Go to Google... WTF is going on?

[cadet]

Something about the Congress Censoring the web...

If that's about certain cites people visit in the late nights, i think that's the parents job to block those.

But, if this goes farther then that, one small step toward communism, one giant leap for Gov't. We don't know how to take care of ourselves, let Uncle Sam tell you how.

ah, and here's the link if you need some ref. https://www.google.com/

[tyler84]

It's a protest of the internet industry (or at least many websites) against two proposed bills called SOPA and PIPA. The entertainment industrie wants to gain the right to cencor the web and shut down every website having a britney spears song playing in the background of a video posted on it.

For more information you should read the information page Google provides. Wikipedia is completely shut down today and does provide information on it to. (same goes for reddit and craigslist)

[Thunderknuckles]

Dude, where have you been!?
We've got major legislation going through congress right now that will have an enormous impact on the Internet and today is the day many Internet heavyweights have chosen to protest this legislation.

Run a Google search on SOPA and PIPA for more information.

[Noir]

Also see wikipeida.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) who are having a blackout on all of their english pages, for 24 hours.

[cadet]

From what I'm getting, Scary shit. :uhoh:

[pete311]

Debate Policy is at risk. Contact your reps and tell them you don't support SOPA or PIPA.

[Noir]

If in doubt, save your IPs for manual access.



SOPA Emergency IP list:

So if these ass-fucks in DC decide to
ruin the internet, here’s how to access your favorite sites
in the event of a DNS takedown

tumblr.com 174.121.194.34
wikipedia.org 208.80.152.201

# News
bbc.co.uk 212.58.241.131
aljazeera.com 198.78.201.252

# Social media
reddit.com 72.247.244.88
imgur.com 173.231.140.219
google.com 74.125.157.99
youtube.com 74.125.65.91
yahoo.com 98.137.149.56
hotmail.com 65.55.72.135
bing.com 65.55.175.254
digg.com 64.191.203.30
theonion.com 97.107.137.164
hush.com 65.39.178.43
gamespot.com 216.239.113.172
ign.com 69.10.25.46
cracked.com 98.124.248.77
sidereel.com 144.198.29.112
github.com 207.97.227.239

# Torrent sites
thepiratebay.org 194.71.107.15
mininova.com 80.94.76.5
btjunkie.com 93.158.65.211
demonoid.com 62.149.24.66
demonoid.me 62.149.24.67

# Social networking
facebook.com 69.171.224.11
twitter.com 199.59.149.230
tumblr.com 174.121.194.34
livejournal.com 209.200.154.225
dreamwidth.org 69.174.244.50

# Live Streaming Content
stickam.com 67.201.54.151
blogtv.com 84.22.170.149
justin.tv 199.9.249.21
chatroulette.com 184.173.141.231
omegle.com 97.107.132.144
own3d.tv 208.94.146.80
megavideo.com 174.140.154.32

# Television
gorillavid.com 178.17.165.74
videoweed.com 91.220.176.248
novamov.com 91.220.176.248
tvlinks.com 208.223.219.206
1channel.com 208.87.33.151

# Shopping
amazon.com 72.21.211.176
newegg.com 216.52.208.187
frys.com 209.31.22.39

# File Sharing
mediafire.com 205.196.120.13
megaupload.com 174.140.154.20
fileshare.com 208.87.33.151
multiupload.com 95.211.149.7
uploading.com 195.191.207.40
warez-bb.org 31.7.57.13
hotfile.com 199.7.177.218
gamespy.com 69.10.25.46
what.cd 67.21.232.223
warez.ag 178.162.238.136
putlocker.com 89.238.130.247
uploaded.to 95.211.143.200
dropbox.com 199.47.217.179
pastebin.com 69.65.13.216


Here’s a tip for the do-it-yourself crowd:
Go to your computer’s Start menu, and either go to
“run” or just search for “cmd.”
Open it up, and type in “ping [website address],”


Once you have the IP for a website, all you really need to do is enter it like you would a normal URL nd hit enter/press go. Typing in “208.85.240.231” should bring you to the front page of AO3, for example, just as typing “174.121.194.34/dashboard” should bring you straight to your Tumblr dashboard. Since we’re obviously bracing for the worst case scenario which would involve you not being able to access the internet regularly, you should, save this list.

and ofcourse, debate policy - 69.73.139.27

[jimnyc]

Debate Policy is at risk. Contact your reps and tell them you don't support SOPA or PIPA.

I wouldn't go that far. Their overreaching is mostly geared towards "piracy". And while I don't have a problem with people protecting the intellectual property and other "ownership", I have a HUGE problem with how the bill is designed to go about it. But DP would be at the very, very end of a long list, IF we would ever be on any list. I suppose things could go a little out of control if entire DNS servers were killed with webhosting providers, but I don't see that happening. In fact, from what I'm reading, I think this bill is going to be DOA in the long run anyway.

Does anyone have the latest news on the progress of this bill?

[jimnyc]

Here's the text of SOPA, with accompanying comments, for anyone who may be interested!

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/text

[Noir]

I wouldn't go that far. Their overreaching is mostly geared towards "piracy". And while I don't have a problem with people protecting the intellectual property and other "ownership", I have a HUGE problem with how the bill is designed to go about it. But DP would be at the very, very end of a long list, IF we would ever be on any list. I suppose things could go a little out of control if entire DNS servers were killed with webhosting providers, but I don't see that happening. In fact, from what I'm reading, I think this bill is going to be DOA in the long run anyway.

Does anyone have the latest news on the progress of this bill?

Nope, DP *would* be in the line of fire, forcing you to have to censure users from posting, linking too, or discussing how to acquire copyrighted material. Because as the board owner you will be personally responsible for its being posted.

This short video pretty clearly shows SOPAs and PIPAs intended use, and probable use.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/31100268?byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/31100268">PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/fightforthefuture">Fight for the Future</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

[Thunderknuckles]

DP would technically be in the line of fire but I think Jim is correct in that we'd be last in a very long line.

[logroller]

I was literally in the process of posting on the effects of cartels on commodities when I find out wikipedia is blacked out--perfect case in point. I realized just how priceless these hubs of information are to me personally, and I imagine millions of others. I struggle to believe the same could be said for the media empire supporting these two bills. I'm sure paramount studios et all lose money from piracy, but if that's the price for free information, so be it.

Kudos to wiki and the many others taking a stand. Given their valuable contribution to knowledge and understanding across the world, if they say its bad policy, I'm compelled to agree.

[Nukeman]

Dude, where have you been!?
We've got major legislation going through congress right now that will have an enormous impact on the Internet and today is the day many Internet heavyweights have chosen to protest this legislation.

Run a Google search on SOPA and PIPA for more information.My hope is that he has been so busy studying in college so he hasn't had time to see this on the iternet or news:rolleyes:

[Thunderknuckles]

Quick Update:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html

"Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) withdrew as a co-sponsor of the Protect IP Act in the Senate, while Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) said they were pulling their names from the companion House bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act"

[fj1200]

Nothing like the expansion of a police state's power. :clap:

[jimnyc]

Nope, DP *would* be in the line of fire, forcing you to have to censure users from posting, linking too, or discussing how to acquire copyrighted material. Because as the board owner you will be personally responsible for its being posted.

Well, written like that, then EVERY forum on the internet would be at risk. But with well over 500,000 posts here and counting - not a single one should/could have been censored re: online piracy. But in theory, yes, if someone were to simply link to pirated software on here, we could technically be at risk. But since we don't and won't allow that activity, we have nothing to worry about.

But it sure as hell may put a dent in my online habits... allegedly! :)

[Abbey Marie]

If it cuts down on people posting videos in here, cool. ;)

[Noir]

This is priceless xD

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/tumblr_ly09ouvTYE1qcb5fko1_500.png
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/tumblr_ly09ouvTYE1qcb5fko2_500.png

[Noir]

Well, written like that, then EVERY forum on the internet would be at risk. But with well over 500,000 posts here and counting - not a single one should/could have been censored re: online piracy. But in theory, yes, if someone were to simply link to pirated software on here, we could technically be at risk. But since we don't and won't allow that activity, we have nothing to worry about.

But it sure as hell may put a dent in my online habits... allegedly! :)

None of the videos in the what are you listening ta thread are violating copyrights?

Not to mention that i'm certain that i posted a song for SassyLady that was without copyright.

just saying ^,^

[Thunderknuckles]

Quick Update #2:
You can now add Senators John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch to the list that have now removed their support.

Meanwhile, the fat lady is rehearsing backstage...

[jimnyc]

None of the videos in the what are you listening ta thread are violating copyrights?

Not to mention that i'm certain that i posted a song for SassyLady that was without copyright.

just saying ^,^

The videos are the responsibility of Youtube and their uploaders. I'm confident they won't shut down DP, but the video on Youtube may disappear leaving a "black hole" on that particular post. They want to eliminate the distribution of pirated movies and album releases, and sites designed to do no more than link to all this material. From what I'm reading, that's why they want to re-write the bill, to more accurately pinpoint what they are after. While DP would have a million to one shot of "disappearing" as the bill is currently written, and that's being generous, if rewritten to state what I covered above as to distributors, hosters, linkers... Then we wouldn't remotely qualify. Simply put, we probably have a better chance of a natural disaster taking out the data center for this site than being shut down as per SOPA.

Even then, there are multiple datacenters, and we are in Texas and Atlanta. I have weekly backups on my computer and nightly backups stored online but elsewhere than this site. I also have URL's of many great webhosting providers located offshore, and many freedom of speech style hosts. Then I also have a list of registrars that are not willing to cave to SOPA.

I say, nothing will happen. Your thoughts are possible, but extremely remote. And even if - they won't take me alive, I have backup plans if necessary!! :devilgun::tank3::guns4::helicopter::pave:

[jimnyc]

Also, Noir, those 2 images in your posts don't look to be the same. Are they supposed to be, or just from the same artist? The right side of his site and the left, don't look to be the same image as the one from the artist/photographer.

[Thunderknuckles]

I say, nothing will happen. Your thoughts are possible, but extremely remote. And even if - they won't take me alive, I have backup plans if necessary!! :devilgun::tank3::guns4::helicopter::pave:

Careful with that attitude buddy. If they don't get you with SOPA or PIPA they'll nail you under the NDAA :D

[Noir]

Also, Noir, those 2 images in your posts don't look to be the same. Are they supposed to be, or just from the same artist? The right side of his site and the left, don't look to be the same image as the one from the artist/photographer.

They're exactly the same, just the one he has used is a little cropped.

have taken the original image and added a few boxes to roughly show the cropped image within the image. The left and right boxes you can see, the middle box is covered.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/background.jpg

[jimnyc]

Ok, now I see it when you point it out. BUT, it isn't an image that he's currently using. Someone went back in time using the "wayback machine" which indexes websites and changes over time. The image in questions was allowed to be used anywhere, so long as they gave credit to the artist. A "screenshot" tells them that they don't see one. I would have liked to have seen his site when it was live with this image to do a more detailed peek around to see if he credits the picture. Sometimes a screenshot doesn't show everything.

He's still a shithead though.

[Sir Evil]

If in doubt, save your IPs for manual access.


# Torrent sites
thepiratebay.org 194.71.107.15
mininova.com 80.94.76.5
btjunkie.com 93.158.65.211
demonoid.com 62.149.24.66
demonoid.me 62.149.24.67


and ofcourse, debate policy - 69.73.139.27

torrent sites are an invitation to trouble, I would avoid them. If not mistaken the ownership of thepiratebay has excahnged a few times and at some point one or more owner have been in court on piracy related charges. Most things that are available through the torrent sites are readily available elsewhere on the net if you look for it hard enough.

[fj1200]

How are existing IP laws not sufficient for covering the potential issues without granting additional authority to the AG? It seems that they are adding additional penalties/powers for what is essentially a civil crime. (and yes I understand the criminal penalties)

[Gunny]

It's a protest of the internet industry (or at least many websites) against two proposed bills called SOPA and PIPA. The entertainment industrie wants to gain the right to cencor the web and shut down every website having a britney spears song playing in the background of a video posted on it.

For more information you should read the information page Google provides. Wikipedia is completely shut down today and does provide information on it to. (same goes for reddit and craigslist)

Or any of the conservative/right wing sites it can. I've already caught them censoring certain info that is unflattering to lefwingnut rhetoric. As in ... you back to find an article or link and it's "magically" vanished.


Something about the Congress Censoring the web...

If that's about certain cites people visit in the late nights, i think that's the parents job to block those.

But, if this goes farther then that, one small step toward communism, one giant leap for Gov't. We don't know how to take care of ourselves, let Uncle Sam tell you how.

ah, and here's the link if you need some ref. https://www.google.com/

Where have YOU been? Our curent President embodies that ideal.


Dude, where have you been!?
We've got major legislation going through congress right now that will have an enormous impact on the Internet and today is the day many Internet heavyweights have chosen to protest this legislation.

Run a Google search on SOPA and PIPA for more information.

:laugh:

[jimnyc]

How are existing IP laws not sufficient for covering the potential issues without granting additional authority to the AG? It seems that they are adding additional penalties/powers for what is essentially a civil crime. (and yes I understand the criminal penalties)

First let me say I am 100% against this bill and don't support any part of it at all.

But, from a copyright owners perspective...

Let me give you an example of the problems. I happen to go to a forum all the time, and this forum has about 20 million posts and counting as I type this. It has links to everything from games, movies, applications, documentaries, music... anything at all that you can think of. They simply link to the sofwtare though, which is a very gray area right now and mostly legal. Now, the actual sites that "host" the software are generally in the Netherlands, China and other places that don't give a crap about American copyright laws. Sure, some of them "might" remove a movie or so with a DMCA notice, but it's rare. These are hosts such as: Rapidshare, Filesonic, Megaupload, Wupload, Fileserve... and I can name these hosts for hours. Now I can also list the "warez" sites for days and days - these are the sites that do no more than have a ton of posts simply linking to the hosts that have the software. This makes for free and easy distribution of billlions of dollars of copyrighted material. And thne 999 out of 1000 get away with it as there is little the copyright holders and/or their counsel can do about it.

So now these asswads want the ability to seize domains, webhosts, IP's, DNS servers and ANYTHING at all even remotely related to the piracy. I think they should stick with what they have, go after any/all American outfits stealing copyright and be happy with that. To potentially shut down portions of the internet is way overreaching, and that's putting it mildly. I understand their frustration, but this is like dropping a nuclear bomb on Cuba. They need pinpointed accuracy on their investigations instead, IMO.

[fj1200]

First let me say I am 100% against this bill and don't support any part of it at all.

But, from a copyright owners perspective...

Let me give you an example of the problems...

So now these asswads want the ability to seize domains, webhosts, IP's, DNS servers and ANYTHING at all even remotely related to the piracy. I think they should stick with what they have, go after any/all American outfits stealing copyright and be happy with that. To potentially shut down portions of the internet is way overreaching, and that's putting it mildly. I understand their frustration, but this is like dropping a nuclear bomb on Cuba. They need pinpointed accuracy on their investigations instead, IMO.

I (mostly) get all of that. :) I guess I'm with you that they can work with what they have. I remember last year? the Fed's shut down a bit torrent? site that got everyone up in arms about government action but in my mind it was completely justified given current IP laws.

[jimnyc]

I (mostly) get all of that. :) I guess I'm with you that they can work with what they have. I remember last year? the Fed's shut down a bit torrent? site that got everyone up in arms about government action but in my mind it was completely justified given current IP laws.

Yep, you'll see sites, under current law, disappear and then followed with a new message telling everyone that the website has been seized by ICE. So they do have a lot of power now, but this bill is giving them WAY too much power. I think they'll rewrite it and come back with something very specific.

Here's what you see when visiting a site that has been seized:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iC5s_Yya7Iw/TgIB5mO3t9I/AAAAAAAAAJk/vSmyLFekgS8/s1600/IPKat%2B16%2BSiteSeizedNOTICE.JPG

[fj1200]

Yup, I recognize that. I wonder what the initiating action is? A civil complaint or an action initiated by the Feds? Either way they hopefully need to prove their case prior to seizure. It mentions a seizure warrant so that implies to me that it was signed by a judge.

[Gunny]

I (mostly) get all of that. :) I guess I'm with you that they can work with what they have. I remember last year? the Fed's shut down a bit torrent? site that got everyone up in arms about government action but in my mind it was completely justified given current IP laws.


Yup, I recognize that. I wonder what the initiating action is? A civil complaint or an action initiated by the Feds? Either way they hopefully need to prove their case prior to seizure. It mentions a seizure warrant so that implies to me that it was signed by a judge.

Why do we need IP laws? Looks like just another form of Federal Government control to me. The ideal of freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It's not one-sided. It isn't okay for Jews to whine and Nazi's not be allowed the same. It isn't okay that the left controls the media and the right has no recourse. Equal access, right? Isn't that how the left managed their loser-ville and now defunct Air America? And as a reward for failing, they voted one of the worst comedians and most politically inept people - Al Frankin -- into office.

Seems we have a divide and an issue in thsi country as to just what Constitutional Rights are and WHO rates them.

[fj1200]

Why do we need IP laws?

You don't think we should protect the intellectual property of a persons creativity? Patents, copyrights, etc.? It seemed important enough to include in the constitution iirc.

[Gunny]

You don't think we should protect the intellectual property of a persons creativity? Patents, copyrights, etc.? It seemed important enough to include in the constitution iirc.

We already do, by law. Please clarify your point.

And the riders that allow the Fed Government to dictate to and control the internet as riders to those bills. Please. Thanks.

[fj1200]

We already do, by law. Please clarify your point.

Yes, and it's basis is in the constitution so why did you ask...


Why do we need IP laws?


And the riders that allow the Fed Government to dictate to and control the internet as riders to those bills. Please. Thanks.

Because IP protection is at the heart of their request for powers.

[Sir Evil]

You don't think we should protect the intellectual property of a persons creativity? Patents, copyrights, etc.? It seemed important enough to include in the constitution iirc.

To a degree yes but here is my problem with the whole copyright shit! When I started my music collection at a young age 8track tapes were in (Screw you Gunny, I'm not that old!), I start my collection and 8 tracks get phazed out, I start over again with vinyl, build a huge collection and vinyl gets virtually fazed out, now I start once again with cassettes and yeah they get phazed out by CD's.. now these fuckers collected royalties 4 times over from me and now I am in trouble if I download one of the albums that I already paid a bundle into royalties? Thats some bullshit if you ask me! Our government sucks ass and this alone should put that monkey out of office in my opinion! Now his brothers from other mothers are going to be robbing whitey of their music collections so they can play music in their cadillacs which is already being paid for with welfare checks!!!:afro:

[Sir Evil]

If in doubt, save your IPs for manual access.

megaupload.com 174.140.154.20


and ofcourse, debate policy - 69.73.139.27

Take megaupload of that list.... government shut it down!

MegaUpload shut down by feds: Why do we need SOPA?

File-sharing mecca MegaUpload.com (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=11ekkc0jg/EXP=1328233762/**http%3A//www.megaupload.com/) is dead, shut down at the hands of the US federal government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has arrested four people (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12e8ia9ib/EXP=1328233762/**http%3A//www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html), and charged three others, in the anti-piracy sting. The forced closure of MegaUpload comes just one day after a mass online protest (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12nk74g5c/EXP=1328233762/**http%3A//www.digitaltrends.com/web/sopa-pipa-blackout-by-the-numbers/) against two pieces of legislation that aim to increase the power of copyright holders to block access to websites that illegally distribute intellectual property, like music and movies.http://news.yahoo.com/megaupload-shut-down-feds-why-sopa-225952735.html

[Noir]

Take megaupload of that list.... government shut it down!

MegaUpload shut down by feds: Why do we need SOPA?

File-sharing mecca MegaUpload.com (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=11ekkc0jg/EXP=1328233762/**http%3A//www.megaupload.com/) is dead, shut down at the hands of the US federal government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has arrested four people (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12e8ia9ib/EXP=1328233762/**http%3A//www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html), and charged three others, in the anti-piracy sting. The forced closure of MegaUpload comes just one day after a mass online protest (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12nk74g5c/EXP=1328233762/**http%3A//www.digitaltrends.com/web/sopa-pipa-blackout-by-the-numbers/) against two pieces of legislation that aim to increase the power of copyright holders to block access to websites that illegally distribute intellectual property, like music and movies.http://news.yahoo.com/megaupload-shut-down-feds-why-sopa-225952735.html

And the internet is biting back -


http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/anon-1.jpg

Anonymous has sure been quiet lately, but today’s federal bust of Megaupload (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/01/feds-kill-megaupload/) riled ‘em up good: a retaliatory strike against DoJ.gov has left it completely dead.

DownForEveryoneOrJustMe.com is reporting the department’s site as universally nuked, and an Anonymous-affiliated Twitter account is boasting (https://twitter.com/anondaily/status/160120306265100289) success. This is almost certainly the result of a quickly assembled DDoS attack (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/12/what-is-loic/), and easily the widest in scope we’ve seen in some time. If you had any doubts Anonymous is still a hacker wrecking ball, doubt no more.

The combination of the hacking nebula’s SOPA animosity — they’ve been a vocal opponent of the bill since its inception — combined with today’s sudden Megaupload news has made the group bubble over: hundreds upon hundreds of Anon operatives are in a plotting frenzy, chatting about which site will go down next. In Anon’s eyes, the government and media interests are responsible for the undue destruction of Megaupload (and the arrest of four of its operators), so it’ll be exactly those entities that are feeling the pain right now. Pretty much every company that makes movies, TV or music, along with the entirety of the federal government, is in Anonymous’ crosshairs.

Update: Anonymous says they’ve also knocked off the RIAA’s site — looks down for us at the moment as well.
Update 2: Universal Music Group has also fallen off an e-cliff.
Update 3: Goodbye for now, MPAA.org.
Update 4: Affected sites are bouncing in and out of life, and are at the very least super slow to load. Anon agents are currently trying to coordinate their DDoS attacks in the same direction via IRC.
Update 5: The US Copyright Office joins the list.
Update 6: This Anon sums up the mood in their “official” chat room at the moment:
Update 7: Russian news service RT claims this is the largest coordinated attack in Anonymous’ history — over 5600 DDoS zealots blasting at once.

[logroller]

I came across this response from a writer who's been the victim of plagiarism. Here's the link (http://aftergadget.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/a-plagiarised-writers-response-to-pipa-sopa-during-the-blackout/), the piece is released from copyright for personal use, or in the author's words, "Feel free to use whatever is relevant or useful to you:" Here's an excerpt.


Megacompanies like Amazon need to be held accountable. They did their best to evade me, making their legal department all-but-unreachable, and then when I threatened them with legal action, they simply took down the pirated article without acknowledging my correspondence or compensating me for my stolen work. The big money-making machines, like Amazon, need to know that the DOJ has them in their sights, that authors need to be respected and protected.

But indiscriminate, sweeping legislation like SOPA or PIPA is not the answer. It throws the baby out with the bath water. It will not stop the internet megacorporations from their sloppy, unethical (and lucrative) practice of ignoring stolen work, but it will seriously damage the free exchange of ideas and information that is the life’s blood of the internet. The people of the internet are united in our opposition to SOPA and PIPA.



Just curious, how many contacted a representative? I did.

[fj1200]

To a degree yes but here is my problem with the whole copyright shit! When I started my music collection at a young age 8track tapes were in (Screw you Gunny, I'm not that old!), I start my collection and 8 tracks get phazed out, I start over again with vinyl, build a huge collection and vinyl gets virtually fazed out, now I start once again with cassettes and yeah they get phazed out by CD's.. now these fuckers collected royalties 4 times over from me and now I am in trouble if I download one of the albums that I already paid a bundle into royalties? Thats some bullshit if you ask me! Our government sucks ass and this alone should put that monkey out of office in my opinion! Now his brothers from other mothers are going to be robbing whitey of their music collections so they can play music in their cadillacs which is already being paid for with welfare checks!!!:afro:

That last part aside... how are they to distinguish between your "justified" download and one that is unjustified. Also, why don't you upload your CDs? Besides, are they still collecting copyright on Foghat: Energized?

[Gunny]

Yes, and it's basis is in the constitution so why did you ask...





Because IP protection is at the heart of their request for powers.

If it's already covered by the Constitution, why do we need yet another law to cover something we already have?

Congress can't balance the budget. It can't rein in a rogue, communist President. But it CAN make sure it adjourns for Christmas, and it can stick its nose into shit that is so far down the priority list no one could survive the fall to get that far down the ladder.

Sorry. IMO, just another ploy for the Federal Government to monitor us.

[fj1200]

^It gives Congress the power to make the law, it isn't a law by itself. But I agree, it's a bad law as they already have the tools they need to attack the problem.

[Gunny]

^It gives Congress the power to make the law, it isn't a law by itself. But I agree, it's a bad law as they already have the tools they need to attack the problem.

Damn. I'm going to be ill. Agree with you AND Gabby on the same day?:puke3:

[Gaffer]

To a degree yes but here is my problem with the whole copyright shit! When I started my music collection at a young age 8track tapes were in (Screw you Gunny, I'm not that old!), I start my collection and 8 tracks get phazed out, I start over again with vinyl, build a huge collection and vinyl gets virtually fazed out, now I start once again with cassettes and yeah they get phazed out by CD's.. now these fuckers collected royalties 4 times over from me and now I am in trouble if I download one of the albums that I already paid a bundle into royalties? Thats some bullshit if you ask me! Our government sucks ass and this alone should put that monkey out of office in my opinion! Now his brothers from other mothers are going to be robbing whitey of their music collections so they can play music in their cadillacs which is already being paid for with welfare checks!!!:afro:

I know how you feel. Been there myself. I feel that music I have previously paid for is mine. So if I down load an mp3 to listen too they can't say I stole it because I own it on tape or record. Someone was just nice enough to make an mp3 from a record and makes it convenient for me to play the song on my computer.

[fj1200]

I know how you feel. Been there myself. I feel that music I have previously paid for is mine. So if I down load an mp3 to listen too they can't say I stole it because I own it on tape or record. Someone was just nice enough to make an mp3 from a record and makes it convenient for me to play the song on my computer.

Even if you swing that argument, the source that you got it from may either be engaging in, or facilitating, piracy. It's justifiable to shut down that site and others like it. IF the rules were observed by all it's unlikely you would have the chance to download a song without some sort of compensation going to the creator.

[Sir Evil]

That last part aside... how are they to distinguish between your "justified" download and one that is unjustified. Also, why don't you upload your CDs? Besides, are they still collecting copyright on Foghat: Energized?

Nothing to destinguish! Most who download music generally are true enthusiasts ans will likely by the real deal if they like it, the rest that outright steal the shit don't amount remotely close to the claims of industry loss.

Upload my cd's? Thats fucking worse then downloading, thats exactly what gets most people in the shit to beging with. If I upload some music for you to download, then I am redistributing the copyright I don't have ownership to and therefor am in copyright violation. At least a download can be used to sample and discard without actually violating copyright.

And is foghat still collecting royalties? hell yeah if another unit of that album sells today they collect. My point exactly! You get whiny bitches like the Metallica drummer who made the big stink that brought down Napster meanwhile the fucker laughs all the way to the bank, were illegal downloads really hitting the band in the wallet? yeah, not really. In fact many modern bands approve of downloading and many of them offer free downloads just so their music does get distributed to people who may not be familiar with them.

Damn, I own stock in half the bands that are crying foul over copyrights... bitches!
Don't even wanna get started on the hollywood homos and their bitching about movie downloads....:smoke:

[Sir Evil]

I know how you feel. Been there myself. I feel that music I have previously paid for is mine. So if I down load an mp3 to listen too they can't say I stole it because I own it on tape or record. Someone was just nice enough to make an mp3 from a record and makes it convenient for me to play the song on my computer.

There might be some things in place to make it harder but will never be stopped! Just like the old days when you borrowed a buddies records to record copies for yourself, it's too big to fully contain.

[logroller]

Even if you swing that argument, the source that you got it from may either be engaging in, or facilitating, piracy. It's justifiable to shut down that site and others like it. IF the rules were observed by all it's unlikely you would have the chance to download a song without some sort of compensation going to the creator.

Is it the creators who are really getting screwed, or the copyright owner? For every dollar lost to piracy, I'd bet 75 cents would of went to those who didn't create anything other than buzz; the internet obviously competes in that respect, and Big Music Corp doesn't like competition anymore than government does.

[Noir]

Dave Grohl on said issue...

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/tumblr_ly3wz4ngS31qhrn35o1_500.jpg

I've always thought it odd that if a movie is played on the TV i can record it, watch it whenever i like, share it with friends etc. But to download the same movie, for the same cost (free) from the net, would make me a theif 0,o

[fj1200]

Nothing to destinguish! Most who download music generally are true enthusiasts ans will likely by the real deal if they like it, the rest that outright steal the shit don't amount remotely close to the claims of industry loss.

I hope that's true but that seems different than your argument of having to repeatedly buy the same copyright. I think that there is clearly a problem that the industry is concerned about and they should have the recourse that they have; not SOPA/PIPA though.


Upload my cd's? Thats fucking worse then downloading, thats exactly what gets most people in the shit to beging with. If I upload some music for you to download, then I am redistributing the copyright I don't have ownership to and therefor am in copyright violation. At least a download can be used to sample and discard without actually violating copyright.

I guess that's what I meant, downloading what you've bought into a different format for personal use. My apologies. :bunny4:


And is foghat still collecting royalties? hell yeah if another unit of that album sells today they collect. My point exactly! You get whiny bitches like the Metallica drummer who made the big stink that brought down Napster meanwhile the fucker laughs all the way to the bank, were illegal downloads really hitting the band in the wallet? yeah, not really. In fact many modern bands approve of downloading and many of them offer free downloads just so their music does get distributed to people who may not be familiar with them.

Damn, I own stock in half the bands that are crying foul over copyrights... bitches!
Don't even wanna get started on the hollywood homos and their bitching about movie downloads....:smoke:

My joke fell flat. :sad:

[fj1200]

Is it the creators who are really getting screwed, or the copyright owner? For every dollar lost to piracy, I'd bet 75 cents would of went to those who didn't create anything other than buzz; the internet obviously competes in that respect, and Big Music Corp doesn't like competition anymore than government does.

I was equating the two. Their interests are shared... theoretically.

[Noir]

SOPA and PIPA dropped, win 8)


After a long week of raising the stakes it seems that the anti SOPA/PIPA activists have won the day. On Friday January 20th, Congress dropped the bills in the wake of the largest online protest in history. An incredible 13 million people took time to fill out a petition to implore congress to oppose the bills in order to keep the internet free of censorship. You can see the astonishing numbers here. (http://www.sopastrike.com/numbers)This activism, alongside the web “blackout” on Wednesday by 1,000s of websites including Wikipedia and Reddit, was unprecedented. Even the MPAA (one of the largest lobbies for the awful bills) was shocked having previously considered SOPA and PIPA a “slam dunk.” MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times (http://act.fightforthefuture.org/page/m/2e1f208c/1d077e44/71a2e807/f863ecc/792266058/VEsE/) in a statement that “this was a whole new different game all of a sudden.”
http://tech.pnosker.com/2012/01/20/sopa-and-pipa-dropped-by-congress-in-wake-of-largest-online-protest-in-history/

[logroller]

I was equating the two. Their interests are shared... theoretically.

Like States' sovereignty.:poke::laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I've always thought it odd that if a movie is played on the TV i can record it, watch it whenever i like, share it with friends etc. But to download the same movie, for the same cost (free) from the net, would make me a theif 0,o

You technically cannot record a movie and share it with friends, at least not here in the US. Distribution of copyrighted material is distribution. They don't care about the difference between "sharing" with a friend or selling the media. I agree that it sucks and is stupid, but you can't redistribute copyrighted material whether on the 'net or amongst friends. Hell, try buying "some" songs on Itunes - some come with the ability to burn it to media - ONE TIME. If you try to burn it a second time, won't work. Hell, you BOUGHT the media, but they still "control" what you do with it from there.

[fj1200]

^ I'm not sure what you thinks "sucks and is stupid." It's the heart of IP laws it seems to me.

[jimnyc]

^ I'm not sure what you thinks "sucks and is stupid." It's the heart of IP laws it seems to me.

Yeah, and I think applying these laws to individuals who aren't "distributing" the material for profit, sucks and is stupid.

[Gaffer]

SOPA and PIPA dropped, win 8)


http://tech.pnosker.com/2012/01/20/sopa-and-pipa-dropped-by-congress-in-wake-of-largest-online-protest-in-history/

Just shows them they will have to be more indirect and under the table in how they push their agenda through.

[Noir]

You technically cannot record a movie and share it with friends, at least not here in the US. Distribution of copyrighted material is distribution. They don't care about the difference between "sharing" with a friend or selling the media. I agree that it sucks and is stupid, but you can't redistribute copyrighted material whether on the 'net or amongst friends. Hell, try buying "some" songs on Itunes - some come with the ability to burn it to media - ONE TIME. If you try to burn it a second time, won't work. Hell, you BOUGHT the media, but they still "control" what you do with it from there.

Me wonders how they differentiate between gifting and distribution...

[jimnyc]

Me wonders how they differentiate between gifting and distribution...

Easy! Here in the States, if it's copyrighted, there is no "gifting", as it's not yours to give away.

[Noir]

Easy! Here in the States, if it's copyrighted, there is no "gifting", as it's not yours to give away.

So you can't give people CDs that you own?

[fj1200]

So you can't give people CDs that you own?

Sure you can, you can even sell them to a dealer. You could theoretically run into trouble if you copied them first and then passed them on/sold them.

[fj1200]

Yeah, and I think applying these laws to individuals who aren't "distributing" the material for profit, sucks and is stupid.

Profit is your determining factor? I would put it at quantity. If you make it available online where it's easily accessible, and traceable, you're asking for a world of hurt.

[jimnyc]

Profit is your determining factor? I would put it at quantity. If you make it available online where it's easily accessible, and traceable, you're asking for a world of hurt.

Nope, I simply meant that the scenario of a friend sharing a movie he taped, was far different than someone "distributing" it (as to the masses online) or profiting from it (as in those who tape them and sell them).

[jimnyc]

So you can't give people CDs that you own?

I thought we were still talking about what was taped off of your TV...

Yes, you can give away YOUR cd, but you cannot make a copy of what you bought and then share it. Not even one song.

[fj1200]

Nope, I simply meant that the scenario of a friend sharing a movie he taped, was far different than someone "distributing" it (as to the masses online) or profiting from it (as in those who tape them and sell them).

OK, I'm with ya now.

[Noir]

I thought we were still talking about what was taped off of your TV...

Yes, you can give away YOUR cd, but you cannot make a copy of what you bought and then share it. Not even one song.

Mkay, so i buy a CD, burn it to my mac, gift my CD to a friend, who burns it and gifts it to a friend etc etc.

you can replace CD with DVD/Book etc.

[jimnyc]

Mkay, so i buy a CD, burn it to my mac, gift my CD to a friend, who burns it and gifts it to a friend etc etc.

you can replace CD with DVD/Book etc.

Nope, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The copyright is exclusive to the cd/dvd, and may very allow for a backup. But you can't make copies, whether for backup or not, and pass it on and let multiple people possess with one purchase. What you did is just give the definition of piracy - getting music/movie yourself and sharing copies with others.

[Sir Evil]

I hope that's true but that seems different than your argument of having to repeatedly buy the same copyright. I think that there is clearly a problem that the industry is concerned about and they should have the recourse that they have; not SOPA/PIPA though.

:

You don't buy copyrights, what I was suggesting is that the industry had no problem fucking me for years as I bought collections in several different formats as one after the other fazed out but where are the artist crying foul over that when we had to buy their music several times over? thing is it's good when they squeezing the money out of you but when you think your are getting a bit of a kickback the fuckers run to their lawyers.

Look at it like this, you go to a good bar and lay out the bucks for several rounds of drinks, a good barmaid will give a round on the house, a little sign of appreciation for the money already made from you. Whats wrong with the industry giving a little back to the people that made that industry so rich? bottom line is that they aren't loosing as much as they claim but they just don't wanna lose anything at all.

[Sir Evil]

Add Filesonic to the ranks as they just closed their sharing ability to only being able to download the content you have uploaded yourself.

Filesonic Teams Up with Vobile to Protect Copyrighted Digital Content

Vobile's vCloud9 is the first such digital protection technology to enable sites to examine content, match it to Vobile's extensive database of digital content 'fingerprints' and pull the questionable content before publication. This represents a huge technological step in preventing pirated content from going viral on the web.
http://markets.financialcontent.com/mng-ba.mercurynews/news/read?GUID=20222568

[fj1200]

^ Maybe SOPA/PIPA did its job.

[ConHog]

ill tell you what pisses me off. All the fucking crooks have made it hard on the guy who just wants to use shit he paid for. Take my DVR for example. I have paid for the shows/movies I have recorded I should be able to watch them wherever and whenever I want. But no, can't , you can't transfer the files to another hard drive, they won't play. And if your DVR goes out? Too bad, even putting the old HD in a new unit won't allow them to be viewed.

Now of course you COULD sit there and record them on another device as you watch them, but what an inefficient process that is.

[fj1200]

Take my DVR for example. I have paid for the shows/movies I have recorded...

How did you pay for what's on your DVR? Isn't that just broadcast shows/movies?

<--- Doesn't have a DVR.

[jimnyc]

ill tell you what pisses me off. All the fucking crooks have made it hard on the guy who just wants to use shit he paid for. Take my DVR for example. I have paid for the shows/movies I have recorded I should be able to watch them wherever and whenever I want. But no, can't , you can't transfer the files to another hard drive, they won't play. And if your DVR goes out? Too bad, even putting the old HD in a new unit won't allow them to be viewed.

Now of course you COULD sit there and record them on another device as you watch them, but what an inefficient process that is.


How did you pay for what's on your DVR? Isn't that just broadcast shows/movies?

<--- Doesn't have a DVR.

From the onset of DVR's they made it so that what you record isn't transferrable. Most shows/movies are copyrighted anyway, and aren't meant to be moved between multiple devices. Recording a show, watching it later, then deleting it is ok. But they designed these devices so that you can't record something, place it on your computer and then share with the world.

But yeah, if you have a "device failure" on your DVR, and had 60 hours of shows/movies recorded that you haven't watched yet, you're shit out of luck!

[ConHog]

How did you pay for what's on your DVR? Isn't that just broadcast shows/movies?

<--- Doesn't have a DVR.

Oh, sorry, No I'm on DirecTv. They are all the same though, they have their files encrypted to each particular DVR.

[ConHog]

From the onset of DVR's they made it so that what you record isn't transferrable. Most shows/movies are copyrighted anyway, and aren't meant to be moved between multiple devices. Recording a show, watching it later, then deleting it is ok. But they designed these devices so that you can't record something, place it on your computer and then share with the world.

But yeah, if you have a "device failure" on your DVR, and had 60 hours of shows/movies recorded that you haven't watched yet, you're shit out of luck!

I just think that is bullshit. And yes, I had the dreaded device failure last year. Had 2 complete seasons of Highlander just gone. Now of course I can just download those episodes from Hulu.com anyway, so the protection is dumb.

And I don't even want to do anything illegal. I have a 3 TB network drive where I have stored a bunch of my movies and such and put the DVDs up, we can watch those from anywhere that is connected to our home network. Now obviously I COULD copy those files and share them, but I don't, and likewise I wouldn't do anything illegal with my DVR recordings, I'd just like to move them to my network drive. But can't b/c of idiots who DO do illegal things.

[jimnyc]

I just think that is bullshit. And yes, I had the dreaded device failure last year. Had 2 complete seasons of Highlander just gone. Now of course I can just download those episodes from Hulu.com anyway, so the protection is dumb.

And I don't even want to do anything illegal. I have a 3 TB network drive where I have stored a bunch of my movies and such and put the DVDs up, we can watch those from anywhere that is connected to our home network. Now obviously I COULD copy those files and share them, but I don't, and likewise I wouldn't do anything illegal with my DVR recordings, I'd just like to move them to my network drive. But can't b/c of idiots who DO do illegal things.

Playing devils advocate here...

They do what they do to protect copyright infringement and/or piracy abuse. Suppose they design these DVR's in a manner where the drives work just like others, and you won't lose data in most failures, or it is transferrable - then how do they stop those looking to break the law? Everything and anything would then be wide open and available for abuse on their devices.

... With that said, the pirates already take what they want off of TV at will in other ways.

[ConHog]

Playing devils advocate here...

They do what they do to protect copyright infringement and/or piracy abuse. Suppose they design these DVR's in a manner where the drives work just like others, and you won't lose data in most failures, or it is transferrable - then how do they stop those looking to break the law? Everything and anything would then be wide open and available for abuse on their devices.

... With that said, the pirates already take what they want off of TV at will in other ways.

Of course what you say SOUNDS good, but let's say that other industries followed suit. Say automakers decide they don't want people who are willing to break the law speeding in their cars, and so they put rev limiters on them that limit how fast they can go....

Just as a small example.

[fj1200]

^You own a car, you don't own a song/movie. A car is also not easily copied at virtually zero cost.

[ConHog]

^You own a car, you don't own a song/movie. A car is also not easily copied at virtually zero cost.

Actually, when you purchase a song/movie you DO own that copy of the song or movie.

Chapter 111
Sound Recordings and Music Videos

1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved —

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,

shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

(b) Definition. — As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

(c) Applicability. — This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

(d) State Law Not Preempted. — Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
Chapter 11 Endnote

1In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act added chapter 11, entitled “Sound Recordings and Music Videos,” to title 17. Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4974.


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html


Now by virtue of providing the DVR in the first place, DirecTV has obviously already consented to allowing me to record their material. They aren't trying to prevent me from doing so. All they are trying to do is prevent me from storing that content anywhere but on the hardware THEY provide.

AND it's a stupid attempt anyway, all I have to do is hook a DVD recorder up and record the shows as I'm watching them. But that is time intensive, and doesn't accomplish my goal.

I say again, what I want to do is NOT illegal in any sense of the word.

[logroller]

Actually, when you purchase a song/movie you DO own that copy of the song or movie.

Chapter 111
Sound Recordings and Music Videos

1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved —

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,

shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

(b) Definition. — As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

(c) Applicability. — This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

(d) State Law Not Preempted. — Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
Chapter 11 Endnote

1In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act added chapter 11, entitled “Sound Recordings and Music Videos,” to title 17. Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4974.


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html


Now by virtue of providing the DVR in the first place, DirecTV has obviously already consented to allowing me to record their material. They aren't trying to prevent me from doing so. All they are trying to do is prevent me from storing that content anywhere but on the hardware THEY provide.

AND it's a stupid attempt anyway, all I have to do is hook a DVD recorder up and record the shows as I'm watching them. But that is time intensive, and doesn't accomplish my goal.

I say again, what I want to do is NOT illegal in any sense of the word.

Right, that would be 'unauthorized fixation'; whereas utilizing the DVR they provide, I assume, has been authorizedby the content owner under certain conditions, ie license; such as some precaution is made to prevent further fixation and/or distribution. Similarly, a piece of software may be licensed for family use; where a limited number of copies are expressly authorized. I don't own that software, nor that show I recorded on a DVR; I've been authorized to possess and use it according to the license; big difference from owning it IMO.

[fj1200]

You don't buy copyrights...


Actually, when you purchase a song/movie you DO own that copy of the song or movie.

OK, Evil says I don't buy, you say I own... you two should argue about the wording you want me to use. :poke:


Now by virtue of providing the DVR in the first place, DirecTV has obviously already consented to allowing me to record their material. They aren't trying to prevent me from doing so. All they are trying to do is prevent me from storing that content anywhere but on the hardware THEY provide.

AND it's a stupid attempt anyway, all I have to do is hook a DVD recorder up and record the shows as I'm watching them. But that is time intensive, and doesn't accomplish my goal.

I say again, what I want to do is NOT illegal in any sense of the word.

It's not DirecTV's material to consent. I think they (DVR people) are complying with industry standards upstream in how they are allowed to record material.

I wish I could get a DVR that would record over-the-air broadcasts as I don't have cable or dish but the few that are out there are pretty pricey and I guess I don't care that much.

[ConHog]

OK, Evil says I don't buy, you say I own... you two should argue about the wording you want me to use. :poke:



It's not DirecTV's material to consent. I think they (DVR people) are complying with industry standards upstream in how they are allowed to record material.

I wish I could get a DVR that would record over-the-air broadcasts as I don't have cable or dish but the few that are out there are pretty pricey and I guess I don't care that much.

TIVO won't record over the air? What about building your own, a cheap computer with WIndows 7 and a video capture card would do it.

[fj1200]

TIVO won't record over the air? What about building your own, a cheap computer with WIndows 7 and a video capture card would do it.

Pretty sure not and I saw two devices that would but neither worth the price right now, one really pricey but another not so much. I don't want to go building anything at this point. I did see a jury-rig method that could use a VCR to record the new digital broadcasts but that requires a separate tuner and not worth the trouble now either. I can live with the few shows OTA and the rest on netflix via our Roku2.

[LuvRPgrl]

I wouldn't go that far. Their overreaching is mostly geared towards "piracy". And while I don't have a problem with people protecting the intellectual property and other "ownership", I have a HUGE problem with how the bill is designed to go about it. But DP would be at the very, very end of a long list, IF we would ever be on any list. I suppose things could go a little out of control if entire DNS servers were killed with webhosting providers, but I don't see that happening. In fact, from what I'm reading, I think this bill is going to be DOA in the long run anyway.

Does anyone have the latest news on the progress of this bill?

Its damn scary it even got this far.
Some here have shared info that might be construed as piracy.

I dont understand why people lay down like lemmings on the piracy issue. Last I checked, the movie and music industry is doing just fine.
Maybe lady ga ga only made 7 mil last year instead of 9 mil because of piracy.
The trademark laws incorporated by the founding fathers had nothing to do with music, IT WAS INTENDED SOLELY TO ALLOW INVENTERS TO GET THEIR INVESTMENT BACK ON THEIR INVENTIONS, and the trademarks had an expiration date on them.
If inventors couldnt get their money back from their inventions, they would have no reason to invent anything.

[fj1200]

I dont understand why people lay down like lemmings on the piracy issue. Last I checked, the movie and music industry is doing just fine.
Maybe lady ga ga only made 7 mil last year instead of 9 mil because of piracy.
The trademark laws incorporated by the founding fathers had nothing to do with music, IT WAS INTENDED SOLELY TO ALLOW INVENTERS TO GET THEIR INVESTMENT BACK ON THEIR INVENTIONS, and the trademarks had an expiration date on them.
If inventors couldnt get their money back from their inventions, they would have no reason to invent anything.

The law is pretty clear on the issue so there's no "laying down." Also disagree on the intent:


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Authors and songwriters are not "inventors" but they do make an investment in their product.

[LuvRPgrl]

I came across this response from a writer who's been the victim of plagiarism. Here's the link (http://aftergadget.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/a-plagiarised-writers-response-to-pipa-sopa-during-the-blackout/), the piece is released from copyright for personal use, or in the author's words, "Feel free to use whatever is relevant or useful to you:" Here's an excerpt.





Just curious, how many contacted a representative? I did.

The one basic problem is that they will only go after instances of piracy from the big boys, smaller people and organizations wont be important enough, or far ranging enough to be included on those the govt is trying to protect.


ill tell you what pisses me off. All the fucking crooks have made it hard on the guy who just wants to use shit he paid for. Take my DVR for example. I have paid for the shows/movies I have recorded I should be able to watch them wherever and whenever I want. But no, can't , you can't transfer the files to another hard drive, they won't play. And if your DVR goes out? Too bad, even putting the old HD in a new unit won't allow them to be viewed.

Now of course you COULD sit there and record them on another device as you watch them, but what an inefficient process that is.

Hey, if you dont like it, dont buy a dvr.
I think the TSA should be in charge, everytime someone wants to watch a movie, or play music, a TsA agent needs to inspect the media it is recorded on.


The law is pretty clear on the issue so there's no "laying down." Also disagree on the intent:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Authors and songwriters are not "inventors" but they do make an investment in their product.

"laying down", I meant willing to accept anything the gov says we need to do to stop piracy.

I see "limited time" in there, so whats that about foghat again?

[fj1200]

^The response to SOPA/PIPA was not laying down; The people "lobbied" quite effectively.

And apparently Foghat > "limited time."

[LuvRPgrl]

^The response to SOPA/PIPA was not laying down; The people "lobbied" quite effectively.

And apparently Foghat > "limited time."

thats not what I was saying, I will explain later,

Dont they still git royalties?
I thought these copyrights were open ended?
If they collected on them for a period of time, that would be fine by me, after all, after a certain period of time, the artists arent even really getting much money, only the promoters and producers, record companies, etc.

[Noir]

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/gail-1.jpg