TPP - yet more internet shackling IP legislation.

[Petitssk]

Please stop responding with "but people will download things they would have otherwise bought". That is completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed. In the specific situation that is being referred to, how does piracy harm anyone?

I'm sorry you are refusing to look at the bigger picture.

No copyright doesn't mean people have to give their work away.

So what does it mean? People have to put their hands into their laps and watch as their works are being downloaded?

Because that's how every business works.

You hate looking at greater contexts, don't you?

Because fuck telling people what they are or are not allowed to say. You are arguing in favor of censorship.

Allowed to say? Censorship? You're talking about cases where someones uses a formerly established fictional universe in order to make money. Though I can't deny that I got a wonderful whiff of "evil corporate megalomaniacs are bad" just now.

[Alvinho]

Also, http://paulocoelho.com/ .

[hey]

I'm sorry you are refusing to look at the bigger picture.

And you are refusing to answer a simple question, because you don't want to admit that it harms no one in that situation. In fact, it benefits everyone involved.

So what does it mean? People have to put their hands into their laps and watch as their works are being downloaded?

If they can't figure out a way to stop people from doing so, or giving them incentives not to, then yes.

You hate looking at greater contexts, don't you?

It applies to every single business, what greater context is there?

Allowed to say? Censorship? You're talking about cases where someones uses a formerly established fictional universe in order to make money. Though I can't deny that I got a wonderful whiff of "evil corporate megalomaniacs are bad" just now.

Or not? Did you miss the part where fanfics are illegal? And yes, this is censorship. If i were to write a story about mickey mouse, and tried to get into the bookstores, disney would immediately have a lawsuit for me, and a judge would say "lolno, you can't distribute that".

[Yugl]

Please stop responding with "but people will download things they would have otherwise bought". That is completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed. In the specific situation that is being referred to, how does piracy harm anyone?

Yeah, lets cook up a strawman scenario that defaults in victory for my side of the argument. Fuck the fact that there is zero data to prove that said situation is the prevailing situation. A scenario in which the person, hypothetically, never buys the product (even without the existence of piracy) results in no profit taken. A scenario in which the person would have bought the product if piracy didn't exist results in profit taken. Using these scenarios and claiming that either happens 100% of the time is no more than strawman. Even suggesting that one occurs more frequently is no more than conjecture on either side of the debate.

Being watchable does not automatically make a movie "good". Thanks to my little cousin, I've spent countless afternoons watching "Bring It On" (2000) and "Dunston Checks In" (1996) among others, and while they were ok the first few times, they're by no means movies I'd want to own. Considering movies I do own ("Goodfellas" (1990), "Casino" (1995), "City of God" (2002), etc.), which I have watched over 20 times each, and can watch again whenever I feel like, I have no problem spending money on, as I already have. Why? Because they're good movies. Great movies. Unlike most of the crap put out by hollywood nowdays, which boil down to a mildly entertaining way to burn two hours. Not to mention the amount of remakes, which almost always, if not always, end up being terribad, or at least worse than the original.

Consumers are becoming wiser on how to spend their hard-earned money in order to get more bang for their buck. The entertainment industry, money-hungry as ever, is becoming more and more mad instead of trying to adapt, because they think there's nothing wrong with their product, which we know to be BS in 99% (not actual figure) of cases.

Also, finding movies from 2000 isn't the issue. Sure, I could look it up on -random ass website that sells movies- and have it delivered to my house, but when, as in my example, there are time constraints, that option flies right out of the window. Also, I had no desire to buy "Chicken Run" and would have probably never watched if it wasn't required by a teacher with bad ideas. The movie ended up not being bad, but certainly not worth 20 bucks. The copy I bought cost me 5, which I felt was adequate, and would have gladly purchased through legal means, had I been given the option that tailored to my needs at the time (needed a store-bought physical copy asap).

I personally think Netflix is great. It helped me watch movies like "The Usual Suspects" (1995), "The Prestige" (2006) and "The Untouchables" (1987). I was a subscriber when I lived in the US, but like I mentioned, not having internet at home kinda kills it. Crackle wasn't around back then, and tbh, I've never used it, so I don't even know what it's like, or what movies they have on there; I've only read/heard about it.

Downloads start to make more sense the farther back you go, time-wise. How would one expect to buy a NES, SNES or similar counterparts these days? How about games for them? The industry is not worried about supplying these items for various reasons, cost/benefit probably being the main one, but as a consumer, am I wrong to desire such products? Am I doomed to camp auctions on eBay for used/overpriced/rare products, with no warranty? How about all the songs I heard at Johnny Rocket's? How am I supposed to buy those? Or old-ass movies that aren't as popular as "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Star Wars" (1977), or "Gone With The Wind" (1939)? Am I to hope some online store will sell them? What if they don't? That piece of culture is going to get left behind because I can't readily find it. I found it pretty amazing that I could find a retail copy of "Dr. Zhivago" (1965) at a store the other day. I have no idea how popular it was back in the day, but considering fewer movies were made (no idea, but probably true), I guess it was pretty common then, but not so much now.

Your claim is pretty obscure because on one hand, you claim these movies are shitty hollywood movies and not worth watching multiple times. On the other hand, you're bitching about not owning these movies. Ironically, such behavior is indicative of greed, which it the very property you place upon the entertainment industry.

Your teacher's assignment is quickly becoming irrelevant, because if he didn't supply a venue for seeing the movie, then the issue isn't general accessibility (after all, you say you could have obtained the DVD). The problem is that he didn't provide a copy. That was an error on his part. Don't bitch about other stuff because he was a moron.

As for old games, most of those become remakes. If they don't make the remake cut (HA!), then I guess they weren't that good then huh. And in the spirit of pro-piracy, that obviously deserve to decline and disappear, so what's the issue?

[Petitssk]

And you are refusing to answer a simple question, because you don't want to admit that it harms no one in that situation.

Yes, because I'm not going to play games with you where you're asking me if I punched a guy in the face, which I did, but I must not mention the fact that he called my mother a whore and threatened to rape my sister.

If they can't figure out a way to stop people from doing so, or giving them incentives not to, then yes.

So they need to figure out a way but applicable law is not an option? You're just trying to force them into a disadvantageous or, at the very least, risky situation for your own benefit

It applies to every single business, what greater context is there?

Don't really want to repeat myself here.

Or not? Did you miss the part where fanfics are illegal? And yes, this is censorship. If i were to write a story about mickey mouse, and tried to get into the bookstores, disney would immediately have a lawsuit for me, and a judge would say "lolno, you can't distribute that".

Never claimed that copyright was perfect, just arguing that abolishing it entirely is not an option. Certain rights of companies need to be protected, in the same way everyone's trying to protect their own rights whenever a new bill is brought up. It just doesn't seem like we can agree on which rights merit protection, so I'd quite frankly rather leave it at this seeing how we seem to have begun merely nitpicking at every single sentence, which I don't particularly like.

[Alvinho]

Your claim is pretty obscure because on one hand, you claim these movies are shitty hollywood movies and not worth watching multiple times. On the other hand, you're bitching about not owning these movies. Ironically, such behavior is indicative of greed, which it the very property you place upon the entertainment industry.

Your teacher's assignment is quickly becoming irrelevant, because if he didn't supply a venue for seeing the movie, then the issue isn't general accessibility (after all, you say you could have obtained the DVD). The problem is that he didn't provide a copy. That was an error on his part. Don't bitch about other stuff because he was a moron.

As for old games, most of those become remakes. If they don't make the remake cut (HA!), then I guess they weren't that good then huh. And in the spirit of pro-piracy, that obviously deserve to decline and disappear, so what's the issue?

Where am I bitching for not owning shitty movies? My whole point is that I don't want to own movies that are shitty. I don't see how that's greedy, considering I have to bust ass for money and don't want to spend it on subpar material. Watching said subpar material is ok in my book. Call it conservative (not in a political way), or cheap, if you wish.

The assignment, in general, was used merely to illustrate that when downloading, I can find virtually anything, anytime, whereas if I was to buy physical copies, specially for things I want/need, (need but don't want, in this case), I'd be subject to product availability, which gets worse the older the product is.

Also, never seen a remake of Alex Kidd, in any of his worlds. The emulation/rom issue I believe is being slowly looked at by companies offering old games as DLC (mainly Microsoft and Nintendo, I believe, on the 360 and Wii respectively; don't own any new-gen consoles), which are definitely worth it, unless I already have physical copy; if so, fuck that; not buying again.

[hey]

Yes, because I'm not going to play games with you where you're asking me if I punched a guy in the face, which I did, but I must not mention the fact that he called my mother a whore and threatened to rape my sister.

Ok, fair enough. I'll take that as a no, it doesn't harm anyone. The only reason i ask is because there are people who seem to think it does, even though it is clearly beneficial to literally everyone.

So they need to figure out a way but applicable law is not an option? You're just trying to force them into a disadvantageous or, at the very least, risky situation for your own benefit

Yes, just like most every other business. No one has a right to profit. If they cannot make a profit on the merits of their business, they deserve to fail.

Certain rights of companies need to be protected

And why do certain companies' "right" to a monopoly have to be protected, despite being obviously harmful to society?

[Petitssk]

Okay, seeing how you're now sticking your thumbs in your ears regarding certain matters I will leave it at that, thanks for the conversation while it was fun, I did manage to learn a lot today (no sarcasm).

[Yugl]

Where am I bitching for not owning shitty movies? My whole point is that I don't want to own movies that are shitty. I don't see how that's greedy, considering I have to bust ass for money and don't want to spend it on subpar material. Watching said subpar material is ok in my book. Call it conservative (not in a political way), or cheap, if you wish.

Simple solution: If the movie isn't good, then don't buy and don't watch. You said you watched these movies but that they weren't "buy worthy." So don't buy them. What is the problem?

Also, finding movies from 2000 isn't the issue. Sure, I could look it up on -random ass website that sells movies- and have it delivered to my house, but when, as in my example, there are time constraints, that option flies right out of the window. Also, I had no desire to buy "Chicken Run" and would have probably never watched if it wasn't required by a teacher with bad ideas. The movie ended up not being bad, but certainly not worth 20 bucks. The copy I bought cost me 5, which I felt was adequate, and would have gladly purchased through legal means, had I been given the option that tailored to my needs at the time (needed a store-bought physical copy asap).

The assignment, in general, was used merely to illustrate that when downloading, I can find virtually anything, anytime, whereas if I was to buy physical copies, specially for things I want/need, (need but don't want, in this case), I'd be subject to product availability, which gets worse the older the product is.

I hope you see why you're confusing. You said the issue isn't finding a copy, but now say the point was that downloading lets you find what you need while physical copies subject you to availability (which boils down to finding the product). You say you would buy the movie legally (Which I assume would cost you $20), but that you wouldn't pay the legal price for the movie.

Those consistency problems aside, you need to realize that the problems you're signaling are flaws with the industry and these are flaws that piracy does not remedy. There needs to be worldwide dubs and digital releases. Your teacher need to provide the movie for the assignment instead of being a cheap dipshit. Using the shortcomings of your teacher isn't an excuse to act like piracy is ubiquitously good.

Also, never seen a remake of Alex Kidd, in any of his worlds. The emulation/rom issue I believe is being slowly looked at by companies offering old games as DLC (mainly Microsoft and Nintendo, I believe, on the 360 and Wii respectively; don't own any new-gen consoles), which are definitely worth it, unless I already have physical copy; if so, fuck that; not buying again.

Ok, that's cool?

[Alvinho]

Simple solution: If the movie isn't good, then don't buy and don't watch. You said you watched these movies but that they weren't "buy worthy." So don't buy them. What is the problem?

I hope you see why you're confusing. You said the issue isn't finding a copy, but now say the point was that downloading lets you find what you need while physical copies subject you to availability (which boils down to finding the product). You say you would buy the movie legally (Which I assume would cost you $20), but that you wouldn't pay the legal price for the movie.

Those consistency problems aside, you need to realize that the problems you're signaling are flaws with the industry and these are flaws that piracy does not remedy. There needs to be worldwide dubs and digital releases. Your teacher need to provide the movie for the assignment instead of being a cheap dipshit. Using the shortcomings of your teacher isn't an excuse to act like piracy is ubiquitously good.

Ok, that's cool?

Problem was I needed to buy the movie for the assignment, I didn't want to buy it. Other than that, no problem; don't like, don't buy.

Indeed, I did say I would buy the movie legally for the price I thought was adequate (5 bucks for a 10 year old children's movie I didn't want to buy, but needed to); def. not for $20. The issue never was finding a copy, but finding a physical copy instead, which I needed for school, but couldn't spare the time it would take to get delivered if I had legally bought it online.

Poor teacher planning aside, piracy does solve these availability issues (imo). If every movie/song/game ever made was somehow able to be readily available online, the companies who own the rights to them wouldn't bitch as much, and I bet a lot of people would buy them through the proper channels. It's not impossible to have every movie/song/game ever made available physically, though it certainly isn't feasible, for various reasons, and I don't expect it to ever be so.

Would it be cost effective to mass-produce Genesis games today? Probably not. If everyone can agree that Genesis games no longer yield profit, what's the beef if people want to download them for free and play them? It's not like they're physically available at a nearby store, or on the internet for a reasonable price.

DLC for old stuff is cool, yeah, but if the company doesn't plan to release game x, y, or z because they don't think it would be worth the effort, then again, what's the big deal about releasing it for free?

I'm not against legally buying games at all. I own two consoles, and all my games for said consoles are originals, including Valkyrie Profile, which I bought new for USD$ 200 (cost more than my PS2), because a physical copy was available to me on eBay, albeit not for a reasonable price. Still, I fet it was worth it, could afford to wait for it to be delivered, and paid the price.

Emulation for old stuff should be legal, as long as companies and consumers come to terms on when stuff becomes "old".

[Thiefami]

I can only speak for myself when I say I pirate shit I know I'll never buy, especially games.

[kuronosan]

Even though my opinion is worthless in this thread I just thought I'd go ahead and say I'm with hey.

[Plow]

Anyway, you're just going to go all republican and do anything and everything possible to convince yourselves you're right no matter how provably wrong you are, so I'm not going to bother continuing.

color me shocked

5 pages later it's still 500 word posts saying

[Churchill]

I guess you're referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ine...f_NiggyTardust!

A little over $100 grand is substantially below 1.6 mil.

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/tre...estseller-2008

Trent Reznor, not Saul Williams. And i've never heard of Williams so not sure how his music is, but $100k is still pretty decent.

They also released "The Slip" which was basically a gift to their fans. It was available for download 2 months before it ever hit record stores. It's interesting because there is a pretty famous interview of Reznor during the Napster craze where he called Fred Durst an idiot for Durst's claim that "Napster is great, etc".

[Aristio]

The first few pages of this thread made me wish Steam offered 12-24 hour rentals on games for 1$. Like an online Redbox for gaming. Indie games get 1-2 hours for 25-50 cents.

Anyhow, lawmakers need better consultants to make these kinds of laws.

[archibaldcrane]

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/tre...estseller-2008

Trent Reznor, not Saul Williams. And i've never heard of Williams so not sure how his music is, but $100k is still pretty decent.

Saul Williams is the shit, probably my #2 MC after Sage Francis.

[Plow]

sage francis has the right idea btw, instead of going around and getting his stuff taken down on youtube, he just goes around and personally posts in the comments asking them to put a link to his website in the description

[Cantih]

Aaaaand here's what draconian copyright enforcement gets you.

http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright...he-hugo-awards

Last night, robots shut down the live broadcast of one of science fiction's most prestigious award ceremonies. No, you're not reading a science fiction story. In the middle of the annual Hugo Awards event at Worldcon, which thousands of people tuned into via video streaming service UStream, the feed cut off — just as Neil Gaiman was giving an acceptance speech for his Doctor Who script, "The Doctor's Wife." Where Gaiman's face had been were the words, "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement." What the hell?

Jumping onto Twitter, people who had been watching the livestream began asking what was going on. How could an award ceremony have anything to do with copyright infringement?

Bestselling science fiction author Tobias Buckell tweeted:

Oh, FFS. Ustream just shut down live worldcon feed for copyright infringement.

— tobiasbuckell (@tobiasbuckell) September 3, 2012

And then it began to dawn on people what happened. Gaiman had just gotten an award for his Doctor Who script. Before he took the stage, the Hugo Awards showed clips from his winning episode, along with clips from some other Doctor Who episodes that had been nominated, as well as a Community episode.

Wrote Macworld editorial director Jason Snell:

Ustream just shut down the #Hugos live stream because they showed clips of the TV nominees. Automated copyright patrols ruin more things.

— Jason Snell (@jsnell) September 3, 2012

This was, of course, absurd. First of all, the clips had been provided by the studios to be shown during the award ceremony. The Hugo Awards had explicit permission to broadcast them. But even if they hadn't, it is absolutely fair use to broadcast clips of copyrighted material during an award ceremony. Unfortunately, the digital restriction management (DRM) robots on UStream had not been programmed with these basic contours of copyright law.

And then, it got worse. Amid more cries of dismay on Twitter, Reddit, and elsewhere, the official Worldcon Twitter announced:

We are sorry to report that #Ustream will not resume the video feed. #chicon7 #hugos #worldcon

— Chicon 7 (@chicon_7) September 3, 2012

And with that, the broadcast was officially cut off. Dumb robots, programmed to kill any broadcast containing copyrighted material, had destroyed the only live broadcast of the Hugo Awards. Sure, we could read what was happening on Twitter, or get the official winner announcement on the Hugo website, but that is hardly the same. We wanted to see our heroes and friends on that stage, and share the event with them. In the world of science fiction writing, the Hugo Awards are kind of like the Academy Awards. Careers are made; people get dressed up and give speeches; and celebrities rub shoulders with (admittedly geeky) paparazzi. You want to see and hear it if you can.

But UStream's incorrectly programmed copyright enforcement squad had destroyed our only accesss. It was like a Cory Doctorow story crossed with RoboCop 2, with DRM robots going crazy and shooting indiscriminately into a crowd of perfectly innocent broadcasts.

And who did we have recourse to? We couldn't file a legal complaint in time to see io9's Charlie Jane Anders accept the Hugo for best novelette. And UStream was completely unresponsive. As of today, September 3, people who posted queries on UStream's site have yet to be answered.

The point is, our ability to broadcast was entirely dependent on poorly-programmed bots. And once those bots had made their incorrect decision, there was absolutely nothing we could do to restart the signal, as it were. In case anyone still believes that copyright rules can't stop free speech or snuff out a community, the automated censorship of the Hugo Awards is a case in point.

Robots killed our legitimate broadcast. Welcome to the present.

[Plow]

It's entirely the industry's fault that they have automated shit detecting doctor who streams and stopping them, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with people illegally streaming dr who at all.

[hey]

It's entirely the industry's fault that they have automated shit detecting doctor who streams and stopping them, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with people illegally streaming dr who at all.

No one has argued that.