[This content has been blocked by SOPA]
Printable View
[This content has been blocked by SOPA]
[This content has be blocked by SOPA]
Congress is attempting to pass a law to allow the censorship of the internet. They are using the guise of antipiracy, but can allow them to block whatever they want.
Not that the government even cares about the bill of rights anymore, but for non americans, I thought I would post The First Amendment to the Constitution:
There are ways around this of course through proxies and other little tricks.Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Absolutely absurd. The internet will never stand for this. If they start to censor people's internet content, it's only a matter of time until our greatest fears as a free nation are realized. Bad government! Bad!
If you say so..?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Do you really think this has anything to do with copyrights? Do you honestly think that if they pass this Facebook, Youtube, and the other internet giants will be taken down? All of them have copyrighted material on them. This is an attack on wikileaks and sites like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It concerns me that people don't fully grasp gradualism, either. There are always rationalizations to these things, "Oh, it's to stop terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act)" "Oh it won't affect me... (US Citizen assassinated without trial or even accused of illegal acts)" But now it's blatant. Just sad.
And somehow people still think that government is a good thing and might, one day, actually work for the people... Hmm.
Aus gov tried it here under the guide of trying to stop child porn lol
It had an approval rating of somewhere around 1% haha!
If Americans aren't too much more stupid, it will not work there either, unless the gov doesn't care about public opinion and just does it anyway.
I don't know; I haven't seen what powers the law proposes, and you haven't given any information.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
To be fair, he did give a fair bit of information but, as you can see, his post was censored by SOPA. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
"Under current practice, copyright owners such as TV networks and Hollywood studios reach out to websites to request that pirated videos be taken down. Under the new regime, they could ask banks, Internet service providers and domain name registrars to stop doing business with websites that they believed were devoted to piracy. They could, for instance, go straight to YouTube's domain registration company and demand that the entire YouTube website be taken down. And if the registrar resisted, the copyright owners would have the legal ability to take the registrar to court."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
SOPA, Internet Censorship Bill, Lauded By Both Parties In Key House Hearing
Xei, why is it that you never read anything and yet everything you don't know is false? Socrates is so disappoint with you.
Again, I don't think even if this is passed, that the government will go after Youtube. I'm very sure that this is just a ploy to make it legal to block Wikileaks and other whistleblower sites that are embarrassing to the government.
The congressmen still have a few major hurdles. AOL Inc., eBay Inc., Facebook, Yahoo Inc. and Twitter, and Google, all oppose the bill, and each is a big hurdle. Google just needs to put an anti SOPA logo or small piece of text on their page and millions of people will see it a day. Google's done political stuff like that before. Facebook can also make a message go viral at will too. Not that the congress cares what the citizens think.
omg, that is such bullcrap xD So you're not allowed so say what you think? I thought resoning was a good thing.
Yeah it's obviously a ploy to attack websites like wikileaks, that's clear. What scares me is the freedom this gives our government over the content they allow on the web. They're using copyright infringement to pass the bill but the enforcement of the bill doesn't rely on copyright material. It gives absolute power of content to a government agency then says "btw this is only for pirates right wink wink lolz?"
No reason they can't do both.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
The thing I don't like is that as it stands, they can block content on an international level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
When did I ever express an opinion on this? Point to where I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Somebody made an assertion and I asked them to explain it. The fact you think this is somehow irrational or biased puts you firmly in that category yourself, as per usual.
The thing you quoted makes it look like a power grab, though it doesn't necessarily look like it could bestow the power to remove Wikileaks; that would depend on what piracy encompasses, and whether there are any other stipulated reasons for the use of these powers.
I don't know what powers the US currently has at the moment anyway. I've seen sites taken down by the FBI before, and it didn't look like it was by request.
That's different. The FBI can take down websites HOSTED in the USA. This is a bill to censor the internet, meaning the whole internet. It's like the first step to the Great Firewall of China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Uh oh, looks like the Reef shark is back in the waters, shredding the issues with razor-sharp sardonic comments! The blood of the BAD GUYS fills the blogosphere through righteous indignation, causing a feeding FRENZY! Scroll on; read on; stay bloodthirsty for justice, my friends!
Ninja you cant even write a single comment without regurgitating someone else's cud can you? First you nuzzle on anything and everything dealing with anonymous and now you tap Dos Equis commercials for material? The Reef is a toothless sturgeon with the originality of a Glenn Becks bowel movement, people.
What rock have you been under? We've been seizing domains for over a year now, there is nothing new about any of this stuff, you've obviously never heard of Operation in Our Sites. I'll leave it at that but one things for damn sure, we certainly do not need a bill passed when the US District Courts can stamp executed court orders. Bottom line, don't have pirated content on your site and you wouldn't have anything to worry about or you may find this on your sites homepage.
Believe that if you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Alternatively, bust the fascination with IP. Makes for a freer society.
The United States can only seize sites owned and operated in the United States. They have no jurisdiction abroad.
Cept with this new law, for some reason....
Stop finding my posts just to argue with them. Your image isn't helping you. Your image literally says they had a seizure warrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Here is the text of the bill. Find the word warrant in it. Maybe you should stop listening to Fox News for information about bills I discuss and actually read them. Most aren't that long. Fox News lies, the actual text doesn't.
^ thisQuote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Finding your post?? Is this not your thread or did I miss something? :wtf: Also, any domain can be seized as I've already stated and I don't watch faux news like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Ne-yo, watch this
http://vimeo.com/31100268
SOPA and ACTA will ruin the Internet.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
:lol: 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!Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
How is illegally downloading an album that you would otherwise have to purchase not stealing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
I lol'ed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Because stealing removes the original whereas piracy makes a copy and is thus okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
Because the worth of an album is actually in the physical materials of the CD.
Every time you hear a song on the radio, you make a copy in your brain. Therefore, listening to the radio is theft. Amidoinitrite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
And every time you think of the Mona Lisa, you're an ART THIEF! ARREST HIM: THOUGHTCRIME.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
I'm not arguing that this makes it okay though. I'm just saying that piracy is not stealing. It's piracy.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
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.
Since when are creators of art entitled to money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Take your cynicism over to Europe. I hear they like that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
HAHAHAHAA troll cat. Love it.
This is basically the reason why piracy hasn't ruined any business ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Your comprehension skills are astounding. Astoundingly fucking retarded.
Uh yes. Because I asked him before. Cool assumptions, by all means keep makin' em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Ugh God.Quote:
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
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.
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?Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
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 himQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
http://www.sweetslyrics.com/images/i...n-Lennon_4.jpg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What are you going to do about it? The people like it enough to buy it. Who are you to tell them, 'nope, this is objectively bad, you can't have this'? Why is it such an issue for you to let them alone with their beloved simple music?
While we're at it, why not take on the literature industry? We seriously have to do something about people buying these Twilight Books. Sure they like them, but that's only because they're too stupid to not like the Greek classics. We need to take these publishers down!
And there is a huge quantity of amazing music being made right now. The idea that it's been drowned out is absolutely absurd and either ridiculously ignorant or intentionally false. There has been an absolute explosion of originality in the last decade.
And there has always been 'focus group stuff' for teenagers, too. Elvis was a marketed product for God's sake, he didn't play guitar or write songs.
If there are plenty of people like you out there looking for it then obviously they can sell you and lots of other people music and merch and gig tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Again, what are you going to do? Force people who don't know better to listen to what you think is good music?
I didn't say there wasn't good music out there. I said it's not popular anymore because it's just easier and cheaper for record companies to mass produce stuff. They can pump out an album a day. Real artists are slow to fine tune their product to make it as good as it can possibly be. This is why there will never be another Sergeant Pepper, it's too expensive to create masterpieces. The masterpieces are released underground, and very few people ever hear of them. I have a few albums on my iTunes form small time bands that are fantastic, but no record company will touch them. If a 20 year old Bob Dylan walked into a record company today, he would not get a deal. Part of why iTunes is so awesome and lame at the same time. Any band can usually get their stuff on, most is crap, some is awesome. Unless someone refers you to the awesome stuff though, you'll never hear it.
Exactly. Record Companies are a brick wall between listeners and their music of interest. They can scale the wall by filing through thousands of indie artists but if the record companies were put out of business then art would once again become popular.
You don't look around enough. Regina Spektor, Radiohead, Missy Higgins, Sigur Ros, Lisa Mitchell, Joanna Newsom, Eminem, Gotye, Ben Folds, Elliot Smith, Gorillaz, Massive Attack....Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. IMO they are all easily on the same level as the ones you mentioned, and better in some cases.
If you listen to the mainstream radio of course you're gonna think that all music is shit now. I get fucking depressed if I listen to that shit. But there's still good out there.
EDIT: Missed the next page.
There has always been shitty popular music.
And as for -I think the point is that people WOULD like the actually talented musicians and writers if they were not coerced through marketing to like the shitty artists.Quote:
"What are you going to do about it? The people like it enough to buy it. Who are you to tell them, 'nope, this is objectively bad, you can't have this'? Why is it such an issue for you to let them alone with their beloved simple music?
While we're at it, why not take on the literature industry? We seriously have to do something about people buying these Twilight Books. Sure they like them, but that's only because they're too stupid to not like the Greek classics. We need to take these publishers down!"
See, this is a bit more agreeable, although a lot of people claim this less than truthfully (even if unintentionally so) (not accusing you). And there is a very good point in arguing against music corporations themselves - surely I don't give two shits about Warner Music Group. And they're still going to give their artists their share regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I guess it's like what I said to my friend; "Stealing from corporate entertainment giants isn't really that big of a deal, but stealing indie games or independent/startup bands is just a huge dick move."
*gags a little* Eminem I like, but he's not the same level. I refuse to say any of those are even close to the level of Lennon, Dylan, Clapton, Waters. Will any of them be remembered in 50 years? Because all four I mentioned STILL will be. But that's a music debate, move it to Entertainment if you want to discuss that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Sooo what was the complaint again? People can publish easily, and you can hear about the good music by people referring you to it. What needs to change here..? And why do you think record companies would be averse to publishing really good albums? I've heard just as many masterpieces in the 2000s as I have from the previous decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Oh come on, this is too luddite to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Radiohead have done far more than Clapton, melodically and artistically. Of course they'll be remembered for as long as him.
I have never once encountered a 'brick wall' in the form of a record company between me and my musical tastes. I don't even have any conceptualisation of what you could possibly be talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Making junk is not blocking anything. Nobody is forcing you to buy the junk, nobody is even forcing you to look at the junk. Just let them make their junk pile in the corner, and let whoever likes the look of the junk go over there and buy some.
I really think it's pretty concerning that you think you have the right to just delete the entire record industry from existence because you don't like it. How would this suddenly cause art to flourish? I have absolutely no idea. Especially as nobody could publish records any more. :/
Maybe, just maybe, this would have made sense as an issue 50 years ago when there were just a few radio channels. But nowadays, it is completely archaic. The internet has given people complete and utter freedom to explore and root out interesting music, made it extremely easy to find and listen to similar artists, to talk to people with similar tastes, to read musical history and journalism, and all of this for no cost whatsoever. Plus start up bands can now record and publish virtually for free, and generate popularity via social media.
Seriously, your whole 'corporations are suppressing everything' thing is just completely risible here. It's paranoid fantasy; just look around you. It's better than ever.
Once again you have my claims completely wrong. When did I say corporations suppress everything? You bitch that I attack claims you didn't make and then you do the same thing to me.
Corporations don't exclude good artists from getting their name out there, they just make sure you have a much smaller chance of hearing about them because they're drowned out by all the assembly line music. Once again, for the umpteenth time, let me state I'm just fine, I find and buy good music. But these artists I like are not as successful as they deserve to be because they can't get good publicity. Publicity is in the hands of the big companies and they're so busy publicizing their latest repetitive garbage that the mainstream venues are full.
Yay for the internet and alternative life choices! Enjoy making beautiful music in order to maybe one day have enough money to buy a real drumset. Meanwhile justin bieber just bought a plane.
All information is free to be copied, and all publishers are free to try to prevent me from copying. And that's the bottom line for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
If you're free to do it, how can they be free to stop you?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
That would take away your freedom to copy it.
He said they're free to TRY.
Big difference.
So they're free to try, but if they actually can, they're not allowed? what....
You're being deliberately obtuse here. I know that because another poster, Darkmatters, understood my point perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I have no moral obligation to adhere to what I consider to be fantasy-based copyright laws. Likewise, publishers have no moral obligation to not try to stop me with DRM schemes and the like. Morally, ethically, it's a wash.
But you realize that without some sort of legislation dictating what is legal or not, they can't actually prosecute you for violations, right?
Violations? When did the topic shift to my sexual practices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
This is the most pleasing thing I've read on Dreamviews in some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
By saying this, you're basically saying that the people who created that information have no ownership whatsoever of their own ideas. Care to elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I don't have the desire or patience to get into some Aristotle-esque discussion of ownership, but sufficed to say, they own their copy. In other words, you own the effects of your actions on matter. So you own the information you create when its on information media you own (CDs, disk drives, etc.). You don't own the other copies of that data because they now exist on physical media you don't own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
This is fairly intuitive for most people if we change the context slightly. Say you buy a PC game, install it on your computer, and then some time later you intentionally corrupt the data somehow. Is this destruction of someone else's property?
Another example: you own a copy of Jurassic Park on VHS, and you tape a Buffalo Bills game over it. Have you just committed property destruction, twice?!
You're confusing the material with the idea. Copyright legislation is not about something material so hurting a material object does not effect the copyright law.
In my opinion, we should have permanent usage rights because it's the only non-hypocritical way to handle copyright laws. If someone buys a game, they ought to be purchasing the right to play the game for ever, not just the one copy. Unfortunately copyright legislation doesn't go both ways, it protects the seller but not the buyer.
I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about reality. In reality, information cannot exist without a medium. Information doesn't just float in space somewhere. Whether it be magnetic tapes or radio waves, there's always a medium. And I deal with reality, reality being matter*. You can own matter. You can't own something immaterial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
*matter/energy
This is pretty much how I operate now. The law is arbitrary and du jour. Why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
You can't own matter any more than you can own something abstract. You're drawing lines in the sand without providing an argument why something material can be owned but something abstract cannot be. What's the difference? Why is the moral obligation suddenly different just because you can hold it?
Good, then you won't mind if I come to your house and take the computer you used to write that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
By your logic, yes. Your logic is basically telling me I could come to your house and take anything I want with no moral obligation. You refuse to make a claim as to what the difference is between something abstract and something material so I'm forced to conclude that unless you can stop me, I'm morally enabled to rob you.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
What about the pragmatic consequences?
You realise that with such a view of copyright, there would be zero pharmaceutical industry? In fact there would be zero drive for invention of any kind whatsoever, it'd be a nightmare.
If the only people making those products are only doing it for shitloads of money.
Maybe some people who wanted to actually help others would start a pharmaceutical business.
Generics still make a lot of profit.
Basically the way it is now, that business attracts the worst kind of businessmen.
I don't really care why they're doing it; as long as they are motivated to do it. Because invention has been and still is the greatest force in the world for improving human life. Which would you rather; harness human greed in order to create an unequal society in which the poorest still have a much better quality of life, or suppress human greed in order to create an equal society in which everybody breaks their back every day ploughing the fields? It's not a hard decision for me.
You are out of touch with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
"The poorest still have a much better quality of life". Are you kidding me?
People living on the streets are in a much worse place than even the most ancient peoples were. They're worse off than most animals living in the wild in fact.
Also that's an obviously false dichotomy. I reject both your premises and conceived outcomes.
We could just as likely have exactly the same standard of living we have now, only less corruption and more invention.
Thereby creating a better standard of living.
This is a double-edge sword though because if a product cannot be patented because it was discovered naturally rather than synthesized then there's no research funding for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
If I forged my neighbor's dl, would that be theft or piracy?
what the fuck is a dl?
I believe it's a dick lick. Sort of like a salt lick, but for humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
driver license
someone made a comment about downloading music for free wasn't stealing, they then gave a really horrible explanation as to why: something about the cost was not actually in the music, but in the packaging, so a download is just a copy, therefore not stealing..not sure if they were being serious
The epitome of extended discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
I realize this is probably a rhetorical question, but it would be forgery. And it's a horrible counter-example, as the reason this is illegal has nothing to do with money.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
I know it would be forgery, I even used the term forged. As to why this is illegal, is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
That's completely relevant. That's the whole point. If you cannot make a claim defining why it should be legal or not why are you a part of this discussion?
right, but the question i asked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
doesn't require legal status to answer. also, what does reasoning have to do with whether an action is a theft, or piracy, when the very notion there is anything different between these 2 terms is absurdQuote:
If I forged my neighbor's dl, would that be theft or piracy?
What, exactly, are you stealing?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
Our sanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
so it is stealing?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
So you are trolling?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
Congratulations, Internet Censorship thread! You made it to about 85 posts before it became completely nonsensical and useless! That's probably a new record...
Don't mind me... please, continue.
am i trying to steal this thread, or maybe hijack the validity of it, is that what you're asking meQuote:
Originally Posted by cmind
And I answered "It would be neither, it would be forgery". Doesn't require legal status to understand :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
Yes, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
The Great Firewall of China is much more annoying in my opinion. I went to Shanghai on holiday last year and websites such as Google were completely unaccessible.
Well you can use Google here, so you should be able to find out that unaccessible is not a word.
Congress or whatever is currently in session, I have no idea what it is all called, but from what I understand, they are soon going to vote about the SOPA bill.
http://mfile.akamai.com/65764/live/r...p=39655&prop=n
Stream.
I saw a commercial supporting SOPA... it said "American jobs are being lost by piracy. Protect your country, protect your jobs. Tell your Congressman to support SOPA."
And I facepalmed...
This thread has me cracking up.
Funniest shit I've seen here in a long time :cackle:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavocIf I forged my neighbor's dl, would that be theft or piracy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommowhat the fuck is a dl?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
So far in congress, a lot of opposing voices have been brought forward, but in seems that there's generally still a majority in favour of the bill, which is very depressing.
It's very interesting to follow this from my point of view, since I'm a Dane. I must say, the amount of representatives that are simply bought is astounding. They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, they obviously don't care, they just say what they are paid to say, and if somebody asks them to specifically explain something, their ignorance and complete lack of understanding comes forward.
I do not think that downloading copyrighted songs and movies for free is right. I do it, I'm not going to deny that, but I agree with you who are against this that it is not right. But this proposal is interfering with my freedom of speech. And if there is anything I'm willing to fight for, it is my freedom of speech. This proposal gives the American government the right to
- force google to censur the search results
- shut down youtube
- shut down twitter
- shut down facebook
- shut down Wikipedia
- shut down a number of free debating sites around the world
All of the websites that does not review the users post before publishing them are in other words at risk of being shut down if this proposal is accepted. Sites, where people are expressing their opinions and using their freedom of speech.
You may say that you trust your government and the companies not to abuse their power. You might be right, but do you really want to be forced to rely on trust?
With this new law, you can be sentenced to five years in prison simply by by posting a video of you singing a cover of a song on youtube.
I say that if you give them this power, even if it is with a good purpose, eventually they are going to use it.
Protest here: Avaaz - Save the Internet!
I'm not too worried. Besides... worst comes to worst (as in complete internet shut/lockdown) we still have librarys, telephones, pmail (get it? physical mail! I crack myself up).
Also, I'm in Canada... where for better or worse... many laws are 'lax' compared to US laws. I got an email from Warner Brothers (through shaw) because I downloaded Inception (not as great as I hoped) that essentially said "We know you downloaded copyright material... please stop... pretty please." There were no consequences hinted at... just a plea from a multimillion(likely billion) dollar corporation to give them another $30. Canada is awesome... so I figure even when (if) shit hits the fan in the US, we'll have a fews years till the splatter reaches us in any real way.
mindwanderer I got the same message a few times for downloading something too.
Problem was it was on a P2P network, and I was uploading it by accident because I forgot to remove it from my P2P folder. lol
I don't understand how you guys can even get found out like that. Torrents are supposed to be almost impossible to track, and I've personally pirated thousands of dollars worth of material and never gotten an email...Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Torrents are impossible to track?
Oh wow....
All you have to do is go to View Peers and there's a list right there of everybody's IP address who's downloading/uploading it.
Torrents are easy to track, but technically you can't be held accountable for anything going on in a torrent. You're only uploading bits and pieces and then somebody pools together what you sent with what others sent, to create a full file. For this reason, piracy is completely without risk in Denmark, unless you are literally retarded.
I absolutely do not agree. It's all been done before in some form or another - there is no "original" music. The last "new pop music" rhythm format set to music was reggae.. and that was based on 4/4 - they just put the snare on 3 and the bass on 1, 2 and 4. All the so-called modern "experimental" techno/rhythm/improv stuff is rehash of what's already been. Nothing new under the sun...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The belief that anyone owns their ideas is absurd. The only ideas that you can claim as your own are the ones that you never express to anyone. The very act of communication is giving ideas to other people to use as they wish. Every musician 'steals' ideas from other musicians to make their own music. Every artist 'steals' concepts from other artists, from the world around them. Every thought in your brain is a combination of thoughts that you have 'stolen' from somewhere else. If someone is an artist, they don't need to try to protect their ideas from spreading to other people without their consent because it is in their best interest for those ideas to spread as far and wide as possible. They don't need to worry about other people making money off their ideas because people will be clamoring to pay them for their next one; the one that can't be stolen because it hasn't been communicated yet.
The only people that are worried about ideas spreading without their consent are those people that have paid an artist to express an idea and therefore think that they are the new "owners" of said idea. They don't have the power to create new ideas and so they have to try to squeeze old ones for everything they are worth. This is a useless venture. Once you release an idea into the wild, it defies private ownership by its very existence.
My favourite quote from art college students (heard it many times) was:
Q) What are your formative influences?
A) I haven't got any.
Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Xaqaria: how does that work with art which costs anything to produce? The idea that people would pay for the next product in the artist's brain isn't particularly connected to reality. Once a video game developer releases their product for example, it can be spread instantly. Why do you think people would give any money to the developer if it were not mandatory? There is no incentive here.
God damn, well said man!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
"As soon as you say your idea out loud, then it can go and, live on it's own"
You're being deliberately dense here just to stick to a position which is obviously flawed. The original publisher/developer can give people packaging (which some people value a lot), additional materials (for example the Skyrim box comes with a map), technical support, patch support (say you can only download a patch if you have a proof of purchase), security of knowing you're not downloading viruses, etc etc. Do all these features justify the current price of games? Probably not, but who the hell are you to say what the price of a video game should be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
With music, the artist can make money from packaging, additional materials like biographies or sheet music, concert tickets, etc. Again, the only problem is your extreme lack of imagination.
Uh... I'm not. The developer is. You're the one saying it should be free. Derp.
Your solution is that they are going to recoup the development costs by selling boxes to people who want them? Not exactly realistic, is it?
Especially bearing mind you also think anybody should be able to make the box, and the cost of materials is about 10p.
Anybody can download additional content and patches just like anybody can download the game in the first place.
If you really think that torrents are anonymous, try this out:
www.youhavedownloaded.com
While I'm not against illegal downloading, I still think it's important to know that you're being watched by a lot of people and agencies.
Ok now go ahead and read my last post? Derp?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
That site doesn't actually work, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertebrate
I don't know how much information they've actually collected, and I know they haven't gotten any information from my static IP address.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
This is how these things actually do work. Developers do not front a bunch of cash to make a game and then hope it sells, production companies pay developers to make a game and then the producer sells the game with the hopes that they will be able to sell enough copies to make a profit off of their investment. The developer has gotten their money by the time the game hits the shelves (or is available for download or whatever); unless they also have some sort of profit sharing percentage in their contracts which wouldn't surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Regardless, the production companies are hiring developers that have a portfolio of work that they like. Just like writers who shop around their first book but then the publisher pays them a retainer to write their next one. Unless people are trying to pass off an artist's work as their own, artists are very rarely the ones who are complaining about its illegal distribution.
I think its funny that some people say that the only time it isn't okay to pirate movies or music or whatever is when it is a small time independent artist's work, since that is the one group of people that would most like their work to 'get out there' any way possible, even if it means they aren't getting as much money as they theoretically could if all those people paid for it. New artists will often willfully give their work away just so that more people will be exposed to it. If they are successful, it means that the right people have seen/heard their work and commission them to do something new.
It most likely only tracks popular public trackers, which will only catch a very small fraction of anything.
Go to your computer’s Start menu, and either go to “run” or just search for “cmd.” Open it up, and type in “ping [website address],”
Once you have the IP for a website, all you really need to do is enter it like you would a normal URL and hit enter/press go. Typing in “208.85.240.231” should bring you to the front page of AO3, for example, just as typing “174.121.194.34/dashboard” should bring you straight to your Tumblr dashboard.
