Internet Regulations

nazarbaz

It makes a lot of sense to the artists I know...

Evo

Then it doesn't concern the thread topic.

Drakkith

The issue arises because a great many people don't hold this view, hence copyright laws.

Also I'd like to remind anyone reading this that this thread isn't just about artists and music. Film, TV, animation, software, artwork, and more are all relevant.

nanosiborg

I suppose you now have a better idea what it means. Several examples of "internet regulation" have been presented.

I wonder if a site like, eg., YouTube would or could ever be shut down.

Even with the shutting down of hosting service websites like Megaupload, it seems to be as easy now as ever to download just about any music, movie, and print stuff for free.

What about populist movements 'promoted' by the existence and use of social networking sites such as facebook. Could facebook ever be shut down "in a national interest"?

TheMadMonk

You've lost me. You say the definition of theft absolutely must be changed but then tell me that in the US it is considered theft anyway. Why must it be changed if you acknowledge the law is already sufficient?

I do also apologise for commenting on a topic relating to US affairs without being an American.

Evo

The information that copyright infringement isn't theft is outdated and needs to be reworded to include theft. Copyright infringement refers to a very broad area and many types of products. Not all infringement would be theft, but in the sense that we are discussing it in this thread, it is theft, and it seems that the US government agrees. It appears that way too many people still seem to think it's not theft, and that needs to be corrected.

SixNein

Web sites can only collect a limited amount of information unless you volunteer more. The default information that they collect is needed for web site management. For example, they are going to know your IP address. And they are always going to know an IP address because IP addresses are required for identification of machines across networks. They will know what URL you wish to request, what kind of browser and operating system your using, and what URL refereed you to the current page. And all of these things are important for web site management.

You have to volunteer your personal information.

SixNein

Please link me to a supreme court citation for the claim that the US agrees. You linked a title of a bill, but the title of a bill isn't law and has no standing in law.

And you have yet to demonstrate why anything is needed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothyl...usic-industry/

nanosiborg

SixNein, I agree with your, and certain others', take on this aspect of proposed increases in internet regulation.

The most wealthy beneficiaries of retail sales of various forms of entertainment (especially music and movies) are arguing for regulations to further limit free downloading based on the assumption that the people doing the free downloading (or some percentage of them) would have paid the retail price for certain entertainments had they not been able to download them for free, and are thus 'stealing' money from artists and companies -- which seems to me to be, possibly, a baseless assumption, and therefore an empty argument.

What are the speculative numbers that the recording and movie industries attach to their claim? How do they get those numbers?
Is it possible that none of the people downloading copies of copyrighted works would have paid retail price for them?

SOPA and PIPA would cost the government tens of millions of dollars to implement had they passed. Would the movie and recording industries really be better off if this sort of internet regulatory legislation passed?

Evo

It is law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

nanosiborg

It seems quite clear to me that the basis of the movie and music industries' backing of SOPA and PIPA is their (and your) assumption that "probably a large number would have" bought the works they downloaded for free if they couldn't download them for free.

I'm just asking how they (and you) know that, and would like to see what speculative numbers you attach to that assumption and how you got them.

Evo

Any downloading of these items is illegal, only the amount is currently taken into consideration when considering whether to prosecute. It doesn't matter what percent would have paid for them.

Do you believe that theft is ok?

nanosiborg

How do you know this? What number are you talking about? Citation? Evidence?

This makes no sense. If you're streaming it for free, then you're downloading it, ie., in your view, 'stealing' it. Uh oh!

nanosiborg

It seems that, by you own admission, you're a copyright infringer. Do you believe that's ok?

Evo

I don't download.

I don't use sites known to provide illegal content. If it's available for free on the originator's website, services like hulu, or youtube, which is carefully policed for infringement, I will watch, but I rarely do so.

Also, stop the false accusations.

nanosiborg

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that "Obviously not all would have paid for it, but probably a large number would have." Until you do, can I regard your assertion as misinformation?

Why is it important? Because, for one thing, if copyright protected works are downloaded only by people who wouldn't or couldn't have bought them, then the proposed SOPA and PIPA are unnecessary extensions of governmental internet regulation, and a gross waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Evo

Here you go.

According to new statistics from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), approximately 95 percent of all music downloads on the Internet are currently illegal, in that they infringe on copyright and cut the flow of cash to companies and artists. As a result, revenues have dropped globally by some 7 percent last year alone. Peer-to-peer (P2P) site representatives say that trying to hold on to obsolete copyright laws in the modern setup of the Internet proves that the companies have no real understanding of how the system works.[/quote]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/95-Pe...l-102185.shtml

But they aren't stolen only by people that would not have bought them, IMO. Unless you have proof of that.

Can't buy them? Give up a trip to McDonald's if you want a CD.

You sound very young, I'm guessing teens to early 20's and grew up with the internet?