Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA

[Uncensored2008]

The DRM protection on consoles is not a problem for pirates,

And piracy is on the rise with consoles.

the reason more people are not buying PC games is they aren't worth the money,

So The Witcher 2 isn't worth $39.95 on the PC but it is worth $69.95 on Xbox?

That makes no sense.

so the common person prefers to play the game free rather than pay for it.

People will ofter steal if they think they can get away with it.

Ever play a game on a cheap computer? Gaming PCs cost thousands, and how much does an XBox cost again?

The cheap computer listed is more powerful than the Xbox 360, that's why I listed it. Plus games are cheaper.

I doubt most businesses will migrate to the cloud. I got my hands on a Chromebook, and it was great, until the router went down and it turned into a paperweight. PCs still have a use. I have most of my stuff online, and still use my computer offline.

I think Saleforce.com would beg to differ on companies moving to the cloud.

But as I said, the cloud isn't viable because internet speed isn't up to the task. Not yet, anyway. In another decade, it will be.

The cloud is inevitable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think Saleforce.com would beg to differ on companies moving to the cloud.

But as I said, the cloud isn't viable because internet speed isn't up to the task. Not yet, anyway. In another decade, it will be.

The cloud is inevitable.

I am sure they would. Would you like a list of various companies that knew they had an inside track on the next big thing?

 

[Montrovant]

Cevat is a fool, if it destroyed the genre why can I still find top quality PC games? Why is NVIDIA projecting that PC games will outsell console games 2 years?

You CAN'T find top quality PC games. You can find console ports. Crysis 2 was utter shit compared to Crysis - dumbed down and low res. Yes, the DX11 and texture pack helped, but the game is still a rail based mess designed for the low specs of the 360.

You'll probably never see anything like the massive, open worlds of Crysis again.

PC's have been the #1 platform for games for decades. No console touches World of Warcraft. The #1 played game in the USA is Farmville - which doesn't play on Xbox. Of course neither of those are the triple A titles you and I want to play.

Modern Warfare 3 has sold more copies on PC than any given console - still, it was developed for the console and ported to the PC, with DX9 and low res textures.

I do blame piracy for this.

The collapse of Crysis had nothing to do with piracy, that was just an excuse for bad management.

Crytek claims that was exactly the reason for switching to consoles.

If stores put there registers at the back and all the stuff they sell in the parking lot, then demanded that the government mandated that everyone park in the store, even if they can't get the cars through the door, would you think they had a right to complain, or would you tell them that they need to adapt to the way people shop?

I am much better at reductio ad absurdum than you are at strawmen, I would suggest you just stick to facts, if you have them.

Dude, I listed the facts from the horses mouth. Developers write software to make money. When you steal the software, they don't make money and have no incentive to write more. That's what happened to PC gaming.

I'm curious what you are saying here. MW3 some more pc units than console units? MW3 sold more pc units than people have bought consoles? From what I've seen, the huge majority of MW3 sales have been console; on the first day, when they sold over 9 million copies, only 4% were a combination of pc and wii Modern Warfare 3 Sells 9.3 Million Copies First Day! | Call of Duty Centre.

Maybe I'm confused as to your point.

 

[PixieStix]

BBC News - Megaupload file-sharing site shut down

 

[Photonic]

Cevat is a fool, if it destroyed the genre why can I still find top quality PC games? Why is NVIDIA projecting that PC games will outsell console games 2 years?

You CAN'T find top quality PC games. You can find console ports. Crysis 2 was utter shit compared to Crysis - dumbed down and low res. Yes, the DX11 and texture pack helped, but the game is still a rail based mess designed for the low specs of the 360.

You'll probably never see anything like the massive, open worlds of Crysis again.

PC's have been the #1 platform for games for decades. No console touches World of Warcraft. The #1 played game in the USA is Farmville - which doesn't play on Xbox. Of course neither of those are the triple A titles you and I want to play.

Modern Warfare 3 has sold more copies on PC than any given console - still, it was developed for the console and ported to the PC, with DX9 and low res textures.

I do blame piracy for this.



Crytek claims that was exactly the reason for switching to consoles.

If stores put there registers at the back and all the stuff they sell in the parking lot, then demanded that the government mandated that everyone park in the store, even if they can't get the cars through the door, would you think they had a right to complain, or would you tell them that they need to adapt to the way people shop?

I am much better at reductio ad absurdum than you are at strawmen, I would suggest you just stick to facts, if you have them.

Dude, I listed the facts from the horses mouth. Developers write software to make money. When you steal the software, they don't make money and have no incentive to write more. That's what happened to PC gaming.

I'm curious what you are saying here. MW3 some more pc units than console units? MW3 sold more pc units than people have bought consoles? From what I've seen, the huge majority of MW3 sales have been console; on the first day, when they sold over 9 million copies, only 4% were a combination of pc and wii Modern Warfare 3 Sells 9.3 Million Copies First Day! | Call of Duty Centre.

Maybe I'm confused as to your point.

How do you answer the statistic that pirates are the single greatest consumer of those same goods that they pirate?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The scene from Animal House is

It's short enough so he wouldn't have to worry about breaking copy-right laws under the fair use act. It's why you can use songs for a few seconds (or just loop those seconds) over and not have to worry about it.

Fair use act states:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

-it's clearly a short clip (3). One could also argue for #4 as it has no effect on the market place or the value of the work.

Seriously those who are so dead set against the copy-right laws should probably learn them first.

Movie studios do not care about fair use, and SOPA requires a site to comply with a take down or face criminal and civil action. Do you think the owners of a site would actually be willing to pay for a protracted legal fight or would they be more likely to just remove the content and go on happily about their business? I actually posted a Youtube video that was taken down because it "violated copyright" according to UMG, even though it is clearly fair use.

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

 

[Vast LWC]

Victory.

For now at least.

US Senate postpones Tuesday vote on PIPA

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has postponed a vote on the controversial Protect IP Act, scheduled for Tuesday, as a growing number of senators voice opposition to the copyright enforcement bill.

The lead sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act, a similar bill in the House of Representatives, said Friday the bill is tabled. "It's dead and not going anywhere," said a spokeswoman for Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican.

I guess those millions of phone calls and e-mails scared Congress enough to ignore all the bribes they've been getting.

 

[Photonic]

It's short enough so he wouldn't have to worry about breaking copy-right laws under the fair use act. It's why you can use songs for a few seconds (or just loop those seconds) over and not have to worry about it.

Fair use act states:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

-it's clearly a short clip (3). One could also argue for #4 as it has no effect on the market place or the value of the work.

Seriously those who are so dead set against the copy-right laws should probably learn them first.

Movie studios do not care about fair use, and SOPA requires a site to comply with a take down or face criminal and civil action. Do you think the owners of a site would actually be willing to pay for a protracted legal fight or would they be more likely to just remove the content and go on happily about their business? I actually posted a Youtube video that was taken down because it "violated copyright" according to UMG, even though it is clearly fair use.

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

No one wants to answer the fact that by the admission of the copyright companies, people who pirate the most, also happen to be the single largest spending group.

Admit it, it's a service problem. These Music and Television companies are stuck in the past and they want to drag the rest of the world down with them to keep their backwards ways.

Also, Hollywood? Hollywood was founded because they circumvented copyright law. Amazing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's short enough so he wouldn't have to worry about breaking copy-right laws under the fair use act. It's why you can use songs for a few seconds (or just loop those seconds) over and not have to worry about it.

Fair use act states:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

-it's clearly a short clip (3). One could also argue for #4 as it has no effect on the market place or the value of the work.

Seriously those who are so dead set against the copy-right laws should probably learn them first.

Movie studios do not care about fair use, and SOPA requires a site to comply with a take down or face criminal and civil action. Do you think the owners of a site would actually be willing to pay for a protracted legal fight or would they be more likely to just remove the content and go on happily about their business? I actually posted a Youtube video that was taken down because it "violated copyright" according to UMG, even though it is clearly fair use.

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

That was funny. Unfortunately for you, I have actual commentary from the lawyers that got the video back up. If it was Youtube that thought it was infringement why did they sue Universal?

YouTube then informed Lenz that it had removed the video from its website after Universal claimed that the recording infringed a copyright controlled by the music company. Under federal copyright law a mere allegation of copyright infringement can result in the removal of content from the Internet.

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

Go ahead, keep telling me I am crazy, I enjoy making people who think I do not know what I am talking about look like idiots. Even with current copyright law and DMCA safe harbors studios ignore copyright law and fair use in order to control the internet as much as possible, and SOPA would only make it worse. It has nothing to do with protecting their property unless you think corporations own artists.

As for the claims about job loss, lets see what the government accountants actually think about them.

According to experts and literature GAO reviewed, counterfeiting and piracy have produced a wide range of effects on consumers, industry, government, and the economy as a whole, depending on the type of infringements involved and other factors. Consumers are particularly likely to experience negative effects when they purchase counterfeit products they believe are genuine, such as pharmaceuticals. Negative effects on U.S. industry may include lost sales, lost brand value, and reduced incentives to innovate; however, industry effects vary widely among sectors and companies. The U.S. government may lose tax revenue, incur IP enforcement expenses, and face risks of counterfeits entering supply chains with national security or civilian safety implications. The U.S. economy as a whole may grow more slowly because of reduced innovation and loss of trade revenue. Some experts and literature also identified some potential positive effects of counterfeiting and piracy. Some consumers may knowingly purchase counterfeits that are less expensive than the genuine goods and experience positive effects (consumer surplus), although the longer-term impact is unclear due to reduced incentives for research and development, among other factors. Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies. Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of IP infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data. Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates. Each method has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts. Nonetheless, research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable, which is of particular concern as many U.S. industries are leaders in the creation of intellectual property.

U.S. GAO - Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods

Wow, even though they assume that the job loss exists, and is substantial, they admit that no study anywhere proves it.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Movie studios do not care about fair use, and SOPA requires a site to comply with a take down or face criminal and civil action. Do you think the owners of a site would actually be willing to pay for a protracted legal fight or would they be more likely to just remove the content and go on happily about their business? I actually posted a Youtube video that was taken down because it "violated copyright" according to UMG, even though it is clearly fair use.

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

That was funny. Unfortunately for you, I have actual commentary from the lawyers that got the video back up. If it was Youtube that thought it was infringement why did they sue Universal?

YouTube then informed Lenz that it had removed the video from its website after Universal claimed that the recording infringed a copyright controlled by the music company. Under federal copyright law a mere allegation of copyright infringement can result in the removal of content from the Internet.

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

Go ahead, keep telling me I am crazy, I enjoy making people who think I do not know what I am talking about look like idiots. Even with current copyright law and DMCA safe harbors studios ignore copyright law and fair use in order to control the internet as much as possible, and SOPA would only make it worse. It has nothing to do with protecting their property unless you think corporations own artists.

-Reading comprehension problem? I clearly said UMG told Youtube about the problem, and that YouTube made the decision to remove it from their Website.

-No I don't think Corporations own artists-but I do know they own the artist's songs the majority of the time.

As for the claims about job loss, lets see what the government accountants actually think about them.

According to experts and literature GAO reviewed, counterfeiting and piracy have produced a wide range of effects on consumers, industry, government, and the economy as a whole, depending on the type of infringements involved and other factors. Consumers are particularly likely to experience negative effects when they purchase counterfeit products they believe are genuine, such as pharmaceuticals. Negative effects on U.S. industry may include lost sales, lost brand value, and reduced incentives to innovate; however, industry effects vary widely among sectors and companies. The U.S. government may lose tax revenue, incur IP enforcement expenses, and face risks of counterfeits entering supply chains with national security or civilian safety implications. The U.S. economy as a whole may grow more slowly because of reduced innovation and loss of trade revenue. Some experts and literature also identified some potential positive effects of counterfeiting and piracy. Some consumers may knowingly purchase counterfeits that are less expensive than the genuine goods and experience positive effects (consumer surplus), although the longer-term impact is unclear due to reduced incentives for research and development, among other factors. Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies. Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of IP infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data. Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates. Each method has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts. Nonetheless, research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable, which is of particular concern as many U.S. industries are leaders in the creation of intellectual property.

U.S. GAO - Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods

Wow, even though they assume that the job loss exists, and is substantial, they admit that no study anywhere proves it.

.[/quote]

So if people buy less music because they're stealing what do you think happens to the record companies? Obviously they lose money (or at least don't make as much). So what do they have to do? Lay people off-or lower wages. Take the average person who works on a music album (not the producer/artist(s))...there's a lot more people than that. There's so many people who's jobs it is to make music records. The less they sell-the less profitable it becomes to make. So are you going to honestly say their salaries/jobs aren't compromised?

And you never answered my simple question:

If you ran a shoe business (random business), and found out that people were giving people your shoes for free all across the world-would you honestly be ok with that?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Movie studios do not care about fair use, and SOPA requires a site to comply with a take down or face criminal and civil action. Do you think the owners of a site would actually be willing to pay for a protracted legal fight or would they be more likely to just remove the content and go on happily about their business? I actually posted a Youtube video that was taken down because it "violated copyright" according to UMG, even though it is clearly fair use.

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

No one wants to answer the fact that by the admission of the copyright companies, people who pirate the most, also happen to be the single largest spending group.

Admit it, it's a service problem. These Music and Television companies are stuck in the past and they want to drag the rest of the world down with them to keep their backwards ways.

Also, Hollywood? Hollywood was founded because they circumvented copyright law. Amazing.

While they may not be moving into the future with their technology-let's be honest. Music is downloaded illegally because it's free, easy to access and is relatively low-risk. Notice they're going after people who purchase music from Itunes.

Even if they're not up with the times-doesn't justify stealing.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked above that's being ignored:

If you owned a business, and somebody starting to give away that same exact product for free around the world-what would you do about it?

 

[Steelplate]

Oh.... so you think only OWS types are pirating? Gimme a fucking break.

20% of software is pirated, the OWS Shitters are 1/10th of 1% of the population. Clear enough that they are not the universe of pirates. However, we can be sure that 99% of the software they had was stolen.

I worked in the industry and held my own PC business for a couple of years before deciding it wasn't worth it. You want to know WHO wanted software for nothing most? That's right... businesses.

Bullshit.

The #1 pirated piece of software in history is COD Modern Warfare 3, you figure business is lining up on IRC to download that.

MS office, Quickbooks, hell... one guy tried to tell me that I didn't enclose the Win 2000 Pro disc with his PC that I built him and wanted another one. When I told him we'll have to call Microsoft to get a replacement disc(because I certainly didn't have it), he spilled the beans to me that he was hoping that I'd just cave in and give him one of my other OEM copies so he'd have another license for nothing.

Yawn.

Even if what you claim is true, which is unlikely - in the time the fool spent with you, 30,000 copies were downloaded across IRC. Real software pirates don't beg some doofus in a strip mall for Office, they hit the Warez boards send the bots out to get what they want.

Games and shit yep... there are lots of people who do that... not just OWS guys. I find your premise flawed and bigoted.

Shitters are going to steal every time - you know that. It's the entitlement mentality, the belief that everyone owes them whatever they want. But Shitters alone don't account for the total problem.

Go fuck yourself, you miserable prick. Every word I posted is true. You just LOVE to blame you some poor college kids, don't you? Fuck you.. hey... let's have a peek at your hard drive asshole. How much stolen shit you got?

What you aren't getting is that he wanted the LICENSE. The disc is nothing. You aren't paying for the disc. You are paying for the license. the real license... not some hacked key generator that you have to update every other fucking month.

Shitters? Once again... go fuck yourself. Typical Conservative response... can't talk a decent game? Just accuse everyone else of lying and being a "shitter". You're nothing but a right wing propagandist's wet dream.... someone stupid enough to believe their bullshit... Typical day in Uncensored's world.... Listen to AM... Masturbate... go to work.... come home... watch Fox...drool. Repeat as necessary.

Then claim some moral superiority.

You know what pissed me off? Is that I DIDN'T Make this personal. I posted the truth and my experience... and you shit all over me and called me a fucking liar.

BTW... in case you didn't get it the first two times? Fuck off.

 

[Photonic]

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

No one wants to answer the fact that by the admission of the copyright companies, people who pirate the most, also happen to be the single largest spending group.

Admit it, it's a service problem. These Music and Television companies are stuck in the past and they want to drag the rest of the world down with them to keep their backwards ways.

Also, Hollywood? Hollywood was founded because they circumvented copyright law. Amazing.

While they may not be moving into the future with their technology-let's be honest. Music is downloaded illegally because it's free, easy to access and is relatively low-risk. Notice they're going after people who purchase music from Itunes.

Even if they're not up with the times-doesn't justify stealing.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked above that's being ignored:

If you owned a business, and somebody starting to give away that same exact product for free around the world-what would you do about it?

I would make it worth their while to buy the content instead of get it for free.


And again, this isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. Two separate laws, two separate punishments. They do not equate, and they do not overlap.

There has been a drive by big business to equate one with the other, but this is false.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

No one wants to answer the fact that by the admission of the copyright companies, people who pirate the most, also happen to be the single largest spending group.

Admit it, it's a service problem. These Music and Television companies are stuck in the past and they want to drag the rest of the world down with them to keep their backwards ways.

Also, Hollywood? Hollywood was founded because they circumvented copyright law. Amazing.

While they may not be moving into the future with their technology-let's be honest. Music is downloaded illegally because it's free, easy to access and is relatively low-risk. Notice they're going after people who purchase music from Itunes.

Even if they're not up with the times-doesn't justify stealing.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked above that's being ignored:

If you owned a business, and somebody starting to give away that same exact product for free around the world-what would you do about it?

I would make it worth their while to buy the content instead of get it for free.


And again, this isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. Two separate laws, two separate punishments. They do not equate, and they do not overlap.

There has been a drive by big business to equate one with the other, but this is false.

Copy right infringement is a form of stealing. You're stealing copy-righted material. What is so hard to understand about that?

And honestly the record companies already offer people the same exact product they illegally download...because there are ways to legally download music. People still do it because it's free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reading comprehension problem? I clearly said UMG told Youtube about the problem, and that YouTube made the decision to remove it from their Website.

That is not how Youtube take downs work. Youtube complies with the take down, according to the law, and sends a notice to the original poster of why the takedown occurred. That poster, if he chooses, can then challenge the take down by giving his real name and contact information, which would allow the company to directly sue the poster for infringement. Do you honestly think the average poster, given a choice between living without a video they posted and opening themselves up to the complexity of copyright law will send a DMCA counter notice?

Aren't you the guy that tried to be snarky by posting fair use and arguing I should learn the law before I comment on it?

No I don't think Corporations own artists-but I do know they own the artist's songs the majority of the time.

Artists disagree.

So if people buy less music because they're stealing what do you think happens to the record companies? Obviously they lose money (or at least don't make as much). So what do they have to do? Lay people off-or lower wages. Take the average person who works on a music album (not the producer/artist(s))...there's a lot more people than that. There's so many people who's jobs it is to make music records. The less they sell-the less profitable it becomes to make. So are you going to honestly say their salaries/jobs aren't compromised?

Did people buy less music because they could listen to it over the radio? Did people buy even less music when they could record songs off the radio onto cassette tapes? The music industry opposed those technological innovations also. In fact, they even opposed the record player.

By the way, most of the people who work on albums get paid up front, they don't get paid off of sales. As a matter of fact, technology has improved so much that it is possible for a new musician to do all the studio work on a computer, eliminating all those people you are worried about from the equation from the beginning. The jobs you are whinging about are the ones that are going to be eliminated in the long term anyway. Should artists be forced to sign with labels and use studios simply to protect jobs that are outdated? Do you think we should also go back and mandate that people buy buggy whips?

And you never answered my simple question:

If you ran a shoe business (random business), and found out that people were giving people your shoes for free all across the world-would you honestly be ok with that?

That depends, are they buying them in the first place, making cheap knockoffs, or outright stealing them?

