Wikipedia protest shutdown

Discussion in 'World Events' started by arfa brane, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    We're venturing into fantasy-land here (not like some weren't already there) with this idea of information that is somehow wholly non-replicable. LOL.


    And I'm still awaiting a list, or even a name or two, of some actual content creators, as opposed to interest groups, lobbyists, and sham "association of musicians/artists", who are supporters of SOPa.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    The issue was never about our ability to stop copying, it is about stopping Piracy.

    Not at all the same issue.


    And

    http://www.internlikearockstar.com/2012/01/musicians-companies-their-stance-on.html

    And

    http://loudwire.com/sopa-pipa-voting-postponed-rockers-share-mixed-feelings/
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. michael_taylor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    192
    How is piracy possible without copying? You know what we call piracy without copying? "Not piracy". If you stop piracy you necessarily stop the act of copying which forms the inherent and irrefutable basis of piracy.

    Piracy is unauthorised copying. Part of which is copying. Just there, where it says "copying".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. michael_taylor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    192
    The assertion was that the technological methods suggested by this bill (and it's inevitable successors I might add) had any possibility of working.

    They don't. It's impossible to do it with technology because piracy relies on copying, and copying relies on being able to watch/listen.

    No technology which is capable of delivering content can prevent it being copied.

    The only options, which I was at pains to point out and you choose to blithely ignore, are legal, social and psychological. Technological solutions to the issue are not applicable, because they don't exist.
     
  8. michael_taylor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    192
    Now I don't expect you to take my word for it just because I know better than you do, even though you certainly realise that given your abundantly obvious ignorance of the technologies involved, because I can see how that would spoil your game.

    I do expect you to provide examples or description for your assertions which actually support said assertions, rather than just trying to wriggle out of it and pretend it doesn't apply to you.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    LOL
    Again with the perception that those against SOPA/PIPA are nececssarily pro piracy...

    :roll:
     
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Did you actually look at this link, Arthur?

    IOW, the RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, a bunch of major labels, etc.

    _________________
    A bunch of musicans, Google, smaller companies which support independent music and musicians, et al.


    Does this suggest anything to you?
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    just what, exactly, do you think piracy is?
    it's exactly the same issue.

    it's impossible to allow copying while stopping piracy.
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    http://dvd-and-video-to-ipod-software-review.toptenreviews.com/when-everyones-right.html

    It's not copying to back up stuff up that is, strictly speaking, illegal (backing up is not on any list of exemptions), it's bypassing the CSS that is, strictly speaking, illegal (according to the letter of the law).

    However, it's worth noting that traditionally, copying to back stuff up has been considered 'fair use', and treated as such by US courts.
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    you didn't even open the link did you, the desenting report (written by 4 vs 5 BTW) states that SONY should be held liable EVEN THOUGH THERE DEVICE COULD BE USED FOR THINGS OTHER THAN ILLEGAL TIME SKIPPING. The only difference between that and the majority report was that the majority didn't agree that sony should be held liable for producing the technology. You might THINK you have a right to tape shows but that case clearly shows that the courts disagree. Ie YOUR A PIRATE
     
  14. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,924
    I really think this will just end up making the internet a service similar to Comcast Xfinity and we will have limited content which is largely meaningless. It'll be good for those who don't know any better but for many it will be like finding yourself crippled.
     
  15. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    You know that the one main thing that is missed is perhaps the simplest of mispronunciations which is:

    CAP-IT-ALL-ism

    One of the main problems about the world current economic states has been due to companies following misdirected views of "Capitalism", they seem to wander around with this fantasy that a companies earning's can just go up and up and up.

    The problem is that this is one of the main causes of RISK, after all it's a market based upon complete speculation of astronomically ridiculous projections.

    What such companies need to learn is they need to start being a bit more limiting in their reasoning by creating "Ceilings", this means a point where enough money has been earn't via a project where it can be "Capped" as having made the financial return that they required.

    An Example of this would be if a Movie company decided to make a film for $1.2 Mil (Cheap for most maybe), the company should be happy with making a 240% return ($2.808Mil) anything else is just excessive greed.

    What such a company could do is use a Free or extremely low flat tariff share company to start sharing the film for free* once the takings minus costs reaches the capped return amount.

    The cap could be a reflection of how the RIAA has certification in regards to the volume of sales Namely as soon as it hits a Diamond level, it's made completely free as a digital product online.

    Obviously a product can still be created as a DVD/Bluray/CD etc and sold with return based on the production costs of the media and packaging, however pirates would find it hard to make money directly from the product if the product is now predominantly found freely distributed online.

    [* Free is for the digital copy itself, what might cost however is the maintenance for running the networks and equipment for distribution, while pirates might take it upon themselves to use their own equipment, they would be expected to share the files Freely themselves.]

    I would suggest the RIAA/MPAA if they took up this approach would only allow pirates to freely distribute after the cap, if the sites themselves have NO ADVERTISEMENTS. After all if say a film becomes free through such a method, advertisements are giving a revenue to a site for material that wasn't theirs to begin with, which is one of the main points that true concerns of intellectual property rights (and not capitalism) have been really about.

    [If you feel this post has merit, please add a link to your blogs or social networking status]
     
  16. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    @ Stryder,

    While your idea sounds reasonable to me, the problem is this: do you think a person who goes to school pretty much for the sole purpose of learning of how to "make" money, and who later in life, pretty much exists solely for the purpose of "making" more money is going to accept this?
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    So what, there is also authorized copying.

    Piracy involves MORE than just making a copy, for instance what MegaUpload was doing was piracy.

    But someone using their service to save a copy of a DVD movie for backup is not illegal.

    But, when MegaUpload then streamed the content that was saved to others, that's where the piracy took place.
     
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You keep repeating that but you have been shown to be wrong and simply refused to read it
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Typical Hollywood films typically cost near $100 million (and sometimes a lot more) to make and then a LOT more for distribution costs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films

    Note, this list is JUST the production costs. It takes another small fortune to advertise and distribute the movies.

    Often the sunk costs are into the hundreds of millions with NO GUARANTEE that you will make your money back.

    So, if one makes huge profits on a movie, a lot of that goes to covering costs of the movies that failed to pay for themselves.

    http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2010/03/the-cost-of-making-a-hollywood-movie/

    http://www.anime-forums.com/showthread.php?109581-Movies-that-Lost-Money
     
  20. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    It is a complicated issue, and it seems a lot of people never give it much thought. And, I'll admit, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the major record companies. They've been shafting performers and artists for years. But the technology has changed, many of the artists today are not using major record companies. They are doing it themselves.

    Copyright laws are also more complicated than they once were. I seem to recall that a copyright used to last for 25 years. Later extended to the life of the artist. I'm not sure how long they last anymore. I've heard rumors that the changes have been feuled by the Walt Disney Corp not wanting to lose control of Mickey Mouse - but that may be an urban legend.

    I was providing guitar accompaniment for a lady recently and we did a string of house concerts interspersed with club dates. The house concerts were far more enjoyable and lucrative. We were fed and given a place to stay to boot. Not sure if it's a viable alternative for a full band.

    I recently helped with a charity project that involved parodies of Beatle songs. The artist contacted the Harry Fox Agency and paid all mechanical licensing fees. I assumed that HFA then distributed the funds to Sir Paul and Yoko (or whoever owns the catalog now) - after taking their cut of course.

    Honestly, I don't think it is possible to stop online piracy through any technical means. Any protection scheme will be defeated eventually. But it is possible to raise people's awareness. Music, books, movies and software don't just materialize out of nowhere. Somebody somewhere worked to produce them.
     
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And the funny thing is that after all this posting about the subject you are apparently unaware that the bill had nothing to do with implementing any technology that had anything to do with preventing copying.
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No I'm not.

    SOPA has NOTHING in it about making copying illegal.
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And SOPA was not expected to stop all online piracy.

    It was intended to make large scale piracy on the order of sites like Pirate Bay unprofitable (or much less so than they are now) by restricting the ability of US sites to link to them and to transfer money to them.
     

Share This Page