PDA

View Full Version : Free internet is being killed right now !



Lobotomist
05-02-2012, 04:36 PM
First of i am sorry for the title. I really didnt know how to put my worries in one word.

I also apologize right of the bat for posting on games site (its simply a site that i frequent and respect) and for posting a topic that might seem like defending piracy.


I believe that every journey starts with first step.


This journey started few days ago but it was only on surface. We now know that PIPA and SOPA was only smoke in our face. And that far more sinister plans are brewed behind closed doors and without any possible influence of public elected representatives or goverments. What I am talking about, is ACTA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ
The reports go so far to public statement of for example Slovenian ambassador that claims he was given no choice and was force to sign it (by whom, that is question).There is nothing we can do to stop ACTA. And what it seems , its only the tip of the iceberg in the shitstorm that is brewing.

Couple days ago Kim Dotcom , owner of Megaupload site was arrested and is facing 5 years prison sentence. His business was closed , and ruined. And all his possessions confiscated. And this was before he had any kind of trial (a person is innocent until proven guilty ?) All this for something that was until today believed to be not illegal - he only provided service for filesharing, and can not be held responsible for what people shared...or can he ?

This is when shit had hit the fan.
2 days ago the largest movie databse forums. Where people shared links (not files) was closed without any warning.
http://www.quicksilverscreen.ch/index.html , a site that hosted links to untold treasure of independent, foreign, art and old films , among others. Something that was built by community for many years. Gone just like that...
Filesharing sites and video services are reported to be deleting files by truckloads. And people are talking about pirate bay facing closure in next few days.

What got everyone so scared ? What changed so suddenly ?


I am afraid, we are going to find out very soon...



And why am I so worried - after all this is only bust on those dirty pirate file sharers ?

Well i urge you to watch this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpf0xVCcL8



Freedom of sharing files is one of the main weapons in our hands in fight against this new oppression. To control what we buy and what we not. What we support and what we not , is the only weapon left to us.

And they are trying to take it from us. Because they know how dangerous it is.
And this is exactly what is happening right now. They are scared, and they ACTED. We are losing the battle right now!


Every journey begins with first step.
First our rights to share files, movies, music, books, comics , paintings ....
Where this leads ? I dont know... maybe I am over reacting.

But let me just leave you with quote from movie "they live" :
Obey, Consume, This is your God

deano2099
05-02-2012, 05:19 PM
It's interesting. I don't think it makes me sound like too much of a conspiracy nut in saying that SOPA, the MegaUpload thing and so on were some sort of planned 'strike' to try and really hit these things.

All it will do is force things more underground though. Sticking a distributed index on top of something like Bitorrent doesn't strike me as a particularly tough problem. And there will always be other methods.

I mostly get concerned at the filtering at ISP level, things like 'three strikes' and so on, as they feasibly can stop piracy regardless of the method, but those laws need a lot more teeth to really be effective.

Bhazor
05-02-2012, 05:28 PM
"All this for something that was until today believed to be not illegal - he only provided service for filesharing, and can not be held responsible for what people shared...or can he ?"

He made millions from his site and never hid the fact that his site was distributing copyrighted material and made no effort to check for those items. He has also previously been found guilty of embezzlement and insider trading. Basically the guy's a douche. At least the Pirate Bay, also self congratulatory little asshats, didn't make money from what they were doing.

pakoito
05-02-2012, 05:33 PM
Politicians working on Sunday?

Heister
05-02-2012, 05:46 PM
"We are losing the battle right now!"

Didn't know there was one.

If I posted a link to a pirate copy of a game/film etc in this thread do you know what would happen to my comment?

Who cares if these sites get taken down really? If I want a film, software/games, books or music I'll either buy them or get them the old-fashioned way. I'll borrow them off a friend.

DigitalSignalX
05-02-2012, 05:59 PM
Who cares if these sites get taken down really? If I want a ...

This is your problem.


2 days ago the largest movie databse forums. Where people shared links (not files) was closed without any warning ... a site that hosted links to untold treasure of independent, foreign, art and old films , among others. Something that was built by community for many years.

This sort of thing is everyone's problem.

deano2099
05-02-2012, 06:17 PM
I dunno about anyone else, but Google make an absolute killing and I get most of my torrent links there...

Heliocentric
05-02-2012, 06:30 PM
Downloading/sharing illegal materials over Mc Donald/starbucks open wifi, would they really prosecute the owners of the network? Or try and catch the user?

Bhazor
05-02-2012, 06:43 PM
If starbucks was making a $100million or so from making copyrighted material available or were advertising it as a feature/service then you might have a point.

I have no sympathy for Kim.

Heliocentric
05-02-2012, 06:52 PM
If starbucks was making a $100million or so from making copyrighted material available or were advertising it as a feature/service then you might have a point.

I have no sympathy for Kim.

I didn't have a point, I was asking a question. That site deserved to get shut down and worse from everything I read. I was thinking about sopa and pipa.

Bhazor
05-02-2012, 07:10 PM
@ Heliocentric

My mistake. Sorry.

But I think that public networks already include no go zones and block certain programs. I know my university library wi-fi doesn't allow you to use Steam or certain gentleman's interest websites. Can't say I often use public networks though so what do I know.

Lobotomist
05-02-2012, 07:16 PM
"All this for something that was until today believed to be not illegal - he only provided service for filesharing, and can not be held responsible for what people shared...or can he ?"

He made millions from his site and never hid the fact that his site was distributing copyrighted material and made no effort to check for those items. He has also previously been found guilty of embezzlement and insider trading. Basically the guy's a douche. At least the Pirate Bay, also self congratulatory little asshats, didn't make money from what they were doing.

I agree.
Nobody here is not saying that he is not asshat.
In fact , file sharing community hates him the most. Because he made something that was community spirit and sharing, into pay for service.

But that is beside the point

Point is that he was arrested. His business closed and destroyed (and we are talking here multimilion operation). All his possessions taken. All this before he was even prosecuted, let alone found guilty. And for what : giving service that lets people share files (without censorship)

Day after that Quicksilver screen was closed. A simple forum , where people talked about movies and posted links to streaming videos (no files were ever hosted there)

The Video streaming sites are deleting videos - anything that looks even a bit suspicious.

...

Something is happening.
I mean they are afraid of something.

Heliocentric
05-02-2012, 07:35 PM
Stop quoting yourself. It makes you sound like a drone. Anyone reading the bottom post has already read what you said. Why is hosting the only crime? I'd get arrested for profiting (page views) from the distribution of anything illegal, be it pirates content, drugs,stolen goods or weapons saying "we never touched it" doesn't make becoming a community set around the consumption of legally unsound material right or legal.

Bhazor
05-02-2012, 07:44 PM
Siezing the proceeds of the website is no different than siezing the proceeds of say a drug dealer or a scammer. If you charge someone you freeze their assets and take what they made from their illegal business. If they're found innocent then you return them. You do not wait until sentencing to take away their assets because by then those assets will have vanished.

Kaira-
05-02-2012, 07:48 PM
Point is that he was arrested. His business closed and destroyed (and we are talking here multimilion operation). All his possessions taken. All this before he was even prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

It's not like this is a standard procedure in crime investigation or anything, or needs any sort of proof to confiscate anything.

Heliocentric
05-02-2012, 07:50 PM
Innocent until proven guilty would imply that you don't imprison people until they are convicted also, or that an accused sex offender could be left working with children until his court conviction.

The reality is more like "suspected until proven either way".

Bhazor
05-02-2012, 08:33 PM
I've always found the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" oddly suspicious. Makes it sound like everyone is under investigation and they just need to find proof.

archonsod
05-02-2012, 09:02 PM
I agree.
Point is that he was arrested. His business closed and destroyed (and we are talking here multimilion operation). All his possessions taken. All this before he was even prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

Given when the revolution comes the proletariat will be lining all business owners up and shooting them, I can only consider this the first blow.

Lobotomist
05-02-2012, 09:24 PM
Given when the revolution comes the proletariat will be lining all business owners up and shooting them, I can only consider this the first blow. Hehe , good one. But anyway. Shame to have this derailed into Kim Dotcom discussion. He is unimportant. His arrest is just a begging of the raid... ACTA , closing of filesharing forums. Deleting of thousands of videos all over the web. Something extreme is happening.

Heister
05-02-2012, 10:43 PM
From the op - "Freedom of sharing files is one of the main weapons in our hands in fight against this new oppression. To control what we buy and what we not. What we support and what we not , is the only weapon left to us."

Lobotomist, are you for or against the file sharing of copyrighted materials?

If I posted a thread on this forum that contained download links to pirated games, movies, music etc, do you know what would happen to that thread? So how is that any different than what you're talking about in your original post?

Keep
06-02-2012, 12:23 AM
Lobotomist, are you for or against the file sharing of copyrighted materials?

Well I know what side you're on:


I'll borrow them off a friend.

If you posted a thread on this forum containing links to copyrighted material, what would happen?

People'd share their own links back. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?18-What-are-you-listening-to/page16)

Bhazor
06-02-2012, 12:42 AM
@ Keep
A few points about your example thread.

First of all most bands encourage fans to share their videos. The whole point of a music video is to advertise a song and arguably the whole point of a song is to advertise their live shows which is where they make the vast majority of their money.
Secondly most of those links were to the bands own websites (Bandcamp for example).
Thirdly, streaming is not the same thing as downloading.

Unless you're Prince who doesn't really understand the internet. Sure enough his videos don't stay up long because he doesn't want them to be freely available.

Thats why this free internet thing is nonsense. The only companies who will abuse it are the ones who are already abusing the system. More and more companies are giving their stuff for free with 4OD and iPlayer in England or Southpark in America with the next step being HD downloads and no region restrictions. The companies who oppose it are heamoraging money and won't survive even if their IP stuff went in to power.

Old men trying to rule the world. But the world left them behind long ago.

Heister
06-02-2012, 12:43 AM
Well I know what side you're on:



If you posted a thread on this forum containing links to copyrighted material, what would happen?

People'd share their own links back. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?18-What-are-you-listening-to/page16)

If I posted a thread on this forum that contained download links to pirated games, movies, music etc, do you know what would happen to that thread?

Memph
06-02-2012, 12:48 AM
Those sitting back in a comfy chair, in a warm room, in front of their personal computer and thinking pffft, nonsense. Please take some time out and look into this. All of this. Read the documents. Read reports on the documents. Look at all the batshit crazy loony stuff you can from all the corners of the net whilst you can and form your own informed opinion. I'll refrain from politics & specifics, but holy shit, just look at the one broad example of the US currently having one single man up on stage asking, 'why are we in all these wars, spending all this money on killing all these people?'. Only the internet is seeing this man, where mainstream media practically has him blacked out. 'WTF' has never been a more appropriate term. This is the open ground for people where we can freely and safely express our opinions and ideas and we should defend it imo.

soldant
06-02-2012, 01:02 AM
Those sitting back in a comfy chair, in a warm room, in front of their personal computer and thinking pffft, nonsense. Please take some time out and look into this.
I have. I know for example that Australia had already signed ACTA back in October 2011... and in 2011 the majority of people didn't know what ACTA was or why they should care. And I also know that ACTA isn't going to suddenly wipe out the landmark decision in Australia recently where an ISP (iiNet) beat the entertainment industry and did not have to provide user details to them for alleged infringing users.

Here's another article about ACTA as it stands (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars). This isn't to say that ACTA is a good thing (it isn't, and the weird secrecy and backroom talks are absolutely reprehensible given that it's about intellectual property, not a friggin' top secret invasion plan to dismantle Nazi Germany). ACTA shouldn't be supported and it shouldn't go ahead. But reading through some things here and on the Internet at large, it's clear that most people don't actually know what ACTA is, and even more apparently aren't aware that some nations have already signed up. The FUD spread by Anonymous doesn't help, and it just makes everybody look misinformed.

Bhazor
06-02-2012, 01:08 AM
@ Soldant

Remember when Cory Doctrow said there would be "Literal witch hunts"? Complete with illustrations of people being burnt at the stake? That was the point I removed BoingBoing from my bookmarks. I mean scare mongering like that just makes you look a little bit of a conspiracy fruit and nut bar.

@ Keep

Apart from the videos posted by the publishing companies which made up about half of the ones in that thread. Or the fact that more and more bands are going independant and own their own work. Or the fact that most big label bands put streaming music on their site. Or the fact it isn't a crime unless its reported which they have the right to do right now but don't. An IP holder still needs to choose to prosecute and they are getting increasingly leniant.

Keep
06-02-2012, 01:08 AM
@ Keep
A few points about your example thread.

First of all most bands encourage fans to share their videos. The whole point of a music video is to advertise a song and arguably the whole point of a song is to advertise their live shows which is where they make the vast majority of their money.
Secondly most of those links were to the bands own websites (Bandcamp for example).
Thirdly, streaming is not the same thing as downloading.

Fourthly: it's illegal? Most of those videos were uploaded by fans, without the rights-holders' permission. Tough shit about what the band wants, or where else the links are available, or the difference between streaming/downloading.

The law doesn't make exceptions. It's illegal. Not sensible, not reasonable, not progressive, not desirable, but still: LAW.

That's why this 'free internet' thing isn't nonsense. The law is bad and there're forces out there intending to make it worse. That's troubling.


If I posted a thread on this forum that contained download links to pirated games, movies, music etc, do you know what would happen to that thread?

Well now, technically, if you're only linking you may be protected by safe harbours, but a) the law can get abused on that point, b) the forum admins would probably delete the thread anyway out of fear of litigation, and c) like SOPA/PIPA showed, there are people out there wanting to change the law to remove those safe harbours entirely.

So...I guess I'm not really sure what your question is leading to?

Keep
06-02-2012, 01:41 AM
Bhazor, I'm hearing what you're saying about a witch-hunt. This is an issue where rhetoric goes too far. I don't like it either (There's a reason I'm ignoring OP).

And I definitely agree with you about how the future of business for music/movies etc. should play out/likely will play out.

But what bothers me is, a lot of people seem to buy into what your old men trying to rule the world are advocating. And those folks're actually just coming from the same place I am: we don't want to see artists get ripped off; we want to make sure culture grows as healthily as possible.

So should I not try and debate with them on that topic, when I see them express old-man views?

Memph
06-02-2012, 01:53 AM
I have. I know for example that Australia had already signed ACTA back in October 2011... and in 2011 the majority of people didn't know what ACTA was or why they should care. And I also know that ACTA isn't going to suddenly wipe out the landmark decision in Australia recently where an ISP (iiNet) beat the entertainment industry and did not have to provide user details to them for alleged infringing users.

Here's another article about ACTA as it stands (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars). This isn't to say that ACTA is a good thing (it isn't, and the weird secrecy and backroom talks are absolutely reprehensible given that it's about intellectual property, not a friggin' top secret invasion plan to dismantle Nazi Germany). ACTA shouldn't be supported and it shouldn't go ahead. But reading through some things here and on the Internet at large, it's clear that most people don't actually know what ACTA is, and even more apparently aren't aware that some nations have already signed up. The FUD spread by Anonymous doesn't help, and it just makes everybody look misinformed.

Yes, there's plenty of misinformed on technicalities, but i'm fine with that as I still consider this a step in a very bad direction. That article itself warns of more to come and that some of these changes still leave room for problems.

"The new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), like the ACTA before it, had its intellectual property chapter drafted by the US. Once again, the chapter was drafted in secret and has been classified for at least four years after negotiations end. The agreement exports (nearly verbatim) the DMCA's rules on digital locks, ISP liability, and subscriber disconnections, with a few extra goodies on the side."

It's the secrecy that annoys more than anything I reckon. It's almost like we're all treated as an enemy, keeping people in the dark whilst some unelected 'official' does dodgy deals with faceless corporations. No wonder people automatically think they're getting shafted.

deano2099
06-02-2012, 02:16 AM
The law doesn't make exceptions. It's illegal. Not sensible, not reasonable, not progressive, not desirable, but still: LAW.


Actually it does make exceptions. They can be written in (like I think ripping CDs was with one of the earlier US laws). But there's no sign of that. It's fair enough for people to say "yeah but companies don't do x y and z so don't worry about it, they won't start just because of these new laws" but if that's the case, why not write x y and z into the law as official exemptions?

mr.doo
06-02-2012, 02:54 AM
If I posted a thread on this forum that contained download links to pirated games, movies, music etc, do you know what would happen to that thread?
*facepalm. If you posted warez links in some forum, your post/thread would be most likely erased. With ACTA/SOPA/PIPA if you posted warez links in some forum, the whole forum would be taken down. That's unfair to the owner, that's unfair to the other users, etc...

Does that sound like justice to you ?

Memph
06-02-2012, 03:13 AM
Please don't bring an important discussion down by slinging abuse. Passion is easily drowned in anger and noone will listen to your view if you offend them along with it.

mr.doo
06-02-2012, 03:39 AM
It's kind of hard to take him seriously when he posts things like "Who cares if these sites get taken down really?" among other gems.
I don't think I'm exactly "bringing the discussion down by slinging abuse", considering I wrote only one "insult" (which I don't find all that offensive), and I did offer him some enlightenment on the subject, since apparently using his grey cells and/or reading something on the subject before posting garbage was too much to ask.
If he wants to ignore my post or pretend to, that's mostly his problem not mine.

Anyway, I did a slight modification to my original post as I don't want some overzealous mod/admin to lock this thread.

soldant
06-02-2012, 04:59 AM
Remember when Cory Doctrow said there would be "Literal witch hunts"? Complete with illustrations of people being burnt at the stake? That was the point I removed BoingBoing from my bookmarks. I mean scare mongering like that just makes you look a little bit of a conspiracy fruit and nut bar.
Exactly. You can't claim credibility and then propagate misinformation. Which brings me to...


Yes, there's plenty of misinformed on technicalities, but i'm fine with that as I still consider this a step in a very bad direction. That article itself warns of more to come and that some of these changes still leave room for problems.
So by your own admission, as long as something supports your general viewpoint you don't actually care whether it's factual or not? I'm glad you're not running a government! Like I just said, you/your movement are not credible if you dispense incorrect information! You can't just overlook lies just because it supports your particular viewpoint. I'm sure you're a critic when the RIAA/MPAA/Whoever use made-up statistics to justify harsh measures (like "lost sales" or "cost" figures)... but following your logic it shouldn't matter, because it supports their cause so it's perfectly fine.

Dispel ALL misinformation. Credibility is paramount. If you're relying on lies to get your point across, you're just as bad as the other side.


It's the secrecy that annoys more than anything I reckon. It's almost like we're all treated as an enemy, keeping people in the dark whilst some unelected 'official' does dodgy deals with faceless corporations. No wonder people automatically think they're getting shafted.
This, right now, is pretty much your only factual point. It's reason enough to oppose ACTA, and like I said I do oppose ACTA, but this does not in any way make any of the misinformation being spread factual or somehow more acceptable than someone using pseudo-science to claim we never landed on the moon.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 09:19 AM
Bhazor, I'm hearing what you're saying about a witch-hunt. This is an issue where rhetoric goes too far. I don't like it either (There's a reason I'm ignoring OP).

And I definitely agree with you about how the future of business for music/movies etc. should play out/likely will play out.

But what bothers me is, a lot of people seem to buy into what your old men trying to rule the world are advocating. And those folks're actually just coming from the same place I am: we don't want to see artists get ripped off; we want to make sure culture grows as healthily as possible.

So should I not try and debate with them on that topic, when I see them express old-man views?

Pardon me for not have your subtleness.

And I agree my rethoric goes bit too far...i even mentioned it in the text.


But it doesnt change the fact things are happening now.

Today bitjunkie was "voluntarily" closed ... the things are falling like dominos.


I am afraid to wake up tomorrow to completely new internet. And all because we people were arguing about : is Kim Dotcom a fat bastard , or is sharing indie bands videos copyright infringement , or would rps remove link to pirated content.

Its irrelevant,

We will lose because we dont know how to stand together. (and dont want)
While centralized power unites their side trough money and loyalty.

This is how they ruled us since Pharaohs of Egypt to Multinational companies of today.


This is why filesharing is so important. Its not much, but its a clip in the wheels of total control.

It gives us the power to choose what we support and what we dont.

It gives us the choice , and choice is freedom.


This is why its so important to stop it from being closed down.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 09:29 AM
There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion
I cant get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine
Plow men dig my earth
None will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth
Hey hey

No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hours getting late

All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Bare-foot servants to
Outside in the cold distance
A wild cat did growl
Two riders were approaching
And the wind began to howl

All along the watchtower
Hear you sing around the watch
Gotta beware gotta beware I will

All along the watchtower

Heister
06-02-2012, 10:45 AM
This is why filesharing is so important. Its not much, but its a clip in the wheels of total control.

It gives us the power to choose what we support and what we dont.

It gives us the choice , and choice is freedom.


This is why its so important to stop it from being closed down.

You still have the choice to buy the content.

Heliocentric
06-02-2012, 11:10 AM
This is how they ruled us since Pharaohs of Egypt to Multinational companies of today.

Really, man, you are your own worst enemy.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 12:31 PM
You still have the choice to buy the content.

Just a question: Did you like the song I posted above ?

Heister
06-02-2012, 12:50 PM
Just a question: Did you like the song I posted above ?

Yeah, it's a good track. I thought this line was apt -

Said the joker to the thief

deano2099
06-02-2012, 12:55 PM
You still have the choice to buy the content.

Sometimes.

But it's not like recent actions are being limited to stuff that is commercially available.

Plus if you don't happen to live in the right part of the world, what's 'commercially available' can be hugely limited.

I'm not just talking about archive material either. There are tons of people, myself included, who would happily buy TV shows if:

a) they were available right after they first aired in the US, or whichever primary market they reside in
b) they could be watched on our TV (meaning open standards are required not proprietary players)
c) they don't cost more than buying the actual DVD a year later would

Tikey
06-02-2012, 01:02 PM
Yeah, it's a good track. I thought this line was apt -

Said the joker to the thief


Oh dear god, please no.
Leave Bob Dylan's songs out of your trolling please.

Heister
06-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Oh dear god, please no.
Leave Bob Dylan's songs out of your trolling please.

I was replying to the op. He posted the lyrics not me.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 01:28 PM
Yeah, it's a good track. I thought this line was apt -

Said the joker to the thief

I thought you gonna like it.

Unfortunately you can kiss it goodbye. Since me posting this lyrics on forums is copyright infringement.

If SOPA or PIPA got active , RPS could be taken down for that post. And they would most likely erase it as soon as they saw it.

Are you surprised ? Didnt you know this lyrics are intellectual property. And commercially copyrighted.

You and I just committed copyrighted material theft.
And by all the legal rights given by ACTA, they could close internet connection of all the people that read that post.

So who is a joker and who is a thief now ?



Lyrics and images are also copyrighted material. Video clips. Even if they are part of news broadcast, commercial, reality show. Someone owns it.
Funny pictures, internet memes ... the list goes on.

All gone, back to 70-80s hand to hand photocopied.

Heister
06-02-2012, 01:42 PM
If SOPA or PIPA got active , RPS could be taken down for that post. And they would most likely erase it as soon as they saw it.


It's really not that big of a deal; to me anyway. Look at it this way, if that was to happen and RPS+the forums were deleted, all the info posted would be (and probably is already) available somewhere else.

Bhazor
06-02-2012, 01:48 PM
@ Lobotomist

You might want to curb the rhetoric there buddy. Silverscreen was a forum built entirely around sharing movie downloads. To be more precise they are sharing Hollywood and mainstream movie downloads not 1930's Belgian art house pictures. They had a frontpage listing the biggest new releases sometimes it would even have timers counting down to when it would be available. Claiming they were innocent or naive is nonsense. Saying thats like a single thread in a forum leading to a website being take down is completely rediculous. Sure enough there are already a half dozen sites doing what silverscreen used to do.

ACTA does nothing to change fair use policy. You can still use music in non commercial products, you can still post movie quotes, you can still criticise films using clips. You just can't take those things put your name on them and release them for cash.

The biggest danger of ACTA has nothing to do with the internets. It's that generic pharmaceuticals will be made illegal meaning that third world countries may end up having to pay a 4000% increase for life saving medicine. Thats past the rascal terrirtory and into outright comic book villainry. That should be what people talk about not that you might possibly one day maybe have to pay to watch season 56 of the Simpsons.

@ Deano

You've just listed what more and more publishers are doing. Indie bands releasing their music for free. South Park, Adult Swim, 4OD, BBC among many others are making their stuff freely available. The next step is just removing regional restrictions and allowing for HQ/HD downloads for a price. I give it three to five years until that's exactly what every tv broadcaster does.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 02:01 PM
@ Lobotomist

You might want to curb the rhetoric there buddy.

The biggest danger of ACTA has nothing to do with the internets. It's that generic pharmaceuticals will be made illegal meaning that third world countries may end up having to pay a 4000% increase for life saving medicine. Thats past the rascal terrirtory and into outright comic book villainry. That should be what people talk about not that you might possibly one day maybe have to pay to watch season 56 of the Simpsons.

Its hard to argue with that.

But without freedom of internet communication we wouldn't even have opportunity to discuss this, or even know it.

I know its not apparently clear how file-sharing is connected to freedom of communication.
But it does become clear when one looks at the big picture and does not focus on Simpsons or Kim Dotcom.

When freedoms are being taken, it does not stop with just one freedom.

Soon we could wake up to find a very different internet than the one we had luck to enjoy until now.

Mistabashi
06-02-2012, 02:09 PM
I thought you gonna like it.

Unfortunately you can kiss it goodbye. Since me posting this lyrics on forums is copyright infringement.



Actually no, since it would fall under fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use).

Bhazor
06-02-2012, 02:11 PM
@Lobotomist
ACTA IS NOT CENSORSHIP

Complaining about websites being taken down for repeated copyright enfringement is like a shop lifter complaining about CCTV. The websites that have been taken down had a single subject. Either pirated games or streaming movies.

ACTA sucks. But acting like it will murder our children also sucks. Be rational

mr.doo
06-02-2012, 02:50 PM
Bhazor: Most, if not all of those sites were taken down before ACTA. With ACTA even youtube or facebook can be brought down legally. And if you think that Youtube for example already went to court with Sony and Universal among others due to copyright infringement, that makes you wonder what would happen if they had the law by their side.

How can anyone defend ACTA or say "ACTA IS NOT CENSORSHIP" is just beyond me.

These bills and laws were passed to protect the big corporations, there are lobbies and agendas behind them. This is censorship at it's worst.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 02:54 PM
Actually no, since it would fall under fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use).

Actually it does not.

I used the whole poem , i didnt credit the authors, and RPS is commercial website.

Its clear cut copyright infringement.

Bhazor
06-02-2012, 03:13 PM
This is censorship at it's worst.

... really? *This* is the worst form of censorship you can think of? Websites not stopping people from posting copyrighted material being shut down?

Have to wonder what Aung San Suu Kyi would say about that.

ACTA isn't censorship. It's racketeering. It doesn't stop you from making something or burn it in a big fire.

Its also pointless and wholly unsustainable and the companies that try to use it are going to run themselves bankrupt trying to enforce it. Every other group/publisher will learn to stream it themselves or make their own official streams. Which is happening anyway.

It's old men trying to get back to the good old days. EMI for example has heamorraged billions over the past ten years because they were so slow to adapt.

@Lobotomist

Nope. If you were using it to advertise a book of your poetry, or were passing it off as your own, or including it in a commercial work then it would be copyright infringement.

Lobotomist
06-02-2012, 03:27 PM
Its also pointless and wholly unsustainable and the companies that try to use it are going to run themselves bankrupt trying to enforce it. Every other group/publisher will learn to stream it themselves or make their own official streams. Which is happening anyway.

It's old men trying to get back to the good old days. EMI for example has heamorraged billions over the past ten years because they were so slow to adapt.

Well , I hope you are right.

But I think these companies have far more power than we think they do. They have been forcing many governments to sign this agreement behind closed doors and without any parliament discussion.
And now all these arrests and sites being closed. Someone is behind this.

deano2099
06-02-2012, 03:32 PM
Actually no, since it would fall under fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use).

RPS is based in the UK and we have no such provision.


It's really not that big of a deal; to me anyway. Look at it this way, if that was to happen and RPS+the forums were deleted, all the info posted would be (and probably is already) available somewhere else.

Yes, but it'd mean site would lose ad revenue, leading the writers being unable to pay the rent or eat. No-one is going to even risk basing a living on such a knife-edge, so sites like RPS just wouldn't exist.

And for those that think companies will be sensible and not take things too far, remember we live in a world where company lawyers are unthinkingly filing takedown notices against themselves, (http://boingboing.net/2011/02/15/cbs-sends-a-youtube.html)so what do you think the chance of them using any new powers in a restrained fashion are?

mr.doo
06-02-2012, 05:41 PM
... really? *This* is the worst form of censorship you can think of? Websites not stopping people from posting copyrighted material being shut down?

Have to wonder what Aung San Suu Kyi would say about that.

ACTA isn't censorship. It's racketeering. It doesn't stop you from making something or burn it in a big fire.

Its also pointless and wholly unsustainable and the companies that try to use it are going to run themselves bankrupt trying to enforce it. Every other group/publisher will learn to stream it themselves or make their own official streams. Which is happening anyway.

It's old men trying to get back to the good old days. EMI for example has heamorraged billions over the past ten years because they were so slow to adapt.



Yes this is censorship at it's worst. It's sole purpose is to fill up the pockets of the media corporations at the expense of the freedom of billions of internet users. Do you know any other form of censorship of this scale ?

How can you even say "It doesn't stop you from making something or burn it in a big fire. " ?
Have you been reading anything people have been telling you ? Your favourite sites/communities are in constant risk of being brought down if a single user posts copyrighted material, even if unwillingly.

You want to watch a video ? Oh wait youtube is down for good. Want to reconnect with some old friend you haven't seen in a long time ? What a shame, facebook is down as well. Need to search for something in the internet ? Guess what, Google is down. Remember that community you really enjoyed being part of ? Closed down. Of course this is a pretty pessimistic outlook, but with ACTA it is now a realistic one. I'm still shocked to see people like you saying "hey it's not that bad".

And do you really believe EMI, Sony, Universal and so on don't have the financial means to put a lawsuit in a site, regardless of how big it is ? Are you serious ? These corporations earn billions a year. Not only that, they have had countless lawsuits on big sites like youtube and google, even knowing the law would hardly favor them. Just imagine if they had a green card to sue whatever site they feel can be bad for business.
Do you get the picture now or it is still "not that bad" ?

deano2099
06-02-2012, 05:51 PM
You want to watch a video ? Oh wait youtube is down for good. Want to reconnect with some old friend you haven't seen in a long time ? What a shame, facebook is down as well. Need to search for something in the internet ? Guess what, Google is down. Remember that community you really enjoyed being part of ? Closed down. Of course this is a pretty pessimistic outlook, but with ACTA it is now a realistic one. I'm still shocked to see people like you saying "hey it's not that bad".


Yep, this. Thing is, it's easy to say "it'll never come to that, they won't actually shut YouTube down" but do remember that these are the same people that tried to have VCRs and tape recorders neutered. They're the people that objected to folk ripping their CDs and putting them on their iPods. If you think they're going to get this through and not go after Google, YouTube et al you're mistaken. They might not succeed in the end, but it's where they're looking.

Bhazor
06-02-2012, 05:55 PM
@Mr. Doo
Still not censorship. Censorship would be the government or corporations stopping you from making stuff. What you're talking about is sites being taken down for hosting or providing copyrighted material. The sites being targeted are those *dedicated* to copyright infringement. I want to watch a video? I'll probably watch it on the makers site or the inevitable collectives where a few dozen bands/developers pool their media. Google is a corporation that is probably far bigger than any of the companies behind ACTA. I think they can take care of themselves.

Did you know that EMI is billions in debt? That their revenue has dropped by a third in the last two years? That Sony music isn't doing much better?
They're a dying breed. ACTA if anything will hurry them along.

ACTA sucks. It's not the end of the world. The pharmaceutical stuff is a much bigger issue.

Heister
06-02-2012, 06:19 PM
Yep, this. Thing is, it's easy to say "it'll never come to that, they won't actually shut YouTube down" but do remember that these are the same people that tried to have VCRs and tape recorders neutered. They're the people that objected to folk ripping their CDs and putting them on their iPods. If you think they're going to get this through and not go after Google, YouTube et al you're mistaken. They might not succeed in the end, but it's where they're looking.

Again, that wouldn't be the end of the world. Everything of worth on YouTube is available elsewhere, and if it isn't it soon would be after YouTube falls. So I'm not bothered either way.

Skalpadda
06-02-2012, 07:38 PM
You've just listed what more and more publishers are doing. Indie bands releasing their music for free. South Park, Adult Swim, 4OD, BBC among many others are making their stuff freely available.

The BBC does not release television programs for free. The iPlayer is region locked and the content, and your access to it, is paid for by the licence fee. Same goes for Channel 4. Adult Swim isn't freely available either.


It's really not that big of a deal; to me anyway. Look at it this way, if that was to happen and RPS+the forums were deleted, all the info posted would be (and probably is already) available somewhere else.

Sure, if pure information was the only reason you came here, you could probably find that elsewhere. The articles wouldn't live on though; those thousands of man-hours spent on creative writing would be gone. The writers would no longer have a site where they were free to express themselves in any way they wished and the community around it would disappear as well.

edit @Heister:
It's not a matter of YouTube being shut down (Though there is a *lot* of original content there that can't be found elsewhere. It might not matter to you, but it does to many people all around the world.) but that content hosts and providers like it wouldn't be able to exist as open forums for people to use.

mr.doo
06-02-2012, 10:05 PM
@Mr. Doo
Still not censorship. Censorship would be the government or corporations stopping you from making stuff. What you're talking about is sites being taken down for hosting or providing copyrighted material. The sites being targeted are those *dedicated* to copyright infringement. I want to watch a video? I'll probably watch it on the makers site or the inevitable collectives where a few dozen bands/developers pool their media. Google is a corporation that is probably far bigger than any of the companies behind ACTA. I think they can take care of themselves.

Did you know that EMI is billions in debt? That their revenue has dropped by a third in the last two years? That Sony music isn't doing much better?
They're a dying breed. ACTA if anything will hurry them along.

ACTA sucks. It's not the end of the world. The pharmaceutical stuff is a much bigger issue.

"Still not censorship. Censorship would be the government or corporations stopping you from making stuff."
If you still think ACTA isn't about censorship then you still don't fully understand what it's about.

"I want to watch a video? I'll probably watch it on the makers site or the inevitable collectives where a few dozen bands/developers pool their media."

Youtube is a lot more than just a repository of trailers and music videos. The actual content in youtube would be gone. I care about that and a lot of people do as well. You don't, that's good for you, but in the meantime I'm sure there is something in the internet you do care about that will disappear thanks to ACTA.

"Google is a corporation that is probably far bigger than any of the companies behind ACTA. I think they can take care of themselves."

Keep believing in that. If the law plays against them and says what they are doing is illegal, not even all the money in the world can save them from being shut down.

"The sites being targeted are those *dedicated* to copyright infringement"

Wrong. The sites being targeted are those who for a reason or another are bad for business. Youtube and google for instance are definitely not dedicated to copyright infringement yet Universal and others tried to take them out more than once. Even Megaupload was not dedicated to copyright infringement. A good share of their users used it as such, but that was not the purpose of the site.

"Did you know that EMI is billions in debt? That their revenue has dropped by a third in the last two years? That Sony music isn't doing much better?
They're a dying breed. ACTA if anything will hurry them along."

So...? Do you have any idea what difference the costs of a lawsuit would make in a billion dollar corporation ? More importantly, do you really think those are the only companies who are behind ACTA ? It's not just Sony BMG and EMI, there are thousands and thousands of corporations in the videogame, music and film industry who will profit greatly from ACTA and won't have a problem using it to their advantage if it means more $$$, regardless of whether or not it hurts a lot of people.

"ACTA sucks. It's not the end of the world. The pharmaceutical stuff is a much bigger issue."

I agree, there are bigger and more urgent issues. But this particular issue affects pretty much everyone in the world and I want to do something about it. If you don't want to, your problem. I just think the whole "ACTA is not the end of the world, so I don't give a shit" attitude is unnecessary, specially when you flaunt it in a internet forum. Irony at it's finest.

Heister
06-02-2012, 11:24 PM
I agree, there are bigger and more urgent issues. But this particular issue affects pretty much everyone in the world and I want to do something about it. If you don't want to, your problem. I just think the whole "ACTA is not the end of the world, so I don't give a shit" attitude is unnecessary, specially when you flaunt it in a internet forum. Irony at it's finest.

It really doesn't.

mr.doo
07-02-2012, 12:03 AM
Or better saying, pretty much every internet user in the whole world.

soldant
07-02-2012, 12:20 AM
ACTA sucks. It's not the end of the world. The pharmaceutical stuff is a much bigger issue.
It's probably not an issue, and generics aren't going to be made illegal. The original developer of the medication gets their exclusive period (as they should given how ridiculously expensive it is to develop and test a new med) and then the generics will pick the rest of it up. ACTA is unlikely to change that. Generics are a big industry, and even if the US decided they don't want generics, it would never, ever fly in places like Australia with an extensive pharmaceutical benefits scheme where something cheaper that does the same job is highly preferable.

deano2099
07-02-2012, 12:47 AM
The sites being targeted are those *dedicated* to copyright infringement.

Yes. And give me a bill that gives congress the power to shut down sites dedicated to copyright infringement and you'll have my cautious support. Yet the provisions that are being demanded are more wide-reaching. If they don't need those powers, if they're only ever going to go after the big sites making a fortune of dedicate infringement, why not limit the powers accordingly. Why instead do they have a bill that would allow them to go after YouTube, Google, or others.


ACTA sucks. It's not the end of the world. The pharmaceutical stuff is a much bigger issue.

True. Still, you really reckon big pharma is beyond scouring the blogs and sites that catalogue their crimes in an attempt to find a video, image or overly-long quote that would justify a takedown notice?


Again, that wouldn't be the end of the world. Everything of worth on YouTube is available elsewhere, and if it isn't it soon would be after YouTube falls. So I'm not bothered either way.

And where does the future content come from? Where do all the people who have built up huge communities around their YouTube channels go? Start rebuilding on another site? How do they cope if they're reliant on revenue-sharing income to pay the rent? Sure, I'm not that concerned about stuff in the past either, but I am concerned for where future creators will go.

Bhazor
07-02-2012, 01:24 AM
"Still not censorship. Censorship would be the government or corporations stopping you from making stuff."
If you still think ACTA isn't about censorship then you still don't fully understand what it's about.

Censorship. Real censorship involves blocking new material or existing material for idealogical/political reasons. ACTA is about controlling distribution. Unless your freedom of speech means streaming the latest block buster movies then I really don't see how that is censorship. Original material will still be freely made and distributed through indie labels which is already the growing trend.

Bandying the word censorship around is an insult to the political prisoners around the world.

"Do you have any idea what difference the costs of a lawsuit would make in a billion dollar corporation ? More importantly, do you really think those are the only companies who are behind ACTA ? It's not just Sony BMG and EMI, there are thousands and thousands of corporations in the videogame, music and film industry who will profit greatly from ACTA and won't have a problem using it to their advantage if it means more $$$, regardless of whether or not it hurts a lot of people. "


Do *you* know how much a lawsuit costs? $$$ wouldn't even get the legal teams attention. Do you have any idea how many websites they'd need to target to make any money back in lost revenue? Or how hard it would be to trace offenders? The instant a website goes down five more take its place. Just look at Silver Screen. Google that and bam you'll have a dozen Google Questions about new sites just like it.

"The sites being targeted are those who for a reason or another are bad for business. Youtube and google for instance are definitely not dedicated to copyright infringement yet Universal and others tried to take them out more than once. Even Megaupload was not dedicated to copyright infringement. A good share of their users used it as such, but that was not the purpose of the site."

Google could block out websites if they wanted. They don't even try. Go ahead. Google any PC game and see what the first result is. Needless to say if you went on that website you'd see some google ads up there it's hard to feel sympathy I'm afraid. Youtube likewise they continue to make no effort in blocking copyright material and it continues to make up a sizeable bulk of their material. Given that, like Google, Youtube also profits (ad revenue) from this its again hard to feel symapthy.

Much of the copyrighted material is up there at the IP owners approval and will continue to be available elsewhere if youtube went down. I'd be interested any original content (that isn't a vlog) that isn't available on the creators own website. Irronically this could free youtube from many copyright claims as at the moment anyone can flag any video as copyrighted, with ACTA it would have to go official channels.

This is not SOPA which included surveilance, ip monitoring and worse. This is just super cease and desists that most publishers won't even use because they understand how the internet works.

deano2099
07-02-2012, 02:52 AM
Given that, like Google, Youtube also profits (ad revenue) from this its again hard to feel symapthy.


And here I was me thinking it would be difficult to prove that people supporting this ban would want to try and shut down Google and YouTube.

archonsod
07-02-2012, 05:46 AM
I just think the whole "ACTA is not the end of the world, so I don't give a shit" attitude is unnecessary, specially when you flaunt it in a internet forum. Irony at it's finest.

That's because ACTA does bugger all to the internet. It provides an international framework to let countries request other countries actually enforce their copyright obligations. That's it. In terms of the internet, it means the US (for example) could request Sweden take down the Pirate Bay (which it already can do). There's nothing in ACTA which prevents Sweden from telling the US to go fuck itself, nor is there anything in there which provides a framework whereby an individual business can make that request.
All ACTA does is attempt to make sure all countries are reading from the same page. Oh, and increase the ability of border enforcement to seize dodgy goods as they cross the border. So yeah, bit confused on precisely how ACTA is going to bother the forum or indeed internet, given the change for anyone in a Western nation is virtually zero.

Bhazor
07-02-2012, 09:52 AM
@Deano

How dare they try to stop companies profiting from unlawful use of copyrighted material!!!

Skalpadda
07-02-2012, 12:41 PM
@Bhazor: How dare they blame service providers for what their users do?

Heister
07-02-2012, 01:59 PM
And here I was me thinking it would be difficult to prove that people supporting this ban would want to try and shut down Google and YouTube.

Google and YouTube must mean a hell of a lot more to you than they do to me.
If they were to be shut down, other services would take their place. Ad free I hope.

Skalpadda
07-02-2012, 02:25 PM
Google and YouTube must mean a hell of a lot more to you than they do to me.
If they were to be shut down, other services would take their place. Ad free I hope.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. The problem with laws like SOPA and PIPA and the worries about how ACTA may be implemented in legislation is that services as open as Google, YouTube or Wikipedia would be impossible to run legally. Point being that other services would probably *not* take their place, at least not in a similar form.

hamster
07-02-2012, 05:03 PM
Well it's just a question of balance isn't it? How much money are copyright holders spending on investigating and discovering that their copyrights are being infringed on

versus

how much money it costs for websites to self regulate the user generated content it allows on its pages.

We're looking for balance here, obviously. This is why I suggested that all copyright infringement complaints should be registered, stored and sent to the relevant regulatory authority (where it could be legally verified) and once a certain cap of infringements for a website is reached, whether it is a hard cap, or % traffic, these sites should be put on notice with a warning. If the infringement persists above the cap, strike two. Three strikes over 6 months and you're out.

I think the idea of a court order compelling ad based networks, search engines etc. to blacklist sites that fall foul of the threshold a good idea. And I suppose if people thing this is too much, the court orders could be limited to say, 1 year. But the next time around, the time limit should be longer.

It seems to me that the issue is how far we go based on the two (above, in the beginning of this post) competing interests. But nobody seems to give a damn about how much we weight we should put on X and Y and don't even bother to define it. Just "oh if you facilitate infringement". Or "it's completely a-okay if you comply with the take down notices."

Skalpadda
07-02-2012, 05:53 PM
@Hamster: But why should it be the responsibility of the company providing a legal service to police their users at all? This isn't true in any other area of business I can think of.

If someone sends drugs through the post, the post office won't be held responsible for it even though it earned money by delivering the package. If I post racist propaganda on a public notice board, the owner of the notice board can't be charged for what I have done. If I get drunk and get into a fight in a pub the police won't shut down the pub even though they make money from people who go to pubs, get drunk and end up in fights. If I store stolen goods in my cellar the authorities won't seize the property from the company owning the house.

All of this goes even if the post office knew what I was mailing, if the board owner had seen me nail posters to their notice board, if the pub owner knew I was a violent drunk or if my landlord had gotten reports from my neighbour about stolen goods. We simply do not hold people responsible for the actions of others.

Even though it's illegal to send false take-down claims it's still happening and unless you have the time and money to sue in court there isn't much you can do about it. Many companies won't have the manpower, money or even the wish to defend themselves in court if they suddenly become liable for what their users upload and so the solution becomes to either not host user-uploaded content or to automatically take down content in order to defend themselves. Open projects like Wikipedia would be very difficult to keep running in that kind of environment. Independent creators will lose avenues to promote their art and ordinary users will lose opportunity to find it.

These laws have nothing to do with protecting and promoting creativity and innovation, which is the purpose of copyright law in the first place. They are designed to protect money and market shares and nothing else.

hamster
07-02-2012, 06:20 PM
@Hamster: But why should it be the responsibility of the company providing a legal service to police their users at all? This isn't true in any other area of business I can think of.

If someone sends drugs through the post, the post office won't be held responsible for it even though it earned money by delivering the package. If I post racist propaganda on a public notice board, the owner of the notice board can't be charged for what I have done. If I get drunk and get into a fight in a pub the police won't shut down the pub even though they make money from people who go to pubs, get drunk and end up in fights. If I store stolen goods in my cellar the authorities won't seize the property from the company owning the house.

All of this goes even if the post office knew what I was mailing, if the board owner had seen me nail posters to their notice board, if the pub owner knew I was a violent drunk or if my landlord had gotten reports from my neighbour about stolen goods. We simply do not hold people responsible for the actions of others.

There is a much greater connection between genuine piracy sites and their infringing content vs. the post office and forbidden mail. Indeed part of the balancing test i proposed is to look at it numerically: how many hits are they getting for the infringing content? Are they profiting off it via ad revenue from page views? How much are they profiting from it? These numbers should give you an adequate idea as to how connected the content is with the operations of the website.

Direct download sites like filesonic, wupload, filejungle etc. etc. recently executed a massive crackdown on infringing files purely because they knew they were close to being liable. But what were they doing before all of this? They were sitting on all these infringing files doing nothing. It doesn't make sense how you can hide behind ambivalence and use it as an excuse.

Bottom line is that these file sharing sites profit from, and therefore encourage, copyrighted content hosted on their servers. Let's imagine for a moment if theoretically it was possible to eliminate all copyrighted material from Filesonic at ZERO COST. That's all the .rar's of movies, porn, games and ebooks GONE. Imagine: just how much business have these guys lost? I suspect that the amount is substantial. And that's really all it is - that's what they're relying on. And I wonder: just how much did the crackdown cost Filesonic? I'm not talking about the value of the content but the cost of actually finding and deleting infringing content. If the cost was insubstantial then this is something they could have done earlier.


Even though it's illegal to send false take-down claims it's still happening and unless you have the time and money to sue in court there isn't much you can do about it. Many companies won't have the manpower, money or even the wish to defend themselves in court if they suddenly become liable for what their users upload and so the solution becomes to either not host user-uploaded content or to automatically take down content in order to defend themselves. Open projects like Wikipedia would be very difficult to keep running in that kind of environment. Independent creators will lose avenues to promote their art and ordinary users will lose opportunity to find it.

This is why take-down notices should be run through the relevant government authority (let's assume there is one) for verification. Then if you are adamant in obtaining a court order, then of course, the court must review your application with the help from the government (who should have all the info already).


These laws have nothing to do with protecting and promoting creativity and innovation, which is the purpose of copyright law in the first place. They are designed to protect money and market shares and nothing else.

Well it's kind of linked. If copyright holders are losing money or not gaining what they deserve to gain, then there's less of an incentive for creativity and innovation. And when it comes to things with educational value like wiki, fair use provisions should be adequate. If not they ought to be expanded.

Bhazor
07-02-2012, 09:01 PM
@Hamster: But why should it be the responsibility of the company providing a legal service to police their users at all? This isn't true in any other area of business I can think of.

If someone sends drugs through the post, the post office won't be held responsible for it even though it earned money by delivering the package. If I post racist propaganda on a public notice board, the owner of the notice board can't be charged for what I have done. If I get drunk and get into a fight in a pub the police won't shut down the pub even though they make money from people who go to pubs, get drunk and end up in fights. If I store stolen goods in my cellar the authorities won't seize the property from the company owning the house.

Yes they would blame the postal service. It is the post office/customs responsibility to check goods especially from overseas. Failure to do so could have severe repurcushions for the employees and companies involved.
Yes they would target the board owner. Allowing people to put offensive messages on a public messageboard show negligence and you could be blamed along with whoever posted it. Though it isn't actually illegal unless it incites bodily harm.
Yes they would prosecute a barman for what his customers do. If you run a pub and let people drive home drunk or brawl outside you can be prosecuted and have the premises closed. This happened near a friend of mine recently when there was a stabbing outside a pub on his street. This was the third near fatal assault in three months and a few days later it was boarded up with a note from the police.
Yes they would prosecute the land owner. If someone hides stolen goods on someone elses property they can be held as an accessory to the crime. Not knowing is not an excuse.

A service provider is responsible for the service they provide.
Denying that copyrighted material makes up a very large (almost certainly the majority) portion of Youtube and Megaupload content is at the very least naive if not outright dishonest.

Nalano
07-02-2012, 09:20 PM
If someone hides stolen goods on someone elses property they can be held as an accessory to the crime. Not knowing is not an excuse.

Conversely, the guy who regularly walks into my local pizza joint hawking bootleg DVDs will not shut down said pizza point. The call girl ads in the bathroom of the nearest dive bar will not shut down said dive bar.

As for the examples of brawls, stabbings and the like, those are public menaces - bars are likely to get shuttered for violence and noise more than anything else.

Bhazor
07-02-2012, 09:37 PM
@Nalano

No they could be prosecuted if they were reported. Especially the bootleg dvd example. The pizza joint is providing a premises for illegal activity and that counts as enabling and if they aren't seen to at least try and prevent it then they really are guilty as sin.

"As for the examples of brawls, stabbings and the like, those are public menaces - bars are likely to get shuttered for violence and noise more than anything else"
Which was exactly my point. A bar is reponsible for it's patrons hence why they're so keen on getting customers to use cabs. They could share the blame if that person plows his car through an orphange or something on the way home. Maybe not prosecuted but you'd certainly lose your trading license from the brewery which is actually a closer parrallel to the ACTA punishments.

Nalano
07-02-2012, 10:20 PM
Which was exactly my point. A bar is reponsible for it's patrons hence why they're so keen on getting customers to use cabs. They could share the blame if that person plows his car through an orphange or something on the way home. Maybe not prosecuted but you'd certainly lose your trading license from the brewery which is actually a closer parrallel to the ACTA punishments.

You're not getting my point.

This is going back to the "we'll accept this because we accepted seatbelts in the 60s" bullshit. No, for the most part authorities don't care about shit that goes on in bars unless they present a public menace. Emphasis public menace. Y'know, things they'll get shit for not reacting to.

We're discussing the difference between law and enforcement. If you tried to get a bar to adhere to all shit, no matter how innocuous, people would fight back. How can you hang loose in a pub with a policeman for a bartender? How would that bar get business? Case in point, Giuliani's folly with cabaret laws. Case in point, Chinatown knockoffs: When Bloomberg tried to crack down on those, citizens immediately complained, "don't cops have actual crimes to stop?"

These crackdowns will generate backlash, and rightly so. The letter of the law is unacceptable, which is why it's rarely enforced in earnest.

Bhazor
07-02-2012, 10:39 PM
@ Nalano

Talking about the cabaret and prohibition laws just goes back to my original point that there is no way ACTA is enforceable or sustainable. If anything trying to enforce it will finish off the dinosaurs of the music and movie industry. My response to Skalpadda was the claim that a content provider can't be held accountable for the content they provide. Which is nonesense. Again most companies don't care about streaming media and won't use the laws. Or will simply host it on their own community sites. This is already happening and would happen regardless of whether ACTA went through.

To be honest I haven't heard of Bloomberg vs Knockoffs but I'm guessing it's similar to the prohibition example.

BTW Remind me never to go drinking with you if violent men phoning up prostitutes to talk about drink driving is how you like to unwind in a bar.

Skalpadda
07-02-2012, 10:54 PM
@Hamster: I wasn't talking specifically about dodgy filesharing sites and nor are the laws that have been proposed lately. For filesharing sites that instigate and/or encourage copyright infringement (or are perceived to do so) it's already perfectly possible to get them shut down and prosecute the owners with current laws, as things like the Megaupload takedown show.

@Bhazor: Either you're deliberately misunderstanding, are ill-informed or the laws in the UK (I assume you're from the UK since you thought iPlayer was free earlier in the thread) are vastly different from those in this country in ways that are quite contrary to every impression I've ever gotten from conversations with British people and reading/viewing British media.

Let's see.. Customs are tasked with law enforcement so I'm not sure why you'd bring them into a conversation about companies and I'm pretty sure the post office and delivery firms are not responsible for the content of packages they deliver, just as telephone companies and ISPs are not responsible for phone calls or data packets. On public noticeboards, I very much doubt you're right about that as it sounds insane; I can't check of course but it seems weird that you'd have more lenient laws on the internet in that case. As for bars, again, I doubt that if someone has a fight the owner of the bar gets accused of that crime. Breaking laws for serving of alcohol and such is a crime committed by the owner or employee at that bar and that's not what I'm talking about.

As for "If someone hides stolen goods on someone else's property they can be held as an accessory to the crime. Not knowing is not an excuse", that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a person renting a flat and using that for something illegal. I have never, ever, even on dramatised television heard of anyone prosecuted because of something their tenants have done unless they have somehow themselves broken the law. As far as I'm aware in almost no European countries are you obligated by law to report crimes unless in some professional roles (such as law enforcement, education and social services).

Of course service providers are responsible for the services they provide. They are not however responsible for what their customers do with that service.

And no one is saying that a vast amount of the content on filesharing and video streaming services aren't copyrighted material. That has nothing to do with the argument in this thread.

Nalano
07-02-2012, 11:00 PM
As far as I'm aware in almost no European countries are you obligated by law to report crimes unless in some professional roles (such as law enforcement, education and social services).

Let's put it this way: Not since the fall of the iron curtain have there been any European countries where you're obligated to report on your tenants, clients, patrons and neighbors.

Kandon Arc
07-02-2012, 11:02 PM
Like SOPA, the main problem with ACTA (regarding copyright infringement) is that it is excessively (and intentionally?) vague. Take for example, it's definition of commercial scale:

"For the purposes of this section, acts carried out on a commercial scale include at least those carried out as commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage."

For comparison, here is the EU Parliament's definition:

"infringements on a commercial scale" means any infringement of an intellectual property right committed to obtain a commercial advantage; this excludes acts carried out by private users for personal and not-for-profit purposes"

Spot the difference?

The fact that the US insists this treaty is non-binding, while the EU insists that it is binding, shows that it isn't exactly a step toward 'harmonizing international law'.

Nalano
07-02-2012, 11:11 PM
Technically, isn't almost all piracy and distribution by definition done by (a very large number of) private individuals for non-profit purposes?

I've certainly never paid a pirate, nor sold a pirated game.

Skalpadda
07-02-2012, 11:24 PM
Well it's kind of linked. If copyright holders are losing money or not gaining what they deserve to gain, then there's less of an incentive for creativity and innovation. And when it comes to things with educational value like wiki, fair use provisions should be adequate. If not they ought to be expanded.

I forgot to respond to this in the post above. Money is a terrible incentive for creativity. At best it buys time and resources to create art and at worst it usurps the drive for creative expression as the very reason for creating. Most companies supporting these laws are not themselves directly creating anything at all. You might argue they're "enablers" of creativity since they do fund artists and craftsmen but at the end of the day they are not in any way crucial to human culture.

Kandon Arc
07-02-2012, 11:27 PM
Technically, isn't almost all piracy and distribution by definition done by (a very large number of) private individuals for non-profit purposes?

I've certainly never paid a pirate, nor sold a pirated game.

Ads mean that a site will profit off your traffic; however there was a piece that I read about how torrent site admins barely covered server costs and didn't really care.

But then again, no pirates ever have been brought up on criminal charges in Europe before (Dotcom may in fact be the first in the world, but I'm not sure). That is crucial thing this will change: piracy will be upgraded from a civil to criminal offence.

Bhazor
07-02-2012, 11:29 PM
@ Skalpadda

"On public noticeboards, I very much doubt you're right about that as it sounds insane; I can't check of course but it seems weird that you'd have more lenient laws on the internet in that case."
Failure to remove or prevent offensive material means you can have the noticeboard removed. Again racism itself isn't illegal.

"As for bars, again, I doubt that if someone has a fight the owner of the bar gets accused of that crime. Breaking laws for serving of alcohol and such is a crime committed by the owner or employee at that bar and that's not what I'm talking about."
Well it happens. Let a fight start in your bar and you can be charged with breaking the peace. If you continue to supply alcohol to people turning violent you could be considered an accessory to the crime. Supply alcohol to someone you know is driving home and you can be held as an accessory when he runs some guy over.

As for "If someone hides stolen goods on someone else's property they can be held as an accessory to the crime. Not knowing is not an excuse", that's not what I'm talking about.
My point is it could happen. If the owner shows repeat disregard or compliancy he can have it siezed.

"I'm talking about a person renting a flat and using that for something illegal. I have never, ever, even on dramatised television heard of anyone prosecuted because of something their tenants have done unless they have somehow themselves broken the law. "
If you know of a crime and fail to report it you can be done for conspiracy or perverting the course of justice.


"Of course service providers are responsible for the services they provide. They are not however responsible for what their customers do with that service."
To use a gross analogy
Sell a gun to a man who shoots his wife. Now you aren't responsible for murder but you are responsible for selling a gun to a dangerous individual. They aren't responsible for what people post. They are responsible for not checking what they post.

"And no one is saying that a vast amount of the content on filesharing and video streaming services aren't copyrighted material. That has nothing to do with the argument in this thread. "
... it does so. The whole reason ACTA is being pushed is the huge quantity of copyrighted material it has up that it has not made any meaningful step to reduce.

"Money is a terrible incentive for creativity. At best it buys time and resources to create art and at worst it usurps the drive for creative expression as the very reason for creating. "
You. Have. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Skalpadda
08-02-2012, 12:19 AM
Hi Bhazor, I'm glad you realised I'm not Nalano ;)

Now pardon me, but there will be a lot of quoting here.


Failure to remove or prevent offensive material means you can have the noticeboard removed. Again racism itself isn't illegal.

Again, I have never heard of any such case from any western European country and it certainly isn't the case here. Holding or discussing racist views is, to my knowledge, not illegal anywhere and covered by freedom of thought and speech, but spreading racist propaganda or inciting race hate is illegal in most, if not all, European countries.


Let a fight start in your bar and you can be charged with breaking the peace. If you continue to supply alcohol to people turning violent you could be considered an accessory to the crime. Supply alcohol to someone you know is driving home and you can be held as an accessory when he runs some guy over.

First of all I wasn't talking about drunk driving at all, and selling alcohol to someone who's already too drunk is illegal here as well (because it's a crime to poison people). Again I'm not talking about breaking the law, I'm talking about a customer breaking the law and you automatically sharing the guilt because the crime happened in your facilities. I'm open to the possibility that laws on this will vary a lot between countries but I haven't seen any concrete examples of this.


If the owner shows repeat disregard or compliancy he can have it siezed.

Got a verifiable example of this? Sure if you, for example, let your house fall into disrepair or allow a tenant's activities to disturb other people living at your property then yes you may be violating laws, but that still does not make you responsible for or complicit in crimes committed by those tenants.


If you know of a crime and fail to report it you can be done for conspiracy or perverting the course of justice.

Now this you will have to back up with some solid proof. Again, I'm not talking about crimes which you are directly complicit in, nor about failure to cooperate with law enforcement or lying in court but simply being aware that a crime has taken place or is going to take place.


Sell a gun to a man who shoots his wife. Now you aren't responsible for murder but you are responsible for selling a gun to a dangerous individual. They aren't responsible for what people post. They are responsible for not checking what they post.

That's a completely invalid analogy. Selling a gun to someone who isn't licensed to buy and use it is an illegal act in itself. You could quite rightly be charged with illegal arms dealing but unless you plotted with the man (and of course "I want to buy a gun to shoot my wife with" might count in this case) you wouldn't be an accomplice to murder.


... it does so. The whole reason ACTA is being pushed is the huge quantity of copyrighted material it has up that it has not made any meaningful step to reduce.

The whole reason ACTA is being pushed is to protect capital and market shares.


You. Have. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

No. Money is a means to an end, it is not the reason for creativity and it should not take that place, indeed it cannot without corrupting the very concept of artistic creativity. I support and sympathise with the original ideas behind copyright law, enabling creators to make a living from their creations and having some say in how they are used by others. I think the actual laws are much too far reaching, in some aspects bordering on insane and have long since ceased having any meaningful purpose of supporting artists but rather taken on the role of protecting and enabling the trade of financial assets.

The idea of money as the driving force of creativity which is so heavily promoted these days is absurd.

Keep
08-02-2012, 01:13 AM
You. Have. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Skalpadda's saying the drive for expression > money as a creative incentive.

And you think he's joking.

What is this I don't even...

Nalano
08-02-2012, 01:23 AM
Skalpadda's saying the drive for expression > money as a creative incentive.

And you think he's joking.

What is this I don't even...

Seriously. This makes my head hurt.

hamster
08-02-2012, 07:46 AM
@Hamster: I wasn't talking specifically about dodgy filesharing sites and nor are the laws that have been proposed lately. For filesharing sites that instigate and/or encourage copyright infringement (or are perceived to do so) it's already perfectly possible to get them shut down and prosecute the owners with current laws, as things like the Megaupload takedown show.

I think megaupload got taken down from other more serious charges like racketeering etc. Also to me it doesn't seem like the laws are adequate. Sites like Piratebay still exist. From what I remember the criminal provisions on copyright infringement require infringement for commercial gain.


I forgot to respond to this in the post above. Money is a terrible incentive for creativity. At best it buys time and resources to create art and at worst it usurps the drive for creative expression as the very reason for creating. Most companies supporting these laws are not themselves directly creating anything at all. You might argue they're "enablers" of creativity since they do fund artists and craftsmen but at the end of the day they are not in any way crucial to human culture.

But thing is, you can't expect people to be creative for the sake of it. You can't live off creativity alone. Imagine you have an idea brewing in your head. It's awesome stuff and it costs some money to make and it's truly revolutionary, you think. So what do you do? Quit your job and spend money that you can't afford to make something that gives you nothing in return? Monetary gain doesn't just encourage creativity, it allows it to be (practically) expressed.

Nalano
08-02-2012, 10:41 AM
I think megaupload got taken down from other more serious charges like racketeering etc. Also to me it doesn't seem like the laws are adequate. Sites like Piratebay still exist. From what I remember the criminal provisions on copyright infringement require infringement for commercial gain.

Sure, you can say that the current laws are inadequate and/or unenforceable, but it doesn't necessarily follow that SOPA, PIPA, or ACTA are better alternatives.


But thing is, you can't expect people to be creative for the sake of it. You can't live off creativity alone. Imagine you have an idea brewing in your head. It's awesome stuff and it costs some money to make and it's truly revolutionary, you think. So what do you do? Quit your job and spend money that you can't afford to make something that gives you nothing in return? Monetary gain doesn't just encourage creativity, it allows it to be (practically) expressed.

Two things.

1) Yes, you can indeed expect people to be creative for the sake of it. One cannot live in this world without expressing oneself. It's fucking human condition.

2) And who is to determine what "brilliant" idea gets funded? Who decides how widely it gets published and promoted? Should the ivory tower be the gatekeeper? Should we have a lottery? Artist welfare? Or should the market decide, such that only safe, popular things get produced? All of these are frankly stupid in practice, and hurt the art in question.

The problem here is that "artist" seems to be assumed to be a profession, that only qualifies if it's one's primary means of income. No, everybody does art. Most people do it at home after work, or are you saying that anybody who doesn't work in the entertainment industry isn't an artist?

hamster
08-02-2012, 11:41 AM
Sure, you can say that the current laws are inadequate and/or unenforceable, but it doesn't necessarily follow that SOPA, PIPA, or ACTA are better alternatives.


I didn't say they were; I suggested an alternative.


Two things.

1) Yes, you can indeed expect people to be creative for the sake of it. One cannot live in this world without expressing oneself. It's fucking human condition.

2) And who is to determine what "brilliant" idea gets funded? Who decides how widely it gets published and promoted? Should the ivory tower be the gatekeeper? Should we have a lottery? Artist welfare? Or should the market decide, such that only safe, popular things get produced? All of these are frankly stupid in practice, and hurt the art in question.

The problem here is that "artist" seems to be assumed to be a profession, that only qualifies if it's one's primary means of income. No, everybody does art. Most people do it at home after work, or are you saying that anybody who doesn't work in the entertainment industry isn't an artist?

I don't get your point. If artists aren't rewarded for their creative endeavors, then there will be less art available, yes? And the best way to come up with a proportionate reward is with entertainment, yes? So we presume that greater demand = more people entertained with art. So we scale reward with demand. Yes, there's always going to be deep, complex stuff that a mainstream audience fails to understand and therefore isn't fond of, mainly the more surreal, abstract stuff. But surely taking away the reward mechanism would merely make things worse?

Often i find the issue is not so much of the art being esoteric but the art is genuinely poor. I would define the art as "bad" if, in the hypothetical situation that the mainstream audience possesses the knowledge and faculties for perceiving the art, demand is still similar or equal in the situation where the audience lacks the above skills. This is a very roundabout way of saying that sometimes I feel that "deep" and "complex" art that sells poorly is mistakenly assumed to have sold poorly because people are too stupid to understand it. This is my opinion of most contemporary art. It is also my opinion of literary art, particularly in the form of the short story.

Skalpadda
08-02-2012, 11:48 AM
@Hamster:

First of all, my arguments don't relate directly to Megaupload at all but they were charged (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement) with copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. The people running The Pirate Bay were charged and convicted in Swedish court, on charges of copyright infringement (accessories to the crime of copyright infringement, to be precise).

I don't personally care much about either. I don't think it's categorically wrong to go after people making money from the work of others and clearly our current laws are sufficient to do that. What I'm opposed to is the idea that we need more far-reaching legislation that gives extraordinary rights to copyright and trademark holders and move the burden of proof from those accusing to those being accused or providing services to those being accused (ISPs and companies hosting user content or providing fora for open communication between individuals). PIPA and SOPA would do just that, and there's a good chance that future laws made to ratify ACTA will have similar effects.

On to the matter of creativity, you most definitely can expect people to create for the sake of it. Billions of people throughout recorded human history have done it every day. To clarify what I said earlier, money is a means to and end in the process of creation. On the most basic level you need tools and materials (instruments, paint, canvases, computers, cameras and so on) and those cost money. Enough money can buy the opportunity to devote more time to the creation of art (being a professional artist) and pay for more elaborate ways to realise creative ideas (hiring an editor, a film crew or an orchestra for example). At no point however does the removal of money from the creative process harm the impulse to create itself.

Bhazor
08-02-2012, 12:56 PM
You are telling me that designers making money from their product and protecting it is wrong.
Really?

You really don't think artists are motivated by money?
Seriously?

That is not how the world works.

You can spend your life making a single piece of glorious life affirming art. That won't keep the lights on or pay for your kids college.

Artists want money and the people supporting them deserve their cut too.

But of course the only true art is made by hobo with pebbles and coat hangers and left in caves.

Skalpadda
08-02-2012, 01:37 PM
You are telling me that designers making money from their product and protecting it is wrong.
Really?

Perhaps you should try to understand what you read (if you even read what I wrote in the first place) before you answer. I said no such thing, quite the contrary in fact. For your convenience:


No. Money is a means to an end, it is not the reason for creativity and it should not take that place, indeed it cannot without corrupting the very concept of artistic creativity. I support and sympathise with the original ideas behind copyright law, enabling creators to make a living from their creations and having some say in how they are used by others. I think the actual laws are much too far reaching, in some aspects bordering on insane and have long since ceased having any meaningful purpose of supporting artists but rather taken on the role of protecting and enabling the trade of financial assets.

The idea of money as the driving force of creativity which is so heavily promoted these days is absurd.

Also see my reply to Hamster above. I guess your problem is that you are not capable of separating between the financial requirements in the realisation of certain creative expressions and the underlying reason for creativity itself.

Nalano
08-02-2012, 09:59 PM
I don't get your point. If artists aren't rewarded for their creative endeavors, then there will be less art available, yes?

No. For fuck's sake, no. People will do art despite the threat of death. It's a natural reaction to being alive.


And the best way to come up with a proportionate reward is with entertainment, yes? So we presume that greater demand = more people entertained with art.

Art is not the goddamn entertainment industry.


Often i find the issue is not so much of the art being esoteric but the art is genuinely poor. I would define the art as "bad" if, in the hypothetical situation that the mainstream audience possesses the knowledge and faculties for perceiving the art, demand is still similar or equal in the situation where the audience lacks the above skills. This is a very roundabout way of saying that sometimes I feel that "deep" and "complex" art that sells poorly is mistakenly assumed to have sold poorly because people are too stupid to understand it. This is my opinion of most contemporary art. It is also my opinion of literary art, particularly in the form of the short story.

And I think your rendition of what art should be allowed to exist is biased and dumb. Any poet can tell you just how hard it is to get through the Old Boy's Club of academia that has a vice-like grip on publishing. Any MFA student will tell you that they're mired in the warrens of political infighting because they think an MFA is the way to get their work recognized as literature and thus published, far beyond any educational gain the MFA itself represents. For every person accepted by these gatekeepers, there are thousands not, and it's not because they're bad. It's because they don't play to the biases of those with the power to decide. They don't pay into the system.

The markets you're talking about are horrible, stupid ways of getting art out there, and are the reasons we're deluged with dross like Britney Spears (who, at the peak of her career, was fully half the promotional expenses of her label, over thousands of signed musicians and untold masses of unsigned musicians). Your conceit that other stuff wasn't as popular as her because they're too pretentious is laughable and I pity you for your narrow view on creativity.

deano2099
08-02-2012, 10:09 PM
Anyone else find the notion of Google censoring search results in any way just a bit creepy? Especially at the insistence of the government. Just doesn't sit well with me.

Nalano
08-02-2012, 10:10 PM
Anyone else find the notion of Google censoring search results in any way just a bit creepy? Especially at the insistence of the government. Just doesn't sit well with me.

Google left China because they demanded they do just that.

soldant
09-02-2012, 12:24 AM
No. For fuck's sake, no. People will do art despite the threat of death. It's a natural reaction to being alive.
Not sure if it's a natural reaction to being alive, but apart from that this is correct. Art isn't done purely for money (though that's a good motivator, particularly of bad art), if people received no monetary reward for art it'd still be around. If an artist will only create art for money, I'd be very suspicious of their motives. Nalano is correct that art will always exist whether there's financial reward or not.


Art is not the goddamn entertainment industry.
This however I disagree with in part. The industry itself isn't art but what it produces is art. It's commercialised, but it's still art. Whether you think it's particularly bad art or not is up to you, but it's still art. Art isn't restricted purely to deep and meaningful (or more frequently ambiguous and borderline-pointless) works which have a parade of hipsters ejaculating praise in ecstatic glee... okay sorry I went too far there. Art can be entertainment.


The markets you're talking about are horrible, stupid ways of getting art out there, and are the reasons we're deluged with dross like Britney Spears [...]. Your conceit that other stuff wasn't as popular as her because they're too pretentious is laughable and I pity you for your narrow view on creativity.
But they're still art. I agree with you that anything "by" Britney Spears is crap art, but it's still art. At the same time though I'd say something like Interior Semiotics is art but it too is pretty crap art. I sort of agree with Hamster that "This was never popular because it's too deep and you're all too stupid to understand it" is just a defence of needless elitism seen in some art circles which deliberately alienates itself from everyone else, not on merit but just because they feel the need to feel superior. It doesn't mean that it isn't art, but I don't think a sense of elitism is an essential (or even desirable) definition of "good art".

...wait, why are we talking about this? Aren't we supposed to be talking about FUD and ACTA?

Nalano
09-02-2012, 01:01 AM
Art can be entertainment.

Yes, of course. But the entertainment industry does not have a monopoly on art. It doesn't even have a majority. That's what I'm saying. If you define art by the entertainment industry alone, you have a very, very narrow view of art.


not on merit but just because they feel the need to feel superior.

And getting an MFA means having to suck up to the PhDs that make up the art department. Yes, of course. That is bad. But let's not say that "anti-pop is bad" because that's just as stupid as "pop is good."

Point being, jumping the hoops necessary to get this shit out there adulterates the art. It's no longer about making a personal statement: It's market research. Hipsters are just as guilty as corporate titbots, and their crap is just as crap. But that's not at all the same as "known" and "unknown."

hamster
09-02-2012, 05:23 PM
No. For fuck's sake, no. People will do art despite the threat of death. It's a natural reaction to being alive.

I don't understand this perspective. Yes, it is true that some people create art for fun without intending it to be a commercial enterprise. But there are also many people who create art out of monetary incentive (at least partially). That being said, art created for the purpose of financial gain does not necessarily entail that the art work created is non-art or crap art. There's no reason to assume that the two are mutually exclusive.



And I think your rendition of what art should be allowed to exist is biased and dumb. Any poet can tell you just how hard it is to get through the Old Boy's Club of academia that has a vice-like grip on publishing. Any MFA student will tell you that they're mired in the warrens of political infighting because they think an MFA is the way to get their work recognized as literature and thus published, far beyond any educational gain the MFA itself represents. For every person accepted by these gatekeepers, there are thousands not, and it's not because they're bad. It's because they don't play to the biases of those with the power to decide. They don't pay into the system.

So how do you decide what is good art and bad art? Get a panel of experts who believe keys and keyholes are the epitome of symbolic imagery? Literary art authors who write stories that have no beginning or end? It's not always about whether someone is "smart/knowledgeable enough" to get the material. Sometimes it just doesn't fit the taste of the majority.

It doesn't matter anyway. You can release your stuff for free on the internet and everyone can appreciate your work.


The markets you're talking about are horrible, stupid ways of getting art out there, and are the reasons we're deluged with dross like Britney Spears (who, at the peak of her career, was fully half the promotional expenses of her label, over thousands of signed musicians and untold masses of unsigned musicians). Your conceit that other stuff wasn't as popular as her because they're too pretentious is laughable and I pity you for your narrow view on creativity.

I didn't say stuff that isn't as popular is necessarily too pretentious. I like to judge on a case-by-case basis.

I remember in the film thread on this forum, some guy posted a 10 minute silent film about two guys fighting over a chick. It was directed by a Canadian director, in black and white, and very surreal. Was that you? I think you were posting in that thread. What did you think of the film? Good, tepid, bad, pretentious, genius? If you consider it genius, what was it that made it for you? Explain to me: i am really interested in your perspective.