PRO-IP bill signed into law

[Xiahou]

While we were all looking the other way, congress overwhelmingly passed and the president signed the PRO-IP(Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property) act.... You know, the bill that creates a new federal office for the "copyright czar"- who basically sounds like a government tool of the recording and movie industries.

If the acronym alone isn't enough to convince you that it's a great bill consider the following benefits cited by its supporters:

In addition to creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs (says the Copyright Alliance) and boosting our economy at this "critical juncture" (says the RIAA), the PRO-IP Act also has the happy benefit of hurting terrorists. As the White House noted when Bush signed the bill, "Terrorist networks use counterfeit sales to finance their operations."

Who knew that haranguing petty file sharers will create jobs, save the economy, and fight terrorism?

More background: Copyright Czar is Born
Even more background.

[Papewaio]

Hang on the pirates are the ones without money.

If they want the financiers go after the Saudis...

[Louis VI the Fat]

They're fighting a lost war. And one shouldn't enter a war that's lost.

The law has many aspects, but I'll focus on one, file sharing. It is no longer stoppable. Here you go, think of it what you must: I've downloaded thousands of illegal copies of music and movies this year. Not because I feel entitled to it. Not because I couldn't afford to rent DVD's and buy CD's. But simply...because I can. And because everybody does it. And because this is how people listen to music nowadays, and watch movies.

My illegal files haven't replaced CD's and DVD's, they've done much more than that: they replaced radio and television.
I've got five thousand files on my IPod and computer that function as a radio. MTV? I watch more music videos on YouTube. Movies I don't watch on television, but at my own leisurly pace after I downloaded them.
Yet radio, television and MTV all managed, and manage, to make a living from broadcasting content free of charge, instead of from selling hard copies.

So if they ever want to make a profit from the time I spend listening to music and watching movies, they'll have to innovate and figure out a way. It's like that.
Old times won't return. I mean, a fourteen year old doesn't even know what a compact disc is anymore. It's a museumpiece to them. The thought that people should pay for music is as alien to them as the thought that I should pay to walk in the park.

[Strike For The South]

They're fighting a lost war. And one shouldn't enter a war that's lost.

The law has many aspects, but I'll focus on one, file sharing. It is no longer stoppable. Here you go, think of it what you must: I've downloaded thousands of illegal copies of music and movies this year. Not because I feel entitled to it. Not because I couldn't afford to rent DVD's and buy CD's. But simply...because I can. And because everybody does it. And because this is how people listen to music nowadays, and watch movies.

My illegal files haven't replaced CD's and DVD's, they've done much more than that: they replaced radio and television.
I've got five thousand files on my IPod and computer that function as a radio. MTV? I watch more music videos on YouTube. Movies I don't watch on television, but at my own leisurly pace after I downloaded them.
Yet radio, television and MTV all managed, and manage, to make a living from broadcasting content, instead of from selling hard copies.

So if they ever want to make a profit from the time I spend listening to music and watching movies, they'll have to innovate and figure out a way. It's like that.
Old times won't return. I mean, a fourteen year old doesn't even know what a compact disc is anymore. It's a museumpiece to them. The thought that people should pay for music is as alien to them as the thought that I should pay to walk in the park.

QFT

[Husar]

If that were the case then I wonder where they are supposed to get the money for a 100,000,000$ movie production from? Or does everybody prefer amateur short films?

It's kind of hard to run a business without any income, it's even harder to sustain a family without any income, I suggest you try it. Of course there are other jobs those people could pursue, like washing dishes, and then everybody could watch them do that for free.

[drone]

If I'm not mistaken, the most egregious aspect of the proposed bill was removed, the one that tasks the feds with the prosecution instead of the IP holders. But the bill still sucks. The point of the copyrights and patents are:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Limited times, and to promote progress. Maintaining a copyright for 50+ years past the author's death does not meet this criteria. The Hill sisters should not be allowed to sit on their laurels and collect Happy Birthday money for decades, this does not encourage them to produce more works of art. Regarding the recording industry, the actual authors don't even own the copyright to their work. System broken.

[Xiahou]

If I'm not mistaken, the most egregious aspect of the proposed bill was removed, the one that tasks the feds with the prosecution instead of the IP holders. But the bill still sucks.

