SOPA/PIPA
| It is far from within our grasp. In a utopian world, it would be nice to have these things free but it isn't going to happen. |
Er, it's already here. I can tell you right now, that if you named any DVD released movie or music album, I could have it on my computer within 2 hours tops without paying anything other than my internet and electricity bills. (Barring obscure items, of course)
| Not really. Yes you can go to a library and borrow a book but most libraries don't get the book free. You can go to a bookstore and sit and read a book that the bookstore has bought from the distributer. These books are not free they have already been paid for. |
Well I meant free to the end user. In this case, the person getting the book does not have to pay for it. Maybe subsidized was a better word.
Besides, libraries need funding only because they are physical things, require employees, etc, etc. As proven, when you use the internet as a distribution network, you don't need that funding. As long as everyone participating is paying their internet bill, that's all the funding it needs.
| No, usually they are done for a patron, on commission or in the hope that they can sell them in a exhibition or gallery. |
The original work, sure. But how many would object to a copy being made of it?
Did you know that you can actually bring a camera in a museum and take PICTURES of paintings? It's even perfectly legal to post those pictures on the internet.
So why don't the same rules apply to the music industry? You want a free copy of the art, fine. If you want to experience the original, pay to see a live show.
The sports industry is like that too. Want to see a game? It's broadcast for free on network television. Want to experience the original? Pay to get a ticket.
| It [monetary compensation] not a bonus its an essential. |
You really don't know any artists, do you?
The term "starving artist" was coined for a reason. Most of them don't make much money on their art. A lot of them don't even expect to. That doesn't stop them from making it. Most would continue to make it even if they never made a dime off it. It's about expression and having a creative outlet. It's not about money.
Sure they have aspirations of one day being able to make a living off their work, but that's not why they do it. They do it because they love it.
Again, I'm speaking from experience here. My brother is in a struggling local band, my sister is a struggling author, and nearly all my friends in this town are painters or musicians. Not one of them sees online piracy as a negative thing.
So again... you're getting up in arms saying that these laws are meant to protect the artists, but they're clearly not. The artists* don't want anything to do with them. So who exactly wants these laws to pass?
*on average. Obviously I can't speak for all artists, but most of them have my view. Really it's only the talentless hacks that would disagree.
| So while you are off on tour to earn the money to live and pay for the studio time that you need to record the album that you will give away free, you will also have to plan the tour, talk to venues, sort out all the legal stuff make sure the logistics are all sorted, make sure that the promotional stuff is all taken care of etc. etc. etc. No hang on, you can pay someone to do that for you...can you see where I'm going with this? |
You're describing a band manager, not really a record label. And yes, I agree band managers still have a purpose.
Interestingly, some bands hire managers to deal with all that stuff even though they don't pull in enough profit to pay for the manager's cost. So they basically are willing to pay money to be able to make their art and have it exposed.
| So why don't the same rules apply to the music industry? You want a free copy of the art, fine. If you want to experience the original, pay to see a live show. The sports industry is like that too. Want to see a game? It's broadcast for free on network television. Want to experience the original? Pay to get a ticket. |
This is something I mentioned: there is no difference in experience between buying or downloading a game/CD/movie. There is no such thing as a "live video game", "live movie" or "live CD" [in the meaning of this context]. Cinema or live shows are completely different things and it's completely useless to group them together. Saying one should be free for all, and the "real fans" can go do the paying thing is like saying that a baker can only ask money for croissants, but must give away his bread.
Saying "but the majority of profit comes from X anyway!" is bullshit. What's "the majority"? 60%? Probably less depending on the actual market you're talking about. CD and DVD sales are still an important source of income due to sheer size of the market. For every concert ticket sold, there's a million albums sold.
Also, making "the lesser one" (e.g. DVDs, CDs, etc) free would certainly canibalize sales of "the major one" (e.g. Cinema, Live Shows, etc). Now, if you want to see a movie, you have two choices: see it on the big screen once for €10, or see it on your own tv for as many times as you want for €10. How many visitors would cinemas still get the latter becomes €0? Lowering the cost of one alternative implicitly raises the cost of the other alternative, and that's true for every market.
| This is something I mentioned: there is no difference in experience between buying or downloading a game/CD/movie. There is no such thing as a "live video game", "live movie" or "live CD" [in the meaning of this context]. |
Fair enough. You're right. My analogy was flawed. At least for video games/music. I still contend that seeing a movie in a theater is a considerably different than seeing the downloaded version.
| Saying one should be free for all, and the "real fans" can go do the paying thing is like saying that a baker can only ask money for croissants, but must give away his bread. |
You're mixing up physical items with digital information. That isn't a fair comparison.
It costs extra money and labor to produce more bread. It costs absolutely nothing to copy an mp3. There's no direct loss involved with file sharing.
If a baker could, in fact, make infinite amounts of bread with no additional cost or labor, then yes, I would certainly say he should give it away for free if that's what was expected.
| CD and DVD sales are still an important source of income due to sheer size of the market. |
Well that's part of my original point. That market is shrinking. Times are changing. Companies depending on this market for their income need to adapt or die, rather than try to cling to a past that is phasing out. Some companies already have done this successfully. The most notable is Apple.
The death of a market isn't a bad thing. It's forward progress. Another such instance is the whole thing with websites like Craig's List putting newspapers out of business. Is that a negative thing? For newspapers, sure, but what about for society as a whole? Would the proper response to that be to ban/restrict those sites so that newspapers can keep their grip on the market? That's bogus.
| see it on the big screen once for €10, or see it on your own tv for as many times as you want for €10. How many visitors would cinemas still get the latter becomes €0? |
Considering that is already the case -- it would appear that plenty of people are still willing to pay to see it in cinemas.
| Lowering the cost of one alternative implicitly raises the cost of the other alternative, and that's true for every market. |
Not really. That sounds backwards to me. Wouldn't a reduced price in one area force a reduction of price in another for them to stay competitive?
But let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture...
File sharing is popular. So popular in fact that practically everyone that uses a computer knows about it, even if they don't actually participate.
File sharing is also persistent. There have been numerous attempts to shut it down, all of which not only failed, but also (ironically) paved the way for more effective and easier to use file sharing systems.
Now... why do you think that is? The answer is pretty obvious: People like file sharing. So why are you guys looking to construct a society that goes against something that people want? That's retarded.
The general argument against it is that file sharing going to cause these industries to collapse. But that's crap. Case in point is that it's been around for well over a decade now and the industries are alive and well. They're definitely changing and will need to continue to change, and they might even become less lucrative, but they won't go away.
So really... what's the problem? What do these new laws expect to do other than to piss people off and make the world a shittier place?
What I find amusing about this whole issue is that the proponents off this bill are likely those that feel a free market decides what ideas are good not government.
@Gaminic I'm curious what library charges ANYTHING for a card. I've lived in numerous towns in several states and never been charged for a library card.
@Gaminic I'm curious what library charges ANYTHING for a card. I've lived in numerous towns in several states and never been charged for a library card.
Last edited on
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Now... why do you think that is? The answer is pretty obvious: People like file sharing. So why are you guys looking to construct a society that goes against something that people want? That's retarded. |
| Now... why do you think that is? The answer is pretty obvious: People like file sharing. So why are you guys looking to construct a society that goes against something that people want? That's retarded. |
The problem is not with file sharing, the problem is with file sharing stuff that doesn't belong to you.
So we should get rid of laws based on how many people break them? That would seem to be the crux of your argument. |
Actually, yes. A law that is broken by the majority of citizens 1) is a bad law and 2) cannot and should not be followed.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
*I've edited this post 5x now, and it might start sounding like I'm making personal attacks, but let me make it clear that I am not.
@Disch - If most artists don't see piracy as an issue, IMO they should release their art into the public domain. It would seem to me that the problem lies right there.
1) The artists don't mind their content being shared
2) The law forbids sharing copyrighted data
The obvious solution would be for artists to fix the issue themselves by making it legal to distribute their contributions. For the rest of the artists who attempt to profit off of their accomplishments, those bills would be a great boon.
As far as I'm concerned, property is property.
This.
The proposed bills are most likely the best way *(not the 'best way', but the 'best way up until now) to enforce that. Public domain file sharing will not be affected at all by the legislation...but only the files whose owners do not want to be shared. Just because >X% of the population wants proprietary files to be freely available does not in any way shape or form justify violating the owner's rights on the matter.
Laws are in place to protect the citizens. They might not always be well-liked or convenient, but nevertheless, they exist for a reason. Are we saying that blatantly stealing from other people should now be acceptable behavior? That is what it is starting to sound like...
@Disch - If most artists don't see piracy as an issue, IMO they should release their art into the public domain. It would seem to me that the problem lies right there.
1) The artists don't mind their content being shared
2) The law forbids sharing copyrighted data
The obvious solution would be for artists to fix the issue themselves by making it legal to distribute their contributions. For the rest of the artists who attempt to profit off of their accomplishments, those bills would be a great boon.
| You're mixing up physical items with digital information. That isn't a fair comparison. |
As far as I'm concerned, property is property.
| The problem is not with file sharing, the problem is with file sharing stuff that doesn't belong to you. |
This.
The proposed bills are most likely the best way *(not the 'best way', but the 'best way up until now) to enforce that. Public domain file sharing will not be affected at all by the legislation...but only the files whose owners do not want to be shared. Just because >X% of the population wants proprietary files to be freely available does not in any way shape or form justify violating the owner's rights on the matter.
| Actually, yes. A law that is broken by the majority of citizens 1) is a bad law and 2) cannot and should not be followed. |
Laws are in place to protect the citizens. They might not always be well-liked or convenient, but nevertheless, they exist for a reason. Are we saying that blatantly stealing from other people should now be acceptable behavior? That is what it is starting to sound like...
Last edited on
So ¿what am I buying then?
By the way, I can read all the Wikipedia just fine. They are too lazy.
By the way, I can read all the Wikipedia just fine. They are too lazy.
| Luc wrote: |
|---|
| Laws are in place to protect the citizens. |
These laws will not protect average citizens nearly as much as they will support massive corporations that *rely* on copyrights to make money, which by the way they have way too much of from ripping off artists.
| Are we saying that blatantly stealing from other people should now be acceptable behavior? |
Korn disagrees with you that this "blatant stealing" as you call it is unacceptable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE27vtp4WU
-Albatross
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
Albatross, please don't misunderstand my stance here.
The blatant stealing that I speak of is regarding the content owners that do not wish their property to be freely redistributed. For example, any of the multitudes of commercial applications that are being cracked and keygen'd as I type this. I propose that the copyright holders that aren't against free redistribution enter their work into the public domain (or similar), making it perfectly legal for sharing.
What I would like to see is a definitive line between what content is legal, and what content is illegal to share. If that were to happen, the bills would have absolutely no impact on what data can legally be shared, while at the same time protecting proprietary data. No legitimate websites would be blocked, and the number of people that will be affected by the bills will be drastically minimized.
I realize that this solution will probably never happen, but it's simply the best way that I see to make the smallest impact on the internet experience of the average person. In-case it isn't apparent by now, I'm rather conservative.
PS. <3 Korn. I've bought most of their albums.
The blatant stealing that I speak of is regarding the content owners that do not wish their property to be freely redistributed. For example, any of the multitudes of commercial applications that are being cracked and keygen'd as I type this. I propose that the copyright holders that aren't against free redistribution enter their work into the public domain (or similar), making it perfectly legal for sharing.
What I would like to see is a definitive line between what content is legal, and what content is illegal to share. If that were to happen, the bills would have absolutely no impact on what data can legally be shared, while at the same time protecting proprietary data. No legitimate websites would be blocked, and the number of people that will be affected by the bills will be drastically minimized.
I realize that this solution will probably never happen, but it's simply the best way that I see to make the smallest impact on the internet experience of the average person. In-case it isn't apparent by now, I'm rather conservative.
PS. <3 Korn. I've bought most of their albums.
Last edited on
I see your point about content owners. That said, can you name one *artist* signed to a record company that goes out of its way to stop its art from being spread around after its public release?
-Albatross
-Albatross
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
I haven't followed any specific artist closely at all, however, their inaction still doesn't change the fact that it's still currently illegal for their content to be redistributed.
