SOPA/PIPA
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
Disch,
I was going to write a response but each draft headed towards insults. Sorry but I have a very low regard for people that believe they have the right to illegally copy what they want and it's not a real crime.
I was going to write a response but each draft headed towards insults. Sorry but I have a very low regard for people that believe they have the right to illegally copy what they want and it's not a real crime.
Information isn't synonymous with knowledge though. Not in this sense at least. I completely agree with artist's being able to copyright their music. I do not however think it should be up to the record label (then again I don't have an in depth knowledge of the music industry and don't know how much would have to change for that to happen)
As for piracy not being a real crime... in the grand scheme of thing's it's not that big a deal unless you are marketing what you pirate, or if you are pirating in mass quantities. In any crime there's different levels of seriousness of the offense.
I honestly don't feel any remorse when I download an album by some band illegally, just like I don't feel any remorse when I borrow a cd from a friend and put those songs on my MP3 player.
As for piracy not being a real crime... in the grand scheme of thing's it's not that big a deal unless you are marketing what you pirate, or if you are pirating in mass quantities. In any crime there's different levels of seriousness of the offense.
I honestly don't feel any remorse when I download an album by some band illegally, just like I don't feel any remorse when I borrow a cd from a friend and put those songs on my MP3 player.
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| Information is not a possession, property or object; you can't own knowledge. |
| xander337 wrote: |
|---|
| As for piracy not being a real crime... in the grand scheme of thing's it's not that big a deal unless you are marketing what you pirate, or if you are pirating in mass quantities. |
Is this that same bill that everyone was protesting about a few weeks back? I thought it was going to turn right back around and head out the door it came in. This is startling news...
Turn's out it's back on for February.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/248305/sponsor_sopa_markup_hearing_to_resume_in_february.html
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/248305/sponsor_sopa_markup_hearing_to_resume_in_february.html
| CodeMonkey wrote: |
|---|
| I was going to write a response but each draft headed towards insults. Sorry but I have a very low regard for people that believe they have the right to illegally copy what they want and it's not a real crime. |
That's fine, I'm not offended. Maybe a little disappointed. I realize my view is a little more radical than most.
I guess it comes down to how you want to define the world. I would absolutely love a world where art and information are free to be shared by everyone. That world is within our grasp, and I would be devastated if it were ripped away so a dozen organizations can pad their bottom line.
| CodeMonkey wrote: |
|---|
| Okay, So I have some knowledge. I decide to write a book using that knowledge. That representation of knowledge is owned by me. I have the right to decide how and who can copy it, who can publish it and so on. |
That's a bad example.
Books have been free for centuries. Libraries were established for that very purpose: to get information to more people easily and freely.
Even without libraries -- bookstores do all but directly encourage reading without buying. Many of them have places designated where people can sit in sofas, kick up their heels and relax to a good book. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some have coffee stands in-store, though I don't recall seeing that yet (but I don't go in bookstores often)
In a sense Peer to Peer file sharing is the exact same principle, only more modernized and extrapolated to include a wider variety of materials.
I think recording yourself playing a game and then uploading it to Youtube is beneficial to the company that made the game, because the video would normally make people want to buy the game. If this law makes that illegal, then I would affect large companies too who like their free advertising.
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I wouldn't be at all surprised if some have coffee stands in-store, though I don't recall seeing that yet. |
Some Barnes and Noble stores here in California do indeed have coffee shops attached to them, usually right next to the so-called designated sofa section.
-Albatross
I'm actually rather shocked to see that there are more than a few people on this board that disagree with me. I mean what kind of person would you have to be to say that art should only be available to those who pay for it?
I believe the problem is that by pirating you are (possibly) depriving some people of money they deserve for producing their product.
If the person who made the art decides that, then yes.
| I mean what kind of person would you have to be to say that art should only be available to those who pay for it? |
If the person who made the art decides that, then yes.
Guys I think you need to see this http://blog.curry.com/stories/2012/01/16/sopaIsARedHerring.html
| Do you really think artist are being paid for their work within the present model? |
Sure the system might be broken, but that's not related at all to our present topic. If you want to complain about that, start complaining about that and not something unrelated.
| http://blog.curry.com/stories/2012/01/16/sopaIsARedHerring.html |
It seems he is against registration in order to get a website. He seems to value the internet as some sort of a place where you can get on an be anonymous. Honestly, I don't really have an opinion.
| I mean what kind of person would you have to be to say that art should only be available to those who pay for it? |
If the artist(publisher?) wants to make some money I think people should respect that. That doesn't mean I bow down to DRM, Quite on the contrary most DRM pissess me off.
| If the person who made the art decides that, then yes. |
Agree'd
| firedraco wrote: |
|---|
| I believe the problem is that by pirating you are (possibly) depriving some people of money they deserve for producing their product. |
This is a common stance of the opposing side, but it's highly exaggerated.
Musicians don't make much/any money on record sales. They make money on performances.
Movie companies don't make much money on DVD/BluRay sales. They make money on ticket sales.
Think about it. If it became law that filesharing was actually LEGAL... do you think people would stop making music? Movies? Of course not.
Sure, the industries wouldn't be as lucrative. I'm not saying there isn't any impact at all. But the benefits of free and open exchange far outweigh the monetary loss.
| If the person who made the art decides that, then yes. |
In theory, sure. But in reality that's an extremely rare scenario, and is propagandized by lobbyists.
Was a painting ever painted where the painter said "I don't want anyone to see this painting unless they pay me"? Or a sculpture ever sculpted? Or even a song ever composed?
Artists by their very nature want their work to be experienced. That's what art is. That's what it's always been. Monetary compensation is a bonus, but isn't the main reason they do it.
