White House wants new copyright laws.

[miokomioko]

Thus in lies the problem.

[Plow]

but I don't know how else to explain that what I'm saying isn't based in greed

That's because it IS based in greed, you just don't want to admit it, just like 99.999999% of people that argue in favor of piracy.

[Plow]

This isn't just sensationalist crap...


the lives of millions, are held in the balance here

I was going to go back and reply seriously but when I got to here I facepalmed so hard i need a fucking lortab.

[Elrina]

That's because it IS based in greed, you just don't want to admit it, just like 99.999999% of people that argue in favor of piracy.

Way to ignore everything else, or just not read it, you self-righteous ass.

Let me keep this simple, so that you can keep up.

I'm not arguing in favor of piracy.

I'm arguing against virtually eliminating the privacy of the greater percentage of the population of the United States by wiretaps being granted as a result of copyright/trademark enforcement.

[Ksandra]

Attempt number 4: how are your husband's rights and privacy being threatened by the non-existence of the laws being discussed in this thread?

I come into a forum, I at least expect basic cognitive capacity from my interlocutors: you must've had some reason to have made that statement besides "he said it, so I repeated it!"
Please tell me you did. My faith in humanity requires it. Lie if you must, I'll fake believing it.

my point was he was talking about his rights as if people in the industry's rights don't matter. he wants shit cheap, my husband wants to get paid. his rights are no more important than my husband's or anyone else in the industry.

I came into this thread to counter people who whine about things being expensive, and how that apparently justifies what they're doing.

And fyi the law itself does not just talk about wiretapping. there are parts I agree with like:

The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances."

maybe if you actually read the whole thread and noticed I was only talking about downloading content which relates to what I quoted in the OP, then you might have noticed.

coming in and blazing guns assuming I was talking about one aspect of the law when I never mentioned it, and then try to the rest of the time is getting to be rather silly on your part.

[notorious bum]

Which is more heinous: greedy pirates or greedy corporations? Bootleggers or CEOs? The Blackmarket or the Open market(lol)?

[Plow]

Way to ignore everything else, or just not read it, you self-righteous ass.

Let me keep this simple, so that you can keep up.

I'm not arguing in favor of piracy.

I'm arguing against virtually eliminating the privacy of the greater percentage of the population of the United States by wiretaps being granted as a result of copyright/trademark enforcement.

MILLIONS OF LIVES HANG IN THE BALANCE

[miokomioko]

Which is more heinous: greedy pirates or greedy corporations? Bootleggers or CEOs? The Blackmarket or the Open market(lol)?

Yes this can totally be narrowed down to black and white.

[Plow]

Way to ignore everything else, or just not read it, you self-righteous ass.

Let me keep this simple, so that you can keep up.

I'm not arguing in favor of piracy.

I'm arguing against virtually eliminating the privacy of the greater percentage of the population of the United States by wiretaps being granted as a result of copyright/trademark enforcement.

Protip: the reason people have a huge issue with wiretapping is the provisions in the PA for doing it WITHOUT A WARRANT.

The reason you're freaking out about it right now is because wiretapping = bad got pounded into your brain so much that you aren't able to differentiate between the shit they can get away with when they say you're a terrorist and how things actually work 99.999999999% of the time.

There's a simple solution to avoiding this having ANY effect whatsoever on your privacy: don't give a judge reason to sign a warrant to tap your shit.

[Plow]

Unless you're a terrorist. Then you're just fucked regardless of this.

[notorious bum]

Hope you're not some sort of protestor or independent journalist, either. Those are the gateway drugs to terrerism.

[Ashmada]

my point was he was talking about his rights as if people in the industry's rights don't matter. he wants shit cheap, my husband wants to get paid. his rights are no more important than my husband's or anyone else in the industry.

What part of "lie if you must, I'll fake believing it" didn't you get? No, you just had to dig deeper, further endangering my faith in humanity.

He doesn't want cheap shit, he doesn't want his rights (for the 30th time: presumption of innocence) and privacy being curtailled by this.

Stop digging. And stop mentionning your husband's privacy. Rest assured I don't want to violate that. In fact, you've volunteered far more information about him than I would've asked for (I wouldn't have asked for any).
I'm pretty sure this sentiment is shared by all present. Your husband's privacy is safe 'round these parts.

maybe if you actually read the whole thread and noticed I was only talking about downloading content which relates to what I quoted in the OP, then you might have noticed.

Maybe you genuinely thought you were. I'm sorry for assuming you understood what you were replying to.

The reason you're freaking out about it right now is because wiretapping = bad got pounded into your brain so much that you aren't able to differentiate between the shit they can get away with when they say you're a terrorist and how things actually work 99.999999999% of the time.

You don't need any skullpounding to figure out that wiretapping on mere suspicion is a violation of the presumption of innocence.

I'll agree that Elrina used some emotional/sensational/exagerated language in there, but ignoring the facts to only read that line was highly disingenuous of you.

If any principle should be sacrosanct, it's the presumption of innocence. The relative frivolity of the motive for which it is invalidated is a pretty chilly thought. (emphasis to avoid focus on the wrong word)

There's a simple solution to avoiding this having ANY effect whatsoever on your privacy: don't give a judge reason to sign a warrant to tap your shit.

