It's not Piracy they're against, it's distribution for Independents they fear!

[Mike P.]

I'd argue that people who pirate movies, at least 90% of the time (honestly, I think it'd be more), wouldn't bother to watch the movie unless it was free. In terms of "theft" vs "infringement", claiming that the "future and/or projected revenue" is being "stolen" at a quantifiable value is borderline retarded, especially considering that projected revenues are a.) never conservatively estimated (they're best case scenario made by completely biased sources), and b.) not yet earned and so can be grossly over exaggerated.

I mean, c'mon, we're talking about the same people who say that the Harry Potter franchise had only "broken even" so as to forego having to pay royalties to those owed on the back-end... We're talking about the people who, even though they're saving millions of dollars by not having to print/produce/store/ship all those BluRays/DVDs, still charge full price for a digital/downloadable copy even though it costs them essentially nothing after it's been encoded and put on the server (if they cost what they should, barely any one would buy the BD/DVD for the extra $15)... They claim their losing money hand over fist, and then boast that 2010 was a record year for theatrical revenue??? WTF? These are the types of people that wrote these bills (MPAA) and these are the types of people supporting it, and it's crazy that any one would trust these people to be able to objectively pick and choose (censor) what's allowed to show up on the internet? If we were talking about China I'd understand how they thought they could get away with it, but we're not so it's insane that they're even trying.

I think Gabe Newell has it right; 'if people are pirating your [products], it's because they aren't value-added enough for a proper purchase.' And while that's something that no content creator likes to hear, it's particularly potent for those that have gotten fat off the old monopolistic way. Services like Netflix is where it's at; it's $8/mth and the only problem is trying to decide what to watch. Those with internet have no reason not to have it (rent or buy one less movie a month to have the additional $8), and those without internet apparently can't pirate anyway.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

The business models for copyrighted material have simply not kept up with the technology.

Start here: http://www.lessig.org/

 

[M Most]

I'd argue that people who pirate movies, at least 90% of the time (honestly, I think it'd be more), wouldn't bother to watch the movie unless it was free.

You're kidding, right? I sure hope so, because these kind of rationalizations are really just excuses for unlawful behavior. It's either OK or it's not. And in my mind, it's not, regardless of how many people looking for (and used to getting) "free stuff" might think that it is. It's all lots of fun until you're an adult and realize that in order to make a living and support yourself and a family, you actually have to be paid for things you do, make, or sell. Then it stops being a fun game.

I think Gabe Newell has it right; 'if people are pirating your [products], it's because they aren't valued enough to buy.' And while that's something that no content creator likes to hear, it's particularly potent for those that have gotten fat off the old monopolistic way. Services like Netflix is where it's at; it's $8/mth and the only problem is trying to decide what to watch. Those with internet have no reason not to have it (rent or buy one less movie a month to have the additional $8), and those without internet apparently can't pirate anyway.

You're kidding again, right? Maya, Final Cut, 3D Studio Max, Photoshop, After Effects, Autodesk Smoke - those things are pirated because they're not good enough to buy?? In a world of irrational rationalizations, that one is one of the wilder ones I've heard.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think Gabe Newell has it right; 'if people are pirating your [products], it's because they aren't worth buying.'

Is this another instance of sarcasm, or a tremendous load of shit? If a product were of no value then there would be no interest in taking it in the first place.

The business models for copyrighted material have simply not kept up with the technology.

Start here: http://www.lessig.org/

Thanks Terry. I'll definitely look at that.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I am wondering - very sincerely - if Mr. Most has looked at the other side of his argument as presented by some of those who have studied it extensively? Again. Lawrence Lessig is very articulate on the matter and he is NOT advocating anarchy or stealing. Check it out.

 

[Mike P.]

You're kidding, right? I sure hope so, because these kind of rationalizations are really just excuses for unlawful behavior. It's either OK or it's not. And in my mind, it's not, regardless of how many people looking for (and used to getting) "free stuff" might think that it is. It's all lots of fun until you're an adult and realize that in order to make a living and support yourself and a family, you actually have to be paid for things you do, make, or sell. Then it stops being a fun game.

Really? I think you have a lot of faith in the pirates actually wanting the buy most movies they acquire unlawfully. I don't condone piracy, it's not okay. However, I have absolutely no faith in these pirates turning into consumers and actually buying stuff if it were not possible for them to pirate. They just wouldn't watch as much. My point isn't that people should be allowed to pirate, it's that SOPA/PIPA supporters are using piracy as a way to try to control the internet via legislation, when the problem isn't the internet (or at least not solely the internet). It's like the patriot act 2.0 - everyone give up some freedoms in order to try to prevent piracy (something you may or may not contribute to), in an attempt to try and recoup sliding sales in the entertainment industries. What the f*** is that? At least with the patriot act the people they were imposing the stupid thing on, were the same people they were trying to protect. In this case, the hassle to the public is NOT worth the minuscule gains (if any) to just the entertainment industry.