The artists themselves are the only ones that can make it 'officially legal' so that big brother will back down.
Government is more or less a machine that makes laws, evaluates laws, and enforces laws. The machine simply cannot work if some laws are ignored. I mean...come on...the government is just doing what it's programmed to do in this case. (segfault@Eval_Law_48443665-)
The artists themselves are the only ones that can make it 'officially legal' so that big brother will back down.
Government is more or less a machine that makes laws, evaluates laws, and enforces laws. The machine simply cannot work if some laws are ignored. I mean...come on...the government is just doing what it's programmed to do in this case. (segfault@Eval_Law_48443665-)
Last edited on
I'm pretty sure there's something about a partial transfer of ownership in the contracts many artists sign. So... not really?
-Albatross
-Albatross
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
Well, then we've got ourselves a deadlock. I'm out of ideas....unless the artists don't sign such contracts in the future...but then again, if they did that they wouldn't collect on their work...but then again most of them aren't mainly concerned with that...then again...
Peace.
:-)
Peace.
:-)
Last edited on
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
| tition wrote: |
|---|
| Actually, yes. A law that is broken by the majority of citizens 1) is a bad law and 2) cannot and should not be followed. |
So to piracy/illegal file sharing/IP/etc. Everyone wants things for nothing. Its part of human nature, why pay when you don't have to. It's easy to copy stuff online and doesn't cost anything, so why should we pay.
What it costs many thousands of dollars to get it to the the point where I can make copies of it for free and the owner of the product wants to use his rights to control how it is copied to recoup his money and make some money? That doesn't matter I want it free so I am going to have it free.
While we are at it; lots of people think the same as me, so lets get ride of the law that allows the own to control how his his product. It must be the right way to go because on the numbers that want it.
And now it all starts to fall apart...
If you remove the revenue stream from a product, why would a company bother making a product? Even in the physical world, if you don't have the ability to control copies of your product you will loose out. What company will bother investing in development, if a competitor can come along and make a copy of it and be able to sell it cheaper because they don't have to recoup the development costs. (yes it a bit of a silly example to the extreme of remove IP laws)
If you say "yes but we only want to change it in the online world" than all that will happen is that companies will stop doing on-line products. No company is going to run a product line that will not generate revenue or worse, degrade a stream that can generate revenue.
Edit:
SOPA/PIPA: Bad because they don't directly address what they claim to be about preventing. It would be like chopping someone's foot off to deal with an ingrowing toe nail. ;0)
Last edited on
@Disch
Nonsense; it IS a fair comparison: to have an income, a baker must sell bread; to have an income, an artist must sell CDs.
Regardless of the marginal cost of another loaf of bread/CD, in the end, it's still "Total income - total cost = profit/loss". Whether that "total cost" comes from a small cost per loaf or a very high but one-time investment, ultimately doesn't matter.
The income side is equal for both types of commodity: price x sales. I'm convinced that piracy does reduce sales and there is no logical reason to believe otherwise. [cfr below]
That's not the point I was making. [Also, mind that "reduce price to stay competitive" is the best predictor for a failing business, but that's another story.] My point is: if you have two viable alternatives for a single "need", a cost decrease in one makes the other one more expensive in a relative way. That's obvious, but let's look at the consequence:
Compare renting a movie (€5) versus seeing it at the Cinema (€10) [fictional numbers to make a point. You can change the € to $ if that makes the math easier for you]. You can look at it two ways: "for only €5 more, I can see this movie on a much bigger screen!", or "for the same price, I can see two movies!". You can decide for yourself whether a double price is worth the experience of seeing it on the big screen.
Now renting a movie becomes cheaper: €2 per movie. Suddenly, seeing it on the big screen costs €8 extra, or in other words: you can see 5 movies at home for the price of 1 movie on the big screen. The price of the cinema ticket hasn't changed, but suddenly it's 5 times more expensive than a regular movie! Suddenly, that big screen seems like a big investment. Suddenly, people will find it ridiculous to pay €8 for a bigger screen.
At its limit, when one alternative becomes €0, many people will find it ridiculous to pay for a movie, regardless of screensize. Sure, some will think "it's just €10", but "the law of alternatives" is one of the most important for any business: regardless of how good your value/price is, a crappy but free alternative will mess up your business.
That's bogus reasoning.
a) Filesharing is still a niche-problem. Two years ago, piracy was done by nerds exclusively. Now, it's becoming more mainstream, because the IT generation has hit the college age, where every penny saved is a penny you can spend on booze. Every day, piracy grows.
b) Piracy grows slowly, because it's illegal. Those that know how to do it feel safe enough to keep doing it, but very few people get into it by themselves. Generally, people get introduced/taught by a friend, thus it spreads by word of mouth. Because it still has the tag of "illegal", people generally don't spout it around. The last year that's been changing, with complete computer-illiterate people posting it up on Facebook and such. The taboo is slowly fading, which means that the growth rate will increase rapidly.
b) Businesses don't collapse from one day to another. They have reserves, and incomes from other activities. Even if all their new games get pirated, they'll still have some income from older games, especially if they're subscription based games. Profit margins are still decreasing, which will ultimately lead to losses, less investors, etc. To claim "They won't go bankrupt because they haven't gone bankrupt yet" is completely ridiculous.
Anyway, I'm fully against SOPA/PIPA. I just don't think they should make piracy legal. Once there is no law against it, it doesn't take long for something to become accepted and then frequented. Think of divorce: when the church opposed it, there were none. When people stopped caring about the church, it didn't take long for the taboo to be lifted, and now divorce rates rise every year. (Not judging divorce here; I'm glad the taboo is gone and people don't stay together to avoid the shame.)
Humans claim to have a sense of morality, but ultimately it's consequences we care about. If suddenly murder was no longer illegal, do you think people wouldn't murder because "it's bad"?
Summary:
-I believe piracy does hurt companies/artists/working people.
-I believe piracy is a growing problem, and the growth rate is increasing.
-I believe legalizing piracy would be stupid; it would cause piracy to grow much faster, drastically increasing the impact it has on the entertainment [and other] market[s].
-I don't believe SOPA & PIPA are the way to do it.
-I believe it's up to the artists/publishers/industry to find ways to dissuade piracy, by finding a way to make the "genuine" experience more than the "downloaded" experience.
| You're mixing up physical items with digital information. That isn't a fair comparison. It costs extra money and labor to produce more bread. It costs absolutely nothing to copy an mp3. There's no direct loss involved with file sharing. If a baker could, in fact, make infinite amounts of bread with no additional cost or labor, then yes, I would certainly say he should give it away for free if that's what was expected. |
Nonsense; it IS a fair comparison: to have an income, a baker must sell bread; to have an income, an artist must sell CDs.
Regardless of the marginal cost of another loaf of bread/CD, in the end, it's still "Total income - total cost = profit/loss". Whether that "total cost" comes from a small cost per loaf or a very high but one-time investment, ultimately doesn't matter.
The income side is equal for both types of commodity: price x sales. I'm convinced that piracy does reduce sales and there is no logical reason to believe otherwise. [cfr below]
| That sounds backwards to me. Wouldn't a reduced price in one area force a reduction of price in another for them to stay competitive? |
That's not the point I was making. [Also, mind that "reduce price to stay competitive" is the best predictor for a failing business, but that's another story.] My point is: if you have two viable alternatives for a single "need", a cost decrease in one makes the other one more expensive in a relative way. That's obvious, but let's look at the consequence:
Compare renting a movie (€5) versus seeing it at the Cinema (€10) [fictional numbers to make a point. You can change the € to $ if that makes the math easier for you]. You can look at it two ways: "for only €5 more, I can see this movie on a much bigger screen!", or "for the same price, I can see two movies!". You can decide for yourself whether a double price is worth the experience of seeing it on the big screen.
Now renting a movie becomes cheaper: €2 per movie. Suddenly, seeing it on the big screen costs €8 extra, or in other words: you can see 5 movies at home for the price of 1 movie on the big screen. The price of the cinema ticket hasn't changed, but suddenly it's 5 times more expensive than a regular movie! Suddenly, that big screen seems like a big investment. Suddenly, people will find it ridiculous to pay €8 for a bigger screen.
