FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Her3tiK on January 06, 2012, 02:32:22 am

Title: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Her3tiK on January 06, 2012, 02:32:22 am
Several large internet sites, including Facebook, Google, and Yahoo, are considering shutting their sites down for a day to protest SOPA. I don't know how effective this will be as a protest, but watching people figure out what to do without the interwebs will be hilarious, especially those who don't know about it beforehand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNQh56czKgc
Personally, I'd like to see something like this drag on for a week at minimum, in order to really drive the point home, but that's probably not realistic. Anyone suppose these companies will actually go through with it?
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Shane for Wax on January 06, 2012, 02:35:16 am
They might but then again what will people who don't want SOPA to happen do without it for even a day or a week? It's kinda ingrained.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Napoleon the Clown on January 06, 2012, 03:48:34 am
As if the people who can actually stop SOPA will give a fuck.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: DrFishcake on January 06, 2012, 04:46:15 am
Whatever it takes, I support.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 06, 2012, 05:37:52 am
That's a bit of a cop out to say the least. These companies are fucking huge, and most importantly, rich. Use a bit of that corporate money to get your way, guys. It's the only thing that actually seems to work.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: SCarpelan on January 06, 2012, 06:50:21 am
That's a bit of a cop out to say the least. These companies are fucking huge, and most importantly, rich. Use a bit of that corporate money to get your way, guys. It's the only thing that actually seems to work.
It's mentioned in the video that at least Google has bought a bunch of lobbyists and has given money to the Heritage Foundation (=bribing the republicans) which seems to be true (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/huffpost_goes_deep_on_google.php?page=all). Cenk also suggests that the whole point of this bill is to give the politicians a chance to blackmail contributions from the internet companies. Unfortunately, if this is the case, the companies have no choise but to give them what they want since I don't think they are bluffing about being prepared to let the bill pass.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: N. De Plume on January 06, 2012, 09:00:42 am
They might but then again what will people who don't want SOPA to happen do without it for even a day or a week? It's kinda ingrained.
Sometimes you gotta make pretty big sacrifices for the sake of making your point. And what is worse, losing almost all the internet for a week due to a protest under our control, or effectively losing it all indefinitely due to SOPA?

Really, I do think the shutdown would have to be more than a day to make the point. And I know I could adapt rather easily.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: sandman on January 06, 2012, 09:42:56 am
For those not familiar with this:


Wikipedia:

"The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 pieces of music or movies within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement."




On the surface, I don't really have much of a problem with the bill. The penalties provided for are WAY, WAY out of proportion to the offense (and that I do have a problem with), but the bill itself seems to be intended as an attempt to curb what has become a real problem in the music, film, television, software, and publishing industries. This bill does not seem to me to be an attempt to "extort" money from internet companies; there are a lot more effective (and scarier) ways to do that if that's the intention.

I consider that the bill was introduced by a conservative Republican, and the current Reps seem to be severely allergic to any government action that doesn't do one of two things. SOPA does not do the first of those two: pander shamelessly to their fringe base. I can't help but think it must be the other one then: pander shamelessly to big business. SOPA seems to me to be protectionist legislation designed to show these big corporate donors who have been freaking out like Ann Coulter at a Phish concert over online piracy that Congress is doing something. Whether or not online piracy is really severely hurting these industries is not the issue (although in my opinion the data shows pretty conclusively that it is....badly), what matters is the fact that these huge, multi-billion dollar politically active businesses believe that online piracy is hurting them. So Congress jumps into "action."

As I said, on the surface, I'm not too worried about SOPA.....on the surface. Online piracy of intellectual property is a significant, growing problem today with the real potential to kill a lot of things we love like huge, expensive Hollywood movies, blockbuster games, books, and music. If the creators and producers of these things can not be reasonably expected to be compensated for their creative efforts and fiscal investment, they will simply stop doing it. Would Stephen King have written "The Stand" if he had to work full time as an English teacher in a Bangor high school because he couldn't make a living as a writer? Maybe, but it would have taken him a hell of a lot longer and what publisher would invest in the production and distribution of the book even if he did write it? ID studios changed the gaming world with DOOM!, but if when it first came out (I know it's been massively pirated since then, but I'm talking when it was new) it was simply copied and pirated, ID studios would have collapsed into bankruptcy and there would have been no DOOM 2, or HALO, or Half Life, because it would have been demonstrated that you couldn't actually make any money programming video games.

We're already seeing the effects of this with intrusive and annoying DRM on games and I'm sure I'm not the only one that noticed Hollywood is very, very, very reluctant to make any film that they are not already 100% certain will make a 100 million dollars in the first month just so they can absorb the financial hit from the inevitable piracy. This has resulted in "The Hangover 2," a near carbon copy of the first film, and TWO movies released at almost the same time with the exact same plot. ("Friends With Benefits" and " No Strings Attached.") We get asinine Michael Bay action pics with more CGI than story and asinine gross-out comedies because studios can no longer afford to take on a chance on an edgy or independent film anymore. The number of movie studios that can survive a flop can be counted on one hand, and while online piracy is not the sole cause of that, it is a contributing factor, and the only contributing factor that the industries believe they can act on.

But even though I understand where SOPA is coming from, and (as a writer myself) I am somewhat sympathetic to the intent of the bill (protecting intellectual property from online piracy), I do take some issues with it. The penalties proposed are ridiculous. 5 years in jail for 10 songs? Really? ("Hey, buddy. What're ya in for?" "I downloaded a Lady Gaga album." "You an' me gonna be friends. You sure got a pretty mouth.....") There is no real method of enforcement. No one has ever figured out how to police or regulate the 'Net. I'm pretty trying it would be like trying to empty the Atlantic Ocean with a sieve. I just don't see how SOPA will do anything to deal with the issue of online piracy. It's already illegal, SOPA just makes it more illegal and makes it easier for the Justice Department to take action against people who download illegally obtained material. (You know, because going after the consumer of an illegal product is always the most effective way to end the traffic, right? That's worked out really well in the "war on drugs," hasn't it?)

Online piracy is a significant problem, but it's not going to be solved by some magic legislation from Washington. it will be solved when the industry pulls its head out of its collective ass and develops some non-intrusive, effective form of DRM that doesn't automatically treat every legitimate user like a scumbag pirate. In its current form, DRM is like a really suspicious assistant principal watching your every goddamn move, just waiting for you to slip up even a little. Huh. Whaddayknow. Current DRM is the digital Ed Rooney. Agent Rooney of the Matrix. Be afraid. Be very afraid. In its current form DRM is bullshit, and the data industries better learn that and figure out how to do it right before Congress does more stupid, useless shit like SOPA.

And I haven't even touched on the potential for abuse in SOPA, which is extreme. Piracy is a problem, yes, but putting censorship powers in the hands of government and corporations is NOT the answer.

So while I understand and am sympathetic to the (surface) intentions of SOPA, it is such a badly thought-out piece of pandering shit legislation that I could never support it.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Oriet on January 06, 2012, 03:30:22 pm
One problem the government (and far too many people) have with digital distribution of copyrighted materials is that it is not equivalent to distribution of stolen goods. I agree that it is still illegal distribution still, but there is no deprivation of an original copy. It really is more like going to a museum and taking a high quality of a painting and distributing copies of that than stealing the painting, scanning it onto a computer, and distributing it. There is also no real monetary difference between distributing one copy or a million copies of something digitally, unlike with actual physical medium.

There also ends up being the issue of people being able to make copies and convert media forms of things they have purchased, like music, films, and pictures, for their own use, such as putting a copy of a song on their MP3 player or making a mix tape (though I suppose those are a little out-dated now). A lot of laws trying to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted material also impact what those who legally purchase said material can do with it for their own use, which is definite concern for those who like to keep a backup archive (or college students who want to bring music, movies, and games with them but don't want to risk losing the original disc on campus). This is especially bad with how overblown the punishment is for copying it.

However, I don't expect legislators to try stopping SOPA, as it's really a continuation of strengthening copyrights for those who can afford to.This is because it highly benefits large corporations and penalises small businesses and individuals, as only those with mountains of cash can afford to bring others to court over copyright infringement and afford the better lawyers. Even if a large company is found to be at fault they can still come out ahead. A good example of this is with when Microsoft literally copied and sold a program made by Stacker Electronics, including all of the labelling in the comments of the code and the Stacker logo that displayed on the screen. Microsoft admitted straight up in court they acted illegally and paid the fine, however Gates then said it was still a good business decision as Microsoft made way more money than they had to pay, and Stacker Electronics went out of business. Not because individuals pirated the software, but because a larger corporation with mountains of cash did.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: m52nickerson on January 06, 2012, 05:09:02 pm
As if the people who can actually stop SOPA will give a fuck.

...or know what any of those sites are.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: sandman on January 06, 2012, 05:15:44 pm
It really is more like going to a museum and taking a high quality of a painting and distributing copies of that than stealing the painting, scanning it onto a computer, and distributing it. There is also no real monetary difference between distributing one copy or a million copies of something digitally, unlike with actual physical medium.

No, because you paid for your admission to the museum and since the painting is not up for sale, you have not deprived the museum of significant revenue (aside from a 30 cent postcard from the gift shop, maybe). That's why no museum I've ever been to prohibits (non-flash) photography. It's more like going to a bookstore and scanning a new release hardcover with a hand scanner, then slapping that bitch into a PDF and emailing to all your friends. You obviously want the book, but you don't want to pay for it.

The book (or game/song/movie) is an item for sale, an item that took considerable time, effort, and resources to produce. An item the producer has every right to expect compensation for. If you take a copy of it without paying for it, you are stealing. You are depriving the producer of income. At no point in the legal process does "theft" necessitate the removal of a physical object. Data counts, too. The argument that "I would never have bought copy anyway so I am not depriving them of a sale" is nothing but a cowardly, shameless excuse. If I discovered that a book I had written was being copied and shared without my permission and with no compensation, I would at first be flattered, then livid. I would love to be able to support myself solely as a writer. If you think it's good enough to read....then it's good enough to pay for. If I want to give it away for free, that's my decision, not the consumer's.

I have very little sympathy for the piracy-excusers. "I would buy it if I could afford to." Well, tough shit. There's no Constitutional right to have everything you want. "I'm not hurting anyone." Yes, you are. You are hurting the producers of what you just pirated. And the fans, because you are actively discouraging them from making any more. "I'm not depriving them of a sale." Yes, you are. Obviously you want the item, otherwise you wouldn't pirate it.

Now I have no problems whatsoever with copying something for your own, personal use. I buy a new CD I will absolutely burn two extra copies so I can have one in the downstairs in the den and one in both cars. (Although now that I think of it, all the music in the den is on the computer anyway, and the cars both have MP3 jacks....so I guess I don't burn copies anymore, but I absolutely rip that disc onto my computer......however, I don't give copies of it to others.)

I think that those who excuse or justify piracy are doing it for the simplest of reasons: they want something but they don't want to pay for it. I can understand that. But that's not how the world works.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: syaoranvee on January 06, 2012, 05:29:52 pm
Quote
I have very little sympathy for the piracy-excusers. "I would buy it if I could afford to." Well, tough shit. There's no Constitutional right to have everything you want. "I'm not hurting anyone." Yes, you are.


Pirates Say The Darndest Things

My favorite is "Why the fuck is this bootleg so low quality damn it! Make another one better!"
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Cataclysm on January 06, 2012, 07:50:08 pm
If TYT is right, the government is too scared of these internet businesses to not let them have their way.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: DasFuchs on January 06, 2012, 09:25:12 pm
my problem with it is at what point will they go in their "copyright" bullcrap. Anyone that's been to Youtube in the past year no doubt has seen the thousands and thousands of videos either muted, blocked or completely removed because some company calls copyright. From things as trivial as commercials and parts of a song or show to the full music and videos themselves.

Given how well they've (not) handled themselves in the past two years, I wouldn't be a damn bit surprised if they push to the point everything is being blocked because some million dollar singer/actor needs another five bucks in their pocket or they'll starve
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on January 06, 2012, 09:35:42 pm
I generally think piracy is a bad idea for creativity, but SOPA is just ridiculous. A lot of people who download music without paying for it don't know that what they're doing can land them in jail.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Oriet on January 06, 2012, 10:45:18 pm
It really is more like going to a museum and taking a high quality of a painting and distributing copies of that than stealing the painting, scanning it onto a computer, and distributing it. There is also no real monetary difference between distributing one copy or a million copies of something digitally, unlike with actual physical medium.

No, because you paid for your admission to the museum and since the painting is not up for sale, you have not deprived the museum of significant revenue (aside from a 30 cent postcard from the gift shop, maybe). That's why no museum I've ever been to prohibits (non-flash) photography. It's more like going to a bookstore and scanning a new release hardcover with a hand scanner, then slapping that bitch into a PDF and emailing to all your friends. You obviously want the book, but you don't want to pay for it.
Okay, I do see your point there, and I also mostly agree with it. Problem is when things are broadcast, such as on the radio, television, and now streamed content online, where when there is an actual cost to the consumer it comes from obtaining the broadcast service instead of each individual item (with some exceptions). I fully grant and approve of it being illegal to redistribute recordings/copies of such broadcasts, however a large amount of anti-piracy arguments I have seen are also railing against the legal personal use of such recordings (and with the case of digitally distributed media you have no degradation in quality with recording it).

This by itself might be considered a stand alone problem, except it brings in conundrums that show it is very much entwined with other piracy problems and arguments. Say, for example, that Megatron (just choosing a name I don't think anyone involved has for the sake of argumentation) records his favourite show when it's aired, and then edits it to remove the commercials. So far perfectly legal (even if many anti-piracy folks would disagree). Later the show comes out on DVD, which of course lacks the commercials in the middle of episodes. Is he now require to purchase the DVDs in order to legally watch it? If not then how is it any different than someone ripping the show from the DVDs (aside from possible special features)? There is no real difference between the recordings at such point, as they have the same frame rate, resolution, sound quality, and no differences in the content. I am really curious on this point because I've never been given an argument or answer that actually addresses it.

Quote
The book (or game/song/movie) is an item for sale, an item that took considerable time, effort, and resources to produce. An item the producer has every right to expect compensation for. If you take a copy of it without paying for it, you are stealing. You are depriving the producer of income. At no point in the legal process does "theft" necessitate the removal of a physical object. Data counts, too. The argument that "I would never have bought copy anyway so I am not depriving them of a sale" is nothing but a cowardly, shameless excuse. If I discovered that a book I had written was being copied and shared without my permission and with no compensation, I would at first be flattered, then livid. I would love to be able to support myself solely as a writer. If you think it's good enough to read....then it's good enough to pay for. If I want to give it away for free, that's my decision, not the consumer's.
I fully agree that the authors, producers, and other people involved in making such works deserve compensation for what they make. I also agree that it is a violation of copyright to distribute copies (whether for monetary gain or not) of something without permission of the copyright holder. As for it being theft, well, that's where I run into a little disagreement, especially with your assertion of what it means.

Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft) for it I get:
In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny;[2] in others, theft has replaced larceny.
Looking up larceny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larceny), specifically as it applies to law, gives this:
Under the common law, larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to deprive him or her of its possession permanently.
Being that I know Wikipedia can have problems with some things I decided to check Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft) for the definition of theft, and find this:
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
Even looking up on Wordnet (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&s=theft) from princeton.edu gives this:
the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
Everything I can find either directly states or heavily implies that there must be deprivation of something tangible in order to actually classify as theft. Now, if you can find something that contradicts/expands on this to include instances where the original owner is not deprived of said object I would greatly appreciate being corrected.

Quote
I have very little sympathy for the piracy-excusers. "I would buy it if I could afford to." Well, tough shit. There's no Constitutional right to have everything you want. "I'm not hurting anyone." Yes, you are. You are hurting the producers of what you just pirated. And the fans, because you are actively discouraging them from making any more. "I'm not depriving them of a sale." Yes, you are. Obviously you want the item, otherwise you wouldn't pirate it.
I agree with your argument, though I feel as though it's directed at me. I've not been trying to defend piracy, merely to point out the complexities of digital media and how pre-electronic laws are simply unable to handle and account for said complexities, and try to understand the situation better. This, of course, requires looking from and attacking multiple sides of the issue to really see where contention lies, definitions are vague or inadequate, and complexities being ignored by some or all sides. The different sides being those pirating the content, either as consumer and/or producer, the actual creators of the media, the legal distributors of the media, and the legal consumers of the media.

Quote
Now I have no problems whatsoever with copying something for your own, personal use. I buy a new CD I will absolutely burn two extra copies so I can have one in the downstairs in the den and one in both cars. (Although now that I think of it, all the music in the den is on the computer anyway, and the cars both have MP3 jacks....so I guess I don't burn copies anymore, but I absolutely rip that disc onto my computer......however, I don't give copies of it to others.)

I think that those who excuse or justify piracy are doing it for the simplest of reasons: they want something but they don't want to pay for it. I can understand that. But that's not how the world works.
Many anti-piracy folk would deride you for doing it that way though, as you can listen to it in one car while a family member listens to it in the other car while another family member listens to it at home when they have guests over. While it is generally easy to get them to agree that it is okay with music they won't agree for films, even though essentially everything is the same (though likely not in vehicles, as that would just be dangerous and illegal if it's for the driver). Some would even use your argument here against you; obviously you want multiple copies of the music but you don't want to pay for all of them. This is a reason piracy laws need actual, in-depth, thorough argumentation before anything is enacted, so that the actuality of the situation and possible ramifications of legislation can be taken into account, though I know our politicians do not want to even pretend to put that much effort in anything.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on January 06, 2012, 11:08:48 pm
Actually, I think the problem with film piracy is that, generally, it's less a case of "I think it's immoral" but more of a case of "They track those things like fucking hawks, so good luck doing it without getting caught".
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: sandman on January 06, 2012, 11:24:58 pm
Quote
Is he now require to purchase the DVDs in order to legally watch it?

Not to view his own, prior recordings, no. Of course not. They were legally obtained. (Although the television industries are still attempting to find some way to prevent recording of live tv shows to a permanent medium...) If he were to download copies of those produced DVDs, then that would be piracy. If he were to share copies of his prior recordings with his friends, he is well withing his rights as long as he derived no compensation for them. it's not about making sense; it's about making legal sense.

Quote
Everything I can find either directly states or heavily implies that there must be deprivation of something tangible in order to actually classify as theft.

The legal system in the USA (and damn near every other country with reliable electricity), has established that intellectual property IS, legally, "property." If copying it deprives the copyright holder of potential financial gain, it is theft in the eyes of the law. Although it is important to note that it is a form of theft that law enforcement is utterly ineffective at dealing with, and thus extremely reluctant to involve themselves with, forcing most individuals who believe themselves to be damaged by it to seek recompense and/or justice in the civil courts. This means such instances are almost always referred to as "copyright infringement" rather than "theft" because an individual citizen can not prosecute another citizen for a criminal offense, only for a civil one.

Probably the biggest problem with the whole issue is that no one, not the police, not the government, not the industries involved, the public, the consumers, the justice system, the lawyers, no one can agree on what, exactly, it is, how to deal with it, or even how you COULD deal with it.

Which makes me think of a related conundrum. Do items that exist only as data have real world, legal "value?"

For instance, when legendary EVE Online super-villain "Bad Bobby" successfully defrauded an in-game corporation (their version of a guild) out of more than 850,000,000,000 ISK (their version of gold), was that "theft?" EVE is interesting in that ISK can be bought with real money without violating the TOS. You can buy PLEX (essentially 30-day game time cards) with real money and with in-game ISK, establishing a real-world exchange rate for ISK. At the time the scam went down, the .85 trillion ISK Bad Bobby made off with had a real-world cash value of $45,000 US. The ISK could (and likely was, there is little reason to suspect that Bobby, now the most infamous player in the entire game, would use that PLEX to keep his account going for more than 200 years...) be converted to PLEX, and that PLEX (remember it is acceptable in the EVE TOS to sell PLEX) then sold for real-world cash. Essentially Bad Bobby stole 45 grand worth of in-game money which he then certainly converted to cold, hard cash.

Was that theft? Did he take something of value? According to the law....nope, ISK had no legal status as a valued commodity. Does a World of Warcraft item that requires thousands of gold worth of materials and hundreds of hours to create have any intrinsic value? It's an interesting question. People pay money (wisely or not, I make no judgments) every day for downloaded items for games, many of them purely cosmetic. From the infamous horse armor in "Elder Scrolls Oblivion" to the vanity Batman skins for "Arkham City." (Which I will admit I bought myself in the Steam half price sale. Don't judge me, I had to have me some Old Batman violence.) Do these items, which have no actual existence, have value? Can you create value-tagged commodities without any actual resources?

 A house has bricks and mortar and wood and wiring. There is a measurable expense in it's creation, a measurable collection of physical components with known, market-based values. Does a house in a game, which has no physical existence at all, also have "value?" There is certainly a market to base it on if it does. If that in-game house has value.....then would it be a crime to burn it down? Hell, for that matter time-investment has legal precedence as a value-adding factor.....if I spend weeks leveling a game character only to have my account hacked and the character deleted....can that be prosecuted as theft? Or is it just vandalism? Would the deletion of a two-hours-invested level 1 character be a lesser crime than the deletion of two-years-invested level 85? Would it be an 8760 times greater crime?

Quote
I feel as though it's directed at me.

Of course not, lass. The "you" I was using was a generic one. Rest assured the sandman knows how to have a conversation with a pretty young lady. ;)

Quote
even though essentially everything is the same

It IS interesting that we draw distinctions between different TYPES of data. Music, movies, games, it's all just ones and zeros. If it's wrong to pirate one arrangement of binary, shouldn't it be wrong to pirate any arrangement?

Quote
obviously you want multiple copies of the music but you don't want to pay for all of them.

LOL no, I just want the one copy. I'm just too lazy to cart that one copy around with me. Although now that I got the new smartphone, that's not really an issue anymore, and since I buy most of my music in digital download format now, anyway, it's not really an issue. Now that I have it all in one easily portable format, I no longer see a need for copies in different locations.

Quote
I know our politicians do not want to even pretend to put that much effort in anything.

That's the problem. It's not a simple situation you can just throw a half-asses piece of legislation at. We're talking about an organization that put a guy who thought the internet was a "series of tubes" in charge of the committee on science and technology. They are utterly unwilling (or perhaps unable) to put in the effort necessary to really deal with this thorny problem.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Neith on January 06, 2012, 11:56:03 pm
Like Sandman, I agree that creators need protection against piracy, but SOPA will only hurt innocent people and companies without getting to the source of the problem. As a senior staff member of a social networking service, SOPA gives me great cause for concern. We always do our best to remove any copyright-infringing content when we find it on our system, and ban those who commit the offenses. We can't catch every offense, though, and I worry about what would happen if a copyright owner decided to go straight to the authorities instead of asking us first to remove the content.

Our social networking service is very small compared with sites like YouTube and Google, though. YouTube has some kind of automation in place to catch a lot of things, but YouTube can't possibly have algorithms in place to catch every song, movie, etc., that's uploaded to their system, and there are ways to get around those algorithms when they do exist. Likewise, Google's indexing process is animated, and there's no possible way for them to police every single page that gets spidered.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Jodie on January 06, 2012, 11:57:20 pm
What in the world will I do with myself with no internet for a week? The internet is my life man! D:
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Smurfette Principle on January 07, 2012, 01:10:11 am
Here's the problem I have with copyright law. First off, torrenting things is only the most obvious problem. This is a list of everything technically illegal under current copyright law (which are almost never investigated because internet piracy is easier to track by virtue of having a trail):

Secondly, piracy doesn't steal money from the actual workers, it steals money from the companies. Bands make most of their money touring and selling merchandise. Movie stars get paid money up front, and their salaries are not determined by how well their movies do (if so, Will Ferrell wouldn't be as well paid as he is). True, if a studio loses money then the don't pay as much up front, but that's a cost that is shaered by the company, not the actual actors.

