Will SOPA or PIPA Kill the internet Or CSR?

I hate to play the "slippery slope" card, but this is just the beginning. As is S.O.P. for those jackasses, it will be fed to us as something that is in our best interest. It is to protect us & its for our own good.

....."Really? You can't find anything more important to work on than this? Really?"

Once again I'm reminded of the fact that the only way we are allowed to "vote them out", is by replacing them with someone else. It seldom works out.
 
Censorship under the guise of another name is still censorship, this is just a start, a toe hold, remember the WWW in Internet addresses stands for "World Wide Web." So who do you think this "SOPA" and "PIPA" is going to apply to, certainly not the "WWW" unless other countries get extorted into applying it? Look at what China and the Middle East does regarding Internet activities.

"Fahrenheit 454" creep's closer each day.

Not I am also not for the violation of copyrights, but I do believe some other control might work better.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, Jim would be responsible for removing copyrighted works posted by users and if he missed some he could be shut down without notice. MM
 
Something has to be done and it has to have teeth. This country is being robbed of billions of dollars every year by thieves on the other side of the world. The entire music industry has been demolished, Hollywood has got a rope around it's neck. Software companies are being killed left and right. Books, art, photography... just about anything that has value and can be sent electronically is being stolen and re-sold or given away with the creator getting nothing with no recourse. The days of the wild west are over, like it or not. We are pretty much all guilty of doing this, whether you sent a song via email to a friend or maybe even stuck it in a video you made. Someone paid lots of money to make that and they didn't do it with the expectation of losing it. The economy of this country is becoming more and more "cyber" and if we don't protect it, then we will suffer. If someone broke into your house every day and stole stuff, what would you do?
 
Turtlesboat said:
Something has to be done and it has to have teeth. This country is being robbed of billions of dollars every year by thieves on the other side of the world. The entire music industry has been demolished, Hollywood has got a rope around it's neck. Software companies are being killed left and right. Books, art, photography... just about anything that has value and can be sent electronically is being stolen and re-sold or given away with the creator getting nothing with no recourse. The days of the wild west are over, like it or not. We are pretty much all guilty of doing this, whether you sent a song via email to a friend or maybe even stuck it in a video you made. Someone paid lots of money to make that and they didn't do it with the expectation of losing it. The economy of this country is becoming more and more "cyber" and if we don't protect it, then we will suffer. If someone broke into your house every day and stole stuff, what would you do?
Click to expand...

All true but the Fed can't be trusted either. They are willing to break into your home anytime they want to for the good of all. It's up to the author to protect their product....why the FBI. No other business gets that kind of free protection. JMHO, Mike.
 
Really? The FBI most definitely gives this kind of "free" protection to companies every day. They scour the streets looking to protect manufacturers from having their products pirated. Read the news, they are constantly busting Chinese knock offs all over the country. But is that Gucci bag more valuable than say Photoshop? If you made that Gucci bag and you saw someone selling a knock off on the street, what would you do? call the FBI. The problem with cyber crime is that we have ZERO jurisdiction over some snot nosed kid in Uzbekistan selling that stolen software to everyone in the world. Heck we probably couldn't find him if we did. So how does a company protect itself against this?
 
Good point Turtlesboat! No easy answer but the Fed will screw it up and screw us at the same time. Just let the Israelies handle it, Mike.
 
There is an easy answer, block those sites. And they better do it quick because there are thousands of business's that will fail this year alone. Image how many jobs just the movie industry alone supplies, software companies, music industry, television industry, book publishers, Photographers... Now trickle that down to stores that sell it, companies that supply it, trucks that deliver it, lunch shops that feed those employees at those stores etc... Do you think the US can sustain another HUGE wave of unemployment like manufacturing sustained? It's all preventable.
 
And it's just not stolen songs or movies or software. There are sites where people buy and sell your credit card info. Phishing sites looking for unsuspecting little old ladies to enter in their bank password so they can wipe them out. Nigerian scam sites. Do you know many billions of dollars are stolen like this? The least we can do is block them from selling it in our country, or not allowing a little old lady to accidentally go to a fake bank website.

Seriously, if the largest company in the world (Apple) can't fight it, what chance in hell does a new startup company with 2 guys in a garage have? There could never be a new Microsoft, or a new Apple.

Will we suffer, yep. For one we will no longer be able to freely share our collection of Jimmy Buffet songs with everyone we know. You can't send mom that ripped copy of Toy Story Two. You can't shoot your friend that cracked copy of photoshop you have. We will actually have to stop and think about how we might be steeling from someone. We grew up with a lawless internet. But just like it's against the law to go swipe 20 apples from a fruit stand and hand them out to your friends, it should be against the law to hand out stolen items on the internet.
 
But some of this is also a two way street, there should not be cameras on about every street corner, or along the highway taking my photos and using how some municipality may see fit as a revenue stream. Or to post images online, and I do not buy all of the 'In public" logic.

How about the sexing issues, and images posted, or does everything have to have some perceived dollar amount before there is to be any concern?