"Don't look guilty". Classy.

[Plow]

What part of "lie if you must, I'll fake believing it" didn't you get? No, you just had to dig deeper, further endangering my faith in humanity.

He doesn't want cheap shit, he doesn't want his rights (for the 30th time: presumption of innocence) and privacy being curtailled by this.

Stop digging. And stop mentionning your husband's privacy. Rest assured I don't want to violate that. In fact, you've volunteered far more information about him than I would've asked for (I wouldn't have asked for any).

I'm pretty sure this sentiment is shared by all present. Your husband's privacy is safe 'round these parts.

Hate to break it to you, but even the ridiculous shit you're trying to pull to repeatedly focus on ksandra's misspeaking is wrong. In order for music to be pirated, it has to be considered a private work (i.e. not public property). For a price, they're willing to expose that part of themselves to you. When you pirate, you're violating their right to privacy.

You don't need any skullpounding to figure out that wiretapping on mere suspicion is a violation of the presumption of innocence.

I'll agree that Elrina used some emotional/sensational/exagerated language in there, but ignoring the facts to only read that line was highly disingenuous of you.

If any principle should be sacrosanct, it's the presumption of innocence. The relative frivolity of the motive for which it is invalidated is a pretty chilly thought. (emphasis to avoid focus on the wrong word)



"Don't look guilty". Classy.

We have reason to believe this man has stolen 1000 cd's. His fingerprints are at the crime scene, and his footprints and tire tracks line up exactly with the scene of the robbery. (HINT: THIS IS A METAPHOR FOR THE TRACKS YOU LEAVE ON THE INTERNET)

Also, a few people including the owner saw him at the scene around the time it happened. (HINT: THIS IS PEOPLE SEEING YOU STREAMING THEIR SHIT)

Unfortunately, going to his house to see if he actually has those 1000 cd's would violate his right to steal shit-- er, I mean, right to privacy. So we have no evidence except that he was there.

[Ksandra]

what in the....guys I am super cereal digger for info by explaining my meaning. what is up with this guy?

[Salodin]

I kinda read the first page, skipped a few, and now something something wiretap? Is that really necessary to help enforce copyright laws? Whatever happened to IP addresses and etc?

[Ashmada]

That the idiot thinks he has serious support in the form of Plow's poor trolling is simultaneously hilarious and depressing.

By the way, idiot, you still haven't "explained your meaning".
I'm no longer really waiting for it, the potential lulz have long been lost. But you still haven't.
If you're actually interested in doing so (your horrible SAFE FACE attempts aren't working, anyway), the question is still up there; just have to answer it.

[Ksandra]

I kinda read the first page, skipped a few, and now something something wiretap? Is that really necessary to help enforce copyright laws? Whatever happened to IP addresses and etc?

as some said earlier in the thread, it sounds like wiretapping through this is an excuse to use it for other things. Which is the only reason I'm against it, because of lack of control. (ie. the fact you need a warrant to search a house but how do you know if you're being tapped?) if it could be done differently it'd be fine though, breaking the law is breaking the law.

[miokomioko]

I kinda read the first page, skipped a few, and now something something wiretap? Is that really necessary to help enforce copyright laws? Whatever happened to IP addresses and etc?

The wiretap topic was in the OP.

Under federal law, wiretaps may only be conducted in investigations of serious crimes, a list that was expanded by the 2001 Patriot Act to include offenses such as material support of terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration is proposing to add copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that move "would assist U.S. law enforcement agencies to effectively investigate those offenses."

The government is pretending that there is a serious need for adjusting the current copyright laws because "is concerned that illegal streaming of content may not be covered by criminal law." It's complete bullshit. Regardless of whether or not "wiretapping" is as bad and/or scary as everyone was taught to believe, using the fake concern that illegal streaming of content is not currently illegal is complete and utter crap. If you actually read the current laws, they describe transmitting/displaying/etc. anyone's work to anyone other than immediate friends/family without permission as infringement. Even if they actually were concerned that the current definitions only covering their bases for specifically file transfers and file downloads, they could just fucking change it.

Also, ITT: people in denial that their illegal actions have created a luxury where they get to have any of the digital entertainment/tools they never would be able to afford otherwise. Gotta' love how ease is justification.

[ronin sparthos]

The illegal actions have been a two-way street, a symbiotic relationship where both consumers and producers have benefit from the advances in technology. It's really only mildly irritating when large companies/celebrities cry foul that they are losing out on peanuts compared to what they intake because of the illegal behavior. All those tweens aren't buying the music that make their favorite artists celebs overnight, TV series have benefit from exposure due to leaked media and companies have made money from this age of piracy. Lots of cold hard cash.

Ultimately, people who download stuff illegally are doing something wrong but the argument that the industry has been utterly ruined by pirates is bunk. Infact it has flourished and grown even with piracy/bootlegging. The idea that the govt sees fit to throw money at possible wiretaps, legal proceedings and overall waste instead of investing that money into education which would improve quality of life and lessen the need to even pirate in the first place is just a sign of the times.

I simply cannot wait until a 12 year old is jailed or fined to death over some downloaded music all to placate lobbyists. God bless America.

[notorious bum]

/end thread already

And buy this man a beer, please.