Thirdly, companies make it incredibly difficult to obtain media legally, due to country licenses and other things. For example, there's a several month lag between BBC and PBS airing the same show. To watch it on their website online is a three week lag. Some shows, like the Big Bang Theory or the Mentalist, cannot be put online due to licensing issues. This means that they will never be legally distributed on things like Hulu or Netflix. This makes it incredibly difficult for people to watch shows that are not in their country of origin or (like me) don't have television. There is often a lag between airing music on the radio and putting out the album. This lag frustrates customers and provides an incentive for them to acquire media illegally. If companies removed those incentives, they'd be more willing to buy things.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Thejebusfire on January 07, 2012, 01:19:45 am
What in the world will I do with myself with no internet for a week? The internet is my life man! D:

Is it sad that this was my first thought too?

I think I should re-evaluate my life.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: StallChaser on January 07, 2012, 06:26:13 am
Things that were once physical objects are now data, and it's silly to treat them the same, when data is almost limitless.  You can buy a 1TB external hard drive for $100.  On that, you can store 200,000 mp3s, assuming their average size is 5MB.  At $1 each, that's $200,000.  Is a 1TB hard drive really worth more than a small house in most places?  Laws that may have worked in the past are insane when applied to new technology.  SOPA is analogous to instituting a 5mph speed limit on our highways to accommodate horse and buggy.

Second, copyrights are supposed to be temporary, but the terms keep getting extended.  What started as a 14-year term with the possibility of a 14-year extension, is now life plus 70 years because of bribery lobbying by the movie/music industry.  A scientific study (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.ars) showed that the ideal copyright length, taking into account the value of the public domain, is... wait for it...  14 years!
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on January 07, 2012, 07:07:55 am
Sandman, this forum isn't a legal court of law.  The definition of theft depends on the removal and denial of the pre-existing object.

When you steal someone's TV, they no longer have the TV to watch anymore.  Piracy would be bursting into someone's house (an illegal act in and of itself), magically making a copy of their TV, and walking out.  They'll be perplexed, and disturbed at the sudden entrance (rightly so) and should press charges for breaking and entering, but the TV is still there.  They paid money for the TV, yes, but they don't have to go out and buy another TV.

Digital media is an entirely different box of rocks compared to real life.  In digital media, I can take a song and copy it to a different folder.  Now I have two different copies of that song.  I can make it three copies.  Four copies.  Five copies.

In real life, you can't do that with, say, a loaf of bread.  You can cut it up, but the mass will always remain the same.

Conversely, you can completely erase your songs entirely, leaving nothing behind.  You can't do that with bread.  You incinerate it, it leaves ashes.  You eat it, it... comes out.  You throw it in the trash, it ends up decaying in a garbage dump, presuming it doesn't get eaten by wild animals.

Applying physical media rules to digital media "objects" would be like trying to make a piece of paper into a map... of outer space.  It doesn't work.  Space is 3D, maps are 2D.  Inherently incompatible.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: sandman on January 07, 2012, 10:24:33 am
Quote from: Smurfette
Secondly, piracy doesn't steal money from the actual workers, it steals money from the companies.

Just curious....are you asserting that it is acceptable to steal money from the companies? A company is made up of people, people who make their livings working for that company. You steal enough from it and they all lose their jobs. It seems like you are implying that it's OK to steal from the production company, but not from the artist? I don't get the doublethink.

Quote from: Smurfette
Thirdly, companies make it incredibly difficult to obtain media legally, due to country licenses and other things. For example, there's a several month lag between BBC and PBS airing the same show. To watch it on their website online is a three week lag. Some shows, like the Big Bang Theory or the Mentalist, cannot be put online due to licensing issues. This means that they will never be legally distributed on things like Hulu or Netflix. This makes it incredibly difficult for people to watch shows that are not in their country of origin or (like me) don't have television. There is often a lag between airing music on the radio and putting out the album. This lag frustrates customers and provides an incentive for them to acquire media illegally. If companies removed those incentives, they'd be more willing to buy things.

I totally understand your frustration here. I was a huge fan of the show Red Dwarf back when it was nearly impossible to watch in the USA. However....no one has a "right" to view specific entertainment. Just because something is not readily available through legal channels does not mean you are now free to acquire it through illegal ones. This is a distribution problem caused by the production/distribution company, and concerns should be voiced to them. But even if they don't respond, the inability to acquire copyrighted material easily in a legal manner does not mean one is free to acquire it illegally.

Quote from: StallChaser
You can buy a 1TB external hard drive for $100.  On that, you can store 200,000 mp3s, assuming their average size is 5MB.  At $1 each, that's $200,000.  Is a 1TB hard drive really worth more than a small house in most places?

Very interesting thought, there. A 1TB HD filled with 200,000 songs technically would be worth the aggregate value of the songs contained. But that just seems really wrong, somehow doesn't it? Something about that just seems....off. Perhaps if we looked at it like they were physical CDs? 200K songs would be somewhere in the vicinity of 16,000 physical CDs. At $15 a pop (erring on the conservative side), that 340 foot tall stack of CDs would have a retail value of aound $240,000 (plus tax). Would a stack of CDs the height of a 30 story building (as long as an American football field including the end zones) be worth as much as a house? According to the market, yes. Yes they would.

Which raises the question.....where is the value in a music CD? The physical object, or the music contained on it? We all know a physical CD costs less than a dollar to make, including shipping, so the value must rest in the music....in the data encoded on the CD. If the value is in the data, then surely that data retains it's inherent value even if it is stored in a different format. Logically, that 1 TB HD would be worth 200 grand.

But that STILL seems wrong somehow, doesn't it?

Quote from: Zachski
The definition of theft depends on the removal and denial of the pre-existing object.

The conundrum the courts are dealing with now is the loss of material benefit to the producer. Pirated material, while it does not deny the producer of a physical object, does legally have the potential to deny them financial benefit from a sale. Piracy denies revenue. The denial of revenue causes collapse of the business, which legally is clear material harm.

