The Internet Needs Laws
- Thread starter Thunderous Cacophony
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The viable alternative path is pretty simple. Let events play out and the freemarket will correct itself.Buretsu said:
Which put a bigger stop to music downloads, the DMCA or itunes? The market was slow and stubborn in providing consumers with the service they wanted at a reasonable price and once the market shifted sales returned.
Heck that was the original point to Hulu, you know before they realized that to fully support streaming online media they would have to axe the nelsons rating system and started backpedaling on streaming support. They've also been playing hard against Netflix as well. They don't just hate the pirates they hate the threat of streaming media in general and would rather we all stick with the arcaic and expensive cable system (does adult swim's streaming service still require verification of expanded basic cable access before they allow service?)
Then you have practices like device discrimination were they outright block Google/Apple TV systems and deny streaming service to your Xbox without upcharge because they believe that they should decide the size of the screen and how many people watch your entertainment? Its like Tacobell signs a contract with General motors and refuses traffic in the drivethrough from other cars but wants to sue because people open imitation service for free.
I'm sorry they do way too many dysfunctional things for their argument about massive profit loses to even be credible. In a downed economy they've remained highly profitable actually. Then we have that deal were the CEO of Viacom gives himself a 150% raise in the last year along with a year prior were Viacom was found to be hiring market groups to upload videos onto youtube for viacom to then sue over to prove how youtube steals their profits.
I could be wrong but something tells me if they just bit the bullet and started offering more equitable online services piracy would drop considerably and we could then have a more rational discussion on lowering the percentile from there.
No formal system is perfect and laws can't stop all crimes like what has been said earlier. You can only lower its success rate. As it stands I think most of the entertainment industry would rather undo most of the technological advancements we've gained and go back to the 90's were their profits were heavily padded out by people replacing their old VHS tapes with DVD. Youknow a trend that can never repeat because there's no reason to rebuy older films in blueray and DVD doesn't sit on the shelf degrading like VHS...
I'm sorry I do have to laugh at this thread to a degree. You do know that the entertainment industry has tried to stop the manufacturing of VCRs and early MP3 devices due to piracy? That went swimmingly. This is just those industries trying to muscle in on an area they thing is losing them business and trying to bully people around simple as. You will never stop Piracy with a broad sword let alone a nuke.
Until people in charge understand that piracy will never stop and they can only make their product as high quality as possible then things will stay the same. As much as I dislike piracy it will always exist and you can only curtail it.
Pirates will always be ahead of people like this as they are proactive while these slow industries are reactive. Just look around you. You already have ways to bypass SOPA and the thing hasn't even passed yet.
On the question of internet needs laws no it doesn't need what is already has. What it needs is a different set of laws that are not abusable to but are custom made to work with the current medium. What they are trying to do is trying to put old law systems with a new medium and surprise it has gotten them fucking nowhere.
What needs to happen is for these people to take their head out of their anuses and see the internet is completely unique and great tool to be used. I mean right now they (music industry) are trying to sue a country (Ireland) for not enforcing copyright in their eyes. They are having bullied one of our ISPs (Eircom) into blocking sites like The Pirate Bay. Yes that site is haven for such things but it is the principle of it. They tried doing it to UPC (I think) and they basically told the industry to fuck off and I agree with them as there are better ways to do this.
Just because they cannot see how to protect their product in a good way(Eircom music hub) doesn't mean they can employ heavy handed tactics to get their way. How these people at the top stay at the top and get paid what they do is fucking beyond me.
Just because they cannot, no will not evolve to meet a new market and its different and unique demands for what it wants does not mean they can gimp it and force people elsewhere. Especially, since USA is supposed to be a Free Market economy and thus the government should be taking a laissez-faire stance on the situation.
Any way long story short new laws made for the internet by people who understand the internet that do not curtail its freedom good however, what they are trying to do and will try to do bad.
Until people in charge understand that piracy will never stop and they can only make their product as high quality as possible then things will stay the same. As much as I dislike piracy it will always exist and you can only curtail it.
Pirates will always be ahead of people like this as they are proactive while these slow industries are reactive. Just look around you. You already have ways to bypass SOPA and the thing hasn't even passed yet.
On the question of internet needs laws no it doesn't need what is already has. What it needs is a different set of laws that are not abusable to but are custom made to work with the current medium. What they are trying to do is trying to put old law systems with a new medium and surprise it has gotten them fucking nowhere.
What needs to happen is for these people to take their head out of their anuses and see the internet is completely unique and great tool to be used. I mean right now they (music industry) are trying to sue a country (Ireland) for not enforcing copyright in their eyes. They are having bullied one of our ISPs (Eircom) into blocking sites like The Pirate Bay. Yes that site is haven for such things but it is the principle of it. They tried doing it to UPC (I think) and they basically told the industry to fuck off and I agree with them as there are better ways to do this.
Just because they cannot see how to protect their product in a good way(Eircom music hub) doesn't mean they can employ heavy handed tactics to get their way. How these people at the top stay at the top and get paid what they do is fucking beyond me.
Just because they cannot, no will not evolve to meet a new market and its different and unique demands for what it wants does not mean they can gimp it and force people elsewhere. Especially, since USA is supposed to be a Free Market economy and thus the government should be taking a laissez-faire stance on the situation.
Any way long story short new laws made for the internet by people who understand the internet that do not curtail its freedom good however, what they are trying to do and will try to do bad.
There are laws in place. But, they're the early laws, and they're far from perfect. Consider the DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a body of international copyright law) as you would the Articles of Confederation. It's the primary, most powerful assemblage of law right now. But, it's flawed, and broken, and causes some problems. What we need is the Constitution to come along, and handle the problems while creating a great base on which to build when new changes are required (in this analogy, these would be the amendments). SOPA and PIPA are steps in the wrong direction. Too many individual liberties are destroyed, removed, or blocked from the individual that it breaks the system in the worst way. If your system is built on the concept of democracy, that every vote counts, then preventing entire regions or demographics from voting means your system doesn't work. Likewise, preventing and restricting access to what content may be seen and created in a form like the internet undermines the entire point of your idea.
Yes, there needs to be some regulation. But not like this. The DMCA was a good start, and we need to improve from there, not revert into total control. We were in a Huxleyan state before, given all the pleasures that we might not care about the problem. Moving us into an Orwellian state where all we see are the problems without any of the pleasures is not the proper response.
Yes, there needs to be some regulation. But not like this. The DMCA was a good start, and we need to improve from there, not revert into total control. We were in a Huxleyan state before, given all the pleasures that we might not care about the problem. Moving us into an Orwellian state where all we see are the problems without any of the pleasures is not the proper response.
By defending their intellectual property through the civil court.Thunderous Cacophony said:
Why the fuck is copyright violation a felony?!!! Patent infringement isn't a felony.
For some reason the MPAA and RIAA think that law enforcement agencies and every website owner everywhere should be doing what is supposed to be the copyright holder's responsibility.
READ THIS: Shamus young puts this better than I can.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14817#more-14817
?But we have to do SOMETHING about piracy!?
?We?? Actually, ?we? don?t. It?s your copyright, you defend it. I produce copyrighted works. If people started spreading around copies without paying me, I?d be frustrated and disappointed. But I?m not going to try to make it your problem. I can?t imagine even DREAMING about silencing an entire domain in an attempt to hide my bootleg work from pirates. That would be ridiculous, even if it could work.
If you can?t make money doing X, then you go out of business if you insist on doing X. If Pepsi stopped making money on vending machines because people routinely vandalized the machines and nobody ever called the cops because vandalism was socially acceptable, then Pepsi would have to find another business model. I?m sorry people are jerks, but your earning a living can?t come at the expense of the freedoms of everyone else.
I didn't write this. Credit for Shamus Young
?We?? Actually, ?we? don?t. It?s your copyright, you defend it. I produce copyrighted works. If people started spreading around copies without paying me, I?d be frustrated and disappointed. But I?m not going to try to make it your problem. I can?t imagine even DREAMING about silencing an entire domain in an attempt to hide my bootleg work from pirates. That would be ridiculous, even if it could work.
If you can?t make money doing X, then you go out of business if you insist on doing X. If Pepsi stopped making money on vending machines because people routinely vandalized the machines and nobody ever called the cops because vandalism was socially acceptable, then Pepsi would have to find another business model. I?m sorry people are jerks, but your earning a living can?t come at the expense of the freedoms of everyone else.
I didn't write this. Credit for Shamus Young
Always funny how these "regulations" are in place but never acted upon when the person is rich and/or famous.Kopikatsu said:
No, apart from rudimentary laws that completely violate human rights (see child porn, slavery, etc.) the internet should be almost lawless (ie. to the extent that it is right now).
The internet is a great tool for free people across the world because it is not controlled by governments. Giving the state control over free expression on the internet is just another step towards tyranny.
There ARE laws. However, every law is broken and on the internet, it is incredibly easy to break laws.
This is MY biggest problem with SOPA and PIPA; They wouldn't even stop piracy. Pirates are tech savvy people and anyone with the slightest knowledge of the web can bypass any law put in place. And with the proper proxies, they are completely undetectable.
So just like DRM, any new law would only harm the innocent people and do nothing to the guilty people.
This is MY biggest problem with SOPA and PIPA; They wouldn't even stop piracy. Pirates are tech savvy people and anyone with the slightest knowledge of the web can bypass any law put in place. And with the proper proxies, they are completely undetectable.
So just like DRM, any new law would only harm the innocent people and do nothing to the guilty people.
Psst, dude, you posted a link to a computer, I don't think you meant to do thatSilas13013 said:
OP:
But dude, of course it needs laws. It has them, the problem is companies who want to expand on those laws want to take courts pretty much out of it. Excuse me for a second while I let you tell me why that's a "brilliant" idea.
It's pretty hard to enforce rules on something so 'free' as the internet, and taking away that freedom just makes it an internet library. The free exchange of all sorts of crap, unbridled by the outside world, is exactly what makes the internet so very magical.
If we want people to stop doing nasty things like pirating, it is up to us to change as a culture to not want to do such a thing.
If we want people to stop doing nasty things like pirating, it is up to us to change as a culture to not want to do such a thing.
The problem isn't the absence of laws, the problem is that the internet is too big to patrol and enforce the laws already set in. Same goes for the real world. Resources are too few and projects are too many. course funding wouldn't be as much of a problem if politicians didn't get lifelong incomes for ten years of "service", or whatever they call it now.
SOPA is bad because it's too far reaching.
Laws need to be precise and target very specific scenarios, SOPA needs to be a sniper rifle, not a nuclear bomb.
The internet is a very hard thing to regulate, any attempt to do so would have to be surgical in its accuracy so as to avoid collateral damage.
Laws need to be precise and target very specific scenarios, SOPA needs to be a sniper rifle, not a nuclear bomb.
The internet is a very hard thing to regulate, any attempt to do so would have to be surgical in its accuracy so as to avoid collateral damage.
I agree that the internet needs regulations. Not just those accused of piracy should apply though. Companies that perjure themselves by abusing innocent sites or users should face a persuasively severe punishment.
And I've yet to hear it explained to me why it makes any sense to allow the american entertainment industry to censor the greatest achievement in human history.
And I've yet to hear it explained to me why it makes any sense to allow the american entertainment industry to censor the greatest achievement in human history.
Easy answer: Do you want the entire web to be like YouTube? Content vanished for no reason, fair use ignored, artists' own personal uploads blocked by their parent companies? Anyone, at random, able to shut down anyone else's media? All in pursuit of some edge in profits that never materialized, all to shut down people who did not pay (exorbitant fees) to use material for which companies had copyrights? And (the kicker): The true illegal/damaging uploads simply moved elsewhere. The full TV episodes, full-length movies, music videos? Just got themselves hosted on other sites. And the industry was no better in the end (arguably worse due to the exposure videos give to artists who might otherwise have remained buried), while the public was a whole lot worse off.
This is what SOPA means. More than free speech or censorship, it is about whether we want a YouTube Internet or not. And I, for one, do not.
This is what SOPA means. More than free speech or censorship, it is about whether we want a YouTube Internet or not. And I, for one, do not.
It seems like this is going to be a trend now....
Hate to interrupt you mid-sentence, but there's multiple issues at hand. Who, exactly, is insisting this? It sounds like a strawman argument.Thunderous Cacophony said:
SOPA and PIPA are just about the worst possible way to handle things. Laws already exist and enforcement is possible. This kind of regulation is poorly conceived and worthless.
It already does.
Which brings in the big problem with a lot of claims:Redryhno said:
Realism.
It's completely unrealistic to expect the internet to be fully policed.
This does mean bad people will do bad things, but again, the same's true in the real world, as you already said.
The internet is an even harder place to police. The big problem is making it easier will either strip the rights of legit users or severely limit functionality.
It's not the best scenario, but what can we do?
Bahahaha oh wow you are rightdogstile said:Psst, dude, you posted a link to a computer, I don't think you meant to do thatSilas13013 said:
OP:
But dude, of course it needs laws. It has them, the problem is companies who want to expand on those laws want to take courts pretty much out of it. Excuse me for a second while I let you tell me why that's a "brilliant" idea.
Here is the correct link http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/