• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting July!

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I'm sorry for always being the grumpy one but can we PLEASE cut it out with the "tl;dr" bullshit?
Okey dokey loki.


Actually IF I had to take a guess of where copyright laws are going towards, personally the most likely guess I have is that once cybernetics comes about this is what we'll be stuck with-
[YT]IFe9wiDfb0E[/YT]
 

Term_the_Schmuck

Most Interesting Man on FAF
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I never said all copyright is bad.

One person did and I directly responded to that person. I don't know where the hell you're getting this idea that I'm pasting Ruby's comment on the whole, but I'm annoyed that no one steps up and points out the sheer stupidity of someone taking up the platform and going far off into stupidity.

Personally I think there needs to be a difference legally between corporate copyright infringement and personal copyright infringement. Having average joe have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for something they aren't doing for profit is just ridiculous. However if it's a corporation breaking copyright then a couple hundred thousand dollars is a small amount.

My problem with current copyright laws is that it treats both people and companies like the same thing. It's not the existence of copyright laws, it's how far they take it.

The question then becomes if they're not using it for profit, what are they using it for? If I'm doing a not-for-profit documentary film and I happen to need a sample of a song, clip of a movie, or some other piece of media I didn't create, then I have the ability to do so as long as I'm cutting that piece to where I make my point and not just throwing up the entire copy of Jay-Z's Black Album because I felt like it. If someone's uploading content to a site, like MegaUpload, that they ripped/hacked/copied, then it becomes a problem because when you buy something on a disk, you're not the owner of that content, but on the medium of which that content exists; ie. the DVD, Blu-Ray, piece of paper. Now in most cases, you're not undermining the artist/actor/director themselves because they sign huge contracts with the production studios before they get involved with anything. Who gets hurt are the technicians, engineers, IT personnel, mail-room guys, etc who work at said publisher. That's a lot of overhead that might end up having to be downsized because, for example, a game sells a million copies but is actually played by 3 million unique users who got the game through file sharing. That is part of the reason why those penalties tend to be high.

Another is perceived damages which no one can argue are outrageous when you consider the cases of 13-year-olds and old people getting sued and losing cases where they're expected to pay back half a million bucks. But the fact of the matter remains that there are some real issues with the mentality of "they don't deserve my money so I'll just download the content for free and I'll pay if I feel like it." No where in the real world can you just walk in to a business and say "I want you to give me something and if it's good I'll consider giving you money for it." That's a pretty fucked up mentality, IMHO.

As for why I challenged you on your intentions you have a track record of shitting on threads almost as bad as mine. The thing that irks me though is where as my shitting on threads is completely random and unintentional and I rarely go into a thread with the intention of starting a fight, your shitting on threads are deliberate and intentional and you go into it full force knowing full well what you are doing. While yes your shitting on threads is more civil, you still have a fair number of threads you have argued into oblivion.

I've argued those threads and threads like this because I feel there are fundamental problems in the thought process people go through to reach certain conclusions. Though I may agree with their general conclusions, I do often take issue with how they got there or what they end up doing when they reach said conclusion. Some people, such as Ruby in the post I originally quoted, say things so outrageous and downright absurd that it invalidates anything they may have to say that's agreeable because the glaring issue of saying something like "copyright never helped anyone" or something to that effect.

If you want me to cut the shit then okay. I don't find the existence of copyright laws bad, I find how far they take it to the extremes bad. The fact that we have people sitting in prison serving longer prison terms than pedophiles or rapists or murders is utterly ridiculous. By no stretch of any sort of logic should a person serve longer prison terms for copyright infringement than violent crimes. Also how they charge you both on the state level and federal level is double jeopardy. If it was any other crime and failing a conviction on the state level they just whip right around and charge them on the federal level you would have people screaming double jeopardy, however since it's copyright infringement that makes it a-okay.

They serve those prison terms because of multiple counts and the few times that someone actually goes to prison over something like that is when they themselves are the owner, operator, and beneficiary of said copyright infringement, like Kim DotCom. Average Joe down the street won't ever go to prison because of copyright infringement. His case is a civil matter which if he loses will force him to pay off damages, which as previously explored are often notoriously high based on speculation rather than actual research.

As for "double jeopardy" this is nothing new as far as the US Government is concerned. Back in 1991, an exception to the double jeopardy rule was used during the Rodney King trial, where the cops who beat King were tried once in a state court where they were acquitted and then tried again on the federal level where they were convicted, because state and federal governments are considered different sovereign entities. This isn't a "because it's copyright infringement" or any specific crime issue. This is fundamental legal policy of the United States, period.
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I've read this entire thread, while people are freaking out and talking about getting out the torches and pitchforks... Do you realize that you have a choice, right? You are consumers and you can choose not to put up with unpleasent services or conditions from a provider and use a different provider. As consumers you actually have this remarkable power that scares the shit out of companies: The power to say 'I don't like this, I'm gonna take my money elsewhere'. Yet not once in this thread has I see anyone stating that they would exercise this simple yet powerful right.