How does SOPA/PIPA benefit joe/jane six-pack (aka the NON-pirating average internet surfing public)? I'll tell you - it doesn't. It can only hinder his/her web experience by constantly downing sites and search engines like google because they are thorough enough to inadvertantly pick up scraps of piracy in their searches. And that's assuming that it does not get abused by the people trying to get it passed, which is such wishful/naive/ignorant thinking that it's insane.

You're kidding again, right? Maya, Final Cut, 3D Studio Max, Photoshop, After Effects, Autodesk Smoke - those things are pirated because they're not good enough to buy?? In a world of irrational rationalizations, that one is one of the wilder ones I've heard.

You mean professional applications? Because of how expensive they are, I doubt their sales would increase all that much if pirates-turned-consumers. Less so than movies/games/music. And again, this isn't condoning piracy or making an irrational rationalization as to why people should be allowed to pirate (they shouldn't); this is taking all the wind out of the SOPA/PIPA sail, which props itself entirely on the idea that "piracy is ruining everything in the US, so the government should be allowed to censor what they feel is inappropriate on the internet.*" Which is complete BS.

*to the highest bidder, of course.

If a product were of no value then there would be no interest in taking it in the first place.

I changed it so it was broader and more palatable.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think Gabe Newell has it right; 'if people are pirating your [products], it's because they aren't value-added enough for a proper purchase.'

While we can agree that adding value and creating a premium product is a viable method for dealing with pirating (at least for now) I'd still argue that you have the tail wagging the dog. Stealing the the film and not the extras is still stealing the film, and if nobody wanted it nobody would steal it.

Telling this crowd that their labors are of no value stinks of trolling. I'm glad you toned down the rhetoric.

 

[M Most]

I am wondering - very sincerely - if Mr. Most has looked at the other side of his argument as presented by some of those who have studied it extensively? Again. Lawrence Lessig is very articulate on the matter and he is NOT advocating anarchy or stealing. Check it out.

I understand the "other side" quite well. I just don't agree with it. I also am not advocating the current SOPA proposal, which I said in my very first post in this thread is quite flawed. I am arguing against rationalizations for what is basically theft.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

... I am arguing against rationalizations for what is basically theft.

Based on this, I'd say there is very little (if any) space between you and most of the rest of the people here, myself included . I think the problem is in "the details," i.e. how much one is willing to compromise freedoms for control; what one perceives as the bigger threat to creativity and freedom; how much of a cost one is willing to impose on "the many" for the very arguable (IMO) "protection" of the few.

If you think Disney should own the rights to Mickey Mouse in perpetuity (which, we all know, it more or less "stole" to begin with), - allowing for no reasonable derivative works, then (again IMO) we have thrown out the baby with the bath water. To suggest that downloading a copy of a Disney cartoon is the same as "stealing" a comic book from the magazine stand is ridiculous; it is not. It is much more complicated than that and so are the ramifications of dealing with these very different acts.

Lessig's books on the topic are much more illuminating than this thread is likely to turn out - as much fun as it is!

 

[Joe G.]

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks the Internet (Action Needed)

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I stopped believing in the concept of "IP" a long time ago, and I currently make my income from supposedly selling it. This abandonment was a slow process for me. As a guy heavily involved in stock media, I kept noticing how "IP" laws did more to hinder me than they did to help me. I've literally seen photographers sue over "copyright violations" - then whine and moan when a company like Ford tells them to pull all of their logo-less photos of mustang cars citing "trade dress" violations. People in that industry really want more protection, but they are too ignorant to realize that if the laws were really ramped up, trade dress issues in particular, it would actually kill the industry! Since I stopped buying into the whole IP fallacy, it has really, REALLY, opened my eyes to new business models that make way more sense which are more sustainable in the long run. A few links below if you wanna take the red pill, LOL.

A look at the lack of copyright in the fashion business:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

"Against Intellectual Property" - pdf

http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property

The big thing I realized after my disillusionment with IP was this: If you can't reliably control it, you can't reliably sell it. Let's leave the protection mechanisms and business model changes up to the market.

Lastly, for those who think these laws won't be used and abused by the Government for other purposes, ie. shutting down websites critical of the government, you are living in a fantasy land.

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Megaupload.com was taken down and many were charged....Riaa.org, Universalmusic, and justice.gov(DOJ) have all been hacked and taken down by hacker "Anonymous"

MPAA.org apparently taken down as well...

 

[Tom Lowe]

How much of our liberty and privacy should we be willing to sacrifice in order to protect intellectual property: ZERO. Not one shred. We should not have to.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Anonymous strikes again... Between them and WikiLeaks (many indications that the two are interrelated), you would think congress and government officials at large would be focusing on closing back doors, loopholes, etc.. and finding ways to actually keep the information secure. You know, rather than bending over for one particular industry that now apparently has the power to circumvent common law and force other businesses to close down. WTF... Ultimately, I think "Anonymous", which appears to be a small and loosely organized group with fluctuating "membership", actually does make some valid statements at times by their actions. The unfortunate part of it is they have to resort to illegal activity to do so and often cause significant damage or loss of business in the process.

