Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I guess you missed my point.
I'm saying it's the high prices that lead to piracy, not the other way around.
With CDs that's not true. In 2000 (right about the time the piracy boom first started to take off) CD prices were $14.02 on average according to the RIAA. Prices are about the same as they are now. And even if the prices lead to piracy-tough luck. If you can't afford a Merecedes-you can't go out and steal one.
People justify stealing music to themselves because it's "art", and the people should be in it "for the right reasons". Which is a bunch of crap.
You're entitled to your opinion.
IMO surrendering obscene power to police the flow of information to Government Inc., under the guise of preserving a dying relic of a marketplace, is pure folly.
Occupy Wikipedias' Site!
Hey, someone had to say it....
I think the big issue that the proponents of this law are concerned about are MOVIES and MUSIC. They don't give a shit about photographs and written text.
If that is the case, then why don't they work with programmers to create better digital safeguards so that piracy becomes impossible?
I think the big issue that the proponents of this law are concerned about are MOVIES and MUSIC. They don't give a shit about photographs and written text.
If that is the case, then why don't they work with programmers to create better digital safeguards so that piracy becomes impossible?
If they did that, then people who pirate would simply find another way around them.
From: SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters - Jan. 17, 2012
Isn't copyright infringement already illegal?Yes. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out enforcement measures.
Let's say a YouTube user uploads a copyrighted song. Under the current law, that song's copyright holders could send a "takedown notice" to YouTube. YouTube is protected against liability as long as it removes the content within a reasonable timeframe.
When it gets a DMCA warning, YouTube has to notify the user who uploaded the content. That user has the right to file a counter-motion demonstrating that the content doesn't infringe on any copyrights. If the two sides keep disagreeing, the issue can go to court.
The problem with DMCA, critics say, is that it's useless against overseas sites.SOPA tackles that by moving up the chain. If you can't force overseas sites to take down copyrighted work, you can at least stop U.S. companies from providing their services to those sites. You can also make it harder for U.S. Internet users to find and access the sites.
But SOPA goes further than DMCA and potentially puts site operators on the hook for content their users upload. A site could be deemed a SOPA scofflaw if it takes "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that its service will be used for copyright infringement. That kind of swampy language has tech companies spooked."Deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that it's service will be used for copyright infringement...that means that USMB would have to take the necessary actions to ENSURE that there was no copyright infringement.
Probably, all avatars and sigs would have to be authorized by staff so that infringements like The T's Mel Gibson avatar would not be used. We would not be able to post any images without authorization. Probably all links would have to be scrutinized.
And if USMB did not have these safeguards in place, they would be liable.
[FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I could see some major trouble with this law.[/FONT]
They wont go near this post. In their quest for more government power and oversight, they literally hurt themselves. This is just sad that they dont get it.
I didn't see another thread about this, so I thought I'd start one.
Wikipedia, and a number of other popular websites will black out tomorrow in protest of SOPA and PIPA.
Thoughts?
From: SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters - Jan. 17, 2012
"Deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that it's service will be used for copyright infringement...that means that USMB would have to take the necessary actions to ENSURE that there was no copyright infringement.
Probably, all avatars and sigs would have to be authorized by staff so that infringements like The T's Mel Gibson avatar would not be used. We would not be able to post any images without authorization. Probably all links would have to be scrutinized.
And if USMB did not have these safeguards in place, they would be liable.
[FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I could see some major trouble with this law.[/FONT]
They wont go near this post. In their quest for more government power and oversight, they literally hurt themselves. This is just sad that they dont get it.
This law will result in the US Government dictating the way USMB, a private company, is run. If that's what the majority of people want, in order to protect the movie and music industry, then so be it.
Wow, you right-wing types seriously support SOPA? Seriously?
Well, I guess you can just shut the fuck up about how you disagree with "Government Regulation" right now.
From this point on, anytime I see anyone who's supporting SOPA in this thread say ANYTHING negative about government regulation, I'm just going to link quotes from this thread.
Apparently, you're all in full support of government regulation when it benefits the corporations.
Thanks for showing us all that the Libertarian front you all put up is just a bunch of bullshit.
And that you're all a bunch of corporate shills.
IT IS ANTI-freedom and against the consitution! Impeachments and removals should be had if they pass this anti-freeom bill!
You are not free to steal what belongs to someone else.
This is really just a "No-Brainer".
People on the left are against this because of "Freedom of Speech" issues.
And people on the right are against this because of "Free Market" issues.
The only people that seem to be for this bill are most of Congress (because of the bribes), a bunch of media-related corporations who stand to profit from it, and apparently, some people that need to educate themselves.
This is really just a "No-Brainer".
People on the left are against this because of "Freedom of Speech" issues.
And people on the right are against this because of "Free Market" issues.
The only people that seem to be for this bill are most of Congress (because of the bribes), a bunch of media-related corporations who stand to profit from it, and apparently, some people that need to educate themselves.
This is really just a "No-Brainer".
People on the left are against this because of "Freedom of Speech" issues.
And people on the right are against this because of "Free Market" issues.
The only people that seem to be for this bill are most of Congress (because of the bribes), a bunch of media-related corporations who stand to profit from it, and apparently, some people that need to educate themselves.
I am on the right, but I oppose it because of the free speech issues as well as the free market issues. I think, I don't just react. It will effect both left ,right and middle, dumb, smart and indifference. It should be a bipartisan oppsition.
If people will stop taking sides long enough we may be able to stop some of this anti freedom legislation
This is really just a "No-Brainer".
People on the left are against this because of "Freedom of Speech" issues.
And people on the right are against this because of "Free Market" issues.
The only people that seem to be for this bill are most of Congress (because of the bribes), a bunch of media-related corporations who stand to profit from it, and apparently, some people that need to educate themselves.
I am on the right, but I oppose it because of the free speech issues as well as the free market issues. I think, I don't just react. It will effect both left ,right and middle, dumb, smart and indifference. It should be a bipartisan oppsition.
If people will stop taking sides long enough we may be able to stop some of this anti freedom legislation
Don't forget about PIPA though, it's just a slightly watered down version they will attempt to pass should SOPA fail.
It's an old trick, introduce a bill that would effectively end the american way of life, and then when it fails offer a version that seems almost like a fairy tale in comparison.
They are both despicable and they both need to be crushed.
I think it's a perfectly appropriate protest, both in terms of the means (shutting down their site) and the ends (defeating SOPA/PIPA).
Even though I use Wikipedia multiple times a day, I don't expect to be too inconvenienced. I expect to be able to get by with the cached and non-English versions of their articles.
