E-Piracy Act

So if I called up a friend and starting telling him a bunch of hexadecimal numbers and he just so happened to put them into a file and I did this for the entire length of an MP3 file (albeit it would take a long time) would that still be considered piracy?

dangerous thing about this is listening to them they trying pass it off as passing this bill would create and protect jobs.. That being the hot topic currently they could pass it misguidedly believing they doing the popular thing and it will effect jobs making them look good.

ok its comical listening to this the committee really has no clue what they talking about. they keep talking like google runs the whole internet and youtube and every pirate site is the same service. While the google Representative is trying get them understand they dont actually control the internet. Then u got the one committee person(some old guy) is obsessed with the grinch that stole xmass being free online lol....


eDIT: and now one guy talking about his 8 tracks he had in collage and wanting find the song but only being able find them for free online...

itunes stopped doing this I believe.

one chair person to the other.. Im about to accuse u of being a liberal in a min here.... ya this is bipartisan... or should i say inpartial?


or another guy comparing this to murder...

Well the hearing is over. Did anyone watch the whole thing and have an opinion of how it went?

I watched parts. I can tell alot of these old folks don't really know what they are talking about sometimes. I didn't hear much about the financial impact this could have on sites like this one that hosts content provided by it's users and the estimated cost of policing it for copyrighted material versus the cost of piracy as a whole on the industry.

Google wants to follow the money approach which is in their best interest. Alot of the ad networks on thepiratebay for example are smaller competitors to Google. It might not be doable for companies in China for example.

sadly that is a good representation of how much some these committee peeps knew... Seemed like everyone them referenced to their kids having tell them how to do things on it and use stuff...

ya watched the whole thing basically got form it the committee people had no clue what they were trying debate on and thought google owns the internet. While none of the special interest Representatives had a actual tech background to comment or explain about how the stuff actually worked or where the real difficulty's are or what options there is outside that it would cost money to do anything. Then you had the head chair person who seemed more interested in how much time each person took speaking then the actual subject matter(was a fill in chair person btw). Throw in the occasional insults and political barbs/grandstanding...

Edit: honestly reminded me more of a comedy skit then a actual debate..

wasn't this how file sharing started?

about only specific financial thing said was that to enact any kinda system would hurt start up businesses that wouldn't have the capital to invest in the monitoring tech for infringement material. Also how according to them every site online people only run to make money and impeding the money they "could" make from their site would cause them to immediately shut it down..


Guess none them ever heard of redirects..

This made me laugh



Same logic right?

I heard way too many Umm's.

I didn't hear much but it seems to be the focus of the part I caught was the accessibility. Which to some degree I agree with.

The issue I have with it is, how much financial impact does it have. I realize that every mp3 and movie that is downloaded is one that isn't bought. However I would imagine that a percentage of them would have never been interested if they had to pay for it.

There are many different types of digital consumers.
Lawful iStuff/Netflix/etc users.
Causal downloaders or hard to find downloaders.
Never pay for anything people.
Mass storage and distribution.

The first 2 probably do not really cost the industry much, in fact they might even buy stuff after they try it.

The other 2 might not even pay if they had to and would do without.

Just my 2 cents.

Essentially with analog modems yeah.

I would agree with you here. If I had to pay for everything I downloaded I wouldn't even bother downloading 90% of the stuff I have.

no, it is the subject for me.

The concept of intellectual property and that it can actually be stolen without attempting to profit from it is subjective.

Just because something is illegal doesn't automatically make it wrong, crimes are not equal in value, especially if they shouldn't even be crimes.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it wrong either.

IDK you do what you want, but this bill has a lot more to do with just pirating, and the amount of people that steal physically probably is still a larger problem.

ya know... its no wonder people dont have any faith in the government when they show things like this where noone on a committee has any idea about what they are suppose to be debating

Bah, I missed the hearing. Anyone have a link to a recorded copy or is that considered piracy?

It is a crime Jet. You are stealing something lol. You can make any argument you want and bring up any excuse you want. Fact is, that someone has the rights to these forms of entertainment and has a right to sell them or keep it to themselves. It's not wrong because it doesn't make sense to me its just wrong lol. A theif is a theif. Companies spend time and money producing this stuff that you would not have if it were not for them lol. I don't agree with everything they do but guess what if I don't like them or their product I don't buy it and I don't use it at all.

As for the bill, I have a problem with it as they give too much authority without any checks and balances. There doesn't seem to be too much accountability and its seems like they're making it where they're able to take action without a lot of proof. I oppose this act but I do support companies rights to protect their material.

Why do people feel that while others pay for these products and keep the industry afloat that they are entitled to come on by and just take it for free themselves on the backs of others?

Didn't I hear this act/bill/whatever also make Youtube "Let's Play"s illegal? Or people singing karaoke on Youtube of their favorite songs illegal as well. Not to mention any and all cover songs+bands?

Pretty sure that's why Justin Bieber was against this bill, because he was found by singing other people's songs on social media, then came to stardom.

Or was that an earlier proposed bill?

Not just your 2 cents, read this. It pretty much says you're spot on.

prob is the people debating it dont understand the difference between youtube and a pirate video site so are just trying lump it all together. They also think google owns the internet and is responsible for everything on it.

someone did comment on how its being miss represented far what it supos ebe for and what it being perceived as effecting.

4chan has made its move I'd vote if I was american

Do you consider someone recording the live broadcasting (TV and/or radio) of a show pirating?

The irony of all this is that:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company#Backlash_and_Decline

So Hollywood as we know it started as nothing more than tramplers of Intellectual Property laws, and now that they're feeling the burn, they themselves are crying over the system.

A while back ago, I had a nice little Nintendo, Super Nintendo, and N64. That and bunch of movies and music. Sadly I lost it all in a fire. (Insert disaster girl meme here)

Now say.. I wanted to a play an old game that I used to own, Mario 64 for example. I don't have the console or cartridge anymore though. I COULD go on the internet.. and download myself an emulator and rom of the game. BUT.. Even though I USED to own the game, even though I dished out like 60 bucks for it, I would be considered a filthy *** pirate for downloading it by today's standards. I'm just breaking the law right? A thief is a thief no? Granted, I'm not saying just because I lost the game I deserve a physical copy replacement. I am well aware the cartridge itself cost money, and the nice packaging blah blah. In my opinion though, if I paid money for the software also, why shouldn't I be entitled to keep the digital data forever? In fact, legally I am allowed to make a PHYSICAL COPY ONLY. Once the physical medium is gone, technically you're not allowed to keep that copy anymore. Kinda makes you wonder. If you install a game on your PC, then sell the game to someone, is it legal to still play yours? Maybe that's why you don't really see used PC games being sold at game stores. Game keys, etc etc.

Movie wise, The Fair Use Act doesn't allow for cross media ripping. Something that was heavily criticized for not being included. Although, you can use transcodeing software like Handbrake to rip a movie legally, its a work around to DCMA.

Video games is a different matter. Legally you're entitled to have one copy. This used to be somewhat handy. With DCMA making a presence, if the game or software has anti-copying protection on it, just making a copy would be breaking the law. Even if its legal to have one copy of it.. just because of that protection, it's now illegal to do it on that game. This has already gone to court a few times. Also, with digital rights management (DRM) starting to gain traction, even having a copy wouldn't always help you. DRMs sometimes limit how many times you can have your game installed on X number of PC's or re-installs (Many of which let you subtract from the counter though). They do this with an online verification check.

Many people have been against this. The companies that distributed this, didn't exactly have a lot of trust from their consumers. Like Sony when they tried it in 2005 with CD's. The DRM software included big security holes through its rootkit. Sony got sued, and lost trust (Wouldn't be the last time).

Video game wise, there was a lot of criticism also. Like when Spore got released from EA with the DRM. The 3 activation limit pissed people off. It became one of the most pirated games of 2008 xD. Even recently, like with Origin, there has been a lot of protests. People don't want this software on their computers.. mostly from companies they don't trust. It's like we're being punished for what OTHERS are doing.

I would imagine people hate all this crap, because its being treated like a damn criminal. The majority of people DON'T pirate. To relate it to FFXI.. its like when certain drops were reduced in value to "stop the spread of RMT". "Lets punish the criminals by punishing the innocent." Since when has this become the norm?

The exemption tends to be websites like Steam though. Kinda odd, don't you think? Most of the site is basically DRM. Even worse when the game companies require their own versions of DRM installed with the games also. Maybe it's because companies like Valve have such a tremendous standing with the game community. And they do offer ways to play the games offline. But you do have to log in if you want updates and such.

Fine.. people pirate.. its pretty much human nature. When given the chance to choose between free with little risk and paying for something, one will probably pick free. But it's programs like Napster that paved the way into the digital era. They talk about all the millions they lost from each individual download. GUESS WHAT! Saying that every single download is lost revenue is VERY ignorant. Companies like this want less restriction from the government for themselves, but more restriction for the users. Fair huh?

They can't stop the inevitable. People have been doing this for many many years. From counterfeits, to fakes, to copies, etc etc. But it does give them access to censor a lot of things or downright kill start-up companies, even hinder competition.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) works in a few different ways. Any website that embarks in "trademark counterfeiting, copyright infringement, or theft of trade secrets" can have ISP's block them, financial institutions cut their advertising money, and search engines remove them. This, all from a notification from a rightsholder. If the ISP, financial institution, or search engine don't comply, they can be sued.

You can be sure of one thing though. IT WON'T STOP PIRACY. This is similar to the war on drugs or terrorism. It only works a little but tends to *** up more than it fixes.

People are trying to be made to believe that this is for the good of the entertainment industry. That they are worried that they aren't making as much money as they should. That their actors aren't getting paid enough (I would imagine the Writers Guild still has something to say about that). That all this piracy costs jobs and money. Imaginary jobs I might add. Not jobs that ARE there.. just jobs that COULD be there. Same thing for money. And you know what.. they're probably right.

But SOPA has the power to do soo much more than try to protect. People are pissed because there are too many grey areas. That and it gives these companies WAAY too much power.

Like say a start-up search engine just doesn't have the technical power to filter out all the links. Is it enough for them to be trying their best? No, it isn't. BAM sued. Bye bye startup company. What about websites that host user generated content. Like Youtube, Tumbler, Soundcloud, etc. Posted a video about your child's birthday? It was a fun day wasn't it? Did you sing "Happy Birthday" during the filming? OH YOU DID!? *** YOU ITS GETTING DELETED! COPYRIGHTED! YOU FILTHY PIRATE!!

We live in an age of over saturation. Everyone gets bombarded with information, music, video, etc on a daily basis. Many people revolve their lives around it. Even the Fair Use Act is in danger here. So much for parodies.

I saw some of the live stream from the hearing today. One gentlemen was talking about how there wouldn't be artists like Adele or Drake from too much piracy. I can guarantee you there would be much less artists by letting this act pass. Where do you think Justin Bieber (regardless if you hate him or not), Colbie Caillat, Lily Allen, Soulja Boy (hate him or not), Esmée Denters, Sean Kingston, or Grayson Chance got their start up? Even the 2 cute little girls from England that went on Ellen show. At least she knows the EXTREME value of the internet for future artists (One of the girls anyways). And the music industry is saying copyright infringement is hurting artists? Justin Beieber is one of the biggest names in music at the moment.. and he got his start off Youtube. Oh and btw, rap artists like Drake, tend to get their "hype" from mixtapes. Which tend to be cheap and heavily bootlegged. They owe a huge part of their success through the word of mouth they receive from it. Speaking of Drake.. his album leaked onto the internet 10 days early. Here's what he had to say:



He still sold 700k copies the first week. Yup.. struggling artists indeed huh?

Even social networking sites like Google plus, Facebook, Twitter are due to get caught in this. They have to try and filter.. EVERY *** LINK to copyrighted material where the website may be making advertising money. JUST ONE will make them liable to being sued. It's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.

This entire debacle would be put down HARD on a lot of different companies and groups. This is why a large part of the biggest internet companies are against it. The government and the entertainment industry are trying to say, "It's not your mess.. but we want you to clean it up anyways.. cuz it landed on your front lawn.. and I can smell it from next door". It's waaay too much censorship. Hell it's gonna cost them a lot of money themselves to tackle the problem. I guess the solution to having the entertainment industry loss money is to have others loss money.

When you want to post a video of an event that happened in your life.. but there was music playing in the background.. then you have to censor yourself and remove it. This may or may not be an important time in your life. Do you really think such a thing requires you to mess with it a little just because someone thinks they deserve money for what going on in the background? You might of even paid for that music in the background.. but hey.. it doesn't matter.

In the end it's all about miss information and trying to make more money, regardless of the consequences. Regardless if they have to make others suffer for something that can't really be stopped. I do believe there should be programs instituted to help stop piracy. In fact, quite a few Acts have been passed in an effort to help. This is NOT the way to do it. It might be a stepping stone, but in no way is it the solution.

I'll end this wall of text with the first Youtube video I ever saw. In doing this, I have now placed ffxiah.com at risk for being sued if SOPA passes. His name is Judson Laipply. I can imagine many of you have seen this video. He's a motivational speaker. He talks about helping to make the right decisions, adjusting to change, and improving your life. Then he does a little dance at the end to put a smile on peoples faces. Sadly, he probably makes money from this Youtube video. Which was the most viewed video of all time for a while. SOPA would deem his dancing to copyrighted music at a motivational seminar APPALLING! This type of behavior is not condoned!



*edit* Oh and btw. DNS Security analysts have been very worried about the possible damage that could happen to the DNS system from too much miss handling of the registry of domain names. It's a MAJOR concern considering it could damage the security of the net. All in the name of profit margins.

tl;dr The Stop Online Piracy Act is not the proper way to handle the piracy situation. It will cause more harm than fixing problems. Research it a bit if you can. Sign the petition to help stop it from passing at http://americancensorship.org/

In my state/county it's illegal for me to have sex with my girlfriend, I'm still going to do it. "Wrong" is subjective, don't try to say it isn't. I'm a large supporter of consumer rights and feel they need to be represented more, but hey that's me.

There's a lot more homebrew/freeware games being made that are better than the majority of the games on the market right now anyway, not sure about music (something I usually buy anyway for the quality), and the last movies I acquired were the Star Wars set on Blu Ray.

However I have an entire collection of a popular software suite, downloaded right from the maker, popped in a serial# and use it, are you going to sit here and say me typing in random numbers in a box is illegal now?

(edited for software name)

watched what i believed to be the second half of the webcast. it was quite informative. but i feel like they are really putting a lot of pressure on google. i imagine it would be hard for them to screen every website that someone deems as pirating. weather it be it or not, i think it would take a lot of manpower to accomplish this.

id also like to note that i quite enjoyed some of the small banter and lightheartedness that the people i the hearing had. they didnt take each other too serious and the expressed the need to work together to accomplish a goal of putting a halt to piracy. i also like how they allowed some of the speakers to have more time to talk and express their position.

cnet summing up how bad this bill is and one sided the hearing is

This is slightly relivant so Ill give it a go.

Over the years from around 2006-2010 or so,some law was tried to be passed in almost every european country saying that if your ISP finds you pirating,they can give you 2 warnings about it,and upon a 3rd time,they cut service and notify other ISPs you were banned for this.Every single country in europe this was put to rejected it outright.....except my ghetto arse country of Ireland.In an attempt to "be cool" as Ireland always tries to do (especially lately) it just bends over and takes it up the arse on any single law that comes along from europe as they say "if you were a team player,you'd do this!" yet every other country protects their users paying for a service and refuses to snoop on them.It passed here in Ireland in either late 2008 or early 2009 (I remember because I was laid up in bed with a broken knee when it happened and all of Ireland's internet went down for a few hours that night as they added the patch) but I've yet to hear about anyone actually havinmg a run in with it.But thats not the point.