Some people find this guy's voice annoying, but it's worth watching through the video. There is a lot of important info in here.

This is a MUST SEE, despite the questionable style of presentation. I hope someone with a sense of presentation and communication makes a concise version of it (any siftites up to it?).

*law, *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 3:08pm PST - promote requested by hpqp.

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by hpqp.

thanks hpqp!

Youtube's automated Closed Captioning said "You've only got a few days to stop Oprah."

*promote. Because initially I thought this was going to be another 'conspiracy' type theory guy ranting on about wild madness, but it turns out, he makes a lot of sense... and it would seem to be perfectly true, and make perfect sense for them to do that.

Dicks.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, December 23rd, 2011 11:51am PST - promote requested by spoco2.

Ok, I'm sorry, I got about halfway before I had to stop otherwise I would have chainsawed my own ear drums.

Sorry, I don't really buy it. CNet wasn't owned by CBS until 2008. And even then the suggestion that it's some sort of conspiracy by disney or whoever to spread the use of file sharing seems really far-fetched.

Whenever I'm confronted by something like this I always ask "What's the profit motive?"* I don't really see the end game for the content producers here.

Exec A: hey let's distribute file-sharing software and then people will pirate our stuff without paying for it!
Exec B: errr, ok. How does this make us money?
Exec A: we'll sue a bunch of poor people for millions. They're bound to pay up and the negative publicity won't impact us at all.
Exec B: riiiiight. /backs away slowly

Frankly, I think it's far more likely that cnet, zdnet and so on were tech web sites run by tech guys whose owner hadn't a clue what they were doing. Meanwhile the tech guys were just doing what every other tech guys did and hosted the popular software. I can't actually credit the studios with that much understanding of the technology. "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence." Frankly, if anyone in the content industry were even slightly less retarded, they'd have done what valve did ages ago. When we get the movie/tv version of steam, this problem will largely go away.

* a good question to ask climate change deniers.

@ChaosEngine Err I worked for AOL for nearly 5 years, and that is nonsense, they know what they are doing when it comes to content, that's how they make their profit. Also, he explained the motive after the halfway mark

>> ^ghark:

@ChaosEngine Err I worked for AOL for nearly 5 years, and that is nonsense, they know what they are doing when it comes to content, that's how they make their profit. Also, he explained the motive after the halfway mark


What profit?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Ok, I'm sorry, I got about halfway before I had to stop otherwise I would have chainsawed my own ear drums.
Sorry, I don't really buy it. CNet wasn't owned by CBS until 2008. And even then the suggestion that it's some sort of conspiracy by disney or whoever to spread the use of file sharing seems really far-fetched.
Whenever I'm confronted by something like this I always ask "What's the profit motive?" I don't really see the end game for the content producers here.
Exec A: hey let's distribute file-sharing software and then people will pirate our stuff without paying for it!
Exec B: errr, ok. How does this make us money?
Exec A: we'll sue a bunch of poor people for millions. They're bound to pay up and the negative publicity won't impact us at all.
Exec B: riiiiight. /backs away slowly
Frankly, I think it's far more likely that cnet, zdnet and so on were tech web sites run by tech guys whose owner hadn't a clue what they were doing. Meanwhile the tech guys were just doing what every other tech guys did and hosted the popular software. I can't actually credit the studios with that much understanding of the technology. "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence." Frankly, if anyone in the content industry were even slightly less retarded, they'd have done what valve did ages ago. When we get the movie/tv version of steam, this problem will largely go away.
a good question to ask climate change deniers.


Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:

a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.

It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.

He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.

He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA

>> ^spoco2:


Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:
a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.
It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.
He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.
He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA


Fair enough, as I said, I didn't get that far, but thank you for suffering through it and explaining it.

That said, I'm still not sure I buy that explanation. It pre-supposes that being given "insane powers" is the end game for these corporations. It all seems a little too "bond villain" to me (ya know, let's spend billions on a nuclear shark so we can extort the world for a 1% profit).

