It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush signs controversial anti-piracy law

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:16 PM
Ya, Ya, Ya....prohibition worked also right???LOL
This is going to be a one sided deal for sure now. To make it a cabinate position seems to be going overboard. If they want to do something about real piracy maybe they should go after the real pirates. The ones that take ships with our goods on them and selling them to third world countries so that we, the citizens of the US pay the price for this loss. Just pass it on to us and we'll gladly bail out the pirates. Crap...useless crap!!! The artists who are being hurt by piracy have recourse. The companies should be on their own to worry about their own profits. Its not the business of our government to protect them.


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:47 PM
On a side note:

I was making fun of my little brother for pirating Christian music.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:36 PM
When I see something like this, I just want to encourage everyone to run Tor, its developed by the navy specifically for this purpose of enhancing internet anonymity. Just make sure you never login to a website or bank account while on the Tor network as its not secure and for now, is full of exit points that sniff your passwords and man in the middle your ssl cert's.

Not that I'm condoning piracy, but if people make good use of the Tor network and help it grow, no legislation can ever pin any copyright infringement on you, period. In fact you'll more than likely get a notice for someone else's illegal activities but the EFF assures us that there is no legal ramifications for running a tor relay. Its our best tool right now for fighting invasion of our privacy by the man.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:41 PM
You know, as far as I'm concerned, they shot their credibility when they were caught fixing prices and screwing their customers. Remember when the music companies were all forced to admit in a class action lawsuit to price fixing and gouging customers between the late 80s and early 2000s? That's when I pretty much quit paying as a rule and began DLing what I wanted. It's silly to pay so much money for something that generally ends up on sale at Walmart for $5. Enjoy-Polarbear6

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:11 PM
I am awful for downloading... I'm running pirated versions of Windows Vista, MS Office 2007, and Norton Antivirus on my computer right now. I PAID for a legitimate copy of NAV two years ago, and it didn't work. After that, I started getting all my programs off the net - So far so good.

My music is also almost ALL downloaded. With the exception of my Doors CD's. I buy a Doors CD whenever I see it, if I don't have it. I rip the music to my computer, transfer it to the external drive, and then put the CD's away.

I can't justify paying $20 for a CD with ONE song on it that I like. Yeah sure I like Rhianna's new song "Disturbia" - but you know what? I don't like it enough to go buy her album. She isn't someone I listen to on a regular basis. Its more like drunk-dancing at the bar and "Woah man, this song is awesome, who sings this?" Her music isn't something I listen to. I listen to classic rock and so, a bunch of my favorites are dead - where does the money go then? Jimi Hendrix? Janis Joplin? Who gets the money made from their albums? Hmmm?

In Canada, I don't believe that Downloading is illegal (is it!!??) and so most of my music comes from the net. Although, I will admit I did buy the new Coldplay Album from Costco for $11.

- Carrot

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:19 PM
I have bought a lot of music. I have ripped a lot of music. I have paid to see movies in theatres, rentals, purchases, and downloads. I have ripped just as many. All of the above goes for software as well. I am half respectable, half pirate. I am whole "dont give a crap either way."

MPAA and RIAA have been stealing from the public and from the artists for a very long time. Now that we finally wise up and have a way to get even, the president steps in and says "not on my watch...get back under our bootheals".

For those of you that create art and post it for free, blessed be unto you for plying your craft for the art of it. The returns are usually just. Artists make money when people come to see them. Put the art out there for the world to enjoy and they will flock to your stage.

Sadly, since a person cannot prove that the song they freely downloaded was in fact given free without DRM or copywrite infringement, bye bye device. This new act lets them come in and just take the media you are using without regards to what is legal or not. If two people share the device, so sorry for the one that was using it legally. An example is that two people share a computer. One downloads pirated music and gets caught. Just because the other person has files on the computer that are personal to them does not mean that they will allow any media removal. Gone is the thesis being written for graduation, the reports and software you use to work from home, the music files you paid ITunes or Rhapsody to load down to you legally, the pictures of your kids/dogs/wedding/anniversary/party...gone with impunity and without care. Do you need this stuff back? Ok, the average case runs about $10k and takes anywhere from 3-12 months to resolve. You have a 60-40 shot of getting anything back at all.

I have just been reading through HR 4279 as it stood on 5/8/2008. They are to appoint 10 attaches and 5 coordinators to foreign countries to help stem the copywrite violations made against the US. 15 people are the gateway authority to the world. 15 people are being charged with the duty of stopping international piracy of US copywrites. 15 people are supposed to handle this task. 15 people are supposed to stop over a billion illegal downloads a day. Sounds like a cake walk to me. Sounds like they certainly have everything well in hand over at Justice and Commerce. We should see pirated media start to decline immediately. I am sure that thePirateBay and the BitTorrent boys are quaking in their boots, too afraid to even turn out the light tonight.

I have a prediction. I say that by the end of the week, MPAA and RIAA will see record breaking piracy, not only from the US, but from the entire world. People are going to pirate more than ever, just to make the point that nothing...NOTHING...they do or say, can or will stop the free flow of media on the net.

/ end-rant

My signature completes my post ->

[edit on 14-10-2008 by wheresthetruth]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by CA_Orot

Your a darlin', I payed for my Vista Ultimate for my laptop because of business, but I have access to Windows Xp pro as an Enterprise version and it has no problem with any software I put on it because theres no software management and detection on that version. I won't tell you how I got it, but I can load anything and MS cannot spy on my right to own and load it on my computer! Music has always untill recent history beenable to be recorded and kept for personal use. I have literaly miles of tape of music I taped from AFR in Viet Nam that I still listen to on my good old reel to reel Sansui I had back then. I probably have music recorded by Rabbit but I am not sure about that!LOL
Keep up the good work on your wants of good music. I agree that to buy 12 songs to get one good one is crap. I don't do it and no one else should either!!


posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:24 AM
as an electronic music (trance, d&b, techno, house, industrial,etc) artist, i am opposed to all these laws protecting the corporations...well i'm not against them simply because i'm an electronic artist...oh you know what i mean!


i've never had an album release but i have several tracks floating around online with the intent to sell at some point.

growing up, i had this dream of being this big huge rock star and then, as i grew older, i began to realize that those people are slaves to their corporate run labels. i used to say that i would sign to a label as soon as it was offered, thinking it was going to be big money, women, etc but now that i'm edging on 30 i realize that i'd be much happier remaining an independent artist.

though i currently have never sold any of my music i would still love to make it a career. it would be nice doing something that i have devoted so much of my time and my heart and soul to but i think it's sad that there are very limited protections for independent artists, who are actually the ones who really need the protecting.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:52 AM
the music industry is doing TERRIBLE right now because of this.
as much as i like downloading cds and what not i really hope they do something about this being as im a musician myself
i can remember back when you'd see about 5-10 platinum albums a year now you'll be luck to see 2.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:12 AM
i tend to think of the big corporate record labels as like the jealous boyfriend of the artists. it pesters and pokes and prods and tries its best to be one up but the harder they try, the more it pushes the artists away

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:54 AM

Originally posted by andyyymac
the music industry is doing TERRIBLE right now because of this.
as much as i like downloading cds and what not i really hope they do something about this being as im a musician myself
i can remember back when you'd see about 5-10 platinum albums a year now you'll be luck to see 2.

I'm not sure of the point you're making as I'm not clear as to whether you're actually supporting this or are against it.

However, that's irrelevant though with regards to your issue about how many platinum albums there are. One of the factors behind this is that, as initially contradictory as it sounds, there's actually less choice as a consumer. The large record companies who actually release the so much of the mass-marketed material now release quite a small amount of albums between them each year whilst they're also sat on masses amount of 'out of print' stock.

Despite these companies still being very, very profitable they have a finite budget regarding marketing for all their roster. What tends to happen is that certain artists are pushed harder than others, so you are only ever seeing what the record industry defines as being the tip of a very large musical iceberg.

What makes this worse is that marketing very, very often comes out of advances given to artists when they sign contracts with the labels and, before royalties are actually paid to the artist from sales, the advance money is paid back first. Often the marketing money used in conjunction with advances isn't actually used on the artists whose advances include a marketing strategy. That means Johnny Nostars who is repaying his advance (which also includes studio costs to record their tracks in the first place), is effect actually also covering Missy Bigstar's advance who is getting heavy rotation on the radio because that's where the marketing money is going not him.

Also, record companies do not make long term investments in artists these days. The idea about nurturing an artist to make great albums - which is a very 1970s concept - is now an anachronism. It's all about single songs now and getting a very fast turnaround.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:31 AM
Legislators, lawyers, and corporate moguls will make this issue as complicated as they can for one reason.

They are middlemen. They get their 'cut' and produce nothing of value from the artistic point of view. The want to be perpetually rewarded for providing a service to an artist. It's as if you had to pay your mechanic for everyday the car doesn't break down.

Art and business - this is what it leads to. The "show biz' people built this model in the 20's and they want it folded into the bill of rights and the constitution as well as made a religious imperative like tithing.

The only people that can really fix this are the artists. But they have been indoctrinated into the 'gravy train game' and many are in it for the money - not self-expression.

Until such time as the artists genuinely create their own industry - apart from the middlemen, this will continue.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:49 AM
You got to respect bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails who are now making their music free to download to their fans. Hopefully that will start a trend with other big bands as well. These bands make can make their living playing amazing shows. If you like a band's music enough you'll show your support in some form. This is a futile effort on the labels part. Technology will just get better and distribution will be more direct. I can create my own music on my computer and upload it and share it with whoever I want.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:00 AM
so what's up with the whole "warez" phenomena? if it's so illegal, why has nothing been conceivably done to take the sites down? are there simply too many sites to get a handle on? i've heard that if you don't profit off of warez media, then you're legal - is that really the case??

will this law affect warez sites?

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by adrenochrome
so what's up with the whole "warez" phenomena? if it's so illegal, why has nothing been conceivably done to take the sites down? are there simply too many sites to get a handle on? i've heard that if you don't profit off of warez media, then you're legal - is that really the case??

will this law affect warez sites?

That 'crusade' has already begun. You will find that most of the corporate industry, subsidized and or represented by the local government, monitors IP addresses of all transfers and will notify your ISP if they can show that "you" are downloading a 'protected' program.

Your ISP will usually notify you to cease and desist, and if you do, that's that. Otherwise you may find you bandwidth clipped, or suspended entirely.

So, in short, warez, is very definitely fair game for these people.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by adrenochrome
so what's up with the whole "warez" phenomena? if it's so illegal, why has nothing been conceivably done to take the sites down? are there simply too many sites to get a handle on? i've heard that if you don't profit off of warez media, then you're legal - is that really the case??

will this law affect warez sites?

I'll compare this to being a traffic cop trying to catch speeders with diplomatic immunity on a sky freeway. You can stop them for a minute, give them a stern talking to, and then they're on there way.

The whole scene was always designed to defeat all forms of enforcement and with the advent of p2p networks and decentralization no one person is responsible. This goes back to what I said earlier, the last tool they have left is to go after the end user, the person they suspect actually has the copyrighted material which is when you get the love letter from your ISP. Tor further stirs up this pot and pretty much makes it impossible for anyone to be held accountable regardless of what the ISP logs you doing.

P2P is so effective that you will often times see restricted military media and manuals that aren't approved for public release, many times stamped FOIA Exempt. A properly setup Tor node over a torrent network could leak sensitive data with almost zero possibility of ever getting cough as 99.9% of Tor nodes do not have any form of logging so they would have to visit each node, log the previous one, and keep doing that until they hit you, but the nature of the Tor network means you can generate an entirely new routing table with a new set of random hosts in a single mouse click.

Keep the internet free!

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 10:08 AM
I haven't bought a brand new album in a few years.
I buy second hand from stores or on Ebay.

Why is that I can buy a relatively new Cd single of a recent chart song for 30c (often still in the wrapper) in which neither the artist or the record company get anything, and yet another person can download same said song and get prison time?

It's absurd and ludicrous.

I refused to pay full price for music from the time of the BIG LIE.
When LPs were replaced by CDs as they were going to be a lot CHEAPER.
Yeah, right.

LPs last practically forever, CDs rot in a couple of years to make you buy it again.
So A) the price isn't cheaper and B) they don't last = RIP OFF.

Back catalogues are record companys most lucrative product.
Well I've lost count how many times I've bought a few album over the years.
Both the artist and the record companies have already made their profits first time around and yet they still ask exhorbitant prices with re-issues.

Can an art house ask the same price for a Picasso print as the original?
I think not.

Now they are planning on doing away with CDs altogether and going to downloads only. MP3 quality.
The next big lie.

So I can see more illegal downloading because what you are getting is the lowest music quality there is. MP3 format.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Flighty]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by budski

Trance scene in the UK by any chance?

Hasn't it been shown in numerous studies that piracy actually helps the music business?

People download an album, enjoy it then proceed to buy it. They download an album they don't like, they delete it and don't buy it.

People who only download don't make a blind bit of difference to the industry anyway, they were never going to buy the album/movie in the first place.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by cleggy88]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in