My suggestion is to make a list of all your website IP addresses now, while you still can. Here's an example:
Spoiler for IP list:
Apparently Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon, etc. may boycott SOPA (under the condition that it passes, which they'd hope it doesn't pass at all of course.) by shutting down their sites until it is repealed. I made a thread on the topic http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/sopa-u...sponse-126328/
Even if just one of those sites shuts down with a message to its users explaining that they are boycotting SOPA, the millions of brain dead users (think facebook) who can't go a day without that shit will throw a huge fit. It will be interesting to watch, that is for sure. If only the airlines stood up for themselves this way when TSA was first created.
Yes, but I personally doubt any of those sites will go through with it. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm rarely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
>.>Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I love how when Omnis disputes something it actually improves the statistical odds of it being right.
What did I dispute? I just think anyone with the balls to say they're rarely wrong needs a good dose of humility. You more than anyone. I'm still waiting to see how you respond to the evidence I posted in the EM field thread. Or are you finally willing to admit you were wrong about something?
What you call "evidence", the scientific world calls pseudo-scientific nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
And what you call being right, the rest of the world calls arrogant ass-steam
Pot, kettle, black.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
You're probably the most arrogant poster on this forum. Either you or Xei.
Get back on topic or I will illustrate it by censoring you on the internet.
PROTECT IP Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They will literally keep trying until one gets through under the radar. Time for
http://www.onlinemovieshut.com/wp-co...tal-recall.jpg
The White House does not support SOPA or PIPA, but they DO support NDAA. lolwut.
White House Will Not Support SOPA, PIPA
Yeah I just read that a minute ago. They said that it was written irresponsibly and would undermine the infrastructure of cybersecurity on the internet. Something about their reasoning makes it sound like SOPA would interfere with their plans for internet security.
Quote:
The White House statement went on to say, however, that the Obama Administration believes "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy" and that 2012 should see the passage of narrower legislation that targets the source of foreign copyright infringement.
This is still horrible news.Quote:
That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders
Why the fuck do they think they can pass legislation in one country and somehow fucking apply it to the rest of the world?
That's not how it works. Die now please thankyou.
No one saw that coming.... right?:roll:Quote:
Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) said that the hearing will be postponed for the time being and that the focus now should be placed on the Senate's PIPA bill, which Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has committed to moving forward in the next two weeks.
I see Huff Post on there. They are only somewhat credible, sort of like a left wing version of Fox News. Got a CNN or NY Times article saying the same thing? I've actually seen very little from the white house regarding SOPA.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
EDIT: Oh, it's a brand new release, read it now. Yay white house. They finally did something right.
It pissed of Rupert Murdoch so bad he unleashed a string of tweets. One of which was something like "I just googled mission impossible and found several sites offering it for free, so blah blah blah." I lolzed. Click those links and see what happens dumbass.
Try again in four years or so.
Rupert Murdock can go cry into his seven billion dollar bank account. He is just asking to be attacked again by hackers.
Which is, by proxy, what he'd get if he visited those links haha :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Not four years Xei, this year.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:)
(top of page - banner)
Google's totally copping out, every search result should be about Sopa. Blacking out their logo doesn't mean shit. Wikipedia gives you the contact info for your senator and representative.
Yep that's a massive cop out, I can't even see any blacked out logo though....
Yes, Google putting political activism on their front page is totally copping out.
From page 5,
I was right about most of the sites people thought would shut down, and the ones that did shut down are only doing it for a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Nobody thought they were going to go down. Most of the sites have put related links and text on their frontpage though. Google is running a petition. Google is doing political activism. This is huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
*clears throat*...
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Oh, so now we're going with the "nobody REALLY thought it would happen" story. Revisionism is easier than admitting you were wrong I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
cmind, those websites threatened black out if the bill passed. Nothing has passed yet. Why are you always so confrontational? Not everything has to be a fight.
Yes, I was wrong when I told Xaq and ThePreserver that Google and Amazon would close down, and I told them to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
On top of the fact that they didn't actually mean today, these two people do not represent all opinions apart from yours on DreamViews.
Except it is because it is hidden away in the blue text down the bottom and most people would just not even fucking notice that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
It's a massive cop out. Wikipedia put up a black screen for anyone on the English version, directing them what to do. Wikipedia wins.
http://d.static.memegenerator.net/ca...0/13342884.jpg
