THe obvious answer is to quit stealing things and you wont get laws like this.
Laws like this won't stop people from stealing things.
THe obvious answer is to quit stealing things and you wont get laws like this.
THe obvious answer is to quit stealing things and you wont get laws like this.
I think you are just going to have to learn that these types of 'treaties' have far greater implications for internet freedom than 'putting copyrighted material on the web for the purposes of cheating companies out of making money'. If you're simplifying the objections to treaties and bills like this one to that point, then you haven't been paying attention.I think ya'll are just going to have to take a deep breath and accept the fact that copyrighted material put on the web for the purposes of cheating companies out of making money is going to get tougher and tougher to do.
I think very few people have a problem with that.
More than you think.
Doesn't congress have to approve treaties? If Obama is against SOPA and PIPA it makes him a hypocrite to sign this and give foreign nations the right to regulate US based websites and users. I also agree that the penalties are crazy.
Not really.
Laws like this won't stop people from stealing things.
No.
The obvious answer is for these big media companies to change their business model.
I was listening to Planet Money on NPR. They were talking about the music industry, which has been struggling for the past decade since the internet became proliferate.
They were talking about Katy Perry and how she was the most successful music artist in 2011. They talked to a music exec and the reporters found out that the music company spent about $44 million on producing and promoting her albums.
The profit they got from all her albums, however, was only $8 million.
You see, in the past, music companies focused their business model on selling CDs. And they would spend a lot of money developing the celebrity of an artist to get them popular enough so that people would buy those albums. And so the music artist would make more of their money off of licensing deals and from live shows - things that the recording industry ignored.
But now, with filesharing, the recording industry is getting less and less from selling music despite spending just as much money on developing an album and developing a music artist.
So, very soon, the music industry will change its business model. It will give out recordings for free in order to promote the live shows and licensing that music artists do, of which the music companies will get a cut, and they will get that in return for developing a music artist's celebrity.
So very soon all this copyright protection will be moot anyways since the big media companies will change their business model to adapt to it.
As soon as these laws get passed the free market will make them obsolete.
Bull****.
Your answer dodges the issue at hand.
The laws we have now - with some tweaking - are more effective and logical than ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, etc. This is demonstrated with the Megaupload thing going on.
Look fair enough on that.
But the penalties for doing so are extremely harsh considering it's a victimless crime.
Really? Do you have some kind of report to back this up? And also, do you have proof that people who 'steal' music, etc. would have bought the products if they weren't available to 'steal'?Victimless crime? Who do you think get's hurt when you steal movies, games, programs and TV shows? It's not the higher ups, they have their money invested. It's the lower end staff who lose their jobs.
Victimless my ass.
Which makes them find better ways to steal. LOLNo, not completely but it sure makes them mad.
Really? Do you have some kind of report to back this up? And also, do you have proof that people who 'steal' music, etc. would have bought the products if they weren't available to 'steal'?
Which makes them find better ways to steal. LOL
But again, the implications of treaties and bills like this go far beyond stealing and those implications are the problem. If things like this only affected maliciously illegal copyright violations, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Meh, I find it funny when people advocate solutions to problems that actually worsen the problems especially when those people think that making people mad (LOL) matters. I also tend not to get all bent out of shape about things outside of my control.Meh, for some reason I don't find stealing as funny as you do.
I don't know how you could see examples of a hypothetical scenario. However, if you read anything about protests against SOPA, then you would know that the main arguments against it were about things other than stealing.I believe there would be because stealing is the problem but I'm always willing to see examples where I'm wrong.
What is your point? Obviously you can't sell pirated copies because Rolexes can't be downloaded, copied and shared over the internet while the original Rolex stays intact and with its owner. My point was that pirated music, etc. would only affect people if those who stole the music, etc. would have paid for it had they not had access to the pirated versions. If they wouldn't have paid for it, then nobody lost any money.I would never buy a Rolex and yet, I can't sell pirated copies.
Meh, I find it funny when people advocate solutions to problems that actually worsen the problems especially when those people think that making people mad (LOL) matters. I also tend not to get all bent out of shape about things outside of my control.
I don't know how you could see examples of a hypothetical scenario. However, if you read anything about protests against SOPA, then you would know that the main arguments against it were about things other than stealing.
What is your point? Obviously you can't sell pirated copies because Rolexes can't be downloaded, copied and shared over the internet while the original Rolex stays intact and with its owner. My point was that pirated music, etc. would only affect people if those who stole the music, etc. would have paid for it had they not had access to the pirated versions. If they wouldn't have paid for it, then nobody lost any money.
Nobody has shown where it will worsen the problem.
Of course, who wants to admit they are stealing?
Ignoring what has been said, quoted != "nobody has shown..."
Or admit when they're putting words in people's mouthes?
BTW ever hear of the edit button, or not posting so quickly and looking at, responding to the posts you want to reply to?
I would never buy a real Rolex. My buying a fake does not then harm them in any way. Right?
There is no proof that the shoplifter would have bought the $200 hand bag either.
It costs money to make multiple handbags. If a bunch of people stole handbags that took money to produce, then the company would lose money. On the other hand the files don't have a manufacturing cost other than the original copy. If people illegally download something that they wouldn't pay money for, the company doesn't take a loss.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?