i'm guessing that Religilous was a lot more popular because people heard about it or saw clips from it on the net (which is where i heard about it, and soon thereafter, watched it via netflix), which would be in keeping with the general purpose of the movie - to inform (in comedic fashion).
or maybe bill expected his movie to be a blockbuster at the megaplex, with a sequel and a toy line to follow.

Yes I still want free shit. If by shit you mean access to every kind of information there is.

New Rule: Bill Maher needs to stop blaming piracy for his truly horrible movies bombing.
Guy's a piece of shit. It bothers me to no end that because he holds liberal stances on issues, he is what conservatives think of when they think of a liberal.

This whole thing is such a generational problem. Seriously though, I haven't heard any support for these bills from anyone who seems to know anything about the internet. (I realize that these points don't need to be made here, but I need to vent at least twice a day about this.)

Ugh, all this hurts my head. At least when the internet gets censored I won't have to see Bill's smugly face pop up all over videosift all the time.

It's only stealing if you think it is.

i was disappointed when i saw Bill talking on the issue... uninformed and with that lack of information, making wrong declarative statements

SOPA makes you guilty on assumption, and you are forced to prove your innocence...
and for MOST non-media conglomerates, that means you go out of business.. because your website is shutdown until you fight it out in court...

this isn't about copyright protection... its about competition elimination

and the scope of this bill lends itself quite well to being misused... this site is speaking out against the government, or an ally of the government, or talking about things we don't like? we'll just have SOPA shut the site down, maybe go to the amount of effort required to post a comment on the site that "justifies" the action... and the status quo goes on uninterupted

its the boundary line, its the point that when we cross it, the concept of FREE information over the internet ceases to exist... because any single country that takes action because of SOPA, it affects everyone else on the planet (who's government has also signed onto SOPA)

the uprisings that took place in the middle east due to social networks would be a thing of the past only... they'd NOT be allowed to happen anywhere else (most especially in the WESTERN world - I take it back partly, if there was oil/resource interests for the WEST in that country, it'd still be allowed)

and as for Bill's, "people just like to steal shit" comment... please, demonstrate that a person who downloaded Religulous would have bought it if they had no other option... you can't... its alot easier to show examples of people who DID buy it because they downloaded it in the first place

take a look at the VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY... while there are some big companies whose sole purpose is to rate/review/preview upcoming video games, you'll see alot of these are closing down... why? because fan created, by donation alternatives are providing a valid and sustainable alternative... that's ALOT of free advertising (dbl edged because it could be bad reviews) these companies get... and for some of the smaller video game companies/independant game companies, the ONLY advertising they get

how easily would all that be squashed with SOPA? didn't like your review... your site gets shut down. we only give permission to sites we KNOW will give us good reviews... etc etc

that's not protecting internet creativity... that's killing off internet creativity... and the ability for non-media conglomerates to compete

make sure your government knows the distinction between small business and monopolies
make sure they are serving your interests, and not their own pockets
businesses spending lobbying money and offering jobs to representatives to influence the creation of laws IS the end result of UNFETTERED MARKETS... the laws that they complain about, that hurt their ability to "compete", are laws that were enacted to protect YOU the consumer

change the USA to the UCA... United Corporations of America... they'll lobby to get rid of the America part... too restrictive

Gimme your star points, motherfucker!!
*points virtual gun*
>> ^bobknight33:

It's only stealing if you think it is.

It's only stealing if it's not freely available. Trying to stop people sharing stuff over the internet is a bit like starbucks trying to charge you for the air you breath when you walk into the mall they happen to be located in. You can't control the supply and distribution of your product? Tough. It's your business model that is flawed. Figure out a new way to monetize it.

Every now and then, Bill says something really uninformed.

This vid seems to be touching a core issue....

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 11:47am PST - promote requested by bareboards2.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

I paid to see your movie, Bill.

And if SOPA passed I'd still be able to get free shit... I'm sorry Maher but as long as the internet exists online piracy isn't going to go away. You really want to chop the whole tree down with an axe of a legislation just for a few rotten apples?

Another content creator who only wants their rights and money stream protected at the cost to everyone else.

And it literally is a cost to everyone else in them giving up rights, plus the people and/or businesses paying to monitor for other people's content and protecting it.....for free or it costs them their money stream.

They want to produce the song/movie, have people pay for it but don't want to design something that both makes people able to use the product as is their right but also make it so they can control it enough without infringing upon the user's freedoms and rights. Instead looking to others to police this for them, at no cost to the copyright holders.

If we could suddenly copy diamonds using our garbage or some other plentiful item in a nearly cost free way. It'd be like the diamond companies wanting the state to test all jewelry for chemical signatures that there are no "copied" diamonds in there. And expecting your competitors to check the jewelry of people shopping there for competitions chemical signatures and report back to them...turn their customers in if it's not absolute 100% positive matches. And then expecting the state to force people to turn over their garbage/whatever. And making other industries produce items/services that leave no garbage/whatever to be turned into "copied" diamonds. No matter the cost to those industries, because the diamond industry harvests and cuts diamonds and people shouldn't just be allowed to copy it and cut out their revenue stream. You must protect their revenue stream at the cost to your own...and they'll get laws to say and do as much. Except....if this were actually possible, good luck stopping it and convincing people to not laugh at you and your dumb/"old way"/hard/pointless/whatever way of diamond creation. People'd be driving diamond encrusted cars and manufacturing companies would be replacing their expensive diamond tipped stuff with "copied" diamonds, because they'd be foolish not to move to the more cost effective way of operating.

Now cost-effective in handling piracy = bare minimum which = DMCA procedure to the bare minimum requirement, no more, no less. Otherwise you end up policing everything on imperfect data of who owns what copyrights and who has bought what items, etc...and creating a mess for everyone...especially people who use your services.

There isn't really much to say - there's a chasm between people who get it and people who don't.

Unless you've spent some time on the Internet, you don't understand how it works. When people guess, or look at bits of information out of context, they come up with ideas that are nonsensical. These people think there's some finite number of "rogue sites" that pirate things, and once they're slightly harder to reach piracy will stop. That idea is just catastrophically wrong.

So how to deal with piracy? One: you accept that some of it is going to happen. Two: you make it easy and rewarding for people to give you money.

There's a whole parade of companies and people who've demonstrated how to make money on the Internet with digital goods: iTunes, Steam, very recently Louis CK. Make your products easy to buy and easy to use. Focus on rewarding people who pay and you'll end up with a success.

Maybe I can say that clearer: it doesn't matter how many people pirate your stuff, forget trying to minimize that. Instead, focus on maximizing the number of people who buy - and you can do that by making buying easy and rewarding.

I still say the best argument to piracy is things like iTunes, Amazon MP3, and Netflix.

>> ^kingmob:

I still say the best argument to piracy is things like iTunes, Amazon MP3, and Netflix.


Agreed. Steam too.

Give me the ability to download the content I want without overly restrictive DRM and I will happily pay for it. Oh and geographical restrictions can fuck right off too.

I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by xxovercastxx.

>> ^longde:

I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.


For me, it's a format issue. I tend to purchase from places where I can get lossless or mpe 320, at least.
Bandcamp is a great example of that; by far my favorite source of paid music; it helps, of course, that many bandcamp artists are "pay what you want" priced.

>> ^longde:

I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.


"We could not process your order. The sale of MP3 Downloads is currently available only to US customers located in the United States. "

Fuck. That. Shit.

I genuinely believe in protecting IP. And I'm absolutely willing to pay for the content I want, but the content providers are actively pushing me towards piracy. It's even worse where movies and tv are concerned. The new season of Sherlock just finished in the UK. I have money sitting here and I will happily give it to the people who made the show to let me watch it (for a reasonable price), but there is currently no legal means for me to acquire that content.

Now the standard internet response here is that I should go pirate it, but I do not believe that is moral. But really content peoples, you're not making it easy.

It's actually ridiculous. Can you imagine a bricks and mortar shop telling people they don't want their money?

I see that. I just tried to stream videos from my Amazon prime account, but failed, since I'm in China. Can't use Netflix either.

I generally don't care about sound quality up to a point.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^longde:
I'm curious; as far as music goes, I thought Amazon and iTunes were OK. What practical restrictions are there to use in those two? I haven't seen any and I use both services. In the beginning iTunes had restrictions, but not know as far as I see.

"We could not process your order. The sale of MP3 Downloads is currently available only to US customers located in the United States. "
Fuck. That. Shit.
I genuinely believe in protecting IP. And I'm absolutely willing to pay for the content I want, but the content providers are actively pushing me towards piracy. It's even worse where movies and tv are concerned. The new season of Sherlock just finished in the UK. I have money sitting here and I will happily give it to the people who made the show to let me watch it (for a reasonable price), but there is currently no legal means for me to acquire that content.
Now the standard internet response here is that I should go pirate it, but I do not believe that is moral. But really content peoples, you're not making it easy.
It's actually ridiculous. Can you imagine a bricks and mortar shop telling people they don't want their money?