On another analogy what about requiring everyone to have direct deposits and then the banks imposing fees at their whim.

I suppose with today's optics one could stand on the sidewalk, zoom into some distance window call it being "In public" and post images on the web. Would they be what was often referred to as a "Peeping Tom?"

No some balance needs to be applied. and not all of this implied nonsense...but then again I suppose if a generation or two back, if basic personal responsibility was stressed a bit more it might of helped a miniscule amount, but probably not...we have become a "It's all about me society!"
 
Other than the scale of the pirating that is made possible by the vast reaches of the internet, how is this any different from when you borrowed your buddy's copy of The Kinks "Give The People What They Want" and made a cassette copy for your own listening pleasure (ie: with no intent to sell)? Was that pirating too? Not defending file sharing, but this is a question I've had for years, since the whole Napster controversy broke.
 
Actually it wasn't pirating. A certain percentage of blank cassette sales went to the record labels to cover their losses from copying. Also the cassette copy was inferior to the original so there was incentive to go buy the real deal because it sounded better. Also your reach was as far as you could walk carrying the music under your arm. Also it required a big outlay of cash to have the equipment to make the actual copies, that's why companies like Sony bought labels. So labels kind of let it slide because harm was minimized. with the internet, 1 person can distribute millions of copies overnight around the world with a click of a mouse and it's the same quality as the original and there's no profit sharing like there was with cassettes and equipment.

You also have to understand that a pretty big percentage of the money made in the music industry was people replacing their collection every few years. Vinyl wore out, you left cassettes on dashboards and they melted so it wasn't uncommon for someone to buy the same album 3 times before they stopped listening to it all together. That doesn't happen anymore either. So now more than ever, the artist and label have to make their money on the initial sale or they will never break even.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense Turtle. Figured an explanation from an insider would shed light. It is basically the vastness of internet and the ease with which files can be distributed that prevent the recipient from buying the music. Just too easy to share so why buy?
 
Also in movie and music industries, 1% of the industry pays for all of those movies and cd's that don't sell enough to break even out of the gate. Sometimes it takes years and years for a CD or movie to break even or make money. You strip that profit away from movies like The Titanic or Madonna's CD and guess what, there's no money for Ruff Edges to have a chance of making a record. It's those huge success's that float the cash for smaller projects to get done. So while it looks like these make a ton of money and no one deserves that much money for playing guitar, it supports a whole industry employing tens of thousands of people, and it's made in the USA, or at least most of it is. The American People should be jumping for joy that we are at least attempting to protect our industries from collapsing due to theft.
 
As I see it few people support pirates, including those against this legislation. The powers given to the government in these bills is unprecedented. They also seem to infringe on legal rights owners currently have pertaining to "fair use" and personal copies.

AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act 1992) also put a tarrif on digital recording devices. If these restrictions are put in place consumers are being double charged, once when they buy devices and again when that cannot make personal copies. Another bummer in all this is artists get little of the tariff, it goes to the labels. MM

"Payment of royaltiesUnder the AHRA, importers and manufacturers pay royalties on "digital audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording media". Those who wish to import, manufacture and distribute must seek a statutory license from the Copyright Office. Royalties are based on "transfer price", either the sale price or the price recorded for customs purposes in the case of importers.
For digital audio recording devices, manufacturers and importers pay a 2% royalty on the device's transfer price, with a minimum royalty of $1 and a maximum of $8 ($12 for dual recorders) per device. For digital audio recording media, manufacturers and importers pay a 3% royalty."
 
MonacoMike said:
As I see it few people support pirates, including those against this legislation. The powers given to the government in these bills is unprecedented. They also seem to infringe on legal rights owners currently have pertaining to "fair use" and personal copies.

AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act 1992) also put a tarrif on digital recording devices. If these restrictions are put in place consumers are being double charged, once when they buy devices and again when that cannot make personal copies. Another bummer in all this is artists get little of the tariff, it goes to the labels. MM

"Payment of royaltiesUnder the AHRA, importers and manufacturers pay royalties on "digital audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording media". Those who wish to import, manufacture and distribute must seek a statutory license from the Copyright Office. Royalties are based on "transfer price", either the sale price or the price recorded for customs purposes in the case of importers.
For digital audio recording devices, manufacturers and importers pay a 2% royalty on the device's transfer price, with a minimum royalty of $1 and a maximum of $8 ($12 for dual recorders) per device. For digital audio recording media, manufacturers and importers pay a 3% royalty."
Click to expand...

Did you actually read this? What year was this written? This law is 20 years old and this was only for digital recordings. Before that there was a law on cassettes and VHS tapes and the equipment that recorded them. This has been around since the 70's. You just didn't know it because we didn't have the internet. The world doesn't work that way anymore. There are no longer dedicated devices for recording.
 
Last edited:
445903440_gun_to_head_xlarge.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,163
Messages
1,427,599
Members
61,072
Latest member
BoatUtah12
Back
Top