Eric Cantor kills SOPA

[Typhoon]

tzqMoOk9NWc

[Yukon Cornelius]

The amount of material The Pirate Bay has spread around is not trivial, that's not a supportable position. And neither is the kids with pocket money only argument --- you do anything a hundred million times, and it starts to add up. Lending a book is removing that book from your possession, transferring it to some else. If "sharing" meant that, you might begin to have a valid argument. But even with books, if the publisher somehow made you sign an agreement not to share, you're breaking the law.

Othwise it's just sounding like more of the same: "if I want it for free, then I should have it for free". The entrainment industry wants to charge X, a dispense their product via Y terms, and people don't like it and either break the terms or rip off the product to begin with. End of story. "Freedom" here means freedom to either steal, or violate a contract. WTF?

Jefferson Davis called, he says not to bother.

[Enki]

I love how anti-government everybody is getting. I love it.

I know, when you started to get anti-government it warmed my heart. I was like, "If you can turn a Conservative away from the nanny-state, then maybe it's possible that we CAN get rid of it after all!"

But until both Liberals and Conservatives realize that a person has a right to medicate themselves, we don't even have sovereignty over our own bodies, so the rest of it is moot.

[YMix]

SWTOR unsubscribe option goes missing for some

Call it the Case of the Canceled Sub: Many players have written in to us to report that the "cancel subscription" button on their Star Wars: The Old Republic account pages has mysteriously gone missing. Considering that tomorrow is the one-month mark where accounts are set to be billed following the free month of gameplay for those who started on launch day, this is particularly troublesome.

Some players have found a workaround link, but have received a warning and seen their threads shut down by moderators as violating the Rules of Conduct.

BioWare is investigating the situation and has alluded to an issue with certain types of browsers. In the meantime, the CS team has asked for those affected customers to contact the company by phone if looking to cancel their subscription.

[Enki]

Well...ultimately, it's going to be them that's on the hook for all of those cancelled charges if they bill people.

[Zack Morris]

The amount of material The Pirate Bay has spread around is not trivial, that's not a supportable position. And neither is the kids with pocket money only argument --- you do anything a hundred million times, and it starts to add up.

Really? Then I would expect negative growth for the music and film industries. This is not the case. It's fallacious to suggest that a large fraction of those downloads represent real lost revenue.

Othwise it's just sounding like more of the same: "if I want it for free, then I should have it for free". The entrainment industry wants to charge X, a dispense their product via Y terms, and people don't like it and either break the terms or rip off the product to begin with. End of story. "Freedom" here means freedom to either steal, or violate a contract. WTF?

What we have here is a case of nominally lawbreaking activity leading to innovation and technological improvements that cannot be discounted. That's what makes this especially tricky. Think of it as overcoming an energy barrier to find a new local optimum.

There are technical and business solutions to this problem. That businesses and artists can thrive even while hundreds of millions of copies of their work are pirated says something important about the potential power of information technology moving forward. It is imperative that copyright and intellectual property laws be re-thought and modernized in a way that embraces the full potential of this change, and that's what we're seeing happen.

[Enki]

Really? Then I would expect negative growth for the music and film industries. This is not the case. It's fallacious to suggest that a large fraction of those downloads represent real lost revenue.

Right the big players when representing losses due to piracy don't mention other very important factors.

1) The increase in competition from other entertainments. Video games are cleaning every industry's clocks.
2) They haven't figured out how to properly account for ad revenue from DVR views of TV shows. For a while they cancelled a few shows that millions of people watched on DVR because they didn't watch it during the original airing.
3) The inter-industry growth. Hollywood blockbusters don't take into account that there are many, many, many more films produced every year than before. The same is true for record sales. You have fewer Dark Side of the Moon's, but A LOT more DIY artists running their own labels.

What we have here is a case of nominally lawbreaking activity leading to innovation and technological improvements that cannot be discounted. That's what makes this especially tricky. Think of it as overcoming an energy barrier to find a new local optimum.

Yeah, he's not understanding how these laws will marginally benefit the entertainment industry while absolutely destroying jobs in the tech industry, which BTW has far more growth potential than the entertainment industry. I went to the protest at Schumer and Gillibrand's offices yesterday and one of the founders of Reddit made some good points. He had people raise their hands if their companies were hiring. A LOT of raised hands. He asked to raise their hands if they had a start-up. A LOT of raised hands.

Hollywood and the RIAA are cartels, and we shouldn't be favoring their obsolete cartel model over the growth models of Silicon Valley and Alley.

There are technical and business solutions to this problem. That businesses and artists can thrive even while hundreds of millions of copies of their work are pirated says something important about the potential power of information technology moving forward. It is imperative that copyright and intellectual property laws be re-thought and modernized in a way that embraces the full potential of this change, and that's what we're seeing happen.

Yeah...people need to work out superior distribution methods and make certainty of a good product outweigh uncertainty over a pirated product. Let me buy your work direct from you for cheap and get a high quality studio cut versus getting it for free and getting a low-quality camcorder from the theater cut.

Also, there are many ways that companies can fight piracy. One of the ways I would do would be to have a whole team dedicated to finding out the most prominent filenames and filesizes of pirated copies. Do that, insert painful noise and static about 15 minutes into an HD film. Make the pirates have to do a lot of work to find a good copy. Doesn't require a law, just a little proactive innovation.

[monster_gardener]

The amount of material The Pirate Bay has spread around is not trivial, that's not a supportable position. And neither is the kids with pocket money only argument --- you do anything a hundred million times, and it starts to add up. Lending a book is removing that book from your possession, transferring it to some else. If "sharing" meant that, you might begin to have a valid argument. But even with books, if the publisher somehow made you sign an agreement not to share, you're breaking the law.

Othwise it's just sounding like more of the same: "if I want it for free, then I should have it for free". The entrainment industry wants to charge X, a dispense their product via Y terms, and people don't like it and either break the terms or rip off the product to begin with. End of story. "Freedom" here means freedom to either steal, or violate a contract. WTF?

Jefferson Davis called, he says not to bother.

Thank you Very Much for your post Yukon Cornelius.

But even with books, if the publisher somehow made you sign an agreement not to share, you're breaking the law.

What if a book publisher put a seal on each book sold with legal verbiage to the effect that by breaking the seal you agree to their rules which basically are that you cannot share the book with anyone, only allowed to sell or give it away (can't rent it )and that you cannot give or sell it to anyone outside the U.S. or maybe even take it outside the US to read it there. Also that I really don't own the book I bought, I only have a license to read/use it.

Would I be stealing if I broke the seal and did any of that given that I did NOT sign a contract?

Or psychoanalyzed the author(s) to figure out how to write my own version (also not allowed: reverse engineering) ...........

Would I be guilty of vandalism if I damaged the book given that I didn't really own it?

Have seen seals and legal verbiage for software packages that pretty much run to that effect...................

[Typhoon]

The amount of material The Pirate Bay has spread around is not trivial, that's not a supportable position. And neither is the kids with pocket money only argument --- you do anything a hundred million times, and it starts to add up. Lending a book is removing that book from your possession, transferring it to some else. If "sharing" meant that, you might begin to have a valid argument. But even with books, if the publisher somehow made you sign an agreement not to share, you're breaking the law.

Othwise it's just sounding like more of the same: "if I want it for free, then I should have it for free". The entrainment industry wants to charge X, a dispense their product via Y terms, and people don't like it and either break the terms or rip off the product to begin with. End of story. "Freedom" here means freedom to either steal, or violate a contract. WTF?

Jefferson Davis called, he says not to bother.

BBC | Megaupload file-sharing site shut down

Megaupload, one of the internet's largest file-sharing sites, has been shut down by officials in the US.

The site's founders have been charged with violating piracy laws.

Federal prosecutors have accused it of costing copyright holders more than $500m (£320m) in lost revenue. The firm says it was diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material.

The news came a day after anti-piracy law protests, but investigators said they were ordered two weeks ago.

The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Mathias Ortmann were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand along with two other employees of the business at the request of US officials. It added that three other defendants were still at large.

"This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime," said a statement posted on its website.

So why exactly is SOPA/PIPA necesarry?

[Enki]

Also, the precedent that people are responsible for the actions of others is a terrible one to set.

One day Typhoon could go to prison just for hosting this site. That's what Yukon Cornelius is defending.

If they were going after the copyright violators themselves, rather than the service providers, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

[Enki]

Megaupload is down from the internet, its owners arrested, despite their efforts to comply.

Now Anonymous has hacked the Department of Justice Site and erased it from the net.

[noddy]

Also, the precedent that people are responsible for the actions of others is a terrible one to set.

One day Typhoon could go to prison just for hosting this site. That's what Yukon Cornelius is defending.

If they were going after the copyright violators themselves, rather than the service providers, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

nar he keeps concentrating on the poster bad boys and waving his fingers and not acknowledging that the old rules aint the new rules.

books are electronic now and arent owned, they are licenses to view.. my book analogy is real and the rules around books have changed... he bloody well better live by his own rules and never ever lend anything to a friend or family again.

music and movies ditto.. in the old world i could legally backup the movie/music i bought and they allowed for the fact i would share it with tapes by putting an industry subsidy on the blank tapes..... in the new world i only have a license for that device and need to purchase the same thing over and over again every time the tech changes..

and all of this in a constantly moving target that has destroyed the concept of public domain because they keep changing the rules to make sure nothing gets into the public domain..

bugger pirate bay and megashare, they are a distraction.

[monster_gardener]

Well...ultimately, it's going to be them that's on the hook for all of those cancelled charges if they bill people.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Tinker Enki.

Suspect that they are betting that many will not get around to canceling the charges......... sort of like with rebates........... forget to file............
........ or fail to fulfill some condition...............

[Yukon Cornelius]

This goes right back to what I said earlier, and no one is admitting, point blank: if you don't like how the movie, etc. is distributed, that gives you the right to steal it.

It's not a logical argument.

Sorry guys, that's God's way of telling you to file a class action suit, or get an anti-trust action rolling. It's why we invented property rights, and went to all the trouble of having a democracy.

And this is not about some benign "sharing" issues, it's about enormous repositories of media on certian websites that is being ripped off wholesale.

Regardless, at the bottom of this, it's not a logical argument.

However, the ebook issue is a real one -- unless I physically give my iPad to someone else, they're not going to have access to the content. It''s not easy to hack the ePub file and "share" it with others. Draconian? I'm not quite there yet. I can lay on my couch and buy Blood, Bones, and Butter for ~$12. That's nearly into impulse buy territory. But, then again, look at the bullshit Adobe is pulling with CS6. As bad as the online "registering" was over the last few versions, at least that copy was yours. No more. Now I have to rent Indesign for them.

I guess my only hope is to use my "internet freedom" and participate in whatever hack the Russian high school students cook up to circumvent Adoobie's "unfair" practices.

[Zack Morris]

This goes right back to what I said earlier, and no one is admitting, point blank: if you don't like how the movie, etc. is distributed, that gives you the right to steal it.

It's not a logical argument.

What's illogical is the way you've distorted the argument. It's not about copyright infringement being "right" or excusable, it's about the punishment being excessive. It's not the right way to deal with what is clearly an unprecedented technology. What is your argument for why existing law enforcement is insufficient?

[Typhoon]

RT | Anonymous downs government, music industry sites in largest attack ever

Hacktivists with the collective Anonymous are waging an attack on the website for the White House after successfully breaking the sites for the FBI, Department of Justice, Universal Music Group, RIAA and Motion Picture Association of America.

In response to today’s federal raid on the file sharing service Megaupload, hackers with the online collective Anonymous have broken the websites for the FBI, Department of Justice, Universal Music Group, RIAA, Motion Picture Association of America and Warner Music Group.

“It was in retaliation for Megaupload, as was the concurrent attack on Justice.org,” Anonymous operative Barrett Brown tells RT on Thursday afternoon.

Only hours before the DoJ and Universal sites went down, news broke that Megaupload, a massive file sharing site with a reported 50 million daily users, was taken down by federal agents. Four people linked to Megaupload were arrested in New Zealand and an international crackdown led agents to serving at least 20 search warrants across the globe.

The latest of sites to fall is FBI.gov, which finally broke at around 7:40 pm EST Thursday evening.

Less than an hour after the DoJ and Universal sites came down, the website for the RIAA, or Recording Industry Association of America, went offline as well. Shortly before 6 p.m EST, the government's Copyright.gov site went down as well. Thirty minutes later came the site for BMI, or Broadcast Music, Inc, the licensing organization that represents some of the biggest names in music.

Also on Thursday, MPAA.org returned an error as Anonymous hacktivists managed to bring down the website for the Motion Picture Association of America. The group, headed by former senator Chris Dodd, is an adamant supporter of both PIPA and SOPA legislation.

Universal Music Group, or UMG, is the largest record company in the United States and under its umbrella are the labels Interscope-Geffen-A&M, the Island Def Jam Motown Music Group and Mercury Records.

Brown adds that “more is coming” and Anonymous-aligned hacktivists are pursuing a joint effort with others to “damage campaign raising abilities of remaining Democrats who support SOPA.”

[monster_gardener]

This goes right back to what I said earlier, and no one is admitting, point blank: if you don't like how the movie, etc. is distributed, that gives you the right to steal it.

It's not a logical argument.

Sorry guys, that's God's way of telling you to file a class action suit, or get an anti-trust action rolling. It's why we invented property rights, and went to all the trouble of having a democracy.

And this is not about some benign "sharing" issues, it's about enormous repositories of media on certian websites that is being ripped off wholesale.

Regardless, at the bottom of this, it's not a logical argument.

However, the ebook issue is a real one -- unless I physically give my iPad to someone else, they're not going to have access to the content. It''s not easy to hack the ePub file and "share" it with others. Draconian? I'm not quite there yet. I can lay on my couch and buy Blood, Bones, and Butter for ~$12. That's nearly into impulse buy territory. But, then again, look at the bullshit Adobe is pulling with CS6. As bad as the online "registering" was over the last few versions, at least that copy was yours. No more. Now I have to rent Indesign for them.

I guess my only hope is to use my "internet freedom" and participate in whatever hack the Russian high school students cook up to circumvent Adoobie's "unfair" practices.

Thank you very much for your post, Yukon Cornelius.

But, then again, look at the bullshit Adobe is pulling with CS6. As bad as the online "registering" was over the last few versions, at least that copy was yours. No more. Now I have to rent Indesign for them.

Is this what you are referring to??

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/01/ad ... -cs4-users

Please tell more.............

[Yukon Cornelius]

Yes, Adobe is going down the dark path as well. It has a de facto monopoly on a few products, and is getting some funny ideas.

[Yukon Cornelius]

What's illogical is the way you've distorted the argument. It's not about copyright infringement being "right" or excusable, it's about the punishment being excessive. It's not the right way to deal with what is clearly an unprecedented technology. What is your argument for why existing law enforcement is insufficient?

No, there are rouge websites that need spanking, and becuase of the attitude I'm reading on this page, those supposedly exist to, as de Sade put it: "backup the sewers and flood the palaces". Grist for the mill, sticking it to the man, fighting back the inhumanity of having to pay and wait for new episodes of True Blood.

The legislation in question is "wrong" because our "rights" trump the any curtailing of our "Internet freedoms". Like I said at the beginning: "Free" to do "What", exactly?

[Enki]

Yukon: The problem is third parties being punished for the behavior of others, even if they work in full compliance to make sure their service isn't being used for piracy.

[Ammianus]

Whelp, there went Megaupload!

[Enki]

Whelp, there went Megaupload!

The site is back up supposedly in the Netherlands. SOPA wanted to make it so that they can take out sites in other countries.

[Enki]

Here's a good article on why the Feds targeted Megaupload.

http://gizmodo.com/5877836/why-did-the- ... nd-why-now

[Yukon Cornelius]

Yukon: The problem is third parties being punished for the behavior of others, even if they work in full compliance to make sure their service isn't being used for piracy.

No again, people like Google, etc. should have been policing themselves a long time ago. They're doing it now, they do it for China, but they wink at places like the pirate bay because of the reigning ideas about "sharing".


You see, what you really want to do is be complicitous in pissing off/scaring a billion(s) dollar industry, then when they bring that lobbying horsepower to Congress....

[Typhoon]

Here's a good article on why the Feds targeted Megaupload.

http://gizmodo.com/5877836/why-did-the- ... nd-why-now

The feds—those tasked as intellectual property sentinels in particular—want more power to kill sites like Megaupload. It looks like they're not going to get their way through legislation, so setting a prominent target ablaze in a very public and dramatic manner is a great screw you to SOPA's foes.

If that's the case, the Department of Justice should be gagging on irony: their swift destruction of Megaupload sans SOPA proves how gratuitous the bill was in the first place. This week has been the week of copyright warfare, but the decision to nuke the king copyright violator so spectacularly only goes to show how little the feds need bigger bombs.

Bingo.