Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The "PROTECT IP" Act


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Doc Snow

Doc Snow

    n00bie

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:my chair

Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:01 PM

http://torrentfreak....ip-bill-110511/

https://www.eff.org/...act-coica-redux

#2 nyphonejacks

nyphonejacks

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:718

Posted 13 May 2011 - 03:44 PM

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-to-introduce-draconian-anti-piracy-censorship-bill-110511/

https://www.eff.org/...act-coica-redux


not sure why every time they try to introduce legislation to help reduce or eliminate piracy people cry out censorship.. IP (intellectual property) is not public domain.. television, movies, and music costs money to produce, engineer, direct, write, create, etc.. etc... most of the people who work in these industries need the paycheck, it is not just all about the fat cat executives or big name stars, there are many people behind the scenes...

while i have not yet had the chance to look over this with much detail i can not clearly state if this legislation could be used as a means to censor content that is not infringing upon someone else's IP, but there needs to be some balance to help IP owners protect their content while still not imposing censorship against free speech. stealing someone else's work and posting it online for others to down load is in no way "free speech"

this is going to be an uphill battle, because there is a whole generation who have grown up expecting to get all of this content for free, just look at the comments on any youtube video that got DCMA'ed - they feel entitled to infringe upon the IP of others, and get mad at youtube or the IP owner when the content gets removed.

i am not with out guilt, i myself have downloaded or streamed material for free in the past

one of the biggest hurdles i think is that there is not really a decent go to place online for video content as of yet. hulu and netflix are a good start, but there is still a large hole, partially due to the IP owners being concerned with online distribution (and piracy) of their content. not that i am a customer, but itunes helped fill this hole for the music industry, there really is no "itunes" for video content yet, netflix is the closest IMO but the content library for streaming media is still very lacking.

#3 Chaser

Chaser

    Will I break 10 posts?

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:25 AM

nyphonejacks, your opinion is valid and I respect that. What I want to add is that like in every other situation there are different views and concerns about how laws can be used and how frequently they are (mis)used or interpreted as we know in a "fair" justice system.

One example, without getting into to much detail (can be researched and found online) is how Disney, after they copied and plagiarized different media, they managed to sue others that used their stuff and convinced the government to change the laws on how long before some work can move into public domain and bought a bunch of rights making it impossible for anyone to use it whether they created it or not. IP at it's best.

Another example about IP and patents an copyright is in the medical field where an incredible amount of cures for hard know diseases are not only hidden from public, but also protected by law making it impossible to use, just in case some scientists finds them again. I have 2 videos on this forum just about that.

A third example would be where when different people come out with video, audio and evidence about things the government keeps locked, that will and can be considered violation of IP and a website that is courageous enough to post that would be shutdown very easily.

Those just some of the things that trigger that reaction of crying for censorship. Even though not directly mentioned in the law, all those things have a lot to do with the law. And I didn't even start talking about software or media and such.

Please let me know how you feel about those things as I am always eager to listen, learn and look again at things once new information is available :)

#4 nyphonejacks

nyphonejacks

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:718

Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:44 PM

very good points...

I am well aware that laws are often mis-used not for their initial intent or purpose, but to go after other "criminals" - the PATRIOT act for one has redefined the definition of "terrorist" to mean just about any organized criminal group - and even other individuals that you might not normally consider a "terrorist"

there does need to be something done to reduce or eliminate the flow of pirated media to protect the industries that create and produce this media. There is a whole economy out there of people who provide support services in these industries who are not rich and rely on their weekly paychecks to pay the bills...

a law created to help eliminate or reduce piracy needs to be well defined and have a very narrow definition of what is considered infringement so that the law can not be used against someone who is not actually pirating content...

all government information should be public domain - unless there is a actual need to keep the information classified. I know that this is not always the case, and there is tons of classified information that has no need to be classified, not that most of it is important, just that if there is no need for it to be kept a secret then it should be publicly available for anyone.

as for the medical example that your brought up (have not looked at your videos yet) they should fall under an entirely different set of laws, and should be explicitly excluded from any laws preventing piracy of media. i believe that any medical discovery or invention that would provide a positive benefit to society should be tested and brought to market - if the owner of such discovery or invention does not bring it to market after a trial testing period, then that research should become public domain - i would not want a company sitting on the cure for cancer just because they do not feel that the invention would be profitable, if they can not test it and bring it to market within a reasonable amount of time the research data should be made available to any other company or government in the medical field to conduct their own tests and bring the product to market..

i do understand the censorship argument, and i do understand that many times laws are not used for their intended purposes - BUT - at the same time, there does need to be something to reduce the culture of piracy that an entire generation has grown up on - entire industries are at stake here... there is not going to be many big budget feature films, or much hollywood produced HD or 3D content to watch on your fancy new LED TV with surround sound if piracy continues to erode at the profits of these industries..

#5 ThoughtPhreaker

ThoughtPhreaker

    BinRev veteran

  • Members
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:42 PM

IP (intellectual property) is not public domain.. television, movies, and music costs money to produce, engineer, direct, write, create, etc.. etc... most of the people who work in these industries need the paycheck, it is not just all about the fat cat executives or big name stars, there are many people behind the scenes...


As someone who works pretty closely with audio production people a lot of the time, I can say this is definitely true. The music industry is quite frankly, kind of a mess right now. Almost every business that has close ties to it is hurting, or caught between the heat record labels and artists frequently exchange.

From the conversations I've had with these people, I think we're facing some pretty critical issues, and tightening our grip on anything really isn't the answer right now. To start, ASCAP and BMI fees (quite simply, what you pay for music licensing; if you want to broadcast it, throw it up on youtube, or really legally distribute it in any way, you pay these) are already extremely high. Depending on where you're looking at using it, this can sometimes cost literally as much as a house. On top of this, a lot of artists aren't getting the share they'd like from record labels, so if I'm not mistaken, an additional fee is being discussed that would go directly to the artist. For anybody that plays a large quantity of music, this might make it cost prohibitive to play more than a pretty narrow selection.
So again, this is just from word of mouth - there's probably a lot of people much more experienced in this then I am. But from what I can determine, the only real way to realistically clean this up is to make licensing more reasonable, and negotiate with artists.

As someone who grew up during the boom of filesharing (I remember downloading a copy of Star Wars Episode 2 on a 56k modem before it was released in theaters), I always did it because I didn't have money, and asking my parents for it was a hassle. Nowadays, I think the biggest motivator for people is simply convenience; since the standard for bought music has more or less just become mp3s from an online source, there's really no incentive. Regardless of how easy it becomes to take down a website giving out music for free, there'll always be private forums, people emailing each other back and forth, or just swapping flash drives for a few minutes.

In all honesty, I think the best solution to stopping a fair bit of music piracy is vinyl. A ton of people I know - even the most "future-ready" people who haven't laid eyes upon a CD in a decade, and use cellular broadband to listen to Pandora in their car all have frequently used turntables in their houses. Some people think vinyl just has that sound, I guess. Personally, I'd love to see this happen a lot more. People are demanding that CDs (and consequently, mp3s) be mastered to ridiculously loud levels, and it gets louder every year. If you have a level meter of any sort that measures loudness, take a look at a song released this year. It's very, very common for a meter to sit at 0dB; the absolute loudest it can go for minutes at a time. With headphones, this is painful even at a whisper quiet level.

With vinyl, there not only isn't a clearly defined absolute limit for how loud you can make music, the lathe that cuts vinyl masters will supposedly jump around if you make it this loud. At any rate, it doesn't feel like a chore or a health risk to listen to.

But anyway, enough tangents. That's just my two cents.

Edited by ThoughtPhreaker, 18 May 2011 - 07:47 PM.


#6 nyphonejacks

nyphonejacks

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:718

Posted 18 May 2011 - 10:27 PM

on that note, my wife is cataloging about 10 crates of LPs mostly from the 70's that we will eventually be selling, it will take a few weeks to put everything together but it seems like a pretty decent collection...

i do have to agree that things just sound better on a record.. and you can not get that smell of the vinyl from an MP3.. i may be biased towards vinyl based on my favorite artists views on vinyl however...

#7 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 936 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 19 May 2011 - 02:46 AM

thats true its a soother volume but at the cost you have to clean the records :p. i still like the analog presnce thoe :p always makes it sound better. but everybody hates analog tech, else we could have some sweet high speed zipdisk records or somethin :p.

#8 ThoughtPhreaker

ThoughtPhreaker

    BinRev veteran

  • Members
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 May 2011 - 01:45 PM

thats true its a soother volume but at the cost you have to clean the records




If you take care of your equipment and don't let it gather dust, this shouldn't be an issue.


but everybody hates analog tech




Why would you say that?


Anyway, the idea of pushing an analog music format like that is that it carries a unique sound you can't get on anything but that particular physical medium. Not only can you make a bit by bit copy of a digital format, you can transmit it over a packetized network, namely the internet, for free. With turntables, you can make a digital rip of it, but not everybody knows how to make a good recording or even properly calibrate a tonearm, and everybody has a different grade of equipment. So even with a rip, there's always a potential incentive to having your own copy of the album.

#9 nyphonejacks

nyphonejacks

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:718

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:00 PM

thats true its a soother volume but at the cost you have to clean the records :p. i still like the analog presnce thoe :p always makes it sound better. but everybody hates analog tech, else we could have some sweet high speed zipdisk records or somethin :p.

i don't hate analog... in some respects i like analog better than digital...

#10 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 936 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:17 PM

well not really everyone but the markets more/teh companys :p. the only analog i've seen that you could buy still is records usually at an increased cost, but morely, that nobody has been trying to push anything new and all the old stuff is dying away :/.

#11 nyphonejacks

nyphonejacks

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:718

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:58 PM

well not really everyone but the markets more/teh companys :p. the only analog i've seen that you could buy still is records usually at an increased cost, but morely, that nobody has been trying to push anything new and all the old stuff is dying away :/.


Digital vs Analog...
content distribution costs are cheaper with just encoding a file that can be copied over and over VS. having to manufacture physical medium, warehouse it, and ship it - then what happens if your supply exceeds the demand...

for transmission - more content can be transmitted over a smaller range of frequency with digital transmission methods VS analog methods..

as much as i love new tech... there are just some things that i think are easier and more user friendly in analog..

i also prefer cars that have carburetors and no computer VS fuel injection and an on board computer system.... although i am not opposed to adding a computer for entertainment and navigation purposes into an older car...


i think this topic has strayed pretty far from the original intent of this thread...

anyhow - piracy did exist when the standard was a physical medium - LP, cassette, VHS, DVD, etc... but the quality was usually not nearly as good as the original, so the problem was not as wide spread - occasionally people would purchase bootleg cassette tapes and movies, but for the most part still bought legitimate media
now with all of the new technology it has become increasingly simple for just about anyone to reproduce someone else's content and distribute it, with equal or nearly identical quality as the original content... by doing nothing these industries are going to become unprofitable and end up no longer producing quality content.. on the same side, the laws that must be put into place to reduce or eliminate this threat to the effected industries should be specific as to what they exactly cover to prevent the potential for possible misuse...

#12 dinscurge

dinscurge

    "I Hack, therefore, I am"

  • Members
  • 936 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the bunker

Posted 20 May 2011 - 01:06 AM

thats true, but it will probably take awhile to iron out as its a pretty grey area, as there are lots of different kinds of content which should have different rules ect. like.. if some one was to make a video review of a game or something it would make sense to allow footage of said game.. or if you were to make a movie, you shouldn't be able to just rip off other peoples content for say, the background music if the original composers/artists didn't want.. i assume it would take awhile to figure out what content could allow what ect.. its a grey area and somebody will get pissed no matter who they side with/whatever they decide.. :p

#13 gsock

gsock

    Will I break 10 posts?

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 May 2011 - 01:05 PM

Once laws are enacted for internet use, there is no turning back. Internet freedoms will only be stripped. Look at what the FCC did to the radio and tv(for example). While I agree that piracy is killing the industry, there are other ways to tackle this issue. Instead of passing laws against piracy, they can rather invest money into CD's which can not be pirated.

Just my 2 cents...

#14 nyphonejacks

nyphonejacks

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:718

Posted 20 May 2011 - 04:07 PM

Once laws are enacted for internet use, there is no turning back. Internet freedoms will only be stripped. Look at what the FCC did to the radio and tv(for example). While I agree that piracy is killing the industry, there are other ways to tackle this issue. Instead of passing laws against piracy, they can rather invest money into CD's which can not be pirated.

Just my 2 cents...


not necessarily... laws can be repealed, or amended - although this probably does not happen with the frequency that it should..

what exactly did the FCC to to the radio and TV? as far as censorship is concerned they only enforce community standards of obscenity - which is not really censoring freedom of speech, there are other means to listen to or view content that would be considered obscene.. similar rules exist for pretty much all publicly accessible radio frequencies such as CB and amateur radio

not understanding your last statement there about CD's - talking about media I assume you mean compact discs and not certificate of deposits... but CDs can most certainly be pirated, for at least the last 10 years nearly every home PC sold has come with some form of optical media burner, such as a CD or DVD burner.. i do not understand how "investing in CDs" would result in lessening the amount of piracy

we are a nation of laws - most laws are put into place to protect us.. i can not believe that i am fighting on this side of the law, instead of bashing the government... i must be getting old - you can not expect problems like this to solve themselves with out some sort of oversight. if you are getting media for free what would your motivation be to contribute your fair share to the producers of that content if there was no penalties put into place to discourage this type of behavior?

thats true, but it will probably take awhile to iron out as its a pretty grey area, as there are lots of different kinds of content which should have different rules ect. like.. if some one was to make a video review of a game or something it would make sense to allow footage of said game.. or if you were to make a movie, you shouldn't be able to just rip off other peoples content for say, the background music if the original composers/artists didn't want.. i assume it would take awhile to figure out what content could allow what ect.. its a grey area and somebody will get pissed no matter who they side with/whatever they decide.. :p


yes, there should be measures put into place such as "fair usage" policies, similar to how content is usually covered in this way currently..

as for a work of art or media project that was to incorporate someone else's work in it - such as your example of a movie having a song in the back ground... thats what licensing agreements are for..

#15 SirAnonymous

SirAnonymous

    SCRiPT KiDDie

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 May 2011 - 10:37 AM

I have nothing to contribute to this dicussion, other than experience with pirating. But I love reading these thought provoking discussions. Thank you.

Edited by SirAnonymous, 22 May 2011 - 10:38 AM.


#16 Green Man

Green Man

    the 0ne

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2011 - 10:53 PM

@ ThoughtPhreaker


EXCELLENT point about the vinyl.

I am a good example of how Vinyl can reduce piracy. I still might download a certain album for free online for convenience purposes and because I can't wait to hear it before it is released officially. However, I am a big Vinyl Collector and if there is any album I dig, I generally go out and buy the vinyl. In the past, I wasn't really into CDs (except for the jacket sleeve which is cool) but Vinyl is so cool because the media itself is what's awesome, not just some accessory that comes with it. There's something about how one can manipulate the vinyl itself and the sound quality is far superior when spun on vinyl in my opinion (and most others' opinions as well who have ever heard at least a little bit of vinyl on a good turntable and sound system and compared it to the CD played on the exact same sound system.)


After I started collecting vinyl, I probably gave more money to the record industry in a year than I had my entire life before collecting vinyl.

Edited by Green Man, 27 May 2011 - 10:55 PM.


#17 ThoughtPhreaker

ThoughtPhreaker

    BinRev veteran

  • Members
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2011 - 07:30 PM

Glad we've got other people here who like vinyl a lot :) . My personal opinion of it aside, though, the reason I pointed it out is because for the last five years, sales have gone nowhere but up, and very dramatically. As of 2010, they've made their highest sales since 1991. Considering most other parts of the music industry are spiraling downwards, you'd think they would try to stand behind this trend more.

what exactly did the FCC to to the radio and TV? as far as censorship is concerned they only enforce community standards of obscenity - which is not really censoring freedom of speech, there are other means to listen to or view content that would be considered obscene.. similar rules exist for pretty much all publicly accessible radio frequencies such as CB and amateur radio



While I agree that the FCC's censorship laws are mostly stupid, I think broadcasting conglomerates have mostly ruined themselves. Most radio format decisions come from people at the top who read trends on what works and what doesn't, but may not comprehend what context these things work in. This is why you'll have, say, a conservative talk station painting a community full of hippies with 50,000 watts of Rush Limbaugh all day.

Likewise on music format stations, the people programming them don't always understand that, for example, Metallica, and Matchbox 20 have both released popular songs, but putting them back to back is a horrible decision that even your iPod wouldn't make.

Now normally, things like this are just plain funny. But thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there's no cap on how many radio stations a company can own. And it just so happens the company blamed for making most of these hilariously stupid programming decisions probably owns half the station in your market.
Meanwhile, we've come to an era where anybody has enough bandwidth to start streaming anything they deem as radio over the internet from a computer in their house. Not only do these people do it for the sheer enjoyment of doing it, they play music they like from a genre that they listen to. So unless the people making these decisions finally get it through their heads that you need to know your audience before you produce programming for them, we'll probably see one of two things happen;

1) Larger radio companies will deem these stations unprofitable, and sell them off to smaller companies, who rely on knowing how to program a station to keep themselves afloat.

2) They'll try harder and harder to market themselves to an older generation that listens to radio more out of habit, or to people in cars that have no access to the internet

I think we've seen this happen to some degree now. When I lived in Virginia, the station that everybody (and I mean everybody) listened to was a listener-supported rock station.

Edited by ThoughtPhreaker, 30 May 2011 - 07:46 PM.





BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!