YMCMB Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) There ARE laws in place! Enforce them! Dont add more BS. You want me to pay and my goverment to police the internet for the world, I call foul! I dont want the US to turn into china where the goverment controls everything. Controls what they see, lookup or think about (dont see that working out for the chinese much either latly). The same american companies that release cds/movies in the US Release them in other countries and vice versa. Do we protect the rights for companies in other countries? Who pays for that??? Because most of the sites arent even in America. So now my cable or ISP bill doubles or even triples in cost ( Basically that puts someone on low income like myself who may not do anything wrong at all off the internet and without tv So now big business without costing them anything at all (it gets passed to the consumer) make great big bucks. why? They dont have to fight in court to put Americans that would have d/l'd a mp3 or a movie in prison. , so I wouldnt save nickels and dimes to pay for a new game or make a donation to FA because the people that are on disability or low income cannot afford to be online anyway. Think I started to ramble. If I haven't explained it well enough take an economics class I was not going to post until I see these invalid and negative remarks. First of all I don't need to attend a economics class but maybe you do so you can learn to mange your money as there seems to be problems there? Was not trying to be rude but it's clear you are so fair game. This has nothing to do with raising your bill? Blocking a website or shutting down a problematic site has nothing to do with the ISP. TV? Nothing to do with TV. Why should they have to fight in court? Cost them money to pursue the matter? Don't you think that would raise cost even more in the long run? The current laws you speak are flawed and this bill is trying to fix it by elimiting the source of this copyrighted material. Here is a example of why it will not cost you. Let's say someone only uses digital music and there are going to buy it though Itunes but instead download it though a torrent, files-sharing, etc. With out these sites they will buy it though Itunes and what is a Itunes? American business therefor pay taxes. Some states do charge sales tax for digital? I'm not sure as I buy CD's, not a fan of digital. In store if people buy a CD or DVD they pay sales tax at the store. ^ poor examples, granted The tax pays for it's self noting to do with the ISP doubling or tripling your bill. Look at the thread I posted where a guy robbed a man for a COD game locally. Granted that crime is a 1,000 times more severe and that's why people download right now it's highly unlucky you will be sued because the current laws in place make it where it cost them to go after you so to speak. I'm not comparing the two at all but people who download music are not always criminals and do it just because it's there. This bill is not treating people who download like criminals nor is it billing them all it's doing is taking away the illegal means of committing this 'free' crime. My brother in law is well off financially and guess what? He nevers buys music or movies. He will pirate everything and this bill is only out to stop the sites where such acts are originating from. It has nothing to do with a person's financial standings as you make it out to be. People who are complaining that YT, Wiki and rest of these sites will be shut down are over reacting. Don't you think instead of shutting down these sites will stay operational and follow the new laws? These sites make money on advertising and are not going to shut down. May charge their layouts and formats but will not just shut down. Comparing us to China? That's out there. I think sometimes we are too relaxed just as SA is....look at our crime rate? -- The issue and real debate is where people stand on how they view the act of pirating. Some see as it just as bad as stealing and some don't. Some fear too much censorship where some of us want it. There is 1,000's of valid points that could be made and I can not think of a single one for either side that is based on your TV, Cable Bills or Income. This issue has nothing to do with financial standings and I'm shocked you turned it into such. -- This is a free country and not China which is why we get to speak our opinions on the matter instead of the government throwing it on us and basically telling us to deal with it. Comparing us to them in this manor is a outrage. Now would you like to take that financial class? Maybe take one up on Politics while you are at it? Edited November 16, 2011 by YMCMB Quote
kami Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 .... This has nothing to do with raising your bill? Blocking a website or shutting down a problematic site has nothing to do with the ISP. Yeah, blocking a site by the ISP has nothing to do with the ISP. Seriously? And i am pretty sure that there has to be a certain infrastucture to be able to do that and to keep it running. Who do you think would pay for that? Why should they have to fight in court? Cost them money to pursue the matter? Don't you think that would raise cost even more in the long run? Yeah, only they have to go to court in the new bill. Btw, do you know that there is a whole industry that just sues people for copyright infringements? Just google Joel Tenenbaum as an example. And regarding Youtube and others how should they manage to monitor every video that gets uploaded that it has no copyrighted material in it? If only 1 video stays there it could force ISP to block youtube to get accessed. This bill would create a infrastructure that would easily be exploitable to suppress free speech. What would hinder the goverment to just get the ISPs to block lets say wikileaks? Btw, I am finishing my academic studies in finances. (Just to let you know ) Happy *in' Quote
YMCMB Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Yeah, blocking a site by the ISP has nothing to do with the ISP. Seriously? And i am pretty sure that there has to be a certain infrastucture to be able to do that and to keep it running. Who do you think would pay for that? Yeah, only they have to go to court in the new bill. Btw, do you know that there is a whole industry that just sues people for copyright infringements? Just google Joel Tenenbaum as an example. And regarding Youtube and others how should they manage to monitor every video that gets uploaded that it has no copyrighted material in it? If only 1 video stays there it could force ISP to block youtube to get accessed. This bill would create a infrastructure that would easily be exploitable to suppress free speech. What would hinder the goverment to just get the ISPs to block lets say wikileaks? Btw, I am finishing my academic studies in finances. (Just to let you know ) Happy *in' I don't see the logic of how blocking will cost. If it's government mandated pretty sure they will not tax the ISP providers. Maybe I'm wrong and your bill will triple but I HIGHLY DOUBT this will be the case. The government has also been in talks with supplying low income homes with a discounted internet rate. The government does not want rates to rise where the common family can not afford it. I don't see cost rising at all. The additional money made from sales of media would well enough cover as this is not going to be that expensive. Could possibly be the government blocking access which would have nothing to do with ISP's as it'd be on their end. With today's technology the infrastructure would not be expensive enough to double or triple bills as people have stated. You do know many ISP already monitor your activity? Many users of torrents have gotten warning from their ISP of their IP downloading or uploading copyrighted content. Far as repeatedly breaking laws on a site like YT it would be simple to IP ban a user and if they kept on switching IP's ETC there would be a clause to stop them. Your ISP could even block you from YT but that does not cost, many ISP have these walls in place. I don't see this as costly for the consumer. The only cost is seeing people having to buy media. (what a shame, stopping people from stealing media?) This is what sparked Waster in my opinion. Far as free speech and wiki-leaks I'm not going to debate something I'm clueless on. I'll give you that one as I truly have no knowledge on the site or issue. I don't see this bill as blocking free speech but far as leaks site I don't know. Very nice and best of luck. Took stocks, finances, economics, foreign languages, foreign cultures, and song writing at KU (did not need one particular major for what I was trying to learn and set up, lol though it would have been nice meh) Edited November 16, 2011 by YMCMB Quote
Waster Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Quite simply if it costs any company money they will pass the cost on to the consumer. If it costs the goverment any money, it comes as cost to tax payers. If it requires more infastructure of any kind the cost gets passed on to the next guy lower on the food chain, so it gets to the consumer to pay it eventually. Basically if it costs money they will pass it to whoever they can until eventually it gets to the end user which cant pass it on and has to pay it. Do you really think there are US hosted servers that provide illegal files? The only way to make safe money would be to host these files in countries that dont already have the laws. Sounds like you should turn in your brother in-law to the authorities to me. All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. Quote
YMCMB Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) If it requires more infastructure of any kind the cost gets passed on to the next guy lower on the food chain, so it gets to the consumer to pay it eventually. Quite simply if it costs any company money they will pass the cost on to the consumer. If it costs the goverment any money, it comes as cost to tax payers. Sounds like you should turn in your brother in-law to the authorities to me. All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. You sound like one of those bitter people who b*** at everything. Everything that changes is a way for the government is to tax you. Scared if it rains you'll be taxed with a 'snow' tax. Crazy I know but it's what I get from you. Big brother must really terrify you. I don't see a raise in taxes nor bills for this. This will make money in the long run by people not stealing and forcing them to buy media. (your take on this?) People not stealing = people buying if they want it (I'm sure you can spin a story of how this will change as well) BTW media prices have not really went up. Movies cost $20 in the 90's so it's not like media will go up either as I'm sure that's where you will take it. Far as that second part.. What's your damage? Clearly is some. I was implying why people do it using the example and it's not like they even care as it cost too much to pursue. This bill will make it easier to keep file sharing and such offline meaning saving money on going after people. People are allowed to do it with no legal consequences at the moment due to this fact. On another note if you are taxed I guess you can move to China since you like comparing the two at-least rent is cheap there? Probably bunk with someone and they won't even notice. I agree there is something possibly to the free speech when it comes to sites like Wiki and I admitted that. I will admit when I'm wrong and or admit I know nothing of the topic like above on the Wiki. I don't think i'm wrong about you as you truly seem like a person is unhappy and tries to spin everything negative. Look at your compressions and overall target for christ sakes. Edited November 16, 2011 by YMCMB Quote
Pici Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 There goes a free man's mind. So much for a gov't for, by, and of the people. Not for, of, and by the corporations. I understand they have rights just as much as everyone else does, however, this bill is walking on dangerous grounds. They already have a myriad of methods in place to protect their intellectual properties, and I believe that they do not need more. I already e-mailed my two senators in opposition to S. 968 hoping that my voice can be heard. Quote
YMCMB Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) @ waster: Referring to the official cost here it is. less than $1 per American over the 2012-2016 period. Computed from a Congressional Budget Office report by dividing the estimated cost of $47,000,000 by the U.S. population. The figure is extracted from the report automatically and may be incorrect. See the report for details - Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or revenues. source: http://www.govtrack....d?bill=s112-968 So I apologize Waster it will cost you one lonely dollar. Your bill won't triple or double as I said. A dollar is basically no cost. Don't tell me a 100 penny's is too much. Least the financial part is now settled. ---- Back on topic, all is left is to be signed and I'm pretty sure it will past. @ the people who disagree if you really don't support it then best bet is what pici did. You'd be surprised how much public interaction has to due with decisions that politicians make when signing these things and I'd say most of my friends and family do support this bill and the ones who don't are the ones who download such content Either like it or hate it still need to do your part. Send a letter and voice your opinion: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968/comment/support 9% of population is in favor while 91% is against but I'm sure a large % of senators and representatives do so it will be interesting how it all plays out Edited November 16, 2011 by YMCMB Quote
Jefke Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 https://www.popvox.c...comment/support https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968/comment/oppose just for the record I post the oppose link with it ^^ Quote
YMCMB Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) just for the record I post the oppose link with it ^^ I just noticed I did that. Was not trying to trick people, lol Meh sorry Edited November 17, 2011 by YMCMB Quote
kami Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 @ waster: Referring to the official cost here it is. source: http://www.govtrack....d?bill=s112-968 So I apologize Waster it will cost you one lonely dollar. Your bill won't triple or double as I said. A dollar is basically no cost. Don't tell me a 100 penny's is too much. Least the financial part is now settled. ---- Back on topic, all is left is to be signed and I'm pretty sure it will past. @ the people who disagree if you really don't support it then best bet is what pici did. You'd be surprised how much public interaction has to due with decisions that politicians make when signing these things and I'd say most of my friends and family do support this bill and the ones who don't are the ones who download such content Either like it or hate it still need to do your part. Send a letter and voice your opinion: https://www.popvox.c...comment/support 9% of population is in favor while 91% is against but I'm sure a large % of senators and representatives do so it will be interesting how it all plays out 1. In my experience those costs are rapidly change once the bill gets in place. By change i mean they go up. 2. These are just the goverment costs. Not those for the ISPs. Has nothing to do with your bills but with goverment spending. 3. As far as i know the isps, are currently only saving who (which household) logged on with what ip on a specific time of day. Which is somewhat different than monitoring on which site a person goes or what he does. 4. Lets say for the sake of argument that the media sales go up. How do these even out the increased costs for the ISPs? Do the ISPs sell the cds/music? 5. In my opinion, stopping copyright infringements is just a retarded excuse by the lawmakers to create an infrastructure that is going to be used to censor certain sites. Happy *in' Quote
EvoLuT!oN* Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Just another way to protest against it: http://www.avaaz.org...1335310&v=11161 Signed. 1 Quote
Chuckun Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Signed. Smashed the target! Gone well over the 500,000 mark Gonna keep getting people to sign though.. Quote
Jefke Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 mozilla is against it too ^^: https://donate.mozil...?source=snippet Quote
I3lessed Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Not getting in on this argument but I would like to say that I've more then once had bands tell me at their merch tables to download their cd and instead of buying it to buy a t-shirt, hoodie etc cause the bands themselves don't get much profit from the cd's, they get way more from ticket/clothing & merch sales. Quote
JohnWayne Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 5. In my opinion, stopping copyright infringements is just a retarded excuse by the lawmakers to create an infrastructure that is going to be used to censor certain sites. I concur with Kami on this. For some reason people want to legislate morals and this gives them the right to remove your rights. Our world is changing fast, the music industry is changing, things will work out without intrusive laws being added. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.