It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

page: 8
60
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdills1196
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


Yeah, That's because a lot of people tend to pirate things. Some cannot afford it, some have bad judgment, some just do it, and some do it not knowing (kids, I wouldn't say teens)


Best lock up those heathen scumbag criminals!!! We cant have people copying things..

Dont copy that floppy!!





posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thanks, I'll read it. The news source I used is accredited... so... its not like ONN...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jdills1196
 


Yes, I got to the paper by clicking on a link in your source. My point is that many news sources "embellish" the truth for sensationalistic purposes.
And unfortunately, many people just believe what they read without looking further. My pet peeve...


I clicked on "it's vision" in the second paragraph of the OP source.
Then "Read the Strategy" on that page.
Then "2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement" on that page.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
Evidently the oil spill has been capped, the Gulf of Mexico cleaned up, the borders secured, Afghanistan is now a peaceful ally, and the economy is back to boom times if the Retard in Chief has time to implement an anti piracy initiative.


And Australia has a new PM..

The w.. oh wait, that one is real..

And he's a woman too !! OO



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Hmm... Ok so I'm doing some research, and I think that this is in ACTA. when I find the document, I'll link it.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Think what you will but as a former semi-pro musician I'm telling you it hurts...at least it hurt me and other bands I've known. Smaller acts really do count on the sale of CDs.

It's a slippery slope to shade your morals according to how much money you think the artists and the industry should be making. It's okay to steal from the rich, is that what you think?


If you make terrible music, don't blame the loss of income on piracy.

Man...

What a logic.. oO


True, I'm a current semi-pro musician and I would make very little money out of CD sales anyway, which is why we give our music away online. Our fans appreciate it more, so they come to see us again, earning more money in ticket sales. Also, if you give your music away and advertise yourself well, you gain fans, as they are more likely to listen to you for free than take the risk of buying your CD and then not liking your music.

Unless you're already famous CD sales are neglegable to the artist.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yes, its in ACTA:
www.techdirt.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hypntick
Piracy is theft.


Not to get this arguement going in this thread, it's got it's own time and place; BUT - No, it's not.

If you go into a store, and steal a CD, it's theft. If you take an orange at the market without paying for it, it's theft. Once you remove an item, and the item is no longer in the possession of the entity that has ownership - it's "theft".
Downloading files via torrent / filesharing or from someone who put it on Mediafire or Rapidshare isn't the same thing because the files don't disappear once you have possession of them. That's not theft. It comes down to the realm of "possessing something you didn't acquire through legal means", and that's pretty gray. This new measure is meant to remove some of that gray.

Either way, it's not going to stop anything. I don't support piracy, but I don't support the RIAA either, not after Metallica crying like a bunch of little girls on camera because pirates were taking away their ability to buy more gold plated Mercedes and private islands with castles on them. Pffft.

I love it when bands put their own torrents out, and put the text file in there that if you enjoyed it, they'd appreciate it if you bought the album; and if you don't, that's ok too. NIN did this with Ghosts and guess what? The LP was worth every penny. The album art is eclectic noir and beautiful.

I have no respect for people with a ton of money that cry like children because life's so unfair.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdills1196
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yes, its in ACTA:
www.techdirt.com...


That's the EU, not the Obama Administration. What am I missing?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


ACTA is a world-wide treaty, obama is just extending it... Sorry for not being descriptive. I am also sure that USA is in ACTA. It's been around for a while, but we may be starting to enforce it?

[edit on 24-6-2010 by jdills1196]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jdills1196
 


Yeah, I'm getting there. ACTA IS mentioned in the Obama document. I'm not sure all the stuff about Imminent Infringement is a problem but it does look like Obama supports it.

From ACTA :



Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right.
...
Each Party shall provide that its [US/J: judicial] [MX: competent] authorities have the authority to require the plaintiff, with respect to provisional measures, to provide any resonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the plaintiff's right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, and to order the plaintiff to provide a reasonable security or equivalent assurance set at a level sufficient to protect the defendant


I'm thinking this is much ado about nothing. If you're not stealing music or movies, there's nothing to worry about.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Haha yeah, I would watch your wording though



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I'm reading through the proposal right now... there's no plausible way they could properly enforce this. So, what's the point of it all? I can only come up with one dumb reason, scare people.

1. Mass news media coverage on the crackdowns, sensationalize penalties/ repercussions.

2. Make examples of a few people... more if need be.

3. Do it until the media/music industry lobbyists are happy...

If its not the above, and they actually plan on trying to make this useless thing work, then this is one step closer to OBAMANET.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Piracy is one of the simple methods people can use to attack the current corporate oligarchy, controller scum.

Always pirate stuff - default on credit cards if you can get away with it - buy locally, boycott every corporation and steal from them if you can think of an easy way to do it.

It is not a crime to take back your own property and rights - it is legal and moral to disobey all of their filthy laws.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jdills1196
 


It wouldn't be the first time I've been "attacked".
I am VERY anti-pirating and outspoken about it. I don't care if it doesn't affect the bottom line at all. It's stealing, IMO. Taking one piece of bread from a bakery is still stealing.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


But I'm hungry and I needz bread *om nom nom*...
Anyways, I do think that you should buy things if you can afford them... but our current piracy laws are WAY too harsh and get the good guys as well.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Ok I only got up to page 4 or so of this thread but here's my 2 cents...

"a guy I know" downloaded Battlefield: Bad Company 2. "He" liked it so much he showed it to his friends and they ALL went out and bought copies so they could play online together.

So 1 act of piracy yielded 4 sales?

[edit]

To add, there are some things that "he" would have been downright PO'd if he had actually paid money for them.

For some people piracy equates to trial. Problem is, not everyone goes out and purchases the stuff they actually use.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by an0maly33]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
Ok I only got up to page 4 or so of this thread but here's my 2 cents...

"a guy I know" downloaded Battlefield: Bad Company 2. "He" liked it so much he showed it to his friends and they ALL went out and bought copies so they could play online together.

So 1 act of piracy yielded 4 sales?


Well, according to our own consumer reports (US GOV'T) Piracy isn't having a single EFFECT on the industry.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Oh yeah, and if all you do is sit around on your computer all day and listen to pirated MP3s.. May I recommend just getting a premium membership to grooveshark and downloading their adobe air app? (Its $30/yr)

[edit on 24-6-2010 by jdills1196]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdills1196
but our current piracy laws are WAY too harsh and get the good guys as well.


What "good guys"? I've not gotten into piracy discussions much before, so I don't know who you're talking about.

reply to post by an0maly33
 


Problem there is... who decides what's best for the company? The company or you? If YOU had written the code, would you want to be the one that decides whether or not your creation is given away for free? Or would you want the public to decide?

reply to post by jdills1196
 


Again, whose decision should it be? The company who makes the product or the public?



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join