Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

privacy violating acts

cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:18:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Any policy which systematically punishes people who have done nothing wrong in order to punish those who have is immoral, and any politician who supports such a notion will not be getting my vote.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 6:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How about we make this simpler:
Find me someone who does support something like SOPA or CISPA so I can shoot them. Such threats to human intelligence should be eliminated quickly.

The interesting thing about internet-related ones is that they just won't work. Period. All you'd need to do is get a VPN and you'd be invincible.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 7:32:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:18:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any policy which systematically punishes people who have done nothing wrong in order to punish those who have is immoral, and any politician who supports such a notion will not be getting my vote.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:17:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
SOPA is too strong, OPEN isn't strong enough, we need something in between.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 8:22:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 6:18:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Any policy which systematically punishes people who have done nothing wrong in order to punish those who have is immoral, and any politician who supports such a notion will not be getting my vote.

Word.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 9:06:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?

I can explain all of that.

1. SOPA's methods involve tampering with DNS servers. When this is done, you can't tell the difference between censorship and DNS-level hijacking. Nobody ever said it'd be DNSSEC compatible.

2. If people are pirating something, it means there is a flaw in the business model of the IP provider. Do you know why Game of Thrones was pirated so often? It's because they insisted on putting it only on cable, and requiring a cable subscription to watch it. Now, if they had put it on Netflix, for instance, a large portion of the pirates would have gone and watched it on Netflix. IP owners need to actually innovate and provide customers with products they want instead of legislating their way to prosperity through crony capitalism.

3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed. See image for details: http://rationalargumentator.com...

4. Do you know what I'd have to do to get around SOPA? I'd have to change my DNS server to one outside of the US. Do you have any idea how incredibly easy it is to do this? I could be done with it in under 5 minutes. If another measure was added, I'd just use a VPN. After that, there'd be nothing that anyone could do to stop me.

5. SOPA allows an entire website to be taken down over one piece of copyrighted material. Is this what you want? Think about the disputes Youtube has been in with copyright owners. Sure, they've worked new things out, but Viacom had a pretty big lawsuit against them. If something like SOPA passed, Youtube would have just been shut down, and would stay that way due to the chilling effects.

The best solution? Keep legistlators' hands off the goddamn internet.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed."

Sophistry.

Agreed.
1. If I steal your money, I will likely spend it, not destroy it.
2. Furthermore, if I am out revenue from your "copying", what is that?
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 9:55:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed."

Sophistry.

Agreed.
1. If I steal your money, I will likely spend it, not destroy it.
2. Furthermore, if I am out revenue from your "copying", what is that?

Sorry, I meant "removed". You still have your movie, but I have it too. In this sense, copyright is used to create artificial scarcity. Any free-market advocate would be all for getting rid of copyright.

Think of piracy as the competition. Now, if the choices people have are:
A) Pay somewhere around $50 a month for cable, watch shows only at specific times with ads, but is always released first
B) Buy on DVD a year after it is released for maybe $20 per season with a tacky hard-to-navigate menu
C) Buy and download on iTunes for $20 or so per season, getting new episodes usually no longer than a week after the release
D) Stream on Netflix, which costs about $8 or $10 a month last time I checked
E) Download for free on BitTorrent, where availability of any given item is based on popularity (meaning more obscure items are harder to find), where the creators are not supported at all (which lots of people would want to do). In addition, you must download the whole file before you can watch it.

Now, as you can see, each option has its pros and cons. The problem is that we are seeing the worst out of the legal options and the bad parts of illegal downloading are not much worse than the legal options. Now, obviously, for quality of service, Netflix should be winning, since it has an advantage over torrents (streaming > downloading the whole file then watching). But it isn't. Why? Because it seems that content publishers don't want to make their works available on Netflix. This is what happened with Game of Thrones. As for the supporting the creators part, even legal alternatives don't seem to do this. When you buy a retail CD for $10, the artist only makes about $0.30-$1.00. This isn't a lot. Why would you want to spend $10 to support the artist when only 3-10% is going to actually go to that end?

Now, I'm sure that you are thinking that it shouldn't be their responsibility to make the pirates happy. However, as a business, it isn't their job to creatively fund legislation to make a profit. It is their job to provide goods and services that people are willing to pay for. If people are pirating stuff, then they are obviously failing to do that. They have the capability to make their businesses more profitable by just making their content available in a form that customers want. The problem is that they think they can't compete with free. Look at this: http://www.techdirt.com...

The problem is that IP businesses are unwilling to take this step, so they try to continue to enforce artificial scarcity. I can see where this business model came from - probably from the fact that not everyone had a record press when vinyl records were made. They would have legitimate means to preserve scarcity. However, with the Internet, scarcity is removed unless artificially preserved, so they have to adapt. The market isn't going to adapt for them.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:00:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Think of piracy as the competition. Now, if the choices people have are:
A) Pay somewhere around $50 a month for cable, watch shows only at specific times with ads, but is always released first
B) Buy on DVD a year after it is released for maybe $20 per season with a tacky hard-to-navigate menu
C) Buy and download on iTunes for $20 or so per season, getting new episodes usually no longer than a week after the release
D) Stream on Netflix, which costs about $8 or $10 a month last time I checked
E) Download for free on BitTorrent, where availability of any given item is based on popularity (meaning more obscure items are harder to find), where the creators are not supported at all (which lots of people would want to do). In addition, you must download the whole file before you can watch it.

Now, as you can see, each option has its pros and cons. The problem is that we are seeing the worst out of the legal options and the bad parts of illegal downloading are not much worse than the legal options. Now, obviously, for quality of service, Netflix should be winning, since it has an advantage over torrents (streaming > downloading the whole file then watching)"

Nice deconstruction of the issue you got there. Really insightful.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:19:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:55:49 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed."

Sophistry.

Agreed.
1. If I steal your money, I will likely spend it, not destroy it.
2. Furthermore, if I am out revenue from your "copying", what is that?

Sorry, I meant "removed". You still have your movie, but I have it too. In this sense, copyright is used to create artificial scarcity. Any free-market advocate would be all for getting rid of copyright.

Why?
If I spend five years to write a novel, should someone buy one book, post it online, and everyone else have it for free? What gives them a right to my labor?

Now, if I wanted to allow online publishing of my book, that is fine; just like if someone wants to allow downloaded music of theirs.

What causes the friction, though, is who owns it? A publisher would have rights to my book, and a record label has rights to a band's music. You mention that a band gets little of the sales; this is true. But, why should the record label, which produced, marketed, and allowed the music to be recorded (used their studios, fronted money to the artist so they could concentrate) not be able to turn a profit?

Is copyright really that different from patents?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:55:49 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Think of piracy as the competition. Now, if the choices people have are:
A) Pay somewhere around $50 a month for cable, watch shows only at specific times with ads, but is always released first
B) Buy on DVD a year after it is released for maybe $20 per season with a tacky hard-to-navigate menu
C) Buy and download on iTunes for $20 or so per season, getting new episodes usually no longer than a week after the release
D) Stream on Netflix, which costs about $8 or $10 a month last time I checked
E) Download for free on BitTorrent, where availability of any given item is based on popularity (meaning more obscure items are harder to find), where the creators are not supported at all (which lots of people would want to do). In addition, you must download the whole file before you can watch it.

And, as far as allowing this to occur, it is up to the individual companies (the creators) to allow it, not for the market to take it (they can demand it, but it doesn't mean I have to supply it).
Are you suggesting, if I were a musician who did everything by myself, I must allow iTunes to carry my music? Why?
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:35:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:19:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:55:49 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed."

Sophistry.

Agreed.
1. If I steal your money, I will likely spend it, not destroy it.
2. Furthermore, if I am out revenue from your "copying", what is that?

Sorry, I meant "removed". You still have your movie, but I have it too. In this sense, copyright is used to create artificial scarcity. Any free-market advocate would be all for getting rid of copyright.

Why?
If I spend five years to write a novel, should someone buy one book, post it online, and everyone else have it for free? What gives them a right to my labor?

If people wanted to support you as the author, then people will buy your book from you.

Now, if I wanted to allow online publishing of my book, that is fine; just like if someone wants to allow downloaded music of theirs.

What causes the friction, though, is who owns it? A publisher would have rights to my book, and a record label has rights to a band's music. You mention that a band gets little of the sales; this is true. But, why should the record label, which produced, marketed, and allowed the music to be recorded (used their studios, fronted money to the artist so they could concentrate) not be able to turn a profit?

When the record label is pouring money into antipiracy efforts, getting about a 10% return on those antipiracy efforts, and pouring all of that back in, when they could be saving that money on creating new ways to satisfy consumer demand, the record label isn't pursuing profit. They're pursuing a vendetta.

You also fail to see that supporting the artist adds VALUE to the product. People would WANT to buy music if, say, half of the purchase went to the artist. They don't give a damn about a guy in a suit, they want to support the person who makes the music they like.

However, more and more independent artists (of all kinds) are getting success without big publishers. Look at Minecraft. Immensely successful, and its creator ENCOURAGES people to pirate it. If the labels are right, he'd be out of business. However, 10 million copies of Minecraft have been sold. Notch (the creator) had so much money that he didn't know what to do with it, so he founded Mojang AB. How does this work? Pirates don't directly support the game - but they talk about it, tell their friends about it... eventually, someone along the line will buy it. Even the pirate might want to buy it to support the developers. I'll openly say here that of all the games I've bought, I have pirated at least half of them at one point. Yet I still bought them. Hmm. I wonder how that happened?

Is copyright really that different from patents?

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:23:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:55:49 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:27:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Think of piracy as the competition. Now, if the choices people have are:
A) Pay somewhere around $50 a month for cable, watch shows only at specific times with ads, but is always released first
B) Buy on DVD a year after it is released for maybe $20 per season with a tacky hard-to-navigate menu
C) Buy and download on iTunes for $20 or so per season, getting new episodes usually no longer than a week after the release
D) Stream on Netflix, which costs about $8 or $10 a month last time I checked
E) Download for free on BitTorrent, where availability of any given item is based on popularity (meaning more obscure items are harder to find), where the creators are not supported at all (which lots of people would want to do). In addition, you must download the whole file before you can watch it.

And, as far as allowing this to occur, it is up to the individual companies (the creators) to allow it, not for the market to take it (they can demand it, but it doesn't mean I have to supply it).
Are you suggesting, if I were a musician who did everything by myself, I must allow iTunes to carry my music? Why?

No, I'm suggesting that if you actually want people to buy your stuff, you should make your work available in a way that people want. You are free to not do that, but don't whine when people go somewhere else to get your work because you don't want to make products they want to buy. Like I said, there is no scarcity with ideas. Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:41:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
' Look at Minecraft. Immensely successful, and its creator ENCOURAGES people to pirate it. If the labels are right, he'd be out of business. However, 10 million copies of Minecraft have been sold. Notch (the creator) had so much money that he didn't know what to do with it'

You can't log into minecraft online without an account, and that can only be obtained by purchasing one.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:42:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented."

You'll make a great contribution to the weekly stupid.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:36:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"If people wanted to support you as the author, then people will buy your book from you."

He's a lost cause.

Are you suggesting that if people want to support an author, that they will not buy their book? Please tell me how this is rational.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:45:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:06:15 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?

I can explain all of that.

1. SOPA's methods involve tampering with DNS servers. When this is done, you can't tell the difference between censorship and DNS-level hijacking. Nobody ever said it'd be DNSSEC compatible.

2. If people are pirating something, it means there is a flaw in the business model of the IP provider. Do you know why Game of Thrones was pirated so often? It's because they insisted on putting it only on cable, and requiring a cable subscription to watch it. Now, if they had put it on Netflix, for instance, a large portion of the pirates would have gone and watched it on Netflix. IP owners need to actually innovate and provide customers with products they want instead of legislating their way to prosperity through crony capitalism.


Then let the owner of the IP fail. You are not entitled to the work of others.

3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed. See image for details: http://rationalargumentator.com...


So what? It's still a violation of basic property rights.

4. Do you know what I'd have to do to get around SOPA? I'd have to change my DNS server to one outside of the US. Do you have any idea how incredibly easy it is to do this? I could be done with it in under 5 minutes. If another measure was added, I'd just use a VPN. After that, there'd be nothing that anyone could do to stop me.

5. SOPA allows an entire website to be taken down over one piece of copyrighted material. Is this what you want? Think about the disputes Youtube has been in with copyright owners. Sure, they've worked new things out, but Viacom had a pretty big lawsuit against them. If something like SOPA passed, Youtube would have just been shut down, and would stay that way due to the chilling effects.

This is why I'm against SOPA.

The best solution? Keep legistlators' hands off the goddamn internet.

Sorry, I meant "removed". You still have your movie, but I have it too. In this sense, copyright is used to create artificial scarcity. Any free-market advocate would be all for getting rid of copyright.

Free-market advocates generally recognize the rights of property owners.

Now, as you can see, each option has its pros and cons. The problem is that we are seeing the worst out of the legal options and the bad parts of illegal downloading are not much worse than the legal options. Now, obviously, for quality of service, Netflix should be winning, since it has an advantage over torrents (streaming > downloading the whole file then watching). But it isn't. Why? Because it seems that content publishers don't want to make their works available on Netflix. This is what happened with Game of Thrones. As for the supporting the creators part, even legal alternatives don't seem to do this. When you buy a retail CD for $10, the artist only makes about $0.30-$1.00. This isn't a lot. Why would you want to spend $10 to support the artist when only 3-10% is going to actually go to that end?

Yes, but the owner of the IP CHOOSES to enter into these contracts. If the owner of the IP doesn't want to release their TV show on Netflix or whatever, that doesn't mean that they lose their rights.

It is their job to provide goods and services that people are willing to pay for.

Bullsh*t. They have no obligation to consumers.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:45:32 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:06:15 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?

I can explain all of that.

1. SOPA's methods involve tampering with DNS servers. When this is done, you can't tell the difference between censorship and DNS-level hijacking. Nobody ever said it'd be DNSSEC compatible.

2. If people are pirating something, it means there is a flaw in the business model of the IP provider. Do you know why Game of Thrones was pirated so often? It's because they insisted on putting it only on cable, and requiring a cable subscription to watch it. Now, if they had put it on Netflix, for instance, a large portion of the pirates would have gone and watched it on Netflix. IP owners need to actually innovate and provide customers with products they want instead of legislating their way to prosperity through crony capitalism.


Then let the owner of the IP fail. You are not entitled to the work of others.

The IP is available in infinite quantities. If they are damaged by the breaking of their artificial scarcity, it's their fault for not focusing on things that are naturally scarce (concerts, for example. Things that can't be copied infinitely.)

3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed. See image for details: http://rationalargumentator.com...


So what? It's still a violation of basic property rights.

Show me one good reason why ideas should be property.

4. Do you know what I'd have to do to get around SOPA? I'd have to change my DNS server to one outside of the US. Do you have any idea how incredibly easy it is to do this? I could be done with it in under 5 minutes. If another measure was added, I'd just use a VPN. After that, there'd be nothing that anyone could do to stop me.

5. SOPA allows an entire website to be taken down over one piece of copyrighted material. Is this what you want? Think about the disputes Youtube has been in with copyright owners. Sure, they've worked new things out, but Viacom had a pretty big lawsuit against them. If something like SOPA passed, Youtube would have just been shut down, and would stay that way due to the chilling effects.

This is why I'm against SOPA.

The best solution? Keep legistlators' hands off the goddamn internet.



Sorry, I meant "removed". You still have your movie, but I have it too. In this sense, copyright is used to create artificial scarcity. Any free-market advocate would be all for getting rid of copyright.

Free-market advocates generally recognize the rights of property owners.

Again, show me one good reason why ideas should be property.

Now, as you can see, each option has its pros and cons. The problem is that we are seeing the worst out of the legal options and the bad parts of illegal downloading are not much worse than the legal options. Now, obviously, for quality of service, Netflix should be winning, since it has an advantage over torrents (streaming > downloading the whole file then watching). But it isn't. Why? Because it seems that content publishers don't want to make their works available on Netflix. This is what happened with Game of Thrones. As for the supporting the creators part, even legal alternatives don't seem to do this. When you buy a retail CD for $10, the artist only makes about $0.30-$1.00. This isn't a lot. Why would you want to spend $10 to support the artist when only 3-10% is going to actually go to that end?


Yes, but the owner of the IP CHOOSES to enter into these contracts. If the owner of the IP doesn't want to release their TV show on Netflix or whatever, that doesn't mean that they lose their rights.

They lose potential profit, though. This is the problem. They HAVE a way to deal with the issue WITHOUT resorting to crony capitalism. However, they CHOOSE to whine to our legislators, begging them to invent a 'stop piracy' button. What I am saying is trying to focus on actually fixing the problem: people don't want to buy the shitty services they are being provided. Make the services less shitty, and the problem is solved.

It is their job to provide goods and services that people are willing to pay for.

Bullsh*t. They have no obligation to consumers.

If they expect to turn a profit, then yes, they do. Are you suggesting that businesses should be rewarded for providing goods and services that people are not willing to pay for?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:55:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:41:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
' Look at Minecraft. Immensely successful, and its creator ENCOURAGES people to pirate it. If the labels are right, he'd be out of business. However, 10 million copies of Minecraft have been sold. Notch (the creator) had so much money that he didn't know what to do with it'

You can't log into minecraft online without an account, and that can only be obtained by purchasing one.

You can still play single player and a selection of specially set up multiplayer servers. To play on most servers, you'd need to buy the game. This is an example of providing reason to buy - in order to access all servers, you need to buy an account. You still fail to address my point, instead bringing up a point that is only tangential to mine.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:56:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:42:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Your role in the market is less about the idea itself than it is the way it is presented."

You'll make a great contribution to the weekly stupid.

When the good is able to be replicated infinitely, yes it is. Why do you think some people prefer theaters over watching a movie at home?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:09:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:53:28 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:45:32 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:06:15 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/24/2013 8:10:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:09:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 7:03:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2013 6:12:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
you know like the Stop Online Piracy Act or the PATRIOT Act. do you like them or not

They are two completely different things of course, I think the PATRIOT Act infringes our privacy way too much but I support SOPA, privacy and freedom of speech aren't reasons to allow people to steal intellectual property.

Both have the potential for abuse, as most laws do, but measures like SOPA for protecting IP on line need to be put in place.

SOPA does more harm than good. it messes with the security systems that are already built in. it opens up more doors for hackers

Not for the content provider, it does more good than harm for them. SOPA is designed to protect the content provider's IP from theft, people who invest in IP need to be protected or they won't make the investment, and then you lose content. Theft is not a freedom to be protected, it's a legal violation to be prosecuted, you do not have the freedom to not pay the cost of acquiring content.

How does it mess with security systems and open more doors for hackers?

I can explain all of that.

1. SOPA's methods involve tampering with DNS servers. When this is done, you can't tell the difference between censorship and DNS-level hijacking. Nobody ever said it'd be DNSSEC compatible.

2. If people are pirating something, it means there is a flaw in the business model of the IP provider. Do you know why Game of Thrones was pirated so often? It's because they insisted on putting it only on cable, and requiring a cable subscription to watch it. Now, if they had put it on Netflix, for instance, a large portion of the pirates would have gone and watched it on Netflix. IP owners need to actually innovate and provide customers with products they want instead of legislating their way to prosperity through crony capitalism.


Then let the owner of the IP fail. You are not entitled to the work of others.

The IP is available in infinite quantities. If they are damaged by the breaking of their artificial scarcity, it's their fault for not focusing on things that are naturally scarce (concerts, for example. Things that can't be copied infinitely.)

"It's her fault that she died


3. Piracy is not "theft", it is copying. The original is not destroyed. See image for details: http://rationalargumentator.com...


So what? It's still a violation of basic property rights.

Show me one good reason why ideas should be property.

How are they different than physical objects? Ownership of property comes not from scarcity but from the result of human action. You earn property. When you build a table, the table is the direct result of your work. You made the table. By writing a book or making a movie, you are giving value to the mass of ideas inside your head. You made the song or story.

4. Do you know what I'd have to do to get around SOPA? I'd have to change my DNS server to one outside of the US. Do you have any idea how incredibly easy it is to do this? I could be done with it in under 5 minutes. If another measure was added, I'd just use a VPN. After that, there'd be nothing that anyone could do to stop me.

5. SOPA allows an entire website to be taken down over one piece of copyrighted material. Is this what you want? Think about the disputes Youtube has been in with copyright owners. Sure, they've worked new things out, but Viacom had a pretty big lawsuit against them. If something like SOPA passed, Youtube would have just been shut down, and would stay that way due to the chilling effects.

This is why I'm against SOPA.

The best solution? Keep legistlators' hands off the goddamn internet.



Sorry, I meant "removed". You still have your movie, but I have it too. In this sense, copyright is used to create artificial scarcity. Any free-market advocate would be all for getting rid of copyright.

Free-market advocates generally recognize the rights of property owners.

Again, show me one good reason why ideas should be property.

