How big of a deal is this PIPA shit?

[Yugl]

The nature of piracy means it will survive long after this bill has breathed its last. People will ALWAYS find new, innovative ways to pirate stuff. If the govt cracks down on websites, maybe everyone moves their shit to unsearchable sites like darkweb. Plus, there's always IRC, you can still dl everything on there. The government thinks it's slaying a dragon, but it's really cutting the head off a hydra; several more will grow in its place and it's unstoppable. They will only end up making their perceived problem worse.

While I understand your point, I think you're failing to realize that the alternative is worse the the possible negative outcome. Essentially, your argument hinges on the fact that government policies targeting a method rather than an outcome are flawed because, typically, many outcomes have multiple realizations (Methods). Allowing piracy is not an option from a governing standpoint. Thus, it should be painfully obvious why the alternative is even worse than the current proposal. Essentially, the alternative would amount to total control over, access to, and rampant scanning of your personal electronic information. For it would require that level of control in order to make the suitable law (One that controls the outcome). To a certain degree, if what your hydra analogy holds, it's actually a brilliant political ploy. Politicians act like they're doing companies a favor. Simultaneously, they don't substantiate damage against the general public's access piracy. Thus, it's essentially a win-win situation for them.

[hey]

Thus, it's essentially a win-win situation for them.

And lose-lose for everyone else.

[Yugl]

And lose-lose for everyone else.

If you don't read the post, sure.

[Norellicus]

If you don't read the post, sure.

Did you miss the part where these bills enable the Federal body to blacklist any website they want without due process? Do you understand that means they could basically declare any website they choose as "in violation" and simply blacklist it from the entire DNS root for the USA, with no (apparent, approachable) means of appeal or investigation?

Did you also miss the part where they're basically giving anyone who has ever sung karaoke a black mark that prevents them from entering the job market ever again?

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, try browsing the web in China. Let me know how well that works out for you when you go looking for information that the regime has declared off limits.

[Uzor]

They're blaming piracy for their problems. Similar to how people blame video games for violence. It's a scapegoat.

Unlike gaming, though, piracy IS a problem - but it doesn't hold all the blame. In Sweden; I would actually go to the cinema to see movies if they were released in Sweden before they're available on Blue Ray in the states. I might as well just download it at that point. Most movies that are released simultaneously in the states and Sweden I go to the cinema to see - despite it costing $15-$20 to do. But those are really only hit movies like "Terminator" and "Harry Potter" that premier around the world on the same date.

If copyright holders actually listened to the consumers instead of going "Fuck you, we'll stick to our stone age technology and outdated ways and YOU'LL LIKE IT!" they might actually get somewhere and make more money.

The only thing this bill will do is piss people off, as it prohibits anyone from ever uploading a video of anything to Youtube if it has a song in the background; it prohibits anyone from uploading video game guides to Youtube; it prohibits anyone from uploading a video review with scenes from a movie; ir prohibits anyone from uploading a game review to Youtube; and it prohibits anyone from uploading a video of them singing a song to Youtube. Hell, technically even movie/game trailers would be prohibited.

It literary makes about 99% of the material on Youtube illegal.

[hey]

piracy IS a problem

Well that is debatable.

[Uzor]

Well that is debatable.

Don't kid yourself. It's not debatable. Or are you claiming that shoplifting is also not a problem?

According to Globaltheftbarometer, losses worldwide from shoplifting in 2010 is $107,3 billion - whereas losses from piracy is $16,3 billion in U.S alone.

[Not Kuno]

There is just so much shit I download that I would never ever buy/watch on TV in a million years. Companies were not suddenly getting my money before I was downloading, nor will they if they take away my ability to download shit.

[hey]

Don't kid yourself. It's not debatable. Or are you claiming that shoplifting is also not a problem?

According to Globaltheftbarometer, losses worldwide from shoplifting in 2010 is $107,3 billion - whereas losses from piracy is $16,3 billion in U.S alone.

You're retarded. Piracy is not even close to the same thing as theft. Those numbers for piracy are hugely over inflated too. Guess what? Just because i download something does not mean i would have paid for it if i didn't download it. Oh, and you're comparing apples to oranges with global vs US.

here you go, hopefully this clears things up for you.

My claim is that unregulated government enforced monopolies are bad.

[Uzor]

I'm well aware of that; and I agree. For all intents and purposes, though, it's still lost revenue. You can make the exact same argument for shoplifting though (I know; it's not the exact same since it's a physical object).

If you download something you're obviously curios or on some level enjoy the movie/music/game. Why else would you download it? You probably - like me - just don't think it's worth the money. The argument "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a logical fallacy imo.

Take Windows for example. If you're one of the people using a pirated copy of it, why? You use it every day - possibly for years - but you still don't think the mere $100 for it is worth it?

[Kuishen]

Hey let's rewrite the Constitution while we're at it and just save everybody a ton of time and effort.

[Mrbeansman]

Hey let's rewrite the Constitution while we're at it and just save everybody a ton of time and effort.

On that note what are the chances that if this passes it can be struck down in a Supreme Court case?

[hey]

I'm well aware of that; and I agree. For all intents and purposes, though, it's still lost revenue. You can make the exact same argument for shoplifting though (I know; it's not the exact same since it's a physical object).

No it's not. Not every download is lost revenue. In fact, many of them result i increased revenue as people recommend it to their friends, who do pay for it. And you absolutely cannot compare it to stealing. They are entirely different things.

If you download something you're obviously curios or on some level enjoy the movie/music/game. Why else would you download it? You probably - like me - just don't think it's worth the money. The argument "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a logical fallacy imo.

That is absurd. No. I do not always like everything i download. For example, lets take music. When i hear a song i like, what i will do sometimes is go and download the artist's entire discography. Turns out, more often than not, i end up deleting at least half of it, if not 90%+. Sometimes i listen to 5 songs, hate them all, and don't even listen to the rest. But i would absolutely never go out and buy 5 albums based on a single song. Why would anyone ever do such a thing? They wouldn't. But if all it takes to do so is a bit of time, then why not?

And how about movies? Want to know how much research i put into which ones i watch? I read a 1-2 sentence synopsis. If it seems interesting, i download it. If i were going to spend $20+ (ticket, gas, popcorn, soda, etc), i would put more effort into deciding what to watch, and naturally would find out ahead of time that despite the one sentence sounding good, the next made it very clear that i would not like it.

And games? Well, i finish maybe half of the games i play. Sometimes they start out good, but are way too repetitive, and i get bored. Sometimes they are too easy/hard. And other times they're just shit games. In any case, they end up not being worth my time (of which i have plenty of), let alone my money. Want to guess my completion rate for games i've bought?

Spoiler: show

90%+

Maybe this is just me, but you see, piracy means that my standards can be lower. The opportunity cost is much lower, so i can watch more movies, listen to more songs, and play more games. I easily watch around 5x more movies (and 50x more tv shows), listen to 100x more songs, and play 20x more games than i did before i started pirating them. Part of that is because i'm not a millionaire and could never afford to pay for every single thing i download, and part of it is because of the lowered opportunity cost.

Take Windows for example. If you're one of the people using a pirated copy of it, why? You use it every day - possibly for years - but you still don't think the mere $100 for it is worth it?

I'm currently using one legit copy, and one pirated copy. Though the computer that has the pirated copy does have a valid XP license for it

Honestly though, i don't have a problem with paying for windows. The only reason i didn't was because i couldn't afford it.

[Uzor]

You obviously missed the entire "curious" part. If you downloaded an entire album, you are curious about it or the artist. Why else would you download it? Social experiment?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not against piracy. I've downloaded stuff myself. I'm just saying that it IS a problem. I just happen to realize what I do is wrong.

[hey]

You obviously missed the entire "curious" part. If you downloaded an entire album, you are curious about it or the artist. Why else would you download it? Social experiment?

It was irrelevant. Yes, i was curious, but not enough to pay for any songs that i hadn't heard before and knew i liked. Me downloading the discography cost the record company absolutely nothing, because i never would have bought it (and i did not steal anything that belonged to them). In fact, the only way i would have even maybe bought any of the songs was if i had already listened to them (illegally).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not against piracy. I've downloaded stuff myself. I'm just saying that it IS a problem. I just happen to realize what I do is wrong.

And i am debating that. I believe that the only problem is the government enforced monopolies.

[Uzor]

You could have listened to the songs on Youtube or Spotify, both which are free.

I use Spotify, for example, and pay a mere $5 a month for unlimited songs.

[hey]

You could have listened to the songs on Youtube or Spotify, both which are free.

I use Spotify, for example, and pay a mere $5 a month for unlimited songs.

Spotify requires a facebook account to sign up. Not happening. And i highly doubt they have almost any of the music i listen to anyway.

And youtube is very often not legal.

[Uzor]

No, you don't need a facebook account to sign up. You only need a facebook account to synch your friends.

[Acevalefor]

piracy is as much of a problem for the entertainment industry as renewable energy is for the petroleum industry.

[Cephius]

piracy is as much of a problem for the entertainment industry as renewable energy is for the petroleum industry.

That is a terrible analogy and piracy isn't as big of a problem as the media corporations would have you believe. Don't be a sheep.