PDA

View Full Version : ALERT! Bill S.978 Will SHUT DOWN Gaming Videos and Streams EVERYWHERE




Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 03:20 PM
Hey everyone i am back been busy spending time with family but i couldn't overcome after friend of mine posted this in a gaming forum.


lobbyists are pushing the congress to pass a title Bill S.978 which wants to It wants to block piracy of movies, music, and such.

Which is a clear internet censorship which is ugly and if you thought Egypt internet censorship was bad enough just wait until this bill passes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hytigOSjJxc&feature=player_embedded



Urge your Congressman and Congresswomen telling them this is a direct assault on our freedoms and our rights.


The bill is in the early stages and as always the mainstream news has avoided it to be discussed on the news.


heres the link.
http://thunderboltgames.com/features/article/take-a-stand-against-bill-s978-feature-for-all-none.html

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 03:21 PM
what is wrong with blocking piracy?

Ranger29860
07-05-2011, 03:26 PM
what is wrong with blocking piracy?

It appears to be able to be used against video game videos on youtube, xfire and any other stream services. This would be bad for a lot of honest gamers since they(me included) go to sites like youtube or check videos on xfire to see gameplay footage to decide whether or not to buy the games. As for the movie part i could care less since watching the movie is the only purpose of streaming it (as far as i am aware).

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 03:31 PM
S.978 will pass easily. The MPAA/RIAA own the Obama administration and half the congress. One of Obama top campaign aides was head of the RIAA prior to the campaign.

The republicans will offer little resistance, being that few are willing to stand up in support of theft. No one with any political sense would argue "this bill shouldn't pass because, well, people like to steal stuff".

If there was some larger infringement of rights it could see debate but to my knowledge the only rights it may violate are those of the folks who are committing a crime in stealing copyrighted material anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I've taken away from my reading regarding the bill.

Vessol
07-05-2011, 03:34 PM
Seriously?

:(

What will happen to The Speed Gamers? :(

http://www.thespeedgamers.com/

Basically it's a group of gamers who play various games in marathons to raise money for charity. I love watching them.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 03:34 PM
It appears to be able to be used against video game videos on youtube, xfire and any other stream services. This would be bad for a lot of honest gamers since they(me included) go to sites like youtube or check videos on xfire to see gameplay footage to decide whether or not to buy the games. As for the movie part i could care less since watching the movie is the only purpose of streaming it (as far as i am aware).

I though you people on here cared for freedom? i guess i was wrong, this is a clear internet censorship it even censorship your home videos of you singing copyrighted songs or any movie based themes.


I am for free viewing streaming on the net isnt that also our right? i thought america is the land of the free.


Maybe i am wrong on that.


And also it wont end just video gaming but every other streaming videos you may try to upload, you or your kid will be sent to jail you sure you support this internet censorship bill? i thought you people on here were better then that.

fisharmor
07-05-2011, 03:35 PM
The republicans will offer little resistance, being that few are willing to stand up in support of theft. No one with any political sense would argue "this bill shouldn't pass because, well, people like to steal stuff".

But some might argue "This bill shouldn't pass because it does not make commerce from one state to the next more regular, and therefore is outside the enumerated powers of congress and is therefore illegal".

Well, one might.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 03:39 PM
stealing copyrighted material? THATS not stealing here we go again with the stealing part again,putting a video or music on a streaming site isnt stealing, i guess people dont have right to upload anymore to enjoy themselves, and PastRocket848 does that mean you support this bill which is an direct censorship.

doesn't Capitalism and the MPAA/RIAA , corporations steal from us?

maybe the next thing that elites will want to ban are comics and mangas i wonder if you are going to support that ban to?

dannno
07-05-2011, 03:43 PM
what is wrong with blocking piracy?

It's immoral and tyrannical :confused:

Ranger29860
07-05-2011, 03:45 PM
It's immoral and tyrannical :confused:

Not to mention why is that this is a offense punishable by jail time for a civil matter? What ever happened to these companies suing the crap out of pirates?

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 03:48 PM
Specific Organizations Supporting S.978

* American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
* Directors Guild of America
* International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
* Screen Actors Guild
* Motion Picture Association of America
* Recording Industry Association of America
* Independent Film and Television Alliance
* National Association of Theatre Owners
* Ultimate Fighting Championship
* American Federation of Musicians
* American Intellectual Property Law Association
* NBC Universal
* Viacom
* Sony Pictures Entertainment
* American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
* Association of American Publishers
* Association of Independent Music Publishers
* American Photographic Artists
* AT&T
* Broadcast Music, Inc.
* Business Software Alliance
* CBS Corporation
* Church Music Publishers Association
* Entertainment Software Association
* Graphic Artists Guild
* National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing
* National Association of Broadcasters
* National Collegiate Athletic Association
* National Music Publishers' Association
* National Basketball Association
* News America Holdings
* Newspaper Association of America
* Picture Archive Council of America
* Professional Photographers of America
* Professional School Photographers Association
* Reed Elsevier
* PPL & VPL
* SESAC
* Software & Information Industry Association
* Time Warner
* Universal Music Group
* Magazine Publishers of America
* The Walt Disney Company
* Writers Guild of America, West
* U. S. Chamber of Commerce
* International Brotherhood of Teamsters
* Entertainment Merchants Association
* Global Intellectual Property Center



Top recipients for ALL supporting interest groups
Name Amount Received Vote On Passage
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $2,335,183
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $2,016,955
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $1,650,251
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $1,163,223
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $767,772
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $737,110
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $714,176
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL] $471,721
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] $423,313
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $413,000

Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] $454,598
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1] $360,989
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8] $320,580
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7] $249,800
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13] $243,319
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] $239,300
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] $218,080
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] $216,748
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] $213,550
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14] $209,610



Harry Reid is a traitor and as well those Reps and Sens are all traitors and as you saw the list only the greedy companies are in favor of this bill.

dannno
07-05-2011, 03:50 PM
stealing copyrighted material? THATS not stealing


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

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 03:53 PM
Was that an insult on me? i thought you people on here were standing up for freedom and not for the greedy corporations i guess i was wrong.

This bill is a clear internet censorship i never though people on ron paul forums would be in support of a such bill.

Oh by the way dannno if this bill passes that video you posted as a reply will be also gone.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 03:55 PM
to everyone arguing "tyranny!" and the uber-brilliant "I am for free viewing streaming on the net isnt that also our right? i thought america is the land of the free.", where in the constitution does it say that you have a right to someone else's labor? isnt this a central theme of our campaign?

your rights end where others' begin. you don't have the right to infringe upon someone else's intellectual property rights.

as for the comics and "mangas" whatever the hell that is, sure, if they're taking someone else's copyrighted material and making it freely available online, thus infringing upon the author's property rights, yes, i would be against it.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 03:56 PM
Not to mention why is that this is a offense punishable by jail time for a civil matter? What ever happened to these companies suing the crap out of pirates?

go steal a tv from wal-mart, and when the cops show up, argue that it's a "civil matter" and see how far that gets you. theft is theft, whether the good is physical or otherwise.

Vessol
07-05-2011, 03:58 PM
Intellectual rights are a rather sticky matter. I personally fall into the camp that you can't "own" an idea. Though it is not something I have spent considerable amount of time studying and researching.

One thing I do know is that the court system needs to be un-monopolized.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:01 PM
Was that an insult on me? i thought you people on here were standing up for freedom and not for the greedy corporations i guess i was wrong.

This bill is a clear internet censorship i never though people on ron paul forums would be in support of a such bill.

Oh by the way dannno if this bill passes that video you posted as a reply will be also gone.

Did you watch the youtube? It supports your position that internet piracy is not stealing. It's also very comical.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:02 PM
you don't have the right to infringe upon someone else's intellectual property rights.

Didn't you even watch the video? i guess not i guess you support the greedy capitalism system as for the claim of the intellectual property rights you dont hurt there intellectual property rights if you claim that you made as your own.


Streaming a intellectual property video isnt stealing nanny government supporter this is pure internet censorship there wont any more videos of any kind on net every time you have to ask for persimmon as if the companies are going to give you persimmon not in a million years.

I guess PastaRocket848 supports tyranny, this isnt theft why you thibk streaming videos were even made for? Just so the mainstream news media can upload there propaganda garbage?

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:04 PM
Did you watch the youtube? It supports your position that internet piracy is not stealing. It's also very comical.

Thanks i did view it sorry for the way i replied at you, didn't mean to.


I guess some americans will never learn putting music, games, movie comic on a streaming site isnt theft.


theft is when you hack and steal as your own that is theft.

theft isnt when someone hosts a video on streaming site for other people to enjoy and who cant afford to buy.

Echoes
07-05-2011, 04:04 PM
Intellectual 'property' is a crock of bullshit. Ideas arent property, IP is anti-freedom and a tool of Corporatists.

Ranger29860
07-05-2011, 04:06 PM
go steal a tv from wal-mart, and when the cops show up, argue that it's a "civil matter" and see how far that gets you. theft is theft, whether the good is physical or otherwise.

Because streaming a video game over the internet != stealing and taking possession of a tv. Not to mention movies, music, and art are already protected under copyright laws in section 106 and 109. This bill is simply the first step taken into regulating content over the internet as whole.

I DO NOT PIRATE. I have a vested interest in things i work on not getting pirated. I do not like pirates who steal video games, movies,music or any other copyright material. BUT streaming of a video game with commentary is LEGAL as of right now under the fair use clause and this bill would let private companies define what is fair use.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:07 PM
to everyone arguing "tyranny!" and the uber-brilliant "I am for free viewing streaming on the net isnt that also our right? i thought america is the land of the free.", where in the constitution does it say that you have a right to someone else's labor? isnt this a central theme of our campaign?

your rights end where others' begin. you don't have the right to infringe upon someone else's intellectual property rights.


lol, you should probably try to understand other people's positions before attacking them. There are plenty of people who think that "intellectual property" is completely bullshit, in other words it is something that somebody made up. I happen to be one of them. If you build a piano, and I take it from you, then your hard work and resources that you put into building the piano is gone. That is theft. Your piano is gone. If I could touch your piano, and suddenly a piano just like it appeared in my house, but you got to keep your piano, how is that theft? Trespassing, maybe, but for this analogy let's pretend you let me on your property and allowed me to touch your piano.

You don't have any right to some intangible representation of 1's and 0's that you've made public. Now, if you were to write a song and keep it a secret, and somebody came onto your property and stole the song, then you might have something there. They physically took something from you.

Vessol
07-05-2011, 04:07 PM
Didn't you even watch the video? i guess not i guess you support the greedy capitalism system as for the claim of the intellectual property rights you dont hurt there intellectual property rights if you claim that you made as your own.


Streaming a intellectual property video isnt stealing nanny government supporter this is pure internet censorship there wont any more videos of any kind on net every time you have to ask for persimmon as if the companies are going to give you persimmon not in a million years.

I guess PastaRocket848 supports tyranny, this isnt theft why you thibk streaming videos were even made for? Just so the mainstream news media can upload there propaganda garbage?

A few nitpicks with your post.

1) What is the "greedy capitalism system"?
2) You need to work on your grAmmerZ
3) Don't strawman someone by saying "Someone says this so they MUST SUPPORT tyranny".

I don't support this bill, nor do I support the idea of intellectual property. The only way intellectually property can be enforced is through the use of State coercive power. Otherwise, cases like these would be laughed out of any private court.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 04:13 PM
apparently none of you have ever been an independent software developer. when you spend two years writing software hoping to turn a profit (to feed your family, this is a job after all) and some pimply faced little punk decides he's gonna "get his lulz" by cracking it, making it freely available online, and thus ruining you financially, you start to care about IP rights. why should anyone create anything if they can't be guaranteed the fruits of their labor?

"Give Me Liberty": so your argument is that streaming video was created SOLELY for the purpose of streaming other people's copyrighted works? it couldnt POSSIBLY be used for any legitimate purpose (like streaming original work that you actually created rather than ripping off of someone more talented than yourserlf).

YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS! even if you really like free music, you just can't steal from someone. period. when you take someone else's product and make it freely available without their consent you have stolen from that person. it's not debatable. you're only trying to rectify your "freedom philosophy" with the idea that everything on the internet should be freely available. the fact of the matter is that your "freedom philosophy" ends at you. you don't care to think about how your actions could effect OTHERS rights or liberties.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:13 PM
1) What is the "greedy capitalism system"?

what i tired to meant by that the only ones who support are the corporations who belong to the capitalism system and i was reffing if you support the bill then you support the capitalism system which is hurting us.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 04:14 PM
and FWIW i agree the IP system needs a complete overhaul and as it stands now is only serving big corporations. that's not the point. the point is that the law is the law and stealing is stealing, even if you disagree.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 04:16 PM
what i tired to meant by that the only ones who support are the corporations who belong to the capitalism system and i was reffing if you support the bill then you support the capitalism system which is hurting us.

OMFG you gotta be kidding me. OK, this just turned into the Special Olympics... theres no winner here

Vessol
07-05-2011, 04:18 PM
what i tired to meant by that the only ones who support are the corporations who belong to the capitalism system and i was reffing if you support the bill then you support the capitalism system which is hurting us.

So Capitalism is bad?

Do you even know what Capitalism is?

Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of property between individuals whereas both sides benefit from the mutual agreement.

Harry Reid, does not support capitalism, nor does anyone else who supports this bill.

They are not looking to support voluntary interactions with people. They want to use the gun of the State in order to force people to do what they want. That is not capitalism.

heavenlyboy34
07-05-2011, 04:18 PM
to everyone arguing "tyranny!" and the uber-brilliant "I am for free viewing streaming on the net isnt that also our right? i thought america is the land of the free.", where in the constitution does it say that you have a right to someone else's labor? isnt this a central theme of our campaign?

your rights end where others' begin. you don't have the right to infringe upon someone else's intellectual property rights.

as for the comics and "mangas" whatever the hell that is, sure, if they're taking someone else's copyrighted material and making it freely available online, thus infringing upon the author's property rights, yes, i would be against it.
IP is a fiction. There is no such thing as a "right" to IP. If you don't want someone to copy your idea, keep it to yourself. The pro-IP crowd contradicts themselves here, because they claim 1) that property is legitimate and 2) that owning a piece of property is not really "ownership". If the former is true, then the latter is false-yet pro-IPers try to assert both. This is a form of cognitive dissonance.

heavenlyboy34
07-05-2011, 04:19 PM
and FWIW i agree the IP system needs a complete overhaul and as it stands now is only serving big corporations. that's not the point. the point is that the law is the law and stealing is stealing, even if you disagree.

infringement is not stealing. Even an IP lawyer will tell you that.

Ranger29860
07-05-2011, 04:20 PM
and FWIW i agree the IP system needs a complete overhaul and as it stands now is only serving big corporations. that's not the point. the point is that the law is the law and stealing is stealing, even if you disagree.

YOUR RIGHT! There is the LAW and stealing is stealing! BUT the original point of both the video and the post itself is that this puts the decision of what fair use is on a product in the hands of the companies only. This applies to video games i am not nor have i argued for any other medium.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
"Give Me Liberty": so your argument is that streaming video was created SOLELY for the purpose of streaming other people's copyrighted works? it couldnt POSSIBLY be used for any legitimate purpose (like streaming original work that you actually created rather than ripping off of someone more talented than yourserlf).

I guess you never heard or understand what do the words meaning of pleasure or enjoying mean do you? and tell me you something why should people buy or even pay monthly for something they might not even like or enjoy?

In these hard times people dont have enough money to pay monthly over the net, why you think only now MMOs games are becoming free to play?



YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS! even if you really like free music, you just can't steal from someone. period. when you take someone else's product and make it freely available without their consent you have stolen from that person. it's not debatable. you're only trying to rectify your "freedom philosophy" with the idea that everything on the internet should be freely available. the fact of the matter is that your "freedom philosophy" ends at you. you don't care to think about how your actions could effect OTHERS rights or liberties.


I guess you support internet censorship and tyranny.

Uploading music or video on a streaming site isnt stealing period unless you upload them on a downloading site or buyers site unlawfully, i will even show you a video so you can see why it isnt the same.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
not true. the "ownership is not really ownership" part is where it falls short. you dont OWN software, or music, or movies. you are purchasing a LICENSE TO USE said software, music, or movies. read the licensing agreement, and if you don't agree with the terms, don't buy in.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:22 PM
apparently none of you have ever been an independent software developer.

The first independent software developers mostly all made software freely available and this lasted a long time. Hardware cost money, software was mostly free. There has been plenty of software innovation outside of the IP bubble, even today with linux and many other programs and platforms.




when you spend two years writing software hoping to turn a profit (to feed your family, this is a job after all) and some pimply faced little punk decides he's gonna "get his lulz" by cracking it, making it freely available online, and thus ruining you financially, you start to care about IP rights. why should anyone create anything if they can't be guaranteed the fruits of their labor?

Make the game hard to copy or play on multiple machines simultanously? Implement a multiplayer environment with registration or monthly fees? Why are you trying to get government to do work that YOU should be doing? Sounds like you're trying to get me to subsidize your laziness.




YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS!


Ya, and if you play a song into my radio, and I record it, and I copy it, I'm not infringing on your rights. I didn't steal anything from you.




even if you really like free music, you just can't steal from someone. period. when you take someone else's product and make it freely available without their consent you have stolen from that person. it's not debatable.

It's NOT stealing. Stop calling it stealing when it's copying.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 04:22 PM
I guess you never heard or understand what do the words meaning of pleasure or enjoying mean do you? and tell me you something why should people buy or even pay monthly for something they might not even like or enjoy?

In these hard times people dont have enough money to pay monthly over the net, why you think only now MMOs games are becoming free to play?





I guess you support internet censorship and tyranny.

Uploading music or video isnt stealing period, i will even show you a video so you can see why it isnt the same.

you're right, if you write some fantastic video game, or record an awesome song, or create the next big movie, feel free to upload it for free to everyone you see fit. still doesn't mean you can do the same to SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK.

and since when does whether or not you enjoy something have any bearing on whether or not you have to pay for your purchases? buyer beware, if you dont like it don't buy it again. if they wanted to offer a "trial" version of something the creators of the product would do so, if they dont, well, you can try it or elect not to. nothing gives you the right to steal. period. doesn't matter how bad the economy is.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:24 PM
not true. the "ownership is not really ownership" part is where it falls short. you dont OWN software, or music, or movies. you are purchasing a LICENSE TO USE said software, music, or movies. read the licensing agreement, and if you don't agree with the terms, don't buy in.

This post is completely nonsensical. If I have a copy of an album, who did I steal it from? Nobody. Yet you apply the term "theft" to copying something, and not depriving anybody else of their property. You need to show how copying something is theft, which you can't, so you're not going to win the argument.

