• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sopa | pipa

papaspur

papaspur

Kasey Keller
Everyone knows that the real reason GG forums went down was in protest of the SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy acts going to vote in the US House and Senate, respectively.

In all seriousness, and despite the fact that this legislation is being voted on in the US, the passage of these bills would have far-reaching, global implications. This is why many web sites have censored themselves in protest of these two most vile pieces of legislation, such that they might never see the light of day. It is not the cause, but the means through which these two bills would tackle piracy. Ultimately, a win for SOPA and PIPA would be a win for large corporate interests and a more controlled, policed, and stagnant internet.

And most importantly, this will keep the pr0nz flowing freely for all :cool:
 
Typical American BS. Legislation is not going to stop piracy - opening up content and embracing the internet will.
 
before reading this, this is not a racial attack. I am married to an American and have a great affinity with many Americans. (but maybe not with America))

I do feel there is a large element of the US arrogance (the money has gone, the war threat has slide away, but the US has an ingrained sense of needed to rule and control the injustices of the world (an irony that seems to be lost on most of the Americans I have met)) around SOPA in addition to a genuine desire to combat piracy and, of course, the primary reason - to protect the cartel like revenue streams of major entertainment companies

the best way to combat piracy would be for the entertainment companies to remember the product they are selling is art - and whilst they are important companies in their facilitation and distribution of art, they also need to realign their business models to embrace the ethos of art, not the ethos of capitalism.

over the course of the last 100 years we have seen technological advances that took art (and im going to focus on music for a second) out of the music halls and into the home. the big companies had a monopoly over this technology and ultimately the freedom to do with (and price) however they wished.

the internet has taken that control away from the big companies since the mid 90s and, despite their customers showing obvious displeasure (CD sales suffering due to high pricing etc), the companies failed to react and keep their customers happy.

as a result, their customers found a way of obtaining the product (art) by cutting out the middle man.
most consumers of art come from an appreciation of art, but are not prepared to be ripped off for it.

now is an excellent opportunity for the big companies to adapt their business models to the needs of the customer as well as the needs of the artists they employ.
it is also a great time for the artists to put pressure on the companies.

is it too late? maybe.
but I do think with a change in business model that allows people to experience art and then make a purchase if they wish (much as you would with a painting or any other non-art product), we will see a sea change with piracy reducing and paid consumption increasing.

if the companies continue to bleat on about how "unfair it is on them", they will get nowhere as ultimately the people with the power are the people they need onside, who as present have very little incentive to be onside.

it would take a huge shift from pure capitalist thinking to achieve this however - and I don’t think the companies that think in nothing but $ signs have the capacity to do so

--------------------

capitalism and consumption by incentivisation, not legislation
 
Last edited:
monkeybarry said:
before reading this, this is not a racial attack. I am married to an American and have a great affinity with many Americans. (but maybe not with America))

I do feel there is a large element of the US arrogance (the money has gone, the war threat has slide away, but the US has an ingrained sense of needed to rule and control the injustices of the world (an irony that seems to be lost on most of the Americans I have met)) around SOPA in addition to a genuine desire to combat piracy and, of course, the primary reason - to protect the cartel like revenue streams of major entertainment companies

the best way to combat piracy would be for the entertainment companies to remember the product they are selling is art - and whilst they are important companies in their facilitation and distribution of art, they also need to realign their business models to embrace the ethos of art, not the ethos of capitalism.

over the course of the last 100 years we have seen technological advances that took art (and im going to focus on music for a second) out of the music halls and into the home. the big companies had a monopoly over this technology and ultimately the freedom to do with (and price) however they wished.

the internet has taken that control away from the big companies since the mid 90s and, despite their customers showing obvious displeasure (CD sales suffering due to high pricing etc), the companies failed to react and keep their customers happy.

as a result, their customers found a way of obtaining the product (art) by cutting out the middle man.
most consumers of art come from an appreciation of art, but are not prepared to be ripped off for it.

now is an excellent opportunity for the big companies to adapt their business models to the needs of the customer as well as the needs of the artists they employ.
it is also a great time for the artists to put pressure on the companies.

is it too late? maybe.
but I do think with a change in business model that allows people to experience art and then make a purchase if they wish (much as you would with a painting or any other non-art product), we will see a sea change with piracy reducing and paid consumption increasing.

if the companies continue to bleat on about how "unfair it is on them", they will get nowhere as ultimately the people with the power are the people they need onside, who as present have very little incentive to be onside.

it would take a huge shift from pure capitalist thinking to achieve this however - and I don’t think the companies that think in nothing but $ signs have the capacity to do so

--------------------

capitalism and consumption by incentivisation, not legislation
Click to expand...


There are two sides to the story Monkeybarry

1. Quite honestly, the I wouldn't steal your brick if it was cheap enough view = total flimflam, if my product is priced too high in your mind, don't fudging use it. I don't drive a Aston because I can't afford one, and I can't walk in the showroom and say "I think this car is overpriced, so instead of buying something else, I'll just steal it". The fact that people don't make the mental connection between stealing a physical object and intellectual property, doesn't make any less wrong/illegal.

2. The SOPA/PIPA bills also = Complete flimflam because they reflect the new American way of legislation, where laws are created with a ton of ambiguous wording that basically allows goverments/corporations to violate rights and put people in a "guilty until proven innocent" bracket.
 
tommysvr said:
Self-centered, world revolves around us mentality. Why is the US Government the one who gets to choose what websites are allowed?
Click to expand...

Hmm....not self-centered or the world revolves around us at all, and I totally disagree with the bill. There are people who feel that combating piracy and protecting IP is of the utmost importance, and clearly they have not read the bill enough to realize that the ambiguity that is rife in it will lead to severe unintended consequences. But let's not go overboard with the world "revolves around us" commentary. It just sounds petty.
 
I agree with monkey on the aspects of capitalism. Although Raziel's argument does not provide a completely accurate analogy, I still agree with the point that just because something is overpriced doesn't mean you're allowed to steal it. For example, once an artist records a song, it does not really cost that much to distribute that song.

Record companies are indeed big wastes of space that neither benefit the artist nor the consumers. They are not so much concerned with the art, so long as it brings in the money. However, because of the large amount of sway the record companies hold with their artists, they can basically tell those artists to produce gold-gilded crap that stifles creativity and gives the public more auditory effluvium to drown their ears in. On the other hand, Americans like their genero-pop and continue to listen to this ear-stink.

I buy a lot of music, especially since I use it for DJing and can't afford to have crappy-quality versions of a song. I refuse to go to the theater to sit there for 2 hours after paying $12 unless the movie is actually entertaining and not 90 minutes of fluff. Video games, when adjusted for inflation, are actually rather cheap, relatively. But the same problems exist between publishers and developers, so you get half-assed, poorly-polished crap... or worse: sequels. Just look at the latest iteration of Call of Duty (which broke entertainment industry records). People will pay for essentially the same content over, and over, and over again.

As for me, I'm pretty jaded. I see everything for the crap that it really is, and no person can better illustrate this than a politician. But I'm an anomaly that's easily annoyed by the antics of Americans.
 
Last edited:
NewYorkSpurs said:
Hmm....not self-centered or the world revolves around us at all, and I totally disagree with the bill. There are people who feel that combating piracy and protecting IP is of the utmost importance, and clearly they have not read the bill enough to realize that the ambiguity that is rife in it will lead to severe unintended consequences. But let's not go overboard with the world "revolves around us" commentary. It just sounds petty.
Click to expand...

The whole premise of the bill is giving the US the power to shut down and prosecute websites outside of US jurisdiction who infringe on US copyright. It is completely self-centered.

I don't think piracy will ever be stopped, but there are ways to lessen it's impact. The iTunes Store is one way. Make it easier to get the content and many people will pay for it.

An example I often us is of the Fox Sports News app (the Australian one). You can pay $4.99 a month to get access to live Fox Sports News (like Sky Sports News) as well as on-demand stories with video. However, now that I live overseas, I can't access it. I can't pay them that $4.99, which I would absolutely do - more likely to do it overseas so I can keep up to date with the stuff back home. But because of restrictions in the broadcasting rights, they can't provide those videos to anyone overseas, so instead I have to find illegal ways of getting that content.

The TV/music/movie industries are stuck in the 90s and think the way out is legislation and prosecution. Why don't they try and new model and get on board with sites like YouTube who have made billions by simply making their content free and accesible.
 
Tommysvr, stop talking sense, mate

Wholeheartedly agree that companies need to adjust their repsective business models instead of seeking hollow prosecution.

It's simply the next step in global mind control and a single world government.
 
Raziel said:
There are two sides to the story Monkeybarry

1. Quite honestly, the I wouldn't steal your brick if it was cheap enough view = total flimflam, if my product is priced too high in your mind, don't fudging use it. I don't drive a Aston because I can't afford one, and I can't walk in the showroom and say "I think this car is overpriced, so instead of buying something else, I'll just steal it". The fact that people don't make the mental connection between stealing a physical object and intellectual property, doesn't make any less wrong/illegal.

2. The SOPA/PIPA bills also = Complete flimflam because they reflect the new American way of legislation, where laws are created with a ton of ambiguous wording that basically allows goverments/corporations to violate rights and put people in a "guilty until proven innocent" bracket.
Click to expand...

whilst i agree with point 1., society opperates by dealing with the issues society dictates.
the issue exists - and there is a logical way of dealing with it that can serve well the purpose of company, artist and consumer.

the argument actually slightly differs to your point above IMHO in that it is "why should i pay a price i consider not to represent value for money when i can get it for free?"

as i said, most art consumers are also art lovers (granted there are exceptions, and they should be stopped) and dont want to see the industry disappear

there are some good models out there, such as spotify, that give you limited ammount of comsumption before you have to buy - this kind of model seems the way forward.
 
papaspur said:
I agree with monkey on the aspects of capitalism. Although Raziel's argument does not provide a completely accurate analogy, I still agree with the point that just because something is overpriced doesn't mean you're allowed to steal it. For example, once an artist records a song, it does not really cost that much to distribute that song.

Record companies are indeed big wastes of space that neither benefit the artist nor the consumers. They are not so much concerned with the art, so long as it brings in the money. However, because of the large amount of sway the record companies hold with their artists, they can basically tell those artists to produce gold-gilded crap that stifles creativity and gives the public more auditory effluvium to drown their ears in. On the other hand, Americans like their genero-pop and continue to listen to this ear-stink.

I buy a lot of music, especially since I use it for DJing and can't afford to have crappy-quality versions of a song. I refuse to go to the theater to sit there for 2 hours after paying $12 unless the movie is actually entertaining and not 90 minutes of fluff. Video games, when adjusted for inflation, are actually rather cheap, relatively. But the same problems exist between publishers and developers, so you get half-assed, poorly-polished crap... or worse: sequels. Just look at the latest iteration of Call of Duty (which broke entertainment industry records). People will pay for essentially the same content over, and over, and over again.

As for me, I'm pretty jaded. I see everything for the crap that it really is, and no person can better illustrate this than a politician. But I'm an anomaly that's easily annoyed by the antics of Americans.
Click to expand...

i slightly disagree re the importance of record companies - i think they are a very important part of how the music industry works, financing artists and distributing music. but they charge prices that are out of touch with consumer expectation and created themselves as a enemy of the consumer through greed. people found a way around their greed, and now they are all upset.

totally agree with the rest.

cinemas always blame high prices on other areas of the industry - if true, why not reduce subsidies charged to cinemas, get more bums on seats and make paying for consuming entertainment enjoyable and fashionable again
 
monkeybarry said:
i slightly disagree re the importance of record companies - i think they are a very important part of how the music industry works, financing artists and distributing music. but they charge prices that are out of touch with consumer expectation and created themselves as a enemy of the consumer through greed. people found a way around their greed, and now they are all upset.

totally agree with the rest.

cinemas always blame high prices on other areas of the industry - if true, why not reduce subsidies charged to cinemas, get more bums on seats and make paying for consuming entertainment enjoyable and fashionable again
Click to expand...

OK, they are a rather large gear in the music distribution contraption, but I definitely think we are in the midst of a shift between traditional record models and independent labels. I'd rather pay $40 to go see the orchestra than $14 for some mass-produced cookie-cutter garbage that I've heard a million times over before.
This is why Radiohead is the best band ever. For In Rainbows, we the consumers could name the price for what the music was worth to us. I'm sure many people typed in "0.00", but we as the consumers were empowered to name our own price, no holds barred. They truly understand what art is, and that music belongs to everyone. This was a huge risk taken on by them, but on the other hand, all that artistic freedom that is afforded to them must be worth it. Did I mention their music happens to not suck?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back