Jump to content


Photo

SOPA - PIPA. What you think?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 January 2012 - 07:47 AM

Perhaps if Blu-rays and music CD's weren't so expensive in the first place people wouldn't bother downloading illegally. £15 ($23) for 'Killer Elite' or £17.99 ($28) for 'Final Destination 5' in 3D? They're hardly collectibles.
  • 0

#22 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 January 2012 - 08:21 AM

Just adding on from that, I think the whole physical medium is going out. A lot of peoples use of computers including my own is going cloud based, as it's not so uncommon for people to be using multiple systems to access and modify the same work. I think the future of home entertainment is steering towards wireless NAS drives or cloud based storage readily accessible by TV's, mobile phones, laptops and desktop computers. What needs work on is a digital licensing system so that it's more difficult to distribute the media, but equally it's far easier and quicker to purchase HD/3D content. Combined with a reasonable price I don't think it's impossible.
  • 0

#23 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 21 January 2012 - 11:40 AM

Perhaps if Blu-rays and music CD's weren't so expensive in the first place people wouldn't bother downloading illegally. £15 ($23) for 'Killer Elite' or £17.99 ($28) for 'Final Destination 5' in 3D? They're hardly collectibles.


Do you realize what a VHS copy of a movie cost in the early '80s?

And, if you're talking about Blu-Rays, they deliver almost seven times the image quality as 480P (you can argue it's almost forteen times since SD TV was progressive. Not sure how this compares to PAL which has a higher resolution, but you're still talking 5-6 times time quality I think.)


I hope you aren't implying that movies should be 99¢ for a download. I agree, we're moving away from "instrumentalities" as they'd put it in "Forbidden Planet," but that doesn't mean the movies should cost any less. What's the cost of distributing plastic BluRays? They're almost weightless, and the high volume produced the price has plummeted from what it was for a CD, DVD fifteen or twenty years ago.

I have a feeling the cost you're after just isn't realistic, like an iTunes download. And the studios are justifiably scared, no doubt, now that "freedom from censorship" has given torrent sites and piracy a victory.
  • 0

#24 BC Rice

BC Rice

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 January 2012 - 12:05 PM

Hopefully the seize and take down of MEGAUPLOAD will be a sign of things to come. We only had stupid SOPA and PIPA because the Feds weren't doing their jobs (effectively).

Hopefully sites like rapid share and media fire are soon to follow.

The only problem I had with the SOPA debate was all the little 15 year olds chiming in on it. There's a reason why a child living in their mom's basement isn't allowed to vote on anything better than a grade school election -- because they have no concept of what it means to actually live in the world where people earn things.

There's also this creepy manifestation that seems to be taking hold wherein people are behaving as if the Internet has anything to do with freedom. The Internet has nothing more to do with free speech than does a stripped pole on a party bus. It's completely unrelated. YouTube is a place of business, as is MSNBC.com or my own website. If these websites do not act within the law (or are run by those not acting within the law) then they need to be seized and shut down. But if YouTube is shut down, it has nothing to do with your rights. Megaupload being shut down has nothing to do with anyone's rights except for the site owners -- who are under indictment on a myriad of charges, just one of which is piracy.
  • 0

#25 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 January 2012 - 12:22 PM

Do you realize what a VHS copy of a movie cost in the early '80s?

And, if you're talking about Blu-Rays, they deliver almost seven times the image quality as 480P (you can argue it's almost forteen times since SD TV was progressive. Not sure how this compares to PAL which has a higher resolution, but you're still talking 5-6 times time quality I think.)

I hope you aren't implying that movies should be 99¢ for a download. I agree, we're moving away from "instrumentalities" as they'd put it in "Forbidden Planet," but that doesn't mean the movies should cost any less. What's the cost of distributing plastic BluRays? They're almost weightless, and the high volume produced the price has plummeted from what it was for a CD, DVD fifteen or twenty years ago.

I have a feeling the cost you're after just isn't realistic, like an iTunes download. And the studios are justifiably scared, no doubt, now that "freedom from censorship" has given torrent sites and piracy a victory.

I'm not making comparisons with MP3 downloads and VHS tapes or implying films should cost 99 cents, I'm disagreeing that any one film should be priced at £15 or £17.99. I have a cinema membership that I pay £15 a month for that allows me to see any of the films that are showing, unlimited times on a huge screen with 2k projection. Why would I bother paying that money for one film that I'll probably only watch a few times?

I can appreciate that a hard copy is often looked upon as being more valuable than something stored on a hard drive somewhere, but it's the way home entertainment is moving, as is evident from music downloads, and illegal movie downloads. I'm not always convinced it's just the "free" part that is driving illegal downloads, it's the convenience.

Why not make use of the technology available, and create a legal, convenient and reasonably priced outlet, to cater for and encourage the new 'digital generation', instead of threatening them with lawsuits.
  • 0

#26 Mei Lewis

Mei Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:46 AM

The purpose of law in a democratic, non religion-controlled society is to allow that society to function in a way that reflects its peoples' ideas of right and wrong.

The large number of people who themselves violate copyright law leads me to think that current laws are out of line with the will of the people and will probably be changed soon.

Bigger shifts in law have happened before.
  • 0

#27 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 9515 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:15 AM

Someone reasonably important once said that the only reason copyright law is tolerated is because it is so poorly enforced.

If we picture a world in which, by some sort of near-magical technology, copyright could be enforced to the letter of the law in all possible cases, we can see how absurdly restrictive it could become even under current law. Imagine a world in which you can't watch TV with your friends, because you've only paid for the content for you to watch. Imagine not being able to lend someone a book, or pick up a newspaper on a train. Imagine every photograph ever taken which contained an image of a manmade item, being considered as infringing the rights in the unique design of that item. That would be most photos taken by anyone. Ever.

Copyright is not routinely enforced, cannot be fully enforced, and it is not desirable that it should be when you think about it that way. And yes, it is possible to construct from this an argument that copyright law is out of step with public opinion and should be changed, because it relies on the good graces of rights holders and the good sense of the courts to prevent misuse of the legislation from getting completely out of hand. To date this has been sort of OK and the amount of infringement, and the number of spurious, timewasting copyright cases, has been kept down to a level that's tolerable for people on both sides of the issue.

SOPA and PIPA are scary in the same way as many current laws: not because of what they aim to do, but because of the enormously far-reaching powers they give people. As with current law, I don't think it's very likely that the worst case scenario outlined by a lot of the hardline detractors would ever come to pass, because like most law, it wouldn't be very well enforced.

Regardless, my position remains that this is a very poor justification for bad laws. It might, after all, be you who becomes one of the rare victims of this, and if it's you whose business is ruined and you whose life is destroyed, I suspect you might start taking the issue rather seriously.

P
  • 0

#28 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4360 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 January 2012 - 01:52 PM

Regardless, my position remains that this is a very poor justification for bad laws. It might, after all, be you who becomes one of the rare victims of this, and if it's you whose business is ruined and you whose life is destroyed, I suspect you might start taking the issue rather seriously.

P


Or, people could simply choose to not illegally download copyrighted content via the internet. And avoid the issue all together.

R,
  • 0

#29 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 9515 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 January 2012 - 02:43 PM

You misunderstand my point.


Under the proposed rules, if you run any of a fairly wide variety of online services you would be at extreme risk of being pursued, and having your business and your life destroyed, by copyright owners, on the basis that "you" (that is, your service) was used to infringe their rights.

Now, I'm not for a second defending people like Megaupload, who, it seems likely, were making a huge amount of money out of a service that in my view was successful chiefly because of piracy. Vimeo is a great counterexample because it is mainly used for entirely honest purposes - but it could be used to much the same ends.

What I'm talking about - and what alarms people about this stuff - is rules aimed at MegaUpload (for whom few would speak up) being used against people like Vimeo (who in my view do not encourage or profit by the misue of their service).

It is not OK for the job of distinguishing these two situations to be left in the hands of big corporations.

P
  • 0

#30 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1531 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:09 PM

Or, people could simply choose to not illegally download copyrighted content via the internet. And avoid the issue all together.

R,


As I see it the law doesn't have any disincentive for people downloading material - its a disincentive for people to facilitate it, unknowingly or not.

Using the same approach the best way to avoid the issue altogether is to simply not supply any online services.

This very website could go down - there have been people come on here asking for pirated copies of software.

Where does that leave this discussion ? (literally, as well as figuratively)

Maybe I'm taking this to extremes that aren't realistic ? Someone with more knowledge please tell me if so.
  • 0

#31 Rex Orwell

Rex Orwell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student

Posted 07 February 2012 - 08:21 AM

The purpose of law in a democratic, non religion-controlled society is to allow that society to function in a way that reflects its peoples' ideas of right and wrong.

The large number of people who themselves violate copyright law leads me to think that current laws are out of line with the will of the people and will probably be changed soon.


Good post.

Negative change is promoted though, not positive.

My stance - The day I pay money for a data file that can be wiped from the face of existence should a wrong button be pressed then I must be earning far too much money and so deserve to be robbed for being so stupid. I've constantly got in the region of 6 feature films downloading from torrent sites. I've got a massive physical library of thousands of DVDs, but the days of me taking a punt on a film having never seen it are long gone, it's about refinement now and it's a privilege to get a place on my wall, earn it. In the past decade I've downloaded so much music in better rip-quality than you'd get on iTunes or other download sites for free, that I'd have to have iTunes on constantly for five years just to listen to everything.

In terms of any media, all they're going to do is keep playing with the formats so that you have to keep going out and replacing your old format with the new, ad infinitum, until you die.

The reason these bills exist is because they think they're losing money. They're not interested in you or the artist; it's their own pockets they'd prefer to line more.

Megaupload was important in more reasons than people realise. It was about to launch a new site that artists would upload their music to directly. The artist would divide the cost of that download with Mupload something like 90% to 10% in favour of the artist. In comparison to what they get currently after the giant media corporations have robbed the respective art form this is a massive step forward.

In December of 2011, just weeks before the takedown, Digital Music News reported on something new that the creators of #Megaupload were about to unroll. Something that would rock the music industry to its core. (http://goo.gl/A7wUZ)

I present to you... MegaBox. MegaBox was going to be an alternative music store that was entirely cloud-based and offered artists a better money-making opportunity than they would get with any record label.

"UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings," MegaUpload founder Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz told Torrentfreak

Not only did they plan on allowing artists to keep 90% of their earnings on songs that they sold, they wanted to pay them for songs they let users download for free.

"We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free," Dotcom outlined. "Yes that's right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works."



This was about to revolutionise not just the music industry, but the world.

They couldn't allow it. Which is why they raided this guys house in New Zealand and took all his Cadillac off him. They're desperate to try and rally public and industry support for these bills so that they can protect their cash cow - our art.

There is a whole bunch of disgusting people clinging desperately to their bloated and protected methods of cashing in on everything we do.

Just imagine how much more income you'd generate as a filmmaker or cinematographer if you were able to get a cut of 95% of the cost, each time a film was downloaded. The people in this thread in favour of these bills could unwittingly be destroying the industry and their own futures.

Adapt or die.
  • 0




Zylight

Robert Starling

Aerial Filmworks

System Associates

rebotnix Technologies

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

CineLab

Abel Cine

Lemo Connectors

NIBL

Glidecam

CineTape

Ritter Battery

K5600 Lighting

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Cinelicious

Visual Products

Pro 8mm

rebotnix Technologies

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

System Associates

Cinelicious

Pro 8mm

The Slider

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

NIBL

Robert Starling

CineTape

Zylight

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Lemo Connectors

CineLab

Glidecam

K5600 Lighting

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks