PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed
84 replies, posted
republicans defending freedom?
what crazy pre-9/11 world am I in?
[img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-911.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Snake7;34284721]The support/opposition for the bill is pretty divided now. Even if it does pass, if Obama vetoes it, it's pretty much guaranteed not to pass.[/QUOTE]
If Obama vetoes it doesn't it just go back to be voted on again?
[QUOTE=Aman VII;34283985]Man I like how so many of those politicians flip flopped cause they saw who was going to win and saw the outcry. Really makes their motives as politicians transparent.
I'd rather have a politician who actually stands for their principles rather than someone just there for the money.
Them doing it is for the better obviously but it shows their true colours.[/QUOTE]
Well think about it, politicians are supposed to act in the best interest of their constituents. They saw their constituents hated SOPA so they turned against it in order to stay in office
I'm Novangel and I approve this message
[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;34284942]If Obama vetoes it doesn't it just go back to be voted on again?[/QUOTE]
It has to have a 2/3 majority rather than 51%
As I personally see it, SOPA is based on the fact that companies are knowing hosting pirated content. Megaupload, Putlocker, and Videozer just to name a few are banking money from ads on content that is owned by Television and Movie industry. The problem is the bill itself doesn't exclude anyone running a site that has no intent in making money from pirated content that their userbase uploads. I personally think if they ever want to get somewhere with this they need to attack those people on a case to case basis. Not some bill/law that allows the U.S. government to lock up anybody without fair trial, that is just absurd.
It's basically everyone saving their asses and getting good PR by going against something the general public thinks is bad.
Besides a few of the younger, more informed politicians, of course. Like that guy who posted in a game company's forum.
[QUOTE=Medevilae;34284774]THIS is how a republic should fucking work.
Senators' votes should be based on the views of their CONSTITUENTS not their LOBBYISTS.
Brownie points to everyone who contacted their Senators! Now lets do it again for SOPA.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
You know what's funny? Pipa in Polish language means pansy or pussy, usually like you would call a coward in a bad way.
PIPA in spanish is a smoking pipe, SOPA is soup (and it's kind of a national thing around here to hate soup)
Another Victorious battle for the internet.
Yipee!
FINALLY a Florida senator that isn't fucking dumb. Down with SOPA/PIPA!
[QUOTE=Rocko's;34286435]FINALLY a Florida senator that isn't fucking dumb. Down with SOPA/PIPA![/QUOTE]
You do know there are only two Florida senators right
[QUOTE=Fort83;34286478]Why pay 99c for songs when you can get them for free? :v:[/QUOTE]
You know it's shit like this (admittedly it's also the entertainment industry's desire to crush all opposition in the industry) that caused SOPA to be envisioned in the first place, regardless of whether they're right or not. It's hypocritical to go crazy over the evils of SOPA then turn around and pirate everything, despite being able to afford it, and it being priced reasonably.
Glad to see my senator (Mr. Blunt) is dedicated to not making Missouri look like quite a shithole. :v:
Also at this point, SOPA/PIPA are essentially dead, but I'm sure they'll still find a way to make it almost pass.
[QUOTE=Shiftyze;34283877]For the first time ever, I've been seeing people talk about SOPA on Facebook. This blackout is good.[/QUOTE]
"omg I can't get to reddit, SOPA fucking sucks it's gonna ban porn wtf"
I never want to see any of the people on my facebook again...
In 10 years we can all be oldfags and tell the next generation about how the Internet beat the government.
[QUOTE=Fort83;34286662]Times are a changing, musicians are becoming more independent, producing there own stuff, taking on the tech jobs. Musicians make their money on shows and merch, not selling CDs, at least not anymore.
Am I against SOPA? Yes
Am I against Pirating, no to an extent. Songs I am fine with and I'm sure most artists don't really care all that much, they get their money from shows and merch and royalties, but some big things, like games and big programs like 3d modelling programs, should be bought. Don't ask Why i feel songs are okay and games and such aren't, it's just my opinion[/QUOTE]
Oh well, I still don't think it's a good viewpoint but alrighty then.
I'd like to lead this off with an apology for writing a goddamn manifesto, but this is really bugging me, and I don't have the time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one.
[QUOTE=Whalen207;34283849]SOPA and PIPA aren't evil, just overgeneralized.
Piracy is still a serious problem. Wouldn't you like 99c songs again?[/QUOTE]
No. I would like free songs. The idea that a recording is inherently worth money is nonsense. The music industry is entirely propped up on providing a convenience which is, for the most part, no longer necessary.
To start with, let me lay down a basic premise- it is not morally incorrect to reproduce a piece of music if you're doing it live, yourself, with actual instruments, and keeping this performance "private", correct? No one would argue I should be punished for pulling out some synths I own and briefly recreating a dubstep track for myself. We can all agree that's perfectly fine, to attempt to ban it would be patently absurd, culturally stifling, and a massive overstep of the government. Let's dismiss any argument that my recreation is fundamentally different from the song I see to emulate in advance- it's quite easy to recreate several modern genres of music with nothing but [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmLchHuTlE"]$300 in software[/URL] or less.
Now, let's move a step up from that. Most people would consider it absurd to prevent me from recording myself for myself. No one would have cared in the 1920s if I recorded a copy of Enescu's Impromptu for Piano for myself and listened to it in my house, nor would they have cared in the 80s if I recorded a chunk of Van Halen's Eruption for myself on a little tape deck and listened to it in my car, nor would they care now if I remade part of the 8-Bit Operators' Kraftwerk album with an old NES, synth cartridge and my computer and listened to it while typing this. You might have a problem with me sharing such recordings, but nobody would have a problem with me making them alone.
But why would you have a problem with me sharing them? If I'm capable of reproducing a song, and listening to my own reproduction, then clearly a recording of a song is inherently worthless- we can agree that if everyone in the 1920s could afford a cylinder recorder and a piano and was a competent enough player, recordings of piano solos would be worthless, as we can agree that if everyone in the 80s was as rad as Van Halen and owned a tape deck, Van Halen albums would be worthless, and so on. Thus we can say that in raw economic terms, a recording's value comes from the convenience of not having to reproduce it yourself nor needing to own the means of reproduction. It's not as though an album is made of musicianium, which is rare and takes effort to mine from the depths of the earth- anybody can make a song, and anybody can, if they're willing to put a bit of effort into it, make somebody else's songs. Sure, it might cost a bit, but in an age of [URL="http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Duet2/"]amazing recording quality,[/URL] [URL="http://www.guitarcenter.com/Fender-Standard-Stratocaster-HSS-FR-Electric-Guitar-501161-i1432698.gc"]cheap instruments,[/URL] and [URL="http://www.soundsonline.com/Complete-Composers-Collection"]software to emulate pricier stuff[/URL]- all for a few grand with the computer thrown in, and with prices that are constantly dropping- it ain't much of a bit, and that bit's getting steadily smaller.
What's more, a recording of music no longer consists of much. It's just some data, not very large in size. You don't even need a particular medium anymore- hell, in several instances, it's your own medium being used. And replication is a joke, no more than automated transcription. These days, an affordable machine can make music for you from nothing but a string of symbols, and reproducing those symbols is a momentary, almost effortless process. Those strings aren't inherently worth anything, and the cost of inputting and replicating them is near zero. It's just data. You might place value on it, but it's not inherently valuable. This is the hardest thing for people to get over. It's just data, and it being "just data" isn't a bad thing.
