-
abc33kr wrote on 2012-01-21 09:06
Quote from Yoorah;743747:
Calling the workers who produce the goods capitalist pigs? Good job. But I suppose that since you aren't even from the US, with your country not producing the goods in question, you'd have no relation and wouldn't care or understand either way.
While I think that trying to link every pirated product to a lost sale is stupid, it is just as stupid to assume that piracy doesn't hurt the industry.
Hard-working people who build a product should have the freedom to price the product how they see fit, without fear of some assholes pirating it 'cause they think it's not worth the price, or whatever other stupid reason they come up with. These people should also expect the government to be able to defend their works from pirates, just like physical goods, which the government currently cannot do in many cases. Hence, new laws are needed.
Responding to common sense with stuff like "Thats, by far, the worst logic i ever heard in my whole life." is pretty silly.
Overpriced goods->overwhelming amount of theft that even the government can't handle.
That has been true from the beginning of humanity.
Unless the government passes a bill that taxes people to buy overpriced movies/games, the sales for these entertainment companies won't rise.
-
Kueh wrote on 2012-01-21 09:09
"The Protect IP Act does nothing more than make it possible for the U.S. government to handle illegal foreign websites in the same manner it can already do -- and has been doing -- with illegal sites."
Oh really? Why pass it then, if it's so redundant?
-
Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-21 10:21
Quote from Cheerios;743785:
I didn't said piracy doesn't hurt the industry, obviously it does, not everyone that downloads a movie or a game or a song is going to buy it next. Though its not only piracy that is making these industries sales plummet, look for example the movie and music industry.
It's been proven by statistics and studies that video games are winning against Hollywood. They need to just admit their defeat, im pretty sure they have employees that make these studies for them and keep them informed of what people want, they know well everyone rather pay for a game rather than a 1 and 1/2 hour crappy movie, however the CEOs of these companies rather blame piracy of their low sales than admit they're being repetitive and unoriginal. You aren't seeing companies like valve complaining "portal 2 sales sucked thanks to piracy" now are you?
Imo, movie companies are losing their touch, most movies all look the same, have the same plot, end the same way come either from popular books/games/comics people are tired and tired of seeing. Everyone is just tired of the current unoriginality and just decide to bolster some more money and get a game instead to have more fun (even though i have to admit, 60 bucks for a game is starting to become a theft).
About the music. Just look at the top artists these days, theres even artists that don't compose their own songs, they just sing stuff composed by other people and that were great hits on the past
tl;dr movies suck these days, people wont buy them, CEOs use piracy as scapegoat for their own incompetence
That's a good point. And I certainly wouldn't be against increasing competition from different forms of multimedia.
The problem is when the competition comes from things like torrent sites, which, if hosted overseas, the government cannot currently do anything about.
Quote from Lyre;743795:
"The Protect IP Act does nothing more than make it possible for the U.S. government to handle illegal foreign websites in the same manner it can already do -- and has been doing -- with illegal sites."
Oh really? Why pass it then, if it's so redundant?
Re-read what you quoted. :P
They want the gov to have the ability to handle foreign sites.
-
Kollin wrote on 2012-01-21 10:35
Quote from Yoorah;743876:
Re-read what you quoted. :P
They want the gov to have the ability to handle foreign sites.
I would be fine with that, if that is actually what this bill specifically outlined.
-
paladin wrote on 2012-01-21 10:36
If this bill really does give the us gov power to attack forigen sites oh dear
Half the world already hates us
What will happen when the us gov blunders their websites
-
abc33kr wrote on 2012-01-21 10:44
Quote from paladin;743887:
If this bill really does give the us gov power to attack forigen sites oh dear
Half the world already hates us
What will happen when the us gov blunders their websites
afaik, government just blocks foreign websites so that US residents cannot view those sites?
-
Xemnas wrote on 2012-01-21 10:47
Quote from abc33kr;743894:
afaik, government just blocks foreign websites so that US residents cannot view those sites?
It's like I'm really living in China!
-
Yoorah wrote on 2012-01-21 11:13
Quote from abc33kr;743894:
afaik, government just blocks foreign websites so that US residents cannot view those sites?
They also take away those sites' revenue sources (such as ads) and take them off search engines.
Google is mostly pissed 'cause it's an extra hassle for them.
-
Ninjam wrote on 2012-01-21 13:10
I think its entirely stupid because of many reasons. The main is that this isnt solveing anything. Its a stupid way to think that just blocking us from seeing those sites are making them go away. Its like iono doing a trade embargo. Sure, were taking away revenue and funding and making it so they cant do buisness with us, but at the same time were not only pissing them off, but there are going to be things slipping through anyway and its going to make us look like assholes.
While piracy can result in lost sales, i think those people are just living in the past. There are lots of sites that i know of that run purely off ad revenue or membership fees which apparently work just fine. For example, something like those video sites that make you watch a few ads before you view them. They make money off the ads, and i get to see a movie/show. Ill admit im not the most informed person, but things like steam and Hulu? would be the things i would pay for. If i see something i like, thats available at the price i want and is of good quality, i buy/watch it. Pirate movie sites are unstable, downloading them takes up harddrive space that i would rather not lose, and cracking the games and stuff takes too long. If its easier to just buy, like through steam or something, i buy it. I have seen the same reaction from most of my class. I first pirated minecraft when i first got into it. I told my friends about it, and 2 of them pirated it, the rest bought it because it was easier to use and they wanted to play online.
Instead of throwing a fit about how the information sharing age is killing there buisness they should adapt. There are lots of ways to convince people the real deal is better than the pirate. Start with network play, like minecraft or something. Without the real version no official servers for you. Or use a server that requires you to validate your copy to play online. Pirates get essentially a free trial singleplayer, then those that actually want it will pay for the online services. For movies and artwork, as far as i can see artwork is easier if you can sell it on commission? Or contract with a group that wants to use your artwork. And movies can get ad revenue, stick an ad at the start, finish, and midway point. Dont overload it with ads or it drives away people, but those 3 places like in regular television would be fine to me. The advantage to this one is that it will always be there, on a stable site that easy to navigate and professional.
hmm, typed a wall there.
TL:DR they should stop trying to eradicate piracy, its the future. Work with piracy instead. The free internet gives you way more room to work and be creative, without being held back.
-
TA wrote on 2012-01-21 19:03
Quote from Yoorah;743653:
That goes both ways. More so for your side than theirs.
No Yoorah, you're wrong.
There's a reason there was such fierce opposition to these bills.
So you give them all this power, and then what? Just naively expect them not to abuse it?
Really?
It's times like this I'm glad you're a Canadian.
:fail3:
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2012-01-21 19:42
Quote from Yoorah;743605:
Nope, it had operations within the US.
They arrested oversea members. The founder was arrested by US feds in New Zealand.
Their US servers were very small and they were primarily located in China.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-01-21 19:49
Quote from Yoorah;743562:
Indeed. The problem lies in the various details. It could be a pretty good law if it was written better.
You mean if it was written less the way that it was supposed to be.
And either way, It might be
if it was so, but
it is not so, and therefore it is not a good law.
Quote from Yoorah;743934:
They also take away those sites' revenue sources (such as ads) and take them off search engines.
Google is mostly pissed 'cause it's an extra hassle for them.
Ad hominem.
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2012-01-24 00:46
Frankly if the US government can take down Megaupload and other sites of that for obeying the law and taking down offending material like good boys and girls. I highly doubt that SOPA will have any positive impact considering what bull**** they can do already.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2012-01-24 01:09
Okay let's give them SOPA. Let's also Stop piracy as close as we can to 100%. Let's remove online video streaming of all copyrighted content, even for trailers, or social media discussing/reblogging it because most of those discussions would be started by someone posting a video or photos.
Keep everything to DVD sales like it used to be, where they have 100% control over distribution, just the way they like it.
Let's see where their sales go.
-
Kouki wrote on 2012-01-24 07:36
There already are, and have been tools to protect peoples work... one is called DMCA...
I think if people want to protect against piracy/plagiarism, they need to simply report it to site admins or file DMCAs. It's their responsibility to take care of their works, and shouldn't lead to punishing every citizen, and potentially every internet user in the world.
When I started making and selling virtual content, I knew it had the risk of others reselling and ruining my profits, but I took the risk because I know that I can simply report or file DMCAs of anything that gets stolen from me. The last thing I would want to do is shut down the company or site that I post my work at in the first place.
Art is meant to be seen, and music is meant to be heard. If nobody can share any of this, there goes a majority of the artists' profits.
I also think it's stupid and very intrusive how the US government can have any say on what goes on with the internet in a foreign country(for example a site that is hosted in another country). It should be up to the host country to decide what happens to the site.
I can really start to imagine the US in the future as being like North Korea, where nobody is allowed internet except the government higher ups.