Support NeoGAF

[Shard]

Yea, this will be about as successful as the war on drugs.

 

[Raistlin]

Obama has always been an outspoken opponent of piracy. People who voted for him who didn't know that? Stupid.

Yeah, because people should have assumed that his opposing piracy meant he'd advocate the implementation of thought crime laws.

wut

 

[Dude Abides]

When it becomes unsafe to google torrents for your own use, are you going to go to HMV and drop 20 bucks on a DVD or to Chinatown and grab the pirated dvd for 50 cents?

Chinatown DVDs are closer to three bucks and the quality sucks.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet and go to the toilet in it... would you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

 

[SuicideUZI]

What else can we waste tax money on that will have no effect?

 

[Dead Man]

You wouldn't steal a policeman's helmet and go to the toilet in it... would you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Maybe, am I a pregnant woman?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2251280.ece

17. In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants – even, if she so requests, in a policeman’s helmet.

Edit: The Times is the most reliable source I could find for this, it may be BS.

 

[Yasae]

The marginal cost of a pirated copy is zero. If the person would have bought the item the marginal revenue lost is the profit they would have received from selling the good. No economic damage is done unless the person intended to buy the product. For a forum that's so fast to strike down religious values, it's surprising they are so fast to want protection from the "ethical" damage of piracy.

This argument is so bad, I just got a headache.

 

[Speevy]

I think a better bill for Obama to sign would be a ban on good movies, music, and games.

Hollywood is already on board with this campaign by stinking up the theaters for the last several years, and I can't remember the last time I heard a song that would stick in my memory beyond the month I heard it.

The best way to combat piracy is by making the pirates lose interest. I think we're halfway there personally.

 

[Plywood]

War on Drugs Piracy.

 

[sangreal]

Yeah, because people should have assumed that his opposing piracy meant he'd advocate the implementation of thought crime laws.

:lol Thought crime laws? Maybe you should read the plan the administration released instead of the trash in the OP.

hint: It offers no significant change in policy, just your standard 'increased enforcement' of existing policy.

 

[kevm3]

Everyone remember when Obama said it would be too costly to prosecute the Bush administration for getting us in an illegal war and he'd rather just move forward? But somehow they'll have the money to prosecute little guys. Too expensive to prosecute the bankers that blew up the economy, but if you're sharing a torrent, watch out! Let's ignore BP and the fact that 13 people died, they've ruined the Gulf Coast, but you evil distributors of content, you're going down! Priorities are definitely in order.

 

[tHoMNZ]

Wake up
Wake up
Wake up

 

[Macmanus]

:lol Thought crime laws? Maybe you should read the plan the administration released instead of the trash in the OP.

hint: It offers no significant change in policy, just your standard 'increased enforcement' of existing policy.

Either you haven't read the policy, or have a severe lack of understanding of what our current government's policy towards file sharing is.

I'll give you a hint: It's hands off. We don't spend tax money to enforce anti-file sharing laws. We now will.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement would make development of P2P and bit torrent software incredibly difficult, along with simply running a free OS since it doesn't register with DRM. That would effectively be treating Linux users as pirates. That would effectively assume that all software development for P2P is on par with piracy. That sort of assumption is ::drum roll:: Thought Crime laws.

You need to brush up on this, son.

 

[sangreal]

Either you haven't read the policy, or have a severe lack of understanding of what our current government's policy towards file sharing is.

Right back at you.

I'll give you a hint: It's hands off. We don't spend tax money to enforce anti-file sharing laws. We now will.

Incorrect. The US has been arresting people for piracy under the No Electronic Theft Act for a long, long time. Nothing in this plan, however, talks about going after small time bittorent users.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement would make development of P2P and bit torrent software incredibly difficult, along with simply running a free OS since it doesn't register with DRM. That would effectively be treating Linux users as pirates. That would effectively assume that all software development for P2P is on par with piracy. That sort of assumption is ::drum roll:: Thought Crime laws.

You need to brush up on this, son.

That's cool, but 1) that isn't a thought crime. 2) The plan that was announced, which this thread is about, has nothing to do with ACTA. Since YOU clearly haven't read it, I'll provide a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/intellectualproperty/intellectualproperty_strategic_plan.pdf

Son.

 

[WickedAngel]

This argument is so bad, I just got a headache.

Actually, it isn't. The grandiose claims of loss made by media companies have been disputed time and time again by independent analysts. If a person who never intended to buy your product downloads a copy on the Internet, the net result to the company itself is the same; $0 profit, $0 loss.

The ethical question of whether or not those people should have free access to the content has nothing to do with the impact it has on the companies themselves.

 

[freddy]

Should I be penalised for clicking on a link? What if the link says "click here for the free Tranny Surprise Movie" and it's actually an Assassins Creed download. Countless old people download porn without intending to. Going after the wrong people if you ask me.

 

[Slavik81]

This argument is so bad, I just got a headache.

Actually, it isn't. The grandiose claims of loss made by media companies have been disputed time and time again by independent analysts. If a person who never intended to buy your product downloads a copy on the Internet, the net result to the company itself is the same; $0 profit, $0 loss.

The ethical question of whether or not those people should have free access to the content has nothing to do with the impact it has on the companies themselves.

It can be more complicated than that. For instance, a person with two hours of free time could decide to go to the theater and watch Iron Man 2, or they could torrent Fight Club instead. The substitution effect could hurt companies even if their product was not directly pirated, since pirated goods may be competing with theirs.

How is this in any fashion acceptable? None of these things - music, movies or games - are necessities of life. You do not deserve these things given to you. If the companies supplying them are participating in acts you do not agree with, do not buy their products. Find free alternatives, of which there are many, or support companies you do agree with.

Copyright is a social construct. Like all intellectual property protections, the deal is this: we cede a number of rights to authors of creative works. In return, we expect that society will benefit from the content these extra rights have enabled.

The reason why people can't just take things is so that they can benefit from the existence of these creative works. If those rights are not resulting in a net benefit for society after all things are considered, they don't deserve to keep them. Or the rights should be re-worked such that they are a net benefit.

 

[loosus]

This is what you voted for, America. And don't say you didn't know; the Democrats largely love policing thought and anything else that might prevent an unpleasant event from happening (e.g., by banning certain food ingredients because they are unhealthy, taxing sugary drinks because they contribute to obesity, putting restrictions on videogames because kids kill their parents and others, etc.).

You can't really blame Obama. I don't like his policies, but he was pretty fucking honest about what his agenda was going to be during his campaign. He's actually followed through, even if you don't like his policies. Now, people don't like it when the shit actually goes down. Don't blame Obama; blame yourselves for putting him in power.

My hope is that Americans have the good sense to put the next president in place based on issues rather than solely on "OMG FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT," "HE SAID CHANGE HELL YEAH THATS WHAT I WANT," and "DAMN HE MAKES A GOOD SPEECH."

 

[perfectchaos007]

What's next, the war on Porn?

We've already followed in Canada's footsteps with healthcare, why not follow in Australias footsteps with porn?

 

[SimpleDesign]

Really?

...Really?

 

[Corky]

thank god, if the president wont stand up for the hollywood execs during this turmoil of a financial time we're in, who else would they focus on?

 

[kevm3]

This is what you voted for, America. And don't say you didn't know; the Democrats largely love policing thought and anything else that might prevent an unpleasant event from happening (e.g., by banning certain food ingredients because they are unhealthy, taxing sugary drinks because they contribute to obesity, putting restrictions on videogames because kids kill their parents and others, etc.).

You can't really blame Obama. I don't like his policies, but he was pretty fucking honest about what his agenda was going to be during his campaign. He's actually followed through, even if you don't like his policies. Now, people don't like it when the shit actually goes down. Don't blame Obama; blame yourselves for putting him in power.

My hope is that Americans have the good sense to put the next president in place based on issues rather than solely on "OMG FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT," "HE SAID CHANGE HELL YEAH THATS WHAT I WANT," and "DAMN HE MAKES A GOOD SPEECH."

And who exactly do we put in place? A republican? Someone from the party who got us the Patriot Act? Got us in two wars, one of which was completely illegal? The party that is actually defending BP?

Both parties are essentially the same thing, serving their corporate masters, and we're along for the ride.

 

[Aske]

I'm fine with some of these ideas in principle. Not the thought crime stuff obviously - that's insane - but tougher anti-piracy measures aren't unreasonable. I just hope that the fines are more like speeding tickets, and not the draconian madness of European three-strikes-and-you're-banned-from-the-internet policy, or crippling fines of thousands of dollars. Bust me for downloading an old episode of Seinfeld - fine, mea culpa. Charge me a couple of hundred bucks, and that slap on the wrist will fucking sting. Just like it does when I'm tempted to let my foot rest excessively hard on the gas pedal down a long stretch of highway and a cop pulls me over. The ethical principles are sound as long as the issue isn't blown out of all proportion. But it's senseless and unjust to prosecute people merely for running a Google search for copyrighted files; and unthinkable to outlaw the creation of fucking bit torrent clients. Might as well ban DVD burners and USB sticks.

And ideally, we'd have some quid pro quo with regard to the kinds of restrictions corporations can include in DRM. After all, if piracy rates have to be quashed this way, it proves that DRM is essentially useless anyway. Who cares if we can all upload the media we buy to the internet if everyone is too afraid of getting caught to download it, right?

 

[WickedAngel]

It can be more complicated than that. For instance, a person with two hours of free time could decide to go to the theater and watch Iron Man 2, or they could torrent Fight Club instead. The substitution effect could hurt companies even if their product was not directly pirated, since pirated goods may be competing with theirs.


Copyright is a social construct. Like all intellectual property protections, the deal is this: we cede a number of rights to authors of creative works. In return, we expect that society will benefit from the content these extra rights have enabled.

The reason why people can't just take things is so that they can benefit from the existence of these creative works. If those rights are not resulting in a net benefit for society after all things are considered, they don't deserve to keep them. Or the rights should be re-worked such that they are a net benefit.

Absolutely.

I didn't mean to imply that there is no economic cost whatsoever; I simply don't believe the 1:1 methodology that lobbyists use to justify their stance of aggressive prosecution.

I'm certain that there are people who pirate content who would otherwise have purchased it but aggressive criminalization still won't stamp out the problem.

 

[SundaySounds]

lol. Never gonna happen

 

[Diablos]

We've already followed in Canada's footsteps with healthcare,

We have a single-payer, medicare for all heatlh care system? Really?

No sir, we have a shitty mandate on private insurance that will get you fined if you don't pony up hundreds of dollars every month for health insurance. If you can't differentiate between the two, I feel bad for ya.

 

[fortified_concept]

This is what you voted for, America. And don't say you didn't know; the Democrats largely love policing thought and anything else that might prevent an unpleasant event from happening (e.g., by banning certain food ingredients because they are unhealthy, taxing sugary drinks because they contribute to obesity, putting restrictions on videogames because kids kill their parents and others, etc.).

You can't really blame Obama. I don't like his policies, but he was pretty fucking honest about what his agenda was going to be during his campaign. He's actually followed through, even if you don't like his policies. Now, people don't like it when the shit actually goes down. Don't blame Obama; blame yourselves for putting him in power.

My hope is that Americans have the good sense to put the next president in place based on issues rather than solely on "OMG FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT," "HE SAID CHANGE HELL YEAH THATS WHAT I WANT," and "DAMN HE MAKES A GOOD SPEECH."

:lol What a bunch of bullshit. This isn't about policing thought this is about serving corporate interests just like republicans do. If Obama's handlers "advice" him to police thought in order to serve certain interests he'll do it just like republicans would. I really hope you're not a republican because that would be h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s (Patriot Act anyone? One of the most fascist legislations in American history)