Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
●●ĶÁĨ●● (ズﾑﾉ)
4301 Followers
Who New Media
1788 Followers
emfkJan 22, 2012
Time to kick our efforts up a notch or two. We can't rest until politicians around the world know that we're serious about keeping the internet free and flowing.
anomaly100Jan 22, 2012Submitter
This is a great idea IMO. It was born from Reddit two days ago:
http://imgur.com/pPDak
Granted, that's over SOPA/PIPA but the idea is still doable.
maquereautinJan 23, 2012
That is easy for me. Most of the stuff released now is crap.
foolycoolyJan 23, 2012
How does not pirating hurt the industry except in the most absolute sense that one person probably bought the physical copy in order to share it?
jftitanJan 23, 2012
As it was discussed on Reddit, this plan just will not work. This is another level of Boycotting, that the average population just can't control themselves well enough to actually perform.
Yes many of us "on the internet' can say we can do this, but what about the 10x more people who have kids or not connected to the 'media that actually matters', like the things we discuss on sites like Reddit and Digg, Slashdot, etc, etc, etc, 4Chan....
I'm all for this. And i'm sure many more people are prepared to do a March Boycott. Hell I know I'm broke and poor enough, because Wells Fargo, just jacked $130 in NSF/OverDrafft fees in my last Direct Deposit. So literally, I'm broke for next month before it will even arrive.
(Before some dumbass chimes in with a snide remark about, don't spend money you don't have to avoid OD..a pre-f**k you is in order. My NSF fees are for transactions that have been cleared, and then re-'Cleared' after a larger transaction was processed. As in small transactions that cleared, and the Electric bill processes two days AFTER. Only to find out the day AFTER the electric bill is processed, the smaller transactions are re-dated for AFTER the electric bill, thus the bank hits me with OD fees.) This s**t should be illegal.
When this happened nearly a year ago before, the excuse was "We do this to ensure you have the funds to cover the larger bills you need paid." My logic back was, By robbing me, and ensuring my NEXT paycheck is less, to help make me further behind in being able to pay my bills the following month. Thanks f**kholes.
njdoo7Jan 23, 2012
The politicians don't care what you think, they only care about what you will do.
What will you do if they pass this legislation? My bet would be nothing except complaining.
They only care if this somehow interferes with their livelihood. Otherwise, they will continue to whore themselves out to the highest bidder.
jacobdisJan 23, 2012
We must post as many comments on Digg as possible until the politicians buckle under our typed demands.
mtownJan 22, 2012
You know how some people long for living in "the wild west"? Well, right now we are living in the "wild west" era of the internet, and it appears that soon it will be coming to an end. Everything is going to become regulated, monitored, or censored, and people are going to be longing to go back to the Old Internet.
anomaly100Jan 22, 2012Submitter
Free Speech should never be monitored.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
Copyright infringement != free speech
Let's say you write a program. It takes you two years, and you invested tens of thousands of dollars into it. You offer it online for a price. Your livelihood depends on its success.
Somebody uploads your program for free on a website, and people start downloading it by the thousands. You try to get it taken down.
...does that make you anti-free speech?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 23, 2012Submitter
I receive royalties. I see no problem in people downloading the music free. Call it good publicity. Censorship is not an option. These bills are not about piracy.
jefftsJan 23, 2012
You're a musician? Play an instrument? Sing? Songwriter?
anomaly100Jan 24, 2012Submitter
I'm tone deaf! My late husband was a musician.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
"I receive royalties. I see no problem in people downloading the music free."
That's your prerogative. Other people believe that pirating equates to lost sales. Most analysts would agree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
glassagateJan 23, 2012
>> Other people believe that pirating
>> equates to lost sales
Just because someone downloads something,
that doesn't mean that they otherwise would
have been a customer.
foolycoolyJan 23, 2012
Paying for a non-scarce resource is insane. People should pay artists directly to make sure they have enough to live.
kingfootJan 23, 2012
The solution to pirating is offering a service that is BETTER than the pirate service. This is why Steam is so successful.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
That's like saying "the solution to rape is offering free sex, so men don't feel the urge to rape."
Sure, I suppose that might work. Theoretically. But wouldn't it be better if men could be prevented from raping in the first place?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingfootJan 23, 2012
The solution to rape would be a punishment befitting the crime; removal of the sex organ.
The analogy does not work.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
So... if someone is caught pirating, he is barred from using a computer for the rest of his life?
travelsonicJan 23, 2012
"copyright infringement != free speech"
Means to try to deal with piracy CAN - intentionally or not - == stifling free speech though.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
So what? You could claim that outlawing murder and mayhem could stifle free speech. Someone might be falsely accused of murder, for example. Does that mean you legalize it? Of course not.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Jan 23, 2012
You have a serious problem with overstated analogies. Posting a video on YouTube is not Rape or Murder. It's only considered theft in the broadest sense of the word. There is no comparison.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
It's called an "analogy."
limitgovJan 23, 2012
of course it should. How else are we going to determine who to put in indefinite detention?
letherialJan 23, 2012
First, any metaphor dealing with one issue and comparing it to another is utterly WRONG, period, end of story...one thing cannot compare to another thing, metaphors are just simply away to avoid a true argument.
But going on your flawed logic, the wild west had people getting killed it was a violent lawless place (physical at that)...last i check not ONE person was killed on the internet, and certainly not through pirating.
Also, ACTA is a treaty and its really not enforceable until ratified, and that is not easy to do and it probably will not happen in this congress. WAY to divided of a country.
So lets chill out on the whole wild west internet is going to come to a end tomorrow BS, people might be trying to do what your claiming will happen...but so far, after all these years of these people trying, the internet has yet to change very much.
mtownJan 23, 2012
Ahem.
Perhaps you need a history lesson but the "Wild West" was not a "violent lawless place". That's what Hollywood has lead you to believe, but it's not true. From http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html :
"How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?
How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever."
So it is a perfect analogy because the "wild west" was the epitome of freedom. There where no regulations or boarders or TSA checkpoints like the west has today. You could just head out into the wilderness without being tracked or observed. Well pretty soon everything on the internet WILL be tracked and observed, so...
letherialJan 23, 2012
Ok, maybe your right about the wild west, (perhaps i do need a history lesson)...my point was, its not the same...my main key point is the wild west was a physical place, the internet is virtual.
Also, because reality is full of small decision from individuals that lead to a point in time (wild west vrs the internet in this case) analogy's can never be the same; You simply use that to acknowledge the similarity's and ignore the wide gap of differences.
The internet is a place where people create, the wild west was a place where people stayed. the internet is not a 'new frontier'; there is no gold in them hills, they are just pictures...
If your trying to say that the internet is about to get regulated and censored, then just say it....we don't need to go off in this hybrid timeline where the strict corrupted sheriff shoots the innocent pirate carrying a laptop, or whatever was in your head.
I get picky about this because i think you make good points, we should all be wary of what is going on, but if you compare it to other things, then you don't put the full picture out there and it gets distorted (and more vulnerable to misinformation). If your talking about the internet, talk about the internet. If you want to raise the issue, im all for it...but sticking to the facts and not move into pretend land is the better of the options; the wild west is not nearly the same as the internet, there are only minor similarity's.
come to think about it, arguing about this is kinda pointless, I just want to try and stop the bad habit of comparing one issue to another through metaphors...since these laws speak so close to home for me i felt it important to bring up my objections to your argument (or rant?) and hopefully you will find a better way to raise awareness of the issue
One more thing, your analogy hints that people might want to go back to the 'wild west' now i cant speak for anyone else, but that just sounds like a horrible idea. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that even though some of the people in USA might say they want to go back to the wild west, put them there for a day and they will come crying home.
ren1999Jan 23, 2012
It is time for governments and lawyers to get off the Internet. Stay out. You're not wanted here. The Internet must remain free.
limitgovJan 23, 2012
1. And if you don't pass this one, we'll have another one in a month or two.
2. And if you don't pass that one, goto line 1.
anomaly100Jan 24, 2012Submitter
Exactly!
steve8867Jan 23, 2012
I said it would be back wearing a different outfit!
jayemsee283Jan 23, 2012
So yea, shut down ALL P2P services, including mIRC, which is still VERY active. May as well say farewell to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Digg, and any other site that could have the public link to something illegal. In the extreme, does this mean no more crack able trialware/freeware?
Hell, let's just kill the internet!
Maybe we, the people, should launch a mass network on the underground on dial-up. Call it Internet v2.
IF WE LET THIS HAPPEN, WHAT YOU KNOW AND LOVE ABOUT YOUR HAPPY DAYS OF THE NET ARE DONE. DON'T BE IDLE ANYMORE! GIVE OUR GOVERNMENT MORE HELL THAN THEY CAN HANDLE AND MAKE THEM GET INVOLVED ACROSS THE GLOBE IF POSSIBLE.
kingfootJan 23, 2012
The biggest advantage we have is that, by its very nature, the internet is easy to use. Most people can't be bothered by the world to protest and skip their job, etc. But now we can just make a few clicks, like we do every day, and now be in support of something. Click to sign the petition as apposed to being bother by the guy outside safeway to listen to the guy.
blankmikeJan 22, 2012
This sort of bill is indeed an international problem. It isn't a matter of the States getting its house in order. Think of the analogy of having your neighbour banging on your door threatening to call in the police or army because you are drinking beer somebody else left on your doorstep.
jhourcleJan 23, 2012
Of course, if it becomes illegal to use free software to break DRM ... then how much are we going to be charged to be allowed to use the DMCA exemptions?
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
blankmikeJan 24, 2012
That's supposed to be coming to Canada too. The difference is resetting/clearing passwords on computers is included. This means to stay legal all those tech support guys will have to break their CDs and DVDs and stop helping people who forgot their passwords.
jphrJan 23, 2012
ACTA came to be with secret negotiations, participants having to sign non-disclosure agreements. Being an international agreement no amendments only ratification.
So avoiding public discussion and scrutiny special interests have nearly succeeded. Only a mass protest like for SOPA/PIPA may prevent ratification.
msbpodcastJan 23, 2012
ACTA is written like all the laws are in the states. BADLY.
peppermintpigJan 23, 2012
Moderates on liberty coalesce with people who grew up with the Internet and consider it invaluable in it's supposedly currently uncensored form (effective lack of censorship for those who want it, but very real government censorship of content exists where they can enforce their will) while the general liberty of individuals is crushed in all other venues of life. Any time someone tries to spin the Internet into a right, the concept of rights dies a little more.