I could very well be wrong, but it still sets off my bullshit radar.

With a name like chaosEngine , I would have assumed you knew why people do things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^spoco2:
Um, yeah, he did explain the motive:
a) You get heaps of traffic to your sites in the first place to get the file sharing software etc.
but mostly
b) You can then go to the law makers and go 'Look how many people are illegally downloading our content, you MUST allow these hugely heavy handed and insanely over the top punishments to go through'... 'Well, before we thought it was just those 'fringe' elements, but you bring forth a compelling case of this becoming mainstream... yes, let's give you these insane powers'.
It does make sense. They didn't like these people pirating their stuff, but it seemed to be too 'small time' and 'limited'. So, let it slide, and even actively encourage it, until it becomes mainstream enough that you can start jumping up and down and get laws passed that give you far greater powers than you otherwise would have had.
He is annoying to listen to though, I'll give you that.
He also has an over-inflated sense of himself if he thinks that his video will single-handedly bring about a stop to SOPA

Fair enough, as I said, I didn't get that far, but thank you for suffering through it and explaining it.
That said, I'm still not sure I buy that explanation. It pre-supposes that being given "insane powers" is the end game for these corporations. It all seems a little too "bond villain" to me (ya know, let's spend billions on a nuclear shark so we can extort the world for a 1% profit).
I could very well be wrong, but it still sets off my bullshit radar.

I was linking to one of the most well known "false flag" attacks of all time. My point wasnt about who did it, just the fact that it is done.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^csnel3:
With a name like chaosEngine , I would have assumed you knew why people do things like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Yeah, you would imagine that I would jump straight to a comparison with Nazi Germany. Funny how I didn't that...

I look at this video as these companies being fearful of "XYZ" happening, so they made it happen on their own terms, creating the scenario they needed to get enough fervor to push through their agenda.

Many politicians in Washington want us to live in constant fear of "what ifs", because it justifies their budgets and pet projects in those budgets. It gets people to say yes a lot to them, because if you don't <bad guy/thing> will win!

So their tipping point happens with 911, which is why so many people still believe there's a conspiracy to it. After then, all this crazy shit got passed through because we didn't want <bad guy/thing> to win, or they'd murder/rape our women and children and kick our dogs. And they STILL put forward these crazy ideas of what people could do. Like the pilot might pack a bomb on so he needs to be scanned, like he couldn't nose dive the plane while he's steering it. Or liquids, when clearly many small bottles of liquid just as easily be used to create a chemical bomb.

They want people up in arms and outraged and they do that by constantly berating you with the things they want you outraged on. On some forums you can't even go a day without a piracy discussion and how people are scum and ABC developer has to put draconian DRM in just to make a small profit, and how you should buy it with crazy DRM despite not liking the game or the DRM otherwise you're a pirate and should be in jail.


They keep you so pissed at each other and afraid of what other people are doing to you directly or indirectly, that you don't bother to suspect something more to it.

Because your neighbor is probably a terrorist who is pirating software to take control of the nukes to cause global warming so he can get free healthcare and live like a king on welfare.

Not sure what other hot button topics I could throw in there to make it look anymore crazy, but Im sure there are more.


Additional point, they are saying Youtube, megaupload, etc are piracy/copyright infringement tools. If they didn't own the companies outright when they did it, they BOUGHT companies who promoted the very thing are now slapping everyone for. How does it make sense that they can absolve themselves of distributing the tools people use, and punish others for providing similar tools? And my answer to that is, they aren't making money off other people doing it.....so Profit.

And now, other people are doing exactly what they themselves or companies they owned did 10 years ago, but they are making money via ads. So they are taking their previous "customers" by providing better tools, and those customers are making them money via ad placement hits. So in essence, they are already attacking the competition, but want SOPA to make it easier. You will essentially have to kiss their ass and police your network to great cost to yourself to keep from being shutdown by one stray byte of copyrighted stuff.

Routine Maintenance... nothing to see here.