Megaupload.com going down??? Hmmm... On one hand it's kinda like, well duh! people have been using it to transfer pirated movies and warez for years... On the other hand, I have to take real issue here in that it was taken down without due process of law and proper proceedings. Much of the data transacted on Megaupload (and many sites like it) is perfectly legit and the site is being killed for uncontrolled contents. Personally, I hate piracy. But I also hate these strong-arm gestapo tactics we're starting to see. This reeks of what SOPA and Protect-IP threaten to do on a larger scale. So if Megaupload is facilitating the transactions of pirated copyrighted materials, then take that information / evidence and run them through legal due process, fine them, punish them, etc.. Simply pulling the plug on their site seems to trample on a lot of basic rights.. But how does one argue that in court? What does Megaupload do now? Do they go file an injunction with Federal Circuit Court and have to wait 6 to 8 months for their case to be heard? The whole time their site is just down with no recourse? May as well just say f--- it! And go re-start a new service or try something else. If they get away with this, it's going to set a precedent for future such takedowns and will be harder to fight against.

I'm also appalled that Megaupload.com gets taken down and yet ThePirateBay is still thriving. There is NOTHING that is legit on those torrent lists..

Anyway, welcome to the new internet. Everyone is guilty until proven dead...

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Apparently the FBI site is next on the list. Like Jeff said, its unfortunate that Americans have to use illegal activities to get our Govt's attention, but when they don't listen to the people using legal forms or protest what do they expect to happen?

 

[Tehben Dean]

A look at the lack of copyright in the fashion business:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

That was really interesting.

 

[António Fagundes]

Charging for internet intellectual and cultural property is forever gone. No matter what any country's government does, it will be impossible to stop. I do work in the industry for ten years and I haven't bought a dvd in three thanks to the internet, as I 'illegally' download any 720p film I want, but I do go to the cinema every week...

The people that charge for DVD sales are not my concern, Blockbuster bankrupted and nobody in the industry cried over them. Didn't affect anyone expect themselves. Kopdak filed today for bankruptcy (thanks to Red in large ) and no one seems to be concerned about them or about the people that will loose their jobs... and they shouldn't be, its just the way the world rolls!

There are a lot of other much more serious issues around the globe that should be taken care of, as in a lot of places, children still actually die from starvation. That pisses me off a lot more than worrying about suits that make far too much money by doing absolutely nothing except sell intelectual property that enriches no one but themselves.

Keep 'em comming Pirate Bay!

 

[Mark B.]

I have an idea! All of the movies that are being made with ridiculously overpaid actors could be made with unknowns! And the dependency on FX could be minimized, with more use of cheap practicals and clever camera work! ...Is it possible? Could it be possible?... that perhaps low-budget film-making could turn a profit even in the face of piracy? Maybe if Hollywood tweaked their expenses to reasonable levels they might actually remain profitable in the face of the Internet! And, maybe just once in a while, they could take the story-line plot generators and the market demographic studies and throw them in the trash so that they can actually make some unique movies!

But no... I guess it's easier for them just to fleece the world of its freedom of speech.

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

You know what I find humorous, SOPA and PIPA are examples of the government not being willing to go far enough! I don't want to sound like a far-righty, trying to use this to say "congress is lame cause I hate liberals" ( or vice versa for the house, for that matter ). I think both sides have a history of protecting special interests. Let's see if I can say this clearly:

First, my opinion is simple, we should always pursue, stop, and fix illegal activities. This includes working to provide education to get at the root of societies problems. But we should never ( idealistically ) sacrifice the child to save the village. SOPA is a failure because it's the tactical nuke response to the problem - broad, dumb, not precise.

The reason I say SOPA / PIPA is lawmakers not going far enough is that we can't easily pursue the owners of most sites that offer pirated materials, so we have to go after the site itself, creating a tool that isn't actually going after the problem. Legislators need to put in the time and effort to begin holding other countries, and our own corporations immediately accountable for crimes they allow to occur. Meaning if fraud / theft / murder / etc is occurring, immediate action is the only option. I understand and somewhat empathize with the fact that bureaucracy and governmental relationships are large and messy, but real fixes take a lot of time, work, effort, and can sometimes be painful.

All I am really saying is identify the problem with precision, address it fully, and don't harm innocent people.

I hope that makes a little bit of sense.

 

[Mark B.]

It's not always right to simply pursue, stop, and fix illegal activities. Sometimes governments should analyze what they consider illegal and determine whether that activity should continue to be illegal. Social attitudes change, new information is learned, and the cost-effectiveness of fighting certain crimes has to be taken into account. If fighting a crime costs society more than simply letting the crime go, then the law should simply let it go.

Examples: It's illegal to run a business without a business license, should the cops arrest all the kids running lemonade stands? How about arresting people for marijuana possession, is it really helping society or just costing taxpayers ridiculous sums of money? It's a balancing act to know what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. Helping rich copyright holders continue to earn lots of money, at the cost of free speech? I don't think that equates to something that benefits society. Even targeted efforts to stop pirating seems like a waste of taxpayer money. I'd rather my tax money went to helping find cures for diseases rather than going towards fighting crime on behalf of rich people.