• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sopa

AdamT said:
"The Obama administration has joined the ranks of skeptics of the Stop Online Piracy Act. In an online statement released Saturday, three senior White House officials wrote that the administration "will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

Obama administration joins the ranks of SOPA skeptics
Click to expand...

AKA too many people grew skeptical too fast before they rammed it through.
 
i emailed my congresswomen and voting for ron paul. Apart from doing a protest, I've done my part.
 
I see it as just another attempt by the entertainment industry to continue their absurd demands brought on by greed. Like many forms of entertainment today the people involved demand more and more and want to work less and less for it. Any threat to this process is fought tooth and nail. This is the main reason I no longer watch or purchase sports items. Athletes and Actors for example expect HUGE salaries at the expense of ticket and product buyers. Take Julia Roberts for example (I believe it was her, its been a few years now) that said she didnt want to be contacted for work unless the role payed a minimum of $20M a movie. Actors/Actresses that make Television shows work shorter and shorter seasons and ask for more and more money. Look at TV in the 1950's for example, many made 40-60 episodes a year and worked for a fraction of current salaries (taking inflation into consideration), today many shows are only 12-16 episodes a year.

High budget movies today have a army of personal. All for what? Movies today in my opinion are no more entertaining then 50 years ago. I recently watched a movie that was made by an individual for $25,000. Yes I said $25,000 and while it did not have the same polish that Hollywood releases have it was every bit as entertaining. Yet many if not most Hollywood releases have budgets in the tens of millions and some over 100 million.

I say that the entertainment industry has been digging their own hole and now are looking for our politicians to correct the problem putting the blame on "pirates". I have got news for them, if torrents were not available I still wouldn't pay $15+ to watch 99% their overpriced crap in theaters.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
This is causing a big stir on the forumns for the game I play, Leage of Legends. They get many thousands of people to watch average joe playing a video game online via streaming. I guess SOPA would be able to attack these streamers and LoL wants to keep that viewer base alive to build a competative sports-like scene. I wonder what SOPA would do to internet radio stations? I think it would totally kill them.


Help Us Stop SOPA | LoL - League of Legends

Help Us Stop SOPA - League of Legends Community

When super popular games are speaking up against you, you know you've F'd up and reached too far.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that online radio stations already pay to have songs available to play.
 
Deuce said:
Either you haven't read the powers granted by the proposed bill or you are really, really not a libertarian.

I could post a link to a youtube video in this post, that youtube video has some music background.

DP gets sued and potentially shut down.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the great harm. It seems to be a bill of redundancy to me. You've provided absolutely nothing to the contrary. Granted, redundant bills are certainly a waste of time but it's not going to end the internet as we know it as some claim.
 
Baralis said:
I see it as just another attempt by the entertainment industry to continue their absurd demands brought on by greed. Like many forms of entertainment today the people involved demand more and more and want to work less and less for it. Any threat to this process is fought tooth and nail. This is the main reason I no longer watch or purchase sports items. Athletes and Actors for example expect HUGE salaries at the expense of ticket and product buyers. Take Julia Roberts for example (I believe it was her, its been a few years now) that said she didnt want to be contacted for work unless the role payed a minimum of $20M a movie. Actors/Actresses that make Television shows work shorter and shorter seasons and ask for more and more money. Look at TV in the 1950's for example, many made 40-60 episodes a year and worked for a fraction of current salaries (taking inflation into consideration), today many shows are only 12-16 episodes a year.

High budget movies today have a army of personal. All for what? Movies today in my opinion are no more entertaining then 50 years ago. I recently watched a movie that was made by an individual for $25,000. Yes I said $25,000 and while it did not have the same polish that Hollywood releases have it was every bit as entertaining. Yet many if not most Hollywood releases have budgets in the tens of millions and some over 100 million.

I say that the entertainment industry has been digging their own hole and now are looking for our politicians to correct the problem putting the blame on "pirates". I have got news for them, if torrents were not available I still wouldn't pay $15+ to watch 99% their overpriced crap in theaters.
Click to expand...

This is what every arguement boils down to. Someone feeling that someone else wants too much for the product and since the first party feels that the second party is charging too much they feel it's justifiable to just take it.

This is the same arguement shoplifters have used for years.
 
The arguments of people who steal the content of others through illegal download boil down to:

1. I don't wanna pay for stuff.

2. You can't make me pay for stuff I want to steal.

3. I should be allowed to steal stuff.

------------

I've blasted away pretty much every supporter of illegal piracy on this forum that I've ever encountered and their arguments, when they realize are bull****, then go into the absurd. I once had some moron claim that because artists today hadn't invented "sound"/"the English language" they shouldn't get the exclusive right to own that which they produce.
 
Hatuey said:
I've blasted away pretty much every supporter of illegal piracy on this forum that I've ever encountered and their arguments, when they realize are bull****, then go into the absurd. I once had some moron claim that because artists today hadn't invented "sound"/"the English language" they shouldn't get the exclusive right to own that which they produce.
Click to expand...

You're letting congress bait you away from the real issue, which is firewalling the internet. The piracy clause is just the gateway to China-style control of cyberspace, freedom of information, and thought-speak. It started with child porn before that.

These emotional hotbutton issues are making people turn off their logic.
 
Temporal said:
You're letting congress bait you away from the real issue, which is firewalling the internet. The piracy clause is just the gateway to China-style control of cyberspace, freedom of information, and thought-speak. It started with child porn before that.
Click to expand...

? Please tell me you aren't defending the right to transmit child porn?

These emotional hotbutton issues are making people turn off their logic.
Click to expand...

Then make one based upon the facts so I can be convinced.
 
Temporal said:
You're letting congress bait you away from the real issue, which is firewalling the internet. The piracy clause is just the gateway to China-style control of cyberspace, freedom of information, and thought-speak. It started with child porn before that.

These emotional hotbutton issues are making people turn off their logic.
Click to expand...

Did I read that right? Sounds wrong.
 
1Perry said:
? Please tell me you aren't defending the right to transmit child porn?

Then make one based upon the facts so I can be convinced.
Click to expand...

That's what I read too.... What the hell does child porn have to do with copyright infringement?
 
1Perry said:
This is what every arguement boils down to. Someone feeling that someone else wants too much for the product and since the first party feels that the second party is charging too much they feel it's justifiable to just take it.

This is the same arguement shoplifters have used for years.
Click to expand...

No, most people who have a problem with IP law, have valid complaints.

First and foremost, nearly all IP is based on prior work.
So the argument that it is original is false and allowing indefinite ownership is wrong.

Second, the constitution allows for IP, for a limited time.
IP ownership after death, runs a foul of the supreme law of the land.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, most people who have a problem with IP law, have valid complaints.

First and foremost, nearly all IP is based on prior work.
So the argument that it is original is false and allowing indefinite ownership is wrong.
Click to expand...

If we were discussing allowing ownership to lapse after 25 years or something, there would be no discussion here. Much of what is being pirated is recently new work.

Second, the constitution allows for IP, for a limited time.
IP ownership after death, runs a foul of the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

We have laws to address that. If you have a problem with them, work to change them, don't decide that just because you dislike them that you have the right to ignore them just because you can get internet access.
 
1Perry said:
If we were discussing allowing ownership to lapse after 25 years or something, there would be no discussion here. Much of what is being pirated is recently new work.
Click to expand...

It's not really limited to just that though.
If I want to do a companion piece to your IP, adding all new things, you can sue me and if IP holders have their way, I could be held criminally liable.

Why should I do anything to benefit them, when they're doing something to harm me?

1Perry said:
We have laws to address that. If you have a problem with them, work to change them, don't decide that just because you dislike them that you have the right to ignore them just because you can get internet access.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I believe in nullification.
If the legal system is corrupt and won't abide by the law, why should I?
 
1Perry said:
This is what every arguement boils down to. Someone feeling that someone else wants too much for the product and since the first party feels that the second party is charging too much they feel it's justifiable to just take it.

This is the same arguement shoplifters have used for years.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
The arguments of people who steal the content of others through illegal download boil down to:

1. I don't wanna pay for stuff.

2. You can't make me pay for stuff I want to steal.

3. I should be allowed to steal stuff.

------------

I've blasted away pretty much every supporter of illegal piracy on this forum that I've ever encountered and their arguments, when they realize are bull****, then go into the absurd. I once had some moron claim that because artists today hadn't invented "sound"/"the English language" they shouldn't get the exclusive right to own that which they produce.
Click to expand...


When I sell my old books or DVDs in a garage sale is the person buying them a thief? Yet if I email or torrent an Ebook or a movie to my cousin in RI they are a thief. Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

If I buy a Book or DVD and then lend it to my neighbor are they a thief? Then why sending them the same content over the internet different?

Now I understand that there is a difference and that is the scope in which people can now share these works and that is what it is all about. It has the potential to cause a lot more financial damage to the creators. I do not deny this.

I do not consider it stealing but rather receiving stolen goods, torrents are freely given, I am not "stealing" them from anyone.
 
Hatuey said:
The arguments of people who steal the content of others through illegal download boil down to:

1. I don't wanna pay for stuff.

2. You can't make me pay for stuff I want to steal.

3. I should be allowed to steal stuff.
Click to expand...

The SOPA bill isn't just about DRM. It's about firewalling and restricting the Internet in the way that gives the big studios and labels the ability to distribute content while preventing independent artists and movie makers from doing the same. That is rupert murdoch's wet dream. The Time Warners of the world want things to go back to the pre-Internet era where they could control all the content created.

It's also about the US government controlling access to information. The title of a bill typically has nothing to do with its content.

AS for theft of media, anyone who wants to show a movie or perform a song can always do it live, which completely inhibits any form of hi-fi digital recording.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not really limited to just that though.
If I want to do a companion piece to your IP, adding all new things, you can sue me and if IP holders have their way, I could be held criminally liable.
Click to expand...

