• 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!

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

Yes. because thinking in extremes like yours isn't?

Your statement is inherently dishonest - the issue is not downloading those for free, but whether or not you, *derp* DID it WITH or WITHOUT permission of the rightsholder. Legally free software, music, videos, etc all exist - varying degrees of quality. People still buy things, people make money off their works regardless. Piracy exists, people still buy things enough where your doom and gloom proposition is itself ludicrous.
When someone argues a technicality like "it isn't theft because there's no material substance being taken" then yes, I change tactics, too, which includes extreme-isms.

You can examine all the free and shareware content you like but you won't find games like I mentioned above or movies like the million-dollar hits that come out of Hollywood. If freeware/shareware games were so good they'd be in the Top 10 lists, but I don't recall seeing any there and I don't expect it anytime in the near future. Those top-notch games/movies/software take a lot of time and money to develop. If piracy becomes rampant (no checks at all, legal. social, or otherwise) and sales decrease enough then the quality of the games/movies/software will decrease as well.

I agree completely that many business models have to change. I'm a consumer just like everyone else and I'm not rich, either. I'd like to see prices come down, too. But I'm not sure I'm willing to pay so much less that the entertainment value is adversely affected in the future. Others may be happy playing 20 different "OK" games but I prefer 3-4 good ones. Ten 'B' movies doesn't make one Top 100 movie.


InRe "Non-sequitur": I've been a pirate (ancient history, now) but my buddies and I never once fooled ourselves into believing we weren't doing something wrong. I'm not so sure about today's pirates - and maybe that's part of the problem?

Edit:
But least you miss the other point I've been making - screwing over everybody to stop piracy isn't the answer, either. And as far as I know even the best of the best geeks can't figure a way to stop it without doing just that.
 
Last edited:
InRe "Non-sequitur": I've been a pirate (ancient history, now) but my buddies and I never once fooled ourselves into believing we weren't doing something wrong. I'm not so sure about today's pirates - and maybe that's part of the problem?

It is. Many have convinced themselves they're part of a noble vanguard. Many of them type such inanity on this very board.
 
Not if they're going to invade everyone's privacy to do it - and I haven't seen any hints of that.

Not about pornography but related:

Sadly, child abuse happens every day in way too many homes in America. I'm sure that if every home were bugged and monitored to the extent the Fed monitors communications in and out of the US that we could catch, prosecute, and imprison a huge chunk of those child abusers. And no doubt many of the ones that weren't caught in the act would have a new incentive to stop. So, are YOU willing to sign up to have YOUR home bugged so we can catch all those child abusers out there?

One does not need to moniter every single transaction to know what someone like megaupload was doing.
 
One does not need to moniter every single transaction to know what someone like megaupload was doing.
And if you're good with only taking down sites like Megaupload then we don't need new laws. The very fact that Megaupload was taken down without them proves that.

There are already laws in place where copyright holders can request files be removed from a site for infringement and Google alone processes thousands of these requests a day. But Hollywood et al isn't happy with that, they want more. If you/they expect these Acts to take it a step farther, then every single packet must be inspected to insure it's not part of an illegal upload/download. There's more to it than that but packet inspection is at the heart of it and is the most controversial because that's where privacy gets invaded.
 
And if you're good with only taking down sites like Megaupload then we don't need new laws. The very fact that Megaupload was taken down without them proves that.

I've stated over and over that I believe these new laws were simply redundant. I'm not argueing that we need them. I'm simply argueing against the idea that if they are passed that YouTube will be shut down because someone posts a video of their kids birthday.
 
I've stated over and over that I believe these new laws were simply redundant. I'm not argueing that we need them. I'm simply argueing against the idea that if they are passed that YouTube will be shut down because someone posts a video of their kids birthday.
I think Youtube (Google) is big enough that it would never happen because Google has lawyers just as good as those that might try it. Some small start-up, though, could easily be put out of business, not from trying to create an environment rife with pirating but simply because they couldn't defend themselves if accused. Look at how many file sharing companies virtually closed shop (at least temporarily) when Megaupload was brought down. Most of those sites have no interest in fostering piracy but they closed up anyway out of fear. Of course, MS's and Amazon's cloud service didn't close up - they can fight back.

