I find it wildly ironic that a VIDEO GAME DEVELOPER decries the concept of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

To use your analogy: so it's OK if I independently reproduce your video games, pass them off as my own, and make money off them?>> ^gwiz665:

Agreed. If I built a ford out of parts I made myself, down to the fucking molecule, it still wouldn't be stealing. I have not taken anything from anyone.
Intellectual Property is a phantom dreamed up by those who want to control information. Information wants out. Information wants to be free. In the end it cannot be controlled.
Make a better service, then software piracy becomes a moot point.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
STOP CALLING IT STOLEN! The entirety of human culture is stolen by that kind of logic. You can only steal something that is a limited resource, of which bits really are not.

Agreed. If I built a ford out of parts I made myself, down to the fucking molecule, it still wouldn't be stealing. I have not taken anything from anyone.

Intellectual Property is a phantom dreamed up by those who want to control information. Information wants out. Information wants to be free. In the end it cannot be controlled.

Make a better service, then software piracy becomes a moot point.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

STOP CALLING IT STOLEN! The entirety of human culture is stolen by that kind of logic. You can only steal something that is a limited resource, of which bits really are not.

The DNS control mechanism of implementing SOPA and/or PIPA policies needs to get some more full explanation to Joe Public. Everything that the Content groups, the MPAAs and RIAAs etc. have done has been fatally flawed in that it can at best delay casual piracy, and usually even that is circumvented almost instantaneously. From what I can see, policing DNS would do no better than their other historical efforts in that regard.

This guy mentions that you can still type in an IP address and get to an infringing site. Maybe I am wrong or don't understand the full situation, but I would go a step further and say that this practice would simply result in US-based DNS servers being immediately replaced by DNS providers in other nations that fail to tow the SOPA/PIPA line. Joe User would get a quick walkthrough of changing his DNS provider through router or software settings, everybody would scramble for a brief period of time, and then the "sanctions" could be fairly safely ignored.

When the *AA's realize that the legislation they purchased with massive "campaign contributions" has no teeth, they would probably push (as in, push more dollars into the hands of lobbyists) for legal penalties to infringing sites beyond being de-listed from (US-based) DNS. If *that* were to actually happen also, it would simply chase ALL internet hosting outside of the US. The US could threaten trade sanctions or whatever against countries that turn a blind eye to infringing, but there would be so much of it going on that everyone could just balk at it and we'd be blowing a whole lot of hot air with jack behind it.

I think that the mainstream media needs a somebody with the balls to stand up and say that the cat is out of the bag on "protecting" Intellectual Property. For better or worse, it just isn't going to happen. The first group that accepts that and moves towards some new model is going to be way ahead of the curve in comparison to these dinosaurs that are trying to stitch a broken balloon together with needle and thread.

I actually believe in protecting intellectual property, but some of this stuff is ridiculous.

Let's take the very first example. We have BakeCo, an faceless corporation that makes generic Cake-like Edilble Party Treats(tm).

Now let's imagine, we have Stan. Stan is a small time artist who one day creates a cartoon character (let's call him ararcnid-man) that becomes kinda popular.

BakeCo sees this and starts selling ArachnidMan cakes without paying Stan any money.

Most people would agree that this is unfair.

Now if you can't tell the difference between that, and a small company allowing people to print their own designs, your thinking is broken.

>> ^gorillaman:



Ug hits a couple of rocks together and makes a spark, the spark starts a fire. He shows his innovation off to the rest of his tribe, everyone's very impressed. Soon they learn to copy his technique, now they can eat a wider variety of food, stay warm in winter, keep the god damn flies away - they flourish. Other tribes take notice, so on, pretty soon everyone is using fire.
Ug hits a couple of rocks together and makes a spark, the spark starts a fire. He knows fire is now his intellectual property. He makes a comfortable living starting fires for people, but only if they agree to turn away while he does it. He gets the biggest share of the food, which he never has to bother to hunt for, never mind how hungry the others are. Anyone who accidentally observes his method keeps it to themselves because they know Ug owns the patent to fire, and they're not allowed to know how to make it without his permission. Ug dies. No one is using fire any more.


reductio ad absurdum much? I'm done here.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Bollocks, ip doesn't stifle innovation, it encourages it. Take pharmaceuticals for instance, without patent protection companies simply couldn't afford the millions required to research new drugs (yes, drug companies are evil, etc, but theyre still kinda important).
As for the difference between physical property and intellectual property, are you really saying that a sculptor deserves compensation for their work, but a writer/musician/programmer doesn't?
That kind of attitude is why idiotic laws like this get written in the first place.


If I want to own your statue I need the physical artifact itself (until 3d printing technology matures...), if I want to listen to your CD I never need to touch the thing. These are real distinctions. This is not a question of what you deserve; it's reality. You cannot cry about it and try to oppose the basic operation of the universe because you want to make your living by singing once into a box. Do gigs, sell tshirts, update your business model and stop crying.

---

Ug hits a couple of rocks together and makes a spark, the spark starts a fire. He shows his innovation off to the rest of his tribe, everyone's very impressed. Soon they learn to copy his technique, now they can eat a wider variety of food, stay warm in winter, keep the god damn flies away - they flourish. Other tribes take notice, so on, pretty soon everyone is using fire.

Ug hits a couple of rocks together and makes a spark, the spark starts a fire. He knows fire is now his intellectual property. He makes a comfortable living starting fires for people, but only if they agree to turn away while he does it. He gets the biggest share of the food, which he never has to bother to hunt for, never mind how hungry the others are. Anyone who accidentally observes his method keeps it to themselves because they know Ug owns the patent to fire, and they're not allowed to know how to make it without his permission. Ug dies. No one is using fire any more.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.
As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.
As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).
The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.
As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

Do we really have to go over the differences between physical property and indefinitely replicable information?
If you create something, create it for yourself and be satisfied. If I like it, I'm going to use it. That's how our culture advances.
Do you realise how devastating it would have been to human progress if IP had always been around stifling the propagation of new ideas and technologies? I wonder if we'd have made it to the bronze age yet.


Bollocks, ip doesn't stifle innovation, it encourages it. Take pharmaceuticals for instance, without patent protection companies simply couldn't afford the millions required to research new drugs (yes, drug companies are evil, etc, but theyre still kinda important).

As for the difference between physical property and intellectual property, are you really saying that a sculptor deserves compensation for their work, but a writer/musician/programmer doesn't?

That kind of attitude is why idiotic laws like this get written in the first place.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.
As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.
As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).
The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.
As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.


Do we really have to go over the differences between physical property and indefinitely replicable information?

If you create something, create it for yourself and be satisfied. If I like it, I'm going to use it. That's how our culture advances.

Do you realise how devastating it would have been to human progress if IP had always been around stifling the propagation of new ideas and technologies? I wonder if we'd have made it to the bronze age yet.

>> ^gorillaman:

I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.
If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.
The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.
How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.


First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.

As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.

As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).

The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.

As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.
As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.
You know what? pay the fucking writer.


I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.

If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.

The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.

How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.

>> ^marinara:

Quick! we mush pass PIPA, SOPA or there will never be another CALL OF DUTY game!

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I said. </sarcasm>

Basic comprehension has never been your strong point, has it?

>> ^gorillaman:


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.
Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.
These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.
This is an extremely simple issue.


Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.

As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.

You know what? pay the fucking writer.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You don't think you're oversimplifying the issue just a bit? Or more likely, by an order of magnitude?
Games, moveis, music; all these cost money to produce. You don't think that the people (yes, people, not big faceless corporations) involved deserve to be compensated for their efforts?
People harp on about "a broken business model", but I've yet to see someone come up with a working alternative. Yes, treating your paying customers worse than pirates is not the right answer, but that doesn't make piracy any more morally acceptable.


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.

Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.

These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.

This is an extremely simple issue.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

Oh sorry, I thought you were having a conversation, not masturbating.

Now that we all know how great you are for doing the wrong thing even though you're kind-of-sort-of against it, maybe I could just chime in to clarify:

First of all: I can read as well. I know you see a picture from a bad movie when I post. But that doesn't make your regurgitated diatribe about intellectual property rights that can be found anywhere on the internet where there is a dialog about torrents any more intelligent or original than what anyone else has to say.

Second: In no way am I deluded about the concept of intellectual property. I did not ever imply that Louie C.K.'s work has no value. In fact, I called it "stealing" to download it. I also closed my comment by saying that I probably wouldn't download the show.

And I am not under the impression that just because I can't hold something in my hand, that it has no value. All I said was that it's "silly" to think that experiencing someone's comedy can be a crime. The thing about the T.V. is merely to point out the insubstantial nature of the subject. When I go to buy a T.V., I can negotiate sometimes based on whether or not it's a floor model or still in the box. I can't ask a website for a discount if one of Louie's jokes is bad. And with a T.V., I can keep it for a while and then change my mind. Maybe I decide I don't like it and I want to sell it and use the money to pay for part of the next one. Or maybe I've decided to go to Thailand, and I sell the T.V. to my friend Bob for papaya-salad-money. The point is, the two things are different, not that one is worthless and the other isn't.

And you know what the biggest difference is? Someone should not be punished in anywhere near the same way for stealing five bucks worth of Louis C.K.'s material as they should be for breaking into a person's house and stealing their T.V.

Third: Louis C.K. is probably a multimillionaire. I wasn't trying to justify my behavior as much as correcting Kymbos for saying that he wasn't. But now that you mention it: I see that you steal based on DRM and other issues, but (and call me crazy if you want) when I steal, I take into account the financial status of the person I'm stealing from. It might not justify my behavior but it helps me sleep.

Fourth: I steal download things a lot of the time based on whether I think they are fairly priced. I loved the original Conan the Barbarian, mostly for it's kitsch-factor, but I still own the VHS. When the new one came out, I said to myself "that looks like a giant piece of crap taking a crap." So I downloaded it and you know what? I was right. Fuck them. I'm glad I didn't pay twenty-five dollars for ten-cents-worth of soda, two-cents-worth of popcorn and zero-cents-worth of nap time. And all just to grant some Hollywood producer his million dollar reward to play it safe.

One of my favorite things I've ever gotten for Christmas from my wife was the Criterion Collection edition of "Seven Samurai." I love it. It's got this great cover art that looks almost transparent even though it's printed on cardboard. I think it looks so good because it's taken from the original cellulose of the title screen but I don't know. It's also got a great supplemental book, a great CD of special features and anytime I want, I can sit down to three whole hours of good solid movie. I think it cost around sixty-dollars at the time we bought it and it was totally worth it. Meanwhile, somebody gave me the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" DVD and the ugly yellow text on the menu alone is enough to make me want to burn it for the insult it does to people who paid good money for it.

And you know what else? I doubt that if Louis C.K. were to meet me, that he would hold it against me that I downloaded his show.

I guess I've rambled long enough. I just wanted to make the point that the issues involved with intellectual property are complicated but the concept is something that little children can grasp. So it might not be beneficial to the conversation to write off someone's point that you might disagree with simply because you want to sound righteous. Especially when in the end, you admit that it's all just stealing anyway.

PS: The last book I bought was the hardcover edition of "A Dance With Dragons". I paid the extra money because I find physical copies more satisfying, and I couldn't wait for the paperback.

Awesome! That's my kind of policy.>> ^dag:

From our terms:
Your Intellectual Property Rights
VideoSift does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your VideoSift account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.


>> ^messenger:
This is actually the least "battle" SB and I have ever been since our first joust, and I have to say I'm enjoying this encounter the most. Like I said above, this bone's really got some meat on it.
P.S. Did I sign away my rights to the content I post when I created my account? Or did I merely give the Sift unlimited permission for their use? Or neither? Half joke half serious because I am a writer, and may some day choose to publish some of the thoughts that were drawn out of me on the Sift. I do copy and save some of them for that purpose.>> ^dag:
Holy wall of text battle. I think we can get a book deal out of this thread.