US Bill S.978 (Very important to know)

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Melpomene

This bill criminalizes a lot of good people. Some people who wouldn't do any harm intentionally. There are those of us who pirate, but I must confess I have bought more things due to it. I'm well below the poverty line on disability, and there are just some things I can't obtain. So I often have to pirate it in order to see it. Otherwise I am basically in the dark.

Yet there are so many karaoke bars here, and young bands do plenty of covers in order to get started. It is easier to gain popularity doing songs people know first before exposing your own material. Since people are often less likely to pay attention to something original if you're not popular. So this bill effects my brother who doesn't pirate anything, buys all that he owns, and is basically law abiding.

This bill is highly facist, and it never ceases to amaze me what new limiting rules, laws, and bills come out of the United States. Yet the citizens are taught they're truly the most free.

Like others have said, it's purely for money and perhaps scare tactics too. The truth is, piracy hardly has any effect on sales of a product. It's been touched on over in this thread. Like you, a lot of people wouldn't have bought the product to begin with if they hadn't downloaded/streamed it first, and there are those people who simply can't buy it because the stuff's just too damned expensive for their meager salary (benefits in your case) _they should think on that before screaming they're losing sales_

There's plenty of other types of sales that don't benefit the producers that have been existing for decades and no one's ever said a thing against them: garage sales, pawn shops, the likes. All of them are a medium of second hand sales and the only ones who benefit are the people doing these sales. Illegal they may not be, but they're no less immoral than any other type of selling (even first-hand selling imo). So the point is, what's really losing them sales is their money-grubbing attitude.

This is just an attempt to control what goes on around the inet so that it becomes easier to monitor people's actions. Governments have always been about control, but as I said earlier, the inet's become an entity of people who are not under the control of the government, one that isn't ruled by a universal controlling body, and that's what the governments and industries are really after. The inet's got potential for them to make more sales than they already are, but the free exchange of info is what's stopping them from doing that.

[Melpomene]

It's definitely what it seems. What this will do is scare the average joe who doesn't really feel like they are doing wrong. If it got really bad some of us would just move it to the more 'private' areas of the internet. On disability I can't "window shop" and I can't risk buying something that turns out to be a flop. So often times I test before I buy. Like you said most of us can't handle buyer's guilt when we bought a game, a cd, or something that is poorly done. FFXIV anyone? Due to my trying the game I avoided buying what I felt was utter crap. It is a matter of more money as opposed to losing, but they take the losing standpoint in hopes to get sympathy.

Oh yes! How can I forget pawn shops and garage sales. That is a really good point, since I often can find games I wanted at a garage sale as opposed to buying them. It's exactly the same in my opinion and I see little difference. Indeed, they have 'profit goals' each year and when they don't meet those goals they scream "Internet!!" rather than perhaps their advertising campaigns and incompetance. In the 90s they understood that in business there are rises and falls. Nowadays everything must be because people are pirating on the internet, as if we didn't pirate before.

[Tsuyoshi]

To put it simply, they just want to gain the moral high ground with all the people who aren't "guilty" of downloading so that they gain support to control the inet and what goes on around it so that they have a new place for doing business and making sales. Right now, there's no point because people find a way of getting things for free from the inet. I've been downloading everything I watch for years ever since I started uni 6 years ago: movies, animes, music....games are something of an exception since it's hard to get proper ps3 games without getting everything you can from it (DLC's and bonus content), and it's becoming similar with most PC games now.

So it is that whenever there's a slump (and godforbid, the depression we're in is greater than the one before ww2), they have to have a scapegoat. It's been like that since the inception of the free market, except before, the excuses were reasonable: inflation, unemployment, new laws being set up, etc. Now people are trying to put the blame on something more abstract (abstract because it's not something that can be controlled properly no matter what you do, so long as people remain anonymous) because now, the mere idea of slumps don't register and people are getting more and more into the mentality that there can be nothing but gain.

[Melpomene]

Exactly, since the people who they are appealing to are often times not of the internet generation. The people who support this often times don't understand how intergrated the internet is in many of our lives. People will indeed find a way, but I worry for those people who simply stream episodes that they missed because they weren't home. There are so many people who behave "illegally" according to this bill, who'd never pirate. It's funny when they take the moral high ground, since one questions what is their moral compass in attacking such a wide group. I'm the same, as soon as I needed to be on disability everything I do is downloaded. This of course bars gaminig, since I tend to like a stable game. Yet despite that my manga collection has doubled, and my figures can fit in a whole box. Before I had nothing, when I had money I kept using it towards university.

Yes indeed, and that is the funny part of our society. Many people want instant gratification. They want to gain and to lose is an outrage. I only care about losing one thing and gaining one thing, but since I never do- I am often fearless. So when I see people raging over something as simple as a 1% drop in profits I am baffled. Ah, I am reminded of simpler times. When faults and drops were given more feasible explinations. The drop in prices, the over spending, and the constant lack of gains is due to many of the mentalities people share. They keep spending, seeking, the next better next bigger gain rather than being satisfied with what they are presented. Then it feels like they crusade when they're not given the ideal. When in reality they can simply change how they go about things. Games are clever by adding "collection" packages and things you mentioned. I eat that stuff right up, and feel I am getting more for my money.

[leon4281isback]

The fact that corporations and other wealthy people involved in schemes involving taking more money for themselves in some way just ends up hurting other people and plenty other businesses trying to get things together. When they give middle and low class the middle finger, it results in various problems. I know there are a lot of rich people, but give us middle class a break, at least we do enough to enjoy our lives. When people are greedy, what'd you think is going to happen? They seem to forget a few things that causes everything to break apart.

I'm going off topic so I'll stop now.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by leon4281isback

The fact that corporations and other wealthy people involved in schemes involving taking more money for themselves in some way just ends up hurting other people and plenty other businesses trying to get things together. When they give middle and low class the middle finger, it results in various problems. I know there are a lot of rich people, but give us middle class a break, at least we do enough to enjoy our lives. When people are greedy, what'd you think is going to happen? They seem to forget a few things that causes everything to break apart.

I'm going off topic so I'll stop now.

and like i said... we need the biggest movers & shakers in the biztech sector to lobby hard against this!

fight fire with fire!

[synaesthetic]

This is yet another attempt by the media gatekeepers to destroy YouTube. It'll fail, of course.

[risingstar3110]

Not an expert on the issue, i admit. But I knows how in authoritarian country, they often put on strict or not-so-clearly-undefined law on corruption or tax evasion charge. Then they let those offenses going by unnoticed and therefore widely spread, until one individual starting to question the state or opposing a certain proposal. That's when the guy will be jailed for "tax evading" or "corruption".

Do not say that it's the same thing here. But it's possible for guys like George Hotz to be jailed for something he upload in the past ( or be weaken legally) even when it's not so related with his real "crime" of jailbreaking the PS3.

Which could be somehow similar to the case of Julian Assange and his "surprise sex" offense

[synaesthetic]

The difference is this bill won't pass, and even if it does, judges will simply laugh the RIAA out of the courtroom when they try to sue a homeless busker for playing Jimi Hendrix on the sidewalk in San Francisco.

Seriously, the content gatekeepers are their own worst enemies. If they hadn't acted like petulant children throwing a tantrum, they would have been able to convince the government to block a lot more "unauthorized" sharing a lot sooner.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The difference is this bill won't pass, and even if it does, judges will simply laugh the RIAA out of the courtroom when they try to sue a homeless busker for playing Jimi Hendrix on the sidewalk in San Francisco.

Seriously, the content gatekeepers are their own worst enemies. If they hadn't acted like petulant children throwing a tantrum, they would have been able to convince the government to block a lot more "unauthorized" sharing a lot sooner.

"boy" "wolf" .... they've cried foul without merit so many times (e.g. the release of VHS tech was "doom") - fewer and fewer judges and politicians give them any credibility at all (though they'll take their money).

[synaesthetic]

I remember the hilarious brouhaha over "mix tapes" back in the late 80s and early 90s. That was so pathetic.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Well, Google will probably step in sooner or later to block this, so I'm not too worried.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie

Well, Google will probably step in sooner or later to block this, so I'm not too worried.

It tells you something about the corporations of America and how they'd rather "compete" through legislation than actually competing through creating a better product.

Buck up, guys. Google just did it better than you. Maybe if you spent that money on making a competing service for streaming video instead of bribing politicians, you'd actually have something instead of looking like a bunch of spoiled brats.

[Flinch]

But, Syn, that would be productive; therefore, not possible.

[Otaku Guy]

I doubt it will work. I mean this is the internet after all, I wouldn't worry about it.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Buck up, guys. Google just did it better than you. Maybe if you spent that money on making a competing service for streaming video instead of bribing politicians, you'd actually have something instead of looking like a bunch of spoiled brats.

I love this

[Ending]

Sounds bad, but there are other problems too, which are causing trouble for the rest of us. For one, US can take away any .COM website for any reason, which means that .COM has to be abandoned.

Second, any material hosted by an US-based company can be taken by the US authorities for any reason. Their intelligence has direct access to all the information on these services, so nothing of value can be stored there. Like Gmail, Twitter, Facebook... Not that our private life is that interesting.

S.978 just sounds like the pinnacle of the development that has been going ever since DMCA came out 1998. Your text makes it sound like the act has been intended to stop people from using the net for the purpose it was created: free flow of information. That's the polar opposite of "power to the people."

Of course, they can't control everyone, so they'll most likely end up doing random strikes, just like now, to terrorize people.

The difference is this bill won't pass, and even if it does, judges will simply laugh the RIAA out of the courtroom

Unless the judge is a former RIAA member himself, which wouldn't be new. Or former republican with strong sympathies, which wouldn't be new either.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The difference is this bill won't pass, and even if it does, judges will simply laugh the RIAA out of the courtroom when they try to sue a homeless busker for playing Jimi Hendrix on the sidewalk in San Francisco.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about it. 5 of the 9 supreme count justices are republican and have very strong ties to corporate money. They have already ruled against middle class in more than one occasion. The most recent one was when they ruled in favor of Walmart vs more than 1 million female employees who were protesting that the corporation was not granting equal pay to women compared to men.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I wouldn't be too optimistic about it. 5 of the 9 supreme count justices are republican and have very strong ties to corporate money.

Thing is, not all of that "corporate money" supports this sort of law. Google, obviously, since this law is a patently obvious attack on YouTube.

Even if the judges are corporate pawns, most of them have very little patience for the RIAA and MPAA's whiny-baby lawsuits. They shot themselves in the foot when they attempted to sue tweeners for downloading Britney Spears songs, and made themselves look like complete morons by attempting to sue Limewire for more money than exists in the entire world.

Edit: The Wal-Mart suit pisses me off. The union folks and activists organizing that should not have handled it in that way because it was inevitable that the courts would shut it down. They just glommed a bunch of women together and made vague blanket statements, and the court saw through that. Now there's precedent for shooting down big class-action suits because that particular suit was just concerned with piling on as many women as they could, without making sure the claims were valid and/or related.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I wouldn't be too optimistic about it. 5 of the 9 supreme count justices are republican and have very strong ties to corporate money. They have already ruled against middle class in more than one occasion. The most recent one was when they ruled in favor of Walmart vs more than 1 million female employees who were protesting that the corporation was not granting equal pay to women compared to men.

Artists, writers, musicians and the industries they work for also support this bill.
The Graphic Artists' association claims the bill will protect them and "not turn the internet into a police state."

Here are the culprits behind S. 978.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/money

The bill has "bi-partisan" (more like corporatist) support from both Democans and Republicrats.

I hate to say it, but this bill is just one more indication that the "left-right paradigm" is a fallacy.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I hate to say it, but this bill is just one more indication that the "left-right paradigm" is a fallacy.

One fallacy among many. They've always been after the same thing after all, and they're not too different in terms of where they stand in how to govern the US. As much as they would hate to hear it or as much as they would like to deny it, it's very, VERY similar to what was happening in Stalin's Russia when he went ahead with the country's first election. In the end, the Soviets could only choose from the same parties as always. It was either one or the other, and never something else, and their political agendas were never much too different. It's quite similar to Republicans vs Democrats when you think about it. That's as far off-topic as I'll go