There's still plenty to love, even without that:

Passage of this latest draconian law, on top of the already draconian Digital Millennium Copyright Act and several others, is a victory for the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. But the law's critics say there's no evidence that increasing statutory damages—currently $150,000 for a song that sells for 99 cents on iTunes—would help stem the tide of piracy.

The new law contains other provisions that are just plain scary. For instance, the Justice Department could seize and auction off any computer or network hardware involved in a copyright crime, as it does with the property of drug kingpins—even if the owner is not found guilty of a crime.

link

It also mentions increasing the fine from it's current $150,000- apparently to $7.5 million:

For instance, someone copying a 50 songs from a boxed set could be liable for $7.5 million in damages instead of the current $150,000.

And while the Justice Dept isnt being tasked with prosecuting complaints for the RIAA, they still get a copyright czar in the White House to look out for their interests.

[Kekvit Irae]

As an avid high seas corsair, I see this bill as epic fail.

[TevashSzat]

If that were the case then I wonder where they are supposed to get the money for a 100,000,000$ movie production from? Or does everybody prefer amateur short films?

It's kind of hard to run a business without any income, it's even harder to sustain a family without any income, I suggest you try it. Of course there are other jobs those people could pursue, like washing dishes, and then everybody could watch them do that for free.

Well, my view of piracy is as follows:

The vast majority of pirates are those who either don't have enough money to buy games or want to just try out games that they would have normally never bought.

Now in both situations, the industry would have never seen the people's money. True, there are a minorty of the piracy population, i think, who never buy games, rent DVDs, go to the theaters, ect... but they are not the biggest.

In fact, the pirates are being exposed to new things that they may have gotten access to otherwise. If they truly like whatever product they pirated, the odds are that they would become a fan of the product and actually spend money to get it.

I think piracy is being used as a scapegoat for the declining music industry and what not. The fact is the vast majority of people have no idea how to use torrents and such to get pirated items. So, the general loss in revenue has alot more to do with the industry's declining standards or products rather than the horrible piracy that apparently everyone and their mother uses.

The thing is that great movie for the foreseeable future will always make money. Look at the Dark Knight, it has made hundreds of millions and has paid its 80 million dollar budget (iirc) many times over. I don't see anyone complaining how low the box office numbers for it was. Instead, the complaining and whining only comes after some movie or computer game does below exception. Of course, there is no chance that your product may be faulty, it must be everyone else's fault

[Louis VI the Fat]

If that were the case then I wonder where they are supposed to get the money for a 100,000,000$ movie production from?

They get the money from suckers like y ...erm...I mean, they need to adapt or die. To devise new strategies.

We should remember that intellectual property only came into full being when technological breakthrough made perfect reproduction of art possible.

In the 19th century, you went to a live concert to hear music. Only the invention of the grammophone created the music industry, and with it the possibility of making money from music through reproduction.
Likewise, only the possibility to reproduce visual art - whether through reproduction of posters, photographs or the moving image - meant that intellectual property needed to be protected. Previoulsy, once sold, an image was sold and with it all the rights resting on it. Before the 20th century, if you could paint a good copy of a famous painting, then good for you, you were well within your rights. Only the possibility of mechanical, perfect reproduction created the need for intellectual property protection.

Intellectual property rights to protect against reproduction is a distinctly twentienth century legal concept, tied to advances in mechanical reproduction. Currently, we are witnessing a new technological breakthrough. An advancement in digital reproduction. Which makes reproduction instantaneous, global, and, most importantly, with zero cost. And we are only at the beginning...
So not only does industry need to innovate, so too must our legal concepts progress, just like they did during the last century.

In this respect, this law is reactionary. And stultifying for enterprise. It doesn't protect American industry, it is detrimental to it, by protected vested industry at the expense of innovation. This law belongs to the laws of Ming China or the guilds of Europe. Desperatley clinging on to old ways by means of ever increasing suppression is decidedly un-American.


*now you'll need to excuse me. Dark Knight just arrived on my hard drive.*

[PanzerJaeger]

Had no idea about this... thanks Xiahou.

Louis has it.

[Koga No Goshi]

I have a few very short points that I think Strike and others may appreciate.

1. Who cares, everyone with any semblance of technological know-how will still occasionally pirate music and movies.

2. The record industries and such can take as many fascist temper tantrum crackdowns as they want, but they can't resist the forward momentum of technology.

3. "most of us" were never the problem anyway. I do download a few songs when i-tunes is being a bastard and doesn't carry a good enough variety of stuff, or doesn't have what I want, and I will occasionally download movies I'm dying to see if they're not released in the U.S. yet-- but if I'm dying to see it, I'm pretty much guaranteed to buy it when it comes out, so I don't feel guilty. The real problem is people sitting in their dorm room downloading every single episode of every single television, cable and anime show ever written, produced and televised, plus every variant of every soundtrack and arrangement of instrumental music ever, just "because." And people in third world countries downloading the movies from someone's cellphone computer and selling them for $2 out of the back of a motorcycle on the street.

[Lemur]

Who cares, everyone with any semblance of technological know-how will still occasionally pirate music and movies.

I'm not concerned about the consumer, I'm worried about the law. Passing stupid laws such as PRO-IP reduces the respect people have for our legal framework. IF every kid you know is violating a supposedly serious law that has its own Czar ... ye gods, didn't we do enough of this with the War on Drugs? How absurd do we want to make our legal system?

Yeah, I heard this news in the car today. And I didn't crash or anything.

[Xiahou]

I think the biggest news people should "care" about are the lowering of standards for copyright lawsuits and making it easier to seize the property of those being investigated for infringement. Not found guilty- just being under investigation.

This law makes it easier for them to file against you, and just the accusation can get your property seized and sold. I'm not happy about this, but if others think it's no big deal, that's up to them to decide.

[Lemur]

This law makes it easier for them to file against you, and just the accusation can get your property seized and sold.

I just spent some fruitless time trying to find the backing for this claim. Don't be a Tribesman, help a brother out. I read that the Gov can seize computer equipment on the basis of nothing more than an accusation, and that is some seriously bad mojo, but where's the part where they can sell it before there's even a trial?

[Xiahou]

This story was already linked earlier by me.
But here is an article on Joystiq that reiterates the claims.

But really, you can just read the law. Pay special mind to sec 202 where it references the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 for property seizures.

[Husar]

And because everybody does it. And because this is how people listen to music nowadays, and watch movies. [...] Old times won't return. I mean, a fourteen year old doesn't even know what a compact disc is anymore. It's a museumpiece to them. The thought that people should pay for music is as alien to them as the thought that I should pay to walk in the park.

vs.

I think piracy is being used as a scapegoat for the declining music industry and what not. The fact is the vast majority of people have no idea how to use torrents and such to get pirated items. So, the general loss in revenue has alot more to do with the industry's declining standards or products rather than the horrible piracy that apparently everyone and their mother uses.

If people want to "unite for piracy", maybe having a common stance on the subject wouldn't hurt...

Of course, there is no chance that your product may be faulty, it must be everyone else's fault

That's a good point but it's no excuse for piracy either.

They get the money from suckers like y ...erm...I mean, they need to adapt or die.

If you think that is a sound thing to say then I guess holding a shotgun to the head of a six years old girl and telling her she has five seconds to adapt or die is a good thing to do as well because the overall concept is the same.

Old times won't return.

We should remember that intellectual property only came into full being when technological breakthrough made perfect reproduction of art possible.

In the 19th century, you went to a live concert to hear music. Only the invention of the grammophone created the music industry, and with it the possibility of making money from music through reproduction.

So basically they should die because of the progress they made and their own progress is at fault?
Actually, returning to old times would be the innovative way you're asking for to deal with the situation, musicians could only do live concerts, nothing else, then people could pay 100$ entrance or forget to hear from that person ever again, save some really bad, cellphone-recorded videos on youtube that wouldn't even come close to the quality most people expect.

Intellectual property rights to protect against reproduction is a distinctly twentienth century legal concept, tied to advances in mechanical reproduction. Currently, we are witnessing a new technological breakthrough. An advancement in digital reproduction. Which makes reproduction instantaneous, global, and, most importantly, with zero cost. And we are only at the beginning...
So not only does industry need to innovate, so too must our legal concepts progress, just like they did during the last century.

So how can you get better than instantaneous global reproduction at zero cost? Our legal concepts progressing is what this thread is about, if the pirates put an instantaneous, global zero cost to the industry's head, the industry will put a legal, policeman, really-high-fine-and-ceasure-of-property-due-to-total-observation gun to everybody else's head. The war was fine with everyone as long as the pirates were winning but now that the record industry adapts and the free hunting is in trouble, people start whining about oppression, only oppressing the industry is fine. Talk about double standards.
FYI, I'm not saying their principles are fine but the capitalist way to fight that is don't buy, not put a proverbial gun to their head and laugh about them, violence only causes a spiral of violence and that's what we have about this issue now, one strikes and the other strikes back even harder, it often goes both ways, deal with it.