The thing I don't get about these estimates of losses due to piracy is that they appear to assume that anyone who downloaded the film/song etc would have paid for it otherwise. That is just not the case.

They also assume that if someone downloaded it, they won't subsequently purchase a legitimate copy... but some of the biggest consumers of channel BT are also the ones who buy the most movies/cd's/downloads too, but only if they liked the downloaded one.

If the big media companies succeed at getting what they want, more people will end up like me... no illegal downloading, but precious little legal downloading or purchasing either.
>> ^kymbos:

The thing I don't get about these estimates of losses due to piracy is that they appear to assume that anyone who downloaded the film/song etc would have paid for it otherwise. That is just not the case.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
The new season of Sherlock just finished in the UK. I have money sitting here and I will happily give it to the people who made the show to let me watch it (for a reasonable price), but there is currently no legal means for me to acquire that content.
Now the standard internet response here is that I should go pirate it, but I do not believe that is moral. But really content peoples, you're not making it easy.
As a licence fee payer I funded the production of Sherlock. In that capacity I give you permission to go pirate the show.

And I thought he was one of the good informed people on TV. Turns out that hes just as greedy and biased as the other one.
He has zero clue about the Internet, and doesnt even realize that the majority of his sales of that movie was actually generated through "piracy".

Frankly Maher is just one more person who doesn't understand the internet in the least and only knows how piracy impacts his own work, without understanding the threats the bill also posed.

Humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, are energy efficient. That is to say we are perpetually seeking the most effective way of obtaining what we want/need. This subconscious cost analysis which factors in time, labor, and value will ALWAYS result in getting free stuff without leaving the comfort of one's own home. Even to the degree that we can justify "stealing" in myriad ways.

What companies that produce what we call "intellectual property" need to realize is that the business model has to be changed in order to take that justification away from us. If their products are offered at a reasonable price, are easy to obtain, and are advertised as such, it gives the consumer less leverage. In most cases we'll do the right thing.

Unfortunately I don't see blockbuster movie titles going straight to internet for sale anytime soon, even though it would be good for business. We just have a problem of old business running up against new technology, and old business is trying to strong-arm the people into helping keep itself alive. The best thing that comes out of this is the rise of the independent films/music. We'll go back to what making movies/music was all about.

I haven't read all the comments here so forgive me if anyone else has mentioned this.
I don't think Bill said anywhere here that he "Supported" SOPA.
As always and to start off the subject he plays Devil's advocate here. He clearly states he hasn't even read up on it.

He's right on one point though, The "pirates of stuff" aren't going to support the law. And yes, people will use the internet to "steal stuff" when they can get away with it. "People want free sh!t", is a true statement.

But not once does he say he either Supports or is Against it.

I keep seeing people like Maher talking about how much money they're losing based on the number of people pirating their stuff... this is a fantasy.

There is so much free legal content out there these days that a lot of people have come to the conclusion that there's no reason to spend money on it at all (or very little at least).

The choice isn't "buy it or pirate it"... it's become "pirate it or watch something else".

Maher is woefully misinformed on the gravity of SOPA's reach. I think his position goes well beyond simply playing the role of devil's advocate. He has (had?) a personal stake in the issue because of his own personal media ownership. He really shouldn't have brought it up without researching.

I watched this on Movie Central as part of my cable TV package. I tend not to buy/rent stuff when there's plenty to watch on cable anyway. But much like Metallica, his stance on piracy has likely alienated his own fans. I bet he hopes people quickly forget what he said here.

I can understand Maher being concerned about piracy of his movie, that's fine. Sadly, he's woefully ignorant on the actual bills; he said himself that when you get one, another pops up. These bills will only speed up this game of BitTorrent whack-a-mole, and greatly undermine free speech and the principals that make the internet.

Next time, Bill, read up on subjects that you're going to mention on air.

I think he's also ignorant of the impact of the internet on his movie. There were little clips of his movie all over the net, drumming up interest that would not have occurred without that 'pirated' content being spread all over the world. Here in Oz, I didn't hear about his film on the TV.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I've been talking to some of my Chinese colleagues and they tell me that there are VAST amounts of traffic to MegaUpload type sites throughout Asia that are dark to the Western world because of the language barrier.

This problem isn't going to go away. The copying cat is out of the bag, but there is a big upside that a lot of people don't acknowledge:

Millions more eyeballs are watching movies than would have is they weren't shared. The trick is harnessing this in a "free" setting. In the short term, we're probably talking about embedding things into the movies that are hard to strip - like product placements - as annoying as they are.

In the long term there may be other creative solutions. I was listening to this very nerdy podcast about the old Infocom text adventure games like Zork - and they mentioned their use of "feelies" as a form of copy protection. Perhaps, as movies become more interactive - this will be an option.

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM

What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

"80% of piracy is done by China." I would love to see/hear the evidence for that $%#^ed statement.

>> ^qfan:

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.


Well, I think he's always held the opinion that morality does not come from religion.

Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.

I don't have a problem with what he's saying in that regard. He never said SOPA was a good law, he said he hadn't read the bill. I think once the panelists spoke, I think he understood that while piracy is a serious problem, that's the wrong way to fight it.

online piracy is not stealing. Both are a crime, but a does not equal b.

different crimes, different punishments, different types of enforcement.


TWO SEPARATE THINGS!

>> ^heropsycho:

Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.

True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.

Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.

Maher should be told that the pictures and video he shows on his show, while used properly, under SOPA and PIPA, could be cause for shutting him down. Without probable cause OR warning.

His New Rules segments are especially vulnerable. All those copyrighted pictures.

Honestly, both are problems. I'm sorry, but they are. When I was a kid, we pretty much bought our music. Kids now? There's a very large percentage who don't buy music whatsoever, and download it illegally.

I'm not saying SOPA is a good idea, because it's a terrible law, but feigning ignorance to the problem of piracy whether it's selling the content or just spreading it around for free without personal gain costs content producers significant money. I don't even know what the solution is if there is one, but I agree with Maher it's a problem.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^heropsycho:
Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.
True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.
Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.

It has nothing to do with "efficiency". It has to do with the fact that people are generally immoral and feel entitled to things that don't belong to them. Whatever justification you want to give it, it is theft and anyone who pirates is a thief and a criminal.

As far as SOPA, it's a terrible bill and it deserved to die, but clearly something further needs to be done. Software and music/media piracy is pretty much socially acceptable at this point. I also agree with the assertion made by some that content provides may be driving (immoral) people towards piracy, and they need to listen to their fans and implement a smarter business strategy.

>> ^rottenseed:
Humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, are energy efficient. That is to say we are perpetually seeking the most effective way of obtaining what we want/need. This subconscious cost analysis which factors in time, labor, and value will ALWAYS result in getting free stuff without leaving the comfort of one's own home. Even to the degree that we can justify "stealing" in myriad ways.
What companies that produce what we call "intellectual property" need to realize is that the business model has to be changed in order to take that justification away from us. If their products are offered at a reasonable price, are easy to obtain, and are advertised as such, it gives the consumer less leverage. In most cases we'll do the right thing.
Unfortunately I don't see blockbuster movie titles going straight to internet for sale anytime soon, even though it would be good for business. We just have a problem of old business running up against new technology, and old business is trying to strong-arm the people into helping keep itself alive. The best thing that comes out of this is the rise of the independent films/music. We'll go back to what making movies/music was all about.

Hey Bill,

You're stupid.


Signed,
Louis C.K.

>> ^heropsycho:

Honestly, both are problems. I'm sorry, but they are. When I was a kid, we pretty much bought our music. Kids now? There's a very large percentage who don't buy music whatsoever, and download it illegally.
I'm not saying SOPA is a good idea, because it's a terrible law, but feigning ignorance to the problem of piracy whether it's selling the content or just spreading it around for free without personal gain costs content producers significant money. I don't even know what the solution is if there is one, but I agree with Maher it's a problem.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^heropsycho:
Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.
True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.
Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.




The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.

If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.

The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.

Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

So media today isn't as high quality as it once was? Look, people still go to the movies, so it's no surprise that there are still high quality movies being made. But music? Recorded music simply isn't profitable. The only way some professional musicians make any money at all is off live performances *somtimes*, or focusing on things that aren't directly writing music, such as self-publishing/producing, etc. Less time is spent on actually writing music as a consequence.

Despite all the technology we have to help find and distribute music, it is harder today to find what I consider quality music compared to 20 years ago. I don't think it's because I'm an old foggy who romanticizes what music was when I was a teenager. But it's hard to argue that the Justin Beibers of the world are the only ones making money these days for the most part, and bands the bands that are truly innovating nobody's heard of.

It's a real problem.

Why aren't people buying what's for sale? It's pretty unrealistic to believe a major culprit is not the notion of why buy what you can get for free. Console video game sales are still doing very well, and the only reason that makes any sense is it's a hell of a lot harder to pirate video games than music for numerous reasons, such as the sheer amount of data that comprises a video game vs music, etc.

I know that piracy isn't the only reason the music or entertainment industries have struggled in the last decade. The music industry has made more than their fair share of blunders. But piracy is a significant problem, Maher is absolutely right about that. But again, SOPA is not the answer, and I don't pretend I'm smart enough to know what is a solution.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.
If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.
The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.
Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

>> ^heropsycho:

So media today isn't as high quality as it once was?

It isn't the quality of the product so much as the quality of the alternative.

Orchestras are having a much harder time these days, in part because the sound quality of recordings is so much higher now that it was in the past. I'm not really sure why people go to movie theaters... that's never been a pleasant experience for me, but I suppose it's an experience that's difficult to replace.

I do wonder how high-budget video games are going to fare as the quality of $1-%5 games increases.

And of course people are going to be less likely to buy something when they can get it for free. The real question is will they buy it once they can't pirate it, knowing there's plenty of other stuff they can get for free.

@heropsycho - recorded music simply isn't profitable? Firstly, I don't believe that is true. The big record companies may be making less than they think they are entitled to, but they still operate pretty much as they have for decades: generate a big star, make lots of money from them, lose money on lots of little guys until you generate another into a big star. Repeat.

Secondly, my understanding is that despite the bleatings of the music industry to the contrary, there are more professional musicians making a living out of their talent now than ever before. Selling albums has certainly featured less in this economy, and touring more - this is partly due to the growth in purchasing 'experiences' rather than products in rich countries. Those on independent labels struggle along pretty much how they always did.

The internet has simply changed the laws of commerce. You can't make a shitload through protecting IP the way you used to - but you can still make a shitload. It's just going to take a while for the entertainment industry to catch up.

>> ^qfan:

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.


Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...

As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.

He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.

I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...

My point was that his condescending nature of religion makes him look like a hypocrite when he refers to a moral code, making him as "preachy" as those he slanders on a regular basis. It's not consistent.

Then he needs to define where this morality comes from. But that's another topic altogether.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^qfan:
"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...
As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.
He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...

I wrote a paper in school about 12 years ago pointing out that piracy would be solved by customer service... make it easy for people to find and pay for your product and most of the people whose piracy constitutes a lost sale will pay you for the product. The people who continue to pirate when there's a really easy alternative (like iTunes, or Netflix, or Youtube) were never going to pay for your product. So it makes little sense to spend much money or effort on preventing piracy of media. What you want to do is provide numerous options for paid consumption of content.

I think it makes sense to target large-scale piraters with legal suits, but most DRM and copy protection only hurts the honest, legal customers.

>> ^qfan:

My point was that his condescending nature of religion makes him look like a hypocrite when he refers to a moral code, making him as "preachy" as those he slanders on a regular basis. It's not consistent.
Then he needs to define where this morality comes from. But that's another topic altogether.
>> ^Asmo:
>> ^qfan:
"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...
As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.
He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...



I "think" he has addressed that, but I can't remember specifically where. I think more of his criticism of religion is centered on believing in magical entities despite a lack of evidence and how that opens people up to manipulation by others.

I wouldn't say it makes him a hypocrite on the subject of morality, but he certainly does have his own unsupported beliefs (such as his anti-vaccine stance... not sure if he changed it).

He also seems to be supporting SOPA with the mindset of "it's aimed at a real problem that affects me, so it sounds like something worth supporting". Again, he's believing in something despite not really understanding it, so you can make somewhat of a case for hypocrisy on those grounds.

>> ^VoodooV:

online piracy is not stealing. Both are a crime, but a does not equal b.
different crimes, different punishments, different types of enforcement.

TWO SEPARATE THINGS!


http://i56.tinypic.com/2z6ts9e.jpg

I know I'm late to this story but I started pirating games because I hated putting the game CD/DVD in my DVDROM drive.

It sounds stupid but even after I purchased a number of games I would pirate them just because I didnt like swapping cds mid game, looking around for the cd when I wanted to play, and having discs get damaged and my investment lost.

That was in the past at least. Now I've done it because 1/2 or more of my games require an internet connection to play the single player campaign. I have family that lives out in the country with no internet to speak of (SHITTY dial up, srsly) and when we visit them it's for extended periods of time (2 weeks or so).

Without pirated versions of games I already own, I'd be left to playing with an asshole cat and watching antenna TV (no cable and no cell signals either).

Anybody else do this?

It's really unfortunate this battle is being fought under the flag of copyright protection. I don't think the opposition to this new digital world order (if I may) has played their cards very well. There's a red herring here alright, and that's the claim that Intellectual Property has any real relevance to the debate around SOPA and the rest of this control.

The argument that should be being made more forcefully is that SOPA is censorship, it sets a terrible precedent, and if all it takes is something as insignificant as piracy to get people to throw away their rights, then I don't want to see what happens when they really start pounding the security drum to get the Internet under control.

Doctorow, in his recent speech/article "the coming war on general purpose computing", hinted, or I overread, that this fight is being fought as an intellectual property fight because it is such an obscure little backwater of human society. Very few people give a damn about copyright, as you can see by the amount of money and effort the content producers have put into getting people to equate piracy with stealing. The problem is, if censoring the internet to protect IP rights becomes acceptable, it will certainly be acceptable in order to protect financial and security interests.

In other words, it's too much to go after politically volatile material directly, so this is the fight we're having instead. I don't know how intentional that is, it may just be the natural progression of things, but those are the stakes anyway.

Copyright is a privilege granted under the assumption it will do more good than harm to society. It's starting to look like the opposite is true, if SOPA is what is needed to protect copyright holders.

>> ^Psychologic:
The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.


I don't understand this reasoning. If people are downloading free stuff, then who is buying pirated stuff? Surely the only people who are making a profit are the ISPs.

I agree with both @heropsycho and @Psychologic .

People comfortable with online sharing often refuse to acknowledge the cost of content creation. Since the cost of distribution is now seemingly free, there will always be an incentive to profit off of the costless distribution without being burdened by the cost of content creation. It's always cheaper to copy and sell than it is to create and sell. Therefore attempting to make money off some bits you strung together is a tough road. Someone can always sell those same bits and undercut your costs (barring any costs of overcoming technological or legal barriers to copying like they've been creating). In the long run, the continued status quo will almost certainly decrease the signal to noise ratio of content. Indeed, it already has. Fewer and fewer choose to make costly-to-produce content, and more and more are making lolcats and fart apps.

At the same time the industry refuses to acknowledge that the creation of many forms of content is forever democratized. The cost of recording what I'd consider a high quality album, for example, can now be borne by a dude in his mom's basement. He could even include some distribution and marketing. What service does the record industry really provide at that point? Editorial input? Yup... that's about it. In other words, the old media record industry could at this point be replaced by a handful of trustworthy blogs, and I don't know, something like Rhapsody? I subscribe because it's easier than pirating and managing a music library, I get nearly unlimited music, and I get to feel like I'm supporting artists. If I really like a band I find, I might even go to their show or buy their merchandise. I care about supporting the artists. Not dead tree media companies that were out innovated. If they had any sense they'd focus on their core business which is a reputation for suggesting high quality content. Further, they should focus on building that reputation with listeners, not retailers (something they abandoned long ago). They don't even need to worry about the rights to the content. Without an audience they have no product. They might as well close up shop.

Where I will agree, however, is in the realms where the cost of creating the content is substantially higher, for example big-budget film or video games. Still, I'd argue these industries aren't suffering to the same extent because as has been pointed out people still go to the movies, or game online. That is, they've still created a tiered distribution model that makes it an easier or a substantially better experience to pony up a few bucks to check it out. Even after a run in the theaters you can get napster or hit your local video store (not that anyone does that anymore, again, because they were out innovated).

Oh boo hoo, multi-millionare Bill Maher doesn't like the internet. What a shit bag. Fuck you dude. I will personally never pay for your shit.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^heropsycho:

And of course people are going to be less likely to buy something when they can get it for free.

Okay, I keep hearing this " big problem, people don't buy ". Can either of you back this up?

The facts the last time I checked were exactly the opposite, file sharing correlates with more purchasing. nobody is loosing money, they are just loosing control.

Until somebody can at least show an inverse correlation in ( profit/publication ):( files pirated ) I'm calling bullshit, the only problem with intellectual property in "western society" is that the public domain has been raided by infinite copyright terms.

Wow, that is so ironic, given your name.>> ^billpayer:

Oh boo hoo, multi-millionare Bill Maher doesn't like the internet. What a shit bag. Fuck you dude. I will personally never pay for your shit.

What they're probably acting on is the positive correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profit per publication. Does that suffice for you?

Arguing for statistics representative of counterfactuals like that is tricky. Presumably the dominant causal structure is something like:

profitable <---- good ----> pirated.

You'd somehow need to condition on quality, independent of both profitability and piracy in order to argue that pirating impacts profitability one way or the other. Both are plausible in my mind, via stolen sales competing with free exposure. My guess is that the industry has already done a much more nuanced and contextualized calculations with their data. The result was probably that piracy supports independent artists and small labels, but hurts the blockbuster sales. Instead, they probably should have been focusing on quality music, and the money would come all by itself.

>> ^dgandhi:

Until somebody can at least show an inverse correlation in ( profit/publication ):( files pirated )

Piracy being immoral makes me want to pirate all the more.

>> ^bmacs27:

What they're probably acting on is the positive correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profit per publication. Does that suffice for you?

I don't buy that either, the data on litigation shows that it cost more than it brings in.

If you could show that litigation produces less pirating, again the data a few years ago showed the inverse correlation, then you might have something, but I want to see the data.

The entire MP/RIAA PR campaign against "piracy" is based on their claim that they are loosing money, which has not only not been demonstrated, but in fact appears to be the opposite of what is happening.

Copyright has become a broken social convention, because the copyright conglomerates have sought to extend it indefinitely, and to use strong arm tactics and dishonesty to enforce their power grab.

I'm in favor of a sane copyright system, but if we don't have one I can't really blame anybody for ignoring it.

@dgandhi

I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.

The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

I agree with both @heropsycho and @Psychologic .
People comfortable with online sharing often refuse to acknowledge the cost of content creation.


Losses to the content industries aren't really the point here. The question is, how far should we go to protect the privilege of monopoly on distribution rights granted to copyright holders? If the copyright system can be upheld without significantly damaging society, I see no problem with it. The current trend, to me, seems to be to introduce cures worse than the disease.

I work in film. Copyright holders pay my salary. I'd rather switch professions than support this kind of draconian legislation.

>> ^bmacs27:

@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.


While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html

I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

Okay, I downloaded it. Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion). Or even the passage you are citing as quantitative evidence that there is in fact a financial benefit to copyright holders from piracy?

Everything I've read so far agrees with most everything I've said.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^bmacs27:
@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.

While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html
I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

>> ^bmacs27:
Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion).

My basic assertions are two

1. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between "piracy" and profit for the industry.
   
2. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between number of "piracy" lawsuits and number of "pirates".
   

@dgandhi

Okay, nowhere in there did I see the sort of correlation you are suggesting. In fact, if anything, I saw a decrease in CD sales coupled with an increase in piracy. Sure, he added a bunch of hand-wavey explanations for this that fit your model, but none of them were what I'd call properly "evidence-based."

With regards to your first assertion, it's been conceded. As I pointed out, nobody, including the industry, expects such a correlation to exist. Both piracy and profitability are correlated with quality, and thus you would clearly expect a positive correlation between the two. However, were you able to independently control for the quality of the content in question (i.e. not basing your quality metric on level of piracy, or sales), you might be able to see an inverse "partial correlation." Who knows, it might go the other way too. All I meant by my post is that the inverse correlation you are looking for is unlikely to exist without first controlling for quality (which is likely intractable). Further, the existence of a positive correlation between the two variables is not evidence that "piracy increases profits" for the reasons I've pointed out. The prior is that such a positive correlation should exist, even in a world in which piracy decreases profits.

I was not claiming to have access to the data, nor direct evidence. Simply adding commentary on what proper evidence would look like. Sorry to hear about your legal troubles.

And another thing - someone called 'billpayer' says he's never going to pay Bill for anything, and I make a clever quip about it, and I get nothing!

You people.

>> ^kymbos:

And another thing - someone called 'billpayer' says he's never going to pay Bill for anything, and I make a clever quip about it, and I get nothing!
You people.


EH !@ ! !

WHADDYA MEAN "YOU PEOPLE ? ? "

Whadda you mean 'you people'?!?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ChaosEngine.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.