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

[ZoraxDoom]

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.

This is under the assumption that everyone who watches a movie/listens to a song/downloads and plays a game for Free off the internet would pay to do it if the internet option wasn't in place. For example, I've watched tons of movies and listened to tons of songs on Youtube that I wouldn't have paid for, simply because I didn't like them enough/wasn't inclined enough to do so. But just because it was free and easily available, I did.

On the flip side, I will argue that spreading media for Free over the Internet is a great way to earn more fans who genuinely appreciate your work and will want to buy it. I downloaded and played Cricket Coach 2011 illegally, but liked it so much I bought the real version and plan to buy CC2012 when it's released too. That wouldn't have happened if not for these avenues.
In the same way, I've become big fans of Radiohead, Linkin Park, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Daft Punk, Coldplay, Bob Marley and so many artists due to their songs being so easily accessible through Youtube, Soundcloud, Grooveshark and software like Limewire. I would not have heard of them otherwise. I am now willing to pay money to attend concerts, and buy their music, thanks to the free and easy exposure from the internet.

These aren't isolated examples. So many would agree with them. The general premise that companies stand to lose money as a result of the Internet and the nature of free and easy sharing of Media is just false. Companies like Spotify, Hulu and Netflix show that you can make money by just changing your business model and making Media easy to access and share - which is the root of all this piracy. Assuming all Piracy is result of consumers not wanting to spend money and wanting access to something they can't afford is just false. Money is a small concern. Even with Software - Open Source or Freeware software companies still make money (Open Office, Mozilla). Heck so many games make money by making majority of the game free to play and easy to access, but charge you money for extra futures - Facebook-style Gaming, and games like Battrick, Fromthepavilion, Hattrick...these are the future.

There is a reason all upcoming artists upload their songs + music videos to Youtube, and give out free albums for download. They're building a fanbase who will then be willing to pay for music/concerts later on. Even Radiohead gave out a sampler of their latest album for free download online and let people pay what they want.

Even Glee (yes, I know many of you hate that show, but bear with me) has entire episodes of it's show free to watch online on it's website, just a day after it is shown on TV (USA only). Yet they have amongst the highest ratings in the USA. How? Why are people subscribing to Fox and tuning in to watch Glee when they can watch the same show for free just a little bit later? Because they want to. They like the show. Having it online makes it easy for viewers to not only get into the show, but show it to others and gain more fans. Having it online lets people watch their favourite moments of the show, or re-watch entire storyline arcs, through a legitimate channel. It allows them to immerse themselves for free, and that makes them want to catch the latest episode, see the latest plot twist or the newest musical number, the moment it is released. And then re watch it later. And share it with their friends. It makes them want to go to concerts, buy the merchandise, and become gleeks. And hey, the website earns money off advertising too. And there is next to no piracy of it within the USA. It's a win-win.


The examples we speak of people in India and China going for cheap pirate versions - yes, it's an issue. But SOPA and PIPA will not address those. Not in the slightest. Not only are websites based in those countries unaffected, but the measures used to impose these restrictions are so weak they can be bypassed by anyone with a little bit of tech savvy. The main issue here is how this will kill innovation and any sort of user-created content based websites in the US, and how this is just 1 short step away from full on Censorship. That's the issue. I agree with you on that.

As for the Grey area - like I said, instead of having it a grey area and arguing and passing laws, big media companies are missing a trick by simply embracing the Internet for what it is and just redefining it's business model.

A great article on this is here:
The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas | Techdirt

Which pretty much says what we've been saying, but better :P

 

[iridescentt]

This is under the assumption that everyone who watches a movie/listens to a song/downloads and plays a game for Free off the internet would pay to do it if the internet option wasn't in place. For example, I've watched tons of movies and listened to tons of songs on Youtube that I wouldn't have paid for, simply because I didn't like them enough/wasn't inclined enough to do so. But just because it was free and easily available, I did.

Media off the Internet is so widely available that the risk of attaining such items illegally is watered down immensely by the lack of an 'Internet patrol force'. Its availability has no bearing on whether one should condone such actions.

On the flip side, I will argue that spreading media for Free over the Internet is a great way to earn more fans who genuinely appreciate your work and will want to buy it. I downloaded and played Cricket Coach 2011 illegally, but liked it so much I bought the real version and plan to buy CC2012 when it's released too. That wouldn't have happened if not for these avenues.
In the same way, I've become big fans of Radiohead, Linkin Park, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Daft Punk, Coldplay, Bob Marley and so many artists due to their songs being so easily accessible through Youtube, Soundcloud, Grooveshark and software like Limewire. I would not have heard of them otherwise. I am now willing to pay money to attend concerts, and buy their music, thanks to the free and easy exposure from the internet.

You've said it. You downloaded CC11 without paying. It's illegal. To the stake you go! Ahaa. Thats how law works. Whether or not it increases popularity or awareness. A personal preference or opinion that expresses such a view in today's day and age just doesn't hold up to the predicted/potential (albeit exaggerated) economic 'losses' that statisticians are presenting on behalf of copyright holders as a result of illegal distribution in a court of law.

Why go down the avenue of illegally downloading a copy to preview an end-product? This leads me to my next point.

There is a reason all upcoming artists upload their songs + music videos to Youtube, and give out free albums for download. They're building a fanbase who will then be willing to pay for music/concerts later on. Even Radiohead gave out a sampler of their latest album for free download online and let people pay what they want.

Even Glee (yes, I know many of you hate that show, but bear with me) has entire episodes of it's show free to watch online on it's website, just a day after it is shown on TV (USA only). Yet they have amongst the highest ratings in the USA. How? Why are people subscribing to Fox and tuning in to watch Glee when they can watch the same show for free just a little bit later? Because they want to. They like the show. Having it online makes it easy for viewers to not only get into the show, but show it to others and gain more fans. Having it online lets people watch their favourite moments of the show, or re-watch entire storyline arcs, through a legitimate channel. It allows them to immerse themselves for free, and that makes them want to catch the latest episode, see the latest plot twist or the newest musical number, the moment it is released. And then re watch it later. And share it with their friends. It makes them want to go to concerts, buy the merchandise, and become gleeks. And hey, the website earns money off advertising too. And there is next to no piracy of it within the USA. It's a win-win.

Company's such as Adobe (sticking to the context of this thread) don't just offer their product without the consumer knowing what their getting. Yet that is the point you seem to make. That companies and copyright holders refraining from offering a 'free' service harms their business model. Here's the thing, do you see companies offering full versions for free to determine their quality? Yes. Through, not to the extent where your experience is matched by illegally attaining the product, but still a preview of what their offering - via media previews/songs (largely available by services such as YouTube), demos, free trials, etc.

Its not like you can argue that no service whatsoever is offered in order to promote a product practically.

A great article on this is here:
The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas | Techdirt

Which pretty much says what we've been saying, but better :P

Amen to that

But yeah, its not that I'm against the movements against piracy or anything like that. But its black and white when it comes to the law, you just can't do it no matter how justifiable you may think it can be. I however am more concerned about the ensuing censorship issues a nation like the US may adopt and subsequently spread globally. I mean hey, take a look at Belarus - full-on hardcore censorship already and they haven't even predicted the vast potentially losses censoring the Internet may have upon their nation.

The issues concerning Spain is still a worry. No publicity whatsoever on mainstream media. Article 1. Article 2 - follow up.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I think I said something wrong at first - in the USA (and most of the world) you can be punished for uploading/downloading copyrighted stuff, but the intermediaries (filesharing sites and P2P software) can't be punished.

The difference I think with our opinions is that you feel the law should be strictly followed, while I'm looking more realistically - in that the current law is pretty much impossible to enforce and as such remains more or less ignored (otherwise pretty much every internet user would be in jail). Instead I'm treating not-for-profit filesharing as Legal, and arguing why it should be so, and why PIPA/SOPA (which punish the intermediaries) is a stupid idea and will not work at all (since it doesn't attack the source of this filesharing).

Infact, trying to attack not-for-profit filesharing in general is just a stupid and massively impossible task, it's just far better for companies to embrace it, as I explained in my examples.

Infact, what DMCA asks for is that if a Free Website (Youtube, Filesharing) is giving Free access to Copyrighted material, they should allow these big companies to pull this material down OR advertise on the page. It doesn't punish the uploader in a criminal way. That's a good start I feel. That's what Megaupload is proposing now - that they restart their website and meet DMCA standards and pull down material that companies report as offensive.

What is bad about DMCA (and makes it a poorer alternative to just changing business models) is that it requires no investigation into the claims made by these big companies, and provides no warning to the uploader of the content so they may modify their material. For example, if I made a video of a big school event, and uploaded it on Youtube, companies like EMI and Warner can get this video pulled down if I have any of their copyrighted music playing in the background. And I don't get warned before hand. That part is messed up. There is a story of a guy who got his video pulled down by EA Games because he had a Battlefield 3 case lying in the background.

Games also make use of DMCA - in that you can't access online play when you have the pirated version. That's the best they can do. Assasin's Creed II (I've never played it btw) required you to be connected with the net at all time for the original protected version. BUT the pirated version did it. People with wireless routers or unpredictable net connections hated the legit version for it - this old-school way of thinking actually hurt the game's sales more than it helped it, and actively pushed people to get the pirated version for smoother, uninterrupted gameplay.

So I guess what I'm saying is...while you feel current laws are laws and they have to be followed, I'm arguing that:

1) Current law regarding people who download/upload Copyrighted Material is ridiculous and impossible to enforce. You can't treat nearly every internet user in the world as a Criminal. Under current law we're all prisoners and should go to jail, even if all we did was listen to a song on Youtube (that isn't hosted by EMI/Vevo).

2) DMCA is a decent effort, but also very open to abuse, and HAS been abused, by media companies. It either needs to be better worded and implement, or even better, scrapped entirely.

3) Changing business models and the way we look at Digital Media (Music, Games, Movies, TV Shows) is a far, far more effective counter to Piracy than draconian laws and criminal sentences. Embracing the Internet instead of trying to censor it.

So yea. That's that.

And on this:

Company's such as Adobe (sticking to the context of this thread) don't just offer their product without the consumer knowing what their getting. Yet that is the point you seem to make. That companies and copyright holders refraining from offering a 'free' service harms their business model. Here's the thing, do you see companies offering full versions for free to determine their quality? Yes. Through, not to the extent where your experience is matched by illegally attaining the product, but still a preview of what their offering - via media previews/songs (largely available by services such as YouTube), demos, free trials, etc.

Its not like you can argue that no service whatsoever is offered in order to promote a product practically.

I think Adobe would do far better if they offered a limited-capability of their software for free, and allowed you to expand it if you paid. As it is, Adobe Reader and Flash Player are free.

Demos and Free-Trials work. But a lot of games don't offer that. And how do you demo a Movie? Or a TV Series? How many TV Shows out there give out full episodes for free? How many Movies let you watch 30-40 minutes of it for free before you buy the whole film?

Youtube has helped the Music industry massively. Look at Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, VEVO. Heck, Musicians are earning more than they ever have today thanks to stuff like Youtube, Soundcloud, Spotify, Grooveshark helping them spread their music further than they ever could. It's nothing but pure greed that sees these big music industries wanting to shut down these free avenues of access to their product. They want to be the sole provider. Under the current status quo, most if not all of an Artist's material is free to access on the web. They probably want to restrict this, market and give off small portions of it for free, and ear even more money by forcing people to pay for access to the rest.

It is pure Greed, and I have no sympathy for it. I feel it'll just hurt them in the long run - the smart and savvy musicians already realise that. Many have embraced the web fully. Did you know 50 Cent has 2 websites? One owned by EMI, one by himself. His own private one has far more hits, and he gives off exclusive content (songs and stuff) on it for free, for his fans. Under SOPA/PIPA, that website will be shut down. A site that helps 50 Cent maintain his massive popularity will be shut down.

Music Companies and the Music Industry isn't struggling for cash. Neither is Hollywood really. The motivation is pure greed. They realise that, the way SOPA/PIPA are written, that it'll give them more power and a greater scope for abuse. And they obviously like that. They can already restrict music on Youtube and get videos pulled down - imagine that expanding that to entire websites.

----------

The thing with Spain is another big threat with SOPA/PIPA. The precedent it sets. Once the USA implements a law, most of the world is likely to follow. Especially countries who need the USA as an ally/trade partner.

 

[iridescentt]

The difference I think with our opinions is that you feel the law should be strictly followed, while I'm looking more realistically - in that the current law is pretty much impossible to enforce and as such remains more or less ignored (otherwise pretty much every internet user would be in jail). Instead I'm treating not-for-profit filesharing as Legal, and arguing why it should be so, and why PIPA/SOPA (which punish the intermediaries) is a stupid idea and will not work at all (since it doesn't attack the source of this filesharing).

Its not that I press for legality in such matters, but rather thats how it is now and that we have to deal with it. Whether or not that means to press for changes or to comply. I chose the former. To say the least I'm gladdened by the awareness raised as a result of the SOPA/PIPA protests as their does seem to be some direction we're heading.

