Piracy and the Obama Administration

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18815

"This is theft, clear and simple. It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window."

It did however indicate that the U.S. government may increasingly monitor filesharing networks and BitTorrent sites and assist media groups in their prosecution/threat letter efforts.

The White House's vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year. The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement. It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

Change we can believe in.

Ralphis said:

It also implements an interesting provision called "imminent infringement", which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk"). This is among the first official "thought crime" provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

fuck obama's censorship.

So the mainstream media finally takes notice? Amazing.

brb firebombing ubisoft offices

This administration is gearing up to be just as bad or worse then the previous one. Other than a failed health care reform and now this piracy nonsense, absolutely nothing has changed. On top of that the human rights issues concerning secret prisons has actually become worse, and while the Gulf fills up with oil Obama is out playing golf.

Edit: Forgot to mention the debt and 10% unemployment. Yes these are pretty much the Bush's fault, but nothing has really been done about it.

dew said:

fuck obama's censorship.

I use Scroogle myself.

Scet said:

now this piracy nonsense

So combating piracy is bad?

I bet 90% of the people whining about Obamas's plan are just whining because they are afraid of having to actually pay for their entertainment in the future and are pulling as many random excuses out of their ass as they can in a attempt to demonize the man.

Obama: Piracy is a problem, and we now intend to combat it by trying to prevent people from visiting and using pirate sites.

Piret: OMGWTF YOU FILTHY NAZI ZOMBIE COMMIE HOW DaRe YA TO TrY To tURN AMERICA INTO A TOtaLTERIan STATE YoU FuckiNG wAnker!!!!!!!

hardcore_gamer said:

So combating piracy is bad?

I bet 90% of the people whining about Obamas's plan are just whining because they are afraid of having to actually pay for their entertainment in the future.

No. We're complaining because this encourages thoughtcrime.

Mr. Freeze said:

No. We're complaining because this encourages thoughtcrime.

If you open google and type in "Die Hard 4 full movie Torrent" then that doesn't sound much like a "thought" to me.

Last time I checked, being involved in black market trading was against the law regardless of if you buy anything or not, just getting caught trying to use it will get you into trouble. Why should piracy be any different?

My grasp on politics is pretty horrible, but is piracy really hurting our economy? It seems like the major software companies and music artists get along fine with the money they get from actual customers.

hardcore_gamer said:

Last time I checked, being involved in black market trading was against the law regardless of if you buy anything or not, just getting caught trying to use it will get you into trouble. Why should piracy be any different?

Because Piracy is not stealing.

You can't steal something that has already been purchased and copied- the owner is allowed to copy software a set number of times legally.

You also can't steal something you weren't going to buy in the first place, which is the reason why I pirate games.

Also, filesharing is a great way to find software that is out of production or hard to find. Should that be illegal? Should I be tried for downloading games from the mid-1990s or out-of-print D&D splatbooks?

This proposed law says so.

Mr. Freeze said:

Because Piracy is not stealing

But it reduces income, and that is almost as bad.

Mr. Freeze said:

You also can't steal something you weren't going to buy in the first place, which is the reason why I pirate games.

In other words you are simply to cheap to spend money on your entertainment.

Mr. Freeze said:

Also, filesharing is a great way to find software that is out of production or hard to find. Should that be illegal?

If the original owners of the material or whoever holds the rights to it say so, then yes. Your opinion on their decisions and polices is utterly irrelivent, because at the end of the day they hold the rights and you don't, and if they say you can't distribute their material over the internet for others to download without paying for it then you have no legal right to do so.

Mr. Freeze said:

Should I be tried for downloading games from the mid-1990s or out-of-print D&D splatbooks?

Again, what you think doesn't matter. You don't hold the rights to the material, they do. I know there are games were the people who originally held the rights to them no longer exist, but in the overwhelming majority of cases this isn't the case when people pirate stuff be it music, games or TV shows.

You can't just say "fuck copyright" whenever you think its being unreasonable.

You can pull out as many excuses as you can think of for why piracy is ok or why it isn't harming the industry. But at the end of the day, you are just a collection of lazy thieves unwilling to work a few extra hours so that you can buy that new game/album/movie/whatever.

hardcore_gamer said:

In other words you are simply to cheap to spend money on your entertainment.

"Poor" is not the same as "cheap".

Mr. Freeze said:

You also can't steal something you weren't going to buy in the first place, which is the reason why I pirate games.

Uhhhhh

Don't do that.


In regards to the OP, the things about being illegal to bypass DRM of the games you bought, and getting in trouble for typing things into a search engine are really crap.

EDIT: I suspect it won't be much of a problem for those of us who want a copy of old 90s games like Strife and such, only modern big-money-making entities will want to catch copiers.

EDIT: "Strife and such", not "Strife and suck".

I bought Metro 2033 the other day, I appareantly need a fucking steam account to be able to play.

Danarchy said:

"Poor" is not the same as "cheap".

Really?

I would really like a cool new car you know, but I can't afford one since I got other shit to worry about like paying my rent and buying food. Does that mean It would be ok for me to just go and steal one because I would never have bought one anyways? And don't give me the "its not the same because pirates only copy" that's not the point I am trying to make, my point is that being poor is not a excuse. Games are not something you need to live like food is, games are a luxury. If you are too poor to buy games, then find a better job or work harder to save up money to buy them. Anything else is just lazy and nothing else.

phi108 said:

the things about being illegal to bypass DRM of the games you bought

If the user agreement states that you cannot bypass the DRM you have no right to complain if you get into trouble for doing so. Don't get me wrong, I HATE DRM, but if I find out that a company is putting DRM on its games then I always have the option of simply not doing any business with them by buying their games.

dutch devil said:

I bought Metro 2033 the other day, I appareantly need a fucking steam account to be able to play.

Yea, this is getting more and more common. You should probably check the back of the retail cases before buying the games.

Civilization 5 will also require STEAM once the game comes out in September.

Yeah, I now hate Steam more than I did in the last Steam discussion thread. You should probably research the game before purchase, but now that you have it, I definitely understand if you want to attempt to find a way to run it without steam.

But one thing about the OP and other posts, don't you think ANY administration in the White House would be succumbing to pressure from the entertainment industry? Sure, they'd probably go about it in different ways, but if the movie and video game developers want to make life inconvienient for us, they'll pressure the government to do it.

EDIT: And I read in the link "After countless lobbyist dollars from the music and film industry", so we can blame the administration for accepting the money, but most of my blame goes to the industry. EDIT: And some blame to the consumers. Though I was surprised to read "Recent studies have shown that piracy may actually help the U.S. economy", weird...

hardcore_gamer said:

Yea, this is getting more and more common. You should probably check the back of the retail cases before buying the games.

I did, could they make the letters even smaller. Its in a tiny format way below in a corner so you hardly notice it at first glance. I'm not poor or cheap, but if this shit is getting more common I'll probably resort to pirated copies.

dutch devil said:

but if this shit is getting more common I'll probably resort to pirated copies.

phi108 said:

Uhhhhh

Don't do that.

EDIT: Unless you mean buying the game first, then acquiring a pirated copy. That feels like a good practice to me, but it is beginning to look too dangerous for me to attempt...


But it is freakin' annoying, I agree. But given the choice of not buying the product, and pirating the product, I choose not buying any day. Nothing nowadays warrants pirating for me. I almost feel like it would be better to let the current industry die off, to get a set of new faces in the business. Customers will keep giving them money, though, so that won't happen.

I just pirate 99% my music from YouTube anyway.

The rest usually involves a search such as "Album Name (year)" in Google Blog Search, which works and doesn't send any red flags.

Oh, and I'm Canadian.

EDIT: Sorry, I noticed it looked like I was gloating. All I'm really saying is this kind of censorship isn't possible with sites like YouTube around.

hardcore_gamer said:

So combating piracy is bad?

I was complaining because this is spending tax payer money to do something that has always been an industry problem. Copyright infringement and other IP related laws have always been settled in civil lawsuits between companies and users, there is no reason for the government to get involved.

I also don't buy the "hurting the economy" line one bit. As InsanityBringer said, artists and studios are still making millions. People still buy albums/movies they like and still go to concerts/theatres, regardless of piracy.

This is all about politicians being bought out by lobbyists, everything else is just an excuse.

Coopersville said:

I just pirate 99% my music from YouTube anyway.

You know the "music" on YT is total crap and incredibly inefficient space/bandwidth wise, right?

Coopersville said:

I just pirate 99% my music from YouTube anyway.

The rest usually involves a search such as "Album Name (year)" in Google Blog Search, which works and doesn't send any red flags.

Oh, and I'm Canadian.

EDIT: Sorry, I noticed it looked like I was gloating. All I'm really saying is this kind of censorship isn't possible with sites like YouTube around.

Why do people keep calling this censorship?

This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with fighting against copyright infringement.

Censorship is when you forbid someone from expressing his opinion or deny people access to material that you think is "wrong", denying people access to pirate and wares sites is just combating pirate activities that have never really been legal in the first place.

hardcore_gamer said:

I would really like a cool new car you know, but I can't afford one since I got other shit to worry about like paying my rent and buying food.

Paying your rent, food, and paying taxes to a government that thinks it should have the power to control everything because of the money being handed to them.

phi108 said:

I suspect it won't be much of a problem for those of us who want a copy of old 90s games like Strife and such, only modern big-money-making entities will want to catch copiers.

So that's where YOU would draw the line? You're naive.

hardcore_gamer said:

Obama: Piracy is a problem, and we now intend to combat it by trying to prevent people from visiting and using pirate sites.

Piret: OMGWTF YOU FILTHY NAZI ZOMBIE COMMIE HOW DaRe YA TO TrY To tURN AMERICA INTO A TOtaLTERIan STATE YoU FuckiNG wAnker!!!!!!!

P2P Communist: I'm with you, pirate comrades!!! But let's call it "proletarian expropriation" instead of piracy, because after all, the capital pockets your plusvalue and you have nothing to lose but your chains. (Internationale playing) Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant! ....

hardcore_gamer said:

If you open google and type in "Die Hard 4 full movie Torrent" then that doesn't sound much like a "thought" to me.

Well, you could always pretend/delude yourself that you're some sort of anti-P2P/black ops/anti-terrorist/CSI investigator super-hero, and you're doing it "for the Man" or for some ultra-secret govn't agency...don't forget your martini though.

hardcore_gamer said:

In other words you are simply to cheap to spend money on your entertainment.

I'm not trying to bring in a moral argument, but I don't give two shits if I'm "stealing" a movie or two from an already multi-billion dollar production company. They make income from a lot more things then selling DVDs or albums. A band, for example, could easily make a luxurious living off of selling concert tickets alone.

In fact, quite a few bands are starting to give their music away 100% free now. The most famous being Radiohead, but even the Nine Inch Nails distributed one of their albums away for free on their website recently.

This alone proves that the bogus lie of "stealing an album" would put a band out of business into the gutter, its just something that they put into your head to prevent you from pirating their works. ("Their" being the record labels/production companies.)

Long story short, there is more to the pro-piracy movement then just stealing songs and movies, Its a social movement and political movement as well. I'm more likely to buy a product from someone who is offering it for free then some greedy assholes (like Metallica) who just want nothing more then for people to pay for it.

EDIT: By the way, I'm Canadian as well and support the Obama administration, but think this is pure bullshit.

hardcore_gamer said:

Why do people keep calling this censorship?

This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with fighting against copyright infringement.

So what if somebody searches "Urban Brawl Torrent" and that sets off triggers for Smash Bros Brawl or something similar? Potentially pressing charges against somebody for thinking about downloading a copyrighted material seems correct to you? On the extreme, should somebody be charged for murder for THINKING about killing somebody or for robbing a bank because they THOUGHT about it?

How can you defend such a blatant violation of rights?

AveryMaurice said:

In fact, quite a few bands are starting to give their music away 100% free now. The most famous being Radiohead, but even the Nine Inch Nails distributed one of their albums away for free on their website recently.

This alone proves that the bogus lie of "stealing an album" would put a band out of business into the gutter, its just something that they put into your head to prevent you from pirating their works. ("Their" being the record labels/production companies.)

It always helps that those bands are already filled with millionaires though.

Ralphis said:

It always helps that those bands are already filled with millionaires though.

Exactly, and most bands filing lawsuits against this kinda thing are. If you are making an (extremely) above average income, then there is no reason to punish users who want access to your works, even for free. For example, Lars Ulrich, he got a really bad reputation for pretty much banning thousands of his fans off the napster network for not paying for a few metallica songs. That alone did more damage to their fanbase then the tracks were worth in their wallets.

Not only this, but you see a lot of indie bands giving their music away as well. They usually do it because they want to get their band out there, and people have nothing to lose if they grab a few songs. If they enjoy it, they might even pay to see the performers live.

Reminds me of a movie. "Minority Report".

Maes said:

P2P Communist: I'm with you, pirate comrades!!! But let's call it "proletarian expropriation" instead of piracy, because after all, the capital pockets your plusvalue and you have nothing to lose but your chains. (Internationale playing) Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant! ....

Um.

Care to explain just what exactly that means? I am a little confused.

lol.

Ralphis said:

On the extreme, should somebody be charged for murder for THINKING about killing somebody or for robbing a bank because they THOUGHT about it?

This is a flawed example.

A person who is browsing google and looking for torrents isn't just thinking about torrenting something for the same reason a person who has bought a gun and is putting together a written plan on how to kill person X isn't "just thinking about killing" said person. The actual act of torrenting/murdering may not have taken place yet, but the potential pirate/murderer is still doing a whole lot more then just "thinking about" pirating/murdering. If he were merely thinking about it, if it were just a thought, then it would have ended right there. But by looking for torrents online/buying a gun and putting together a plan the person has proven that he has already passed the "thinking process" and is now actively seeking to do torrent/murder.

bytor said:

Reminds me of a movie. "Minority Report".

Read what I said above. The only way you will get into trouble is if actually attempt to look for torrents, and if you don't supports piracy then why in the world would you want to do so?

The other disturbing part is the the one about criminalizing P2P stuff. If a tool has any use it must be legal. Freeloading consumers are not legitimate reasons to ban whole streams of software development, censor or monitor searches, or to use DRM that only hurts the paying guys anyway.

And as for copyright provisions, the notion that somebody should be able to remove their work from print is against the public interest. A nice provision to have would be that if the author lets it lapse for ten years then grabbing a copy from elsewhere is fine. The term would also be nicer at 30 years or death of author plus 20 years, which ever comes first (you kind of need the extra years so people don't turn around and start killing each other to get free stuff). The first part of this would almost never happen, except in a software context if the term was so short.

It would also be interesting if parties punished for abusing copyrights (to try and kill competition, limit users in unfair ways, extort people, etc.) were punished by losing their copyrights. Lexmark wouldn't own their old printer firmware anymore if that happened. :D