USA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and how we're all f******

[ZoraxDoom]

I presume most of you have heard about this.

But if not:

Say NO to ACTA - YouTube
SOPA and PIPA - YouTube
SOPA & PIPA HORROR STORY Exposed in the UK Richard O'Dwyer by Mike Mozart MegaUpload - YouTube
MegaUpload Dangerous Secrets affect YOU, Mike Mozart JeepersMedia ACTA / PIPA / SOPA - YouTube

Thoughts? Feelings about this?

Personally...I think the USA is pushing it too far. No way they can actually implement all this without massive outcry from, well, the whole public of the world.

SOPA and PIPA have been delayed, but ACTA is still under discussion and to be signed on sometime in 2013 IIRC.

The Richard O'Dwyer and Megaupload cases are shocking, and hopefully something will be done. Protests, Petitions, someone in government with some common sense and no vested interests...

 

[MaD]

The internet protest was quite successful and I'm sure they've listened to those millions of people, which is why their decision has been delayed.

 

[puddleduck]

The internet protest was quite successful and I'm sure they've listened to those millions of people, which is why their decision has been delayed.

How naive

The general tactics now is that they'll let the media furore over the bill die down. They will then try and put through the law changes they want by putting it through under a different name with some minor ammendments.

Eventually something like it will get through, and the internet will never be the same again.

 

[aussie1st]

The SOPA and PIPA could lead to a whole heap of problems. If someone hates your website then all they would need to do is find an illegal link and post it on your site and you would get taken down.

All these laws will do is push more people to have their servers in China who I'm pretty sure isn't one of those 30 odd countries looking at this.

 

[Highlander999]

Time to take down Planetcricket

 

[iridescentt]

Obviously no one has heard of the US threatening to blacklist Spain if they don't implement a SOPA-like law couple weeks ago, no? Or of what what taking down Kim Dotcom's empire truly means - and SOPA/PIPA haven't even been passed yet!

Thats the problem, it takes a massive near-crunch time protest in order to raise awareness on a wider scale - and this commotion just encompasses the US. Yet no one seems to properly realise what has been occuring on a global scale (ie. the French government's adopted use of 3-strike Hadopi - limited foreign press at most).

Stay informed: TorrentFreak

 

[Cricketdude]

I think movies should be a lot less expensive. I can't pay $30 for a blu ray dvd when I can torrent it. Going all the way to the video store and renting it is a hassle too.

I don't have a job and so it's either I listen to music/movies but if I had to pay for it I wouldn't be able to.

Also so many artists these days only have 1 or 2 good songs on an album. It's their fault too for the prices and feeling ripped off.

 

[Varun]

Or of what what taking down Kim Dotcom's empire truly means - and SOPA/PIPA haven't even been passed yet!

I do feel they are justified in bringing down Megaupload if the allegations are right (and they are). The thing is, why do they need to bring in these acts when they can still do without them?

I think movies should be a lot less expensive. I can't pay $30 for a blu ray dvd when I can torrent it. Going all the way to the video store and renting it is a hassle too.

I don't have a job and so it's either I listen to music/movies but if I had to pay for it I wouldn't be able to.

Also so many artists these days only have 1 or 2 good songs on an album. It's their fault too for the prices and feeling ripped off.

Exactly. And besides, there is so much on the internet an average person would like to buy, obviously one can't expect him buy anything and everything. Photoshop and Illustrator combined, for example, would cost a whopping $1200. This amount might not matter much for an average person in the US, but in India, it corresponds to at the most two-month's salary, even for an average person. And with the growing interest in graphic designing here, you don't expect anything other than people illegally downloading them. Same with Windows 7.

 

[iridescentt]

I think movies should be a lot less expensive. I can't pay $30 for a blu ray dvd when I can torrent it. Going all the way to the video store and renting it is a hassle too.

I don't have a job and so it's either I listen to music/movies but if I had to pay for it I wouldn't be able to.

Also so many artists these days only have 1 or 2 good songs on an album. It's their fault too for the prices and feeling ripped off.

While I do think blu-ray may be a tad high, its still considered 'new' among the wider technological view of society. Its natural, it will come down when it truly becomes mainstream (ie. the widespread use of CD's/DVD's). Don't expect to pay small for such an advancement, simple. You shelled out for a blu-ray player (PS3 I'm guessing, so you wouldn't have gotten it for the blu-ray, obviously) so you should've accounted for the price of blu-ray media.

On the topic of music, I find the general price or $16 for an album highly justifiable. Unless your Usher you'd want to be making as much of the profit for your output. If you find that you only like "1 or 2 good songs on an album" @ $1.69 per song that you find 'favorable' from your desired artist, that surely can't be too much, right? Don't want to pay? Hit up their Youtube channel, which is generally VEVO sponsored at the moment - aid there cause that way in 'views' if you do not wish to reward your desired artist monetarily.

I do feel they are justified in bringing down Megaupload if the allegations are right (and they are). The thing is, why do they need to bring in these acts when they can still do without them?



Exactly. And besides, there is so much on the internet an average person would like to buy, obviously one can't expect him buy anything and everything. Photoshop and Illustrator combined, for example, would cost a whopping $1200. This amount might not matter much for an average person in the US, but in India, it corresponds to at the most two-month's salary, even for an average person. And with the growing interest in graphic designing here, you don't expect anything other than people illegally downloading them. Same with Windows 7.

$1200? Adobe's CS5.5 Master Collection (because I need to utilize such a wide variety of their service), encompasses generally ALL of their products for $899/$549 (w/ SD) from their website a couple months ago. A far cry from the solitary Photoshop + Illustrator combination equating to $1200. You don't go to MacDonald's and order the contents of each meal separately do you? Their standard design suite which is more than sufficient is to be had @ $299 - for what the Adobe suite is and how powerful it is, you should then be able to comprehend the price.

Still too expensive? PaintShop Pro is more than sufficient as a suitable replacement. Besides, you get a further student discount reduction which varies from country to country.

Whats next? Mercedez and Porcshe are too expensive? Yes, their suppose to be, thats how quality is measured and valued.

Someone should make an Internet Censorship thread in the Issues sub-forum, would be good I think.

 

[Varun]

Adobe's CS5.5 Master Collection (because I need to utilize such a wide variety of their service), encompasses generally ALL of their products for $899/$549 (w/ SD) from their website a couple months ago. A far cry from the solitary Photoshop + Illustrator combination equating to $1200.

It's $1800 on their website though. But that's not the point. I am just saying it's inevitable that a majority will download it illegally than shell out money on it, especially in a country like India, which boasts a considerable number of computer savvy people, especially the youth, and has transformed into an IT hub over the years, and still has comparatively lower per-capita incomes. Not that I support piracy, or anything, or I'm alluding that I indulge myself too often in piracy - I don't. It's just what happens here.

And no comparing it with McDonalds, or luxury car bands such as Mercedez and Porsche. These things won't be illegally available on the internet (pirated Chicken McGrills delivered at your door?), or for that matter, anywhere. Besides they are on the extremes as well: McDonalds: still cheap here, often $2-4 (as dollar equivalents) would suffice for a normal meal, the cars: even $1200 (or $12000 as well) wouldn't.

 

[iridescentt]

Just to be on the same page here, I'm quoting US prices with the Adobe suites (?). Plus, the McDonalds and car analogies are two separate comparisons I've brought up, they aren't the same like you've stated.

With the McDonalds part, I was just trying to compare it to buying each individual part of a meal separately - it always turns out more expensive then if you were to buy it as a meal deal. You said just Photoshop + Illustrator would set you back $1200, when you can get a packaged suite including so much more for just $299.

And as for the car analogy, I think it very well suits this case. So, should someone who isn't financially sufficient steal a car of which he/she cannot afford? Obviously not. Don't live outside your means, their are other alternatives available. Yet just because the Internet widely provides a stream to download such products as Adobe's suites doesn't mean it is any different to stealing a car lying on the road. Face the consequences. Its not overpriced, its outside the means of the average consumer - much like a car such as a Mercedez or Porsche. Generally, there is no reason when it comes to piracy.

 

[Cricketdude]

On the topic of music, I find the general price or $16 for an album highly justifiable. Unless your Usher you'd want to be making as much of the profit for your output. If you find that you only like "1 or 2 good songs on an album" @ $1.69 per song that you find 'favorable' from your desired artist, that surely can't be too much, right? Don't want to pay? Hit up their Youtube channel, which is generally VEVO sponsored at the moment - aid there cause that way in 'views' if you do not wish to reward your desired artist monetarily.

You pay for all your skrillex songs(they are crap btw)?

Also for example Nero(the burning tool, not the music group) costs $99. Spyware Doctor costs $50. So what would I rather spend my money on...Good ps3 games, clothes, dinner at a good restaurant etc. Or would I spend my money on that software? It's simple. I either use Spyware doctor cause I can get it for free or If I had to pay for it I wouldn't get it.

I buy albums from the bands I like because I want it on a disc. If I'm not sure then I'll download it. Simple. If I spend my money on random software and albums I don't like then that's a waste of money.

 

[iridescentt]

Shut up! I was young and started to move out from the rock music scene, it was a phase + I asked for a username change

Again, I make the same point. Their are alternatives, don't live outside your means. Anyway, why would you want Nero when you can have ImgBurn? Why would you want Spyware Doctor when you can have the Avast Security Suite for free? (Albeit for 'extra' features, it does its job. Coupled with a third-party firewall and your set - no need for SD).

 

[ZoraxDoom]

And as for the car analogy, I think it very well suits this case. So, should someone who isn't financially sufficient steal a car of which he/she cannot afford? Obviously not. Don't live outside your means, their are other alternatives available. Yet just because the Internet widely provides a stream to download such products as Adobe's suites doesn't mean it is any different to stealing a car lying on the road.

See, that's where your point fails. This isn't stealing. Stealing implies you lose the original that was created. If I steal a car from someone, that someone no longer has it.

If you download software off the web, you aren't stealing a copy - ie, the person you are downloading it off still has his copy.

A better analogy is if I bought a Porsche (because I can afford it), somehow with some new-fangled technology make an exact copy of it, and I give you that copy. You aren't stealing the car. I don't lose my car. The car company doesn't lose one piece of their car. All that happens is that I give you an exact copy of the car I legitimately purchased.

You know what else is a good analogy? I buy a good book, and let you read it/study from it for a class you have.

Or I buy a DVD, watch the movie, and invite you all to watch it with me.

Or I download Photoshop, and allow you to sit on my computer and use it.

All these are legal uses. BUT, in this case, only 1 person has purchased the original, and is now letting one other person, or maybe dozens or even hundreds of other people, use this book/software/movie without having to pay for it.

Now lets stretch that and say I buy the DVD, rip it and upload it onto my HardDisk to watch, say, while I'm travelling. That is legal.

No say I send you this movie via Skype, Email or...some filesharing website. Because you want to watch it, and I have it, but we live in separate countries.

Or I photocopy that book (because I'm not done with it, or you're leaving the country, or whatever) and give you the copy.

This is the grey area. These should still be legal - and is, infact, under current laws, legal. This is why these filesharing sites weren't closed down before. Due to the fact that I am not profiting from selling something I didn't make (ie, I am sharing it for free and not earning cash), I'm not infringing copyright. Filesharing website charge money in order for you to download more data or download faster. It's legal.

What was illegal would be if I bought the DVD from a shop, ripped it, made copies, and sold them for cheap. That's blatant illegal piracy. They same if I made you all pay money to come to my house to watch the movie. Infact, you could argue hosting a party that charges money to enter, and then playing copyrighted music in that party, is a case of copyright infringement.

And now what SOPA/PIPA and ACTA are doing is, in essence, punishing you for even linking to places where Copyright Protected information is held or accessible. Even for free.

The USA already punishes people for downloading copyright protected data, which in itself is a tweaked up rule (as I have explained above) and impossible to hold every violator too. Now with SOPA, PIPA and ACTA they are making it easier to find and track down people who do this, to police the net, and essentially fearsome tweak up big websites like Google, Yahoo, Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, and anything where any media or data is available.

Heck this is just 1 step away from Censoring the internet...some would argue it already is - don't want something on the internet? Copyright protect it and punish people for uploading it. OR upload something to a person's website that is copyright protected, and then send them to jail for hosting/linking to it.

What would happen if SOPA/PIPA are accepted? Well for one, all major websites will pull their servers out of the USA. But those that are there? Forums will be dead. Comment sections in blogs/websites will be pulled down. Media websites shut down. Anything that allows you to upload anything will not exist, because these website owners will now fear that someone will upload something copyright protected and they will then be sent to jail/face massive fines.

It's a stupid, farcial, idiotic law that cannot and should not be allowed to pass.

 

[iridescentt]

Piracy is what it is. Are you not obtaining the company's/producer's output by illegal means?

No, it isn't illegal to loan out a DVD or either items to a friend as a means of personal distribution (to a widespread 'extreme' loan extent, then yes). However, it is illegal to make a copy of it and give it or sell it to that friend a a means of personal gain. Uploading movies is illegal. Leaving them available for OTHER people to download is illegal. That's like making thousands of copies and just giving them away. However, in this scenario, you don't make any money on it. BUT, neither does the copyright owner, and that makes it illegal.

The 'grey area' you speak of is what it is. Never being able to be truly defined. Courts attempt to make precedents but never universal and many views/perspectives clash as a result. Yet as of now, personal distribution is very much legal. Though, why else do you think the US Embassy sanctioned MAFIAA, amongst others, attempted to take down Australia's '3rd/4th' largest ISP and not that of Telstra or Optus? Because they predict that iiNet will cease to rebel and instead comply with copyright holders, thus precedents are set in court for further cases - to which they can then be targeted at the other top ISP's.

As for SOPA/PIPA, its not so much the take down notices accounting for servers within US shores that we should be worried about - thats a given. MegaUpload and its other services did not 'fully comply' with DMCA compliance's and faced the consequences. Instead, sites that the government shall deem illicit will be blocked from view. Tinkering with DNS blocking on such a scale is a serious issue. I shat myself when even in Australian not as much press was made when Senator Conroy made statements pertaining to the implementation of a static filter to be adopted by all ISP's - albeit minor as it was, still a step in that direction.