It's not really the gorilla's (Google, Facebook. etc.) defending themselves from other gorilla's (Hollywood) that I'm worried about. It's the little guy - maybe the next Google founder, who knows? - trying to make an honest buck that is often hurt by this kind of stuff.
 
That's not really a problem; all you have to do is look at what every stolen piece should have cost. And look at the year-to-year lost revenues of the publishers.

Look, it's harmful. I know you don't want to think it is, but it is. People lose jobs. Companies close their doors.

Sorry, but that simply does not hold water. In fact, in some cases the opposite is true.

Most people who download pirated software would not have paid for it anyway. So basically it doesn't cost Microsoft anything for me to use a hot copy of Word if I wouldn't have bought it anyway. I'm using it, but my direct use didn't cost the company anything. And, in some cases, people have downloaded pirated versions of software and after using it, went out and bought a legit copy because they liked it so much. They wouldn't have done that had they not been able to try it out for free beforehand.

I have a real problem with people saying that it "costs companies jobs" when people download and use their software without paying for it. No, it doesn't, ESPECIALLY if that person would not have purchased it in the first place. If there was no way XYZ software corporation was going to get a dime out of John Smith, whether he used the software or not, then no money was "lost" as no money would have changed hands anyway.

Note: I'm not commenting on whether it is wrong or not, I'm just commenting on the "companies lose money" part of it.
 
Last edited:
Most people who download pirated software would not have paid for it anyway. So basically it doesn't cost Microsoft anything for me to use a hot copy of Word if I wouldn't have bought it anyway.
If intent is all it takes to be a non-stealing pirate then I'll announce right now have no intention of ever buying software again. See how easy that was?

The thing is you could have downloaded OpenOffice or any of a half-dozen other free wp's without having to pirate Word. The same goes for games, music, and to some extent movies. Lots of free games of almost any type, lots of free music, and even a few full-length free movies - legally free, that is.
 
Last edited:
Most people who download pirated software would not have paid for it anyway.

Do you have documentation for this?

I posted links to studies which show the opposite (in general). Do you have something to counter it?

And even if you could show something for "software," how does an example one particular type of piracy mean that my statement in general "doesn't hold water"? I didn't say anything about "software" and I certainly didn't limit my comments to it.
 
Last edited:
And if the government cuts off that access to entertainment and interaction the mob is going to get awfully restless and awfully angry. And since they are no longer kept in line, they'll get off their butts and do something about it. And it won't be pretty.
First they have to take away our guns.

 
I think ya'll are just going to have to take a deep breath and accept the fact that copyrighted material put on the web for the purposes of cheating companies out of making money is going to get tougher and tougher to do.

You have now fallen from grace. You don't even care about the constitutional question being raised by this "treaty". I want to know where the Senate was in all this? There are NO treaties without Senatorial approval.
 
MaggieD said:
I think ya'll are just going to have to take a deep breath and accept the fact that copyrighted material put on the web for the purposes of cheating companies out of making money is going to get tougher and tougher to do.

This is a complete cop-out from taking the responsibility of delving deeper into the implications of what this and similar legislation are going to do to freedom of information and speech in the United States.

People who think this is purely about copyright are dead wrong. After Wikileaks, there is no way that the U.S. government - or any major government - wants to allow the general public the freedom to disseminate information. The press, and now increasingly the internet, are being roped off to ensure that you stay nice and ignorant.

But keep touting the theft line... it's the same line congress uses to take away your freedoms, just like "safety". :shrug:
 
This is a complete cop-out from taking the responsibility of delving deeper into the implications of what this and similar legislation are going to do to freedom of information and speech in the United States.

People who think this is purely about copyright are dead wrong. After Wikileaks, there is no way that the U.S. government - or any major government - wants to allow the general public the freedom to disseminate information. The press, and now increasingly the internet, are being roped off to ensure that you stay nice and ignorant.

But keep touting the theft line... it's the same line congress uses to take away your freedoms, just like "safety". :shrug:

Maggie is a definite left-winger....no doubt about it now.
 
Maggie is a definite left-winger....no doubt about it now.
Seems to me like she's leaning to the right. But I can be politically color-blind at times.
 
Back
Top Bottom