• 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 Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

R. Shackleferd said:
… Many times I have heard arguments against information "piracy" about how it costs information companies a great deal of profit and also contributes to job loss. …
Click to expand...

And …

You heard that unauthorized copying costs publishers profit and contributes to job loss and … what?

Do you think that debatepolitics generates intellectual property? I thought of it more as a service. Does debatepolitics copyright its threads? I don't think so. But, do go on …
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
… I sign no contracts when I purchase an item like a DVD or CD.
Click to expand...

It is sufficient that the little c with the circle around it (©) with the year is present on the packaging and/or the label.
 
Chappy said:
It is sufficient that the little c with the circle around it (©) with the year is present on the packaging and/or the label.
Click to expand...

Reality presents a different story.
All you will do by restricting online file sharing, is make the bootleggers popular again.
Either way, the RIAA/MPAA isn't going to get what they want.

We can wish that little ©'s make an item protected but it doesn't.
 
Chappy said:
You heard that unauthorized copying costs publishers profit and contributes to job loss and … what?
Click to expand...

And by mentioning cut profits and job loss, I continued my argument against the principles of intellectual property aggression by addressing the possible (if not evident, which, it is) profit cuts and job loss that publishers, advertisers and individuals suffer thanks to intellectual property aggression.

Do you think that debatepolitics generates intellectual property? I thought of it more as a service. Does debatepolitics copyright its threads? I don't think so. But, do go on …
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about debatepolitics.com's intellectual property aggression being infringed upon. I'm talking about the premise where debatepolitics.com infringes on someone else's intellectual property aggression.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Reality presents a different story.
All you will do by restricting online file sharing, is make the bootleggers popular again.
Either way, the RIAA/MPAA isn't going to get what they want.

We can wish that little ©'s make an item protected but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Do you think that your endorsement of unauthorized copying in contravention of the law impacts others? I do.
 
Chappy said:
Do you think that your endorsement of unauthorized copying in contravention of the law impacts others? I do.
Click to expand...

No I do not and I could careless if it does or if it doesn't. Voicing mere support for anything should not be seen as a violation of the law.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Do you think that your endorsement of unauthorized copying in contravention of the law impacts others? I do.
Click to expand...

Everything impacts others in varying degrees.

As long as copyright holders believe that their profits should be protected through special privileges of the law, I do not care one iota that they lose money.
Government and business shouldn't be in bed together.
 
I love the Contradiction that the article points out

According to the Obama administration, the RIAA, and MPAA, the world economy is pretty much doomed if we don't start prosecuting pirates at home and abroad. Without such a crackdown, businesses will go bankrupt the coalition argues. Biden states, "Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy."
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the statements seem to fly in the face of a recent Government Accountability Office study released to U.S. Congress earlier this year, which concluded that there is virtually no evidence for the claimed million dollar losses by the entertainment industry. That study suggested that piracy could even benefit the economy.
Click to expand...


I love this bit of hypocritical bull****:
It speaks of improved "law enforcement efforts at the Federal, state and local level."
Click to expand...

Notice how he doesn't give a damn about enforcing the law when it comes to something extremely SERIOUS and PROFOUND as people getting their eyeballs ripped out for failure to pay - yet when it comes to something that the government doesn't even think *matters* and cant' agree on - Obama's hot on that ****.

Now - I do side with him on this.
I don't like the idea of someone being a techy-sneaky **** and getting away with what a proper person (like me) DOES pay for because I believe in living by the law.
 
R. Shackleferd said:
And by mentioning cut profits and job loss, I continued my argument against the principles of intellectual property aggression by addressing the possible (if not evident, which, it is) profit cuts and job loss that publishers, advertisers and individuals suffer thanks to intellectual property aggression.



I'm not talking about debatepolitics.com's intellectual property aggression being infringed upon. I'm talking about the premise where debatepolitics.com infringes on someone else's intellectual property aggression.
Click to expand...

I'm lost. What is “intellectual property aggression?”

And, how does debatepolitics.com infringe on someone else's “intellectual property aggression?”

Let me offer that I think debatepolitics.com members definitely infringe on copyright holder's rights when they post
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Now - I do side with him on this.
I don't like the idea of someone being a techy-sneaky **** and getting away with what a proper person (like me) DOES pay for because I believe in living by the law.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you like the option of "try before you buy," most file sharers fall somewhere with in this category.
Unfortunately, the music and movie industry have helped congress design things so that the consumer is left holding the bag.
While they have also tricked people into believing that copying stuff, is the equivalent to stealing.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
… Government and business shouldn't be in bed together.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Libertarian. I give you credit for that. I am surprised at the total rejection of centuries old copyright law, though. I thought Libertarians were all about the law and the courts, but, hey, there you go, we all have our little blind spots.
 
