CAS goes into effect on monday!

[totalnoob617]

Also how do you organize boycotts for this? Do you just stop using the internet? Are you going to boycott the internet?

If so, I'm totally behind you totalnoob and I agree with you on every point. Just please boycott the internet to show these government power abusing big brothers whose boss.

well this time its an agreement between the private ISP and content industries,
how many networks do you detect in your neighborhood? i get about 8 or more, you can always work a deal with a neighbor to share a connection , my neighbor dont use her bandwidth she barely uses the internet, and when she does its mostly for work related low bandwidth activites, if everyone did something similar then they would lose half their subscription base

 

[Chary]

Question;
If I can record a song off the radio, and put it to a cassette to listen to legally, then why is downloading the same song online and putting on my iPod illegal?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

well this time its an agreement between the private ISP and content industries,
how many networks do you detect in your neighborhood? i get about 8 or more, you can always work a deal with a neighbor to share a connection , my neighbor dont use her bandwidth she barely uses the internet, and when she does its mostly for work related low bandwidth activites, if everyone something similar and they would lose half their subscription base

Yes, definitely go to your neighbors house and ask to mooch off their internet connection as a sign of protest. And then download illegal content on it so they get the blame.

Sounds legit.

 

[totalnoob617]

Copyright was put in place to protect people from not getting credit where credit was due. That means if I bust my ass making the movie I always wanted to make, some jackoff can't just go download a copy illegally and I end up getting little income because of it.

"Fair use" isn't going online, downloading a movie without paying for it, and then claiming there's nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, there's shit movies that come out, but its always been that way. Claiming "Oh the movie industry is shit now that's why I download illegally" is not a valid excuse. Just because Adam Sandler defecated a movie doesn't mean I should go download a great movie like Drive illegally.

Also, on the note of South Park, do realize it's made in literally six days. It's hit and miss, yes, but there's such volume to and it for a show that's done so quickly, it can be quite clever. Not to mention it can still be relevant to modern events without having to address them months like... unlike a show like Glee which takes "trendy hits" and does covers of them but by the time they come out, those "hits" are on the ass end of their popularity. Like they did a "Gangnam Style cover" (I put that in "air quotes") months after the song was a thing.

You're basically just making shit excuses to justify using someone else's work without them getting their deserved reward. I'll give credit that a movie like Jack and Jill doesn't deserve any money but to apply to tons of great movies is just bogus.

no i was saying south park is right , they are pointing out how the quality of media has declined and that they content insustry has absolute contempt for their customers, i certainly agree with that, it especially sucks cause now we have hd and 3d and coming 4k , but all the content sucks so what good is the technology if the content sucks anyways

" "Fair use" isn't going online, downloading a movie without paying for it, and then claiming there's nothing wrong with it."

there is nothing wrong with it if someone is going to make a documentary say, they are allowed under fair use to do just that and to not only do that ,but to use parts of that movies in their documentary ,and to be able to market said documentary for a profit and not have to pay royalties so long as the original producer of the film is credited in the credits

so just watching a film without paying is not a violation it falls under fair use, either the provision of being able to make a copy for your own personal use, or certainly under research purposes

these people have a total monopoly theyare not losing money and they are not fairly compensating the actual artists, artists who sign with major lables are raped, they get such a minuscule fraction of the profits brought in from their work , the middle man record label takes all the profit ,they are parasites,and they are not going to pass on any extra revenue from a copyright crack down to the actual music artist or to the actors or game developers,

 

[totalnoob617]

Yes, definitely go to your neighbors house and ask to mooch off their internet connection as a sign of protest. And then download illegal content on it so they get the blame.

Sounds legit.

no i said a deal where we split the bill
each pay half, then use the money you save for a VPN

 

[retKHAAAN]

no i said a deal where we split the bill
each pay half, then use the money you save for a VPN

except your neighbor is the one who's held liable for any misbehaviour... since...you know...their name is on the bill and stuff...

 

[mysticwaterfall]

Good god. If you're going to pirate something nobody here really cares. But just admit you're pirating it, don't give bs you have no idea how the legal system works excuses about it. It's like how people here play "backups" when they've never even touched the real game. Who are you justifying this to? Nobody cares, just get over it.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

" "Fair use" isn't going online, downloading a movie without paying for it, and then claiming there's nothing wrong with it."

there is nothing wrong with it if someone is going to make a documentary say, they are allowed under fair use to do just that and to not only do that ,but to use parts of that movies in their documentary ,and to be able to market said documentary for a profit and not have to pay royalties so long as the original producer of the film is credited in the credits

so just watching a film without paying is not a violation it falls under fair use, either the provision of being able to make a copy for your own personal use, or certainly under research purposes

these people have a total monopoly they not losing money and they are not fairly compensating the actual artists, artists who sign with major lables are raped, they got a such a minuscule fraction of the profits brought in from their work , the middle man record label takes all the profit ,they are parasites,and they are not going to pass on any extra revenue from a copyright crack down to the actual music artist or to the actors or game developers,

Because in a documentary it's used for educational purposes. Same with using a clip of a show on, say, The Daily Show. That falls under parody laws.

There's a complete difference between using someone's work to educate a group of people or making fun of it and downloading Gandhi illegally, getting baked, and watching it with a mouthful of Cheetos.

They crack down on people downloading movies and such because they have no clue if you're going to use it illegally. What do you want them to do to ensure that you aren't? Put a monitor on your computer and daily life to make sure you don't share it?

Also a lot of people are fairly paid. Saying "I won't pay for it because they don't fairly pay their talent" is A) bullshit and B) not helping the problem.

 

[totalnoob617]

except your neighbor is the one who's held liable for any misbehaviour... since...you know...their name is on the bill and stuff...

thats ok i would have no problem with the bill being in my own name , and i would be using a vpn

 

[retKHAAAN]

Because in a documentary it's used for educational purposes. Same with using a clip of a show on, say, The Daily Show. That falls under parody laws.

There's a complete difference between using someone's work to educate a group of people or making fun of it and downloading Gandhi illegally, getting baked, and watching it with a mouthful of Cheetos.

They crack down on people downloading movies and such because they have no clue if you're going to use it illegally. What do you want them to do to ensure that you aren't? Put a monitor on your computer and daily life to make sure you don't share it?

Also a lot of people are fairly paid. Saying "I won't pay for it because they don't fairly pay their talent" is A) bullshit and B) not helping the problem.

To add to that... Documentarians actually obtain permission from the copyright holder prior to releasing their footage.

 

[Deleted member 318366]

I hope i won't be affecting by this shit.

 

[totalnoob617]

Because in a documentary it's used for educational purposes. Same with using a clip of a show on, say, The Daily Show. That falls under parody laws.

There's a complete difference between using someone's work to educate a group of people or making fun of it and downloading Gandhi illegally, getting baked, and watching it with a mouthful of Cheetos.

They crack down on people downloading movies and such because they have no clue if you're going to use it illegally. What do you want them to do to ensure that you aren't? Put a monitor on your computer and daily life to make sure you don't share it?

Also a lot of people are fairly paid. Saying "I won't pay for it because they don't fairly pay their talent" is A) bullshit and B) not helping the problem.

"Because in a documentary it's used for educational purposes."
what about say a michael more film? is it not being used for commercial purposes? he is having his documentaries put up in movie theaters and on dvd and blue ray and selling them, is that not a commercial purpose?simply watching a film for research purpose is not a commercial purpose, nor is is watching it for your own entertainment,


what about people who watch documentaries for entertainment and glean no educational value from them,and do so while taking bong rips and eating cheetos, does that make them violators then?

 

[Forstride]

Oh god this thread. Can we just ban all the idiots of the Temp? PLEASE?

But then there would be less than 5 people left.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

"Because in a documentary it's used for educational purposes."
what about say a michael more film? is it not being used for commercial purposes? he is having his documentaries put up in movie theaters and on dvd and blue ray and selling them, is that not a commercial purpose?simply watching a film for research purpose is not a commercial purpose, nor is is watching it for your own entertainment,


what about people who watch documentaries for entertainment and glean no educational value from them,and do so while taking bong rips and eating cheetos, does that make them violators then?

As biased as he is, Bowling for Columbine and such are meant to be "educational films". Like on gun control.

Yes, they're sold for a profit, but they're also meant to be educational.

And regardless of the documentary, it most likely has some educational purpose. You will learn something from it. Whether it's Bowling for Columbine, Indie Game: The Movie, or The World at War, you will take away something educational.

How this all relates to your claim to be able to download films illegally without consequence is beyond me however. Last time I checked, you're not making a documentary.

 

[totalnoob617]

As biased as he is, Bowling for Columbine and such are meant to be "educational films". Like on gun control.

Yes, they're sold for a profit, but they're also meant to be educational.

And regardless of the documentary, it most likely has some educational purpose. You will learn something from it. Whether it's Bowling for Columbine, Indie Game: The Movie, or The World at War, you will take away something educational.

How this all relates to your claim to be able to download films illegally without consequence is beyond me however. Last time I checked, you're not making a documentary.

im saying that if your allowed to copy distribute and make a profit off of another work,so long as you give credit to original producer of said work ,like in the case of a documentary ,then that would go much father than merely just watching a film for your own personal use,your not profiting from another work when you simply watch it for your entertainment use, like someone who uses other work to make profit, like someone who makes a documentary might , so if some one is allowed under fair use , then why wouldnt the one that goes less far be allowed?
they just paniced after the whole napster thing and have been trying to misapply the law and buy new ones ever since to prop up their outdated business model

 

[Guild McCommunist]

im saying that if your allowed to copy distribute and make a profit off of another work,so long as you give credit to original producer of said work ,like in the case of a documentary ,then that would go much father than merely just watching a film for your own personal use,your not profiting from another work when you simply watch it for your entertainment use, like someone who uses other work to make profit, like someone who makes a documentary might , so if some one is allowed under fair use , then why wouldnt the one that goes less far be allowed?
they just paniced after the whole napster thing and have been trying to misapply the law and buy new ones ever since to prop up their outdated business model

But most documentarians don't make documentaries for money. They hardly are big money makers. Why spend all the time and money on a documentary when I can make a quick buck off an action movie? And documentaries are educational, compared to the latest Die Hard movie for instance. I'm not a Michael Moore fan but I don't think he's some money-hungry bastard just pooping out documentaries for cash.

When you make a documentary, hell even any movie for that matter, you're adding to culture. You're contributing to society in some way. When you sit at home watching someone else's work, you're just depriving a hardworking crew of people from money they deserve.

 

[Rydian]

Question;
If I can record a song off the radio, and put it to a cassette to listen to legally, then why is downloading the same song online and putting on my iPod illegal?

But that's not legal. In fact back when it was a thing, they had an entire campaign against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

 

[totalnoob617]

But that's not legal. In fact back when it was a thing, they had an entire campaign against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

just because they had a campaign against it doesnt mean anything ,of course they are going to push their BS propaganda,
the fact is that they have no argument, they have no intelectual defense to their argument so they have to try and guilt people with a baseless emotional argument, oh noes you are stealing and being immoral'

what BS , if file sharing is sooo bad for the artists, then why do their very own artists that are signed with them come out and endorse "piracy" FAIR USE or the technology that makes it possible? and one of the biggest sites ever that enable it?



the big media companies were totally embarrassed by this commercial because it totally destroys their argument ,if file sharing is so bad as they say and the artists hate file sharing so much then why are they endorsing it themselves? ,does nobody see the irony and hypocrisy in this ?

if the content industry and hollywood is so hurt by file sharing,p2p etc, then how come the more the internet has grown and the more these things increase the more money they are making?
all one has to do is go look at a list of the top grossing films of all times ,and you can see that every new major film breaks the opening weekend box office record from the previous one, if this was hurting them then the last record setting opening figures would have peaked a long time ago before the internet and file sharing , they would not continue to break new records for each film that is released progressively as time moves forward ,now would they?

the fact is that all these movies make their money back and set the studios into the black on the opening weekend box office numbers alone, people will still pay for the experience of going to a theater if the movie is any good, people will still want to go see a band live in concert if their music is any good, and they can make more than a good profit off of this alone

i still havent seen the hobbit yet (yea i know shut up) i could download it right now or stream it, but i wont because i want to see it in imax 3d and dont want to ruin it

they have no argument, because opening weekend box office records continue to be smashed the more time has gone on while this technology has existed for file sharing, avatar, harry potter,hunger games , the avengers, the dark night ,etc


and if file sharing is soooo bad for the content industry then why are they the ones who are distributing the software to make it possible, does anybody see the irony and the hypocrisy in this ?

 

[Sterling]

Aw man a totalnoob617 thread?

Can't wait for the batshit crazy to come out.

Is it Glen Beckoning?

 

[Bobbyloujo]

Has anything actually changed? I watched the video describing how this system is supposed to work and as I understand it companies that own copyrighted work are just joining P2P swarms so they can see the IP addresses of the other people in the swarm then they tell their ISPs about it. Isn't that how they've always caught pirates? It doesn't seem like there's any new system actually being put into place. It's not like the ISPs are scanning all packets of information sent by your computer.