SOPA has been shelved indefinitely.

[Xalioniaf]

It's not that bad for ringtones. I'm not much of an audio nerd, but youtube rips for me are just... no.

 

[Raesvelg]

I won't argue that piracy hurts business because I'm sure it does. But I don't believe SOPA/PIPA will help business much. As Cheeba said, I pirate stuff quite a bit myself. Not only because I'm poor but most likely it's stuff that I wasn't even going to buy in the first place. If I care that much about a product, then I will buy it.

Honestly, if the entertainment companies and the government weren't such dicks I'd actually feel bad for pirating.

And these, boys and girls, are what we call "justifications".

Don't make them.

For the first; obviously you do want it, or you wouldn't be stealing it. Saying you want it, but not enough to pay for it, is bullshit. You want it. End of sentence. You steal it because it's easier to steal it than it is to pay for it. If you didn't want it, you wouldn't care that it cost money, because you wouldn't want it. I don't give a shit that the Paranormal Activity 3 Blu-Ray would run me $45 to pick up new (assuming no discounts, etc), because I have no interest in seeing any of those awful, awful films.

If piracy was removed from the equation, you would either buy it legitimately, or suffer until you had/made more money and could afford to make the purchase.

Or, y'know, wait for it to go on sale on Steam (where all of Raes' video games come from), or rent it for a dollar from Redbox (where most of Raes' films come from), or something similar.

For the second, that's the whole "blame the victim" bit I've mentioned a few times in mah blogz. Blaming the industry for getting upset about people stealing from them and taking steps to prevent that theft is also bullshit. You're the one stealing. Not them. They're not busting into your house, breaking open your piggybank, and saying "FUCK YOU JP, you're paying us to watch Thor whether you want to or not!".

 

[Pascal]

The only thing they haven't actively engaged in is giving their shit away for free.

The copyright statutes as written where never intended to be a property right. In fact it says that explicitly. So there really is no "their shit". What they have is a legal remediate should you do certain things with a creative work, but once knowledge is shared it can't really be owned by anyone anymore.

Which is what people seem to think that they're entitled to.

This right here is why the proper place for this debate to begin is not with what do we want to do about piracy, but does the American people want copyrights to exist to begin with, and if so, to what degree and what safe guards do they want for content creators, consumers of content, property owners, etc.

 

[Raesvelg]

The copyright statutes as written where never intended to be a property right. In fact it says that explicitly. So there really is no "their shit". What they have is a legal remediate should you do certain things with a creative work, but once knowledge is shared it can't really be owned by anyone anymore.

Semantics. Copyright laws have always been intended to grant the holder exclusive rights to copy the work in question; that's why it's called copyright.

This right here is why the proper place for this debate to begin is not with what do we want to do about piracy, but does the American people want copyrights to exist to begin with, and if so, to what degree and what safe guards do they want for content creators, consumers of content, property owners, etc.

Ugh.

Most people tend not to think of the consequences of their actions; if we genuinely put the matter of copyright to a popular vote, I shudder to think what the result would be. There are reasons that the United States is not a direct democracy; that is one of them.

 

[JP]

*sigh*

And these, boys and girls, are what we call "justifications".

Don't make them.

I'm not justifying (to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable) pirating. At no point did I say pirating was the right thing to do. I was just saying why I do it and I don't even do it nearly as much as I used to. I know it's wrong and if I couldn't pirate anymore, it wouldn't even bother me.

For the first; obviously you do want it, or you wouldn't be stealing it. Saying you want it, but not enough to pay for it, is bullshit. You want it. End of sentence. You steal it because it's easier to steal it than it is to pay for it. If you didn't want it, you wouldn't care that it cost money, because you wouldn't want it. I don't give a shit that the Paranormal Activity 3 Blu-Ray would run me $45 to pick up new (assuming no discounts, etc), because I have no interest in seeing any of those awful, awful films.

If piracy was removed from the equation, you would either buy it legitimately, or suffer until you had/made more money and could afford to make the purchase.

Anyone see me say anything about wanting or not wanting a product? No? Oh, I just said "it's stuff that I wasn't even going to buy in the first place"? And that "If I care that much about a product, then I will buy it"? Oh right.

I WANT Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Did I pirate it? No. I WANT Arkham City. Did I pirate it? No. I did NOT want Saints Row: The Third. Did I pirate it? Yes. I WANTED Dungeon Defenders. Did I pirate it? No. I bought it from Steam. I WANTED to see Contraband. Did I pirate it sir? Nope. Went to the movie theaters to go see it.

Now I'm not saying I haven't pirated stuff that I wanted before but if I couldn't pirate Saints Row 3, would I buy it? Pfft, fuuuuuck no. Why did I pirate it? I have my reasons. But it being easier to pirate it than buy it? Nah. Games can be rather annoying to crack and sometimes you have to go through a few downloads to find good quality movies/music. I live in walking distance of a Gamestop, a Target, and a movie theater. I have Steam and iTunes on my PC. Games, movies, and music aren't hard to go buy. A lot of the time it's more of a hassle to steal it than to buy it. A lot of the time I don't have the money to get the things I really WANT so I just don't get them. If I had money to blow, would I still pirate? Hmmm... maybe.

Or, y'know, wait for it to go on sale on Steam (where all of Raes' video games come from), or rent it for a dollar from Redbox (where most of Raes' films come from), or something similar.

I have plenty of Steam games and DVDs.

For the second, that's the whole "blame the victim" bit I've mentioned a few times in mah blogz.

I wouldn't know.

Blaming the industry for getting upset about people stealing from them and taking steps to prevent that theft is also bullshit. You're the one stealing. Not them. They're not busting into your house, breaking open your piggybank, and saying "FUCK YOU JP, you're paying us to watch Thor whether you want to or not!".

Did I say I was upset that the industry takes steps to prevent stealing? I agree with them taking steps to prevent piracy. They should. I had my own reasons for calling them dicks. And I wasn't even saying that I pirate because they're dicks. I said I would actually feel bad for doing it if they weren't.

Assumptions out the ass.

 

[Elemmire]

I just wanted to make sure you knew that comment of being liberal and the comment of people with illegal downloading are two separate comments; I wasn't saying liberals download illegally lol I mean, all people do. Political beliefs have no impact on that, though. At least I doubt they do.

I do not agree with your opinion that online piracy doesn't effect their businesses. I think it greatly effects their business. The less money you spend at stores/theater's, the less money enter's the economy. The less money gets taxed on purchases. The less you can sell advertising for TV show's because you watch it illegally via download/megavideo/etc. Trust me, there are larger impacts to the economy and businesses with the illegal downloading thing. I just stand with not sacrificing my liberties that I earn through paying my taxes.

I should point out that it is hypocritical of me to say this, to some extent. I have downloaded music illegally and all before. That was back in the day though, when I was much much younger, broke, and stupid. Not a justification, just saying I'm older, wiser, and more keen to follow the law now.

Yes and no to it effecting business. It depends when and how the media is. Studies I've read have said that movie box office releases do lose something like a possible 40% more revenue to piracy, but DVD sales are improved. So, I don't really agree that it "greatly effects their business." But it certainly does effect it, just at a different time and in different ways. Sometimes it's good (people who pirate, find they really like something, and thus buy it) and sometimes it's bad (pirating and never supporting the developers/publishers of any product).

Given your presence in some of the manga threads (Naruto, for example), I call bullshit on that. If you're reading chapters as they come out, then you're either living in Japan (and reading Japanese), or you're reading them online.

Which, holy shit, is piracy.

yep, and then I buy them when they're released in the US I don't care to wait that long to stay up on the story, but I do still buy the products. I watch the anime legally on their channel, well did. Which is why I'm behind on the anime now and also kinda stopped caring after fillers. If they release the mangas faster here, I'll buy them instead.

Of course it's about piracy.

Good lord.

The "stronger new business model" of the internet is piracy.

Streaming? The industries have already embraced that. Digital downloads? Ditto.

The only thing they haven't actively engaged in is giving their shit away for free.

Which is what people seem to think that they're entitled to. Take Thor, for example. According to Torrentfreak, in 2011, Thor was downloaded a little over 8 million times.

Just torrents, mind you.

Now, sure, not everyone would have watched the film in theaters, purchased the DVD, rented it from Redbox, or streamed it legitimately. But you can bet that quite a few of them probably would have, and that the studio missed out on something like 20-30% of the profits they could have made.

And there are people out there who will, with complete and utter honesty, say: "Well, they still made $300 million, so they should just accept their losses to piracy and not complain", to which I offer these people the opportunity to have me take 30% of their "excess" income, the stuff they're not using to cover living expenses and whatnot, because obviously they don't really need it.

And if you wanna get really disturbing, take the film Source Code, which only made about $90 million profit for the studio, largely because it was pretty cheap to make (for a Hollywood film). Because it was also torrented about 8 million times in 2011. Which means that the studio could have made, in theory, almost twice as much money off the film had piracy been more difficult.

The argument that the industry is just trying to fight the emergence of a new market is one that died with the birth of iTunes.

Really? You REALLY think it's JUST about piracy? Hell, there are car companies supporting this. Why would they? The internet isn't effecting shit for them in terms of piracy. Are people selling used cars online? Sure. But that's their right, they can do that. There are tons of companies backing this bill that have no reason to as online piracy does NOT effect them (in some ways helps them by making people more aware about their physical products).

As for the movies, as I said, yes piracy takes a hit in the box office money, but the long term piracy has no effect and actually (from what I've read) has shown to help sales (as to why I'm not sure, that's just what the data was showing, they might not really be helping, just some other variable unaccounted for).

But seriously, these bills are tools for them to shut down competition. That's more important to them than the piracy. I assure you, they have more problems dealing with competition than piracy.

 

[Raesvelg]

Assumptions out the ass.

Defensive much?

I put no words in your mouth, I simply said that your justifications are bullshit.

Which they are.

Simplest put: If you don't want something, you've no reason to acquire it. You may not want it enough to pay for it, but that doesn't give you an excuse to pirate it. Period.

As for the movies, as I said, yes piracy takes a hit in the box office money, but the long term piracy has no effect and actually (from what I've read) has shown to help sales (as to why I'm not sure, that's just what the data was showing, they might not really be helping, just some other variable unaccounted for).

The evidence challenges I've issued to you previously stand.

Present the studies in question so that I might dissect and destroy them.

Because all the ones that I've seen that make that assertion are a.) not actual studies, b.) subject to ridiculous amounts of sample bias, and c.) typically founded entirely on anecdotal evidence.

So yes.

It's about piracy.

Because what competition are they attempting to destroy?

 

[JP]

Defensive much?

I put no words in your mouth, I simply said that your justifications are bullshit.

Which they are.

Simplest put: If you don't want something, you've no reason to acquire it. You may not want it enough to pay for it, but that doesn't give you an excuse to pirate it. Period.

I love when people say someone's being defensive when all they're doing is responding.

If you weren't putting words into my mouth (and making assumptions) please explain to me what you were doing, especially when it comes to the second part. Because you weren't just simply saying my justifications are bullshit. You know, because I wasn't making justifications of piracy as I already said.

 

[Raesvelg]

If you weren't putting words into my mouth (and making assumptions) please explain to me what you were doing, especially when it comes to the second part. Because you weren't just simply saying my justifications are bullshit. You know, because I wasn't making justifications of piracy as I already said.

What do you think you're doing when you say "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so I pirated it"?

That is a justification.

 

[JP]

Nevermind.

 

[Raesvelg]

Aww boo. JP won't play with meh. ;.;

I've been bored and I like picking apart the things people write in haste on message boards. D:

Incidentally, if you were paying attention, at no point did I accuse you of justifying piracy as a whole, just of justifying your piracy. Subtle difference and all that.

 

[Taurothar]

Piracy is bad.

I pirate, but I also don't have any sympathy for "artists" that complain because their cd sales suffer that they can't make enough money. Do I think they *owe* me anything? Not one bit. In my opinion when it comes to music, I agree with the many bands out there that offer downloads for free and sharing of their music, and do so because they know that if you like their music you will pay for the ticket to see them live. Real performers are about the live show. There's a whole huge industry built around acts that are created in a studio that can't perform live so they lip sync while doing some over complicated light and dance show to hide the fact that you're listening to the same CD you bought 6 months ago for 80 bucks a ticket. Maybe I'm a bit cynical about the modern music industry. I support local bands and artists that perform even better live than they do in the studio after a few hundred takes. I also listen to the radio, where they give me all the music I can handle for free. Sure I listen to a few annoying local car dealership ads but it's not so bad. If I want the latest single from the Black Eyed Peas, I'll pirate it. Why? Because I can. I'm not owed this single, I just don't think it's worth $1.29 on iTunes. If I can't pirate it, I will just hope it comes on the radio when I'm driving to work and enjoy it in my car. It really won't make any difference to my life. Worst case scenario, I didn't hear it and some other music filled that three minute block of my life.

For me, I'll pay to go to the theater and see a movie or wait for it to show up on tv or Netflix. I will sometimes pirate a movie if it's the convenient thing to do, but it's usually too much of a hassle to find a good copy, and often times it's a really old movie relatively that hasn't show up on Netflix instant yet. In the case of most movies or games that I do pirate though, I buy them if they're good. I think that 59.99 is a pretty steep trial fee when it comes to retail on video games. Unless you're "lucky" enough to still have an open Blockbuster in your town, renting video games isn't an easy option. I could sub up to a company like Gamefly but they never have new games in stock near release. So if I want to try a game before I buy it, and there's no demo on the PSN, I have to buy it for 60 bucks and hope. Sadly, I've worked more hours to make the money for the game than the game had of game play so many times that I've grown a bit disenfranchised. I haven't used my PS3 in months because of it, except to play Arkham City which was purchased in full at a local retail store because it was certain to be solid.

We are at an impasse with technology. Technology makes it easy to pirate, and technology is also in place to prevent piracy. Unfortunately for the MPAA, the technology can't be so locked down that piracy is impossible. Anti-piracy encryption is dangerous because one blip in the code and you have a lawsuit because all those blu-rays you just shipped can't play anymore. HDCP causes more problems than it solves to "prevent" HD video from being captured on a device. Widespread availability of blu-ray readers on computers made it just as easy to rip HD video as SD was for DVDs. Some companies tried to put limits on how many times you can install a game, only to have that overturned on legal grounds and outcry of legitimate owners of the game. And we all know what happened when Sony put their software on your computer when you tried to rip a CD.

The companies out there need to find incentive to NOT pirate if they want to stay relevant. I'm not socialist/communist by any means but I've always been a huge proponent of open source. To say that content creation will halt if there's no money in it is ridiculous. This is something the MPAA, RIAA, and the like would have us believe because it keeps them in business. Ownership of an idea should be a thing of the past. If everyone was contributing to a collective creative world without incentive to profit, there would be a whole lot more creation, or at least a whole lot more real creation. I think that when someone is paid to create, the process is forced and you end up with, more often than not, something that's only minutely different than something that is already in existence. True inspiration and dedication creates works of creation that are unparalleled.

Copyrights are getting out of hand. Patents on the use of a tiny part of an algorithm leading to market changing lawsuits are absurd. Fighting over the rights to who gets to profit off some recently deceased artist's life work is also absurd. What we need in this country and this world is a sane limit to intellectual property. I don't think the transition to public domain is going to be an easy one or a fast one, so in the mean time we need something that will protect market advantage but discourage frivolous lawsuits and disputes. If you don't want someone to copy you, make it so good that you can't be copied. Be flattered that they tried while you crush them in the free market. If they beat you, fair is fair, do better. Survival of the fittest works in the business world too. The whole thing to me is like a kid who runs to mommy to cry about how his brother is using his favorite color LEGO in his castle too.

Sorry about the long tangents about copyright laws but they're a direct link to why it's even an issue that things are pirated. I know you will probably rip holes in my logic, and honestly I don't care. I have my beliefs, nothing will change them. I would accept the punishment should I be caught, just like I would accept the punishment if I get caught speeding. To me, they are similar levels of breaking the law. It's a convenient crime, easy to commit, low rate of getting caught, and usually the fine can be fought down to near nothing. Are you gonna tell me they need to pass congressional acts to stop speeding next? These acts are the equivalent of congress dictating that car manufacturers should include a kill switch that police can use if they feel you were speeding, and the car will never start again.

 

[Raesvelg]

The companies out there need to find incentive to NOT pirate if they want to stay relevant. I'm not socialist/communist by any means but I've always been a huge proponent of open source. To say that content creation will halt if there's no money in it is ridiculous. This is something the MPAA, RIAA, and the like would have us believe because it keeps them in business. Ownership of an idea should be a thing of the past. If everyone was contributing to a collective creative world without incentive to profit, there would be a whole lot more creation, or at least a whole lot more real creation. I think that when someone is paid to create, the process is forced and you end up with, more often than not, something that's only minutely different than something that is already in existence. True inspiration and dedication creates works of creation that are unparalleled.

Content creation would not stop, but creation of certain kinds of content certainly would. We're also not living in some sort of post-capitalism Marxist utopia either where people are free to do whatever they want because all their basic needs are taken care of.

So, worst-case scenario, the Hollywood film industry collapses.

I happen to like Hollywood, and have no interest in seeing it collapse.

Other worst-case scenario, art becomes more difficult, since actually getting paid to do it professionally becomes rarer.

Thinking that somehow doing away with intellectual property laws will lead to better products and a broader range of choices is, frankly, naive.

 

[Pascal]

Semantics. Copyright laws have always been intended to grant the holder exclusive rights to copy the work in question; that's why it's called copyright.

It's an important difference in meaningful conversion on the subject. It's what has lead to political rhetoric like comparing stealing a car with violating someone's copyrights. I've even dealt with songwriters who do not understand what rights they actually have, thinking that disturbing their music is the same as loaning someone their car, because of the constant interchanging of concepts.

Most people tend not to think of the consequences of their actions; if we genuinely put the matter of copyright to a popular vote, I shudder to think what the result would be. There are reasons that the United States is not a direct democracy; that is one of them.

I would hazard to guess that most Americans support the ideas of copyrights, in fact I'd be shocked if they didn't, but do they support the kind of copyright system that has been established by the RIAA/MPAA, I doubt it. Especially not after the abuse of process by the RIAA after the passing of the DMCA.

 

[Romper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/sopa-withdrawn-lamar-smith_n_1219250.html

This time it's more serious.

Also I bet this is because Lamar Smith was found to be infringing on someone else's copyright on his own website. He was using a photograph done by someone else and didn't give them the credit even though the guy just needed credit to be given and all would have been fine.

 

[Raesvelg]

I would hazard to guess that most Americans support the ideas of copyrights, in fact I'd be shocked if they didn't, but do they support the kind of copyright system that has been established by the RIAA/MPAA, I doubt it. Especially not after the abuse of process by the RIAA after the passing of the DMCA.

What would you change though?

I suppose we could alter the enforcement statutes, so that a copyright holder could choose how and when to enforce their rights without losing them if they decide not to, but aside from that and broadening the whole criminal aspect of it, there's not a whole lot you could do to alter that angle. It may seem ridiculous when the RIAA sues someone for $250,000 over a handful of downloaded songs, but those sorts of penalties are in place (and can be settled for lower amounts) in order to deter people from breaking the law.

 

[Morcheeba]

What would you change though?

I suppose we could alter the enforcement statutes, so that a copyright holder could choose how and when to enforce their rights without losing them if they decide not to, but aside from that and broadening the whole criminal aspect of it, there's not a whole lot you could do to alter that angle.

Again ;p

http://lofgren.house.gov/images/stories/sopa/sopa_draft_alternative_approach.pdf

Leave it in the hands of the copyright holders to flag sites and advice whomever is held legally responsible. That way sites have the opportunity to have the user blocked, the link(s) removed, the content removed etc. I really do like the sound of the proposal from Senator Lofgren.

Spoiler:

Fighting the Unauthorized Trade of Digital Goods
While Protecting Internet Security, Commerce and Speech
Draft framework for discussion, authored by: U.S. Senators Cantwell, Moran, Warner and Wyden and
U.S. Representatives Chaffetz, Campbell, Doggett, Eshoo, Issa, Lofgren, and Polis


BACKGROUND
While the Internet has been revolutionary when it comes to uniting communities, promoting ideas and creating boundless opportunities for innovation and commerce, the Internet has also created new avenues for foreign counterfeiters and others operating outside the United States to sell unauthorized goods on the American market. This is harmful to the legitimate rights holders operating and employing Americans here at home. Downloading a movie from a foreign-registered site, for example, is much like importing a good from a foreign company; however U.S. trade laws – put in place to oversee the flow of goods and services into the United States – have failed to keep up with the digital economy. A 21st Century trade policy will combat the import of infringing digital goods and counterfeit merchandise while ensuring the continued free flow of legitimate commerce and speech online.

We found that using trade laws to address the flow of infringing digital goods into the United States makes it possible to avoid many of the pitfalls that would arise from other legislative proposals currently being advanced to combat online infringement. Namely by putting the regulatory power in the hands of the International Trade Commission – versus a diversity of magistrate judges not versed in Internet and trade policy – will ensure a transparent process in which import policy is fairly and consistently applied and all interests are taken into account.

When infringement is addressed only from a narrow judicial perspective, important issues pertaining to cybersecurity and the promotion of online innovation, commerce and speech get neglected. By approaching digital good infringement as a matter of regulating international commerce, we are able to take all of these factors into account.

PROPOSAL
This proposal updates import laws to respond to the challenges posed by the digital economy, so that illegal digital imports and digitally-facilitated imports of counterfeit goods are deterred. This proposal would enable a U.S. rightsholder to petition the International Trade Commission (ITC) to launch an investigation into the imports in question. Congress established the independent International Trade Commission (ITC) as an arbiter of whether imports violate U.S. intellectual property rights and should or should not be allowed into the U.S. Under current law, rightsholders can petition the ITC to investigate whether certain imports violate U.S. trademarks and copyrights. The ITC is authorized to not only investigate these issues but to initiate actions to prevent the imports in question from entering
into the U.S.

Under our proposal, the ITC would be authorized to initiate an investigation at a rightsholder’s request and issue a cease-and-desist order against foreign websites that provide illegal digital imports and/ or facilitate the importation of counterfeit goods. In order to issue such an order, the ITC would need to find that the foreign website is “primarily” and “willfully” engaging in infringement of U.S. copyrights or willfully enabling imports of counterfeit merchandise. This standard comports with existing copyright and trademark law. An ITC cease-and-desist order would, under this proposal, compel financial transaction providers and Internet advertising
services to cease providing financial and advertising services to the foreign website. The procedures the ITC would use throughout an investigation under this proposal are similar to those the agency currently employs. The public would be notified of the investigation and respondents would have a right to be heard, as well other interested parties. Final ITC determinations could be appealed in U.S. court. Additionally, this proposal would enable the ITC to boost its capacity to carry out this proposal, to issue expedited cease-and-desist orders when the urgent need for speed is demonstrated, and to prescribe sanctions for those that may try to abuse their rights under this proposal. The proposal would empower the ITC to issue temporary and preliminary cease-and-desist orders, when immediate action is necessary to prevent imminent harm to rightsholders.

Finally, this plan provides appropriate immunity for those entities that are complying with the ITC orders, including financial transaction providers and Internet advertising services that voluntarily refuse to provide services to foreign websites that endanger public health by supplying illicit prescription drugs.
We intend to make public a draft of the legislative text of this proposal in order to enable the public to provide us with feedback and counsel before the proposal is formally introduced the House and the Senate.

E - secretly I want you guys to let me know where possible issues may lay in the proposal.. cause I'm just not knowledgeable enough =)

 

[Raesvelg]

Basically, it's rather similar to SOPA, except it's putting the regulatory power in the hands of the ITC, setting a slightly higher burden of proof for the rights holder, and adding that little caveat about playing nice with people who play nice with us. The enforcement angles look similar, though I didn't notice much about actively blocking access to sites that willfully violate copyright, though I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in the final draft.

 

[Morcheeba]

Yea I thought one of the major issues with SOPA was there would be no questions asked, no investigations or opportunity before shutting sites down regardless of their size. I assume by the sounds of it there would be a substantial decrease in absurd lawsuits as legal steps would include a c&d letter giving reasonable time for sites to take action against such threats before being shut down and ultimately losing business. Again, it sounded reasonable to me. IsoHunt has a few users that are at the top of the list for file sharing, they've the highest rep and most secure or so it seems. If they were to get a c&d letter from the ITC they could block or advice those users of the actions that would be taken if they were to continue sharing illegal content. I haven't the foggiest how they could implement changes to ensure users were unable to upload and share such content, but there has got to be a way.

All and all, moving forward steps do need to be taken. Whether the severity of copyright infringement is diminished to better suit the mass availability and ease of access.. idk.

I won't feel bad when I can't get shit for free anymore. I still buy my video games, all but the oldies you can no longer get. I have 3 emulators on my lappy specifically for games I can't find. Of course because I got these stupid things I've also obtained games I could probably find with a little leg work, but it's so much easier to find the iso online. Newer systems and games I don't even try to find online, F that. They're new, and awesome and if I want to play them I buy them =)

 

[Raesvelg]

Mostly this sort of thing is laying the groundwork for the future. People can bitch all they like about how the industries in question aren't exactly suffering at the moment (though some are or at least have been), but those industries are looking to the future and pretty much saying, collectively:

Shit.

Because we're going to be moving to an increasingly connected world. Internet-capable televisions that any idiot can use, an increasingly tech-savvy populace (particularly as, no offense, the old people die off), and a steadily increasing amount of bandwidth at our collective disposal.

The concept of a television that can connect to the internet isn't exactly new, but making it simple, easy to use, and ready out of the box will be. And hell, I get something like 15 mb/s on the cheap option from Verizon, and technically it's even a bit faster than that.

So it's not a huge stretch to see a day when the very existence of a high-budget piece of entertainment is threatened by easy, ubiquitous piracy.

And these bills aren't really aimed at shutting down YouTube, or eviscerating the community of people who think adding a new soundtrack or subtitles or video to someone else's work qualifies them for some sort of creative protection, but rather shutting down access to sites that are dedicated to breaking copyright law but that the government can't actually shut down, because they're in a country that doesn't want to cooperate.