Chappy said:
Spoken like a true Libertarian. I give you credit for that. I am surprised at the total rejection of centuries old copyright law, though. I thought Libertarians were all about the law and the courts, but, hey, there you go, we all have our little blind spots.
Click to expand...

When dead people still own stuff via copyright law, things have gotten way out of hand.
These laws prevent a market to function more efficiently and stifle innovation.
 
More crony capitalism. "Public review" my ass. Everywhere you turn these days the government is bowing to the corporate lobby. How many Americans are actually in favor of this kind of crackdown? They are not the majority, I promise you that.

I believe in the right of business to prosper, but its right to prosper should not override MY right to freedom from invasion and detention. Apple has already created huge innovations with things like the iphone and ipod as POSITIVE INCENTIVES for consumers to buy music and video legally. There are websites that offer movie rentals that you can watch right online.

To industry: I don't care about your profit margins. I don't care that you lost 5% (or whatever) last year. I don't care that instead of making $5 billion you made $4 billion. I care about my rights to not have my life ruined because you have a vendetta.

Also, blaming the state of the world economy on piracy is probably the biggest joke I've heard the RIAA dish out so far. More people would be buying music if the Wallstreet crooks hadn't defaulted on their entire banking system. Yet the individual gets blamed once again.

I am so tired of this bull****.
 
Orion said:
Also, blaming the state of the world economy on piracy is probably the biggest joke I've heard the RIAA dish out so far.
Click to expand...


Nah. To me it's an old joke. They have been doing it for ages.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wouldn't you like the option of "try before you buy," most file sharers fall somewhere with in this category.
Unfortunately, the music and movie industry have helped congress design things so that the consumer is left holding the bag.
While they have also tricked people into believing that copying stuff, is the equivalent to stealing.
Click to expand...

Try before you buy? How is that suppose to be applied to this issue? "Try" when applied to testing something before purchase hints at *not* keeping it forever free of charge. You can't "try" a car out around the track before you buy it - and just keep it forever - you either try it and buy it or don't buy it, but it's not yours just because you *want* it. The follow up to "try" is "purchase" or "don't purchase."

So - previews, listening to it on the radio or pandora and renting something from netflix is a "try"
And if you want to posses it forever - you "buy" it . . . just like everything else in the world that's a product or service which you purchase.

That being said - I have napster. I pay a few times a year ($15.00) and I can listen to all the music I want - and if I want to make a portable copy *then* I can use my earned credits - no extra money off the top - which is 15 credits per cycle . . . and if I want to exceed those credits I have to pay per song.

You can't convince me that somehow owning music or movies is a right - and so it's your right to take it just because you don't want to spend a little bit of money on it or you don't feel that artists who are sharing their talent and gift with you don't deserve their fair cut.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Try before you buy? How is that suppose to be applied to this issue? "Try" when applied to testing something before purchase hints at *not* keeping it forever free of charge. You can't "try" a car out around the track before you buy it - and just keep it forever - you either try it and buy it or don't buy it, but it's not yours just because you *want* it. The follow up to "try" is "purchase" or "don't purchase."

So - previews, listening to it on the radio or pandora and renting something from netflix is a "try"
And if you want to posses it forever - you "buy" it . . . just like everything else in the world that's a product or service which you purchase.

That being said - I have napster. I pay a few times a year ($15.00) and I can listen to all the music I want - and if I want to make a portable copy *then* I can use my earned credits - no extra money off the top - which is 15 credits per cycle . . . and if I want to exceed those credits I have to pay per song.

You can't convince me that somehow owning music or movies is a right - and so it's your right to take it just because you don't want to spend a little bit of money on it or you don't feel that artists who are sharing their talent and gift with you don't deserve their fair cut.
Click to expand...

When I watch movies, I'll watch the whole thing for free, then decide whether or not I want to buy it.
Usually, I don't keep the dl'd version nor do I buy it because it's worthless, as most movies have turned out to be in the last few years.
It has saved me money because renting or buying it before I know if it's any good is a crap shoot.

I can't get a refund on a bad movie rental.

Movie reviewers don't hold my standards of good and bad.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You can't convince me that somehow owning music or movies is a right - and so it's your right to take it just because you don't want to spend a little bit of money on it or you don't feel that artists who are sharing their talent and gift with you don't deserve their fair cut.
Click to expand...

The laws that the corporate powers are pushing go above and beyond simple ownership rights. Right now in Canada, the anti-piracy law being discussed in parliament - which, by the way, most Canadians oppose but the ruling party is ignoring us and listening to corporations instead - makes it illegal to jail break devices or rip from one format to another.

In other words, if I buy a music CD, it would be a punishable offense to rip that music for use in my ipod, even though I acquired the CD legally. They would instead want me to buy yet another version, the mp3 version, from an online store.

I mean, what kind of fascist crap is that? If I buy a CD, I am going to use it in any device I have, and that should be my right as a consumer. With this law, you don't own the CD, you are renting it, and rental comes with rules. That is what DMR essentially is becoming in the modern world.

The funny thing is, these kinds of draconian laws will just push more people to download illegally. Why would I go out and buy a CD if I can't own it or use it how I want like I would any of my own property? I mean, as long as I'm not sending copies to my friends, why should my activities be illegal? This has HUGE implications for how schools use content, other artists (like DJs), etc.

The level of corporate control is just too much right now. It needs to be shut down with proper democratic controls that favor MODERATE and reasonable consumer laws.

But no... instead we are deferring to crime and punishment, as usual. Create more crimes, and create more punishments. Make the jails bigger. Take away freedoms from more people for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I agree. For the most part, pirates are mostly arguing for the better position, not necessarily because they are right, but because it has become so normalized. It's disingenuous at best, usually. I would like as good audio quality as I can get (224 kbps on up sounds nice to me), which has mostly been achieved by now.

In the end, pirates should find some good friends and grab their collections in person. There was a thing before the internet, and piracy existed decades ago.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
When I watch movies, I'll watch the whole thing for free, then decide whether or not I want to buy it.
Usually, I don't keep the dl'd version nor do I buy it because it's worthless, as most movies have turned out to be in the last few years.
It has saved me money because renting or buying it before I know if it's any good is a crap shoot.

I can't get a refund on a bad movie rental.

Movie reviewers don't hold my standards of good and bad.
Click to expand...

Just rent the movies or watch with friends, for pete's sake.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Try before you buy? How is that suppose to be applied to this issue? "Try" when applied to testing something before purchase hints at *not* keeping it forever free of charge. You can't "try" a car out around the track before you buy it - and just keep it forever - you either try it and buy it or don't buy it, but it's not yours just because you *want* it. The follow up to "try" is "purchase" or "don't purchase."
Click to expand...

Just to point out the way in which it can have that effect:

-I watched a few episodes of the shield on an online streaming site that was something less than legal. It was sweet. I now have all 7 seasons sitting on my bookshelf.

-My friend sent me a bootlegged copy of a girl talk CD. I've since seen him in concert 3 times and bought a couple CDs.

-I downloaded a copy of an Ari Hest cd from a friends itunes back in 03. Since then, I've bought 3 or 4 cds, seen him live 4 or 5 times, and have a couple tshirts.

Many artists recognize the positive impact that this type of thing has and choose to offer a version of their products for free. Radiohead made an album available for whatever you chose to pay, and many artists have followed in their footsteps. Brandon Sanderson made every draft of his new book freely downloadable on his website, leading up to the actual hardcover publication date.

I'm not saying that every artist must follow this model or that artists don't have the right to choose not to follow this model, nor am I saying that there's no benefit to IP laws. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly black and white.
 
Fiddytree said:
Just rent the movies or watch with friends, for pete's sake.
Click to expand...

I've watched way more movies than I would actually want to pay for.
The vast majority have not made it to "buy the dvd" status.

Renting is throwing away potentially hundreds of dollars and in the end, I'm not satisfied.
 
Orion said:
The laws that the corporate powers are pushing go above and beyond simple ownership rights. Right now in Canada, the anti-piracy law being discussed in parliament - which, by the way, most Canadians oppose but the ruling party is ignoring us and listening to corporations instead - makes it illegal to jail break devices or rip from one format to another.

In other words, if I buy a music CD, it would be a punishable offense to rip that music for use in my ipod, even though I acquired the CD legally. They would instead want me to buy yet another version, the mp3 version, from an online store.

I mean, what kind of fascist crap is that? If I buy a CD, I am going to use it in any device I have, and that should be my right as a consumer. With this law, you don't own the CD, you are renting it, and rental comes with rules. That is what DMR essentially is becoming in the modern world.

The funny thing is, these kinds of draconian laws will just push more people to download illegally. Why would I go out and buy a CD if I can't own it or use it how I want like I would any of my own property? I mean, as long as I'm not sending copies to my friends, why should my activities be illegal? This has HUGE implications for how schools use content, other artists (like DJs), etc.

The level of corporate control is just too much right now. It needs to be shut down with proper democratic controls that favor MODERATE and reasonable consumer laws.

But no... instead we are deferring to crime and punishment, as usual. Create more crimes, and create more punishments. Make the jails bigger. Take away freedoms from more people for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
Click to expand...

You do know you never owned the music that you purchased, right? It's merely a license to listen on the format provided. I prefer "fair use" rights that provide more for me, but we only own the physical copy that we originally purchase.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I've watched way more movies than I would actually want to pay for.
The vast majority have not made it to "buy the dvd" status.

Renting is throwing away potentially hundreds of dollars and in the end, I'm not satisfied.
Click to expand...

Then don't rent movies. And limit your intake. I am nowhere near sympathetic with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom