Anti Censorship Day

[CapinCripes]

If you live in america do yourself a favor and sign this American Censorship Day November 16 - Join the fight to stop SOPA to protect your first amendment rights.

[Blind Theory]

Censorship can suck a dick.

[oneblackened]

Totally absurd bill that defies between 4 and 7 amendments.

[Konfyouzd]

What's SOPA and how will it affect my day to day life?

I'm not trying to be controversial in any way, but there always seems to be something Americans are up in arms about and whether it goes through or not I never really notice much of a difference.

[Randy]

.... ....s

[Konfyouzd]

Are you proposing that we have sex with vaginas or that we pay no mind to those we designate as ....s? Or... All of the above?

[Randy]

Shitting dick nipples

[Jakke]

Tourettes?

[highlordmugfug]

Originally Posted by Randy

Shitting dick nipples

Originally Posted by Jakke

Tourettes?

I'd link and explain for Randy, but I like not being banned.

Go ahead and google that with safe search off if you really want to know.
Or check

encyclopediadramatica

[Jakke]

Originally Posted by highlordmugfug

Well, I should have guessed it was those guys...

[BIG ND SWEATY]

ignore this

[drgamble]

The SOPA act is aimed at ending music piracy. I grew up Ina time when musicians could actually make a living selling albums, but now that everyone would rather steal music, it has become almost impossible. Meanwhile, the googles, youtubes, bit torrents, etc. of the world are making more money off of the musicians than musicians make themselves. Something has to be done, or all we will have is guys making albums in their bedrooms. If you think that you can make a living playing something other than pop music or classic rock, you are in for a rude awakening when reality slaps you in the face. In the pre-piracy days, guys could retire after a couple albums. If SOPA isn't at least a start, then how would you suggest stopping piracy?

[flint757]

Originally Posted by drgamble

The SOPA act is aimed at ending music piracy. I grew up Ina time when musicians could actually make a living selling albums, but now that everyone would rather steal music, it has become almost impossible. Meanwhile, the googles, youtubes, bit torrents, etc. of the world are making more money off of the musicians than musicians make themselves. Something has to be done, or all we will have is guys making albums in their bedrooms. If you think that you can make a living playing something other than pop music or classic rock, you are in for a rude awakening when reality slaps you in the face. In the pre-piracy days, guys could retire after a couple albums. If SOPA isn't at least a start, then how would you suggest stopping piracy?

Don't disagree by any means, but bills especially ones like this are have reprecussions that echo further than what they are designated for. It gives them the option of censorship when one thing goes wrong or isn't placed properly, etc. It'd be like if someone told you to wait in line and if you stepped even just a little bit off the line then you go to jail or in this case if a link that is "questionable" is on a page or didn't get proper paperwork bye bye website which can lead to political censorship.

[EDIT] keyword is can not will. It could be the best bill ever and have no negative reprecussions I personally don't trust the government with power.

On another note I kinda want it to pass and then see profits stay the same so that we can finally end the debate that piracy kills profit because people who do shit like that never intended to pay for it to begin with. Then maybe they will repeal it and walk away looking stupid...

[drgamble]

I haven't read the bill and most probably haven't, but I know that the media has put out a lot on both sides of the issue. As a member of ASCAP, I have to lean towards my association. If a website gets blocked because of the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, it's not really censorship, it is the penalty for infringing on other people's rights to get paid for the use of their material. Professionals dedicate their lives to making the music that we all enjoy the most and should be compensated so that they can continue to create what we love most.

[CapinCripes]

Originally Posted by drgamble

The SOPA act is aimed at ending music piracy. I grew up Ina time when musicians could actually make a living selling albums, but now that everyone would rather steal music, it has become almost impossible. Meanwhile, the googles, youtubes, bit torrents, etc. of the world are making more money off of the musicians than musicians make themselves. Something has to be done, or all we will have is guys making albums in their bedrooms. If you think that you can make a living playing something other than pop music or classic rock, you are in for a rude awakening when reality slaps you in the face. In the pre-piracy days, guys could retire after a couple albums. If SOPA isn't at least a start, then how would you suggest stopping piracy?

my problem is not with the concept but how it is carried out. under S.O.P.A any website with any unauthorized content posted by any user can be made so that no american can go on to it. How many un-official youtube videos have been linked on sevenstring.org? under S.O.P.A even if the answer was only 1 this site could be shut off for all americans and the user who linked the video could be held personally liable. what i am saying is that it is like using a flame thrower where one small squirt of ant spray would do the job, the end has to justify the means. you get rid of piracy by getting rid of pirates not by getting rid of entire communities, you cannot simply say .... it if this community has one pirate you are all going to suffer for his crime.

on the subject of music the current laws that regulate how radio stations pay royalties for the songs they play is a racket. as anyone who has ever run a radio station knows to run your station legally you have to pay an orginization known as SoundExchange a rate for the music you play under the guise that they will then distribute the royalties to the artists whose music you play on their station. the problem with this is SoundExchange gives you two choices. these two choices being you can pay one lower rate and have to list all of the songs you play, every time you play them and how many people were listening everytime you've played them (damn near impossible) so that SoundExchange knows who to give the money to, or you can pay a higher rate so that you don't have to list anything. the question then becomes how do they know who to give the money to? they don't, so they don't. it becomes essentially a case of lawsuit insurance. TL;DR: the existing copyright laws don't protect musicians and who is to say that the new ones will be any better?

Also: sorry if i come off as a dick i am rather passionate about constitutional issues especially pertaining to the first amendment, any dickishness was not directed at anyone in particular.

[daemon barbeque]

#@$%*

[ShadowFactoryX]

Originally Posted by drgamble

I grew up Ina time when musicians could actually make a living selling albums, but now that everyone would rather steal music, it has become almost impossible. Meanwhile, the googles, youtubes, bit torrents, etc. of the world are making more money off of the musicians than musicians make themselves. Something has to be done, or all we will have is guys making albums in their bedrooms.

No, you grew up in an era where the technology wasnt available. If it was then, people would be pirating as much as they are now. People haven't changed, technology has.

Originally Posted by drgamble

If you think that you can make a living playing something other than pop music or classic rock, you are in for a rude awakening when reality slaps you in the face. In the pre-piracy days, guys could retire after a couple albums. If SOPA isn't at least a start, then how would you suggest stopping piracy?

Again not true, just because pop, rap, country, classic rock, etc (or what's generally classified as mainstream music) pulls the most air time via radio or tv, doesnt mean thats the only way to make a living off of music.

[Konfyouzd]

When were you ever really able to make a living off something that wasn't in demand? Pop, rap and the like are "in demand" more so than other genres of music.

Noble idea, but the planned execution might need some tinkering.

[Randy]

......... ......

[flint757]

i hate where these threads lead they always fall off the tracks

Good reads though nonetheless


What I can add to this debate is that the only path guaranteed is the one taken anything else is just speculation and therefore unprovable. Record companies use the speculative arguments as fact, I hear people talk about the old days vs the new days and like the poster before me said lots of variable are different, but the people are generally the same. The 50's were not like the show Leave it to Beaver. My point is speculation is pointless it is an unwinable and unloseable argument that gets people nowhere. /rant

[drgamble]

November 16, 2011 What You Need to Know About the Protect IP (U.S. Senate) and the Stop Online Piracy (U.S. House) Acts

The PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261 or "STOP Act"), which are currently moving through the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, are designed to protect U.S. rights holders and consumers against commercial, largely foreign websites that steal U.S. intellectual property. Both bills have broad, bipartisan support, and thus it is anticipated they will be combined, passed by both Houses, and become law. Let's begin by establishing the reasons for this Congressional effort to better enforce intellectual property protection.
A dizzying array of foreign-based websites have built their businesses around taking and selling U.S. copyrighted works without any compensation to creators and artists, while others endanger American lives with counterfeit goods. The overarching goal of PROTECT IP and STOP Acts is to cut off the flow of money from the U.S. to foreign rogue sites and to protect American jobs, consumers and economic growth. For songwriters, composers and artists, this legislation will have a profound impact. These Acts would direct the Department of Justice to take certain measures against foreign rogue websites that are committing or facilitating criminal activities. These measures, with Federal Court authorization, would include requiring Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") or other look-up services to use filtering to prevent U.S. consumers from accessing rogue sites and further eliminating the financial benefits to that site by requiring payment processors (think Mastercard, Visa or PayPal) and Internet advertising services to cut off the flow of money to rogue sites. This combination of measures would put these so called rogue sites out of business, while protecting legitimate sites. The Acts also enable U.S. rights holders, including owners of copyrights in musical compositions, to take action to cut off the flow of money to these foreign, rogue sites. The Acts contain a variety of measures that aim to prevent abuse. For example, the Acts provide the same notice and other due process protections available in other federal cases, giving the domain name owners or site operators the right to defend themselves.
The bottom line, support for these Acts is a no-brainer for anyone whose livelihood is dependent on the creation of intellectual property.
But the Acts do have very aggressive opponents who have loudly expressed the following opinions. In summary, they oppose any action or attitude that restricts the open and free use of copyrighted material. Our reasoned response follows each opinion.

