OT - ATTN: We Need Your Help - PLEASE READ

[rojo8401]

Then hire a FARKING LEGAL WRITER at $500/hour for one week to write a CLEAR bill that can get this done.

What is so hard about that????

Your company pays more in COBRA payments to your laid off colleagues. You know the REAL reason why this won't be done????

It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

I get it Shmessy. I understand your point. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.

this is obviously an emotional issue with lots of money on both sides. This has affected me personally and made me bitter towards piracy.

I agree that intent is deadly but that's out of my hands. Hopefully the bill will be rewritten to satisfy the legitimate concerns of people with no ill intentions who just want to run a website.

It looks like the bill is DOA so they'll have to take a harder look at the language.

 

[xmarkd400x]

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.

As an aside, I'd like to note that World of Warcraft (queue eye rolls) uses P2P technology to distribute patches and updates, which can be very large. There is a legitimate use for P2P: Information that can be disseminated, and whose dissemination is made easier by allowing peers to act as relays.

 

[rojo8401]

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.

This post shows a real understanding of the issue. In theory, torrents are a great idea. In practice, not so good.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

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.

Generally when people violate copyright laws it is because the amount being charged is with compliance with a reasonable price. Charge fifty cents to download a song and most people are going to pay it instead of look for a free option. Charge $10 and people will look for an alternative.

After all instead of buying a newspaper I could photocopy it at the libary, but that is more of pain than it is worth, because a newspaper is priced reasonably.

On the other hand in I was taking a gradute level class in the 1990's one of the required text books cost $250 and was 40 pages in length and seemed it be only mariginally related to the topic of the class. The book was about 3 times more expensive than any other book I had been required to purchase at that point. I illegally photocopied the book and returned it to the bookstore. Being copies were five cents and I put two pages on one, it cost me about a dollar.

At the end of the semester when that book had not been referenced once in class a student asked about it. The professor told us that the only reason he assigned the book was his wife was the author and he was doing her a favor by assinging the book to drive up book sales and royalities on the book.

As far as I am concerned my professor was the real criminal in this case, exploiting students for the finacial gain of himself and his wife.

The school did nothing when many students complained.

 

[rojo8401]

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?

If those ad revenues are being shared with the producers then your point is entirely correct.

EDIT: You meant the on-air ads. I was referring to the banner ads on the site. But yes, the ads shown during the games are meant for as wide an audience as possible so your point is still correct.

 

[Ian]

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.

Fair enough, but I think the reason why you're more relaxed about it is because you don't have a site of your own. Which obviously makes it a little easier for you

And I agree with the piracy issue - because that needs to be corrected. I think that's your main reason for feeling strongly about this, but I'm in complete agreement with you there. As I said, I just hope they build off this bill and come up with a more targeted solution.

 

[shmessy]

I get it Shmessy. I understand your point. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.

this is obviously an emotional issue with lots of money on both sides. This has affected me personally and made me bitter towards piracy.

I agree that intent is deadly but that's out of my hands. Hopefully the bill will be rewritten to satisfy the legitimate concerns of people with no ill intentions who just want to run a website.

It looks like the bill is DOA so they'll have to take a harder look at the language.

Rojo, you seem like a good guy, but you're missing the real point.

Your corporation WANTS the bill to be unclear. It is the REAL INTENT of your corporation to be able to go after more than what is delineated murkily in the bill.

They have a VESTED INTEREST to do more than what you see as "intent".

If not, they could have easily had the bill written clearly.

They prefer no bill at all instead of a bill that limits them to what you believe is their "intent".

If the "intent" you believe they have is truly their "intent", they would have spent $10K to have the bill written clearly and made into a law. They could have put this problem to bed many years ago and saved your colleagues' jobs. They want more than you understand.

Not spending $10K to clarify the language in the bill was a PROACTIVE move.

 

[rojo8401]

I have, and what Patspsycho said is completely true. Based on said accusation, DNS providers can be compelled to delist a site (so that New England Patriots Fans featuring News, Stats, Analysis, Messageboards & Forums, Patriots Blogs, And Salary Cap Information for Fans. - PatsFans.com could no longer get you here), search engines can be forced to remove it, and advertisers and payment processers can be forced to shut down its revenue streams.

Hey rojo, seeing that you live in LA too, I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and say that you probably work in the entertainment industry, either recording or movies? I say this because those are the only people who could support this garbage bill, and they do it entirely for their own gain.

I work in the music industry. Yes, it is for my own gain (employment). If you think those that oppose it have no financial interest then I guess we aren't going anywhere with this discussion.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If those ad revenues are being shared with the producers then your point is entirely correct.

EDIT: You meant the on-air ads. I was referring to the banner ads on the site. But yes, the ads shown during the games are meant for as wide an audience as possible so your point is still correct.

So isn't it just a matter of not getting paid but being super greedy.

CBS makes money off of the ads shown on TV during a football game. Lets say illegal evil pirate takes that broad cast and places that content on the internet so people who can't watch it via regular means can see it. Everyone still sees all the TV commericials but evil pirate makes some money on the banner ad.

Instead of shutting down the evil pirate CBS should just tell the folks it sells air time to of all the additional people who see their ads and price air time accordingly.

 

[rojo8401]

Rojo, you seem like a good guy, but you're missing the real point.

Your corporation WANTS the bill to be unclear. It is the REAL INTENT of your corporation to be able to go after more than what is delineated murkily in the bill.

They have a VESTED INTEREST to do more than what you see as "intent".

If not, they could have easily had the bill written clearly.

They prefer no bill at all instead of a bill that limits them to what you believe is their "intent".

If the "intent" you believe they have is truly their "intent", they would have spent $10K to have the bill written clearly and made into a law. They could have put this problem to bed many years ago and saved your colleagues' jobs. They want more than you understand.

Not spending $10K to clarify the language in the bill was a PROACTIVE move.

While that might be true, that's not how I interpreted it. It seemed pretty clear to me.

I don't know. I hope that you're wrong. I might have let my emotions cloud my judgement but I'm usually pretty good at being logical.

 

[robbomango]

Mediots seem to be okay with having there work shared.

I like Rapoport and Reiss but man are these two in a tweeting competition? one every 3 minutes it seems.

 

[rojo8401]

So isn't it just a matter of not getting paid but being super greedy.

CBS makes money off of the ads shown on TV during a football game. Lets say illegal evil pirate takes that broad cast and places that content on the internet so people who can't watch it via regular means can see it. Everyone still sees all the TV commericials but evil pirate makes some money on the banner ad.

Instead of shutting down the evil pirate CBS should just tell the folks it sells air time to of all the additional people who see their ads and price air time accordingly.

Look, your point is valid. If a site shows a pats game with commercials then the network should be content. I agree with you on this specific case.

If they don't show the commercials and have banner ads, that's when it becomes problematic.

 

[PATSNUTme]

From what I've been reading today, many Senators including some sposors of the bill are backing away from it. I can't get a head count to see if there is enough of them backing away to kill the bill.

Like most other bills the senators or congress people who vote on the bill, don't read them. If they do read them they don't understand all the bill and then ammedments are attached to the bill.

rojo says he hasn't seen the bill for 6 months. I would bet that it looks different now than it did 6 months ago. Just a wild guess on my part based on other bills that have started out with "good intentions" and then ended up being a horror show for many.

The best thing they can do is kill this bill and start over.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Look, your point is valid. If a site shows a pats game with commercials then the network should be content. I agree with you on this specific case.

If they don't show the commercials and have banner ads, that's when it becomes problematic.

So CBS could solve the problem pretty easy. Just put all their content on the website with the ads and their own banner ads. And profit off of both.

If they did almost nobody would go looking for a pirated version, certainly not enough people to make the piracy a viable business model.

 

[Joker]

heh...everybody has seen this movie before...by the time any anti-piracy bill gets to the floor there'll be a hundred additional riders like funding for that highway to nowhere in Alaska....and yes, I'm a cynic...former idealist...decades of playing Bambi to the corporate Godzillas has made me this way

 

[Dessalines]

Don't care....

I suppose this is a big deal for people who spend all their time on a computer. I hate to say this but people who spend all their time on a computer need to get something else to do, at least part time.

You are all already screwed anyway in this regard if you have, and use a credit card, an automatic toll paying system, a cell phone, a GPS device and yes, a computer. You are all okay with Facebook collecting and selling reams of data about you to the highest bidder but not the government. The difference is.... What? Is Mark Zuckerberg really just a grandfatherly good guy? No he's not. Was Steve Jobs really the second coming a Christ? No, he was business man and he destroyed as much as he created. Still we worship Jobs almost as a Saint.

There is little doubt that this legislation is not driven by a desire to spy on you or some such stupid shiite but rather that it is driven by the same corporate, wealthy interests that drive everything else. Wake up, everything which comes to your computer is not always the truth but what is always true is that whatever it is has an agenda. Even those who are leading this effort against these bills, which I would oppose on principle, have an agenda. They too are making money in this environment and they want to continue to do business as they have been doing. Its about money, not freedom.

 

[rojo8401]

So CBS could solve the problem pretty easy. Just put all their content on the website with the ads and their own banner ads. And profit off of both.

If they did almost nobody would go looking for a pirated version, certainly not enough people to make the piracy a viable business model.

In a perfect world... I think DirectTv and others (NFL) would have some issues with that distribution model though.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

In a perfect world... I think DirectTv and others (NFL) would have some issues with that distribution model though.

Exactly the problem isn't they aren't being paid. The matter is they want to be exploitive in the process.

TV worked on a very sucessful revenue model of free content paid for by advertising from its birth until cable.

Now TV not only want the advertising revenue but also to charge for the content as well.

My opinion is you can have one or the other. It is okay to charge for HBO, Showtime or other commerical free content. Or to have commericals in your content such as football game. When you start doing what the NFLN does of demanding both, you are just being overly greedy.

 

[Joker]

you are just being overly greedy.

the REAL national pastime

 

[TheComeback]

Don't care....

I suppose this is a big deal for people who spend all their time on a computer. I hate to say this but people who spend all their time on a computer need to get something else to do, at least part time.

You are all already screwed anyway in this regard if you have, and use a credit card, an automatic toll paying system, a cell phone, a GPS device and yes, a computer. You are all okay with Facebook collecting and selling reams of data about you to the highest bidder but not the government. The difference is.... What? Is Mark Zuckerberg really just a grandfatherly good guy? No he's not. Was Steve Jobs really the second coming a Christ? No, he was business man and he destroyed as much as he created. Still we worship Jobs almost as a Saint.

There is little doubt that this legislation is not driven by a desire to spy on you or some such stupid shiite but rather that it is driven by the same corporate, wealthy interests that drive everything else. Wake up, everything which comes to your computer is not always the truth but what is always true is that whatever it is has an agenda. Even those who are leading this effort against these bills, which I would oppose on principle, have an agenda. They too are making money in this environment and they want to continue to do business as they have been doing. Its about money, not freedom.

Wow, you've clearly spent no time at all reading about this issue. Please stop sharing your useless and utterly uneducated opinion with us.

And while you're at it, don't vote, either.