SOPA

KillerGremlin · 01-23-2012, 10:41 PM

I mean I don't want to say it isn't possible and then...it becomes possible.

But there has to be so much shit on those megaupload servers that no human could possibly sort through it in a reasonable amount of time. And an IP Address is not clear evidence of downloading. Think of the thousands of appeals that the RIAA would have to deal with...I don't think they would actually target 25% of the population. They are probably going to target single individuals on a per case basis. But even that is futile, because who has a million dollars? These lawsuits are frivolous which is why they've been stopped.

The end game is finally controlling the Internet and the distribution of data. Moving forward, if they can control how you obtain your digital media, you will be forced to pay what they ask for. It will be no different than Cable TV.

It's all about control. Some time in the 1990s the MPAA/RIAA lost an opportunity to jump on a golden business opportunity, online file sharing, and fell victim to Napster/p2p/etc. Now you have bandcamp, paypal, amazon with its DRM-free mp3s, etc. The middle man has been cut out thanks to the Internet, and they don't like it.

The middle man should have no say...because as has been pointed out a million times: a downloaded album is not a net sales loss. There is a good chance the person who downloaded the album wasn't going to buy it in the first place. So by that logic, there really is no damages. With the Internet, you can go to Radiohead.com and give the band 10 dollars direct for a Lossy FLAC encoded album that is DRM free. In less than...Napster was what? '98? In less than 10 years the Internet killed corporate music.

According to my folks, there was a time when cable TV was commercial free. I think it's pretty retarded that cable is a paid service, and it has commercials. I think what is even more retarded is they don't offer some premium package for 5 or 10 dollars more a month to not watch commercials. The Internet is changing the way we advertise, commercialize, and harass consumers. It's fucking ridiculous that I buy a PC game and have to verify some DRM bullshit on the internet. It's fucking bullshit that I pop in a blu-ray movie and have to sit through 15 commercials for shitty movies I don't want to see. These are all reasons piracy is rampant. The suits brought this fate on themselves...and I hope the tech world is smart enough to keep progressing to win this war.

I'm done supporting shitty service. I buy a lot of things, and I support developers who respect their customers. I buy games that are DRM-free, I buy Apps on my phone, I even have purchased Windows because I like the OS. I support bands too as often as I can. I feel like most people are in my camp.

TheGame · 01-23-2012, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I mean I don't want to say it isn't possible and then...it becomes possible.

But there has to be so much shit on those megaupload servers that no human could possibly sort through it in a reasonable amount of time. And an IP Address is not clear evidence of downloading. Think of the thousands of appeals that the RIAA would have to deal with...I don't think they would actually target 25% of the population. They are probably going to target single individuals on a per case basis. But even that is futile, because who has a million dollars? These lawsuits are frivolous which is why they've been stopped.

The end game is finally controlling the Internet and the distribution of data. Moving forward, if they can control how you obtain your digital media, you will be forced to pay what they ask for. It will be no different than Cable TV.

I think it's deeper than that. The "end game" here isn't just controling the internet, it's controling people.

No, they're not going to arrest 25% of people who use the internet. But if a person becomes an issue via the internet or other means, they will use that information to build a case against them and silence them for good. The fact that they now have this in their pocket is the issue, similar to the guantanamo bay and the NDAA issues but less obvious in it's attempt to be able to pick and choose who they lock up.