly adept at sorting mail, recording appointments and making calls for campaign contributions?

 

No, I am quite confident that all the legal drafting was done by lawyers employed by the industry in question and every last word of it was meant to be there from the beginning.

 

Regards