Gov't wants easier internet wiretapping

[snupy]

That would be because you've left out a step, snupy. Copyright law already recognizes the difference between having something in your RAM and having it on your harddrive. Things do not stay in your RAM indefinitely. They are copied to RAM, used to speed up certain processes, and then removed from the RAM.

But the fact remains, computers are very efficient copy machines, having the ability to produce INFINITE PERFECT copies of a given file. How can 'copyright' be enforced with technology with this ability? Did horse carriages survive the invention of cars? Why must the government step in to preserve the outmoded business models of the media cartels? Oh that's right. Help is available to those in that economic class. How could I forget?

[snupy]

The Obama administration is pushing for new wiretap laws that will allow them to collect anything and everything you do on the Internet. Including any calls you make on Skype, any updates on your Facebook page, and any emails you send. Welcome to Obama's police state.

There is a movement beginning to censor the internet in the United States. This bill, the COICA, will be the first step. This is real, and terribly frightening.

It's the "Dept of Homeland Security version 2.0."

Bush vs Obama - What's the difference?

God Damn It, Dems Propose Bill That Would Gut FCC's Ability To Protect Net Neutrality

FBI Raids Homes of Antiwar Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. This has to stop.


Its all part of a long-term plan:

"It is a sign that freedom is under attack when governments pronounce politically engaged citizens as "terrorists" and "extremists," and put anti-war activists on government files."

It's the Department of Homeland Security version 2.0.

Bush vs Obama: What's the difference?

[sgreger1]

But the fact remains, computers are very efficient copy machines, having the ability to produce INFINITE PERFECT copies of a given file. How can 'copyright' be enforced with technology with this ability? Did horse carriages survive the invention of cars?

I totally see your point and the horse/buggy analogy is a very good one, but I don't think we should abandon copyright laws just yet. Theres a lot of money in it and it's a significant amount of commerce annually.

But just because computers are good at copying does not mean they should be used for illegal purposes. Knives are efficient stabbing machines, capable of stabbing many people over and over. Doesn't mean we should get rid of anti-murder laws, you know?

[sgreger1]

It's the Department of Homeland Security version 2.0.

Bush vs Obama: What's the difference?

Lol, i've been yelling this at you since you first came here! There is no change, the regime is in place and they are all going to do the same thing. The elections will be a lose for Americans across the country regardless of whether a dem/rep wins.

[snupy]

I totally see your point and the horse/buggy analogy is a very good one, but I don't think we should abandon copyright laws just yet.

We are not the ones who abandoned it. Where was the recording industry during the days of Napster? They were ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL! They had grown quite comfy selling a CD with 1 good song and 9 CRAP songs for 20 bucks. Where was the market going during that time? Consumers wanted to buy ONE SONG and not pay 20 BUCKS FOR IT. How many years passed before the recording industry decided to wake up to marketplace realities? Oh hell, they never did. Apple had to show those buffoons how it's done. And since the recording industry were utter imbeciles FOR YEARS and totally missed the boat, now the government must step in to insure their profits? That's quite an interesting take on a business model, don't you think?

Theres a lot of money in it and it's a significant amount of commerce annually.

Piracy doesn't represent a loss of income. Those who pirate would never had paid for it to begin with. Have you ever downloaded a song and promptly deleted it because it was UTTER CRAP or encoded so crappily you would never, EVER play it?

How come I used to be able to walk into a music store, sit down and listen to a CD BEFORE I CHOSE TO BUY IT, but I couldn't do the same thing on the net LEGALLY for many years, because some whiny imbeciles decided they would dictate to their customers how music would be consumed, rather that provide the music to the customers in the form in which they wanted it AND WERE TOTALLY PREPARED TO PAY FOR? Who cares about 128 bitrate encoded CRAP music files being shared so freely on the internet? It will sound like CRAP no matter how good your speakers. Give me a high quality encoded file, even an unencoded WAV file for a decent price and I will buy, because I have.

But just because computers are good at copying does not mean they should be used for illegal purposes. Knives are efficient stabbing machines, capable of stabbing many people over and over. Doesn't mean we should get rid of anti-murder laws, you know?

Would banning knives stop murders? If not, why ban them?

And how long does copyright last now? Is it 75 years after the author's death? Copyright was 14 years at the country's founding, but that wasn't enough for the aristocrats. Yet, neither you nor I will be paid 75 years after our death for work we do while alive. Why would I support the idea that anyone else should be paid for completed work years after their deaths? Especially when the creators rarely benefit from the rights, while the aristocrats in the media cartels do. They are vermin and our society would be better off without them, as some artists have already discovered. But then again, the early music industry was run by the mob anyway, which is why we see so little has changed today.

[sgreger1]

We are not the ones who abandoned it. Where was the recording industry during the days of Napster? They were ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL! They had grown quite comfy selling a CD with 1 good song and 9 CRAP songs for 20 bucks. Where was the market going during that time? Consumers wanted to buy ONE SONG and not pay 20 BUCKS FOR IT. How many years passed before the recording industry decided to wake up to marketplace realities? Oh hell, they never did. Apple had to show those buffoons how it's done. And since the recording industry were utter imbeciles FOR YEARS and totally missed the boat, now the government must step in to insure their profits? That's quite an interesting take on a business model, don't you think?



Piracy doesn't represent a loss of income. Those who pirate would never had paid for it to begin with. Have you ever downloaded a song and promptly deleted it because it was UTTER CRAP or encoded so crappily you would never, EVER play it?

How come I used to be able to walk into a music store, sit down and listen to a CD BEFORE I CHOSE TO BUY IT, but I couldn't do the same thing on the net LEGALLY for many years, because some whiny imbeciles decided they would dictate to their customers how music would be consumed, rather that provide the music to the customers in the form in which they wanted it AND WERE TOTALLY PREPARED TO PAY FOR? Who cares about 128 bitrate encoded CRAP music files being shared so freely on the internet? It will sound like CRAP no matter how good your speakers. Give me a high quality encoded file, even an unencoded WAV file for a decent price and I will buy, because I have.



Would banning knives stop murders? If not, why ban them?

Right and I get that, but I still think you are confusing your terms a little bit. For example, apple coming in and legally selling a superior product is different than allowing people to take it for free.

And what do you mean people only pirate shit they wouldn't buy. Are you for real? lol. I always check if I can get something for free first before buying it. If I can download a song, I will not buy it on itunes. If I can download photoshop, I wont pay several hundred dollars for it.

I completely agree that piracy serves as a wake up call to an industry that has not properly adjusted it's prices to what their "real" or "fair" value should be, but just saying everyone can steal what they want is not good for innovation, the economy, business, or individuals (since eventually content is reduced because people aren't going to work for free)


I mean i'm not for over regulation, but I don't think we should allow people to walk into supermarkets and pick what they want and "choose" whether or not they want to pay for it. That being said, the music industry has done just fine. They all still make millions so I as a person don't really care, but if everyone could easily steal without repercussion they likely would.



"Would banning knives stop murders? If not, why ban them?"


I know they cant stop piracy all together, but saying it is no longer illegal would lead to a significant rise in piracy and therefore rules against it help "keep honest people honest". Meaning someone will still pay for it if they are afraid of getting caught. We say you can't stab someone because if there were no laws against it, such things would be much more prevalent. Laws don't fix the problem all together, but it adds some order to the chaos.



Also, about your experience with not being able to preview music, I totally agree. However, itunes for example lets you preview the song first. What you are talking about is going into a music store, taking the CD home, then deciding whether or not you would like to buy it. Much different from getting a preview at the time of purchase, which is something the market has already brought to us via itunes.

[raptor]

Material being subpar doesn't justify piracy.

[snupy]

And what do you mean people only pirate shit they wouldn't buy. Are you for real? lol.

Absolutely. If you were in an economic class where your choice was buying food for your kids or paying for music, how would you spend your money?

I always check if I can get something for free first before buying it. If I can download a song, I will not buy it on itunes. If I can download photoshop, I wont pay several hundred dollars for it.

And how is that possible? Oh, that's right. Computers are very efficient copy machines which can produce INFINITE PERFECT COPIES. Gee, I wonder what effect that will have on copyright, when almost everyone can easily own an efficient copy machine which can EASILY PRODUCE INFINITE PERFECT COPIES? Gee, I wonder if the horse and carriage will survive the economics of that situation? Oh I know. Let's ban cars to insure the horse and carriage survives the market realities. That always works, doesn't it?

I completely agree that piracy serves as a wake up call to an industry that has not properly adjusted it's prices to what their "real" or "fair" value should be,

When even the most uneducated and barely literate among us can purchase a very efficient copy machine which can produce an INFINITE NUMBER OF PERFECT COPIES, the value of each copy becomes effectively ZERO! AND THAT IS THE MARKET REALITY! Now surely the stupid will believe they can turn back market realities, but they would have a better chance of success in stopping the tide in the Atlantic from coming in.

but just saying everyone can steal what they want

Copying a file is not stealing. If you steal my car, I no longer have a car. If you copy a song from my hard drive, I still have my copy, because you have deprived me of nothing.

is not good for innovation, the economy, business, or individuals (since eventually content is reduced because people aren't going to work for free)

1. Claiming since one created a work they can sit on their behinds for the rest of their life and collect royalties, and then their descendants can do the same for 75 years after they die, is not good for innovation, creativity, the economy, business or individuals. Why sit on their behinds instead of working every day at new creations just like everyone else who works every day? Why should their descendants sit on their behinds and collect royalties, instead of get off of their behinds, discover their own talents, and create, produce, or innovate what they can to benefit society, the economy, business and themselves?

2. Tickets for live performances do not constitute 'working for free.' IE, there are other ways for artists to make money than selling copies of their songs.

I don't think we should allow people to walk into supermarkets and pick what they want and "choose" whether or not they want to pay for it.

Does not compute. If you steal an item from Walmart, Walmart no longer has that item to sell. If you copy a song, the original still exists and the owner still has possession of it, which means you've deprived the owner of nothing.

However, a profit can be made off of dirt. If I want to divide my houseplants, I need dirt. I can walk out in my backyard and dig up all the dirt I want for free. Yet, I go to Walmart to buy my dirt. Why? Because they ADD VALUE, WHICH PROMPTS ME TO BUY. In an age when even the barely literate can purchase a machine with can produce infinite PERFECT copies of any file, those selling copies MUST ADD VALUE TO MAKE THE SALE. THEY MUST DISTINGUISH THEIR COPY AS BEING BETTER THAN THE COPIES IN EVERYONE'S BACK YARD.

That being said, the music industry has done just fine. They all still make millions so I as a person don't really care, but if everyone could easily steal without repercussion they likely would.

It's not theft, because the owner of the original file is deprived of nothing, which is not the case if you steal my car. Counting everyone who copies a song as a lost sale is foolishness. It's an imaginary sale of imaginary 'property.'

However, itunes for example lets you preview the song first.

And what I am telling you is, this 'piracy' problem the media cartels like to whine about, was solely self-created. They brought it on themselves. Imagine a time when the ONLY music you could possibly buy was in CD form. Imagine a time when the recording industry was still living in the last century, telling you the ONLY way you can have music is if you buy a CD. Imagine you, along with the rest of the entire world, had left the last century and moved into the next century, which meant you wanted to buy your music online in a digital download, kind of like Itunes is today. But you COULDN'T buy music online in a digital format, because the entire record industry was still in the last century trying to sell 1 good song and 9 crap songs on a CD for 20 bucks. What would you do in that situation? Do you wait 5 or 6 years for the recording industry to pull their heads out of their behinds and discover the internet? Or do you start building the networks to get the music you want in the format you wish? What happens if an industry doesn't answer the needs of the market? File-sharing and 'piracy' was born, all because the record industry didn't even know the internet existed, didn't know about digital formats, didn't have a store setup where you could buy digital music, because they were stuck in the last century selling CDs.

(And by the way, I don't pirate software or music. I use GNU software, which means the license on the software is fulfilled whenever I copy it and give it away or sell it. For music, I either purchase or download from artists who INTENTIONALLY make their music available freely on the internet. Whether purchased or freely available, the music I download is from outside of the recording industry. I do have songs ripped of my own CDs, although I am sure the recording industry feels I should pay them for making copies of songs on a CD I paid for but they 'own.' They have all manner of imaginary ways to make profit off of their imaginary property, not a one of which works in the real world.)

[raptor]

Well that's all folks, time to stop making music because snupy will try his hardest to make sure you're deprived of your artistic profits.

[snupy]

Well that's all folks, time to stop making music because snupy will try his hardest to make sure you're deprived of your artistic profits.

Not true. An artist, excuse me, a recoding industry executive, can still make money selling a song, just as a company can make money selling dirt, even though dirt is plentiful in many backyards. Itunes proves that money can still be made on selling copies of data files. However, that's not the only way to make money in music. Live perfomance pays too ,as does selling merchandise.

What I am saying is, the media cartels claimed all of the following would destroy their business:

1. cassette tape recording
2. VCRs
3. computers

Given they were wrong on both 1 &2, why would I assume them correct on #3? Why should the taxpayers assume them correct and toss more tax dollars at another media cartel boondoggle, when they were so stupid that Apple had to show them how to sell their own product?

A.The media cartels tried decss to lock up the content, which was promptly broken.

B. The media cartels tried DRM to lock up the content, which was also broken.

C. The media cartels tried Blu-ray encryption which was ALSO recently broken.

D. Now the media cartels think warrantless wiretapping will stop 'piracy.'

Now, am I the only one who sees a pattern in #s 1-3 above & A-C above and see where that pattern will inevitably lead in D above?

Saying 'stopping piracy doesn't work,' is not at all the same as saying 'artists should not be paid for their work,' particularly when those who used cassette tapes and VCRs were also accused of 'piracy,' by the media cartel royalty.

The media cartels are being drama queens again, with yet another 'the sky is falling' scenario. They do this repeatedly. Why placate them at taxpayer expense? Why reward them with tax dollars if they are too ignorant to figure out how to sell/profit off of the product they produce?

[snupy]

Material being subpar doesn't justify piracy.

You totally missed the point. Material being subpar on the file sharing networks was the industry's doorway to profit. If you know the overwhelming majority of files out there are in crappy mp3 format encoded at 128, then you offer the music in REAL formats encoded at higher bit rates, or even unencoded formats at a premium price. Of my own CDs that I ripped, not a one was ripped at below 320, because I want CLARITY and mp3s encoded at 128 are not CLEAR, not even close.

If you buy outside of the recording industry, you can download files and encode them at whatever bitrate you prefer or not encode them at all. Usually in these instances, the artists will get 50% of the purchase price, instead of the pennies the industry would normally 'pay' an artist. But that's how I choose to support an artist. I'd much rather see the artist get 50%, rather see an artist get 'paid' a few pennies while an industry executive STEALS the rest of the artists' profits (while claiming those previewing music at home are the real thieves.)

[lxskllr]

There needs to be a severe reform of copyright/patent laws. Isn't it funny how copyright periods get extended every time Mickey Mouse gets ready to released to the public domain? Your grandkids will be paying royalties to Disney for watching 150 year old cartoons :^S

The law in place today isn't at all what drafters had in mind with copyright law. It was never intended to be a perpetual investment, and what we have now stifles creativity, which is the antithesis of copyright. The consumer as well as the artists have gotten screwed for years. All the power was concentrated in the record companies. You dealt with them on their terms, or you GTFO. They're scared now. The power's been stripped from their hands, and they're becoming increasingly irrelevant. The process from creation to distribution to promotion can happen without them, and they're wondering what they're gonna do for a job.

[devilock76]

Case in point, "Happy Birthday" is still under copyright.

Ken

[truthwolf1]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s111-3804

From what I've digested from others' posting on this topic, the bill provides the legal infrastructure to shut down sites which violate copyright infringement, including ramifications for offshore-hosted ones by removing their DNS registry (most DNS servers are located in the USA). This will be done with appropriate court orders.

Same goes for wiretapping, it requires ISPs to have the infrastructure to carry out court-ordered wiretapping.

It seems to be a good step towards combating piracy and providing legal wiretapping means (unlike the Obama administration's warrantless ones), although I'm personally against regulation of the internet.

The squeeze sounds like it will be on the sites that are offering entertainment downloads for free and not against people who have downloaded that entertainment.

What is with all this shut down the internet in case of a emergency deal? Will this be kinda like the Bush terror color alert swatches.

There has been a "LEVEL 3 ORANGE ALERT THREAT" and the internet will be back on at 12:00 pm eastern time kinda thing going on in the future?

[sgreger1]

Your all over the place bro, just hear what i'm saying:

"Absolutely. If you were in an economic class where your choice was buying food for your kids or paying for music, how would you spend your money?"

If you cannot afford something than don't buy it. Stealing it is not how it works. I can not afford ferraris, does that mean I should legally be able to steal it since I wouldn't have bought it anyways? Your analogies make no sense, you are justifying stealing something just because you can't afford it.

"Oh, that's right. Computers are very efficient copy machines which can produce INFINITE PERFECT COPIES. Gee, I wonder what effect that will have on copyright, when almost everyone can easily own an efficient copy machine which can EASILY PRODUCE INFINITE PERFECT COPIES? Gee, I wonder if the horse and carriage will survive the economics of that situation? Oh I know. Let's ban cars to insure the horse and carriage survives the market realities. That always works, doesn't it?"

No one is saying the government should ban cars to help the horse and buggy industry. The market naturally takes care of that, and people spend money on the superior product. What you are advocating is that because cars came out, and you can't afford one, the government should make it legal to steal one. Maybe take it home and try it out and then decide if you want to buy it later. If you can't pay for something, you don't get it, that's how it works.

"When even the most uneducated and barely literate among us can purchase a very efficient copy machine which can produce an INFINITE NUMBER OF PERFECT COPIES, the value of each copy becomes effectively ZERO! AND THAT IS THE MARKET REALITY! Now surely the stupid will believe they can turn back market realities, but they would have a better chance of success in stopping the tide in the Atlantic from coming in."

Yes and the most uneducated and barely literate could also easily grow their own food in a garden, but this does not mean we should make it legal to go steal whatever you want from the grocery store. Just because an object CAN be used for a particular purpose does not mean it should be. Like my knife analogy, it can be used for lots of good purposes, but we regulate against using it in ways that do not benefit society, i.e. you cannoy stab someone. Some people will still get stabbed, but it is greatly reduced since people will be afraid of getting in trouble = net benefit to society.

"Copying a file is not stealing. If you steal my car, I no longer have a car. If you copy a song from my hard drive, I still have my copy, because you have deprived me of nothing."

What planet are you living on, by your standard that means I could go copy another companies product and sell it. Hey I didn't take it from them, I just copied it right? Forget buying a book, I have a computer and can just make a digital version of it, so now no one should buy books either! I mean we're just "copying" everything right? It doesn't work that way, inventors, writers, artists etc have intellectual property or real property which they sell for a profit. If we didn't allow people to make money of books for example, less good books would be published. Companies would steal other companies secrets etc. THey'r just "copying", right?

"1. Claiming since one created a work they can sit on their behinds for the rest of their life and collect royalties, and then their descendants can do the same for 75 years after they die, is not good for innovation, creativity, the economy, business or individuals. Why sit on their behinds instead of working every day at new creations just like everyone else who works every day? Why should their descendants sit on their behinds and collect royalties, instead of get off of their behinds, discover their own talents, and create, produce, or innovate what they can to benefit society, the economy, business and themselves?"

Artists do work and create new stuff. This is why artists like mettalica have like 20 albums. They make something, own the fruits of their labor, and sell it. Then they go on to create more over the years and get money for whatever they sell. This is how an economy works. Without this basic concept of "I own (and can sell) the fruits of my labor", there is no trade and no market.

"2. Tickets for live performances do not constitute 'working for free.' IE, there are other ways for artists to make money than selling copies of their songs."

How would you like it if I told you that only some of your work should be paid? What if you showed up for an 8 hour day at the office and was like "Yah you only get paid for 2, because that's what I consider "real work" that you did, even though you were here for 8? The point is that if they can create something which someone else is willing to buy, they can. That is what America is about. You can't just come in out of nowhere and say "Hey, only some of your work you should get paid for". It doesn't work like that.

"Does not compute. If you steal an item from Walmart, Walmart no longer has that item to sell. If you copy a song, the original still exists and the owner still has possession of it, which means you've deprived the owner of nothing."

Except for the profit they would have made. If you could easly get everything they sell at walmart for free, walmart would not exist. This is bad for the economy, as I mentioned before. You are stealing someones work product and you are trying to use mind games to justify it as not stealing.

"Counting everyone who copies a song as a lost sale is foolishness. It's an imaginary sale of imaginary 'property.'"

It's not very imaginary when you are enjoying the product of their labor in your car stereo than is it? I wish your labor could be packaged in a digital form so you could work all day and get paid nothing for it because some twit on the internet says you didn't really do any work and your labor is not worth compensation.

"(And by the way, I don't pirate software or music. I use GNU software, which means the license on the software is fulfilled whenever I copy it and give it away or sell it. For music, I either purchase or download from artists who INTENTIONALLY make their music available freely on the internet. Whether purchased or freely available, the music I download is from outside of the recording industry. I do have songs ripped of my own CDs, although I am sure the recording industry feels I should pay them for making copies of songs on a CD I paid for but they 'own.' They have all manner of imaginary ways to make profit off of their imaginary property, not a one of which works in the real world.) "

I don't even know why i'm debating this because I just pirate all my shit anyways and no one can stop me. Because I don't care. I'm just saying I am not going to convince myself that I am doing anything other than stealing. I havn't bought a CD in maybe 6 years or more. I pay for almost no software, mainyl because it's too overpriced for me. The irony is that they take into account the sales lost to piracy and add it into the sale price of the product, which makes me want to buy it even less! Your right though, I odn't feel bad for the industry really because they have not been on the cutting edge and always try to slow down technology to meet their needs. It's something they will never accomplish. And this whole thing where you can't copy a song onto all of your devices is outright annoying. I buy a song on itunes and then I can only use it in 1 or two computers? I can't burn a copy of a CD I bought? LOl, good luck enforcing THAT on the internet.