Irrelevant might not be the right word.
It's just not a good argument for justifying giving out free copies of music/movies to neighbors.
Says me, in agreement with opinions I've read around the internets.
People have been sharing with neighbors since the beginning of time. It's only become a legal issue now that sharing is being done on a mass scale.
I'm not saying the entertainment industry shouldn't care. I'm saying it's on them to evolve their business. It's not on Congress to get involved with protecting a business model that has not grown with the times. Their product is no longer worth what they expect people to pay for it.
And with that said, as evidenced by the success of iTunes, people ARE willing to pay for music if you adjust access and prices to meet consumer demand.
lol Blake using an alleged online consensus as a crutch
Yes, someone out there agrees with me and has taken the time and effort to explain why that argument is .
Why wouldn't I borrow said crutch if I agree with the content? I like to work smart.
Rofl.
you don't you post it here, so we can receive the benefit too?
I didn't see the request for such a source in the middle of your lol.
Give me a few hours to get to my laptop and I'll post it.
thx
The broad definitions in the bill create tremendous uncertainty for nearly every site online. This sounds like hyperbole, but it is not. Defenders of the bill like to claim that it is "narrowly focused" on foreign rogue infringing sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. While PIPA targets only foreign sites, the mechanism by which it does so is to put tremendous compliance and liability on third party service providers in the US. SOPA goes even further in expanding the private right of action to domestic sites as well. We've already seen how such laws can be abused by looking at how frequently false takedown claims are made under the existing DMCA. Of course, under the DMCA, just the content is blocked. Under SOPA all money to a site can be cut off. Under PIPA sites will just end up in court. Or, with both laws, an Attorney General can take action leading US companies to have to effectively act as network nannies trying to keep infringement from being accessible. None of this is good for anyone building a startup company these days. The massive uncertainty around this, combined with the need for a huge legal department sitting in "the garage" as a startup begins, will certainly slow down the pace of innovation in the US, while likely driving it elsewhere.
And the definitions are ridiculously broad. Under SOPA, you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if the core functionality of your site "enables or facilitates" infringement. The core functionality of nearly every internet website that involves user generated content enables and facilitates infringement. The entire internet itself enables or facilitates infringement. Email enables or facilitates infringement. They have significant non-infringing uses as well, but the definition leaves that out entirely. Under SOPA, there's also a risk if you take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement on a site. Of course, it's not at all clear how one takes deliberate actions to avoid taking action. The only way to read this clause from a tech company perspective is that it requires proactive monitoring, which is effectively impossible for a user generated content site. PROTECT IP's definitions are equally broad, again using the "enabling" or "facilitating" language.
The risk of these broad definitions on perfectly legitimate companies is not theoretical: Defenders of both bills continue to insist that they're only meant to deal with the worst of the worst. If that were really true, the definitions would be a lot tighter and a lot more specific. Even if this is the intention of the authors of both bills, the simple fact is that the very broad definitions in the bill, mean that any entrepreneur today will need to take significant compliance costs just to avoid the possible appearance of fitting the criteria.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ad-ideas.shtml
Spurminator made points similar to the techdirt article about an underserved market and business models that don't change with the times
The sites today being "blacked out" will hopeully go a long way to ending this bull .
http://blog.chron.com/brokenrecord/2...you-are-wrong/
http://internet-entrepreneurship.com...st-part-three/
http://www.udel.edu/legaltunes/
"..At the University of Delaware, there are no excuses for illegally downloading...."
great.
How is stealing music justified if they don't adjust?
enforceable rights of artists should and will be enforced to whatever extent possible, but maybe their business plans need to start changing too
a forerunner of SOPA's arbitrary power to shutdown anybody was the financial shutting down payments to wikileaks.
so the financial sector could also shutdown donations to left/right-wing sites, and SOPA could take their domains out of DNS and registrars.
Only a fool would think such incredible power wouldn't be abused.
So how all those 3 links address this?
Mehhhhhh.....can't find what I was looking for. I may dig back through this thread.
Either way, please explain why you feel that those two things are justification for piracy.
Those two points were not brought up to justify piracy. Why would I need to justify that?
The points by Spurminator? Yes, they were.
Nope.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=392
When you find that link that proves that a pirate copy automatically equates a lost sale, please post it. Thanks.
I the context off the conversation, yup.
Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later.When you find that link that proves that a pirate copy automatically equates a lost sale, please post it. Thanks.
K, thanks.
I've done it. Not only with songs. I don't know what's weird about that. People used to do that all the time with tapes too.
I fundamentally disagree with calling it stealing.
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually know any people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote