Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 149

Thread: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

  1. #131
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,375

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    It is theft of someone else's intellectual property. You steal a song from the internet, the person who actually wrote that song gets no residual for that transaction.
    First, you don't prove how your premise is correct, then you go on as if it were proven, which only begs more questions.

    HOW is it theft, specially since IP is by nature something that can't be stolen like a piece of fruit or a chair can. So far, for example, the law disagrees, unless you are calling the people in Dowling v. U.S and Grokster liars.

    And 2nd, theft is not defined by payment or lack therefore, as it is an absurdly broad proposition that renders plenty of things illegal or immoral that aren't. Sure, they get no money, but using that logic, competing for listeners/money by making your own, and simply not buying the person's music does that too - keep said artist from making money. Are those examples theft? Using the broad definition you provided, yes, using logical deduction, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You can call it anything you want, but the truth is that it is theft, plain and simple.
    The truth is that you made the claim and went with it without explaining why your position is correct, or proving the logical and factual integrity. HOW DO WE KNOW YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUTH and not just opinion stated factually?

    I for example believe you are wrong because what is commonly seen as theft involves 2 elements, taking, and deprivation of said taken thing from the person ho had it before.

    There, then I can continue to say that in my opinion this, that and the other.
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

  2. #132
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    For the people who are arguing for the current copyright regime:

    Do you use/what are your thoughts on Tivo, adblockers, and pop-up blockers?
    I can't speak for Tivo, but I am for adblockers and pop-up blockers. Advertisers do have every right to send unsolicited advertising my way, but on the other hand, I also have the right to block it out, if that is what I want to do.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #133
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    There is a difference. With food I am getting something out of it, a physical benefit.
    You're still avoiding the question. You ate the food. It was perfectly edible, but it wasn't one of the best meals you ever ate. Do you demand a refund?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    With a lousy movie I get nothing.
    Then why watch a movie at all? Seems like you're more into OWNING a movie than in enjoying the visceral experience of watching one. That's odd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    No I won't necessarily refuse to pay but I have the option of not consuming their product again.
    Ok, so you wouldn't refuse to pay after consuming something that was good but wasn't THE bestest, most awesomest thing ever. We have a winner!

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    With a movie, I'm left completely empty handed.
    Once again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. I feel sorry for you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Antenna + TV = you can watch movies on TV for free.
    Nope. I live in a very rural area, in the woods. No antenna reception. No cell phone reception either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I'm not ending up with a tangible copy either.
    Again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. That's a really sad way to look at the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    You can look at and enjoy paintings and pictures without purchasing a copy, is that stealing?
    I don't know. Are you enjoying the originals in a museum? If so, you most likely paid for that pleasure. If you're DLing copies for free and 'shopping out the visual copyright so that you can enjoy them unimpeded in your own home? Yeah, that's copyright infringement/theft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Watching the whole movie is sampling, if they market their movie to only include the best parts in their marketing campaign, it's essentially false advertising.
    Where the hell did you get these nutty ideas? You are terribly, terribly confused. A sample is a limited quantity of something which is intended to be similar to and represent a larger amount of that thing; it is not the whole thing. That's why it's called a SAMPLE. And offering a free sample of ANYthing is not even close to false advertising. If anything, it's a (limited) open disclosure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It depends on the movie but I rarely go to the theater unless it's a series/director that has proven to be good maker.
    And if you go to see that film at a theater and it turns out not to be as enjoyable as the director's previous films? Do you demand a refund?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Otherwise I watch for free before I decide to purchase the DVD.
    You've still received the full benefit of that product; you still saw the entire film for free. Whether or not you purchase the DVD at a later time, you've already consumed the product. You owe the creators for what you've already consumed (whether you "liked" the product or not).

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I'm not ripping anyone off.
    Copyright law says you are. Intellectual property laws say you are. (And so do I.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I wouldn't be buying the movies I watch, if I could not get them for free.
    And what about the times you took them for free and didn't go buy your very own DVD to hold and pet and care for? You still TOOK AND CONSUMED THEM without paying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That is not what DRM does, DRM is the attempt of the industry to stop you from making back up copies, in case the original goes bad.
    Yes. I know what DRM does/is. As I said, I support the prevention of copyright infringement/theft.

    My remarks about replacing albums with 8-tracks and cassettes and CDs was a different thought. That's why it was in a different paragraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That's fine, I support ownership of tangible private property.
    Yeah. It seems like that's all you care about. If you can't touch it and own it and pet it and care for it, it's of no consequence to you. Sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    When a company tries to restrict the use of my hardware through government, I'll punish them by doing what I want, when I want... in the end, I get to do whatever I want to, regardless of moral outrage
    Ohhh, so you're a self-proclaimed vigilante / pirate / chief lord and executioner, and proud of it! Good for you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    What about when company A tries to force company B to produce a product how company A wants it, through the use of government?
    Company A can't force Company B to produce any product, with or without the government's help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I'm not whining
    No, you're definitely whining.

  4. #134
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I can't speak for Tivo, but I am for adblockers and pop-up blockers. Advertisers do have every right to send unsolicited advertising my way, but on the other hand, I also have the right to block it out, if that is what I want to do.
    I'm not referring to unsolicited advertisements from spam sites, but to advertisements that are part and parcel of legitimate websites. Moreover, you may not be legally entitled to block those ads.

    Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal - ZDNet

    Advertising-supported companies have long turned to the courts to squelch products that let consumers block or skip ads: it happened in the famous lawsuit against the VCR in 1979 and again with ReplayTV in 2001. Tomorrow's legal fight may be over Web browser add-ons that let people avoid advertisements. These add-ons are growing in functionality and popularity, which has led legal experts surveyed this week by CNET News.com to speculate about when the first lawsuit will be filed. If ad-blockers become so common that they slice away at publishers' revenues, "I absolutely would expect to see litigation in this area," said John Palfrey, executive director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

    ...

    A more recent hint about legality comes from a 2003 appeals court decision related to a copyright dispute over the file-sharing service Aimster. In that opinion, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner concluded that, based on earlier court rulings, commercial-skipping creates "an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner's income from his original program, since 'free' television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers." By "derivative work," he was referring to a concept from copyright law that says it's generally unlawful to make a new work out of an existing copyrighted one without permission.
    Under Posner's reasoning, the use of an ad-blocker creates an unauthorized derivative work that infringes on the copyright of the site whose ads you're blocking.

    With rampant piracy and a swell of free, legal content hurting nearly all content industries, many view ad-based distribution as one of the few possible business models that can still work. Furthermore, it is one employed by countless Web sites, including Ars Technica. However, ad blocking essentially short circuits that model. Since the ads are never loaded, the site pays for the content, bandwidth and server costs to deliver the material to the reader but never has a chance to recoup the costs. In short, every person who blocks ads on a site is a mathematical loss for the site, albeit a small one. Since many Web sites, especially larger ones, are paid on a per impression basis, simply saying “I wouldn’t click on them anyway” is no consolation. Refusing to look at the ads or be subject to the impression deprives the site of revenue.

    Patrick O’Keefe, both my co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show and the operator of many advertising-supported forums, agrees with this, “I say this as both a publisher and an active website user and reader: If you love a site, you should view their ads or, if they offer it, subscribe to their ad-free version. You should not block their ads because, if you do, you are contributing to the end of that site.” As a result, many, though not necessarily O’Keefe, view this as a strange form of piracy. A situation where the viewer is trying to obtain content for “free”, without taking on their share of the burden. The only difference is where traditional piracy involves obtaining a normally paid creation for free, ad blocking takes a work that was available at the “cost” of viewing ads but removes that expense. As with any other type of piracy, this shifts the cost of the work to the paying customers, in this case those who view the page normally, and forces creators to squeeze more revenue from them in order to stay alive.
    The Ad-Blocker's Dilemma | PlagiarismToday

    Even if we set aside the issue of whether its really enforced (as most copyright isn't enforced either), how do you logically distinguish the underlying principle?

    Many companies earn most or all of their revenue from online ads. In exchange for that revenue you provide them, they give you access to their content. By using an adblocker, you are accessing their content without paying them. Many sites (like this one) display ads for non-members but give you the option to get rid of the ads by paying a small fee. By using an adblocker, you are avoiding the requirement to pay.

    Look at a site like Hulu - the only reason that it exists is because it can make a substantial chunk of money from the ads it places in the middle of the videos. If everyone starts blocking those ads, it will drastically cut into Hulu's revenues, thus taking money out of the pockets of the people who created that content.

    I don't see how that's materially different from what many are derisively referring to as piracy. To me, its just a less obvious form of it, one that most people are willing to justify.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #135
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not referring to unsolicited advertisements from spam sites, but to advertisements that are part and parcel of legitimate websites. Moreover, you may not be legally entitled to block those ads.

    Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal - ZDNet



    Under Posner's reasoning, the use of an ad-blocker creates an unauthorized derivative work that infringes on the copyright of the site whose ads you're blocking.



    The Ad-Blocker's Dilemma | PlagiarismToday

    Even if we set aside the issue of whether its really enforced (as most copyright isn't enforced either), how do you logically distinguish the underlying principle?

    Many companies earn most or all of their revenue from online ads. In exchange for that revenue you provide them, they give you access to their content. By using an adblocker, you are accessing their content without paying them. Many sites (like this one) display ads for non-members but give you the option to get rid of the ads by paying a small fee. By using an adblocker, you are avoiding the requirement to pay.

    Look at a site like Hulu - the only reason that it exists is because it can make a substantial chunk of money from the ads it places in the middle of the videos. If everyone starts blocking those ads, it will drastically cut into Hulu's revenues, thus taking money out of the pockets of the people who created that content.

    I don't see how that's materially different from what many are derisively referring to as piracy. To me, its just a less obvious form of it, one that most people are willing to justify.
    Very interesting spin. Posner is telling me that the airwaves inside my own home are not mine, to do with as I please? How about I have dinner at his house, fart at the dinner table, then tell him that he is not allowed to use Glade to get rid of the smell?
    Last edited by danarhea; 06-28-10 at 06:23 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #136
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    You're still avoiding the question. You ate the food. It was perfectly edible, but it wasn't one of the best meals you ever ate. Do you demand a refund?
    I didn't avoid the question at all.

    I still get a benefit from the food, whether or not, it tastes good.
    With the movie I don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Then why watch a movie at all? Seems like you're more into OWNING a movie than in enjoying the visceral experience of watching one. That's odd.
    Yes I like to own movies, I enjoy rewarding the makers well made movies.
    On the other hand, I do not enjoy rewarding poorly done movies.

    If the experience is not executed to my liking, they don't deserve my money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Ok, so you wouldn't refuse to pay after consuming something that was good but wasn't THE bestest, most awesomest thing ever. We have a winner!
    That isn't what I said, you're great at putting words in the mouths of others.
    There is a minimum satisfaction level and of course if the food was always unpleasant, I wouldn't eat there again.
    On the other hand, if it is consistently good, I will.

    With the food though, I do get a benefit whether or not it tastes "the best."
    Movies, not so much.



    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Once again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. I feel sorry for you!
    I do enjoy intangible things but as far as this goes, if I do not recieve the good experience of a movie I shouldn't have to pay.
    It's not only a waste of money but also a waste of time, my time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Nope. I live in a very rural area, in the woods. No antenna reception. No cell phone reception either.
    You're arguing over semantics, the point is that people can watch movies for free without paying a subscription and also not buying things from the advertisers.

    Are they stealing as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Again, it sounds like you put absolutely no value on things you can't physically own or touch. That's a really sad way to look at the world.
    Already addressed this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    I don't know. Are you enjoying the originals in a museum? If so, you most likely paid for that pleasure. If you're DLing copies for free and 'shopping out the visual copyright so that you can enjoy them unimpeded in your own home? Yeah, that's copyright infringement/theft.
    You can look at plenty of painting without paying to see them.
    Not talking about printing it, I'm talking about looking at it and enjoying it.
    Are you stealing when you do?

    I know, you know what I'm talking about, why are you dodging so much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Where the hell did you get these nutty ideas? You are terribly, terribly confused. A sample is a limited quantity of something which is intended to be similar to and represent a larger amount of that thing; it is not the whole thing. That's why it's called a SAMPLE. And offering a free sample of ANYthing is not even close to false advertising. If anything, it's a (limited) open disclosure.
    You can sample a small piece of food and know how it will taste.
    You cannot sample a movie and know how well it will be.

    There is a difference and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    And if you go to see that film at a theater and it turns out not to be as enjoyable as the director's previous films? Do you demand a refund?
    Nope, movie theaters don't usually give refunds.
    That's why I rarely go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    You've still received the full benefit of that product; you still saw the entire film for free. Whether or not you purchase the DVD at a later time, you've already consumed the product. You owe the creators for what you've already consumed (whether you "liked" the product or not).
    No I haven't, what about the "behind the scenes", "deleted scenes", and all the other extras.
    Definitely not the full benefit of the product.

    I don't owe the creator anything, if their product is crap.
    They owe me my time I wasted watching it but I'll take the free viewing as a consolation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Copyright law says you are. Intellectual property laws say you are. (And so do I.)
    Appeal to authority.
    Laws aren't always right but you know that already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    And what about the times you took them for free and didn't go buy your very own DVD to hold and pet and care for? You still TOOK AND CONSUMED THEM without paying.
    What about my time that was wasted on their crap product.
    I want it back, how do I go about getting my time back?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Yes. I know what DRM does/is. As I said, I support the prevention of copyright infringement/theft.

    My remarks about replacing albums with 8-tracks and cassettes and CDs was a different thought. That's why it was in a different paragraph.
    Why do you support DRM?
    Do you think that it should be illegal to modify a piece of hardware you bought and own?

    I don't care about your albums, 8 tracks etc.
    That is technological progress and really has nothing to do with IP holders trying to force you to buy multiple versions of the same product for different pieces of hardware.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Yeah. It seems like that's all you care about. If you can't touch it and own it and pet it and care for it, it's of no consequence to you. Sad.
    Nope that's not what I said.
    Already address this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Company A can't force Company B to produce any product, with or without the government's help.
    Oh but they can tie them up with lawsuits to the point of bankruptcy or have the government draft a bill that forces the company to include DRM software/hardware into their products and also make it illegal for a person to remove said hardware/software.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    No, you're definitely whining.
    Baseless insults for your bad arguments.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 05:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    316
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    How about I have dinner at his house, fart at the dinner table, then tell him that he is not allowed to use Glade to get rid of the smell?
    What makes you think you own your own farts? Our farts are probably a copyright infringement against food conglomerates that we're not allowed to share.

  8. #138
    Student CrazyMcCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    08-27-13 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    233

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    Here I'll spell it out for you.

    If you owned something and someone just took it from you, you would be angry about it; you might even call the police about it.

    But, not when it comes to music or video; when it comes to that then all of a sudden the rules are somehow different, at least for some people. Those people think it's their "right" to just take other's people's property and get all bitchy about it when the owner tries to protect it. Those people are thieves.

    Of course, they have all kinds of justifications: they're just "sharing," the labels and studios are assholes, the original artists don't make much off of recorded media, etc., etc. It's self-serving bull**** which make these people hypocrites on top of everything else.
    Yeah you are talking about something else...The idea of torenting is freedom of information tbh..

    You know that artists make more in one concert that in one year of them selling CD's

    Most Artists hate the RIAA cause they bully them and take advantage of them.

    The infected mashrooms have released all their Music for free on download sites, and make a ****load of money from just doing concerts..

    Note how p2p has only done good to musicans, and note how the RIAA and the MPAA are posting record gains that rival most oil cooperations...

    There is just about miles of evidence showing their record gains, and little to no evidence of their losing money..
    They are justing doing this cause they can't handle not being in control of the music and ****..

    When an artist signs up with the RIAA they are also givin a special thing in the contract that lets them quit from the RIAA whenever they want.
    and the RIAA is pusing a bill that is going to take that right from the artist. Basicly making the artists RIAA's bitches..

    If people would distribute their music online ( infected mashrooms, nine inch nails ( or w/e its called) and then do concerts, they make more money easily than selling CD's and getting -1% profit from the sells..
    'DON'T WORRY SIR, I'M FROM THE INTERNET.'

    THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UN ( Click on the UN to see! )

  9. #139
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Very interesting spin. Posner is telling me that the airwaves inside my own home are not mine, to do with as I please? How about I have dinner at his house, fart at the dinner table, then tell him that he is not allowed to use Glade to get rid of the smell?
    It's not airwaves that are yours to do with what you like, it's data that you are affirmatively requesting from a service provider. That service provider offers you the content in conjunction with the advertising to help pay revenue.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #140
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It's not airwaves that are yours to do with what you like, it's data that you are affirmatively requesting from a service provider. That service provider offers you the content in conjunction with the advertising to help pay revenue.
    OK, then. Does that mean I can be arrested for purchasing a magazine at a news stand, taking it home, then tearing out all the advertising because I don't want to see it? After all, I did request data from a provider (in this case, a magazine).

    The way I see it, providers, whether a magazine or a web site, can provide whatever they want in conjunction with whatever else they want. I still have the right to decide what I want to view, and what I want to block out, in the privacy of my own home. To be blunt, what I choose to view or block in my own home is none of their damn business.
    Last edited by danarhea; 06-29-10 at 01:41 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •