'Rogue websites' bill introduced in US House

Oct 27, 2011
A man uses a laptop computer at a wireless cafe. US lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites accused of piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

US lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites accused of piracy of movies, television shows and music and the sale of counterfeit goods.

The Stop Online Piracy Act has received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and is the House version of a bill introduced in the Senate in May known as the Theft of Intellectual Property Act or Protect IP Act.

The legislation has received the backing of Hollywood, the music industry, the , the National Association of Manufacturers, the and other groups.

But it has come under fire from digital rights and free speech organizations for allegedly paving the way for US law enforcement to unilaterally shut down websites, including foreign sites, without due process.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, said the bill "helps stop the flow of revenue to rogue websites and ensures that the profits from American innovations go to American innovators.

"Rogue websites that steal and sell American innovations have operated with impunity," Smith said in a statement.

"The online thieves who run these foreign websites are out of the reach of US and profit from selling pirated goods without any legal consequences," he said.

"The bill prevents online thieves from selling counterfeit goods in the US, expands international protections for intellectual property, and protects from dangerous ," Smith said.

Howard Berman, a Democrat from California who co-sponsored the legislation, said it is "an important next step in the fight against digital theft and sends a strong message that the United States will not waiver in our battle to protect America's creators and innovators."

The House Judiciary Committee is to hold a hearing on the bill on November 16.

The Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) said the House bill "raises serious red flags.

"It includes the most controversial parts of the Senate's Protect IP Act, but radically expands the scope," the CDT said in a statement. "Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs.

"Internet Service Providers would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior," the CDT said. "Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rightsholders allege hasn't done enough to police infringement.

"The represents a serious threat to online innovation and to legitimate online communications tools," it said.

The Obama administration has come in for some criticism for shutting down dozens of "rogue websites" over the past year as part of a crackdown known as "Operation in Our Sites."

US authorities in November, for example, shut down 82 websites selling mostly Chinese-made , including golf clubs, Walt Disney movies, handbags and other items.

Explore further: Entrepreneur, activist Sina Khanifar on digital copyright reform

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US lawmakers to push for online piracy bill

Apr 05, 2011

Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress pledged Monday to pass legislation that would give US authorities more tools to crack down on websites engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music and the ...

'Rogue websites' bill returns to US Senate

May 13, 2011

US senators re-introduced a bill Thursday that would give the US authorities more tools to crack down on websites selling pirated movies, television shows and music and counterfeit goods.

US Senate committee approves online piracy bill

Nov 18, 2010

The US Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill on Thursday that would give US law enforcement more tools to crack down on websites abroad engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music.

Recommended for you

User comments : 101

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LivaN
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2011
Once again US proves that money > constitutional rights.

Good going guys.
zweistein_2
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
Things are not as black and white as presented although it all bears down to 0 and 1 .
Selling only few copies that later get copied over P2P networks does hurt revenue. Producers are dreaming that people will buy their copies if piracy is less.

USA is producing mostly garbage anyway.
Guy_Underbridge
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2011
Does this mean if I talk about a book on a VoIP line, they can shut me down?
Moebius
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2011
This is what the wall street protests are about. Identity theft is rampant but the government cracks down on a few people who steal movies from giant corporations instead. They protect big money and to hell with the people.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2011
Big business has purchased our government... our priorities are now their priorities. Budget crisis? Who cares, we need to pass bills that let us throw teenagers and old ladies in prison for downloading 15$ worth of shitty music.

I'll never buy music from a record label again, only directly from the artist or not at all. I encourage others to join me.
Nerdyguy
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2011
Once again US proves that money > constitutional rights.

Good going guys.


Umm, which rights would those be? The right to steal someone else's property? Last time I checked, that wasn't a guaranteed right under any constitution, so where the hell do you live where that's OK? Fairyland?
Nerdyguy
4.6 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2011
The problem with this bill is two-fold:

First, it grants additional rights to U.S. police agencies. They already have plenty on the books and do not need more, at least on this topic.

Second, this simply does not represent a fundamentally important and relevant issue right now. These fools in Congress are pissing our lifeblood down the drain while getting fat in the process.
kochevnik
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2011
Umm, which rights would those be? The right to steal someone else's property? Last time I checked, that wasn't a guaranteed right under any constitution, so where the hell do you live where that's OK? Fairyland?
Copyright law stems from book printing. It bears no relation to theft, as no property is lost. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation. Look it up.
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2011
kochevnik: You got about half of that on point. I asked the poster which constitutional rights he was proposing were trumped by money in this case. I've yet to see an answer.

As for the factual content of your post, it's in doubt, seeing as how the name of the bill under discussion here is the "Theft of Intellectual Property Act". So, yeah, I'd say my use of the word "theft" was both correct and on topic.

Perhaps you would stick to the subject and actually answer the question I posed?
Nerdyguy
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2011
"This is what the wall street protests are about." - Moebius

Thank you for putting a little humor in my day.

In actuality, sit-ins by some barely-washed out-of-work punks who clearly have nothing better to do with their time do not have any relationship with intellectual property theft.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2011
kochevnik: You got about half of that on point. I asked the poster which constitutional rights he was proposing were trumped by money in this case. I've yet to see an answer.

As for the factual content of your post, it's in doubt, seeing as how the name of the bill under discussion here is the "Theft of Intellectual Property Act". So, yeah, I'd say my use of the word "theft" was both correct and on topic
The House has never been known for accuracy or adherence to correctness. You sound like another doublespeak conservative. Regarding "constitutional rights", have you been living under a rock this century? Of course the fact your account is a week old and you sound like that Koch astroturfer isn't the least suspicious...
Jotaf
5 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2011
Information is not property. It's not moved. It's merely copied. We really need to get our laws up to speed with technology and a few industries need to die and be reborn according to new business models.

Iceland is going in the right direction on this. Funny that it took a people's government that is not in bed with corporate interests to actually do it.
Nerdyguy
2.4 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2011
kochevnik: could you possibly be more off-topic?

1) My account has been around longer than a week, though less than a year. You are either making that up entirely or just mistaken, but get your fact straight.

2) Yes, I am a conservative, proud of it, and don't intend any doublespeak. I believe I was being plenty clear.

3) You have not addressed the issue at all, merely launched into a rant against me for my audacious attempt to use the word "theft". Yep, I believe it's theft. Clear enough? Doublespeak? I think not.

4) You might want to read through again, because I stated earlier I was actually opposed to this bill. Geez!

5) Who in the world is Koch astroturfer? I don't spend my every waking moment on this site, but I've never seen that name.

6) Finally, the original point made by LivaN was money > constitutional rights. I challenged him. He has yet to answer. Now, why don't you buzz off and let him talk?

Oh, well, toodles.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2011
kochevnik: could you possibly be more off-topic?
1) My account has been around longer than a week, though less than a year.
Username:Nerdyguy
Member since:October 12, 2011, 8:08 am

So how long is a week in sheep years?

Yes change the subject then accuse others of the deed: Simple knee-jerk obstructionism to all detractions from your handler's wish-list.
Sin_Amos
3.1 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2011
There is nothing illegal about sharing content. Sorry, but the creation of intellectual property is a faux-argument, because it does not exist. Just like World of WarCraft has yet to pay J.R.R. Tolken's estate for ripping off his world for a video game or google ripped Snow Crash from the 80s for all their technology. I mean, intellectual property only exists when you are in power. It is great that apple and all tech companies have stolen all their ideas from sci-fi. They just assume it is okay to steal if it benefits them. American Television producers steal other country's shows and then cry because someone shares a file. SHARING is not ILLEGAL. There is nothing WRONG with SHARING. The reason sharing is seen as a problem is because of a capitalistic system that is unjust and predicated on the abuse of multiple monetary schemes. First of all, if you watch the commercials for a television show, you just paid for it, so you own that content for your life.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
Yeah, I just looked that up myself. Weird. No idea, because I've posted here before over a period of six months. Anyway, what possible relevance does this have.

As to the subject at hand, again I say that you have failed to address the issue. Which is painfully obvious, seeing as how all you managed to do here was spend three paragraphs berating the date of my "PhysOrg" account creating. Really?
zweistein_2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2011
How about stuff that you find on the internet with copyrights removed? How would you know it is copyrighted blobs and not some advertisement?
How would I know that the author himself/herself posted the files?
I usually pick through the garbage I find on the internet and sometime find interesting things ( physorg is one of them ).
pokerdice1
5 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2011
@Moebius: That's one helluva of a good point! Very little done against ID theft.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2011
1. Artists deserve to be paid for their creative work. Get the socialist bullshit out of here.

2. Laws should not be established/exist that protect against the duplication of digital information. Let the private sector handle it, it is not a significant enough problem to spend expensive resources on (lawmakers, police, FBI, congress, etc...)

I sell a computer program, I won't mention which one because some people here are out to get me and I wouldn't want them to find out who I am or they might harass me at home or something... This program would be extremely difficult to pirate due to a system I built myself that is completely transparent to the user who uses it legitimately. I have seen no indication that any pirating is going on, and I do look for it. The responsibility for the protection of intellectual property should fall on the owner of that intellectual property, if you can't figure it out tough shit. The legal system is there for serious offenses, not to service your greed.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
If anyone is interested, here is the basic scheme for my anti-piracy system:

Every time the software is run it generates a 64bit code based on a mathematical algorithm that incorporates no fewer than 2 dozen hardware specifications of the system it is running on. When the user decides to purchase this software (via an in-app purchasing system I designed) this code is transmitted to my server and registered in a database. From that point on when the user starts the software it generates the code based on the various hardware specs and checks it against the code registered in my database at the time of purchase. If it is different I determine what the difference is and ask the user a question regarding the detected hardware change. If they get the question correct I update the code on my server, if not the software reverts to trial mode. This way, EACH COPY of the software is bound to the computer that it was running on at the time of purchase, with the allowance for hardware changes...
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2011
so long as the user can correctly answer a question about what changed, including the previous state and the new state.

Now, I know what you're thinking... someone could crack this simply by decompiling and removing that check... but they cannot do so easily for several reasons.

First, I protect my source code using obfuscation and other techniques, and second, a core component of the app is stored on my servers, if my server does not receive the correct code that data is not accessible to the app, and the app is rendered useless. A hacker/cracker cannot simply disable this method of "phoning home", because in the phoning home the running application receives data that it cannot function without.

Yes, this application only works if you are connected to the internet. Most people today have 24/7 internet connections. This restriction may be a drawback for huge software companies, but I haven't found it to be much of a problem for my users.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
Now of course there are ways around even this system. A cracker could decompile the code and change it so that the users saved data is not stored on my server but instead on the hard drive... but that is significant work.

The reality is it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely prevent the potential for piracy, the name of the game is to make it as hard as possible for would be hackers/crackers. In my case they would have to change significant portions of the application... at that point it's almost a different application of their own creation anyway...
Sin_Amos
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2011
1. Artists deserve to be paid for their creative work. Get the socialist bullshit out of here.

Yeah, so do NBA players and other people that do work, but not the middlemen that exist only to feed on them(Stern) or the million of Creative EXECUTIVES that do no actual work. They deserve to get paid ONCE. ONE TIME for that particular job. They don't deserve to be paid over and over again, so that some middleman that has no real impact on the production gets paid. Plus, you have no idea the tax evasion in the industry and the lobby, which makes sure they don't pay taxes. So, stop. Stop supporting an industry that creates crap over and over again, so that their relatives can make money. Yes, they hire their own. They are horrible. And they produce junk.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2011
Yeah, so do NBA players and other people that do work, but not the middlemen that exist only to feed on them(Stern) or the million of Creative EXECUTIVES that do no actual work. They deserve to get paid ONCE. ONE TIME for that particular job. They don't deserve to be paid over and over again, so that some middleman that has no real impact on the production gets paid. Plus, you have no idea the tax evasion in the industry and the lobby, which makes sure they don't pay taxes. So, stop. Stop supporting an industry that creates crap over and over again, so that their relatives can make money. Yes, they hire their own. They are horrible. And they produce junk.


Yes I agree with you.
astro_optics
not rated yet Oct 28, 2011
They will shoot themselves in the foot again!
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2011
Nerdyguy
Umm, which rights would those be?

The right to due process? Ah but maybe that's only a right in fairyland.

Nerdyguy
Umm, which rights would those be? The right to steal someone else's property?

Obviously I was referring to the goal of the act, and not to the methods by which that goal would be attained. In the spirit of fairness, I will now make my own assumption. You support the ends justify the means approach.

Nerdyguy
where the hell do you live where that's OK? Fairyland?

Cursing is a bad habit. In fairyland, we have manners.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2011
LivaN: re: due process. I'm all for it. Doesn't explain your comments vis-a-vis the method by which this proposed bill allows money to trump the constitution. You have a right to due process. That's not being questioned, either by me or by this bill.

You claim that you were referring to the goals of the act? Well, the goals of the act are to stop piracy and theft. In most civil societies, these would be admirable goals.

Look, you made a VERY big blanket statement: "Once again U.S. proves that money > constitutional rights." This is the kind of ideological, narrow-minded, ethno-centric claptrap that confuses the issue and takes away from real dialogue about the merits of the bill.

Finally, you should read again more carefully my comments above. You stated that I must "support the ends justify the means approach". Somehow, you failed to notice that I specifically said I did not support the bill as I felt it gave police too much power.

nxtr
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
most people are so used to stealing their media that they balk at being made to pay for it. Sad excuse for Americans. Thieves have no honor people.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2011
most people are so used to stealing their media that they balk at being made to pay for it. Sad excuse for Americans. Thieves have no honor people.


Theft involves tangible loss... prove that everyone who downloaded a song would have bought the CD the song was on if they couldn't have downloaded it. If you cannot then you cannot claim that downloading music is theft, only that it may be in some cases. Companies that have embraced digital distribution with reasonable per song pricing have seen record sales (no pun intended). The music industry would have you spend $20 to get a CD with two good songs and a dozen other songs that are complete shit.
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2011
most people are so used to stealing their media that they balk at being made to pay for it. Sad excuse for Americans. Thieves have no honor people.


Theft involves tangible loss... prove that everyone who downloaded a song would have bought the CD the song was on if they couldn't have downloaded it. If you cannot then you cannot claim that downloading music is theft, only that it may be in some cases. Companies that have embraced digital distribution with reasonable per song pricing have seen record sales (no pun intended). The music industry would have you spend $20 to get a CD with two good songs and a dozen other songs that are complete shit.


"Downloaded" it from where? Option one: downloaded from your friend's pc, for example. Option two: downloaded it from Amazon, and paid the fee on the way out. The first example is clearly theft, at least under our current laws.
MentalHealthNut
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
It is considered "theft" if you do not have a license to reproduce media. To download without a license is to reproduce on to your hard drive. You are not licensed to do so unless you pay the amount the product is worth. To crack down on this is not unconstitutional. "Big companies" aren't at a loss when people pirate, artists are.
LVT
3.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
>Artists deserve to be paid for their creative work

They can do this by performing in front of live crowds who pay for tickets. Win for bands (they get more money from performances than from records), win for customers.
MentalHealthNut
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
@LVT

Book a show, promote a show, then come back and say this.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2011
"Downloaded" it from where? Option one: downloaded from your friend's pc, for example. Option two: downloaded it from Amazon, and paid the fee on the way out. The first example is clearly theft, at least under our current laws.


I was speaking of "illegal" downloading. Say for example I wanted a copy of some $10,000 3D modeling software and I was student living on student loans, if I download that software without paying for it the company didn't lose anything because of that, because there was no way in hell I would have purchased it regardless. In one case I don't purchase the software, company gains/loses 0 dollars, in the other case I download the software, company gains/loses 0 dollars... no matter what I do it does not affect the company that made the software AT ALL. That should not be called theft, because no one lost anything.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
@Nerdyguy The first example is clearly theft, at least under our current laws.
You still clearly don't grasp the legal concept of theft. Apparently the dolts at the House don't, either. That seemingly gives you all the social proof needed. Here's a shocker: it doesn't.

@Nerdyguy Well, the goals of the act are to stop piracy and theft. In most civil societies, these would be admirable goals.
And yet you're accusing OTHERS of blanket statements???
MentalHealthNut
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
@CHollman82:

Are you saying Copyright shouldn't exist? You may have to evolve your thinking to a 21st century of digital media.
Cave_Man
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
Umm, which rights would those be? The right to steal someone else's property? Last time I checked, that wasn't a guaranteed right under any constitution, so where the hell do you live where that's OK? Fairyland?
Copyright law stems from book printing. It bears no relation to theft, as no property is lost. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation. Look it up.


Exactly! If I lend a book to someone after reading it its fine but now if i give a song I like to someone its a crime.

"Internet Service Providers would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior,"

This part scares me, we dont need more policing we need more sharing. Maybe if that attitude was more prevalent we would be listening to songs about peace not cappin some nig cuz he look at my bitch wrong!
Cave_Man
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
@LVT

Book a show, promote a show, then come back and say this.


I know locals who do this all the time and trust me as long as you aren't trying to brainwash americas little girls (COUGH JUST BIEBER COUGH) and you have decent music to share you will do just fine. The process of promotion and booking runs into problems when you outgrow the small scene and you have to rent a stadium for $10k an hour.
Cave_Man
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2011
"Downloaded" it from where? Option one: downloaded from your friend's pc, for example. Option two: downloaded it from Amazon, and paid the fee on the way out. The first example is clearly theft, at least under our current laws.


Dude SHUT UP! Do you plug your ears when you hear a car drive by playing music you didn't pay for? You probably work for some shitty copy protection firm that makes CDS impossible to copy to your ipod. Just try to explain the difference between one person buying a cd and playing it for a bunch of friends at a party, or a bunch of people at a party buying the same song on their iphone and listing to it with headphones.

Heres a hint the latter describes your life minus the other people and the first scenario is REAL LIFE BITCH!
nxtr
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
The angry person is the one less able to defend or justify his point of view. If you possess a copy of art, you owe the artist money for it, or else don't possess it. Wait for someone with a car and a stereo to drive by so that you can enjoy it.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2011
The comment about lending a book is interesting. So, why is that not theft? If you say sharing music is a crime, but it's ok for the police to close their eyes to lending books, (oh those indecent bookworm thugs!), then you clearly have double standards. Which one is it?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"most people are so used to stealing their media that they balk at being made to pay for it" - Nxtr

In fact almost no one steals media. And as for information content, duplication has never been and will never be theft.

Only the mentally ill and the hopelessly corrupt and loathsome maintain that there is any similarity let alone equivalence between duplication and theft.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2011
"So, why is that not theft?" - Jotaf

It is according to Libertarians who openly refer to Libraries as "Whore houses of wholesale theft run by government traitors".

Libraries are for socialist welfare scum

"All public libraries are socialist institutions and invariably are sites of wholesale theft of intellectual property that is being sanctioned by a corrupt, evil state. " - Libertarian Hans Wienhold

http://everything...are+scum

"The Scourge of Public Libraries" - Jeff Landauer

http://rebirthofr...es.shtml

"Those who criticize the public library service are of course branded as mean-spirited philistines. But its easy to be generous if you do it on someone elses money. I dont see why poor taxpayers should be forced, by threat of imprisonment, to pay for the entertainment of the middle classes. Lets get some balance into the morality of this debate." - Wall Street Journal
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
"If you possess a copy of art, you owe the artist money for it" - Nxtr

Of course you don't. Never in the history of mankind has this been so. It is not a legitimate legal requirement and has never been so.

There is absolutely NO LEGAL OR MORAL requirement for anyone to pay even a penny to an artist for the possession or duplication of his/her work. In fact it has traditionally been to the artists pleasure that his work be viewed and shared by as many people as possible.

That is the purpose of art.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
"I was speaking of "illegal" downloading." - CHollman82

Sorry Little Boy. There is No Such thing as "illegal downloading". It is an illegitimate concept perpetrated by small easily corrupted minds.

"Say for example I wanted a copy of some $10,000 3D modeling software and I was student living on student loans" - CHollima82

Your financial status is not relevant. You have blanket human rights to acquire and use any information you come across, irrespective of it's format or origin.

Period.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2011
"It is considered "theft" if you do not have a license to reproduce media." - Nut

And in South America it was considered "theft" to collect rain water for personal use.

Those who accept corruption are corrupt by definition.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
"Artists deserve to be paid for their creative work. Get the socialist bullshit out of here." - CHollman82

Then let the person who contracted for their work pay them.

I am not a party to that contract so I have no legitimate legal or moral obligation to make any payment for the duplication of their work.

kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2011
If you possess a copy of art, you owe the artist money for it, or else don't possess it. Wait for someone with a car and a stereo to drive by so that you can enjoy it.
Is streaming possession? Seems not. So you're agreeing that streaming is bona-fide fair use, right?
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2011
"I was speaking of "illegal" downloading." - CHollman82

Sorry Little Boy. There is No Such thing as "illegal downloading".

Your financial status is not relevant. You have blanket human rights to acquire and use any information you come across, irrespective of it's format or origin.

Period.


You realize I'm on your side here right?

I gave an example to drive the point home that when something is pirated it does not necessarily represent a loss for the original creator... I did this to illustrate to the people who oppose our position that pirating something cannot necessarily be considered theft even with the loosest understanding of the word.

Calm down and think about what someone is saying and why before you respond to them.

Also, why did you think I put the word "illegal" in quotes? For fun? Pay attention...
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2011
>Artists deserve to be paid for their creative work

They can do this by performing in front of live crowds who pay for tickets. Win for bands (they get more money from performances than from records), win for customers.


This is to assume that all art is meant for live (and large enough) crowds. That's clearly not the case with all creative intellectual content.
wiyosaya
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
Personally, I find this particularly interesting in the face of studies that indicate the people who pirate music (perhaps limited to some countries over others) are more likely to then buy that music.
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
"I was speaking of "illegal" downloading. Say for example I wanted a copy of some $10,000 3D modeling software and I was student living on student loans, if I download that software without paying for it the company didn't lose anything because of that, because there was no way in hell I would have purchased it regardless. In one case I don't purchase the software, company gains/loses 0 dollars, in the other case I download the software, company gains/loses 0 dollars... no matter what I do it does not affect the company that made the software AT ALL. That should not be called theft, because no one lost anything." -chollman

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point of view (should not be called...). But, it is defined as theft currently, regardless of whether or not it should be.
wiyosaya
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
"This is what the wall street protests are about." - Moebius

Thank you for putting a little humor in my day.

In actuality, sit-ins by some barely-washed out-of-work punks who clearly have nothing better to do with their time do not have any relationship with intellectual property theft.