Echoes
07-05-2011, 04:24 PM
Intellectual "property" is not part of Capitalism, its Fascism, Business and Government merging together. They should really rename it to something like Govt Legal Fiction or Privilege. An idea does NOT constitute property. Your house, your land, your gun is property. You dont own ideas, imagine if that was the case and only a few individuals were able to build cars, phones, or whatever the next invention is.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 04:24 PM
you're right, if you write some fantastic video game, or record an awesome song, or create the next big movie, feel free to upload it for free to everyone you see fit. still doesn't mean you can do the same to SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK.

you aren't gonna get through to them. some here believe they have a right to the product of someone elses work, I don't. but this could all be settled via private contracts -- which are currently unnecessary because of existing laws. in the absense of existing IP laws private contracts could serve the same purpose.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 04:27 PM
Ya, and if you play a song into my radio, and I record it, and I copy it, I'm not infringing on your rights. I didn't steal anything from you.

It's NOT stealing. Stop calling it stealing when it's copying.

so basically your argument is that because said goods are not physical, and can be replicated with a computer, that the person who created those goods is not entitled to the fruit of his/her labor?

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:28 PM
you're right, if you write some fantastic video game, or record an awesome song, or create the next big movie, feel free to upload it for free to everyone you see fit. still doesn't mean you can do the same to SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK.

If I made a movie, I would make a private contract with movie theaters that they can show my film to the public, but they aren't allowed to copy it and distribute it.

I COULD do the same thing with music cd's, but it would be retarded. Many musicians have found that promoting themselves on the internet, and distributing their music freely, then going out and doing live shows is a lot more financially rewarding than getting stuck in some lame contract with a big music producer. These centralized music promoters are becoming obsolete, they are just trying to use the law to prop themselves backup, but they are dying because they are no longer necessary.

Philmanoman
07-05-2011, 04:29 PM
"YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS!" even if you really like free music, you just can't steal from someone. period.

Hey chill out guys...he put in all caps so its a FACT.End of discussion.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:30 PM
so basically your argument is that because said goods are not physical, and can be replicated with a computer, that the person who created those goods is not entitled to the fruit of his/her labor?

What fruit are you talking about? People write songs all the time, nobody is entitled to anything. If somebody agrees to buy a CD, great. If somebody wants to buy a ticket to their live concert, great.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 04:33 PM
If I made a movie, I would make a private contract with movie theaters that they can show my film to the public, but they aren't allowed to copy it and distribute it.

I COULD do the same thing with music cd's, but it would be retarded. Many musicians have found that promoting themselves on the internet, and distributing their music freely, then going out and doing live shows is a lot more financially rewarding than getting stuck in some lame contract with a big music producer. These centralized music promoters are becoming obsolete, they are just trying to use the law to prop themselves backup, but they are dying because they are no longer necessary.

I'm so glad since you think somebody elses business model is "retarded" you feel entitled steal from them rather than go without their content.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:35 PM
dannno is correct and its not stealing for the last time, i guess specsaregood is in favor in internet censorship, ron paul stands agaisnt internet censorship.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 04:36 PM
dannno is correct and its not stealing for the last time.

it is stealing for the last last time.

heavenlyboy34
07-05-2011, 04:39 PM
"YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE UPON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS!" even if you really like free music, you just can't steal from someone. period.

Hey chill out guys...he put in all caps so its a FACT.End of discussion.
putting it in caps doesn't make it true. Infringement is NOT stealing. Go read the copyright act or any related law. I dare you. ;)

heavenlyboy34
07-05-2011, 04:40 PM
it is stealing for the last last time.
still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

HRD53
07-05-2011, 04:40 PM
Does this mean that the Angry Video Game Nerd will have to take all his videos down!! Forget the Casey Anthony verdict, this is far bigger news!

heavenlyboy34
07-05-2011, 04:41 PM
I'm so glad since you think somebody elses business model is "retarded" you feel entitled steal from them rather than go without their content.
Government fiction (IP) is not a business model.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 04:43 PM
Government fiction (IP) is not a business model.
just because you say so doesn't mean it is true. plenty of companies would prove you wrong.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:44 PM
I'm so glad since you think somebody elses business model is "retarded" you feel entitled steal from them rather than go without their content.

No, I just don't believe in user licenses and such, so the contracts that come with the CDs are invalid. If you are going to put somebody under a contract, then have them sign it. If I signed a contract every time I bought a personal CD, then, well, I have a feeling there would be plenty of artists would be like "fuck that shit, we're just going to sell it as is or give it out and sell some fucking concert tickets!!"

With your logic, I could sell a CD that said "By purchasing this CD you agree to owe me $1,000,000 every time you listen to a song" and suddenly everybody would be liable for a bunch of money to the owner of the CD.

User agreements are a complete joke. Haven't you seen the South Park episode about them?

Echoes
07-05-2011, 04:45 PM
just because you say so doesn't mean it is true. plenty of companies would prove you wrong.

Plenty of coporations will. Oh yeah, BTW Corporations are another Govt fiction.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:46 PM
You mean those greedy companies that are doing this for there own capitalist fascist reasons?


plenty of companies would prove you wrong.

Ah yes by lying of course, like sony and the hacking incident, i always wondered if sony just hacked it selfish to test some future products while they are at it.

And this is bill is no wonder why sony supports the bill.

Philmanoman
07-05-2011, 04:47 PM
I was being sarcastic...I was in dumbass mode I apologize lol.

Ok...so i know what we're talkin about here...

I go to youtube and watch (insert music video here).I am stealing that video? or I go to youtube and upload (insert music video here).I am stealing? or
I copy thousands of one song and sell them 1 buck a piece.

Is it all of the above?

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 04:50 PM
No, I just don't believe in user licenses and such, so the contracts that come with the CDs are invalid. If you are going to put somebody under a contract, then have them sign it. If I signed a contract every time I bought a personal CD, then, well, I have a feeling there would be plenty of artists would be like "fuck that shit, we're just going to sell it as is or give it out and sell some fucking concert tickets!!"

And we have discussed this in the past and I would accept that solution. Requiring people to specifically agree to a contract when they buy such content. I'm pretty sure you already agree to such a contract when you buy mp3's online.



With your logic, I could sell a CD that said "By purchasing this CD you agree to owe me $1,000,000 every time you listen to a song" and suddenly everybody would be liable for a bunch of money to the owner of the CD.


So you don't believe in private contracts either, wow.

Philmanoman
07-05-2011, 04:50 PM
I dont believe that all the laws and devices in the world will stop it.It quite possibly will become more rampant because of it.Has anything helped so far?

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 04:51 PM
You mean those greedy companies that are doing this for there own capitalist fascist reasons?


Yeah all those greedy companies, we should just embrace communism eh comrade?

Ranger29860
07-05-2011, 04:51 PM
I was being sarcastic...I was in dumbass mode I apologize lol.

Ok...so i know what we're talkin about here...

I go to youtube and watch (insert music video here).I am stealing that video? or I go to youtube and upload (insert music video here).I am stealing? or
I copy thousands of one song and sell them 1 buck a piece.

Is it all of the above?

Uploading to youtube a music video without any editing or changing as it stands now is infringment under section 106. People who upload videos of them playing games is perfectly legal now on youtube under fair use law. Movies, music and game pirating is already covered under current law. This is not a law to outlaw pirating even more than it was before. This is a law that seeks to allow companies themselves to regulate what they consider to be fair use. That was the point of this thread not whether downloading music is illegal.

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 04:52 PM
Heres a link by a lawyer to those who view it (Its stealing)

http://www.dpgatlaw.com/news/2011/6/30/response-to-responses-to-tolling-the-stream.html


another link

http://duncsweb.com/2011/07/03/bill-s-978-could-end-lets-play-streams-forever/


In other words for the last time it is not stealing end of discussion of that.

I find it ironic that some of you who view it here as stealing are for the internet censorship? you should know that ron paul is agaisnt internet censorship.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:54 PM
And we have discussed this in the past and I would accept that solution. Requiring people to specifically agree to a contract when they buy such content. I'm pretty sure you already agree to such a contract when you buy mp3's online.

...and if you don't buy mp3s online then there's no agreement is there?




So you don't believe in private contracts either, wow.

Of course I believe in private contracts. When both parties sit down and sign a contract that they are able to view. Not when one magically appears in a product wrapped in plastic that you can't even see before you open it. Not when you check a box during installation of some software.

dannno
07-05-2011, 04:58 PM
Not when you check a box during installation of some software.

Specs, did you see the South Park where Kyle agreed to some software user license that allowed the company to come kidnap him and then proceed to sew his lips onto the anus of another person, whereby when that person shit, it went straight into his mouth, and then some chick had her mouth sewed onto his anus, turning them into some sort of shitipede?

Ranger29860
07-05-2011, 04:59 PM
Specs, did you see the South Park where Kyle agreed to some software user license that allowed the company to come kidnap him and then proceed to sew his lips onto the anus of another person, whereby when that person shit, it went straight into his mouth, and then some chick had her mouth sewed onto his anus, turning them into some sort of shitipede?

off topic but that is the only episode ever that i got nauseous from watching lol.

dannno
07-05-2011, 05:02 PM
off topic but that is the only episode ever that i got nauseous from watching lol.

"Should I eat the cuttlefish and asparagus, or the vanilla pudding?"

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 05:04 PM
...and if you don't buy mp3s online then there's no agreement is there?
Only because there is no need because of existing copyright laws. Like I said, we have discussed this before and I thought we agreed that requiring a contract at time of purchase would be acceptable.



Of course I believe in private contracts. When both parties sit down and sign a contract that they are able to view. Not when one magically appears in a product wrapped in plastic that you can't even see before you open it. Not when you check a box during installation of some software.
I have no disagreement, that making the contract open and decided at the time money is exchanged would be a fair solution.


Specs, did you see the South Park where Kyle agreed to some software user license that allowed the company to come kidnap him and then proceed to sew his lips onto the anus of another person, whereby when that person shit, it went straight into his mouth, and then some chick had her mouth sewed onto his anus, turning them into some sort of shitipede?
Can't say I have; but I have seen the movie that is a spoof of. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Human_Centipede_First_Sequence/70123094
They have it streamable and I can recommend it. :)

NYgs23
07-05-2011, 05:05 PM
Copying is not stealing because it doesn't leave the owner of the original without the piece of property he owned. When you steal something you necessarily deprive the owner of that thing. Copying creates a new thing entirely.

If someone invented a duplication ray that could duplicate tangible objects, would it be theft to use it to duplicate computers, etc? No, but you can bet the farm that corporations, trade groups, and other privilege-seekers would lobby to ban it as "theft." Thereby increasing scarcity and rendering the world all the poorer for it.

And that's exactly what IP is: it is an illegitimate grant of monopoly with the intent of engineering artificial scarcity through force. And as technology becomes ever more able to reduce scarcity by rendering copying cheaper and more efficient, the laws used to enforce these illegitimate scarcity-creating monopolies become ever more expansive, invasive, and oppressive. They may indeed culminate with a complete state takeover of the internet to enforce them and other statist crusades, such as those against the bogeymen of cyberterrorism and sexual predators.

The market equires producers to produce goods and services. But, unfortunately, producers always have an incentive to seek to use force to cartelize their occupations and make it more difficult for competitors to produce the goods and services they produce. Producers have a vested interest in the scarcity of those services they produce. If it's easy to use force to induce that scarcity (as it so often is with the state), they'll use it and spin all sorts of precious, fancy justifications and rationalizations for it.

dannno
07-05-2011, 05:10 PM
Copying is not stealing because it doesn't leave the owner of the original without the piece of property he owned. When you steal something you necessarily deprive the owner of that thing. Copying creates a new thing entirely.

If someone invented a duplication ray that could duplicate tangible objects, would it be theft to use it to duplicate computers, etc? No, but you can bet the farm that corporations, trade groups, and other privilege-seekers would lobby to ban it as "theft." Thereby increasing scarcity and rendering the world all the poorer for it.

And that's exactly what IP is: it is an illegitimate grant of monopoly with the intent of engineering artificial scarcity through force. And as technology becomes ever more able to reduce scarcity by rendering copying cheaper and more efficient, the laws used to enforce these illegitimate scarcity-creating monopolies become ever more expansive, invasive, and oppressive. They may indeed culminate with a complete state takeover of the internet to enforce them and other statist crusades, such as those against the bogeymen of cyberterrorism and sexual predators.

The market equires producers to produce goods and services. But, unfortunately, producers always have an incentive to seek to use force to cartelize their occupations and make it more difficult for competitors to produce the goods and services they produce. Producers have a vested interest in the scarcity of those services they produce. If it's easy to use force to induce that scarcity (as it so often is with the state), they'll use it and spin all sorts of precious, fancy justifications and rationalizations for it.

That was a great post that encapsulates many important points. The people who are complaining about not getting "the fruits of their labor" aren't taking into consideration how much our overall standard of living would go up if we got rid of IP. It would go up to the point where they would be better off anyway, but they would also be forced to use a freedom friendly business model that doesn't require government force.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 05:18 PM
Copying is not stealing because it doesn't leave the owner of the original without the piece of property he owned. When you steal something you necessarily deprive the owner of that thing. Copying creates a new thing entirely.


Ok, so lets say I hire you to put a new roof on my house and I supply all the materials. When you are all done I tell you I'm not paying you and get the eff off my property. What is that? you aren't out any tangible materials.

enjerth
07-05-2011, 05:26 PM
Such an interesting argument... 7 pages on the forum and how many times has the Constitution been mentioned?

Article I, Section 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


And doesn't S.978 violate our 4th amendment rights?

NYgs23
07-05-2011, 05:27 PM
Ok, so lets say I hire you to put a new roof on my house and I supply all the materials. When you are all done I tell you I'm not paying you and get the eff off my property. What is that? you aren't out any tangible materials.

That's a matter of contract-breaking. However, there is no clear contract in most IP disputes, least of all in the modern Information Age, and IP privileges are much more expansive than mere contract rights. Kinsella addresses this here (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf):

"the advocates of the contractual approach to IP are mistaken if they believe that private contract can be used to recreate the same type of protection afforded by modern IP rights. Patent and copyright are good against all third parties, regardless of their consent to a contract. They are real rights that bind everyone, in the same way that my title to a parcel of land binds everyone to respect my property—even if they do not have a contract with me. A contract, by contrast, binds only parties to the contract. It is like private law between the parties. It does not bind third parties, i.e., those not in “privity” with the original parties."

"Nor can it be said as a general matter that I have stolen or fraudulently acquired the information, as there are many legitimate ways for individuals to acquire information. Artistic works, by their very nature, typically are made public. Scientific discoveries and innovations likewise can become known beyond the parties to confidentiality agreements."

"Thus, the use of contract only gets us so far. A book publisher may be able to contractually obligate his purchasers to not copy his book, but he cannot prevent third parties from publishing and selling it, unless some contract prohibits this action."

Also, contract infringement should not involve jail time, as the proposed bill says, but only restitution to the other party or parties in the contract.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 05:39 PM
That's a matter of contract-breaking. However, there is no clear contract in most IP disputes, least of all in the modern Information Age, and IP privileges are much more expansive than mere contract rights. Kinsella addresses this here (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf):

I'm fine with getting rid of most IP as long as private contracts are enforced.

Lucille
07-05-2011, 05:52 PM
This has really ticked off my young gamer. Does the government (at all levels) have any idea how many libertarians and anarchists they are creating every single day?

Vessol
07-05-2011, 07:40 PM
You mean those greedy companies that are doing this for there own capitalist fascist reasons?

Did you even read my post on Capitalism? You keep on throwing the word around like an idiot. Do you honestly think that this is capitalism at fault?


This has really ticked off my young gamer. Does the government (at all levels) have any idea how many libertarians and anarchists they are creating every single day?

I disagree. Look at the post above. It's only creating more raging Statists. They believe that the Government is great, if it only wasn't those evil greedy capitalists existing then it would be perfect

Revolution9
07-05-2011, 08:06 PM
I am an artist, own a game company and do large art engineering installs. IP is something to be protected as far as characters is concerned. You cannot copyright gameplay mechanics as they are ideas..but I personally believe if you create a beloved character you should get the rights to profits generated in part. Or we have a situation like this..A guy creates a character that overnight becomes a sensation. Disney, having no copyright to hold them back takes this guys idea, makes a big budget movie from it and scores 500M USD in profit and does not have to give a dime to the original IP creator. What y'all got to say to that?? I say it is unfair. Also, when the person who created the IP dies that is when the works go public domain. Mickey Mouse would be public domain now under those rules.

dannno
07-05-2011, 08:16 PM
I am an artist, own a game company and do large art engineering installs. IP is something to be protected as far as characters is concerned. You cannot copyright gameplay mechanics as they are ideas..but I personally believe if you create a beloved character you should get the rights to profits generated in part. Or we have a situation like this..A guy creates a character that overnight becomes a sensation. Disney, having no copyright to hold them back takes this guys idea, makes a big budget movie from it and scores 500M USD in profit and does not have to give a dime to the original IP creator. What y'all got to say to that?? I say it is unfair. Also, when the person who created the IP dies that is when the works go public domain. Mickey Mouse would be public domain now under those rules.

So somebody had an idea, somebody else made it into a better, more successful product, and we want government to discourage that? It sounds like we'll just end up with inferior stuff to me.

The best thing this person can do is make their idea distinguishable some how, so that people who copy it look like retards.

BarryDonegan
07-05-2011, 09:05 PM
What can be done? C4L needs to frontburner this one in my view.

messana
07-05-2011, 10:32 PM
I wonder how many RPFers are actually serious about streaming video in regards of property rights.....

Give me liberty
07-05-2011, 10:37 PM
@Revolution9

This is for you to read
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
So it sounds like your supporting the nanny Big Brother bill? this bill will threaten our civil rights and freedom on the streaming sites.


Protect IP act would align US with repressive regimes, here

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/05/lawyers-protect-ip-act-would-align-u-s-with-repressive-regimes/


Two bills and more Internet censorship you sure support them?

ChaosControl
07-05-2011, 10:42 PM
IP is B.S.

IP attempts to create an ownership of thought and idea, which is nonsensical.
Copying data on a computer is not taking away something from someone, it is just duplicating it.
It'd be like if I could go down to a car lot and point a copy gun at a car and it'd create a copy. The dealer still has all his cars. Nothing was stolen. Same idea.

IP is just a big scam to give mega corps like Microsoft and Apple the government assisted tools to screw the consumer out of more money. There is nothing free market or freedom in general about it. Supporting IP is just corporatist nonsense. Its worse than the people who think the corporate tax rate should be even lower than the personal income tax rate. People put corporations before individuals and their freedom. I'm sick of the corporate love fest that this country has. Our entire government is owned by corporations, that is one of the major reasons it is so corrupt.

messana
07-05-2011, 11:53 PM
IP is B.S.

IP attempts to create an ownership of thought and idea, which is nonsensical.
Copying data on a computer is not taking away something from someone, it is just duplicating it.
It'd be like if I could go down to a car lot and point a copy gun at a car and it'd create a copy. The dealer still has all his cars. Nothing was stolen. Same idea.

IP is just a big scam to give mega corps like Microsoft and Apple the government assisted tools to screw the consumer out of more money. There is nothing free market or freedom in general about it. Supporting IP is just corporatist nonsense. Its worse than the people who think the corporate tax rate should be even lower than the personal income tax rate. People put corporations before individuals and their freedom. I'm sick of the corporate love fest that this country has. Our entire government is owned by corporations, that is one of the major reasons it is so corrupt.


Hardly.

Hypothetically, I create a one of a kind painting that I plan to sell for $500, but some rich corporation copies my painting stroke by stroke then sells thousands of prints and makes $100,000 profit from it. Just because I don't have the money or resources to compete, I the innovator gets punished.

How does not having IP help me in this case? Why should I even try to innovate in such a climate?

Nastynate
07-06-2011, 01:11 AM
Hardly.

Hypothetically, I create a one of a kind painting that I plan to sell for $500, but some rich corporation copies my painting stroke by stroke then sells thousands of prints and makes $100,000 profit from it. Just because I don't have the money or resources to compete, I the innovator gets punished.

How does not having IP help me in this case? Why should I even try to innovate in such a climate?

But pirates aren't making thousands of dollars off other's work. They're allowing people to view their copy of the movie which is stored on their server space. Can someone not even photocopy a page in a book? Essentially the act of you playing a CD is considered streaming. This bill is tyrannical plain and simple. Just think swat teams raiding your house because you have some sort of free software on your computer that you didn't know was copyrighted. I'm sure pretty much everyone has some sort of copyrighted material on their computer that would be in a violation of this bill.

Diurdi
07-06-2011, 01:32 AM
Hardly.

Hypothetically, I create a one of a kind painting that I plan to sell for $500, but some rich corporation copies my painting stroke by stroke then sells thousands of prints and makes $100,000 profit from it. Just because I don't have the money or resources to compete, I the innovator gets punished.

How does not having IP help me in this case? Why should I even try to innovate in such a climate?

Probably not a very good example, seeing how much of the value of the painting (and art in general) often derives from it's authenticity.

My only hope is that these kind of bills will force the young to actually get involved in Politics and start voting. This bill could have a pretty significant effect on the life of an average 18-25 year old.

Kludge
07-06-2011, 05:03 AM
This law isn't worth getting worked up over. Making it illegal only makes the activity criminal -- it does not stop the activity from occurring, and it's generally impossible to permanently remove something from the Internet once it's been published. Data illegal to be streamed from the US will be hosted in other countries and the ISPs will give the USG less, the foreign gov't more -- and that will of course result in a loss of US jobs while US consumption of foreign goods increase. I mean -- Youtube will be totally fucked over if this bill passes -- you know, that employer of nearly 1,000 Americans with around $1b in revenues annually. Yahoo Videos, Veoh, Vimeo, Metacafe, and all those other American businesses are bringing in jobs and revenue. But yeah, fuck 'em - that'll show those pirates how powerful the USG is.

That said - why does the over-arching argument of IP piracy always have to be so emotional? Pay for work which benefits you. You would pay to see a concert - why not to listen to a CD? - Or play a videogame? Work has gone in. You appreciate the work, you want to pay for it -- it's a natural response. If a laborer isn't earning enough to live off of, that laborer will stop producing such content. If you want to enjoy more of that laborer's content, you pay for what that laborer has produced already to tell him he'll be financially rewarded to continue producing. You want to see a washed-up penniless Billy Joel go to CPAC to vote for Ron Paul? You pay for it. Same concept.

At any rate - fuck the laws -- look at this as it affects you. Does it? Yeah - you'll probably have to use a non-US video streaming service to watch those insane South Korean Starcraft tournaments (or download enormous blocks of them off ThePirateBay/similar). Does it really detriment you? Probably not - so why so serious?

Does showing a videogame through video harm anyone? No, it generates interest - and any game dev who says they've taken a loss because people have "played" their game through video has no business using the game medium to communicate a message and amuse people.


Or here's another way of looking at it -- my grandparents run a few churches. They collect money exclusively for specific projects, like sending poor kids to Christian camp (I went there for a year as a kid and it was fucking terrible -- but whatever). Every Labor Day (pay attention, there's irony here), they host a type of musical and the community puts together a mystery theater to raise money. I put together graphics for the show, and I don't pay for the images I use (whether they're altered or put together in an animation - and I don't pay for the movie-making software I use exclusively for the charity) -- Hell - I don't even check if the images are copyrighted, and my grandparents sure don't ask permission from the songwriters if they can sing their songs for charity, or play speeches which they didn't pay for in the first play. We're all technically criminals. Does that make it wrong? Does that mean it will stop? At least definitely on the last count - no.

- And I don't think I could possibly better-show how much my mind wanders.

Diurdi
07-06-2011, 05:23 AM
Obviously they can't arrest everyone who conducts this "criminal" activity. But by enacting a law like this, basicly everyone is a criminal - this means the power of the government over your increases immensly as they can now treat you as a criminal.

dannno
07-06-2011, 11:38 AM
Hardly.

Hypothetically, I create a one of a kind painting that I plan to sell for $500, but some rich corporation copies my painting stroke by stroke then sells thousands of prints and makes $100,000 profit from it. Just because I don't have the money or resources to compete, I the innovator gets punished.

How does not having IP help me in this case? Why should I even try to innovate in such a climate?



How about making a painting and selling the original?

If it's good, then people will want the originals, not copies. The originals will become more valuable, and people will pay a premium to ensure that what they are getting is verifiably the original.

dannno
07-06-2011, 11:52 AM
That said - why does the over-arching argument of IP piracy always have to be so emotional? Pay for work which benefits you.

I completely agree - I have no problem paying artists voluntarily, or going to their shows, or supporting their sponsors. I have done all of the above. That said, I don't think they should be able to send the cops to my house just because I copied a god damn song, never stealing or depriving anybody else of anything.

dannno
07-06-2011, 11:52 AM
If you have a "right" to your own ideas and nobody else has the right to implement them, then why doesn't the Constitution guarantee you that right forever? Afterall, it's your idea, if you "own it", then why should you have to give it up after 10 years? I don't see any difference between that argument and what the pro-IP people on this thread are saying, except maybe specs.

Does the Constitution tell you that when you own your property, you only get to own it for 10 years then it belongs to everybody else?

Echoes
07-06-2011, 11:59 AM
I completely agree - I have no problem paying artists voluntarily, or going to their shows, or supporting their sponsors. I have done all of the above. That said, I don't think they should be able to send the cops to my house just because I copied a god damn song, never stealing or depriving anybody else of anything.

+1

I do the same.

Echoes
07-06-2011, 12:02 PM
If you have a "right" to your own ideas and nobody else has the right to implement them, then why doesn't the Constitution guarantee you that right forever? Afterall, it's your idea, if you "own it", then why should you have to give it up after 10 years? I don't see any difference between that argument and what the pro-IP people on this thread are saying, except maybe specs.

Does the Constitution tell you that when you own your property, you only get to own it for 10 years then it belongs to everybody else?

It's just an arbitrary number in place, backed by State violence. Dat's it. If indeed, IP was actually legit property..you're right, you should be entitled to it for life. No ifs, ands or buts.

enjerth
07-06-2011, 12:55 PM
If you have a "right" to your own ideas and nobody else has the right to implement them, then why doesn't the Constitution guarantee you that right forever? Afterall, it's your idea, if you "own it", then why should you have to give it up after 10 years? I don't see any difference between that argument and what the pro-IP people on this thread are saying, except maybe specs.

Does the Constitution tell you that when you own your property, you only get to own it for 10 years then it belongs to everybody else?

And yet the Constitution is still ignored by RPF'ers.

The Constitution grants Congress the right to secure, "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So, in a word, yes.

heavenlyboy34
07-11-2011, 11:20 PM
just because you say so doesn't mean it is true. plenty of companies would prove you wrong.
It's not just because I say so, it's because it is so. IP is simply a fiction relatively recent to human history. It started as a special privilege endowed by monarchs to earn the loyalty of creator-types. Prior to the advent of modern IP laws, creators did just fine. (see Ludwig Von Beethoven, Mozart, etc, etc, in every field you can imagine) Plus, creations were more "creative" by and large. As an aside-tell me, how would you feel if someone patented your DNA, giving them exclusive rights to it? The implications are quite interesting to think about.

heavenlyboy34
07-11-2011, 11:24 PM
And yet the Constitution is still ignored by RPF'ers.

The Constitution grants Congress the right to secure, "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So, in a word, yes.
The constitution also (theoretically) protects private property. This is one way the Constitution is self-contradictory. (here's an opportunity for RPF scholars to write a long paper or book resolving this contradiction) That is, it claims that "IP" is both the property of the creator and the end owner at the same time.

Notice also the ambiguity of the phrase "limited times". What is a "limited time" to you? According to IP law, it is longer than the life of the creator! Plus, IP rights can now be transferring in part or in full.

cindy25
07-11-2011, 11:40 PM
this will only effect USA domain sites; the torrent sites have been migrating to foreign domains for months. the problem seems to be youtube, but hopefully the free market will work, and a non-USA youtube type service (youtube technology with a piratebay attitude) will develop in Russia or Sweden or some other free country. maybe Palestine or Iran could do it.

Rael
07-12-2011, 01:22 AM
Telling me I cannot download music is a violation of my property rights. I own my computer and hard drive, and I have a right to magnetize 1's and 0's in any pattern I see fit on MY TANGIBLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

Do you also propose to tell me what I can write in my diary? If I go to a concert and write about it, or draw a picture of something I saw on a movie screen, did I violate the artists "rights"?

DamianTV
07-12-2011, 02:24 AM
It has nothing to do with Piracy. It has EVERYTHING to do with taking more of our money.

If you build a video game, the experience is there because you can interact with the visuals on the screen. What the bill sounds like it is trying to do is prevent videos of games in order to prevent BAD reviews, which is also labeled piracy. If we continue at the rate that we are going, using your DVR to record your show and watch it when you get home from work will also eventually be called Piracy.

It is also yet another new law that pushes that line of what is a criminal back just a little closer to the edge of the cliff. It is there to make more money for the Govt and its croney lobbying organizations by yet something else that they can fine or imprison for (again profit driven) and takes too much control away from the people. This game was crap, or this game was great. What they want is for only a small group of people to be able to say that the game is crap or it was great. It takes the voice away from the people.

I would prefer to be burdened by the inconveniences of having too much Liberty rather than too little.

rawful
07-12-2011, 06:22 AM
apparently none of you have ever been an independent software developer. when you spend two years writing software hoping to turn a profit (to feed your family, this is a job after all) and some pimply faced little punk decides he's gonna "get his lulz" by cracking it, making it freely available online, and thus ruining you financially, you start to care about IP rights. why should anyone create anything if they can't be guaranteed the fruits of their labor?



I believe that's a major aspect of a free society. You are guaranteed nothing. If you want to make a profit, then make sure your version of the product is good enough to make people want to pay you for it. If you spend 2 years working on something that can be easily copied, and you rely on it to feed your family, then it was just a bad decision.

enjerth
07-20-2011, 01:53 PM
The constitution also (theoretically) protects private property. This is one way the Constitution is self-contradictory. (here's an opportunity for RPF scholars to write a long paper or book resolving this contradiction) That is, it claims that "IP" is both the property of the creator and the end owner at the same time.

Notice also the ambiguity of the phrase "limited times". What is a "limited time" to you? According to IP law, it is longer than the life of the creator! Plus, IP rights can now be transferring in part or in full.

The Constitution grants certain powers to Congress in performing their function. Just as the ambiguity over common weights and measurements and the value of coined money, Congress is given the power to set these, along with the limited time to which an author or inventor is granted exclusive rights to their products.

That "limited time" means whatever Congress decides to make it.

enjerth
07-20-2011, 02:01 PM
I believe that's a major aspect of a free society. You are guaranteed nothing. If you want to make a profit, then make sure your version of the product is good enough to make people want to pay you for it. If you spend 2 years working on something that can be easily copied, and you rely on it to feed your family, then it was just a bad decision.

It sounds like you're referring to a trademark or a patent issue, not copyright. I'm assuming you mean imitation, not copying. Or are you really suggesting that programs should be distributed in a fashion that's more difficult to copy, such as, punch cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming_in_the_punched_card_era)?

Because the post you were replying to was talking about copyright infringement, not someone producing a competing product.

PastaRocket848
07-20-2011, 02:26 PM
the fact of the matter is, you don't have the right to infringe upon anyone else's rights, and intellectual property is just that, property. you can disagree, you can argue, you can hate the fact that it impedes your ability to be a cheap ass.. but at the end of the day if you want a product provided in a free market you can either pay for it, steal it, or have it given to you. just because it is technologically easier to copy than a vehicle doesn't make it any different than stealing a car off of a car lot.

so.. you want no intellectual property protection then? ok. who is going to make all those games, movies, music, applications that you enjoy so much? why would anyone invest in the production of a product without any guarantee to the fruit of their labor? you seem to forget that without the people making the products you so enjoy stealing, you will simply have nothing to steal, and everyone loses.

it's not a perfect system but it works. people gotta feed their families, and you're not entitled to my labor.