Now, as you can see, each option has its pros and cons. The problem is that we are seeing the worst out of the legal options and the bad parts of illegal downloading are not much worse than the legal options. Now, obviously, for quality of service, Netflix should be winning, since it has an advantage over torrents (streaming > downloading the whole file then watching). But it isn't. Why? Because it seems that content publishers don't want to make their works available on Netflix. This is what happened with Game of Thrones. As for the supporting the creators part, even legal alternatives don't seem to do this. When you buy a retail CD for $10, the artist only makes about $0.30-$1.00. This isn't a lot. Why would you want to spend $10 to support the artist when only 3-10% is going to actually go to that end?


Yes, but the owner of the IP CHOOSES to enter into these contracts. If the owner of the IP doesn't want to release their TV show on Netflix or whatever, that doesn't mean that they lose their rights.

They lose potential profit, though. This is the problem. They HAVE a way to deal with the issue WITHOUT resorting to crony capitalism. However, they CHOOSE to whine to our legislators, begging them to invent a 'stop piracy' button. What I am saying is trying to focus on actually fixing the problem: people don't want to buy the shitty services they are being provided. Make the services less shitty, and the problem is solved.

No. They shouldn't have to compromise. The consumer makes the choice to pirate something. If the action of piracy is immoral, you cannot blame the producer. It is the consumer that carries out the action. It is his choice and you cannot justify it by pointing out actions taken by producer which are not immoral.


It is their job to provide goods and services that people are willing to pay for.

Bullsh*t. They have no obligation to consumers.

If they expect to turn a profit, then yes, they do. Are you suggesting that businesses should be rewarded for providing goods and services that people are not willing to pay for?

No, I'm suggesting that the producer not wanting to turn a profit does NOT under any circumstances give you the right to their work.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:21:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:09:19 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:53:28 PM, drhead wrote:
The IP is available in infinite quantities. If they are damaged by the breaking of their artificial scarcity, it's their fault for not focusing on things that are naturally scarce (concerts, for example. Things that can't be copied infinitely.)

"It's her fault that she died

Yes, it is their fault for their seemingly masochistic business decision-making. We want to help them by telling them that they are going to have to change the way they do things if they ever expect to succeed. The market changed a lot since vinyl records. The market will choose the new winners, and kill off the losers. Piracy is simply evidence of that happening - companies which manage to deal with it well are the ones clearly fit for the market.

Show me one good reason why ideas should be property.

How are they different than physical objects? Ownership of property comes not from scarcity but from the result of human action. You earn property. When you build a table, the table is the direct result of your work. You made the table. By writing a book or making a movie, you are giving value to the mass of ideas inside your head. You made the song or story.

Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!

They lose potential profit, though. This is the problem. They HAVE a way to deal with the issue WITHOUT resorting to crony capitalism. However, they CHOOSE to whine to our legislators, begging them to invent a 'stop piracy' button. What I am saying is trying to focus on actually fixing the problem: people don't want to buy the shitty services they are being provided. Make the services less shitty, and the problem is solved.

No. They shouldn't have to compromise. The consumer makes the choice to pirate something. If the action of piracy is immoral, you cannot blame the producer. It is the consumer that carries out the action. It is his choice and you cannot justify it by pointing out actions taken by producer which are not immoral.

Pretty big "if" there, to say that something that causes no direct harm to someone is "immoral". This is not about punishing the consumer. It's about the fact that piracy will happen whether you like it or not, and it's better to actually find a way to deal with it, or, even better, make it work for you, instead of crying about it. Other people have made successful business models where piracy was an important part of making something popular. If they can do it, why can't everyone else do it?

If they expect to turn a profit, then yes, they do. Are you suggesting that businesses should be rewarded for providing goods and services that people are not willing to pay for?

No, I'm suggesting that the producer not wanting to turn a profit does NOT under any circumstances give you the right to their work.

Refer to Ben Franklin for that one. And how is piracy harming the business if they don't want a profit, anyway? Is it just another copyright vendetta for the sole purpose of providing some abstract sense of justice?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:28:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!

He's talking about scientific theories, not about intellectual property.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:28:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Let's speak to Benjamin Franklin about that:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
I think he disagrees!


He's talking about scientific theories, not about intellectual property.

A scientific theory can't be patented because it's merely describing someone that already exists (a good scientific theory, that is).