I think the problem is that this word "theft" keeps being used. I think perhaps that word has such solid connotations of physical property built into it that it must be abandoned for this situation. "Causing material harm," or "denial of material benefit" would probably be better. The issue is that when a company spends resources to produce a data product, and pirates take that product without compensating the producers, those produces are materially damaged.

But I think you are right that "theft" is the wrong legal term to be using here.


Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: TheL on January 07, 2012, 02:15:34 pm
Actually, I think the problem with film piracy is that, generally, it's less a case of "I think it's immoral" but more of a case of "They track those things like fucking hawks, so good luck doing it without getting caught".

I've been tempted to rip all my DVDs to my computer, solely so I can make an hour-long video that consists solely of the "Copying this movie is a felony" warnings, and post it on YouTube.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on January 07, 2012, 02:20:24 pm
Actually, I think the problem with film piracy is that, generally, it's less a case of "I think it's immoral" but more of a case of "They track those things like fucking hawks, so good luck doing it without getting caught".

I've been tempted to rip all my DVDs to my computer, solely so I can make an hour-long video that consists solely of the "Copying this movie is a felony" warnings, and post it on YouTube.

Pirating anti-piracy ads. Perfect.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Damen on January 07, 2012, 02:38:26 pm
Actually, I think the problem with film piracy is that, generally, it's less a case of "I think it's immoral" but more of a case of "They track those things like fucking hawks, so good luck doing it without getting caught".

I've been tempted to rip all my DVDs to my computer, solely so I can make an hour-long video that consists solely of the "Copying this movie is a felony" warnings, and post it on YouTube.

You remind me why I love you. ;D
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: TheL on January 07, 2012, 02:55:34 pm
Quote
Is he now require to purchase the DVDs in order to legally watch it?

Not to view his own, prior recordings, no. Of course not. They were legally obtained. (Although the television industries are still attempting to find some way to prevent recording of live tv shows to a permanent medium...) If he were to download copies of those produced DVDs, then that would be piracy. If he were to share copies of his prior recordings with his friends, he is well withing his rights as long as he derived no compensation for them. it's not about making sense; it's about making legal sense.

This is where I have a problem.  See, I feel that, in order for a law to be considered even remotely just, it has to make sense.  If a five-year-old can look at something and say "that makes no sense," then the law needs to be changed.

As you and Oriet have both pointed out, it is perfectly legal to record a show off your TV and rewatch it whenever you want, but it is NOT legal to download a copy of someone else's DVD of that show to rewatch it whenever you want.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  The same act is taking place in both cases: a Decepticon is obtaining a free copy of a TV show to enjoy as he pleases.  Why is it legal to get a free digital copy one way, but illegal to get the exact same sequence of ones and zeroes for free in another way?
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: rageaholic on January 07, 2012, 03:24:02 pm
Quote
(You know, because going after the consumer of an illegal product is always the most effective way to end the traffic, right? That's worked out really well in the "war on drugs," hasn't it?)

That, right there, is why this bill is a fail.  It's just getting more people in jail for victimless crimes.  I too understand why pirating is an issue, but they need to go after the right people. 

And I'm not even going to go into what this allows companies and law enforcement to do to the web.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: sandman on January 07, 2012, 03:39:31 pm
@ TheL

You are right, my friend. The laws don't make sense, and they will continue to not make sense as log as the people writing the laws don't understand the situation.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: SimSim on January 07, 2012, 03:52:55 pm
I'm sure some of the Congresscritters understand the situation. But Hollywood and the music industry can lobby and give far better campaign contributions than the average person can.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: DasFuchs on January 07, 2012, 05:06:29 pm
I'm sure some of the Congresscritters understand the situation. But Hollywood and the music industry can lobby and give far better campaign contributions than the average person can.

i don't think they really do. For most people 30ish and younger, the internet means something entirely different than the 40 and older crowd, which is what makes up most of the politicians.
The younger groups sees it as information and recreation, the older group sees it as information and a bunch of things they don't understand or want to.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 07, 2012, 05:19:27 pm
Soo...by the time our generation is old enough for government, we'll have what we've been waiting for now, which will be dragass compared to what latter generations will be wanting on their new Supernet or what-have-you.

SOPA is full of shit, because the media industry is largely full of shit, and Congress is pretty much all shit.  If you mingle Shit A with Shit B, the chances of the progeny NOT being shit are slim at best.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: DasFuchs on January 07, 2012, 07:32:22 pm
Soo...by the time our generation is old enough for government, we'll have what we've been waiting for now, which will be dragass compared to what latter generations will be wanting on their new Supernet or what-have-you.

SOPA is full of shit, because the media industry is largely full of shit, and Congress is pretty much all shit.  If you mingle Shit A with Shit B, the chances of the progeny NOT being shit are slim at best.

We already have what we want, the problem is it's going to be taken away. So by the time our generation gets into power, it'll be too late if this bullcrap passes.
Politicians have shown time after time they've got very little to no understanding or connection to the younger generations. hell, go to DC and ask Congress what kind of game Halo is. I'll bet more than half respond with something like "Some shoot'em up game my grandkids play.".
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on January 07, 2012, 07:37:12 pm
I'm sure some of the Congresscritters understand the situation. But Hollywood and the music industry can lobby and give far better campaign contributions than the average person can.

i don't think they really do. For most people 30ish and younger, the internet means something entirely different than the 40 and older crowd, which is what makes up most of the politicians.
The younger groups sees it as information and recreation, the older group sees it as information and a bunch of things they don't understand or want to.

This. I think internet law will get better mostly when the children of the Internet age grow up and become politically active themselves.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Oriet on January 07, 2012, 09:03:12 pm
Quote
Is he now require to purchase the DVDs in order to legally watch it?

Not to view his own, prior recordings, no. Of course not. They were legally obtained. (Although the television industries are still attempting to find some way to prevent recording of live tv shows to a permanent medium...) If he were to download copies of those produced DVDs, then that would be piracy. If he were to share copies of his prior recordings with his friends, he is well withing his rights as long as he derived no compensation for them. it's not about making sense; it's about making legal sense.
Actually, such distribution is not legal under copyright laws, at least if copies are given instead of just watched/listened/enjoyed alongside them. Of course, this brings in yet another complexity of copyright; a person is free to lend their legally purchased copy of a song, movie, game, or whatnot, with a friend or family member, though they are not allowed to do the same with a legal recording/copy of such as it is considered to fall under distributing copyrighted material without permission even though the acts and intents are exactly the same.

(Oh, and try as media distributors want, there is no way to fully protect against something being recorded or copied, since as long as it is able to be watched/listened to said output can be recorded. This is a good part of why I see their futile attempts to reach that goal as silly, as it just doesn't conform to the reality of how technology works.)

Quote
Quote
Everything I can find either directly states or heavily implies that there must be deprivation of something tangible in order to actually classify as theft.

The legal system in the USA (and damn near every other country with reliable electricity), has established that intellectual property IS, legally, "property." If copying it deprives the copyright holder of potential financial gain, it is theft in the eyes of the law. Although it is important to note that it is a form of theft that law enforcement is utterly ineffective at dealing with, and thus extremely reluctant to involve themselves with, forcing most individuals who believe themselves to be damaged by it to seek recompense and/or justice in the civil courts. This means such instances are almost always referred to as "copyright infringement" rather than "theft" because an individual citizen can not prosecute another citizen for a criminal offense, only for a civil one.
Looking even further into this than I previously had I still don't see it actually being classified as theft. The closest I've been able to get is here (http://www.hg.org/theft-law.html), with this one point:
No Electronic Theft Act (NET)

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.
Being that this is not really enough info to work from, I looked up the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm) directly. The only instance of the word "theft" happens to be in the title of the act; larceny also does not appear in it. Instead it consistently calls it violation of copyright, including when it is about the intellectual property, and estimated monetary loss as a result of said infringement is also included.

Quote
Probably the biggest problem with the whole issue is that no one, not the police, not the government, not the industries involved, the public, the consumers, the justice system, the lawyers, no one can agree on what, exactly, it is, how to deal with it, or even how you COULD deal with it.
This really is the whole crux of the issue, and why I want to make sure I understand it before coming to a solid conclusion of how it should (or even can) be handled.

Quote
Which makes me think of a related conundrum. Do items that exist only as data have real world, legal "value?"

For instance, when legendary EVE Online super-villain "Bad Bobby" successfully defrauded an in-game corporation (their version of a guild) out of more than 850,000,000,000 ISK (their version of gold), was that "theft?" EVE is interesting in that ISK can be bought with real money without violating the TOS. You can buy PLEX (essentially 30-day game time cards) with real money and with in-game ISK, establishing a real-world exchange rate for ISK. At the time the scam went down, the .85 trillion ISK Bad Bobby made off with had a real-world cash value of $45,000 US. The ISK could (and likely was, there is little reason to suspect that Bobby, now the most infamous player in the entire game, would use that PLEX to keep his account going for more than 200 years...) be converted to PLEX, and that PLEX (remember it is acceptable in the EVE TOS to sell PLEX) then sold for real-world cash. Essentially Bad Bobby stole 45 grand worth of in-game money which he then certainly converted to cold, hard cash.

Was that theft? Did he take something of value? According to the law....nope, ISK had no legal status as a valued commodity. Does a World of Warcraft item that requires thousands of gold worth of materials and hundreds of hours to create have any intrinsic value? It's an interesting question. People pay money (wisely or not, I make no judgments) every day for downloaded items for games, many of them purely cosmetic. From the infamous horse armor in "Elder Scrolls Oblivion" to the vanity Batman skins for "Arkham City." (Which I will admit I bought myself in the Steam half price sale. Don't judge me, I had to have me some Old Batman violence.) Do these items, which have no actual existence, have value? Can you create value-tagged commodities without any actual resources?
I would say that it actually was theft as he did deprive people of their goods, even if they are virtual instead of physical, as would most people, as fraud is covered under the general definition of theft. That the court ruled it wasn't theft is actually a blow against anti-piracy bills/arguments that rely upon copyright infringement being a form of theft, as this went beyond just making a copy and outright deprived people of the digital "good". I really see no difference between an illegally obtained MP3, film, or game item, as all are forms of entertainment stored on digital medium, and consider all of them to have value (it took effort to create and is valued by people; has to be or else it would never sell), though I admit some value is difficult or impossible to assign a monetary figure to. As for that last question in there, well, obviously it must be able to be done, else companies that sell digital copies of games, music, etc would have to be charged with fraud.

(Was it the old Batman outfit like this one (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kJq2vT3pvCI/SpPEkCPS_wI/AAAAAAAAA_g/yXHA-6Ap01Q/s400/batmantv.JPG.jpeg)? If so I can fully see why you'd want it, as I would too.)

Quote
A house has bricks and mortar and wood and wiring. There is a measurable expense in it's creation, a measurable collection of physical components with known, market-based values. Does a house in a game, which has no physical existence at all, also have "value?" There is certainly a market to base it on if it does. If that in-game house has value.....then would it be a crime to burn it down? Hell, for that matter time-investment has legal precedence as a value-adding factor.....if I spend weeks leveling a game character only to have my account hacked and the character deleted....can that be prosecuted as theft? Or is it just vandalism? Would the deletion of a two-hours-invested level 1 character be a lesser crime than the deletion of two-years-invested level 85? Would it be an 8760 times greater crime?
That there is a market for such things demonstrates that, at least to many people, it does have value. There is also that the time and effort put into creating something, including virtual goods, has value. If time and effort didn't directly correlate into value then a masseuse would have to be charged with fraud for charging money for something non-existent, as they do not create a physical object; since the idea of doing so is incredibly ridiculous and is properly spelt out in law, then so too must the creation and distribution of digital goods. As for what extent the crime would be... I have no clue. Part of it, I think, would also have to include how easily the victim can have their virtual good restored or otherwise recompensed. If all the company has to do is grab the info from a few days ago to fully restore the objects and characters on an account then it wouldn't matter if the character was 2 weeks old or two decades old, as you'd be looking at how long they are deprived of the character. If there is no backup to restore from and it must have the time and effort restarted from the beginning then there would be a difference in the crime, though I do not know to what amount.