Wow. So much compassion!!!
Nerdyguy
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
@Nerdyguy The first example is clearly theft, at least under our current laws.
You still clearly don't grasp the legal concept of theft. Apparently the dolts at the House don't, either. That seemingly gives you all the social proof needed. Here's a shocker: it doesn't.

@Nerdyguy Well, the goals of the act are to stop piracy and theft. In most civil societies, these would be admirable goals.
And yet you're accusing OTHERS of blanket statements???


Attempt at humor? You accuse me of not understanding. You accuse the House of not understanding. So, by default, your bizzaro definition should be the one accepted? lmao

@kochevnik - I know you have a difficult time with all these facts, definitions, etc. But seeing as how the point under discussion is indeed specific legal wording, I think we're safe to ignore your point of view.
Nerdyguy
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
If you possess a copy of art, you owe the artist money for it, or else don't possess it. Wait for someone with a car and a stereo to drive by so that you can enjoy it.
Is streaming possession? Seems not. So you're agreeing that streaming is bona-fide fair use, right?


To my knowledge, there is no instance of "streaming" of proprietary intellectual content that is not supported by a legal contract with at least two parties.

For example, YouTube, Pandora, etc. These are sights that are supported by advertising. Contracts exist between the sights and the content providers. Without said contracts, artists and their representatives would not allow the publication of their content on a given sight.
Nerdyguy
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
"This is what the wall street protests are about." - Moebius

Thank you for putting a little humor in my day.

In actuality, sit-ins by some barely-washed out-of-work punks who clearly have nothing better to do with their time do not have any relationship with intellectual property theft.

Wow. So much compassion!!!


Compassion? Stating of facts has little to do with compassion or any other emotion last I checked.

I can assume, however, you are referring to my characterization of the OWS protesters. In that case, I'd have to say you probably would not like to hear my full-length description. It's significantly less favorable towards the protesters. It is, however, also eminently logical and quite accurate.
Egnite
3.5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
There are a few people who seem to think (been misled) that downloading is illegal. Well heres a tip for you, if something is illegal people get prosecuted/fined/jailed for breaking the law. How many downloaders do you know who have been charged for such crimes? Just because they make an advert telling you its theft doesn't make it so...
wiyosaya
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
"This is what the wall street protests are about." - Moebius

Thank you for putting a little humor in my day.

In actuality, sit-ins by some barely-washed out-of-work punks who clearly have nothing better to do with their time do not have any relationship with intellectual property theft.

Wow. So much compassion!!!


Compassion? Stating of facts has little to do with compassion or any other emotion last I checked.

I can assume, however, you are referring to my characterization of the OWS protesters. In that case, I'd have to say you probably would not like to hear my full-length description. It's significantly less favorable towards the protesters. It is, however, also eminently logical and quite accurate.

Live long and prosper, Spock!

Walk a mile in their shoes, then tell me what it's like. What I hear is that you have little gratitude for what you have and have no understanding of having not.
Nerdyguy
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
There are a few people who seem to think (been misled) that downloading is illegal. Well heres a tip for you, if something is illegal people get prosecuted/fined/jailed for breaking the law. How many downloaders do you know who have been charged for such crimes? Just because they make an advert telling you its theft doesn't make it so...


I'm perplexed by this. Perhaps you could clarify. Are you trying to say that no one has been charged for breaking laws related to intellectual property? Maybe I'm just not getting your point. But, if I've summed it up properly, you are sadly mistaken.
Nerdyguy
2 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
"Walk a mile in their shoes, then tell me what it's like. What I hear is that you have little gratitude for what you have and have no understanding of having not." - wiyosaya

Quite a bit off topic, but I am interested to understand more about your perplexing (to me) attitude. What gratitude is it you are talking about here? And why in the world would I want to walk in the same shoes as a 60s-era throwback "hippy"? For that matter why, specifically, would I care about anything the protesters are doing unless it matches my own goals and desires (which it clearly doesn't)?
wiyosaya
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
"Walk a mile in their shoes, then tell me what it's like. What I hear is that you have little gratitude for what you have and have no understanding of having not." - wiyosaya

Quite a bit off topic, but I am interested to understand more about your perplexing (to me) attitude. What gratitude is it you are talking about here? And why in the world would I want to walk in the same shoes as a 60s-era throwback "hippy"? For that matter why, specifically, would I care about anything the protesters are doing unless it matches my own goals and desires (which it clearly doesn't)?

Perhaps I can help you out:

Imagine you make $50K/yr and are employed in a company where the CEO remodeled their office to the tune of $1,000,000. Now imagine your job is cut.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
Perhaps I can help you out:

Imagine you make $50K/yr and are employed in a company where the CEO remodeled their office to the tune of $1,000,000. Now imagine your job is cut.


Ever heard of at will employment? Your employer is (in most cases) under no contract or obligation to keep you employed.

MentalHealthNut
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
There are a few people who seem to think (been misled) that downloading is illegal. Well heres a tip for you, if something is illegal people get prosecuted/fined/jailed for breaking the law. How many downloaders do you know who have been charged for such crimes? Just because they make an advert telling you its theft doesn't make it so...


Where have you been? They do. It's illegal to download unlicensed material. It's hard to prosecute, so every offense isn't possible to enforce.

I wish the fed would stop funding taking marijuana from cancer patients and start fining people stealing music, movies, tv shows and distributing the finances to the people who worked their asses off to make it. Or, you can say "To hell with it" with those people and you can shove Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus up your ass, because that's the only quality you're going to get.
Egnite
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
I'm perplexed by this. Perhaps you could clarify. Are you trying to say that no one has been charged for breaking laws related to intellectual property? Maybe I'm just not getting your point. But, if I've summed it up properly, you are sadly mistaken.


And those case numbers are?... As confusing as my statement may be, my point was that millions of people download yet I only remember about two cases in which a member of the pubic has been convicted and issued a massive fine. And I imagine these were only found guilty because the defendant accepted that they 'stole' and uploaded the media.
Nerdyguy
not rated yet Oct 31, 2011
"Imagine you make $50K/yr and are employed in a company where the CEO remodeled their office to the tune of $1,000,000. Now imagine your job is cut." - wiyosaya

I don't need to imagine. I've been working for a couple of decades plus, so I know what happens. Worked for some large companies, some small companies, and owned a couple myself.

I've hired/fired, and been hired and fired myself. It's part of a free-market economy.

Again, you've made no point other than to reinforce your initial implication that you are sympathetic to the cause of the protesters. OK, I got that already.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2011
Or, you can say "To hell with it" with those people and you can shove Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus up your ass, because that's the only quality you're going to get.


On the contrary, those people are only in it for the money, not for the love of music... those people would be the first to disappear if the obscene amounts of money dried up... not the true artists who do it for the love of music.
MentalHealthNut
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
Or, you can say "To hell with it" with those people and you can shove Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus up your ass, because that's the only quality you're going to get.


On the contrary, those people are only in it for the money, not for the love of music... those people would be the first to disappear if the obscene amounts of money dried up... not the true artists who do it for the love of music.


All musicians must work at Walmart to support their love for music? I think they should be compensated properly for their time. Music costs money. Recording costs money. Instruments cost money. Songs take time. CDs cost money. Distribution costs money. Playing shows costs money. You mean to tell me artists should "deal with it"?

It is clear every person who has downrated each of my posts knows NOTHING about being a musician and how hard it is to even play a show.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
No, recording doesn't cost a lot of money, and distribution certainly doesn't cost money anymore, now that CDs are obsolete. The fact that something is illegal does not make that the final word on the subject! We discuss laws all the time. Some have merit, others don't.
Nerdyguy
3.5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
@Egnite: The following is from your post.

There are a few people who seem to think (been misled) that downloading is illegal.
NERD: Factually incorrect. It is indeed a crime under U.S. law.

Well heres a tip for you, if something is illegal people get prosecuted/fined/jailed for breaking the law.
NERD: There's no fooling you!

How many downloaders do you know who have been charged for such crimes?
NERD: I don't know any. Why would I? My friends are primarily law-abiding citizens. I think you mean, "how many cases am I familiar with". The number would be a small handful. In a landmark case in Sweden? Switzerland? (can't remember which) several people went to JAIL.

Just because they make an advert telling you its theft doesn't make it so...
NERD: You sir, are not to be fooled! Yes, it's true, advertising won't prove a claim to illegality. On the other hand, the actual laws on the books will.

Please do try to educate yourself, because doing so is tiring me out!
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2011
No, recording doesn't cost a lot of money, and distribution certainly doesn't cost money anymore, now that CDs are obsolete. The fact that something is illegal does not make that the final word on the subject! We discuss laws all the time. Some have merit, others don't.


The mere "act" of recording, in terms of the technology itself, may not cost a lot of money.

However, you are WAY off base if you believe that the process of recording a CD and distributing it in the U.S. is not costly. It's an end-to-end process involving hundreds of people and millions of dollars.

And, yes, the fact that it is illegal does make it the final word. But only in the grownup world. lmao, can you OWS protester types not get simple facts through those thick skulls?
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
It is clear every person who has downrated each of my posts knows NOTHING about being a musician and how hard it is to even play a show.


Its hard because the music industry wants it to be hard. Imagine if everyone could cheaply produce quality music. They would be out of business in no time. The music cartels dont want that.
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2011
FYI ALL:

Cybercrime.gov is a superb site to give one a general feel (just from the front page) of both the seriousness with which these types of cases are being pursued, as well as the potential (jail time) penalties once you are caught and punished for your wicked deeds! maauahaahahahaha - that's my best Halloween scary voice. No stealing kids!
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 31, 2011
It is clear every person who has downrated each of my posts knows NOTHING about being a musician and how hard it is to even play a show.


Its hard because the music industry wants it to be hard. Imagine if everyone could cheaply produce quality music. They would be out of business in no time. The music cartels dont want that.


How does the music industry increase the difficulty level for a musician attempting to "play a show", kaasinees?

One can produce music cheaply. By and large, doing so will result in little to no sales. This is a not a result of cartels, but the simple fact that it takes resources to promote products to enough people to generate large amounts of cash. Just our beautiful system of capitalism in action! Gotta love it.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
All musicians must work at Walmart to support their love for music? I think they should be compensated properly for their time. Music costs money. Recording costs money. Instruments cost money. Songs take time. CDs cost money. Distribution costs money. Playing shows costs money. You mean to tell me artists should "deal with it"?

It is clear every person who has downrated each of my posts knows NOTHING about being a musician and how hard it is to even play a show.


What are you talking about? In this very discussion I have said, quote, "Artists deserve to be payed for their creative work"...

It's clear you're only interested in pushing an agenda rather than having a legitimate discussion in which you consider the context of your opponents statements.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
And, yes, the fact that it is illegal does make it the final word. But only in the grownup world. lmao, can you OWS protester types not get simple facts through those thick skulls?


You seem like a level headed guy and I usually agree with you but I urge you to reconsider this position... Laws are not handed down by the almighty lord on high... they are the creations of humans and they are subject to being unjust and irrational.

Question everything, including the laws of your land, it is the only way progress will ever be made.
Egnite
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
Well said Nerd, you proved nothing except that you're a sheep with a rager for unjust laws! I've never claimed to be educated, I'm a simple lay man with freedom and I'm happy with that thank you. I stand by my morals, not my corrupt countries paid-for laws.

Factually incorrect. It is indeed a crime under U.S. law.

So why aren't there hundreds of cases that you are familiar with from the US?
The number would be a small handful. In a landmark case in Sweden? Switzerland? (can't remember which) several people went to JAIL.

You may want to educate yourself with that case, if its the pirate bay example you're talking about nobody went to jail. Maybe read some news the mainstream haven't hand fed you and you would be aware the case was thrown out. Plus that wasn't a user, that was a site and they couldn't do sweet fa about it. piratebay.org will prove..

Sorry to tire you out my blinkered friend, maybe save your weary fingers the stress of hitting keys by not replying?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
It's clear you're only interested in pushing an agenda rather than having a legitimate discussion in which you consider the context of your opponents statements.
- CHollman

Certainly an attitude that you are familiar with.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
it takes resources to promote products to enough people to generate large amounts of cash. Just our beautiful system of capitalism in action! Gotta love it.


Wrong. I can list a dozen people that were literally "made" due to free exposure on youtube. If your music is good it speaks for itself and people will find it and people will tell their friends. Word of mouth is the best form of advertising if you have a product that is good enough to stand on it's own legs and not be propped up by millions of advertising dollars.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
FYI ALL:

Cybercrime.gov is a superb site to give one a general feel (just from the front page) of both the seriousness with which these types of cases are being pursued, as well as the potential (jail time) penalties once you are caught and punished for your wicked deeds! maauahaahahahaha - that's my best Halloween scary voice. No stealing kids!


Have you read through those court cases? I spent maybe 2 hours there last night after first reading your post and I didn't see a single case involving someone being prosecuted for downloading copyrighted material...Most of them are about counterfeit goods or identity theft or other types of fraud, and the ones that do relate to what we are talking about are about websites that facilitate the downloading of material or individuals that originally upload the material. It is a smart strategy to go after the source, not the users... because there is only one source of the material per... I don't know, 100,000 users? Maybe more...
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
... I don't know
- CHollman

A condensed version of your comment content. That's an improvement.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
I didn't downvote you because you disagree with me, I did so because your comment added nothing to the discussion.

By source I don't mean people that have it in their share folder... I mean the people that ORIGINALLY upload it to the network. There are very few true sources of the material compared to the number of downloaders, and those are the people being targeted, that was my point.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2011
.. because your comment added nothing to the discussion.
- CHollman

Again, something you are familiar with. Your comments are mostly opinionated pointless rubbish.

Your voting patterns mean nothing to me. Why would I give any weight to what you believe. Such arrogance from an ignorant, boring, uneducated buffoon. Yawn.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2011
Wow, trying to sound like an intellectual superior while spewing ad hominems... I suggest you take a step back and examine your own behavior.
MentalHealthNut
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
No, recording doesn't cost a lot of money, and distribution certainly doesn't cost money anymore, now that CDs are obsolete. The fact that something is illegal does not make that the final word on the subject! We discuss laws all the time. Some have merit, others don't.


I have been in the recording industry for 9 years.... Are you kidding me? Do you understand how much work and hair splitting goes in to recording? Quality albums take MONTHS to record. It's not an evening at your buddy's house with an Mbox and a hundred dollar microphone. Listen to an AKG C12 through a 1073 Neve. Then listen to a Samson cheapo through an Mbox. Nothing musical about that, unless you love the sound of digital sawtooth destroying your signal.
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
And, yes, the fact that it is illegal does make it the final word. But only in the grownup world. lmao, can you OWS protester types not get simple facts through those thick skulls?


You seem like a level headed guy and I usually agree with you but I urge you to reconsider this position... Laws are not handed down by the almighty lord on high... they are the creations of humans and they are subject to being unjust and irrational.

Question everything, including the laws of your land, it is the only way progress will ever be made.


Oh, yes, I would agree with this. And, we can change them. But, until then, it's illegal.

Further, I find it fascinating that some others on here seemed to have missed the post where I came out as AGAINST this bill.
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
No, recording doesn't cost a lot of money, and distribution certainly doesn't cost money anymore, now that CDs are obsolete. The fact that something is illegal does not make that the final word on the subject! We discuss laws all the time. Some have merit, others don't.


I have been in the recording industry for 9 years.... Are you kidding me? Do you understand how much work and hair splitting goes in to recording? Quality albums take MONTHS to record. It's not an evening at your buddy's house with an Mbox and a hundred dollar microphone. Listen to an AKG C12 through a 1073 Neve. Then listen to a Samson cheapo through an Mbox. Nothing musical about that, unless you love the sound of digital sawtooth destroying your signal.


Read "Born to Run" re: Bruce Springsteen's early years. Fascinating stuff. A couple (more?) decades out of date, so you can safely imagine any related costs being jacked up several-fold.
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
@chollman82:

Per your comments re: cybercrime.gov.

To your point about going after the source of the illegal file - Makes sense to me.

Re: counterfeit goods or identity theft or other types of fraud. The reason I pointed out that site is its relationship to the contents of the bill mentioned in the article above. I think we were all having too much fun with some of the side issues, like illegal downloads, and got slightly off track. But the bill itself seems to be pretty broad and seeks to give police agencies "additional powers".
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
"Wrong. I can list a dozen people that were literally "made" due to free exposure on youtube." -chollman82

Well, this would sort of beg the question of what goals does the artist have in mind?

I mean, there's the occasional Rebecca Black, who uses YouTube to launch to fame (notoriety?), but for most artists, YouTube isn't going to launch them into the competition for a spot on the Top 40. I would challenge you to name a single case of that. And, of course, one would need to ask "where is Rebecca Black today"?

On the other hand, if one's goal is to jump from relative obscurity to some form of popular recognition, a tool like YouTube is helpful. Especially is one's goals remain modest over time.
Jotaf
not rated yet Nov 01, 2011
It doesn't matter that marketing and distributing CDs is expensive; it's obsolete. That's the point. 90% of the structure of the recording industry just became obsolete; if free market is so dear to Americans then they should just let it die.

Dear God, somebody mentioned Rebecca Black!! That just went viral because of how awful it is. There's Lily Allen, Andy Rehfeldt, Ana Free, all great performers or composers who got famous on the net. Much better than a rec executive choosing the "next big hit" and hammering our ears with it until exhaustion.

I have plenty of friends in bands, some more professional than others. And I can assure you that multi-million dollar studios are not required. From now on artists will not be paid obscene amounts of cash, but the good ones will still make much more money than your average doctor; of course I can live with that!
Nerdyguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2011
@jotaf:

Sorry to say, but you are living in an idealistic dream world, based not on fact, but on your personal utopian vision.

Of course, no one is debating that some artists may use the internet to gain exposure.

But, even a quick read of the history of someone like Lily Allen (who I'm totally unfamiliar with beyond the name) shows that she was a relative unknown until after she signed with a label and was promoted.

To suggest that marketing and distribution costs are irrelevant is to show your basic lack of understanding of finance and economics, to say nothing of the recording industry.

Just one question: what in the world do you think is compelling all of these large entertainment conglomerates to fight illegal downloading? Do you suppose it is the equivalent of a few "doctors" salaries? Hardly.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2011
"However, you are WAY off base if you believe that the process of recording a CD and distributing it in the U.S. is not costly. It's an end-to-end process involving hundreds of people and millions of dollars." - NerdGuy

That is your problem. Not mine.

If you take it upon yourself to build a very tall wall made from butter, it does not obligate me to pay for that wall even though it may have cost you a large sum of money.

Neither does it obligate me to pay you for the use of butter on my dinner table. Not even if that butter is arranged in the shape of a wall.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
"To suggest that marketing and distribution costs are irrelevant is to show your basic lack of understanding of finance and economics, to say nothing of the recording industry." - Nerdguy

I couldn't agree more... The high cost of carving chop sticks by hand is reason enough that people who carve their own should pay royalties for the pleasure, and manufacturers who use machines to automate the process of course must also be made to pay up also.

It is a moral requisite isn't it?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2011
"but for most artists, YouTube isn't going to launch them into the competition for a spot on the Top 40." - Nerdguy

Can you list who is in the top 40 of modern painters? Sculptors? Butter carvers? Fingernail painters?

Your fixation on music is laughable.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2011
"Oh, yes, I would agree with this. And, we can change them. But, until then, it's illegal." - Nerdguy

So was selling booze during prohibition.

Information wants to be free, and there is no way neo-fascists can prevent it from reaching it's desired state.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2011
"Quality albums take MONTHS to record."
" Listen to an AKG C12"

Feh. You are living on fools island.

The C12 was discontinued in 1963, after a 10-year manufacturing run. Approximately 2500 C12 microphones were produced.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2011
"Quality albums take MONTHS to record." - feh

Quality holes take months to dig. Therefore if you dig a hole you must be obligated to pay me royalties.

Jotaf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2011
Just one question: what in the world do you think is compelling all of these large entertainment conglomerates to fight illegal downloading? Do you suppose it is the equivalent of a few "doctors" salaries? Hardly.


That's exactly the point! They're fighting to keep the middle man's (now unnecessary) job. The artists don't need it. The middle men are now the people maintaining the internet's infrastructure.

I have friends in small bands who only work during the Summer playing covers at small gigs (can you imagine working 3 months a year?), they make more than enough for the whole year and also buying that super-expensive new guitar. We don't need the law to guarantee some people million-dollar revenues.

Also, other artistic mediums don't enjoy nearly enough the amount of protection conferred to the music industry's current business model. That doesn't mean there are no paintings, sculptures, books, and indie film festivals. Level the playing field please.
Cave_Man
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2011
The angry person is the one less able to defend or justify his point of view. If you possess a copy of art, you owe the artist money for it, or else don't possess it. Wait for someone with a car and a stereo to drive by so that you can enjoy it.


But isn't perceiving something a form of possession?
Where do you draw the line? I can look at the Mona Lisa a hundred times a day for free but it still costs a million dollars to own the painting.

Shouldn't there be an equivalent in the music and TV industry?

Oh wait there is, if you want to meet an artist or see them live you will have to pay. I don't thing someone deserves $20 from me if I want to listen to their CD a few times a year, and considering how much music there is in the world I could listen to a different album every day for the rest of my life.

Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
"I don't thing someone deserves $20 from me if I want to listen to their CD a few times a year, and considering how much music there is in the world I could listen to a different album every day for the rest of my life." -Caveman

Then, you are a thief. And should be prosecuted. My guess is you find other areas of life where you can justify your feelings. Taxes maybe?
Cave_Man
3 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
Wow nerd, you really suck. rich boy with greedy parents? I feel very sorry for you and the lifestyle you must live to think that way.

If we're talking about real life now and not hypothetical rhetoric, lets examine my reality, I don't listen to music, when I do it's on the radio or I borrow some from a friend.

I do however wish I could steal something from you that's more valuable than your time because chances are you don't know JACKSH*T about what a dollar is really worth. I've worked a 10 hour days doing demanding and dangerous construction work for YEARS to get the meager life I have now, I would never sit behind a desk making big bucks fucking up the world for other people like half the damn drones in the USA.

the FACT is that music companies copyright music, this should be illegal.

If they could they would copyright native american cerimonial music and make them pay every time they want to have a pow wow. It's not about protecting artists, its about MONEY and POWER
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2011
@caveman:

Actually, I'm a grown man, who earned his money the hard way. And doesn't believe in theft from his fellow man. Ranting and name calling are no substitute for logic and facts. Try again.

However, there are times when name calling could be used along with logic and facts. For example, it's clear that you are a fucking moron troll for a) posting nonsensical slurs AND b) failing utterly to read the post where I stated my opposition to this bill. Dumbass!