Are you aware that copyright is actually defined in the Constitution of the United States of America, and that it has a specific, and narrowly defined, purpose?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Youtube chose to remove your video because they felt it violated copy-right law. UMG doesn't have the ability to remove it themselves. They obviously saw your video, reported it to Youtube and Youtube decided to remove it. Are you going to say that Youtube shouldn't be able to police the content on their own Website?

To say that this is about the music and movie industries running the Internet is crazy. It's about them protecting their PROPERTY. I guarantee if you owned a business and somebody stole all of your products and were handing them out for free all across the country-you'd be pissed off.

Now I think SOPA goes a little bit too far-and you wont be able to find a single post of mine on this board saying that I support SOPA. But something does need to be done. Online piracy is causing thousands and thousands of people to lose jobs.

No one wants to answer the fact that by the admission of the copyright companies, people who pirate the most, also happen to be the single largest spending group.

Admit it, it's a service problem. These Music and Television companies are stuck in the past and they want to drag the rest of the world down with them to keep their backwards ways.

Also, Hollywood? Hollywood was founded because they circumvented copyright law. Amazing.

While they may not be moving into the future with their technology-let's be honest. Music is downloaded illegally because it's free, easy to access and is relatively low-risk. Notice they're going after people who purchase music from Itunes.

Even if they're not up with the times-doesn't justify stealing.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked above that's being ignored:

If you owned a business, and somebody starting to give away that same exact product for free around the world-what would you do about it?

Me giving a song to a friend is not stealing. Are you aware that, if you buy a CD, rip it to your computer, and then throw the CD away, you are stealing if you don't delete the songs from your computer? Do you think that makes sense?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Reading comprehension problem? I clearly said UMG told Youtube about the problem, and that YouTube made the decision to remove it from their Website.

That is not how Youtube take downs work. Youtube complies with the take down, according to the law, and sends a notice to the original poster of why the takedown occurred. That poster, if he chooses, can then challenge the take down by giving his real name and contact information, which would allow the company to directly sue the poster for infringement. Do you honestly think the average poster, given a choice between living without a video they posted and opening themselves up to the complexity of copyright law will send a DMCA counter notice?

Aren't you the guy that tried to be snarky by posting fair use and arguing I should learn the law before I comment on it?

No I don't think Corporations own artists-but I do know they own the artist's songs the majority of the time.

Artists disagree.

No they don't. The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs. That's a fact. Artists make not like it-but that doesn't mean the labels don't own rights to the songs.

So if people buy less music because they're stealing what do you think happens to the record companies? Obviously they lose money (or at least don't make as much). So what do they have to do? Lay people off-or lower wages. Take the average person who works on a music album (not the producer/artist(s))...there's a lot more people than that. There's so many people who's jobs it is to make music records. The less they sell-the less profitable it becomes to make. So are you going to honestly say their salaries/jobs aren't compromised?

Did people buy less music because they could listen to it over the radio? Did people buy even less music when they could record songs off the radio onto cassette tapes? The music industry opposed those technological innovations also. In fact, they even opposed the record player.

-The radio plays songs once, you don't have the option of hearing it over and over again, you can't listen to it when you feel like it, and you only here released singles (not entire albums).

-Recording a song via radio isn't going to be as good quality as it is off of a CD...whereas illegal downloading is.

Comparing the two things listed above to illegally downloaded music just doesn't hold water, because they're very different.

Finally, there's a difference between recording a song over the radio for your personal use and maybe the use of a few friends, and accessing it to millions of people. One is small scale-one is large scale.

By the way, most of the people who work on albums get paid up front, they don't get paid off of sales. As a matter of fact, technology has improved so much that it is possible for a new musician to do all the studio work on a computer, eliminating all those people you are worried about from the equation from the beginning. The jobs you are whinging about are the ones that are going to be eliminated in the long term anyway. Should artists be forced to sign with labels and use studios simply to protect jobs that are outdated? Do you think we should also go back and mandate that people buy buggy whips?