Quote
Quote
I feel as though it's directed at me.

Of course not, lass. The "you" I was using was a generic one. Rest assured the sandman knows how to have a conversation with a pretty young lady. ;)
Oh, excellent, a proper argument! Woo-hoo!  :D

Quote
Quote
even though essentially everything is the same

It IS interesting that we draw distinctions between different TYPES of data. Music, movies, games, it's all just ones and zeros. If it's wrong to pirate one arrangement of binary, shouldn't it be wrong to pirate any arrangement?
The medium is the same, but the effort to produce the different types of data and what the different types of data are sold for (which doesn't correlate very well with the effort) are what should determine the severity of the crime. This, however, is and isn't how it's handled. Looking at the NET Act we get this:
1.    shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;

2.    shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

3.    shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000;
This means a person can get away with illegally copying/distributing 1 digital good that has a retail value of $900, but could get locked up if they share copies of 10 mp3s they legally purchased for $1 each. Kinda fucked up, ain't it?

Quote
Quote
obviously you want multiple copies of the music but you don't want to pay for all of them.

LOL no, I just want the one copy. I'm just too lazy to cart that one copy around with me. Although now that I got the new smartphone, that's not really an issue anymore, and since I buy most of my music in digital download format now, anyway, it's not really an issue. Now that I have it all in one easily portable format, I no longer see a need for copies in different locations.

Quote
I know our politicians do not want to even pretend to put that much effort in anything.

That's the problem. It's not a simple situation you can just throw a half-asses piece of legislation at. We're talking about an organization that put a guy who thought the internet was a "series of tubes" in charge of the committee on science and technology. They are utterly unwilling (or perhaps unable) to put in the effort necessary to really deal with this thorny problem.
I agree with all of this.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Smurfette Principle on January 07, 2012, 09:31:17 pm

Quote
Is he now require to purchase the DVDs in order to legally watch it?

Not to view his own, prior recordings, no. Of course not. They were legally obtained. (Although the television industries are still attempting to find some way to prevent recording of live tv shows to a permanent medium...) If he were to download copies of those produced DVDs, then that would be piracy. If he were to share copies of his prior recordings with his friends, he is well withing his rights as long as he derived no compensation for them. it's not about making sense; it's about making legal sense.
Actually, such distribution is not legal under copyright laws, at least if copies are given instead of just watched/listened/enjoyed alongside them. Of course, this brings in yet another complexity of copyright; a person is free to lend their legally purchased copy of a song, movie, game, or whatnot, with a friend or family member, though they are not allowed to do the same with a legal recording/copy of such as it is considered to fall under distributing copyrighted material without permission even though the acts and intents are exactly the same.

(Oh, and try as media distributors want, there is no way to fully protect against something being recorded or copied, since as long as it is able to be watched/listened to said output can be recorded. This is a good part of why I see their futile attempts to reach that goal as silly, as it just doesn't conform to the reality of how technology works.)

The strictest definition of copyright infringement does not allow even the lending of a book. If you allow anyone, anyone, to enjoy or experience a work of media that they have not themselves paid for, then you are breaking copyright law. Reading a newspaper on a newsstand without paying for it is technically pirating. Reading a newspaper someone left in a restaurant is technically pirating. This is why copyright law is so complicated and obstructive: so many things we take for granted are actually illegal. Even singing "Happy Birthday" illegal, for God's sake, and it's impossible to draw a line between what's protecting artists and what's being an anal-retentive, obstructive bureaucrat.
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: Witchyjoshy on January 07, 2012, 09:58:34 pm
Remember when copyright laws were actually meant to protect intellectual interest and not, say, dictate what people can do with stuff they've legally purchased?
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: sandman on January 07, 2012, 09:58:49 pm
@Smurfette: And there's the real problem. When you get right down to it, with current technology, copyright laws are essentially unenforceable when it comes to lending material that was legally obtained.

Quote from: Oriet
(Was it the old Batman outfit like this one? If so I can fully see why you'd want it, as I would too.)

Oh, hell no. A distended stomach is not what I look for in a Batman. It was the "Dark Knight Returns" Batman. One of the few things besides Sin City that makes Frank Miller not a total waste of oxygen. it's the second one from the left in this pic (these are all the extra skins you can get for Arkham City):

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/Foehammer828/batman-arkham-city-20110801003017886.jpg)
Title: Re: Internet shutdown to protest SOPA?
Post by: DasFuchs on January 08, 2012, 12:01:47 am

Quote
Is he now require to purchase the DVDs in order to legally watch it?

Not to view his own, prior recordings, no. Of course not. They were legally obtained. (Although the television industries are still attempting to find some way to prevent recording of live tv shows to a permanent medium...) If he were to download copies of those produced DVDs, then that would be piracy. If he were to share copies of his prior recordings with his friends, he is well withing his rights as long as he derived no compensation for them. it's not about making sense; it's about making legal sense.
Actually, such distribution is not legal under copyright laws, at least if copies are given instead of just watched/listened/enjoyed alongside them. Of course, this brings in yet another complexity of copyright; a person is free to lend their legally purchased copy of a song, movie, game, or whatnot, with a friend or family member, though they are not allowed to do the same with a legal recording/copy of such as it is considered to fall under distributing copyrighted material without permission even though the acts and intents are exactly the same.

(Oh, and try as media distributors want, there is no way to fully protect against something being recorded or copied, since as long as it is able to be watched/listened to said output can be recorded. This is a good part of why I see their futile attempts to reach that goal as silly, as it just doesn't conform to the reality of how technology works.)

The strictest definition of copyright infringement does not allow even the lending of a book. If you allow anyone, anyone, to enjoy or experience a work of media that they have not themselves paid for, then you are breaking copyright law. Reading a newspaper on a newsstand without paying for it is technically pirating. Reading a newspaper someone left in a restaurant is technically pirating. This is why copyright law is so complicated and obstructive: so many things we take for granted are actually illegal. Even singing "Happy Birthday" illegal, for God's sake, and it's impossible to draw a line between what's protecting artists and what's being an anal-retentive, obstructive bureaucrat.
Libraries are fucked then