Many of us may have heard of SOPA and how this will affect the internet. Many don't, so I wish to spread awareness and point out there is something you can do. It can be as simple as being aware of it, spreading awareness or supporting a petition against it.
"Stop Online Piracy Act:
The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement."
Too make a long story short: This is bad for the average internet user. Enjoying or using content that is copyrighted just got tricky. Those that oppose SOPA are afraid that small infractions can lead to too severe punishments. Lawyers could abuse this bill too easily. The name of the bill suggests was created to counter piracy, but in addition, it harms free speech on the internet and is open to economical abuse. It's easy to enjoy free speech, when you don't need to fight for it. Times are changing.
I'll just shamelessly copy Wikipedia again:
"An aide to Rep. Smith said, "This bill does not make it a felony for a person to post a video on YouTube of their children singing to a copyrighted song. The bill specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal or infringing activity. Sites that host user content—like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter—have nothing to be concerned about under this legislation."In January 2012, bloggers claimed that Smith's own website had apparently used a copyright protected image without attributing it to the photographer who took it, with Time magazine noting, "It doesn’t seem like a huge violation, but that’s the point; if SOPA passes, who knows how minor infractions like this will be handled."
If you have videos on youtube yourself... How many of them contain no copyrighted music, images or no mention of copyrighted materials?
If you ever visit youtube... How many of the videos you enjoy do not have copyrighted material on it? Every spoof, parody, AMV, gaming video,... you have ever enjoyed can possibly be removed after SOPA and the creators or hosters will be punished.
Especially creators of content on the internet are risking to lose their income or can't legally provide you with their content anymore. I'll let others do the talking for me again (it's a video, relax, no more reading):
If you are still unaware or unimpressed by the impact this may have, here's a few examples of internet companies who oppose SOPA:
- Google (message in logo)
- Wikipedia (banners + blacked out for 24 hours, go check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterflies )
- Penny-Arcade
- Mozilla
- AOL
- Paypal
- Yahoo!
- 4chan
- Craigslist
- Facebook
- Kickstarter
- Kaspersky
This is only a fraction of the total number of companies. And lets not forget the smaller sites, creators and users of the internet themselves.
Everyone will be affected. Once this bill has passed in the US, other countries will follow. And even if you don't live in the US, guess where most of your favorite sites are hosted?
I agree with the US lawmakers, something has to be done about the piracy problem. But since the internet is world-wide, its too big for any one country to legislate on.
I think its has to be up to the UN to decide on something that has to do with the internet, not the US or any other nation.
Some of the stuff in SOPA could be used, but its a flawed law. So yes, I'm against it..
I agree with the US lawmakers, something has to be done about the piracy problem. But since the internet is world-wide, its too big for any one country to legislate on.
I think its has to be up to the UN to decide on something that has to do with the internet, not the US or any other nation.
Some of the stuff in SOPA could be used, but its a flawed law. So yes, I'm against it..
Sharing information is not piracy, thats the first thing you should know.
UN is a complete joke since 5 countries have the right of veto over the REST of the world.
I'm afraid these laws will lead to censorship in the web. The choice is between freedom of information or commercial interests.
There are some many false statistics about the so-called piracy problem or money involved to even influence European countries that I have a very uneasy feeling about these laws.
P.S.: And well - yes, the UN needs reforms since the structure of the security council reflects still the world after WW II.
Online Gamer Playstyle Survey Creator-Supporter (Quartermaster)
Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology (ESAK - Achiever 53.33%, Explorer 93.33%, Killer 0.00%, Socializer 53.33%)
MMORPG Guild Personality Test Colorful-Disciplined (Clean-Raunchy: 40, Relaxed-Hardcore: 41)
Big picture and effects on micro level:
The US SOPA Law is aimed to combat piracy. Though as with every solution to a problem you'll have to start somewhere. Therefore legislation / law on a subject like piracy are vague and very general. At the start this will leave a huge grey area to find out what behavior is within the boundries of law and what behavior is to be considered illegal. If/when the SOPA law will be ruling law, then I expect there will be quite a number of trials over allegded breaching of the SOPA law. Regardless of the specific outcome in each case, it's the judges' reasons why the outcome is the outcome. And those reasons are the most important part of any case, as they will make that huge grey area (bit by bit) more clear about the boundries of the SOPA law and how that law could impact the day to day internet user and/or people who run the websites the users visit.
Not the first:
The US SOPA Law is not the first legalisation to combat piracy. Other countries have already standing law and if not they have jurisprudence (case verdicts) that already define boundries of what is legal and what is illegal when it comes to piracy. There are already countries that have banned sites like The Pirate Bay. Even last week here in Holland, a judge in The Hague ruled that 2 Dutch ISP's need to deny their customers access to The Pirate Bay website. This outcome differentiates from ruling law in Holland concerning internet use. And the people here are saying the same things about censorship of the web.
Censorship?:
There's a lot to say about censorship and how far governments can go in interfering people's "freedom" (in this case on the web). In short I think that already acquired freedom is something you shouldn't be touching. But I do understand that to combat piracy it's impossible to keep the current level of freedom on the web. So I think it's somehow justified to give up a tiny bit of that freedom in order to gain control over illegal activity like piracy. But when it comes to a level where a big chunk of the web is being controlled (like China) then obviously that's not the way to go.
Copyright Holders:
Ofcourse realisation of law concerning piracy is a huge win for copyright holders. To be fair, they have been a victim of piracy and potentially lost a lot of income/revenue from work that spreads through piracy. I myself think that it's impact on the copyright holders isn't that dramatic (think of the South Park Episode where the cop shows them what happens when people download music - "Not a big deal?") but it's very understandable that they fight for their rights.
Sometimes it does go too far though, as I saw an item on a consumer program about a year ago where a student who used 1 picture in her thesis (which copyrights lie with Getty Images) was being sued to pay over $6.000 in damages over the use of that 1 image. Just ridiculous.
Summing up:
I do agree that there has to be done something about piracy and creating law/legislation is a start.
I also agree that the current law proposal is somewhat flawed/outdated already, which leaves that huge grey area I spoke of above. That area needs to become clear and I think that if/when this law becomes ruling, then we just need to sit back and see what judges (hopefully by using common sense) make of the numoures cases to define the boundries of acceptable and unacceptable use of the internet in connection with piracy.
I do agree that the SOPA law does breach the freedom of the use of the internet somewhat and that it is some sort of censorship, but I do think that's (to an extend) justified.
I can see where the copyright holders come from and do believe they should have the right to exercise their copy rights as long as it's within reason (think twice and use common sense before sueing people over the use of 1 image!)
Sharing information is not piracy, thats the first thing you should know.
Piracy law / the SOPA law is not aimed at reducing "sharing information" at all. It's aimed to combat piracy, to defend copyrights from being breached. I don't think that illegally downloaded music and or entire movies we all can see on the big screens can fall entirely under "ohh, I'm just sharing information", it's breaching rights of it's creators. There is already law in place that regulates the legality of "sharing information". For example, news articles and news audio/video footage are widely/globally available as it's not eligible to place copyrights upon, law has already regulated that.
Originally Posted by Juanra
UN is a complete joke since 5 countries have the right of veto over the REST of the world.
As for this UN comment... depends on from what perspective you are looking.
I don't think it's a complete joke, yes I understand there are 5 countries that have veto rights (and no I don't live in any of those 5 countries), but do you know why they have that veto right? It's because those 5 countries (within the UN) that still have nuclear powered weapons. Now there have been plans to decrease the global arsenal of nuclear weapons and I think there was on the news that the US dismantled one of their nuclear weapons not that long ago. That's also why countries like Iran (within the UN) and Peoples Republic of North Korea (not with the UN) are so highly critisized for their nuclear programs. But to come back on to the point, it's the "fire power" that allows them to have such a heavy weighing decisesability within the UN. Unfair? A little maybe, but considering what those countries have to their disposal, it's not more than logical that they have a veto option really.
EDIT: the 5 countries that have a veto right within the UN safety council are; China, France, Russia (or former Sovjet Union), United Kingdom and the United States. Also...these rights to veto decsisions date back from the cold war in the 60ies/70ies and not from WWII. And since 1990 the veto rights have been used very exceptionally.
Last edited by Smartbean; Jan 18 2012 at 04:09 PM.
Reason: Additional info about the 5 countries that have veto rights within the UN safety council
Not being American, I don't have a huge understanding of this proposed new law and I have no truck with, or time for piracy (which just makes life hard for those of us who are honest).
But what I have read has made me very concerned. And that is, if you like, the Law of Unintended Consequences. That is, a poorly-made law being used in areas and for things that weren't intended or planned by the people who created the law. And this is the problem (as far as I understand it) with SOPA; it can be very easily used by big people with big budgets to silence debate, dissension and freedom of speech.
For example, a company as big as Warner Brothers (and PLEASE understand this is a theoretical example using a concept that would make sense to LOTRO players and NOT a suggestion it might happen) could pick up on a fractional infringement of copyright contained in postings on a forum that is critical of their mega-corporation and potentially get the whole site taken down to stop the criticism. The victim website in this (and almost any other case of a protest site) would have absolutely no chance of taking on Big Corporation lawyers. They're small fry, they may well not be based in the US anyway... there'd just be no comeback. There simply doesn't appear to be enough safeguards built in to SOPA to stop this kind of abuse (and I want to reiterate that I am not suggesting that Turbine/Warner Brothers would indulge in such abuse).
I AM AGAINST SOPA 100%, #### U SOPA TO THE BONE, AND SCREW UR SO CALLED STOP PIRACY ACT, WHEN ALL YOUR REALLY GONNA DO IS RUIN THE EFFIN INTERNET, AND PEOPLE'S BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING!
GOOGLE WILL GO DOWN, DOWNLOAD SITES, GAME SITES, ALL FORUMS, YOUTUBE, WIKIPEDIA, ETC. WILL ALL GO DOWN.
YOU WILL SERVE 5 YEARS IN PRISON FOR UPLOADING A YOUTUBE VIDEO, IF THIS ACT IS PASSED
I think we can all agree that a law this undefined will be subject to some heavy lawyering from the music business and will take absurd proportions within the first year after it passed. As Smart said, the first cases will define how severe this law will become.
The first cases will be defined by the performance of the lawyers, the expensive ones, most likely. Those that work for the music business, most likely. I expect to see a lot of severe and unnecessary cases against parties who do not deserve this injustice.
@ Archerofislam, We are trying to exchange ideas about the consequences this may have. We all share some fears and frustrations, but swearing and typing in caps is unnecessary and unpleasant to read, sorry.
To be clear, this is about commercial control of assets and information. Sovereign nations for those who have raised them are almost irrelevant in this modern era, the real power lies in the wealth of individuals and their interests.
Make no mistake this is not about he protection of intellectual property, this is about money. There are better alternatives.
TBH I finde the whole lobby system in the US where financial interests can buy their own politicians to promote laws like this corrupt in the extreme. Unfortunately we see a trend of this becomming more videspread in EU as well.
This law was made by the big intelectual property holding companies, for the big interlectual property holding companies. The core of the problem is about property rigths, but this law proposal goes much farther than to just protect these. It basicly given some people which have shown that at least some of them are morally ambigious, a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It's way overkill compared to it's intended purpose, and it's not a question if those who benefit from this law will abuse it if it passes, but how much. Just study some of the lawsuits we have seen in the last couple of years.
Angdraug - warg - Teller of tall tail tales - Founder of Rogues Gallery.
Have you hugged your warg today?
Thrakha - BA - Thrower of sticks
Angu - Reaver - feigner of death
It is disgusting US congressional arrogance to think that they can control that which is owned by the World. If SOPA or PIPA passes, it would be very damaging to the Internet, but ultimately all internet companies would pick up and leave America, and come to Europe, thus destroying the American economy. Its just dumb old men who have been bought off by companies and don't have a clue what they're proposing who support these bills.
I seriously doubt either bill will pass, Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Reddit etc. are all very powerful and all very much against it. But they're just the tip of the iceberg of opposition.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
Piracy law / the SOPA law is not aimed at reducing "sharing information" at all. It's aimed to combat piracy, to defend copyrights from being breached. I don't think that illegally downloaded music and or entire movies we all can see on the big screens can fall entirely under "ohh, I'm just sharing information", it's breaching rights of it's creators. There is already law in place that regulates the legality of "sharing information". For example, news articles and news audio/video footage are widely/globally available as it's not eligible to place copyrights upon, law has already regulated that.
You fail at seeing what is piracy and what is not. Piracy means stealing and profit.
If I buy a book. Lend it to you, and you make photocopies. Is that piracy? ... NO unless you go out and sell it.
If I buy a DVD, and I go to you place and watch it with you. Are you stealing? Are you a pirate? (you are watching the movie without paying anything). Whats the difference if instead of going to your house, I just make a copy and send it to you?
I went to college (Telecommuncations Engineering). If I teach my grandmother lets say how to fix her router. Is she a pirate? Can my professors sue my grandmother (now she has the knowledge and didnt pay any fee for it)?
If a singer makes a song when he is high, and put copyright on it. Can the drugdealer sue him? (he wouldnt have composed the song without the drugs, right?)
Should we pay Newtons descendants for each integral we solve?
Originally Posted by Smartbean
As for this UN comment... depends on from what perspective you are looking.
I don't think it's a complete joke, yes I understand there are 5 countries that have veto rights (and no I don't live in any of those 5 countries), but do you know why they have that veto right? It's because those 5 countries (within the UN) that still have nuclear powered weapons. Now there have been plans to decrease the global arsenal of nuclear weapons and I think there was on the news that the US dismantled one of their nuclear weapons not that long ago. That's also why countries like Iran (within the UN) and Peoples Republic of North Korea (not with the UN) are so highly critisized for their nuclear programs. But to come back on to the point, it's the "fire power" that allows them to have such a heavy weighing decisesability within the UN. Unfair? A little maybe, but considering what those countries have to their disposal, it's not more than logical that they have a veto option really.
This argument is absurd. First you are justifying that brute force (nuclear weapons) is something like a valid argument to have the right of veto over other people. And Second, countries like India have nuclear weapons (not critisized for it, or at least not as much as Iran or North Korea), and not right of veto. Those 5 countries have that ''right'' because they were the winners of the WWII.
Originally Posted by Smartbean
And since 1990 the veto rights have been used very exceptionally.
So? Is it ok because they only use it from time to time?
"Chapter 2. Legal Framework For Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
Section 4 on "Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment" is meant to address "some of the special challenges that new technologies pose for enforcement of intellectual property rights." Amongst others the negotiations for this section include discussion about the "availability of remedies" in relation to "infringing material online, including limitations on the application of those remedies to online service providers" and "the circumvention of technological protection measures"."
I don't like the general trend here.
Online Gamer Playstyle Survey Creator-Supporter (Quartermaster)
Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology (ESAK - Achiever 53.33%, Explorer 93.33%, Killer 0.00%, Socializer 53.33%)
MMORPG Guild Personality Test Colorful-Disciplined (Clean-Raunchy: 40, Relaxed-Hardcore: 41)
Allow me to direct people's attention to the fact that the film industry, one of SOPA's main supporters, was founded by copying the work of other people and bypassing copyright.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
You fail at seeing what is piracy and what is not. Piracy means stealing and profit.
If I buy a book. Lend it to you, and you make photocopies. Is that piracy? ... NO unless you go out and sell it.
If I buy a DVD, and I go to you place and watch it with you. Are you stealing? Are you a pirate? (you are watching the movie without paying anything). Whats the difference if instead of going to your house, I just make a copy and send it to you?
I went to college (Telecommuncations Engineering). If I teach my grandmother lets say how to fix her router. Is she a pirate? Can my professors sue my grandmother (now she has the knowledge and didnt pay any fee for it)?
If a singer makes a song when he is high, and put copyright on it. Can the drugdealer sue him? (he wouldnt have composed the song without the drugs, right?)
Should we pay Newtons descendants for each integral we solve?
I don't think I fail to see what piracy is and what is not. I agree that it means stealing and making profit is piracy, but it's not limited to that. Piracy (at least in my book) also includes the distribution or the facilitation of distribution of pirated work. When it comes to downloadable music, big screen movies/DVD's and games, everyone distributing files over the internet that contain (parts of) the work of the creators are basically breaching copyright.
You keep clinging onto the "sharing information" but piracy via the internet is not about the "information". Again, music, movies, games are not "information" in the way you mean it.
But to attend to your examples;
- Lending a book and copying for purpose of using yourself is by my knowing allowed and isn't a breach of copyright in an illegal way.
- Buy a DVD and watch it together with someone isn't illegal either. But...there is always a message being displayed at the beginning of every (legally acquired) DVD stating that any other form of display of the contents of the DVD outside the family setting is considered to be illegal use.
- Teaching someone to fix something isn't illegal either, as this is another form of "information" which no copyrights can be applied on. It's more or less sharing facts than rather sharing the intellectual property of someone.
- Making a song whilst being under influence of drugs isn't illegal (even though in most countries drug use alone is considered to be illegal) there's no way a drug dealer would be able to proof a singer couldn't write that song without the influence of drugs. And even if he did managed to, he has to admit he's been selling drugs, which is a criminal offence itself really lol.
- Nobody should pay Newtons descendants for the integrals we solve, as again this kind of "information" is known as fact rather than intellectual property. Ofcourse Newton still gets credit for his theories, that's why we still speak of him today, like you yourself just did.
Originally Posted by Juanra
This argument is absurd. First you are justifying that brute force (nuclear weapons) is something like a valid argument to have the right of veto over other people. And Second, countries like India have nuclear weapons (not critisized for it, or at least not as much as Iran or North Korea), and not right of veto. Those 5 countries have that ''right'' because they were the winners of the WWII.
So? Is it ok because they only use it from time to time?
It's not an absurd agrument really. You fail to put the "justification" in context of the time and situation the veto's were granted to those 5 nations. Again, those 5 nations acquired those veto rights in the time that the COLD WAR was pending (1960's/1970's), that is fact. It's not because those countries won the WWII, far from it.
I suspect (and don't know this for sure) the 5 countries have been granted veto rights by the UN to ease the conflict of the Cold War and because they were having the ability to use (nuclear) firepower at the time. So in that context of time and situation I can understand the UN in deciding that those 5 countries can have veto rights.
I'm not sure when India managed to acquire nuclear weapons, but I think that might have been in the late 1970's, if not 1980's, which is after the Cold War and thus I suspect the UN didn't see reason why India should be granted a veto right.
Then, to your last point...I think it is OK for those countries to exercise their veto right when they think they do need to veto a decision of the UN's safety council. They have acquired that right and as I said in my first post, I don't think you should touch already acquired rights.
However...I do think that when global changes, such as shifting of economical/military strengths which require the revision of the UN's saftey councils' structure and voting proceedings, that the veto rights of those 5 countries definitely need to be revised.
Last edited by Smartbean; Jan 19 2012 at 12:42 PM.
When it comes to downloadable music, big screen movies/DVD's and games, everyone distributing files over the internet that contain (parts of) the work of the creators are basically breaching copyright.
You keep clinging onto the "sharing information" but piracy via the internet is not about the "information". Again, music, movies, games are not "information" in the way you mean it.
If you are a musician and I buy your CD, and I spend 1.000.000 € buying 1.000.000 CDs to make 1.000.000 copies and I give them for free I am not breaching copyright because I am not MAKING ANY profit of it.
And if you are f.ucked because you are not selling CDs is your problem. But if you are smart, you will thank me because you maybe will not sell CDs, but maybe a part of that million people will be willing to go to any of your concerts (thats where you should be making money).
All this story, this ACTA, PIPA etc is just because there a buch of companies that want to preserve an OBSOLETE market (selling CD/DVDs) because they dont know how the hell to adapt the new times and technologies.
Newtons example was good because ideas have copyright aswell.
Originally Posted by Smartbean
Then, to your last point...I think it is OK for those countries to exercise their veto right when they think they do need to veto a decision of the UN's safety council. They have acquired that right and as I said in my first post, I don't think you should touch already acquired rights.
Absurd^2.
Those countries give themself that right. They didnt acquire anything.
Its like saying that Brits, Aussies or Canadians cant question Queen Elisabeth because she has an acquired right to reign (right given by themself = royalty)
Veto should be the first thing to discuss in a democratic organization. Veto means for this 5 countries: 'yeah, its all ok, but if you propose something that I dont like. F*uck you'. Almost all UNs decisions are biased because of this.
If you are a musician and I buy your CD, and I spend 1.000.000 € buying 1.000.000 CDs to make 1.000.000 copies and I give them for free I am not breaching copyright because I am not MAKING ANY profit of it.
And if you are f.ucked because you are not selling CDs is your problem. But if you are smart, you will thank me because you maybe will not sell CDs, but maybe a part of that million people will be willing to go to any of your concerts (thats where you should be making money).
All this story, this ACTA, PIPA etc is just because there a buch of companies that want to preserve an OBSOLETE market (selling CD/DVDs) because they dont know how the hell to adapt the new times and technologies.
Newtons example was good because ideas have copyright aswell.
You are breaching copyright by making those 1.000.000 copies of that musician's CD, because you would make those copies willingly and knowingly with the purpose of using those copies otherwise than personal use (use only buy you). When you give them away for free is also a breach of copyright as you are distributing (pirated) copies of the musicians work. The fact that you won't make any profit in this case is totally irrelevant.
You are right that ideas are eligible to be copyrighted aswell. Though with scientific formulas like Newton's and Einstein's it's more like factual formulas rather than a copyrighted intellectual idea. Other formulas like the forging of new medicine is more likely to be protected with patents than with copyrights.
Originally Posted by Juanra
Absurd^2.
Those countries give themself that right. They didnt acquire anything.
Its like saying that Brits, Aussies or Canadians cant question Queen Elisabeth because she has an acquired right to reign (right given by themself = royalty)
Veto should be the first thing to discuss in a democratic organization. Veto means for this 5 countries: 'yeah, its all ok, but if you propose something that I dont like. F*uck you'. Almost all UNs decisions are biased because of this.
Acquired or allowed themself the privilege such as a veto right, given the circumstances at the time and in combination with their economic wealth and military strengths they were in the position to do so. A bad situation yes, but if getting veto rights within the UN safety council did make the cold war more managable then I think it's a them getting veto rights was a good solution at the time.
But as I said, I think that when changes in the world require revision of the UN safety councils' voting and veto system, then those veto rights should be revised.
Last edited by Smartbean; Jan 19 2012 at 01:51 PM.
You are breaching copyright by making those 1.000.000 copies of that musician's CD, because you would make those copies willingly and knowingly with the purpose of using those copies otherwise than personal use (use only buy you). When you give them away for free is also a breach of copyright as you are distributing (pirated) copies of the musicians work. The fact that you won't make any profit in this case is totally irrelevant.
It is relevant, and it is the key of the whole thing. At least in my country (Spain) each consumer has the right to make a copy (called private copy) of the product. Whatever you do with that copy is up to you. In Spain is legal (and more important, it is moral) to make those copies as long as you dont make profit over other people's labour.
It is relevant, and it is the key of the whole thing. At least in my country (Spain) each consumer has the right to make a copy (called private copy) of the product. Whatever you do with that copy is up to you. In Spain is legal (and more important, it is moral) to make those copies as long as you dont make profit over other people's labour.
It is not piracy.
It's almost the same here in Holland. When it comes to downloading (anything) it's allowed as long as you use it for personal use ONLY.
If you were to download things, make copies of it and (re)distribute those copies, it's illegal and labelled as piracy. Whether it's done for free or against payment is irrelevant, though ofcourse when a payment is involved the crime is more severe.
The thing is that because of the verdict of the Dutch judge in The Hague that ordered the 2 Dutch ISP's to make The Pirate Bay unreachable for their customers, the judge sends a message to anyone sharing files linked to .torrent websites.
As when you download a file through a torrent you become part of the crowd that shares the file. And when that file contains a song (let's say Lady Gaga's Pokerface - yuk, but that's beside the point) or a movie (let's say LOTR) then you are part of (re)distributing pirated copies of someone else's work.
EDIT: Back to the 1.000.000 CD's example. OK, you buy a CD and make a copy for yourself, but if you make those 1.000.000 other copies with the intention NOT to use them for yourself, then that is piracy.
The fact that you are making those copies and then giving them away for free is breaching copyright as basically you are "damaging" the artist's/singer's/movie maker's/game developer's income/revenue.
So yes, as people said before it is about money and my opinion is that artists/singers/movie makers/game developers don't really need the money anyway, they already make enough from what they're doing. Though from a legal point of view, copyrights should be protected.
Last edited by Smartbean; Jan 19 2012 at 02:30 PM.
It's almost the same here in Holland. When it comes to downloading (anything) it's allowed as long as you use it for personal use ONLY.
If you were to download things, make copies of it and (re)distribute those copies, it's illegal and labelled as piracy. Whether it's done for free or against payment is irrelevant, though ofcourse when a payment is involved the crime is more severe.
The thing is that because of the verdict of the Dutch judge in The Hague that ordered the 2 Dutch ISP's to make The Pirate Bay unreachable for their customers, the judge sends a message to anyone sharing files linked to .torrent websites.
As when you download a file through a torrent you become part of the crowd that shares the file. And when that file contains a song (let's say Lady Gaga's Pokerface - yuk, but that's beside the point) or a movie (let's say LOTR) then you are part of (re)distributing pirated copies of someone else's work.
EDIT: Back to the 1.000.000 CD's example. OK, you buy a CD and make a copy for yourself, but if you make those 1.000.000 other copies with the intention NOT to use them for yourself, then that is piracy.
The fact that you are making those copies and then giving them away for free is breaching copyright as basically you are "damaging" the artist's/singer's/movie maker's/game developer's income/revenue.
So yes, as people said before it is about money and my opinion is that artists/singers/movie makers/game developers don't really need the money anyway, they already make enough from what they're doing. Though from a legal point of view, copyrights should be protected.
So, basically you are saying that If a father buys a DVD, makes a copy and gives it to his son to watch it. They are pirates. Personal use only for the father, right?
If you make a CD to you girlfriend, with her favourite songs, for her birthday. You are a pirate, mate. Straight to jail. Is that?
I keep saying that you dont redistribute pirate copies, you just redistribute copies. You CAN'T use the word piracy unless theres profit.
If those 1.000.000 copies are damaging the 'artist' revenue is because that bussiness is OBSOLETE. That way of earning money is almost over, it is absurd to try to preserve that. The same way the horses were obsolete in front of the cars or the Ice vendors in front of the fridge vendors.
And if that aritst say: 'hey, i've been pirated 1million copies (20€/CD) then I lost 20.000.000€". Thats a falacy and just not true.
It is relevant, and it is the key of the whole thing. At least in my country (Spain) each consumer has the right to make a copy (called private copy) of the product. Whatever you do with that copy is up to you. In Spain is legal (and more important, it is moral) to make those copies as long as you dont make profit over other people's labour.
It is not piracy.
Private copies are allowed under certain circumstances in Germany as well as long as you own the original. These copies could be for you, close relatives etc. But laws are quite complex here.
Online Gamer Playstyle Survey Creator-Supporter (Quartermaster)
Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology (ESAK - Achiever 53.33%, Explorer 93.33%, Killer 0.00%, Socializer 53.33%)
MMORPG Guild Personality Test Colorful-Disciplined (Clean-Raunchy: 40, Relaxed-Hardcore: 41)
Sharing information is not piracy, thats the first thing you should know..
LOL, it's people like you that bring about horrors like SOPA in the first place. There is no blanket RIGHT to share anything YOU DON'T OWN, and a movie or music track isn't INFORMATION.
Originally Posted by Juanra
You fail at seeing what is piracy and what is not. Piracy means stealing and profit.
No it doesn't, 'profit' isn't necessary, 'piracy' is just another word for 'theft. used to try to make it look like something else.
Originally Posted by Juanra
If I buy a book. Lend it to you, and you make photocopies. Is that piracy? ... NO unless you go out and sell it.
WRONG.
It's theft if you don't have the RIGHT to copy it, and copying of written works in their entirety, if the work is still in copyright IS THEFT! The act of COPYING it is illegal, selling doesn't come into it.
Originally Posted by Juanra
If I buy a DVD, and I go to you place and watch it with you. Are you stealing? Are you a pirate? (you are watching the movie without paying anything). Whats the difference if instead of going to your house, I just make a copy and send it to you?
LEARN ABOUT LICENSING.
Playing a movie to other people PRIVATELY is, generally, ALLOWED BY THE LICENSE THAT GIVES YOU THAT RIGHT, it isn't a RIGHT per se.
Originally Posted by Juanra
I went to college (Telecommuncations Engineering). If I teach my grandmother lets say how to fix her router. Is she a pirate? Can my professors sue my grandmother (now she has the knowledge and didnt pay any fee for it)?
LOL, it's people like you that bring about horrors like SOPA in the first place. There is no blanket RIGHT to share anything YOU DON'T OWN, and a movie or music track isn't INFORMATION.
If I buy a DVD, CD etc, I HAVE THE RIGHT to COPY IT (its called private copy). I dont know whats the law in your country, but at least in mine I have that right, and I can do WHATEVER I want with that copy as long as I dont make profit with it.
Originally Posted by Kraggy_Eldar
It's theft if you don't have the RIGHT to copy it, and copying of written works in their entirety, if the work is still in copyright IS THEFT! The act of COPYING it is illegal, selling doesn't come into it.
Yes, i do.
It is not stealing because the owner of the book ... still have the book (physical object).
Originally Posted by Kraggy_Eldar
LEARN ABOUT LICENSING.
Yeah, sure, can you enlight me about the Spanish law of intelectual property? Please, do.
See how much support you have for it when Youtube is taken down, possibly followed by Facebook and other such sites. Or how about when your own website is taken down simply for having a link to pirated content?
Especially if it isnt even your own government who enacted the law allowing such removal of content.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
Especially if it isnt even your own government who enacted the law allowing such removal of content.
Reading some of the arguments, even some of the far fetched ones, it became apparent that the concept of "pirate" and "right" and "privilege" differs across borders; even EU ones.
I wondered what UK law says then...
So, instead of thinking I knew what I was talking about (as I can be prone to do after some whisky on a Friday night) - I went to my shelves and looked at this:
1) The most recent UK film DVD I purchased - The Kings Speech.
On the back it says "All rights of the producer and of the owner of the work reproduced reserved. For private home use only. Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance, radio or TV broadcasting of all videogram formats is prohibited."
This would indicate to me that I could show the dvd in a "private home setting", however, I know from my job that if I wanted to show it to a larger group of people; for free or for cost, public or invited, I would need one of a number of licences to do this. Meaning - copying and "sharing" this film is illegal.
For the record, even though The Kings Speech is based on historical facts, I don't consider it "information". It is quite clearly entertainment.
2) The most recent UK published book I purchased - The Gods of Atlantis by David Gibbins (not read it yet, don't tell me the ending)
On the back it says "Apart from any use permitted under UK copyright law, this publication may only be reproduced, stored, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, with prior permission in writing of the publishers or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency"
I am too lazy to look up the law - but the mere fact that there is a copyright licensing agency and a uk copyright law would indicate that one needs PERMISSION and to fall within the law if one wishes to make copies. Eg there are restrictions.
3 The text book from the examining body for my professional diploma
I'm doing a course via online learning. My university is not allowed to provide the students access to an online version of this text book as it is protected by copyright. However, they have made excerpts of plenty of other texts available that aren't under the same protection... meaning my examining body knows how to make a lot of money as each text book costs £25 and you need four!
The film and novel can't be considered "information" - but one would assume that a text book for a degree course would be. But it's not. It's the work of someone and they have the right, currently, under UK law, to have that work protected. For those of you that have commented that 'people have made loads of money from the songs/films/books they've made already"... I'd ask you... exactly how? Surely it's from the sales of those cds/dvds/books?? Money doesn't come as if by magic, and for the most part, it's not nearly as much money as you'd imagine. I do understand why people want to protect their work.
Its also important to consider that for every CD/track made... there are dozens of people involved whose pay is related to the number of sales. If Rihanna loses a couple of million, she's unlikely to notice, but the writers, producers, sound technicians, session singers, session musicians, designers, marketers, managers, and assistants will sure as hell notice. It's their livelihood - and they can't just 'do a tour' to make a load of cash to make up for it. Their profession is different.
If you draw a beautiful picture, or take a stunning photo, and post it online... and a magazine downloads it for free and uses it on the front cover of the next issue without crediting you or paying you - surely you'd feel aggrieved? Is that 'sharing it with their friends'? What if it was a free magazine? I'd call that a version of piracy. Same if you wrote a poem or a song or made a youtube video and people took parts of them without crediting you or paying you for your work.
So I do get the basic moral intention behind SOPA, but I don't agree with the way it's been realised
What I think, as Cara so eloquently put, is that the law is seemingly VERY badly written, utterly ambiguous, and throws open the prospect of a billion court cases worldwide... no doubt making the very profession that wrote the law a hell of a lot richer (that's the lawyers, by the way, not the creative types).
I also resent ONE country's law impacting upon the laws and lives of those of us that live elsewhere. If there is to be a law, it should be internationally agreed upon by member states. Everyone should have a say and a right to influence the way that law is written via their MP's/politicians/lobby groups/whatever. It shouldn't be dictated simply by the law of one country. I guess that this is a real indication of the 'global village' in which we all now reside - there are very few precedents for something likes this other than a few international trade agreements. It will be interesting to see how the world changes and grows from this.
Of course if the law IS passed, it could go another way - and be disasterous for the US economy - effectively closing down their internet in an almost Chinese/Korean way. All the big websites could move abroad for more favourable laws, and Americans will simply get "this content is not available in your country" every time they try to view something on youtube or wikipedia.
Essentially, I believe this war will carry on for years to come - it's unlikely that the bill will pass, especially in its current state. Money motivates politics. And politics motivate the law. Meaning... people with money can buy the laws they want. So I will watch with keen interest to see who has more money - Google or Sony/A N Other? Google was rated the highest value brand in the world in 2011; it now just depends who their backers are.
Last edited by Senorita; Jan 20 2012 at 07:17 PM.
Reason: formatting darling, formatting
The film and novel can't be considered "information" - but one would assume that a text book for a degree course would be. But it's not. It's the work of someone and they have the right, currently, under UK law, to have that work protected. For those of you that have commented that 'people have made loads of money from the songs/films/books they've made already"... I'd ask you... exactly how? Surely it's from the sales of those cds/dvds/books?? Money doesn't come as if by magic, and for the most part, it's not nearly as much money as you'd imagine. I do understand why people want to protect their work.
Its also important to consider that for every CD/track made... there are dozens of people involved whose pay is related to the number of sales. If Rihanna loses a couple of million, she's unlikely to notice, but the writers, producers, sound technicians, session singers, session musicians, designers, marketers, managers, and assistants will sure as hell notice. It's their livelihood - and they can't just 'do a tour' to make a load of cash to make up for it. Their profession is different.
If you draw a beautiful picture, or take a stunning photo, and post it online... and a magazine downloads it for free and uses it on the front cover of the next issue without crediting you or paying you - surely you'd feel aggrieved? Is that 'sharing it with their friends'? What if it was a free magazine? I'd call that a version of piracy. Same if you wrote a poem or a song or made a youtube video and people took parts of them without crediting you or paying you for your work.
But a law can't be made just to protect those designers, marketers, managers, etc from losing their jobs, specially if that law is about cutting peoples liberties. I'm sorry but all job needs to evolve at certain point and that business (selling CD/DVD) has been outdated by technology.
The same way people lost their jobs when the car overtook the horse. People who worked on the fields making horse food, or people working on stables or those people hired to clean the s.hits the horses were leaving behind them in the city. A lot of people lost their job, but on the other hand other new jobs/professions were created related to cars.
It should be okay as long as that free magazine (cost 0€ and no ads in it) post your name under the picture and uses it in a non profit way, because they just will be promoting your photo/drawing.
It should be okay as long as that free magazine (cost 0€ and no ads in it) post your name under the picture and uses it in a non profit way, because they just will be promoting your photo/drawing.
What is the point of promoting your "work" if people just take it without paying. I'm not sure what you do for a living but I'm certainly not willing to work for free - are you?
You can't call it "people's liberties" without also factoring in the rights of people creating content in the first place. There is a free market economy and those people have the "right" also to attract payment for their work.
I therefore can see the reasoning and origins behind SOPA, but as stated in my original post, it is badly written and the consequences too far reaching. I don't agree with the bill as it stands, but if we're going to discuss "rights" we have to remember everyone should have some.
The problem is, 12-15 years ago this problem didn't exist. Technology has moved faster than law and policy, thus creating the current scenario whereby some people are championing the right to take things without paying/crediting the originator. Those that have grown up with the internet see this as the status quo but its a very new phenomenon legally speaking.
Something like SOPA should be created to protect the rights of authors, without limiting the movement of information. It just needs to be much better thought through.
The thing is that the main people who are supporting this bill are not people who are slaving away and then having their works stolen from them. They are the already massively rich film studios and record companies who simply want to be more rich. It would be different if it were middle income people desperately trying to get by who were backing this bill en masse.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
Once again Sen writes so beautifully and sensibly that I can only agree with every word.
MORALLY you do not have the right to take the fruits of someone's labour for yourself freely. You do not have the "right" to trample over other people's rights. In every country in the world that principle is enshrined in legal codes, even though of course the exact wording varies. If you can't or won't pay, then there is a wealth of stuff out there that people are willingly giving away freely; software, apps, ebooks, short films, music. Yes, I absolutely agree the "old models" are dying and things need to change to reflect new realities. The marketplace will drive that - it still doesn't give you the right to take it. Just because cars were invented it didn't become ok to still someone else's horse.
The reasoned opposition to these laws by most of us is not about wanting to give out a charter for piracy. The opposition is about poorly-worded laws that give more power to the already powerful, take away more power from the powerless and result in "mission creep". Those of you in the UK will be already familiar with this issue. Some years, ago after 9/11, the UK and US governments set up a treaty to make it much quicker and easier for the US to extradite terrorists from the UK. The intention was entirely meant for that purpose - terrorism. A decade on, there is uproar in the UK over the extradition of UK citizens committing acts on UK soil which are either more minor crimes here than in the US (and in one or two cases not a crime here at all) and thereby facing decades-long sentences in US prisons. And these for offences that have no connection with terrorism at all.
You cannot just scribble down laws in a hurry. There are millions of highly-paid lawyers around the world (and especially in the States who have more lawyers per head of population than any other nation) whose sole job is to twist and turn those laws to suit their wealthy clients.
What is the point of promoting your "work" if people just take it without paying. I'm not sure what you do for a living but I'm certainly not willing to work for free - are you?
You can't call it "people's liberties" without also factoring in the rights of people creating content in the first place. There is a free market economy and those people have the "right" also to attract payment for their work.
I therefore can see the reasoning and origins behind SOPA, but as stated in my original post, it is badly written and the consequences too far reaching. I don't agree with the bill as it stands, but if we're going to discuss "rights" we have to remember everyone should have some.
If you post a photo online, you have to be aware that technology will allow people to copy it (100% same quality) and download it. From my point of view, that people is not stealing that photo you posted because you still have the original in you computer.
Another thing is if they dont quote your name and they use your photo to make profit, thats wrong and everybody will agree with that.
But if what you really want is be paid for every person that copy your photo online, I have to say thats never going to happen. Nobody will pay if they can download it for free. What you have to do is change the way you do business because thats not going to work. What you can't do is a law, for example, that allow government to enter in everyones computer just to see if someone has your photo.
If a musician dont want his song to be downloaded for free, maybe he shouldnt upload that song in the first place. Because lets face it, the song is online because he put it there.
Originally Posted by Senorita
The problem is, 12-15 years ago this problem didn't exist. Technology has moved faster than law and policy, thus creating the current scenario whereby some people are championing the right to take things without paying/crediting the originator. Those that have grown up with the internet see this as the status quo but its a very new phenomenon legally speaking.
The problem is for the people living in that business, not for the rest of the society. And because of SOPA, ACTA, PIPA etc they are making this a problem for the rest. Anyway, this is not going to work for them, they just cant make a law that will turn 80% of population into criminals. It is absurd.
MORALLY you do not have the right to take the fruits of someone's labour for yourself freely.
In a non profit way? It is morally acceptable.
Copying is not taking away because the author still have the original, so it is NOT stealing.
If you don't want people to be able to 'right-click --> Save as', maybe you shouldn't upload it.
If you don't want people to be able to copy your DVD movie or CD, and give it for free to relatives, friends, etc so they dont have to pay for it ... maybe you shouldn't sell DVD/CDs.
I didn't say it was stealing - fairly specifically in fact!
I may not be able to STOP you taking my work, my time, my effort and using it all for yourself without any thanks, payment or comeback.
But, dear lord, that does NOT make it morally right. It is morally wrong. And it is also legally wrong whether or not I can enforce it. The fact I might not see you do it doesn't alter that - you could set fire to my house when I'm not there and no-one can see you. You still committed a crime. Oh, and you behaved badly and immorally.
Stopping piracy is not a matter of law, its a matter of value. Piracy will die out when the original creators of the works provide better deals and services than pirates. Legislating freedom into oblivion is not the way to do it.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
I didn't say it was stealing - fairly specifically in fact!
I may not be able to STOP you taking my work, my time, my effort and using it all for yourself without any thanks, payment or comeback.
You CAN stop that. Just don't upload your work on the Internet.
Originally Posted by Cara_Gilrain
But, dear lord, that does NOT make it morally right. It is morally wrong. And it is also legally wrong whether or not I can enforce it. The fact I might not see you do it doesn't alter that - you could set fire to my house when I'm not there and no-one can see you. You still committed a crime. Oh, and you behaved badly and immorally.
We differ about what is moral and what is not. But to me, pay for something that you can copy for free (not stealing) is stupid not moral.
Juanra - seriously - this is a silly thing to say. Exactly how do you expect the creative industries to survive if they can't sell what they make? Government funding? Do you want to pay 1000% more tax to support "the arts"? And have those arts seriously limited to the style and taste of just a couple of lame ### politicians?
There has to be freedom in the economy for people to be able to sell the things they make, knowing that even if it takes them five years to make something, they will be able to get paid in the end. They're not going to sell just one copy for 5 million people to watch. No movie or track costs £12.99 to make. That's why CDs/DVDs are fairly cheap - they're accessible to buy for everyone because the company/people that make them know they can (currently) sell lots to make back the costs and ideally a profit. If you make it that NO ONE will feel they have to pay for these, then a single copy will need to cost several million $/£ in order to fund any film or song made. That would make the arts available only to the really really rich.
As Cara pointed out, the movie studios and record producers are not putting things online themselves are they? People who think it's ok to film in cinemas, rip off awards dvds, and copy cds to their PCs are the ones doing it. They are facilitating further "piracy".
This original thread was about SOPA and whether or not as a bill, it is appropriate. I think everyone here pretty much agrees that in its current state it's not a workable law. But, the discussion has taken it to a silly point whereby you are simply arguing for the right of people to take/steal/not pay (call it what you want) the days, weeks, months and years work of others. That's simply unfair.
I'm also guessing that you have never worked in one of the creative industries we're discussing as you have quite a lot of scorn for them Have you ever tried to raise funding for a movie? Or pay for studio time and CD pressing? Do you know how hard it is?! It can take a couple of years sometimes to get the independent investment. And that investment comes from individuals, banks, charities, and sponsors... most of whom need a payout back. A lot of record producers and film studios are running at a loss - its only the few mega blockbusters that bring in the cash upon which many other films/artists etc are funded. Thereby creating variety and freedom of choice for those of us that enjoy films/music.
In essence, the quality of the arts we have in the world at present is fantastic. And fantastic costs a LOT of money. It's a bit of a fallacy that everyone doing these things is "rich". They just aren't. Only a very tiny few make it really big. Everyone else does it as a living, and if those people cannot survive doing it at all, we'll probably never get the next big music and film talents as they'll have to get jobs in banks and insurance firms in order to live and never get good enough to make it.
So you see - something does have to be done. These things need to be paid for somehow, but at present, you're not coming up with a viable alternative to fund their existence. Things like Lovefilm, Netflix, iTunes, are going some of the way towards doing things well. For a very small fee, you have online access to a lot of material. These companies are supported by artists and studios and personally, although having to pay 99p for the latest Beyonce track is not as nice as getting it for free, if I know that my 99p will go towards encouraging her to sing more, then I'm happy to pay
And finally - to Squelcher; I'd like to ask why you don't support the concept of some form of legislation to protect artists' rights simply because you view the people championing this as "rich"? I'm fairly sure that there are lots and lots and lots of "little" unknown people who are depending upon the bigger companies pushing for some sort of rights protection, but we don't hear about them as they are... little and unknown. The law is the law and rights should be rights - whether an individual or a company has £10, £10,000 or £10b. We're talking about right and wrong, rather than saying "oh, you're rich, so I can steal from you." As I've been at pains to point out, it's not only the "rich" that suffer from this. I should also mention that I'm not asking you or anyone else to support SOPA - cos we've established that the bill in it's current form is a load of toss due to its far reaching and inappropriate consequences - I'm now just talking about the fundamentals of artists' rights.
EDIT: Georgee's post below is full of very good points!! Plus +1 rep.
Last edited by Senorita; Jan 22 2012 at 06:47 AM.
Reason: apostrophe fail
From what i see these laws are made to reduce pirating mainly movies, songs, games, software via web. They will never eliminate piracy of these whatever they do. Other "pirated" materials possibly will not have an effect vs effort required.
Web is also the easiest way to illegally distribute content but other means exist (local shop making copies etc). Such methods will always exist and authorities wont be able to do anything about it.
I've seen/heard
- DVD rental shops renting copied movies (buy 2-3 originals, make a few more copies). After the movie become old, they might sell those copied movies.
- People in authority (police, legal) promoting such piracy, or taking part/seeing it without bothering to do anything about it.
Music on CDs is now outdated. Almost nobody uses music on CDs now. CD players that are manufactured now most likely have mp3 support.
Movies:
Some of the most pirated movies actually have revenue of hundred of millions in the cinemas (excluding dvd/blu ray and all those other sales they make). Most have recovered their costs 2 and 3 times over. So they have lost recenue, no accounting losses. The ones that have losses (costs more than sales) are more likely due to their own fault, due to a bad quality movies. Also, those that might have downloaded a movie and liked it might likely buy it afterwards.
On the other hand, legal ways exist (software, hardware) to make these copies (or TV dvd writers like old VCRs that enable people to record movies on disks). Such things promote piracy and many are manufactured by those complainig now.
Costs:
People pirate software/games due to their cost. Many cant pay the costs, so they use illegal copies. Many see that the benefit of buying something isnt worth the cost (pay 60 euro for 5 hours of playtime).
Like movies, people may download a game/software to see if they like it before they buy it.
Like movies, you see many pirated software/games that their owners make revenue many times their cost. A year after something is released you see it selling for 1/3 of its cost or even less.
If these companies just have priced their software/games at lower costs then people wouldnt pirate them.
Or like antivirus software, have affortable subscriptions and get free upgrades if you like (MS windows/office at Euro50 per year per license instead of Euro 200 one off (and in 2 years need to buy an upgrade)). (i see PC offers from respectable companies with MS windows/office fully licenced installed at price that make no sense (getting the individual parts and software seperately costs twice as much)).
People will see lower pricing more affortable, will buy the items and the developers will have more sales at lower margins, ending with more revenue.
Laws exist that punish piracy but many times they are not applied. New laws will just increase costs of implementing with no considerable benefit since those who pirate things will find new ways to pirate things.
Companies need to find the reasons why people pirate and use pirated things and find solutions, instead of finding new ways to eliminate pirating.
Last edited by Georgee; Jan 22 2012 at 09:09 AM.
Georgee LoreMaster
Balrog's Bane - Gilrain - Member of Allies of Light
Regardless of what SOPA and PIPA state they want to do, the fact remains that they go way too far and are being implimented by old men who don't have a clue about how the Internet works. Also, Hollywood and the movie industry would certainly have distributed their fair share of brown envelopes to have these bills brought forward.
The facts are there, Hollywood is not suffering huge losses because of piracy, it is a thriving industry full of hugely rich businesses, I seriously doubt they are in great need of protection.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Century Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Haue
Senior Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Leader of Broken and part of the Allies of Light
Century Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Member Online status:
Have you ever tried to raise funding for a movie? Or pay for studio time and CD pressing? Do you know how hard it is?! It can take a couple of years sometimes to get the independent investment. And that investment comes from individuals, banks, charities, and sponsors... most of whom need a payout back. A lot of record producers and film studios are running at a loss - its only the few mega blockbusters that bring in the cash upon which many other films/artists etc are funded. Thereby creating variety and freedom of choice for those of us that enjoy films/music.
Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
