http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM&feature=g-all-u&c...
This is very important, the government is trying to gain the power of corporate censorship. Everything, even BC could be shut down, RAISE AWARENESS!!!!!
BigCloset TopShelf
TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
The Hatbox
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
Well, yes and no.
I was very surprised to see a Total Biscuit video linked here. The bill is stupid and dangerous but it's important not to spread fear. BC would not be shut down. Yes, theoretically anything *could* be shut down. But anything *can* be shut down now. Megaupload was shut down without the passage of this bill. Ninjavideo was shut down for simply *linking* to "illegal" content. It already happens.
That being said, I hope the bill doesn't get passed. The passage of this bill will create far more problems than it will solve. I really hope anyone living in the states, who is aware of what's going on, will sign the various petitions and e-mail or write their representatives. It really does work. It certainly helped during Canada's internet woes these last couple years (The CRTC was originally siding only with the big telecoms in their disputes with indie ISPs. After the government was notified by the general public about how unhappy they were with these various decisions, the CRTC was made to go back and review everything all over and come up with fairer propositions.).
Now things are starting to look up but we still have a long way to go. So does the States. Do all you can because inaction really isn't an option. When laws get passed and decisions are "formalised" it is much harder to reverse them.
Illegal Content.
Well, just think about life in the 70's before Desk Top Computers. If you wanted an Album, you went to the store and "Bought IT". If you wanted a movie, you went to the store and bought it or went to see it at a theater. If you wanted a book, you ... Very good class, you what, Bought IT!
So now, skip ahead to 2011 and suddenly open theft is OK! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is why you can't make money writing. You can't really make money doing any media stuff unless you are really big.
So, to the folks who are screaming about open piracy and theft being blocked, what makes you think that theft is OK? Remember, the eighth commandment, "thou shalt not steal"?
Hmmmmm. If you have a problem with that, then you won't mind my taking your car from in front of your house will you? Oh, I'd like your Microwave too, OK.
Gwendolyn
You can have my microwave if
You can have my microwave if you can copy it and leave mine. You don't want to see the point do you?
The problem is that someone can shut your web-site down just on say so. "There's piracy!" And you can fight to get your stuff back.
How much money have you lost due to "piracy"? It's not like people got richer the last ten years and they have other things they need to spend money on too.
Most people who are pirates wouldn't by the stuff otherwise anyway because they simply can't afford it. I think it's laughable to compare that with theft. It's not like they make money with your stuff.
Beyogi
SOPA
The current provisions of the DMCA work on the basis that copyright holders inform a site of a potential breach of copyright, who may immediately remove the material themselves or inform the uploader, and if the uploader doesn't voluntarily remove the material, then the site removes it. The uploader of the material then has the ability to appeal the decision on the grounds that they do actually have permission from the copyright holders or if it's a case of mistaken identity - their material doesn't contain anything by the alleged copyright holders.
As far as I can tell, SOPA would be much broader in scope: if a site routinely hosts copyright-infringing material (not just torrent sites, but pretty much any site filled with user generated content, e.g. YouTube, Vimeo), then if the site was hosted outside the US, then companies within the US would be required to block access to that site, e.g. by amending DNS servers to point requests for that site elsewhere. Note that it would just remove access from within the US - anyone outside the US could still access the site - which is why non-US proxy servers would almost certainly fall foul of the law.
Basically, media companies are frustrated that they have to get their lawyers to write takedown notices for infringing material - they'd like every website owner to proactively scan for and remove such material. While YouTube has the resources to do this (so probably wouldn't be affected by the provisions), many other sites don't. The proposal would effectively make infringement a case of guilty until proven innocent - sites would be compelled to remove material as soon as an allegation was made, as delaying while they investigated whether the allegation had substance could make them fall foul of the law. It's also uncertain about the impact on search engines - as currently worded, the law could require search engines to block access to potentially infringing sites. Given they index every publicly accessible page on most of the internet, the law would probably require them to dedicate servers to 24/7 searching through their database and removing every single entry pointing to a potentially infringing site or be held liable for providing access to infringing sites.
In a nutshell, while it has been drafted in response to legitimate concerns, it's written by people who don't understand how technology or the internet work - as evidenced by the hearings in November when none on the panel could answer a question on it's likely impact on DNS. It's telling that the primary supporters are representatives of the movie, music and publishing industries (who've been typically slow to catch up with technology - back in the 1980s they were campaigning against home taping / video recording of radio / TV programmes / music - even though such recordings would almost certainly have been for personal, private use), while the primary opponents are technology companies: Google, Mozilla, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Wikimedia - as well as human rights organisations and even the Library Copyright Alliance.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't...
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
non tech
And they keep forgetting that there are ways around certain things (although some are pretty expensive ex . data downlink like they do on ships or, in some cases, planes now a days). I seem to remember some HAM people in class that had a 'LAN' setup aka using their HAM stations to share data creating a private little network over several miles (think that that the max distance between 2 was about 10 miles with 4 or 5 stations).
HAM LANs
Amateur radio operators can use a wide range of frequencies, from sub-AM band (160 meter band) to very high microwave stuff. As an example, some of the frequencies used for Wi-Fi networks are co-allocated to Amateur Radio, and we don't have the power restrictions Wi-Fi users have. I can drive across the United States right now, and using a GPS, cheap PC and a 2 meter-band transceiver, have my location automatically displayed on a map. It would be relayed by digipeters (digital repeaters) until it reaches one that's connected to the web. Many storm spotters/chasers do this so the NWS forecast offices can see where they are. The same setup can bounce a signal off the ISS when it is on the air.
Now amateur radio operators are not supposed to use their equipment for illicit purposes. But the equipment is freely available for sale, the the know-how is no further away than a Google search, and criminals are not known for getting proper licenses. We report illegal activity on the ham bands whenever we find it, but the FCC does not have the money or manpower to chase down but a few. Want a high speed datalink from Mexico to the U.S.? All it takes is paying off the right people.
SOPA is like taking an old percussion cap Colt to a fire fight in a residential neighbor occupied by a rifle company armed with automatic weapons. Who is gonna get hurt? The hostages.
Karen J.
* * *
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. - Winston Churchill
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
Actually this did not start with computers
Hmm...
In the 70's albums were shared by recording them to tape.... Remember cassette tapes...
Books were borrowed from libraries
And later when video tape came along, people would hook up two video recorders and copy a rented tape.
In the early days of computers companies spent lots of money writing anti copy functions for the distribution media... Until business users forced the industry to quit doing so because it was always a problem when you couldn't create a legitimate archival copy. Copy breaking software was routine.
So the implication that this is a new phenomonum is wrong. Yes it is easier today, and the copies are generally better quality then they were then, but definitely not new.
If you look at the video tape situation though, you will find something interesting. When they first came out video tapes were priced at an exorbitant price of around $100 per movie, which led to renting. In fact the first movies I rented, we're from Sam Goodys, a record store at the time. I had to "buy" the movie and then return it, and get a refund for the value less the rental fee. I was in high school at the time and did not have a credit card, so I had to fork out cash. I was working, so I had the money.
It was soon after that a rental store opened at the mall in Short Hills Nj. For those not familiar, this was the "expensive" ie snooty mall in the area. With this place you paid a membership fee, and then could rent without a deposit.
When movie prices finally dropped to a reasonable amount, about $20 per movie, people started buying them.
An interesting take on this whole thing can be found at the Baen Free library... http://www.baen.com/library/
Hugs Kristy
Baen
so i'm not the only one at the Library :d
Not hardly!
It's a great place. And Eric's Grantville series starting with 1632 is wonderful.
Kristy!
No, that's not how it works.
You are misunderstanding the concept of piracy. People don't pirate because "it's so easy", they pirate because they don't have money, the content wasn't worth their money, etc. Stopping piracy, which is completely impossible, would not do anything. It wouldn't generate more sales. People wouldn't be *driven* to buy the content.
The way to stop piracy isn't to create blocks on the internet but rather to offer alternative services that prevent the NEED to pirate. I used to pirate video games because I didn't have much money. Then STEAM came out. It offers me the ability to get games online, instantly. Now I can wait for games to go on sale and buy them legally. Now I hate pirating. I don't do it. I want developers to GET the money to create better and newer content. Raising awareness to piracy is a good first step but also creating better services to make *buying* the content is important.
You're also off-base with your comment: "you can't really make money doing any media stuff unless you are really big." It's simply not true. You can make money now, much easier than you were able to 20 years ago. Youtube pays it's content creators. If you create good content then you get a lot of subscribers, and a decent income. Some people make $70,000 a year or more on youtube content creation. That's what ad revenue does.
Beyond youtube PAYING it's content creators it also gives them greater exposure. I know everyone hates Justin Bieber but he was discovered on youtube. It's a prime example. There are others who have also been offered real world work after being found on youtube. Rob Moran came to great fame on youtube for his series of World of Warcraft videos.
I don't know how much you are aware of how the internet works or what it does or why it's beneficial the way it is but I desperately *urge* you to research it better. It seems to me the people in the US are passing this bill on the same shakey criteria: "I don't know that much about the internet but I do know stealing is bad so I think this bill okay".
This IS NOT about piracy being blocked. It's about any website being taken down for HOSTING piracy that they're NOT aware of. Sites like youtube. This stymies internet innovation. It really does.
As to your example of "stealing". It isn't stealing. It's copy right infringement. Nothing physical is being taken and no profits are being impacted. Please do not make up your mind on this important issue based on misconceptions. Please research it.
Sorry, that's not...
Sorry, that's not necessarily accurate.
You say that pirating is due to people not being able to pay for something... I know quite a few people that were quite capable of buying, but since they could get it for free (or nearly so) they felt "why bother".
There IS a cost point where many would go a "legit" way over pirating... But, that point varies. In a totally unscientific poll (I asked a bunch of folks I knew a few years ago)... Some said they'd never pay for something if they could get it for free. Some said they'd grab stuff to try out, and if they liked it pay for it later. Some would never pirate stuff. But among the rest - there generally was some price point where they said "if that cost x$ then I'd buy it instead of pirate it.
This was really big - a decade ago (in the heyday of Napster, etc...). Folks KNEW it only cost pennies to manufacture the case, CD, etc. And, even if you gave performers and people who did the work a buck or two - at $25 a CD, they KNEW that $20+ was pure profit... And that pissed people off. I know a LOT of people who probably would never have pirated - that did because of that price gouging (a they believed it)
BTW - that survey - all of the people in it could afford to buy music, if they wanted to. None of them were having to decide between music or food or medicine or rent...
Anne
Sorry that's not...
Sorry, that's not necessarily accurate, either.
The evidence that people pirate movies and music and don't spend money on entertainment is based on a false premise: that they then spend their money on other things than entertainment. It turns out people who do have money to spend on entertainment, spend it on entertainment - even when they also download material.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/swiss-govern...
not as think as i smart i am
I didn't say...
I didn't say those people didn't spend it on entertainment... Just not the bit of entertainment they pirated... I know they do... One example - from that same "sample" group was in movies - they would go pay to see a movie just for the large screen and sound. But, they went to far fewer movies than the "downloaded".
I also said that I knew some folks that pirated something they later paid for.
My claim was that it was not simply the fact they couldn't afford what was being pirated that caused the pirating.
I should also note that, sad as it is, I know one person that goes out of his way to pirate things when he could easily afford them. He CLAIMS it is because he has "ethical" issues with US Copyright laws and with the "fact" that the artists themselves get so little of the money is charged for the items. (I suspect part of the reason he did it, even if he didn't admit it - was the buzz he got from the challenge in getting something that was heavily protected. *shrugs*
I also said my survey was not the least bit scientific - the sample was a few dozen people - most of which were in a single geographic area and similar demographically. This was to point out the hole in your argument not provide a competing "reason" for pirating.
IMO - it is a VERY complex issue and most attempts at "solving" it go for SIMPLE answers that fail.
Anne
Yes, it is complex
I'm not going to defend it (among other things, a job in publishing paid for my SRS, so I can hardly claim the business doesn't matter to me).
But I've always been uneasy about copyright, especially since the Mouse Act (DMCA) and the egregious extension of time allocated for copyright protection. Likewise, I'm really unhappy about DRM protection taking away most of the 'fair use' provisions that were available in non-digital media. So I can sort of understand your friend's ethical concerns.
There's also the fact that my former employer, one of the largest publishing houses in the world, was originally made large by ripping off the works of Charles Dickens. For many years the United States didn't respect copyright at all, and many of the big media companies got started by pirating work from famous foreign authors without paying them a penny. In that context their current hypocrisy regarding Chinese pirates makes me snort coffee out my nose. Not a pretty sight. None of the big media companies have the right to bring 'morality' into this discussion at all.
not as think as i smart i am
That's not what I said at all.
"You say that pirating is due to people not being able to pay for something... I know quite a few people that were quite capable of buying, but since they could get it for free (or nearly so) they felt "why bother"."
What I actually wrote was: "People don't pirate because "it's so easy", they pirate because they don't have money, the content wasn't worth their money, etc."
The point I was getting at was there are a multitude of reasons people pirate and I included them. It's not as simple as a "why bother buying it" attitude among consumers. I highly question whether those people would have paid for the product had no other avenue existed for them to enjoy it. If you feel a product is worth your money, and you can afford to pay for it, why wouldn't you? They clearly didn't feel the product was worth their money and chose not to give it. The point still stands that there is no way to prove a loss of revenue due to piracy.
The majority of your post is what confused me though. You made an argument FOR a point I was making. If the price is affordable, and the avenue to get it is easy enough, people are generally more willing to pay for things. However, if a price is unreasonable people aren't as likely to purchase it. Will I pay 12 bucks to rent a movie I have no way of knowing if I'll like? No. Will I pay 15 bucks to see a film I'm interested in in theatres? Yes. It's all about experience, ease of access, and levels of enjoyment you'll receive. I don't feel much guilt at all over pirating movies because on average films make enough money to cover their budget (and then some) while still in theatres.
That being said, if films were offered online in a similar fashion to STEAM at discounted prices I'd probably purchase them and not watch illegal streams. For example, Netflix's 8.99 price is reasonable and I'm more than willing to pay it in order to enjoy quality content with a reliable streaming service.
However, their collection is pretty dated and has very little of what I'm interested in. I have no choice but to pirate or else go bankrupt trying to legitimately purchase all the TV shows or Movies that I'm interested in watching. For example, I love Akira Kurosawa films and wish to watch them. If I were to purchase the collection it would cost me $320. Even that leaves out a few of his films. Do you think that's a reasonable price for 25 films that are 40 to 70 years old? Add to that my wish to watch True Blood (50 bucks per season), Doctor Who (same), Futurama (same), and various anime; don't even get me started on anime! It can cost anywhere from $90 to $120+ for as few as 12 episodes of an Anime. Is it then any surprise that piracy in the west is so high for anime?
What I said was quite accurate, whether or not you agree with it is an entirely different matter. In order to combat piracy the industries need to take another look at how they deliver content. Their prices need to come down, which is completely do-able in a digital age with no production overhead to take care of.
PS with SOPA and the other
PS with SOPA and the other one being worldwide news a radiohost did some checking on the local situation. Seems I can download as mutch as I want and from every source that I want as long as I keep it at 'home'. And that's complitely legal over here (although written mainly for books and tapes it takes downloading being the same as coppying according that a law professor)
On the other hand, illegal sources are prosecutable on basis of the same law 'cause they are considered as bussiness. And that doens't change the rights of the 'vendors' (artists, writers prudctioncompagnies, publicers, ...) to try and make sure we don't copy/download stuff, but buy instead.