Comments on: Hollywood’s pirate cure is worse than the disease Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: JamVee Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:40:41 +0000 I think I agree with many of these comments. If the entertainment business didn’t charge such outrageous prices (same as Sports), Piracy wouldn’t be nearly as attractive to both the seller and the buyer.

The flip side is that Piracy is still illegal, and they need to nail both the perps and their customers. Think prostitution, where the “pro” and her “John” are both arrested.

By: Nicklasodh Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:46:00 +0000 Here is another take on SOPA.
Why does Facebook build a huge datacenter in Sweden? SOPA only works inside the US. Google already has a huge center in Finland.

In five years most US IT companies have abandoned the US and moved their HQs to Europe. Why? There are 300 mil people inside the US and 6,5 bil outside.

So, enforce SOPA/PIPA like it was North Korea and in five years US will have 100 mil unemployed and a bunch om media bosses happy that nnone can download the next Die Hard. The fact that noone outside the US will ever know about the movie doesnt bother them.

The US will be as isolated from the rest of Internet as N Korea is isolated from electricity.

SOPA only applies to traffic passing the US border, not traffic between Norway and China. It is like when your internet connection drops at home. You can see your own computers but nothing else. The rest of the world works well anyway.

Merry christmas.

By: KTetch Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:58:24 +0000 Let’s establish one point from the off. Copyright Infringement is not theft, it has never been theft, and will never be theft. Don’t believe me? Try the US Supreme Court, who ruled in the 1980’s that it’s not, in the case Dowling V United States.

Of course, I’m pretty sure anyone facing copyright infrignement charges would LOVE for it to be deemed ‘theft’. Steal a 2 (12 track) CDs from a store and you’re looking at a petty theft charge, maybe $100 fine total. Infringe 24 tracks online by just offering them for upload, and even if you never uploaded a byte, you’re liable for 24 counts of infringement, each with a MINIMUM of $750 each ($18,000) and you have to pay for your own defense on top of that.

There are 4 infringement cases that are of note, two resulted in guilty verdicts with hefty fines (30x $22,500= $675,000 for Joel tenenboum, and 24x$80,000 for Jamie Thomas) and two dismissed for lack of evidence. In one of the dismissed cases, RIAA investigators pretended to be the defendant’s parents, and phoned her child’s school to collect evidence (pretexting).

Perhaps the biggest shock, though, is that that most independent studies have shown copyright infringers to be BETTER consumers. Just like those that taped shows off the TV in the 80’s were those that also bought tapes, and led to Hollywood DOUBLING their income through the 80s (over 55% of Hollywood’s revenue came from VCR tapes by 1987)

I’m a writer too (got a book coming out in less than 2 weeks), used to be a copyright enforcer for a record company, worked in TV too (and got patents as well) and yet I’m totally opposed to all these laws. It’s protectonism of an entrenched monopoly business practice. It’s about milking consumers for more money, and preventing competition. It’s all about anti-capitalism welfare for bloated companies made of middlemen, petrified that their easy life of being a parasite is almost over, and frightened that they’ll actually have to get a real job, and do something productive.
And THAT is what SOPA/PIPA is about.

By: hephaestus42 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:00:38 +0000 You know something is seriously wrong when you can get 5 years for pirating Michael Jacksons music, but you only get 4 years for killing him.

By: HAL.9000 Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:26:46 +0000 The odd thing about piracy is that it also leads to sales. Often people access pirated material (Movies/Music/Games/Software) for the sake of experiencing/trying it out. If they like it, they usually go out and buy it for the sake of having a genuine copy complete with labels/artwork/whatever. If not, well in the windows trash bin it goes.

Then there is the argument that the “pirated” industries are not really losing anything because users would not buy the material anyway…even if they didn’t have access to a pirated copy.

By: richinnc Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:30:12 +0000 I like txgadfly’s idea – if these things are the great things then the owners should pay a property tax on them to support the policing of them. Once again we need LESS government. I see it now – being sent to jail for taking a picture someone who standing in front of a movie theater and you get a copyrighted movie poster in the background. How far will they go?

By: MrZox Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:54:52 +0000 it’s too late. the genie is out of the bottle. they need to embrace the internet and realize that content delivery has changed.

By: txgadfly Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:41:26 +0000 Another revenue enhancer:

1. tax copyright and patent royalties on an accrual basis at a rate of about 25% to help cover the astronomical cost of “protecting” intellectual “property”. A Federal “intellectual property” tax, a non-deductible Excise Tax to help pay for all the public money used to make these “property holders” some of the richest people in America. And the taxpayer will still be subsidizing these parasites.

2. tax 50% of damages related to copyright and/or patent “infringement” judgments, and 60% of settlements. We should be generous and let them deduct these payment. :)

Why tax the devil out of residential real property and let these hundreds of billions go untaxed? People get to take shelter and stay alive in residential property. This is a higher public good than watching last year’s NFL games. The richest people in America, by numbers, are in the copyright and royalty check endorsing business. Time for a change!

By: onex23 Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:32:42 +0000 Welcome to the Communist States of America…

By: Debayan Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:39:35 +0000 These bills died in committee, at least for this session.