At its limit, when one alternative becomes €0, many people will find it ridiculous to pay for a movie, regardless of screensize. Sure, some will think "it's just €10", but "the law of alternatives" is one of the most important for any business: regardless of how good your value/price is, a crappy but free alternative will mess up your business.
| The general argument against it is that file sharing going to cause these industries to collapse. But that's crap. Case in point is that it's been around for well over a decade now and the industries are alive and well. |
That's bogus reasoning.
a) Filesharing is still a niche-problem. Two years ago, piracy was done by nerds exclusively. Now, it's becoming more mainstream, because the IT generation has hit the college age, where every penny saved is a penny you can spend on booze. Every day, piracy grows.
b) Piracy grows slowly, because it's illegal. Those that know how to do it feel safe enough to keep doing it, but very few people get into it by themselves. Generally, people get introduced/taught by a friend, thus it spreads by word of mouth. Because it still has the tag of "illegal", people generally don't spout it around. The last year that's been changing, with complete computer-illiterate people posting it up on Facebook and such. The taboo is slowly fading, which means that the growth rate will increase rapidly.
b) Businesses don't collapse from one day to another. They have reserves, and incomes from other activities. Even if all their new games get pirated, they'll still have some income from older games, especially if they're subscription based games. Profit margins are still decreasing, which will ultimately lead to losses, less investors, etc. To claim "They won't go bankrupt because they haven't gone bankrupt yet" is completely ridiculous.
Anyway, I'm fully against SOPA/PIPA. I just don't think they should make piracy legal. Once there is no law against it, it doesn't take long for something to become accepted and then frequented. Think of divorce: when the church opposed it, there were none. When people stopped caring about the church, it didn't take long for the taboo to be lifted, and now divorce rates rise every year. (Not judging divorce here; I'm glad the taboo is gone and people don't stay together to avoid the shame.)
Humans claim to have a sense of morality, but ultimately it's consequences we care about. If suddenly murder was no longer illegal, do you think people wouldn't murder because "it's bad"?
Summary:
-I believe piracy does hurt companies/artists/working people.
-I believe piracy is a growing problem, and the growth rate is increasing.
-I believe legalizing piracy would be stupid; it would cause piracy to grow much faster, drastically increasing the impact it has on the entertainment [and other] market[s].
-I don't believe SOPA & PIPA are the way to do it.
-I believe it's up to the artists/publishers/industry to find ways to dissuade piracy, by finding a way to make the "genuine" experience more than the "downloaded" experience.
There are a lot of valid points here. I don't have the energy to reply in this thread any longer. Perhaps I am too idealistic in my views. Perhaps legalizing file sharing is not a wise decision (though I'm not saying I feel that way, though I can see why others would).
There is one point here that I want to end on. And I realize that this point is a completely unrealistic and impossible scenario and is a tangent so far from the original debate that it is totally pointless, but...
I just want to say.... if you had a literally unlimited supply of bread that cost you zero to produce, and you didn't give that bread away for free, then you are the embodiment of greed, the slime of humanity, and you need to die. Painfully.
There is one point here that I want to end on. And I realize that this point is a completely unrealistic and impossible scenario and is a tangent so far from the original debate that it is totally pointless, but...
| Nonsense; it IS a fair comparison: to have an income, a baker must sell bread; to have an income, an artist must sell CDs. Regardless of the marginal cost of another loaf of bread/CD, in the end, it's still "Total income - total cost = profit/loss". Whether that "total cost" comes from a small cost per loaf or a very high but one-time investment, ultimately doesn't matter. |
I just want to say.... if you had a literally unlimited supply of bread that cost you zero to produce, and you didn't give that bread away for free, then you are the embodiment of greed, the slime of humanity, and you need to die. Painfully.
Last edited on
5 years in jail just because someone has posted a link on my site? No way, we have to stop it! So we decided to join the SOPA protest. Join!
If there’s something you’d like to know about SOPA. Here is the article which also contains
the link to protest site: http://www.divine-project.com/sopa-is-this-the-end-of-internet
If there’s something you’d like to know about SOPA. Here is the article which also contains
the link to protest site: http://www.divine-project.com/sopa-is-this-the-end-of-internet