This is important - everyone should understand this. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 9:41pm PDT - promote requested by Sagemind.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Sagemind.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

Fight the good fight. I feel loosing this fight is inevitable, but it is the right side to be on.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 27th, 2011 11:54am PDT - promote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

*quality *promote

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by gwiz665.

I find meatbag gwiz665 to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by gwiz665.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'PROTECT IP' to 'PROTECT IP, S968, Patrick Leahy, COICA' - edited by xxovercastxx

*length=3:51
*fear

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

This is a list of the clueless idiots and corporate shills who are bringing us this abomination.

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:51 - length declared by xxovercastxx.

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

What a lot of you don't seem to understand is Corporations want this because of the very reasons stated "may happen". The 1% wants 99%.

In related news...

Way too many bought-and-sold democrats on that list. That saddens me.

>> ^brycewi19:

Way too many bought-and-sold democrats on that list. That saddens me.


How can you be a congressman in this country without being bought-and-sold? What with private campaign funding and a two party system. Democrats are just owned by a somewhat different set of corporations, but there is a lot of overlap.

They talk the talk, then they vote your freedom, your jobs and your environment away.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'PROTECT IP, S968, Patrick Leahy, COICA' to 'PROTECT IP, S968, Patrick Leahy, COICA, SOPA' - edited by Hybrid

http://fightcensorship.info/

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 27th, 2011 3:06pm PDT - promote requested by Hybrid.

As I've said in other videos about SOPA, my senator, Orrin Hatch R., is a co-sponsor for this bill. I've already written to him on SOPA and in return I got a return letter, that due to it's quick arrival assured me it was just a generic letter they are sending out to unhappy people. It basically said that Protect IP would be the way to solve all our concerns, but of course I already knew that Protect IP was a shell-game bill, that takes the place of SOPA if it isn't passed--and it does nearly the same things. It's upsetting to know that our politicians are such carpetbaggers of the mind...

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 1:44pm PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

While I disagree with the heavy-handedness of these laws, I do find it interesting that no-one seems to want to discuss the other side of the problem.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While I disagree with the heavy-handedness of these laws, I do find it interesting that no-one seems to want to discuss the other side of the problem.

There is no problem.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
While I disagree with the heavy-handedness of these laws, I do find it interesting that no-one seems to want to discuss the other side of the problem.

There is no problem.


Care to elaborate? Or should I just take your word on it and ignore the overwhelming amounts of evidence that supports my position?

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Care to elaborate? Or should I just take your word on it and ignore the overwhelming amounts of evidence that supports my position?

Evidence that piracy impacts media sales? There's plenty of that. So, media companies have a flawed business model. That's it.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Care to elaborate? Or should I just take your word on it and ignore the overwhelming amounts of evidence that supports my position?

Evidence that piracy impacts media sales? There's plenty of that. So, media companies have a flawed business model. That's it.


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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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:
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.

>> ^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:
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:

>> ^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:
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:



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:
reductio ad absurdum much? I'm done here.


It's funny how many people have managed to convince themselves that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy.

I guess it must be tough when someone proves to you that your principles don't work.

>> ^gorillaman:

I guess it must be tough when someone proves to you that your principles don't work.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gorillaman:
I guess it must be tough when someone proves to you that your principles don't work.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!