1. "It will undermine all kinds of consumer rights."
   -
   The only right it will undermine is the opportunity to profit through criminal infringement.
2. "It will establish a police state, ending free speech."
   -
   The enforcement provisions of these Acts are only triggered by Federal Court action. The Acts are loaded with safeguards for legitimate sites. Moreover, there is no First Amendment right to sell or distribute stolen content.
3. "With these Acts, the DMCA enacted Safe Harbor provisions would be invalidated."
   -
   This is not at all true. Not only does the DMCA safe harbor remain, but in fact, Internet intermediaries are given ADDITIONAL immunity from suit for taking voluntary action to prevent IP theft. It's interesting that copyright opponents have traditionally hated the DMCA. Now they appear to be desperate to maintain it.
4. "The Acts incentivize Internet sites to censor their content from U.S. users in order to limit liability."
   -
   The bills encourage Internet sites to take "good samaritan" actions to stop criminal activity. This will, in no way, undermine a website's primary incentive to serve the interest of their users.
5. "These Acts will break the Internet."
   -
   The only thing they will break is the ability of sites dedicated to infringement or engaging in criminal activity to generate illegal revenue.

These arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation are not new-they are the very same arguments offered any time Congress contemplates enacting legislation that protects intellectual property rights. They were the very same arguments offered against the DMCA, which, as we have seen, has neither stifled innovation nor the First Amendment. Given the built-in limitations and due process safe guards in the Acts, the doomsday arguments made by the copyleft groups are red herrings.
ASCAP members are encouraged to raise your voices and be heard on the value of these Acts and the resulting final bill. Get involved with an effort to protect your livelihood!

This is from the ASCAP website and their position on this legislation. As a person that has published music and a member of ASCAP I find this source a little more credible than some of the "Censorship" articles. The truth is that there is a lot a stake here and everybody has their own opinion. The fact is with the old days vs. new days thing is that record sales have fallen some 56% while consumption has reached an all time high. Bands like Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, etc were able to make it because they sold records. Metallica sold over a million copies of "Master of Puppets" long before the radio and media got behind them. They were most certainly considered "in demand" back in those days.

Bands used to play to sold out arena's and would sometimes lose money to promote album sales. Now, bands use albums to get people to go see them live and pay $80+ for a ticket. Musicians don't make money off of albums anymore, they have to go play concerts.

There is not a band out there now in the underground that will ever make the kind of jack that these guys made. You can scratch out a meager living, but you're not gonna be on Cribs and most certainly won't be able to retire. I wish that some of the signed artists on the site would jump into the conversation and let people know what it is really like, but most musicians are scared to speak up because of the risk of being treated like Metallica when they brought this up over Napster.

Take it from this guy though, he might actually know what it's like.

Anthrax's Scott Ian: Take Away Illegal Downloaders' Internet Privileges - Broward/Palm Beach Music - County Grind

Yes, I know of several underground bands that made a living out of music that was not "in demand".

From personal experience, I can tell you that if I had gotten paid for all of my material, while not what one would call a living, would still be a pretty good payday.

[flint757]

that article proves nothing because once again it is all speculation. Not saying it wouldn't be the case, but it is no basis for fact either.

CD sales were declining long before 2001 when he would have supposedly sold 250k albums in the first week. Once legitimate online retailers came around like itunes CD sales were supplemented by digital and yet no one takes that addition in to account.

It isn't to say that things wouldn't increase financially if someone stopped pirating because it would increase a little. There are some kids/adults who can afford it and still don't pay. Not the case for most people though.

A poor man stealing bread isn't going to pay for it just because you put a guard there.

You can make this a case for maybe saying it isn't right or isn't fair, but looking at the paperwork alone, the financial increase wouldn't be what artist nor record companies claim, they are FOS. back in the day maybe, but a lot of people grew up on p2p and you can't change a zebras stripes.

[GuitaristOfHell]

Censorship can suck my Italian dick. .... the censorship. I'll say what I want/ post what I want.

[JamesM]

.... ......... ... .. .......... .. .........