If you decide to profit off the already created ideas of others without compensating them, I have no problem with that.

Why should I do anything to benefit them, when they're doing something to harm me?
Click to expand...

LOL, why should they allow their ideas to benefit you without compensation?

Sorry but I believe in nullification.
If the legal system is corrupt and won't abide by the law, why should I?
Click to expand...

Again, this is always what it boils down to. People thinking they have a right to steal the work of others. Didn't you complain about this same sort of thinking with the OWS crowd?
 
1Perry said:
If you decide to profit off the already created ideas of others without compensating them, I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

But they are profiting off the ideas of others too.

1Perry said:
LOL, why should they allow their ideas to benefit you without compensation?
Click to expand...

That is the contradiction that IP holders have.
They freely profit off the ideas of others, yet they don't want to allow others to profit off of their ideas.
Sounds a lot like, "Do as I say, not as I do."

1Perry said:
Again, this is always what it boils down to. People thinking they have a right to steal the work of others. Didn't you complain about this same sort of thinking with the OWS crowd?
Click to expand...

IP holder "steal" the work of others without compensating them.....
 
Baralis said:
When I sell my old books or DVDs in a garage sale is the person buying them a thief? Yet if I email or torrent an Ebook or a movie to my cousin in RI they are a thief. Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?
Click to expand...

No, that's the way they are packaged. In one instance you can resell the book one time. In another you could resell it countless numbers of times. It is and was illegal for you to make copies of hard copy books and resell them.

If I buy a Book or DVD and then lend it to my neighbor are they a thief? Then why sending them the same content over the internet different?
Click to expand...

There is a zero percent chance of you getting nailed for this.

Now I understand that there is a difference and that is the scope in which people can now share these works and that is what it is all about. It has the potential to cause a lot more financial damage to the creators. I do not deny this.

I do not consider it stealing but rather receiving stolen goods, torrents are freely given, I am not "stealing" them from anyone.
Click to expand...

Stealing or receiving stolen goods is both illegal.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
But they are profiting off the ideas of others too.
Click to expand...

This is a generalization with no relevance. Many have had to pay where it was proven they profitted off the ideas of others. Sampling comes to mind.

That is the contradiction that IP holders have.
They freely profit off the ideas of others, yet they don't want to allow others to profit off of their ideas.
Sounds a lot like, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Click to expand...

THey? Who are "they"?

IP holder "steal" the work of others without compensating them.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, you need to be far more specific.
 
1Perry said:
This is a generalization with no relevance. Many have had to pay where it was proven they profitted off the ideas of others. Sampling comes to mind.
Click to expand...


1Perry said:
THey? Who are "they"?

Sorry, you need to be far more specific.
Click to expand...

Practically every single person who holds some sort of IP.
They did not invent in their own mind, all the concepts, structure, etc. of the works they created.
They were not born in a vacuum and did not create their work in a vacuum.

Most freely admit to being "influenced" by other works.
The evidence is most damning, yet they want to deny to others, what they did openly.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Practically every single person who holds some sort of IP.
They did not invent in their own mind, all the concepts, structure, etc. of the works they created.
They were not born in a vacuum and did not create their work in a vacuum.

Most freely admit to being "influenced" by other works.
The evidence is most damning, yet they want to deny to others, what they did openly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, there is no way to debate vague things like this. Whatever it is they are doing, you would legally be able to also.
 
Baralis said:
When I sell my old books or DVDs in a garage sale is the person buying them a thief?
Click to expand...

No - because you paid for it and are selling YOUR legally owned property. This is entirely different from distributing the content freely when it doesn't belong to you. Why? Because upon purchasing the product, you AGREE to abide by the manufacturer's contract as dictated in those little blue FBI screens that go something like :

dvdwarn1.jpg


Yet if I email or torrent an Ebook or a movie to my cousin in RI they are a thief. Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?


If I buy a Book or DVD and then lend it to my neighbor are they a thief? Then why sending them the same content over the internet different?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You know damn ****ing well that the overwhelming to the 99.99% percentile of torrents out on the internet aren't of legally purchased content.

Now I understand that there is a difference and that is the scope in which people can now share these works and that is what it is all about. It has the potential to cause a lot more financial damage to the creators. I do not deny this.

I do not consider it stealing but rather receiving stolen goods, torrents are freely given, I am not "stealing" them from anyone.
Click to expand...

It is stealing because you didn't pay for it but still feel you are entitled to the product. Quit putting out nonsensical hypothetical scenarios.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
Sorry, there is no way to debate vague things like this. Whatever it is they are doing, you would legally be able to also.
Click to expand...

Do you see what I mean? Harry Guerrilla has a knack for going into the absurd when it comes to piracy debates. If we were to follow his "logic" there would be no right to property at all. After all, if you didn't invent the grass, the trees and dirt on your land, how can you claim that any of it is legally yours?
 
Obama finally got his wish! The Political Circus is now over, and congressmen and women of all parties can come together to screw over the people together!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom