Thread: Internet censorship

Originally Posted by Supernova

http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/SOPA%202-pager%20final.pdf

With the AG following every rule verbatim this would be bad. Problem is, how often does that not happen? Anyone here think there won't be sites getting taken down which may or may not even fit the description given by the bill?

I don't think people have the right to steal (a position most of my friends seem to take issue with, can you believe it?), but we can't let the pursuit of piracy leave in it's wake the destruction of any amount of free expression.

Piracy is not stealing, it's piracy. It's still illegal, but it's not stealing.

John McCain supports the antipiracy laws. I found that hilarious since during his 2008 campaign he used several copyrighted songs illegally for television commercials and ended up being sued by John Mellencamp, ABBA, Frankie Valli, and Jackson Browne.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

John McCain supports the antipiracy laws. I found that hilarious since during his 2008 campaign he used several copyrighted songs illegally for television commercials and ended up being sued by John Mellencamp, ABBA, Frankie Valli, and Jackson Browne.

hahahaha what a fucking moron!

Originally Posted by Marvo

Piracy is not stealing, it's piracy. It's still illegal, but it's not stealing.

How is illegally downloading an album that you would otherwise have to purchase not stealing?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

John McCain supports the antipiracy laws. I found that hilarious since during his 2008 campaign he used several copyrighted songs illegally for television commercials and ended up being sued by John Mellencamp, ABBA, Frankie Valli, and Jackson Browne.

I lol'ed.

Originally Posted by Supernova

How is illegally downloading an album that you would otherwise have to purchase not stealing?

Because stealing removes the original whereas piracy makes a copy and is thus okay.

Because the worth of an album is actually in the physical materials of the CD.

Originally Posted by Supernova

How is illegally downloading an album that you would otherwise have to purchase not stealing?

Every time you hear a song on the radio, you make a copy in your brain. Therefore, listening to the radio is theft. Amidoinitrite?

Originally Posted by cmind

Every time you hear a song on the radio, you make a copy in your brain. Therefore, listening to the radio is theft. Amidoinitrite?

And every time you think of the Mona Lisa, you're an ART THIEF! ARREST HIM: THOUGHTCRIME.

Downloading a copy of the music is piracy. They still own the original and the rights, you just have a copy that you aren't "supposed" to have.

Originally Posted by Supernova

How is illegally downloading an album that you would otherwise have to purchase not stealing?

Who says I would've bought it, if the free option wasn't available? There are tons of movies I've watched, that I'd never watch without the option of downloading them illegally through the internet. Same with music.

I'm not arguing that this makes it okay though. I'm just saying that piracy is not stealing. It's piracy.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Who says I would've bought it, if the free option wasn't available? There are tons of movies I've watched, that I'd never watch without the option of downloading them illegally through the internet. Same with music.

He still tells himself this despite having admitted basically never being bothered to actually buy media and support the creators when he discovers it to be very good.

It's textbook cognitive dissonance.

Assumption after assumption after assumption. I'm sure you know exactly what marvo spends his money on.

To me, everyone should pirate and no one should buy any sort of media if they can make a copy unless the artist is independent or part of a smaller company that doesn't take all the profit. These bloated media empires need to fall.

Originally Posted by Xei

He still tells himself this despite having admitted basically never being bothered to actually buy media and support the creators when he discovers it to be very good.

It's textbook cognitive dissonance.

Since when are creators of art entitled to money?

Originally Posted by Xei

He still tells himself this despite having admitted basically never being bothered to actually buy media and support the creators when he discovers it to be very good.

It's textbook cognitive dissonance.

I buy all my games. I watch movies in the cinema. Recently I've started buying music I really like. Fact of the matter is that I don't actually have the money to buy all the media I enjoy. I have the option to listen to good music, with no consequence. That's why I do it.

Originally Posted by cmind

Since when are creators of art entitled to money?

Hey you're right, they should work for the good of humanity and be provided with goods and services by the state. I knew you'd turn around comrade!

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Hey you're right, they should work for the good of humanity and be provided with goods and services by the state. I knew you'd turn around comrade!

Take your cynicism over to Europe. I hear they like that sort of thing.

HAHAHAHAA troll cat. Love it.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Who says I would've bought it, if the free option wasn't available? There are tons of movies I've watched, that I'd never watch without the option of downloading them illegally through the internet. Same with music.

I'm not arguing that this makes it okay though. I'm just saying that piracy is not stealing. It's piracy.

This is basically the reason why piracy hasn't ruined any business ever.
I've downloaded thousands of songs that I would never buy, I just listen to it for a while and then forget about it. Just like if it were on the radio.
With the songs/artists I download and actually end up liking, I buy their stuff. It's no different to listening to them on the radio or seeing them on TV before buying their CD.

There are movies that don't sound appealing enough to pay $30 for, so I don't.
It doesn't matter whether I end up downloading them or not, because the company wouldn't get my money anyway.

Originally Posted by tommo

HAHAHAHAA troll cat. Love it.



This is basically the reason why piracy hasn't ruined any business ever.
I've downloaded thousands of songs that I would never buy, I just listen to it for a while and then forget about it. Just like if it were on the radio.
With the songs/artists I download and actually end up liking, I buy their stuff. It's no different to listening to them on the radio or seeing them on TV before buying their CD.

There are movies that don't sound appealing enough to pay $30 for, so I don't.
It doesn't matter whether I end up downloading them or not, because the company wouldn't get my money anyway.

Frankly I think your position is too weak. Copying information does not entitle the creator of that information to anything, IMO. I don't care what other people pay, or what I might pay if I was forced to pay, or whatever. I didn't contract with the creator, and I didn't deprive them of anything. Copyrights and patents are state creations whose fundamental intentions were to favor the friends of the King or Congress. They're anti-reality.

Your comprehension skills are astounding. Astoundingly fucking retarded.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Assumption after assumption after assumption. I'm sure you know exactly what marvo spends his money on.

Uh yes. Because I asked him before. Cool assumptions, by all means keep makin' em.

To me, everyone should pirate and no one should buy any sort of media if they can make a copy unless the artist is independent or part of a smaller company that doesn't take all the profit. These bloated media empires need to fall.

Ugh God.

You can't help yourself downloading their produce yet you want them to collapse.

And what exactly do you think happens to small companies who make good games? They become big companies. Who you then want to collapse. For some bizarre reason.

Just who do you think you are? If these big companies make shitty games, they're free to do that, and you're free to not buy them, and that's the end of it. How can you think you're somehow entitled to call the companies shitty, wish them to fail, and simultaneously keep using the products they make? In what sense is this not incoherent and hypocritical? And painting these entertainment companies as 'oppressors' is quite plainly pathetic and basically belittles genuine oppression in the world. What does 'take all the profit' even mean? They can only take what you freely give them.

Originally Posted by cmind

Since when are creators of art entitled to money?

Since people are entitled to engage in free trade. An artist is free to propose a contract, which includes whatever caveats about reproducing the art that the artist chooses to include; you are free to accept or decline the terms of that contract. Pretty simple?

Originally Posted by Marvo

I buy all my games. I watch movies in the cinema. Recently I've started buying music I really like. Fact of the matter is that I don't actually have the money to buy all the media I enjoy. I have the option to listen to good music, with no consequence. That's why I do it.

Well I'm glad to hear that. I just recall vividly from when this was discussed before that soon afterwards you were saying how good some Valve game or other was yet you had no intention to pay the developers.

Because these massive industries are ruining art by jamming manufactured crap down our throats so often and in such mass quantities that they shut the audience out of independent and actually talented artists. Look at radio stations, which take bribes to play the singles the record companies tell them to so the radio itself doesn't act as a way to explore music but simply as a way to get marketed the same crap all day long. The only way to be successful in the entertainment industry is to grant 92+% of your profit to executives that don't have to do crap but count their money because their company squeezed out all alternative opportunity.

Originally Posted by Xei

Since people are entitled to engage in free trade. An artist is free to propose a contract, which includes whatever caveats about reproducing the art that the artist chooses to include; you are free to accept or decline the terms of that contract. Pretty simple?

I agree completely. But I never signed such a contract. The artists are certainly free to use DRM methods to try to prevent me from pirating, but if you put data out there in the world, you can expect it to be copied. Did you understand my radio example?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Because these massive industries are ruining art by jamming manufactured crap down our throats so often and in such mass quantities that they shut the audience out of independent and actually talented artists. Look at radio stations, which take bribes to play the singles the record companies tell them to so the radio itself doesn't act as a way to explore music but simply as a way to get marketed the same crap all day long. The only way to be successful in the entertainment industry is to grant 92+% of your profit to executives that don't have to do crap but count their money because their company squeezed out all alternative opportunity.

Turn off the radio. Put a station that isn't playing shit on. That station doesn't exist? Start your own radio station, you've found a rather gigantic niche.

Originally Posted by cmind

I agree completely. But I never signed such a contract. The artists are certainly free to use DRM methods to try to prevent me from pirating, but if you put data out there in the world, you can expect it to be copied. Did you understand my radio example?

Yes but your terms are vague. What does 'putting something out there in the world' mean? Take for example the Steam video game distribution service, where customers essentially engage in such a contract. Does this mean the games have been 'put out into the world'? Are they free to be copied?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Because these massive industries are ruining art by jamming manufactured crap down our throats so often and in such mass quantities that they shut the audience out of independent and actually talented artists. Look at radio stations, which take bribes to play the singles the record companies tell them to so the radio itself doesn't act as a way to explore music but simply as a way to get marketed the same crap all day long. The only way to be successful in the entertainment industry is to grant 92+% of your profit to executives that don't have to do crap but count their money because their company squeezed out all alternative opportunity.

Exactly, Mariah Carey has sold more albums that Bob Dylan. It's why there hasn't been a good new artist in 20 years. Go ahead, name someone from the past decade that even comes close to Dylan, Springsteen, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, U2, REM, Styx, Journey... That was real music, The Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, KoRn, Kanye West... is not. The sad thing is, even the artists thing they are good. Kanye considers himself one of the greatest lyricists of all time, like in the same class as him


Real artists made music to entertain people, the money was just a side benefit of it. American Idol shows the pure capitalist nature of music now. It's basically a large focus group.

Originally Posted by Xei

Turn off the radio. Put a station that isn't playing shit on. That station doesn't exist? Start your own radio station, you've found a rather gigantic niche.

You just missed the point entirely. It's not about me getting good music to listen to. I love music so I'll find it somewhere out there. But these artists I find will have trouble obtaining the success of previous talented bands because the music industry is too busy following what they think sells. You cannot mass produce art, but you can mass produce a lie and get people to buy into it. Unfortunately this industry was built over something known as art, and it buried art. Once it crumbles, art will thrive in its place.