I'm not talking out of my ass here, either. I live in Olympia, Washington. Evergreen (art school) is right down the road. I am constantly surrounded by artists. Nobody I know disagrees with me.
Before you start talking about how online piracy is a bane to the artist... try talking to some actual artists. Most will not only agree that it's OK, but they'll probably also admit to pirating themselves. Most will probably even say that doing so has expanded their artistic ability further than what it would have been otherwise.
Now I'm not saying the artist shouldn't make any money. They certainly should. It just shouldn't be in the form of selling copies of their art. There are other ways to market. Merchandising, live performances, and donations are the most obvious routes, but hardly the only ones. People just need to get creative about it.
| king214 wrote: |
|---|
| If the artist(publisher?) wants to make some money I think people should respect that |
Are you ready for the kicker?
The internet is the publisher
We really don't need record labels any more. They don't serve any purpose at all. They recognize this as a reality, as well, which is why they're fighting tooth and nail against file sharing. They realize that it's making them obsolete.
I've heard it as well.
I think I can see some hypocrisy from the US policy of Internet, you guys should see that as well
I think I can see some hypocrisy from the US policy of Internet, you guys should see that as well
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I realize my view is a little more radical than most. |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I guess it comes down to how you want to define the world. I would absolutely love a world where art and information are free to be shared by everyone. That world is within our grasp, and I would be devastated if it were ripped away so a dozen organizations can pad their bottom line. |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| That's a bad example. Books have been free for centuries. Libraries were established for that very purpose: to get information to more people easily and freely. Even without libraries -- bookstores do all but directly encourage reading without buying. Many of them have places designated where people can sit in sofas, kick up their heels and relax to a good book. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some have coffee stands in-store, though I don't recall seeing that yet (but I don't go in bookstores often) |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| I'm actually rather shocked to see that there are more than a few people on this board that disagree with me. I mean what kind of person would you have to be to say that art should only be available to those who pay for it? |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Was a painting ever painted where the painter said "I don't want anyone to see this painting unless they pay me"? Or a sculpture ever sculpted? Or even a song ever composed? |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Artists by their very nature want their work to be experienced. That's what art is. That's what it's always been. Monetary compensation is a bonus, but isn't the main reason they do it. |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Are you ready for the kicker? The internet is the publisher |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| We really don't need record labels any more. They don't serve any purpose at all. |
In summary: Sorry, I think you are in cloud cuckoo land.
I'm on Disch' side of the discussion, but I'm going to agree with CodeMonkey here. Disch, I think your view is very short-sighted and idealistic.
You brought on the example of books being free. Let me just debunk that:
a) "Library = free reading!": No. Libraries are subsidized reading. You pay a minimal fee for a members card, but your government pays a whole lot more. Hence why so many of them are closing down. My city used to have 4 big ones and around 40 small ones; now we're down to 3 big ones and a small one, over the course of 10 years. Vital point here: there's a difference between "free" and "you don't pay directly".
b) Bookstores: I know of only one bookstore that has a café attached (it's not actually a bookstore but a full-blown media shop that sells everything from comic books to massive flatscreen TVs). Any other shop will often even "warn" customers if they spend too much time reading a book without purchasing it (golden rule: if you sit down, you'll see an employee coming to you soon). The one with the café in it makes more profit per sold drink than per sold book.
Compared to software, music and movies, books are very piracy-proof, because books have a physical element to them, so even if demand dwindles, there will always be libraries and bookstores. For the other three, there is no difference between a bought and a downloaded copy. If downloading were legal, purchasing a legal copy would be the exact same as downloading it and throwing €60 in the sewers. The fact that it's illegal makes people realize "someone's being hurt by this".
That being said, I do believe the music and movie industry are shooting themselves in the foot by spending ridiculous amounts of money to force out piracy through legislation, rather than adapting market model. Games have adapted pretty well (see Steam, gog.com and the indiebundle deals). This is probably because in the movie and music industry, the roles that would be lost through the market model change would be the roles of those with money (e.g. record labels). They would have to change their core business if they want to play a role in the new market.
You brought on the example of books being free. Let me just debunk that:
a) "Library = free reading!": No. Libraries are subsidized reading. You pay a minimal fee for a members card, but your government pays a whole lot more. Hence why so many of them are closing down. My city used to have 4 big ones and around 40 small ones; now we're down to 3 big ones and a small one, over the course of 10 years. Vital point here: there's a difference between "free" and "you don't pay directly".
b) Bookstores: I know of only one bookstore that has a café attached (it's not actually a bookstore but a full-blown media shop that sells everything from comic books to massive flatscreen TVs). Any other shop will often even "warn" customers if they spend too much time reading a book without purchasing it (golden rule: if you sit down, you'll see an employee coming to you soon). The one with the café in it makes more profit per sold drink than per sold book.
Compared to software, music and movies, books are very piracy-proof, because books have a physical element to them, so even if demand dwindles, there will always be libraries and bookstores. For the other three, there is no difference between a bought and a downloaded copy. If downloading were legal, purchasing a legal copy would be the exact same as downloading it and throwing €60 in the sewers. The fact that it's illegal makes people realize "someone's being hurt by this".
That being said, I do believe the music and movie industry are shooting themselves in the foot by spending ridiculous amounts of money to force out piracy through legislation, rather than adapting market model. Games have adapted pretty well (see Steam, gog.com and the indiebundle deals). This is probably because in the movie and music industry, the roles that would be lost through the market model change would be the roles of those with money (e.g. record labels). They would have to change their core business if they want to play a role in the new market.