Artists rarely go into a studio with just a computer and record an album. Have you ever recorded anything before? I have a mini-recording studio in my house, set up with pro-tools where I record (just for fun mind you). It takes a lot of training to be able to record, mix, master, etc. a record. And if artists want to they can buy their own recording studios and record there (many do)-and they still hire people to help record. Not to mention artists sign with record labels for many reasons-the record label forks over a lot of money for them to record (recording at a studio is VERY expensive-even local smaller ones), market the band, get their information out for them, etc. Labels do much more than just record and release a record.

As a side note your idea that just because employees get paid before recording an album...what's your point? Are you going to say that if a product sells less than before that wages aren't going to shrink?

And you never answered my simple question:

If you ran a shoe business (random business), and found out that people were giving people your shoes for free all across the world-would you honestly be ok with that?

That depends, are they buying them in the first place, making cheap knockoffs, or outright stealing them?

Are you aware that copyright is actually defined in the Constitution of the United States of America, and that it has a specific, and narrowly defined, purpose?[/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of that, it states:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So if you're citing the constitution that says they should have exclusive rights to their ideas....then you say oh no it's ok to illegally download it? That makes no sense.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

No one wants to answer the fact that by the admission of the copyright companies, people who pirate the most, also happen to be the single largest spending group.

Admit it, it's a service problem. These Music and Television companies are stuck in the past and they want to drag the rest of the world down with them to keep their backwards ways.

Also, Hollywood? Hollywood was founded because they circumvented copyright law. Amazing.

While they may not be moving into the future with their technology-let's be honest. Music is downloaded illegally because it's free, easy to access and is relatively low-risk. Notice they're going after people who purchase music from Itunes.

Even if they're not up with the times-doesn't justify stealing.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked above that's being ignored:

If you owned a business, and somebody starting to give away that same exact product for free around the world-what would you do about it?

Me giving a song to a friend is not stealing. Are you aware that, if you buy a CD, rip it to your computer, and then throw the CD away, you are stealing if you don't delete the songs from your computer? Do you think that makes sense?

You giving your CD to your friend is not stealing. You burning or ripping your CD and giving that to your friend is.

edit: Just like giving a friend a Nike shirt isn't stealing. But you making an exact replica of it for yourself and giving a copy to your friend is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No they don't. The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs. That's a fact. Artists make not like it-but that doesn't mean the labels don't own rights to the songs.

Funny.

When UMG issued a takedown of Megaupload's video because it had some stuff will.i.am specifically wrote for the video, and than sang, will.i.am insisted that he owned the rights to stuff he wrote, and that it was used with his permission.

Want to try again?

Artists rarely go into a studio with just a computer and record an album. It takes a lot of training to be able to record, mix, master, etc. a record. And if artists want to they can buy their own recording studios and record there (many do)-and they still hire people to help record. Not to mention artists sign with record labels for many reasons-the record label forks over a lot of money for them to record (recording at a studio is VERY expensive-even local smaller ones), market the band, get their information out for them, etc. Labels do much more than just record and release a record.

Funny, I don't recall saying they did. I pointed out that new technology is reducing the need for studios.

I'm well aware of that, it states:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So if you're citing the constitution that says they should have exclusive rights to their ideas....then you say oh no it's ok to illegally download it? That makes no sense.

Why is me pointing out that downloading songs does not equal lost jobs a defense of doing something illegal? There are artists out there that base their entire business model on letting their fans download their songs without paying for them, yet they are still making money.

My position throughout this thread is that the industry needs to adapt to new technology, not force people to live in the stone age. One is innovation, which, as you pointed out, is why copyright exists. The other is going backward.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While they may not be moving into the future with their technology-let's be honest. Music is downloaded illegally because it's free, easy to access and is relatively low-risk. Notice they're going after people who purchase music from Itunes.

Even if they're not up with the times-doesn't justify stealing.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked above that's being ignored:

If you owned a business, and somebody starting to give away that same exact product for free around the world-what would you do about it?

Me giving a song to a friend is not stealing. Are you aware that, if you buy a CD, rip it to your computer, and then throw the CD away, you are stealing if you don't delete the songs from your computer? Do you think that makes sense?

You giving your CD to your friend is not stealing. You burning or ripping your CD and giving that to your friend is.

Why?