Other industries have realized that plain data should only cost what it costs to provide and moved on perfectly well. Printed media has been this way for some time now. With few exceptions, you pay for a delivery method (taxes for your library, an access fee for larger ones, academic databases, and the like to keep them running) and your actual data is free. Piracy of written documents is generally considered a non-issue, because they understand it's just a string of symbols with no inherent value and people will only pay for the convenience of getting them when they want them, not an arbitrary fee for your symbols in particular. Movie streaming services have taken the same approach- it isn't the movie that matters, it's the fact that a server is waiting out there to give it to you on demand. The ultimate support for my argument? The financial success of Steam, and [URL="http://www.industrygamers.com/news/valves-newell-steam-makes-piracy-a-non-issue/"]the fact that Gabe agrees.[/URL]
[B]Piracy isn't a problem.[/B] It's a natural consequence of the fact that [I]information wants to be free[/I], and right now several industries exist with a size unwarranted by what they provide. And they're going to die. It's scary, nobody wants to admit it, or wants to pretend we can come up with an ad-hoc solution, or try to make a moral argument based on factually incorrect notions that creators will be hurt more than the people who fund those creators, but it's the truth. Cinema, music, gaming, it's all been gradually slipping from a position where the sales of data are profitable, and that cannot and should not be stopped. The written word moved the fuck on. So can they.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;34286586]You know it's shit like this (admittedly it's also the entertainment industry's desire to crush all opposition in the industry) that caused SOPA to be envisioned in the first place, regardless of whether they're right or not. It's hypocritical to go crazy over the evils of SOPA then turn around and pirate everything, despite being able to afford it, and it being priced reasonably.[/QUOTE]
It's not hypocritical in the least. SOPA and PIPA seek control of a network, an unwarranted regulation of data, contrary to the very principles of that network.
His statement is reasonable- he (or someone else) is paying for the means of transferring information between devices capable of replicating that information. He has already paid for the means to obtain that information- there is nothing wrong with him doing so.
Hypocritical is the presumption that it is unacceptable for a government to attempt restraining the internet, and then arguing that it should be restrained by the users themselves anyway.
Well put, mate, well put.
[editline]19th January 2012[/editline]
No need to apologize for the manifesto, we need more like that around here.
Awesome, no more plan B (we know of) to worry about anymore it seems. And SOPA is in the headlines anyway, so I think we can be optimistic right now.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;34288368]Awesome, no more plan B (we know of) to worry about anymore it seems. And SOPA is in the headlines anyway, so I think we can be optimistic right now.[/QUOTE]
Supposedly there's a rumour that they plan on sneaking SOPA into a Child Protection bill.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34288401]Supposedly there's a rumour that they plan on sneaking SOPA into a Child Protection bill.[/QUOTE]
I hate how that happens with so many bills.
How the fuck do they get away with sticking on shit that has no relation to the original bill!?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg/220px-Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg[/img]
Not 100%, but we're getting there.
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;34288410]I hate how that happens with so many bills.
How the fuck do they get away with sticking on shit that has no relation to the original bill!?[/QUOTE]
Because by some wonder of the American political system, it's not illegal in the US.
Even though it really really really should be and any idiot with common sense would have made plans to ban it after the first time it was used.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;34283859]Nice mix of democrats and republicans there as well, which is a very good sign.[/QUOTE]
Nice mix? Of the thirteen Senators, 11 are Republicans. If anything, that might be saying something about the Democrats (well, it would depend on the Senators from each party who are already against PIPA).
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34288232]I'd like to lead this off with an apology for writing a goddamn manifesto, but this is really bugging me, and I don't have the time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one.
No. I would like free songs. The idea that a recording is inherently worth money is nonsense. The music industry is entirely propped up on providing a convenience which is, for the most part, no longer necessary.
To start with, let me lay down a basic premise- it is not morally incorrect to reproduce a piece of music if you're doing it live, yourself, with actual instruments, and keeping this performance "private", correct? No one would argue I should be punished for pulling out some synths I own and briefly recreating a dubstep track for myself. We can all agree that's perfectly fine, to attempt to ban it would be patently absurd, culturally stifling, and a massive overstep of the government. Let's dismiss any argument that my recreation is fundamentally different from the song I see to emulate in advance- it's quite easy to recreate several modern genres of music with nothing but [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmLchHuTlE"]$300 in software[/URL] or less.
Now, let's move a step up from that. Most people would consider it absurd to prevent me from recording myself for myself. No one would have cared in the 1920s if I recorded a copy of Enescu's Impromptu for Piano for myself and listened to it in my house, nor would they have cared in the 80s if I recorded a chunk of Van Halen's Eruption for myself on a little tape deck and listened to it in my car, nor would they care now if I remade part of the 8-Bit Operators' Kraftwerk album with an old NES, synth cartridge and my computer and listened to it while typing this. You might have a problem with me sharing such recordings, but nobody would have a problem with me making them alone.
But why would you have a problem with me sharing them? If I'm capable of reproducing a song, and listening to my own reproduction, then clearly a recording of a song is inherently worthless- we can agree that if everyone in the 1920s could afford a cylinder recorder and a piano and was a competent enough player, recordings of piano solos would be worthless, as we can agree that if everyone in the 80s was as rad as Van Halen and owned a tape deck, Van Halen albums would be worthless, and so on. Thus we can say that in raw economic terms, a recording's value comes from the convenience of not having to reproduce it yourself nor needing to own the means of reproduction. It's not as though an album is made of musicianium, which is rare and takes effort to mine from the depths of the earth- anybody can make a song, and anybody can, if they're willing to put a bit of effort into it, make somebody else's songs. Sure, it might cost a bit, but in an age of [URL="http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Duet2/"]amazing recording quality,[/URL] [URL="http://www.guitarcenter.com/Fender-Standard-Stratocaster-HSS-FR-Electric-Guitar-501161-i1432698.gc"]cheap instruments,[/URL] and [URL="http://www.soundsonline.com/Complete-Composers-Collection"]software to emulate pricier stuff[/URL]- all for a few grand with the computer thrown in, and with prices that are constantly dropping- it ain't much of a bit, and that bit's getting steadily smaller.
What's more, a recording of music no longer consists of much. It's just some data, not very large in size. You don't even need a particular medium anymore- hell, in several instances, it's your own medium being used. And replication is a joke, no more than automated transcription. These days, an affordable machine can make music for you from nothing but a string of symbols, and reproducing those symbols is a momentary, almost effortless process. Those strings aren't inherently worth anything, and the cost of inputting and replicating them is near zero. It's just data. You might place value on it, but it's not inherently valuable. This is the hardest thing for people to get over. It's just data, and it being "just data" isn't a bad thing.
Other industries have realized that plain data should only cost what it costs to provide and moved on perfectly well. Printed media has been this way for some time now. With few exceptions, you pay for a delivery method (taxes for your library, an access fee for larger ones, academic databases, and the like to keep them running) and your actual data is free. Piracy of written documents is generally considered a non-issue, because they understand it's just a string of symbols with no inherent value and people will only pay for the convenience of getting them when they want them, not an arbitrary fee for your symbols in particular. Movie streaming services have taken the same approach- it isn't the movie that matters, it's the fact that a server is waiting out there to give it to you on demand. The ultimate support for my argument? The financial success of Steam, and [URL="http://www.industrygamers.com/news/valves-newell-steam-makes-piracy-a-non-issue/"]the fact that Gabe agrees.[/URL]
[B]Piracy isn't a problem.[/B] It's a natural consequence of the fact that [I]information wants to be free[/I], and right now several industries exist with a size unwarranted by what they provide. And they're going to die. It's scary, nobody wants to admit it, or wants to pretend we can come up with an ad-hoc solution, or try to make a moral argument based on factually incorrect notions that creators will be hurt more than the people who fund those creators, but it's the truth. Cinema, music, gaming, it's all been gradually slipping from a position where the sales of data are profitable, and that cannot and should not be stopped. The written word moved the fuck on. So can they.
It's not hypocritical in the least. SOPA and PIPA seek control of a network, an unwarranted regulation of data, contrary to the very principles of that network.
His statement is reasonable- he (or someone else) is paying for the means of transferring information between devices capable of replicating that information. He has already paid for the means to obtain that information- there is nothing wrong with him doing so.
Hypocritical is the presumption that it is unacceptable for a government to attempt restraining the internet, and then arguing that it should be restrained by the users themselves anyway.[/QUOTE]
I don't like the way your point is going if I understand it (which I'm not sure I am but anyway). Are you saying that anything produced on a computer is fair game because it's not physical? I'm assuming you aren't a coder / digital artist (then again, neither am I), but if you were one wouldn't you be incensed if after you spent half a year creating and compiling an operating system that makes a robot walk, someone copied that and distributed it for free because it's just data? Regardless of the form it's in, it didn't just pop into existence - someone had to not only think of the idea, but create it via is own volition. I'm desperately hoping you aren't correct because if you are, that means that dozens of markets will die because there'll be no economic feasibility in them.
This is almost direct democracy.
Tthanks internet.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34288232]I'd like to lead this off with an apology for writing a goddamn manifesto, but this is really bugging me, and I don't have the time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one.
No. I would like free songs. The idea that a recording is inherently worth money is nonsense. The music industry is entirely propped up on providing a convenience which is, for the most part, no longer necessary.
To start with, let me lay down a basic premise- it is not morally incorrect to reproduce a piece of music if you're doing it live, yourself, with actual instruments, and keeping this performance "private", correct? No one would argue I should be punished for pulling out some synths I own and briefly recreating a dubstep track for myself. We can all agree that's perfectly fine, to attempt to ban it would be patently absurd, culturally stifling, and a massive overstep of the government. Let's dismiss any argument that my recreation is fundamentally different from the song I see to emulate in advance- it's quite easy to recreate several modern genres of music with nothing but [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmLchHuTlE"]$300 in software[/URL] or less.
Now, let's move a step up from that. Most people would consider it absurd to prevent me from recording myself for myself. No one would have cared in the 1920s if I recorded a copy of Enescu's Impromptu for Piano for myself and listened to it in my house, nor would they have cared in the 80s if I recorded a chunk of Van Halen's Eruption for myself on a little tape deck and listened to it in my car, nor would they care now if I remade part of the 8-Bit Operators' Kraftwerk album with an old NES, synth cartridge and my computer and listened to it while typing this. You might have a problem with me sharing such recordings, but nobody would have a problem with me making them alone.
But why would you have a problem with me sharing them? If I'm capable of reproducing a song, and listening to my own reproduction, then clearly a recording of a song is inherently worthless- we can agree that if everyone in the 1920s could afford a cylinder recorder and a piano and was a competent enough player, recordings of piano solos would be worthless, as we can agree that if everyone in the 80s was as rad as Van Halen and owned a tape deck, Van Halen albums would be worthless, and so on. Thus we can say that in raw economic terms, a recording's value comes from the convenience of not having to reproduce it yourself nor needing to own the means of reproduction. It's not as though an album is made of musicianium, which is rare and takes effort to mine from the depths of the earth- anybody can make a song, and anybody can, if they're willing to put a bit of effort into it, make somebody else's songs. Sure, it might cost a bit, but in an age of [URL="http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Duet2/"]amazing recording quality,[/URL] [URL="http://www.guitarcenter.com/Fender-Standard-Stratocaster-HSS-FR-Electric-Guitar-501161-i1432698.gc"]cheap instruments,[/URL] and [URL="http://www.soundsonline.com/Complete-Composers-Collection"]software to emulate pricier stuff[/URL]- all for a few grand with the computer thrown in, and with prices that are constantly dropping- it ain't much of a bit, and that bit's getting steadily smaller.
What's more, a recording of music no longer consists of much. It's just some data, not very large in size. You don't even need a particular medium anymore- hell, in several instances, it's your own medium being used. And replication is a joke, no more than automated transcription. These days, an affordable machine can make music for you from nothing but a string of symbols, and reproducing those symbols is a momentary, almost effortless process. Those strings aren't inherently worth anything, and the cost of inputting and replicating them is near zero. It's just data. You might place value on it, but it's not inherently valuable. This is the hardest thing for people to get over. It's just data, and it being "just data" isn't a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
I kinda disagree on the 'musicians shouldn't get anything' idea because there is still work involved in producing mastered originals.
Record labels/recording contracts should certainly not exist anymore, and artists should get MUCH more of the money split (aka all of it, aside from maybe 5p per track to support the website hosting and managing billing).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.