OT - ATTN: We Need Your Help - PLEASE READ

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Add this to the bill.

If a company (e.g. the Herald) threaten to sue a host if they don't shut down a site they host. (e.g. whoever Ian pays to host this site) and then who ever owns the site sues you (e.g. Ian) sues that company and that company can't prove a copywrite protection violation, then the company must pay the owner of the site 1000 times the orginal claim.

Right now it would is way to easy to intimidate a host to stop hosting a website on false claims.

They didn't but an example would be it would have been very easy for the Herald to shut down this site, even if none existed just to get revenge for people calling for TomASSe to be fired.

 

[robbomango]

People want to publish things for everyone to see or read on the internet and expect piracy rights to be respected? Movie studio's and distributers wish to allow viewing of their movies online via netflix etc.. and want protection?

It's all very careless, we've sold VCR's and told people not to record rented movies, same goes for music..the list of asinine counter productive things we've done only to ask that they somehow be protected is mind boggling.

The ease of copy pasting, screen shots, live streaming etc... I don't see how you can monitor the online sharing(piracy) without ruffling a lot of feathers personally.

EDIT: Don't put it out there if you don't want it stolen(shared) if so collect the money and stop asking for more.

 

[Patspsycho]

That is completely false. Have you read the bill?

Really? Explain to me specifically how that is false.

 

[rojo8401]

Really, this is no different than railroads or buggywhip manufacturers in the 19th century running to government for protection for their declining industries.

The world is changing. Technology is changing. Some business models that worked even 10 years ago are obsolete.

Typically one sees industries in decline seeking financial subsidies and protection from competitors using new technologies. This may be the first time an industry has attempted to eviscerate the First Amendment to protect its profits.

Which industry are you referring to? The fashion industry? The video game studios? Paramount Pictures? Piracy hurts all of us, not just one that you feel is old-fashioned.

Pretty broad brush you're using there.

 

[shmessy]

Ok, you're right. I don't know Google's financials because they don't release them so it's speculation but we think it's considerable or they wouldn't be dragging their feet.

your point is correct. Google is a business just like ours. i am just trying to point that fact out.

Yes, Youtube is in heavy compliance.

Your points are fair.

Read the bill. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not a lawyer, I design artwork for Lady GaGa, Justin Bieber and the like. You caught me! But this has been explained to us and I did read the bill. Obviously I'm biased and I do appreciate that fact.

I didn't expect any support when I posted my opinion!

I FULLY support your position.

Have a clear bill written with the position you stated. No loopholes, OK????

 

[Ian]

Ok, you're right. I don't know Google's financials because they don't release them so it's speculation but we think it's considerable or they wouldn't be dragging their feet.

your point is correct. Google is a business just like ours. i am just trying to point that fact out.

Yes, Youtube is in heavy compliance.

Your points are fair.

Read the bill. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not a lawyer, I design artwork for Lady GaGa, Justin Bieber and the like. You caught me! But this has been explained to us and I did read the bill. Obviously I'm biased and I do appreciate that fact.

I didn't expect any support when I posted my opinion!

As I mentioned, I read the bill and I understand your points, but it's a little easier to brush it off and make it 'not a big deal' when you don't run a website and aren't potentially facing an issue.

I understand Google's concern because they link to anyone and everyone without viewing the content. If they're listing a site with copyrighted content, they're in violation and the thought of having to police millions of links obviously has them with a lot to lose. YouTube.com is obviously a cash machine for them, and that's one of the more egregious offenders. New stuff pops on there so fast and furious that I'm sure it drives studios crazy policing it.

So I hope they figure it out. The new bill is a good start, but it needs to be worked on a bit more to eliminate the loopholes that would hurt sites like this one.

 

[rojo8401]

Haha. I read the bill and we have had it explained to us by fancy lawyers.

I stated my bias. I was upfront about it.

I fully recognize that the bill might be written poorly in some peoples opinions. I don't share that opinion.

My real point is that there are many people with vested interests that aren't being talked about at all.

We aren't going to convince each other so I guess we'll just see what happens.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Could someone here draft up a form letter I can copy pasta to my state representatives?

1. Nobody reads emails. You need to call.

2. Being literal, your state reps do not vote on these bills. Your congressional rep would have voted on SOPA except that the House leadership is now against the bill so the point is moot. It's dead in the house. However, the Senate majority leader says he will bring the bill to a vote so if you want to do something CALL your 2 US Senators and let them know you're against PIPA. As easy as that.

 

[Joker]

I FULLY support your position.

Have a clear bill written with the position you stated. No loopholes, OK????

<trying to resist the political jab...trying.....arrrghhh...can't stop it...>...you expect a clear bill...with no loopholes?...from the congress of the U.S.???...from the present sitting congress???..I don't know,shmess...I have to think you'd see THIS first....

 

[BradyFTW!]

First: Can you quote the language in the bill that says this? Otherwise, I do not believe you.

Second: How can the US possibly make a law that extends beyond it's jurisdiction? How can a law, passed in the US, apply to a torrent site in Finland? It can't. It can, however, apply to US businesses with relationships with overseas entities.



Google does not make money "mainly through ads on torrent sites". Please substantiate that statement. That statement itself is a scare tactic, intended to raise fear about how much of an impact piracy truly has.



Please substantiate this in some way.



Please name me one title of a work that has been 'coveted' by a Google exec, that caused financial harm to the creator(s).



Google's job is to maximize value to investors. Just like AOL, MPAA, RIAA, and your company. They do not have a vested interest in being a watchdog for YOUR content.

Do you mean like Youtube being one of the fastest sites out there to comply with DMCA takedown notices?


Please quote the section of either SOPA or PIPA (or ACTA) where this is stated. I'd find it incredible if the senate passed a law that did not apply to it's only jurisdiction, the USA.

Even better, Youtube has an automated digital fingerprint process that attempts to detect, in real time, if copyrighted content is being uploaded. Google is probably the single best example out there of a website with a massive userbase that genuinely attempts to protect copyrights. This "Google is trying to steal our content!" argument is plainly ridiculous.

Even when Viacom sued Google, they sued it for the founders' complicity in promoting piracy before Google even acquired the company. That's why the suit only covered activity up to 2008. In short, even Viacom wasn't willing to stretch truth and logic as far as rojo is trying to, and that's pretty telling.

At the end of the day, the creative mega-industries have been fighting against technological progress for the better part of 20 years now. There are still a ton of ways to make money online (just look at Steam for video games, Amazon/Netflix for movies, and iTunes for music), but the MPAA, RIAA, etc. have instead cast their lot with a strategy of bribing politicians, suing their customers, and sticking their heads in the sand. The simple fact is that there is a large base of users who consume content in the easiest method possible. If the easiest method happens to be legal, then it will be used.

Just look at Steam. A few years ago, pretty much everyone in the gaming industry had written off the PC as a platform, because piracy was so rampant. Users, when given the choice between torrenting a game for free or going to the store and buying a DRM-laden hard copy, were choosing the former option. Then along comes steam, which allows people to legally purchase a virtual copy of their game that they can easily access, and right off the bat it a) acquires a huge user base, b) strikes a blow against the secondary games market, so that content creators can see their cut on all sales, c) makes the product cheaper, and d) recaptures a huge portion of the "pirates". It was an unmitigated success, simply because ONE company in the entire industry was willing to look at the internet as an opportunity instead of a problem.

That's the future, and any attempts to constrain it by bribing politicians will not be well-received by any objective person with an ounce of intelligence.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Haha. I read the bill and we have had it explained to us by fancy lawyers.

If it was written properly you wouldn't need a fancy lawyer to explain it to you.

 

[rojo8401]

People want to publish things for everyone to see or read on the internet and expect piracy rights to be respected? Movie studio's and distributers wish to allow viewing of their movies online via netflix etc.. and want protection?

It's all very careless, we've sold VCR's and told people not to record rented movies, same goes for music..the list of asinine counter productive things we done only to ask that they somehow be protected is mind boggling.

The ease of copy pasting, screen shots, live streaming etc... I don't see how you can monitor the online sharing(piracy) without ruffling a lot of feathers personally.

EDIT: Don't put it out there if you don't want it stolen(shared) if so collect the money and stop asking for more.

I agree with you mostly but the fact is that we're not going to shut down digital distribution, a major income stream just because some people prefer free.

 

[MSU]

The clowns that lobbied for this bill are in the entertainment industry.. shocker!

Don't worry though people, this bill was poorly written. And even then, it was directed towards 50-60 year old congressmen that probably haven't even seen the internet in person.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Ok, you're right. I don't know Google's financials because they don't release them so it's speculation but we think it's considerable or they wouldn't be dragging their feet.

Google is a publicly traded company. Of course they release their financials.

Knock yourself out: 2011 Quarterly Earnings - Google Investor Relations

Yes, Youtube is in heavy compliance.

That's a 180 from your previous position in this thread

Read the bill. That's all I'm saying.

Already did

Maybe Rojo should spend less time having a lawyer explain what the bill will be used for, and more time listening to an actual tech person with an actual understanding of how the internet works.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I agree with you mostly but the fact is that we're not going to shut down digital distribution, a major income stream just because some people prefer free.

People prefer free?

Worldwide online music revenue from end-user spending is on pace to total $6.3 billion in 2011, up from $5.9 billion in 2010, according to Gartner, Inc. Online music revenue is forecast to reach $6.8 billion in 2012, and grow to $7.7 billion in 2015. By comparison, consumer spending on physical music (CDs and LPs) is expected to slide from approximately $15 billion in 2010 to about $10 billion in 2015.

Gartner Says Worldwide Online Music Revenue from End-User Spending Is on Pace to Total $6.3 Billion in 2011

 

[rojo8401]

Even better, Youtube has an automated digital fingerprint process that attempts to detect, in real time, if copyrighted content is being uploaded. Google is probably the single best example out there of a website with a massive userbase that genuinely attempts to protect copyrights. This "Google is trying to steal our content!" argument is plainly ridiculous.

Even when Viacom sued Google, they sued it for the founders' complicity in promoting piracy before Google even acquired the company. That's why the suit only covered activity up to 2008. In short, even Viacom wasn't willing to stretch truth and logic as far as rojo is trying to, and that's pretty telling.

At the end of the day, the creative mega-industries have been fighting against technological progress for the better part of 20 years now. There are still a ton of ways to make money online (just look at Steam for video games, Amazon/Netflix for movies, and iTunes for music), but the MPAA, RIAA, etc. have instead cast their lot with a strategy of bribing politicians, suing their customers, and sticking their heads in the sand. The simple fact is that there is a large base of users who consume content in the easiest method possible. If the easiest method happens to be legal, then it will be used.

Just look at Steam. A few years ago, pretty much everyone in the gaming industry had written off the PC as a platform, because piracy was so rampant. Users, when given the choice between torrenting a game for free or going to the store and buying a DRM-laden hard copy, were choosing the former option. Then along comes steam, which allows people to legally purchase a virtual copy of their game that they can easily access, and right off the bat it a) acquires a huge user base, b) strikes a blow against the secondary games market, so that content creators can see their cut on all sales, c) makes the product cheaper, and d) recaptures a huge portion of the "pirates". It was an unmitigated success, simply because ONE company in the entire industry was willing to look at the internet as an opportunity instead of a problem.

That's the future, and any attempts to constrain it by bribing politicians will not be well-received by any objective person with an ounce of intelligence.

Good post.

If a person wants to consume media, there are many easy and legal ways to accomplish that. Nobody is holding back technology.

If your argument is that iTunes and Netflix are not convenient enough, that's a matter of opinion that I'm not likely to win with you.

The problem is instead of using netflix, iTunes etc, some people prefer torrent sites... because it's free. Not because there aren't legitimate and easy ways to consume.

 

[rojo8401]

People prefer free?



Gartner Says Worldwide Online Music Revenue from End-User Spending Is on Pace to Total $6.3 Billion in 2011

I said SOME people.

Sheesh.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

Good post.

If a person wants to consume media, there are many easy and legal ways to accomplish that. Nobody is holding back technology.

If your argument is that iTunes and Netflix are not convenient enough, that's a matter of opinion that I'm not likely to win with you.

The problem is instead of using netflix, iTunes etc, some people prefer torrent sites... because it's free. Not because there aren't legitimate and easy ways to consume.

There it is in a nutshell, it is not "the problem", it is the entertainment industry's problem that they are attempting to make everyone's problem, and are trying to make the government their enforcer.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Good post.

If a person wants to consume media, there are many easy and legal ways to accomplish that. Nobody is holding back technology.

If your argument is that iTunes and Netflix are not convenient enough, that's a matter of opinion that I'm not likely to win with you.

The problem is instead of using netflix, iTunes etc, some people prefer torrent sites... because it's free. Not because there aren't legitimate and easy ways to consume.

I'm stating the opposite, actually. I'm stating that Netflix and iTunes are clear wins, and that's why their earnings and market share are continuing to grow. Well, not Netflix's, but only because the MPAA is determined to bankrupt it (see my original point).

And you're right, some people do prefer torrent sites. If the heads of your industry would have a specific bill written that targets *only* these types of sites, without presenting any kind of a risk to a site like Patsfans, then I doubt there would even be a significant debate in getting it passed.

Which would be sad, on one level, because BitTorrent has the capacity to be a wonderful technology for low-cost content distribution, but understandable at the same time because of how it's predominantly used in practice.

 

[robbomango]

Good post.

If a person wants to consume media, there are many easy and legal ways to accomplish that. Nobody is holding back technology.

If your argument is that iTunes and Netflix are not convenient enough, that's a matter of opinion that I'm not likely to win with you.

The problem is instead of using netflix, iTunes etc, some people prefer torrent sites... because it's free. Not because there aren't legitimate and easy ways to consume.

Not sure why, especially sports networks, mind being live streamed? As long as the advertisements are being aired I'd think the more viewers the better.

Also aren't those torrent sites illegal?