Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: COICA approved by judiciary committee =[

  1. #1

    Default COICA approved by judiciary committee =[

    Tis a sad day for our freedoms.

    COICA Web Censorship Bill Quickly Passed By Congressional Committee


    The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (also known as COICA) received unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee but still needs full approval from the House and Senate before becoming law.
    Many oppose this law, not on the grounds that piracy is illegal, but that the power given to the Attorney General to "shut down websites if copywrite infringment is deemed central to the website's activities". Deemed by who? You? Me? Time Warner?

    The problem is that if passed, a website can be shut down even if no crime was committed which allows censorship of the Internet without due process. No one is saying that musicians, artists or other content creators should not receive their rightful due for their work. Piracy is piracy and should not be allowed, but the turning over of so much power seems somewhat unwise.

    Many point that this bill is receiving the support of several of the largest companies as well as the recording industry and Hollywood who feel that they have lost tens of billions of dollars over the last ten years and their previous efforts to stop the flow have not worked. By pressuring the government to pass COICA or similar legislation, they feel they will have a means of stopping the losses from their balance sheets.
    But there is still hope it won't pass in the senate and house.
    Last edited by d4l; 19-Nov-2010 at 16:52. Reason: formatting issues

  2. #2

  3. #3

    Default

    Well, shit. I better go pirate all the software, movies, etc. that I need right now.

    On a more serious note (though I'm not sure how it can get more serious than my need for shit), I'm totally not down with this, yo. Like the article said, who the hell is going to justify shutting down those sites? Really now. MP3 downloading sites, for example, are either seen as works of Satan by some, or gifts of the graciousness by others. It's this giant grey area. Are they really just trying to make the world black-and-white? I'm sure this won't go down too well.

    Revolution tiem, you gaiz.

  4. #4

    Default

    Yea but if thats just US based who cares people will just outsource to other countries.

  5. #5

    Default

    My problem with this bill is that the web censorship won't stop at sites where copyright infringement take place. Once the politicians get their foot in the door with Internet censorship, it won't be long before they start adding sites on the blacklist on political grounds solely.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Chiharu View Post
    Yea but if thats just US based who cares people will just outsource to other countries.
    That isn't what this bill does at all. Courts in the US (and other nations) can shut down and seize servers with copyrighted material. Thats pretty much a given. The thing they're doing here is mandating that all US ISPs block a list of websites that courts have decided contain copyrighted material. They also provide for another list, constructed by the DoJ and AGs office, that ISPs are encouraged to block. Both the OP and others have a misunderstanding of what exactly this bill is.

  7. #7

  8. #8

    Default

    Yay for Canadapathy. You yankees put way too much effort into doing things about stuff.

    That said, piracy sucks. As one of the most bestest guitar players every to walk down the street, I would like to think I'd get paid for my work. It's also sad that in a decade an entire industry has been destroyed. It's not just musicers out of work, it's the guys that work at the CD making stores and CD stores in general. But I guess if the world is ready to move on and leave a medium behind, that's just natural evolution. Concert sales may be way down, but real money comes from gigs and merch anyways I guess. But don't you dare try and justify your downloading music by saying "it gets the band's name out there" or "if I hear there stuff maybe then I'll buy a CD or see a show". This would make you a terrible human being and a liar to yourself and others. Guitar hero, youtube, myspace and commercials get bands name's out there. Piracy is wrong, and if you're not weraing an eye patch, drinking grog or buckling swash you've got no right to take pride in it you heartless monsters.

    That was the better / worse part of an argument I once had that was slightly related to this.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Slang View Post
    Yay for Canadapathy. You yankees put way too much effort into doing things about stuff.

    That said, piracy sucks. As one of the most bestest guitar players every to walk down the street, I would like to think I'd get paid for my work. It's also sad that in a decade an entire industry has been destroyed. It's not just musicers out of work, it's the guys that work at the CD making stores and CD stores in general. But I guess if the world is ready to move on and leave a medium behind, that's just natural evolution. Concert sales may be way down, but real money comes from gigs and merch anyways I guess. But don't you dare try and justify your downloading music by saying "it gets the band's name out there" or "if I hear there stuff maybe then I'll buy a CD or see a show". This would make you a terrible human being and a liar to yourself and others. Guitar hero, youtube, myspace and commercials get bands name's out there. Piracy is wrong, and if you're not weraing an eye patch, drinking grog or buckling swash you've got no right to take pride in it you heartless monsters.

    That was the better / worse part of an argument I once had that was slightly related to this.
    That isn't the problem at all.

    The problem is that the recording label is an outdated method. CDs (at least as a medium of purchasing music) are a thing of the past, and that's not simply because of illegal piracy. More and more bands are more easily able to get their name out on their own, and that's simply due to the internet. They don't have asinine restrictions placed on their own work by a label, they make 100% of the profits, rather than...fractions of a penny per dollar...

    Fact is while piracy hurts the music industry, what hurts it worse are recording label executives fighting to hold on to a dying model. The recording label simply has no place in the 21st century. They really need to overhaul their business model if they expect to move anywhere - unpopular moves like pushing through insane legislation like this, suing dead grandmothers or seven year old kids, or placing incredibly restrictive and irritating DRM on music/videos/games that serve mostly to piss off legitimate consumers...that's just going to drive more and more people to piracy. This is particularly true in the video game industry right now, but it's already spilled over into the movie industry, and very quickly it's going to hit the music industry. The only reason the music industry hasn't been hit as hard with restrictive DRM is because it's fairly easy to work around - as long as you can hear the music, it's relatively easy to record it into a DRM-less format with no quality loss.

    Music industry wants to blame piracy for record stores closing down, but fact of the matter is more popular, and more convenient mediums for obtaining music are out there - namely, iTunes. Legal means are pushing out other legal means. That's innovation.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    That isn't the problem at all.

    The problem is that the recording label is an outdated method. CDs (at least as a medium of purchasing music) are a thing of the past, and that's not simply because of illegal piracy. More and more bands are more easily able to get their name out on their own, and that's simply due to the internet. They don't have asinine restrictions placed on their own work by a label, they make 100% of the profits, rather than...fractions of a penny per dollar...

    Fact is while piracy hurts the music industry, what hurts it worse are recording label executives fighting to hold on to a dying model. The recording label simply has no place in the 21st century. They really need to overhaul their business model if they expect to move anywhere - unpopular moves like pushing through insane legislation like this, suing dead grandmothers or seven year old kids, or placing incredibly restrictive and irritating DRM on music/videos/games that serve mostly to piss off legitimate consumers...that's just going to drive more and more people to piracy. This is particularly true in the video game industry right now, but it's already spilled over into the movie industry, and very quickly it's going to hit the music industry. The only reason the music industry hasn't been hit as hard with restrictive DRM is because it's fairly easy to work around - as long as you can hear the music, it's relatively easy to record it into a DRM-less format with no quality loss.

    Music industry wants to blame piracy for record stores closing down, but fact of the matter is more popular, and more convenient mediums for obtaining music are out there - namely, iTunes. Legal means are pushing out other legal means. That's innovation.
    My dear boy! We have not disagreed on any point in the slightest I don't think! I said it's sad the CD industry died, but admitted it was natural evolution. I also have no problem with itunes, cause it is legal. Same with anything else where you're paying for it. If an artist wants to give their stuff away (NIN and Radiohead) then that's cool, but they're not the guys trying to make a living anymore. It's just kinda sad that talented artists aren't making money cause people aren't supporting them. That said, many artists probably have more money then they deserve (particularly the ones who aren't really artists at all), and all them big time industry folks who are sad because their cash cow is dying in front of them can fall down a well anyways cause sometimes what goes around comes back and they abandoned the right to whine about being screwed when they screwed everything they touched.

    I don't care how you get your music as long as you're supporting and respecting the people that made it. Folks seem to think they're entitled to free music. Once read a post on ultimate-guitar (biggest tab site / musical news junk around apparently) and some kid was like "I can't afford to pay for the music I like cause I'm 16. I have to worry about saving for a car and school, I shouldn't worry about spending money on music." I would headbutt this person in their face if we ever met. Artists don't owe anybody anything, and nobody is entitled to music. There is an argument that it's not stealing, since you don't own it once you download it and it's no like a comodity anyways... you can take the song, but it download the song, but so can everyone else. Equal shares all around. True and stuff, but like, I don't get why you wouldn't want to support the musicians you're into. If I dig a band, I'll buy their CD, and when I go to a show I'll get a shirt or something cause it's tragically difficuilt to making a living like that. Not saying I'm the saint of the music business, and I don't want to come across as some greedy musician who just wants to get paid a lot, but man... it's tough to get by doing music as it is, and folks just downloading stuff for free all willy-nilly because they're too cheap to buy an album or even go on itunes and pay for some songs should get their junk together, cause like, that's just not very nice.

    Pretty much everyone recognizes that even with this legislation stuff and the record execs trying to sue their way back into business it's gonna change. Well, it already has changed. Getting signed is nice, but in lots of cases it's like tying yourself to a sinking ship. Sure would be nice to have people with money setting up big tours in big venues, promoting your band and all that junk, but, ya know 96% or folks making music aren't signed to a big deal or anything. All them little bands that are unsigned or on really small time labels, they need all the help they can get to make it. I wonder how many people went and downloaded some Anvil after they saw their movie. They should probably be punched in the throat.

    This is more of a ramlbing train of thought than a real argument against anything, and I was just thinking that lots of bands signed to big labels get like no royalties anyways, espcially if they're just some young dudes about to put out their first or second record and are stoked just to get signed. But it's still not cool to steal that music, don't matter who gets the money, I think it's still wrong. People don't get to decide that just cause folks is rich they don't deserve money. Maybe they don't, but that doesn't justify actually stealing. We aren't Robin Hood here.

    And maybe that's the point of all of the above. I'm thinking that artists are adapting and making money how they can, and that not have labels screwing them over is a good thing. But don't take from guys who don't have a lot. Don't take from guys that do either. AC/DC may have sold millions and millions of albums, but that doesn't make it cool. Might even be a nearly victimless crime, but it's the principle... or something... I dunno...

    Just watch out for this guy I guess...


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-Oct-2010, 00:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.