I hate SOPA

And I pay for things I like. But censoring everthing that's privat is like seal a window

And I pay for things I like. But censoring everthing that's privat is like seal a window

I have no idea what you just said...

Alright now as long as we can keep it civil I would like to know why you hate SOPA/PIPA and how how it would directly affect you?

Mind you, I'm not telling you that your wrong, and I say, I don't support or oppose either way.

No! I don't support this! I vote against it! I encourage everybody to call their senators now!

Same as above.

As long as we can keep it civil I would like to know why you hate SOPA/PIPA and how how it would directly affect you?

Mind you, I'm not telling you that your wrong, and I say, I don't support or oppose either way.

Thank you. People are making this such an overblown situation, this is exactly what I have been telling people but they flip shit.

You know what it boils down to?

If this was some independant/no-named/non-corporate company that sparked this people would be all for this probably.

Most people on this internet are "fight the establishment" or against "big business" yet when you look at the bill and why it was made, it's totally understandable why this exists.

As I said, I might not agree with the bill fully and I think my solution is a fair trade-off.

Welcome to the furry fandom.You say one thing that is
completely bad and will affect them and they all go ape shit without properly researching the issue or viewing both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaP5-eJLP8k my answer to SOPA it sucks.

...

So because someone made a horrible AMV using clips from the Matrix trilogy and a Slipknot song, all because they thought they were being cool and in hoping they would be popular....

This is your response to SOPA?

Don't ever get a job as a lobbyist.

no, the meaning of the song itself is what is ment to heard.

First of all, song interpretation is subjective and not valid...

Once again you pretty much are a living example of "fight the establishment" that I had said in a response to Rave_Fox above you.

While one person may say the song is "anti-establishment" someone else can argue it was a way for the band to communicate to fans that they were never going to break up and be there for the fans no matter what.

So strike two...

w/e

Sorry bud, it's how the real world works.

You can get mad at me all you want, but all you showed me is that you hate this bill cause your not getting stuff for free anymore and that Corey Taylor should be president in your opinion.

Next time I want your opinion on a subject I want to know what YOU think, not you feel what others tell you to think.

Anyone who supports it is oblivious to the danger of it. The concept on which it's based is admirable, to stop piracy. But the way they're going about it is completely wrong.

Gabe Newell said it best by saying in order to beat piracy you need to make a better server. I used to pirate games all the time till I got Steam. Now I have 200 games on Steam.

As I said I'm neutral about it, I am aware of the dangers. Hence why I said the same thing that it needs to be revised.

Revisions will be starting in February and then they're going to try and pass it again.

And regarding your below comment, it's not really the man trying to stick it to the little guy. The main purpose of SOPA/PIPA is for AMERICA to be able to censor the WORLD's internet and this is done under the guise of protecting the intellectual property of American based companies. The result, however, is them being able to say "Oh. That site has something we don't like. Take it down." and then the site goes down, no ifs ands or buts.

Companies, however, aren't really losing money from pirates. Piracy sucks, yes, but they're not losing profits. People are pirating digital copies and I guarantee that most of the reason is due to convenience. People can't afford to pay for every $30 that comes out, or that $20 music CD or that $60 game and that's when they turn to pirating, or in my case, Steam. The target audience for all of this content is people who work a minimum or close to it wage job trying to pay for an apartment as well. They can barely afford food let alone the next big thing. I don't think these companies understand that. They're used to having an incredibly huge bulge in their wallet, so to speak and I think they're scared of the possibility of being down on our level.

I'm out of a job after this week. The lot owners are tearing down the building and they gave us barely a month notice. I don't have a job lined up but luckily I still live at home. Even living at home I can't afford to buy the expensive thing I want.

"Even living at home I can't afford to buy the expensive thing I want."

....

Welcome to life. We all have that problem. You can't afford the $20 CD?

Fine.

What about the individual song you really like off that album that you can buy off iTunes for $0.99?

Way to completely miss the point of the post.

No, I think you're missing the point...

"Companies, however, aren't really losing money from pirates. Piracy sucks, yes, but they're not losing profits. People are pirating digital copies and I guarantee that most of the reason is due to convenience. People can't afford to pay for every $30 that comes out, or that $20 music CD or that $60 game and that's when they turn to pirating, or in my case, Steam. The target audience for all of this content is people who work a minimum or close to it wage job trying to pay for an apartment as well. They can barely afford food let alone the next big thing. I don't think these companies understand that. They're used to having an incredibly huge bulge in their wallet, so to speak and I think they're scared of the possibility of being down on our level."

It's because of the stupid that you spilled onto my journal, why this bill was even conceived in the first place.

You think you're the only one who can't afford anything? I was unemployed for eight months last year and I scraped by just to pay my rent each month. I couldn't afford the $60 games, the $20 CD or the $30 Blu-rays just like you as well. Did I torrent all my videos and music because I didn't have money?

No.

What you just said is that because someone doesn't make a certain amount of money, they should be entitled to getting what is considered a luxury.

Fuck food stamps, let's now make media stamps since Hakoten makes $7.25 an hour, he can't afford Mass Effect 3.

What, just because a company makes millions of dollars a year, they should be lenient on how much money they can give out for free?

Let's say 1000 people torrent an average of 3 movies a month for a year. That is a very reasonable figure in my opinion. In a year that means a total of 36,000 movies were downloaded. If the average movie is $20, that is a total of $720,000 in revenue lost. And this is a minor example, compile that with games and songs, you're talking millions of dollars.

Someone had to buy that digital copy. So sure the company made $30. But when 30 people torrent that video, that's $900 the company just lost cause people don't want to pay for products anymore.

This is of course assuming that $30 for the Blu-ray is pure profit. Fuck production costs, distribution costs, paying actors, and camera men, and sound effects crews and musicians and composers, advertisements and more. You know, all the things that go into making a game, movie or show. Companies have to sell a certain number of copies just to BREAK EVEN before they turn around a profit.

So, please explain to me how this isn't losing profits?

I don't know where where this sense of entitlement comes from, but because someone makes more money than you doesn't mean you deserve to have a share of their money.

You're just pissed that you can't have what you want, and instead of working hard to getting what you want and feeling like you accomplished something in life by getting something nice for yourself, instead you want it handed to you. THAT'S what I got from your post.

I'm not pissed. I don't feel like I'm entitled to anything. And that still wasn't the point of my post.

Okay so outside, if someone doesn't make a lot of money, big business shouldn't care about the "small people"; what was the point?

Cause if what I responded about wasn't part of your point to the post, then you shouldn't have had a need to say it.

Sycophants support it, Brown-nosers support it, and conservatives support it.

I'm failing to see your point...

See this is what I'm talking about people. Everyone is quick to just blurt out how they feel about something but no on ever wants to explain themselves.

Go on... I want to hear how it's multi-billion dollar corporations just trying to take even more money from us.

May be this video will help explain what I'm trying to say. -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=WJIuYgIvKsc

Lol Alright the dude creeped me the fuck out when I first clicked that link.

I think I just met Santa Clause high on speed.

But alright cool, thanks for the video. You posted something as a counterpoint, a lot more than some of the others I have chatted with.

But yes, this is why I'm neutral about this. The intentions are good but it needs to be revised.

Alright then....

The point is.. ex:

If wiki has ANY links of copy written material that a user could get for free (like a link to linewire for a free download to a song you looked up) The entire site can be shut down with no say so. Thats why google and every one is protesting it.

And I can understand that, hence why I said that it needs to be revised.

First of all, linewire shouldn't exist. It's sites like that, that spawned the entire piracy debacle in the first place.

So as a revision, as similar to a DMCA, have a notification to Wiki asking them to remove the link.

Actually if you look deeper most of the major supporting companies are the ones that actually started piracy in the first place.

Its basically too much power thats too easy to abuse. Especially when a fair trial is not needed to shut a site down.

That I can agree with, how this isn't considered unconstitutional by bypassing the right to a free trial is beyond me.

"That's like if I have a character, someone decided to use them in a comic without my permission, then the person sells the comic at AC and makes $500. I would be pissed off too, would I be the asshole in this case?

Lets be honest, the people of the internet are simply being spoiled, Why spend $100 on all the seasons of Naruto when I can go to PirateBay and download them myself? Why pay $750 for Photoshop when I can download it and the activation key code generator?"
-- -- --

Well alright, this I agree with.

This might be just an exaggeration, but I've heard that they might be able to shut down whole sites if it causes copyright infringements like the use of another's music in your videos or artwork/footage.
Even if that's not the case, and they'll only be allowed to remove single videos, I still use Youtube as my mediaplayer. I barely have any music on my computer.

Luckily I don't live in the US, though.
We'll see.

Even if you don't live in the USA this still effects you. Most url severs are actually based in the USA from what I understand.

You would be correct and that was originally the loop hole pirate sites could get around. If they had servers in Russia, US laws wouldn't harm them.

That's what companies are trying to stop.

Once more, so let it be only the record companies to post the music. I can find entire albums on youtube that either RoadRunner Records and others have posted. They want the people who post the same song for the sake of being popular to stop.

All I'm saying there's a way around this but people don't want to listen. It's all the same arguments, it people just thinking it's big business pushing us around. Hence why I gave a far more down-to-earth every day example that you quoted. It's virtually the same exact thing, but because they're big business, it's "Fuck them!"

I understood your point. But people like to think the worst.
And as for my music example on youtube, it's really not that expensive to get a CD of the same songs, Im just lazy and since it's free and easier, I stick with youtube.
People like to think the worst. Hell, got tired of hearing about those goverment conspiracies yet?

The only times I pirate is if I've bought the game in the past, but I've lost the disk. There's no other way to get it back for free (even calling the company would take time I don't want to spend). I also do it if I want to test a game out to see if it's worth actually buying

I don't pirate music, but I download it from youtube. Youtube will pretty much be gone. You might be able to see a ball-kick video, but if there's a McDonalds in the background - nope. Upload a video of your little girl singing lady gaga? Going to jail!

Normally I hate the slippery slope fallacy. But in this case I think there is an exception. It wouldn't be hard to stretch "SOPA protects copyrights" ok, companies now start to change what a copy right covers. Such as Sarah Palin once wanted to copyright her name. So with a simple rewiring of what a copyright is you suddenly can't say names. You can't call them out if they do something. That quickly, that easily, you can no longer disagree with your politicians publicly.

"I also do it if I want to test a game out to see if it's worth actually buying"

That's partially why Blockbuster and other rental stores went or are going out-of-business.

As for the McDonalds comment, I concede. You are correct about that, but a simple revision to the bill can fix that.

The only reason why Sarah Palin did what she did simply because the was embarrassed by the porn industry for all the Sarah Palin look-alikes and making movies like "Who's nailin' Paylin?"

Besides it was shot down by the copyright office, where in a very round-about way said "No you can't copyright your name deal with it."

Lastly, until they erase the first amendment from the constitution, the "not speaking out against your government" would never happen. Besides, even if the name was copyright, there are numerous ways you could go about still debating publicly.

Besides, legally, you can't copyright yourself.

I agree that something needs to be done to protect copyrights, but I oppose SOPA/PIPA because they take things too far. Honestly, if you asked me, I wouldn't even be totally opposed to shutting down websites as an option. I don't think I could bring myself to defend Pirate Bay against being shut down. (I'm sure some people will, but I won't.) But the question is, where do you draw the line? From what I've heard, somebody posting, say, a video of themselves in a fursuit dancing to a copyrighted song would automatically put the site to which it was posted into the same category as TPB, even if that website had legitimate uses. (e.g. YouTube, DA, FA, etc. Change the example as you like to fit what you actually -could- upload.) Now, something like FA or even (I assume) YouTube will remove material on a case-by-case basis as the law is under the DMCA, as they are notified about it. But why, if they miss something (tell me honestly that YouTube could check every video uploaded by themselves) that they should be put in a position where the copyright holder should be allowed to have the entire website effectively shut down? That's the problem I have with SOPA/PIPA, that it gives too much power to copyright holders to have entire websites shut down without due process, and to shut down websites that do have mostly legitimate uses, but whose users at some point misbehaved.

My understanding after having read and studied these bills, is that they would not have quite such a

negative effect as most people seem to believe. This is not to say that I am for either of them, I fall

towards being neutral about both, with a slight lean towards supporting them. The problem, I think,

lies in that people do not understand the issue for the position that they take. As you said in your

journal, people mistakenly believe that sites such as Google and Youtube would be shut down outright.

Now, it would be POSSIBLE for such a thing to happen, but these sites would do everything in their

power to remove the problem before any type of serious action would be taken.

Honestly I can see some good in the bill.They are trying to protect companies and those who own licensed products from being illegally distibuted. They should revise it some. I also personally find it wrong when people use licensed characters and products and sell trinkets and such withou the company's permission. I also personally consider paying for an artist to draw a copyrighted character isnt right either. I honestly like to see justice and punishment. Now I dont know how far these sopa and pipa guys are planning to go but obviously the internet wont be ruined or destroyed.It just might be a little more boring.I am also unsure how it will make people lose their jobs and money on the internet other than the ones who steal and re-sell licenced products/characters.

Here's a thought, though: Let's say I've gone to the theater to take in a movie. Whether it was awesome or if it completely sucked, I go home, hop online, and wrte up a personal review showcasing my opinion of the film, the acting, how good/bad it was compared to the book, etc.. Let's say I post copies of this review on facebook, myspace, my journal here, my journal on DA, my pulse on IMVU, and, just for the heck of it, let's say I start up a twitter account and tweet a little blurb about how I feel this movie measured up. All just expressiony my opinion and excercising not only a constitutional right to free speech, but a basic human right of having an opinion of my own.

Enter SOPA and PIPA. The characters, the plot, and the movie itself is all copyrighted to somebody. It is all someone's intelectual property. For using that intelectual property, my posts have been blacklisted on a half dozen sites, and with that many infractions, my IP address, and thus my ability to use the internet in any form, my very well be disabled.

So for expressing my opinion on one movie, I lose internet access entirely, because I dared to mess with someone else's intellectual property and copyrighted material.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for anti-piracy protection. I do not condone those who take another person's creation and try to pass it off as their own, or try to make money from it. But this legislation goes far beyond that. For example, tpirman1982 could at the very least be issued a cease and desist order, or could have their account blacklisted for using Krystal (who is the property of Nintendo and/or Rare studios) as an avatar/icon. Anyone who posts a meme/image macro that parodies a movie, tv, or literary character could likewise face the same consequences. THese people aren't claiming to own said characters, nor are they using said characters for profit. But they are still making use of copyrighted characters and/or imagery, and thus would have to face whatever decision the respective intellectual property owners levied, and without, I might add, due process, another constitutional right that would be thrown out the door by these acts.

Long story short: I agree with the spirit of what these acts propose, but when reality is applied, it is far to easy to be abused and leaves far too many loopholes open for corperations to essentially shut down every last corner of the internet that is not corperately owned or has made massive corperate "donations" in order to essentially buy back their basic freedom of expression. So in the end, I am strongly opposed to these two particular acts, as I fel the long-term costs far outweigh any possible benefits (and let's face it, they won't stop piracy, they'll just encourage more creative methods).