What is bad about DMCA (and makes it a poorer alternative to just changing business models) is that it requires no investigation into the claims made by these big companies, and provides no warning to the uploader of the content so they may modify their material. For example, if I made a video of a big school event, and uploaded it on Youtube, companies like EMI and Warner can get this video pulled down if I have any of their copyrighted music playing in the background. And I don't get warned before hand. That part is messed up. There is a story of a guy who got his video pulled down by EA Games because he had a Battlefield 3 case lying in the background.

DMCA notices aren't being deemed sufficient, its as simple as that. They pull the leaves yet not attempt to take out the omnipotent root. Although, the main reason MegaUpload and its other services had been taken down was due to the fact that take down notices weren't being completely met. Sure a DMCA notice might've been reported and the link then appears to show that the file had been subsequently removed, yet it still remained within their servers. A glaring flaw on their part. And just think about all the legitimate users of their cyberlocker service, their data/information gone - only a natural side-effect if such actions continue.

Oh and that story, can you link me? That sounds so stupid that they'd do that, reality eh

So I guess what I'm saying is...while you feel current laws are laws and they have to be followed, I'm arguing that:

1) Current law regarding people who download/upload Copyrighted Material is ridiculous and impossible to enforce. You can't treat nearly every internet user in the world as a Criminal. Under current law we're all prisoners and should go to jail, even if all we did was listen to a song on Youtube (that isn't hosted by EMI/Vevo).

2) DMCA is a decent effort, but also very open to abuse, and HAS been abused, by media companies. It either needs to be better worded and implement, or even better, scrapped entirely.

3) Changing business models and the way we look at Digital Media (Music, Games, Movies, TV Shows) is a far, far more effective counter to Piracy than draconian laws and criminal sentences. Embracing the Internet instead of trying to censor it.

Its not that I press for legality in such matters, but rather thats how it is now and that we have to deal with it. Whether or not that means to press for changes or to comply. I chose the former. To say the least I'm gladdened by the awareness raised as a result of the SOPA/PIPA protests as their does seem to be some direction we're heading.

Then again, this isn't impossible to enforce, it may very will be possible on a wider-scale. Virtually they've found the means to do so. Though, without comprising the integrity of the free web? Thats another story/issue on its own.

Its what pisses me of most of all; they came, they saw, they want to conquer. The Internet is just another business avenue for them. The nature of the known Internet is too vast for one entity to control, let alone for copyright holders to hand out fines to consumers based on IP tracing results (and as a result you'll see stories of unsuspecting and innocent victims). Yet lo and behold they now have the backing of the US Embassy who are supporting their perspective based on the 'solid' evidence that copyright holders provide. In turn seeking to control the monopoly of their assets in a static and controlled environment - a big no no.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Yea, agree on the latter part. But I don't feel we should accept the status quo, if the status quo is stupid. IE, follow the laws if we know the laws are stupid. After all, we the people decide our government. Laws should be made to support the average person, not the elite few. It's the same reason I don't frown on those who smoke weed (even though that is illegal).

What allows bad men to thrive is the silence of good men. The only way we'll see a change is if we protest against what we see as wrong, and call for a change. That's where I stand.

And I got the Battlefield 3 thing from here:SOPA is Internet Censorship? No. - Page 3

But no link provided.

There is this good example of UMG having free access to pull down whatever they like from Youtube though:
Universal Music Group claims right to block or remove any video on YouTube | ExtremeTech

 

[Varun]

I'm just going to delay reading this and replying till tomorrow.

 

[Cricketdude]

ahhh that was a good read.

On what Zorax(man that's a geeky name :P) mentioned before about forums. If I posted this gif(just choosing any random gif)

This gif is owned by MTV and if SOPA saw it, Planetcricket would be closed down.

 

[1iram1]

I downloaded and played Cricket Coach 2011 illegally, but liked it so much I bought the real version and plan to buy CC2012 when it's released too.

Theres this thing called a trial.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Theres this thing called a trial.

It had a time limit. I got a crack to bypass it and play it infinitely. Which is legal, since any piece of software on my computer is now mine to do with as I see fit, including cracking

 

[kashan123999]

It will surely help Hollywood,Music industry and video game publishers...

 

[angryangy]

It had a time limit. I got a crack to bypass it and play it infinitely. Which is legal, since any piece of software on my computer is now mine to do with as I see fit, including cracking

Depends what you agreed to in the EULA, which usually includes agreeing not to reverse-engineer or alter the game files.