In this respect, this law is reactionary. And stultifying for enterprise. It doesn't protect American industry, it is detrimental to it, by protected vested industry at the expense of innovation. This law belongs to the laws of Ming China or the guilds of Europe. Desperatley clinging on to old ways by means of ever increasing suppression is decidedly un-American.

Nice try, so making people pay for products is reactionary now.
Maybe it's you who has to stop seeing music and movies as art and start seeing them as products who are sold to make money, get with the times already and stop being reactionary, the days of free art, of artists roaming the countryside, eating from appletrees and residing in the princess's quarters for a while are over. The new way, the American way, is capitalism and that means making money with what you created using your mind. And if anyone thinks he can walk all over your property, you have every right to kill them, it's the texan american way.

[KukriKhan]

It's theft. Amplified by extortion, in the second case.

By pirates/downloaders, AND now by over-reaching government regulation.

"You stole from me, so with Sam over there with the gun, watching, I'm taking 4,000 times the value of your theft to satify your debt to me."

The mafia would be so proud.

[King Henry V]

Personally, I don't see many of the big singers starving in the gutter, because they still make loads of dosh out of concerts, which was how it was before and how it should be. Touring means them doing a semblance of hard work, whereas I find the idea of spending a couple of hours in the recording studio, and then making millions to be absolutely absurd. Releasing songs on CD and on the internet will just have to become another marketing tool.

As for the film industry losing money, all that I can say is about time too. For years they have been pumping out the most mindless drivel imaginable, with very few new, fresh ideas coming to the fore. People would pay to watch it before because there was little else to see and cinema tickets weren't so abominably expensive. Now, quite rightly, they aren't paying anything to watch it. If these films don't make any money, then the industry will just have to stop making them, and the ham actors in them will just have to spend a few more months a year doing nothing and sell off the beach side villa in Thailand.
As with many struggling industries, Hollywood will have to focus on quality rather than quantity.

[Husar]

If it's such drivel, why do people use criminal means to watch it?

[King Henry V]

Because the vast majority of the population is quite happy to watch drivel. Just switch on your television set and see the endless hours of reality TV and "World's Most Amazing Videos". I'm just happy that the industry profits less from such limp-minded output.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The stockmarket is flaming out, we're not much closer to exiting Iraq, the debt is increasing exponentially, and the government won't even let us listen to some tunes. <_<

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everything immaterial should be pirated. Digital piracy is the way of the future and hurts no one. I don't go to movie theaters any less often or buy any fewer cds than I would otherwise. If anything I buy a couple more cds than I would otherwise because of pirated music that I got to try for free.

My r4ds has utterly eliminated nintendo DS games from my purchasing queue, though. I wouldn't be buying games anyway, except for the odd pokemon game that I will buy for myself just to support pokemon.

[Ironside]

If you think that is a sound thing to say then I guess holding a shotgun to the head of a six years old girl and telling her she has five seconds to adapt or die is a good thing to do as well because the overall concept is the same.

It's better if the anology is more correct, this has been a trend for more than one and a half decade. Hardly a sudden event.

Second, all economic systems does contain a certain adapt or die if they're supposed to be effective.

Third, while most people agree that the musicians should get paid for thier job, they do find that the distributor taking 92% of the money (The current ratio on i-Tunes) is somewhat suspiciously close to leeching. Or to put it this way, you pay for 12,5 albums while buying one.

By comperation, one suggestion in Sweden (currently investigated) has been that you pay a monthly fee for free download (and no wierd files you "rent" instead of own). Even with 50% of administration costs, the average user would have to be above 30 songs a month for this to not be profitable for the artists, while you as a buyer would need to be below half an album a month to pay more.

So basically they should die because of the progress they made and their own progress is at fault?
Actually, returning to old times would be the innovative way you're asking for to deal with the situation, musicians could only do live concerts, nothing else, then people could pay 100$ entrance or forget to hear from that person ever again, save some really bad, cellphone-recorded videos on youtube that wouldn't even come close to the quality most people expect.

And as mentioned above, the musicians would probably benefit greatly on it... There's a middle hand and the hands that rips you off.

So how can you get better than instantaneous global reproduction at zero cost?

They're not competing against free, they're competing against a cheaper, better and easier to access product. If it was simply the price, most would pay.
Would you go to a place with lousy, expensive food that's takes an hour to reach?

Our legal concepts progressing is what this thread is about, if the pirates put an instantaneous, global zero cost to the industry's head, the industry will put a legal, policeman, really-high-fine-and-ceasure-of-property-due-to-total-observation gun to everybody else's head. The war was fine with everyone as long as the pirates were winning but now that the record industry adapts and the free hunting is in trouble, people start whining about oppression, only oppressing the industry is fine. Talk about double standards.

It's not about our legal concepts progressing, if anything it's about them going backwards. The copywright concept isn't really adapted for the digital world. Or to put it differently, about the entire population with internet has done multiple copywright breaches and that's without talking about downloading.

FYI, I'm not saying their principles are fine but the capitalist way to fight that is don't buy, not put a proverbial gun to their head and laugh about them, violence only causes a spiral of violence and that's what we have about this issue now, one strikes and the other strikes back even harder, it often goes both ways, deal with it.

Wouldn't not buying music from music companies cause the artists to search for other ways to find thier costumers?

Nice try, so making people pay for products is reactionary now.
Maybe it's you who has to stop seeing music and movies as art and start seeing them as products who are sold to make money, get with the times already and stop being reactionary, the days of free art, of artists roaming the countryside, eating from appletrees and residing in the princess's quarters for a while are over. The new way, the American way, is capitalism and that means making money with what you created using your mind. And if anyone thinks he can walk all over your property, you have every right to kill them, it's the texan american way.

By the capitalistic way, you should find a way to cut the middle hand when he's uneeded, so music companies are free for all in the hunting season atm.

[TevashSzat]

vs.

If people want to "unite for piracy", maybe having a common stance on the subject wouldn't hurt...

Well, my statement was in regards to the general public including the 80 year old seniles who don't have a computer. If you look at the younger population, however, it will be much higher. I doubt that it is as high as Louis is making it seems, but the percentage of people who have pirated something at least once is unbelievably high

That's a good point but it's no excuse for piracy either.

The thing is, what would be an otherwise good response to such decrease in quality?

These company executives can care less about emails or letters written to them. The only thing that they listen to is money and so when people are finally getting them where it hurts, they're just trying stave off the inevitable rather than try to revamp the products they sell.

If you think that is a sound thing to say then I guess holding a shotgun to the head of a six years old girl and telling her she has five seconds to adapt or die is a good thing to do as well because the overall concept is the same.

Well....isn't that how a capitalistic system works? You either adapt and be a great company or you don't and you end up broke (well....from the bailouts happening recently, its probably more likely that you would receive a couple hundred billion dollars for not conducting business smartly...)

So basically they should die because of the progress they made and their own progress is at fault?

No, they're dieing because the whole world around them is progressing and they're desperately trying to cling on to old business strategies which do not work in the 21st century

[Husar]

Would you go to a place with lousy, expensive food that's takes an hour to reach?

No, I would try to sneak in and steal their lousy food.
Seriously, since you noticed my analogy was bad, you could at least have tried to come up with a better one yourself here.

It's not about our legal concepts progressing, if anything it's about them going backwards. The copywright concept isn't really adapted for the digital world. Or to put it differently, about the entire population with internet has done multiple copywright breaches and that's without talking about downloading.

So the best way to deal with it is lynch-justice and breaking the laws?

Wouldn't not buying music from music companies cause the artists to search for other ways to find thier costumers?

Indeed, but how does piracy help with that?
It only adds a criminal component to a good cause. Kind of like the usual "the end justifies the means", the kind of excuse some really evil people in movies use.

The thing is, what would be an otherwise good response to such decrease in quality?

These company executives can care less about emails or letters written to them. The only thing that they listen to is money and so when people are finally getting them where it hurts, they're just trying stave off the inevitable rather than try to revamp the products they sell.

That depends, a lot of letters can make them change their minds if they know that customers will stop buying their products.
The real problem is that most customers are weaklings, they want to make a point but they want to the product anyway so they get it illegally or buy it despite the problems they have with it.
If they really had a problem with the product they should be hard and not get it at all, that way the publishers will also see that the will to fight their oppressive methods is stronger than the need to play a game or listen to that music. But as it is, people end up looking like crack addicts who hate drug lords but want their crack anyway.

That's just weak and not the right way.

Well....isn't that how a capitalistic system works? You either adapt and be a great company or you don't and you end up broke (well....from the bailouts happening recently, its probably more likely that you would receive a couple hundred billion dollars for not conducting business smartly...)

Yes, and this law is how a society works, if you break it, you will get fined/arrested or you adapt and live your life without breaking it, using legal means to shape your world. If that had been done by people, this law had never ever even been considered.

No, they're dieing because the whole world around them is progressing and they're desperately trying to cling on to old business strategies which do not work in the 21st century

And their "customers" are desperately trying to break the law and make a point that could easily be made without breaking the law.

[Ironside]

No, I would try to sneak in and steal their lousy food.
Seriously, since you noticed my analogy was bad, you could at least have tried to come up with a better one yourself here.

Nah, not really. The pirated stuff would be from a worse stylish resturant (but with better reputation), but with better prices, better food (no DRM) and within a 10 min walk. And it was also established earlier. The downside is that it has employed some illegal immigrants.

Had it only been about prices, then the development would've been quite different.

So the best way to deal with it is lynch-justice and breaking the laws?

A law that incriminates about the entire population is usually a stupid law, so in a way, it's better as it draws more attention. It's called civil dissent.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yeah, yeah this isn't really civil dissent (and it isn't their intention), but there's cases where going outside the law is better than following it.

Indeed, but how does piracy help with that?
It only adds a criminal component to a good cause. Kind of like the usual "the end justifies the means", the kind of excuse some really evil people in movies use.

Because it's by far the strongest means to do it. It is also depending on how you view it. This is more a consequence of a flawed market that gained some means to correct itself. Can you give a legal mean to keep the artists funded, while breaking the way the record companies keeps the market?

That depends, a lot of letters can make them change their minds if they know that customers will stop buying their products.
The real problem is that most customers are weaklings, they want to make a point but they want to the product anyway so they get it illegally or buy it despite the problems they have with it.
If they really had a problem with the product they should be hard and not get it at all, that way the publishers will also see that the will to fight their oppressive methods is stronger than the need to play a game or listen to that music. But as it is, people end up looking like crack addicts who hate drug lords but want their crack anyway.

That's just weak and not the right way.

If the world starves out the record companies druglords that controls the market to bring them down, how would the poor artists cocaine growers fare?

Yes, and this law is how a society works, if you break it, you will get fined/arrested or you adapt and live your life without breaking it, using legal means to shape your world. If that had been done by people, this law had never ever even been considered.

There's a point where adapting to the law is worse for society than breaking it.

And their "customers" are desperately trying to break the law and make a point that could easily be made without breaking the law.

And how is this point easily made legally, without hurting the artists?


Sure, todays market is unstable and not yet adapted to this new digital world, but what the record companies tries to do is to put the genie back into the bottle, so they can return to thier golden age, instead of adapting. And the effect becomes that it will prolong the time the buissness will stabilise and the costumer, artist (and distributor) will find a level that's acceptable.

[Husar]

Because it's by far the strongest means to do it. It is also depending on how you view it. This is more a consequence of a flawed market that gained some means to correct itself. Can you give a legal mean to keep the artists funded, while breaking the way the record companies keeps the market?

So in what way does piracy keep the artists funded?

As for the rest of your post and breaking the law for the better of society, I'm sure you will soon run around destroying CCTV cameras and x-ray screens on airports since surely privacy and freedom are more important to you than mere entertainment, or did I get your priorities wrong there?

[Xiahou]

It's really simple. Content creators have a right to be compensated for their works. But, consumers also have a right to expect a quality product in return for their purchase.

For me, the trouble begins when content is loaded with such so many draconian protections that the product becomes inferior to hacked off pirated versions. That's going about it in the completely wrong way. People should get rewarded with value for buying something instead of pirating. As it is now, consumers are often punished with onerous restrictions placed on them that they wouldn't have to deal with had they got a pirated version. That's an insane business model and I feel no sympathy for the problems it creates.

Really though, DRM and piracy are not specifically what this thread is about. It is about specific legislation, signed into law, that strips citizens of previously enjoyed rights for the benefit of the "big content" lobby.

[Husar]

Really though, DRM and piracy are not specifically what this thread is about. It is about specific legislation, signed into law, that strips citizens of previously enjoyed rights for the benefit of the "big content" lobby.

So i can expect to see you fight for your rights at the airport as well?