Some of you go on about 'rights' and corporations imposing things on you that should be wrong. Did you read this thing? You have to agree to those terms and services before they can impose those terms and services onto you. Just don't agree with them and take your buisness elsewhere.

Why is it that in these situations, this remarkable freedom that you have is beyond you, but when Coke tries to change their formula everyone easily goes 'WELL I AIN'T DRINKING THIS NEW STUFF. IT'S NOT THE REAL THING ANYMORE.' making Coke go 'OK GUYS, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR COKE CLASSIC BACK, PLEASE DON'T SWITCH TO PEPSI. D:'
 

Namba

Well-Known Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I've read this entire thread, while people are freaking out and talking about getting out the torches and pitchforks... Do you realize that you have a choice, right? You are consumers and you can choose not to put up with unpleasent services or conditions from a provider and use a different provider. As consumers you actually have this remarkable power that scares the shit out of companies: The power to say 'I don't like this, I'm gonna take my money elsewhere'. Yet not once in this thread has I see anyone stating that they would exercise this simple yet powerful right.

Some of you go on about 'rights' and corporations imposing things on you that should be wrong. Did you read this thing? You have to agree to those terms and services before they can impose those terms and services onto you. Just don't agree with them and take your buisness elsewhere.

Why is it that in these situations, this remarkable freedom that you have is beyond you, but when Coke tries to change their formula everyone easily goes 'WELL I AIN'T DRINKING THIS NEW STUFF. IT'S NOT THE REAL THING ANYMORE.' making Coke go 'OK GUYS, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR COKE CLASSIC BACK, PLEASE DON'T SWITCH TO PEPSI. D:'
Consider this, though... There's only one Internet. See the problem? The Internet, while having different ways to get to you, is ultimately just one thing. It's a monopoly in a sense; you either have it or you don't, no alternatives no questions asked. Once you have it and have experienced its usefulness, it's kind of hard to get rid of cold turkey.
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Consider this, though... There's only one Internet. See the problem? The Internet, while having different ways to get to you, is ultimately just one thing. It's a monopoly in a sense; you either have it or you don't, no alternatives no questions asked. Once you have it and have experienced its usefulness, it's kind of hard to get rid of cold turkey.

Or you could just switch to an ISP that is not involved in this agreement... I figure that's a lot less, ya know, stupid, than getting rid of the internet all together.
 

Namba

Well-Known Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Or you could just switch to an ISP that is not involved in this agreement... I figure that's a lot less, ya know, stupid, than getting rid of the internet all together.
I'm not as smart as I like to believe sometimes, forgive me.
 

Aden

Play from your ****ing HEART
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

CDs all the way. And it just feels so much better to actually pay for your music.

I'm one of those vinylfags, but otherwise can't argue with that. I love supporting artists I'm a fan of—and downloading makes me a fan when the music is good.

Or you could just switch to an ISP that is not involved in this agreement... I figure that's a lot less, ya know, stupid, than getting rid of the internet all together.

>he thinks everyone has a choice of ISP
:3c
 
Last edited:

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I've read this entire thread, while people are freaking out and talking about getting out the torches and pitchforks... Do you realize that you have a choice, right? You are consumers and you can choose not to put up with unpleasent services or conditions from a provider and use a different provider. As consumers you actually have this remarkable power that scares the shit out of companies: The power to say 'I don't like this, I'm gonna take my money elsewhere'. Yet not once in this thread has I see anyone stating that they would exercise this simple yet powerful right.

Some of you go on about 'rights' and corporations imposing things on you that should be wrong. Did you read this thing? You have to agree to those terms and services before they can impose those terms and services onto you. Just don't agree with them and take your buisness elsewhere.

Why is it that in these situations, this remarkable freedom that you have is beyond you, but when Coke tries to change their formula everyone easily goes 'WELL I AIN'T DRINKING THIS NEW STUFF. IT'S NOT THE REAL THING ANYMORE.' making Coke go 'OK GUYS, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR COKE CLASSIC BACK, PLEASE DON'T SWITCH TO PEPSI. D:'
The irony is that the last time there was a thread on copyright you were going "well if you use firefox or google in anyway you are supporting a company that uses software from <can't remember their name>" Why the sudden change? Last time you were saying that the exact opposite now?
-snip, not cause I didn't read, but cause it's a long post-
I'm not arguing against copyright, all I am saying is that the prison terms and such is getting way the fuck out of hand.
Also the problem with the multiple counts charges, considering how much the average internet user illegally downloads they could theoretically put most internet users in prison for the amount of time and sue them for that amount of money.

Don't you think there is something wrong whenever a massive chunk of the populace can theoretically be put in jail and sued for half a million dollars?

While yes you do have a point, BUT when a notable chunk of the populace are considered criminals that can be put in prison for decades for something that has literally no actual effect on sales that is a problem.
Also before you bring up damages-
[YT]GZadCj8O1-0[/YT]
The whole argument that big name corporations are losing massive amounts of money due to copyright theft is a gray area while debating the impact of copyright infringement cause on the one hand you have one side that says it doesn't effect our economy and on the other hand you have the RIAA trying to sue limewire for $45 trillion. Granted the amount was deemed ridiculous, but when you have companies trying to sue for more money than the gdp that is way waaayyy wwwaaaaaayyyyyy the fuck ridiculous.

I do think it's possible there is a amount that companies are losing money to copyright infringement, but the problem is that when one side is blowing it so far out of proportion to that degree trying to find the middle ground is neigh impossible. It'd be like if someone stole a $100 from a cash register and then the company who had their money stolen claimed their loses were equivalent to fort knox.


Basically what I'm getting at is you do have a point, but I doubt there is a actually accurate number for the amount of money companies lose to copyright infringement due to how much the estimates get blown out of proportion.
 
Last edited:

Namba

Well-Known Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I'm one of those vinylfags, but otherwise can't argue with that. I love supporting artists I'm a fan of—and downloading makes me a fan when the music is good.
I want a turntable so bad :C
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

The irony is that the last time there was a thread on copyright you were going "well if you use firefox or google in anyway you are supporting a company that uses software from <can't remember their name>" Why the sudden change? Last time you were saying that the exact opposite now?

Because this event you speak of didn't happen... I don't even know what mystery software you're talking about.
 

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Because this event you speak of didn't happen... I don't even know what mystery software you're talking about.
It was a couple months ago during the SOPA debate when someone brought up trying to boycott companies involved and people were listing all the companies that were pushing for SOPA. Basically what you said was that trying to boycott the companies was pointless and that trying to find competing to buy services from is pointless.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Or you could just switch to an ISP that is not involved in this agreement... I figure that's a lot less, ya know, stupid, than getting rid of the internet all together.

So...

AT&T, AT&T, and AT&T

That's a lot of choices. [For people in areas like mine]
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

It was a couple months ago during the SOPA debate when someone brought up trying to boycott companies involved and people were listing all the companies that were pushing for SOPA. Basically what you said was that trying to boycott the companies was pointless and that trying to find competing to buy services from is pointless.

Google and Mozilla were opposed to SOPA... o_O

Ya know what? I'm not gonna do this thing, where you say something vague and stupid, which I counter, which you respond with something else vague and stupid. Put up or shut up, Cannon Fodder, find the post and link it. If you can't or won't do that, I have no interest in your blurry and confused memories.

So...

AT&T, AT&T, and AT&T

That's a lot of choices. [For people in areas like mine]

http://www.yellowpages.com/reno-nv/internet-service-providers-isp
 

Neuron

Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I never said all copyright is bad.
Personally I think there needs to be a difference legally between corporate copyright infringement and personal copyright infringement. Having average joe have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for something they aren't doing for profit is just ridiculous. However if it's a corporation breaking copyright then a couple hundred thousand dollars is a small amount.

My problem with current copyright laws is that it treats both people and companies like the same thing. It's not the existence of copyright laws, it's how far they take it.

If you want me to cut the shit then okay. I don't find the existence of copyright laws bad, I find how far they take it to the extremes bad. The fact that we have people sitting in prison serving longer prison terms than pedophiles or rapists or murders is utterly ridiculous. By no stretch of any sort of logic should a person serve longer prison terms for copyright infringement than violent crimes. Also how they charge you both on the state level and federal level is double jeopardy. If it was any other crime and failing a conviction on the state level they just whip right around and charge them on the federal level you would have people screaming double jeopardy, however since it's copyright infringement that makes it a-okay.

Tl:dr; I don't think copyright infringement is bad, I find however the level of punishment they give out and how they ignore double jeopardy bad though.
Allow me to play devil's advocate, then.

As I understand it from the most reliable of these sources, the policies generally involve a notification to the parties participating in illegal copyright infringement to cease such actions. These notifications, as I understand from the reading, generally have a "3 strikes" type rule. If they catch you infringing on their ISP after the 2nd or 3rd notice that is the point where the internet may be censored or cut off. A genuine stubborn resistance to these measures, which I'm going to argue are to prevent the ridiculous court cases which you speak of, will result in serious legal action.

Keep in mind that while annoying, these measures are not involving the issues of which you primarily speak. They are not involving the immediate, hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted persecuting the nuisance pirate. That is because while these issues are frightening and speak to discourage the users of the internet with big, scary numbers, this can end up being as much, if not more of a pain in the ass for those asshole corporations. For as assholish as they may be, it is expensive to keep on pursuing unprecedented amounts of copyright infringement cases when most of them are going to be individuals that will never pay it off. The lawyers know it's all a show. It's puffing out the big scary feathers to make themselves look important and threatening. But they don't have the money to keep that disguise up at all times.

These measures are seeking to address the very problems that you speak of when talking about the persecution of copyright infringement, the ridiculous time and money wasted pursuing people that are rather harmlessly but over time affecting their profit margin. This is meant to be be a show, it's meant to scare someone who pirates a Metallica CD and notify them that they are not as anonymous as they appear to be and should stop to avoid those scary big number law suits they want you to be afraid of.

While I must also question the prying into our privacy, I must stress the point of these people not being as evil, and unethical as people may be tempted to paint them as. Quite frankly, I do see the merit in the possibility of being given annoying notices of "please stop pirating our shit" rather than knowing my pirating may or may not end in a multimillion dollar shitstorm of a lawsuit.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju


It's cute you think that actually means any kind of rebuttal or that even a fraction of those are viable.

Edit: I'm even checking them all out, one of these is even a link to irs.gov! Hilarious.

We cannot determine DSL availability for your phone number through our automated system at this time. Hum. Maybe the ambiguous business "Doodads" has something eh? Hah!
 
Last edited:

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Allow me to play devil's advocate, then.

As I understand it from the most reliable of these sources, the policies generally involve a notification to the parties participating in illegal copyright infringement to cease such actions. These notifications, as I understand from the reading, generally have a "3 strikes" type rule. If they catch you infringing on their ISP after the 2nd or 3rd notice that is the point where the internet may be censored or cut off. A genuine stubborn resistance to these measures, which I'm going to argue are to prevent the ridiculous court cases which you speak of, will result in serious legal action.

Keep in mind that while annoying, these measures are not involving the issues of which you primarily speak. They are not involving the immediate, hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted persecuting the nuisance pirate. That is because while these issues are frightening and speak to discourage the users of the internet with big, scary numbers, this can end up being as much, if not more of a pain in the ass for those asshole corporations. For as assholish as they may be, it is expensive to keep on pursuing unprecedented amounts of copyright infringement cases when most of them are going to be individuals that will never pay it off. The lawyers know it's all a show. It's puffing out the big scary feathers to make themselves look important and threatening. But they don't have the money to keep that disguise up at all times.

These measures are seeking to address the very problems that you speak of when talking about the persecution of copyright infringement, the ridiculous time and money wasted pursuing people that are rather harmlessly but over time affecting their profit margin. This is meant to be be a show, it's meant to scare someone who pirates a Metallica CD and notify them that they are not as anonymous as they appear to be and should stop to avoid those scary big number law suits they want you to be afraid of.

While I must also question the prying into our privacy, I must stress the point of these people not being as evil, and unethical as people may be tempted to paint them as. Quite frankly, I do see the merit in the possibility of being given annoying notices of "please stop pirating our shit" rather than knowing my pirating may or may not end in a multimillion dollar shitstorm of a lawsuit.
I highly doubt that the three strikes thing is going to work like how it claims to. From what it says it's supposed to sound like some sort of them trying to be reasonable, but we all know better than to believe they're going to be reasonable about copyright infringement. In reality it's going to be more akin to bam bam bam three strikes off the bat you're in hot water.
 

Brazen

Terrorist Scum
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Meanwhile the EU shoots down ACTA.
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

It's cute you think that actually means any kind of rebuttal or that even a fraction of those are viable.

Edit: I'm even checking them all out, one of these is even a link to irs.gov! Hilarious.

We cannot determine DSL availability for your phone number through our automated system at this time. Hum. Maybe the ambiguous business "Doodads" has something eh? Hah!

My point is that there are always options and you should shop around. Reno, with a population of over 200 000 people isn't exactly the 'middle of nowhere'. Not to mention that this is one of the very reasons why high speed internet prices are cheaper in the US than in Canada; There is greater competition. Competition benifits the consumer. But if you want to be a lazy consumer who assumes their option is a monopoly when it's not a monopoly... Well, you certianly wouldn't be the first apathetic consumer.
 

Rilvor

Formal when angry
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

My point is that there are always options and you should shop around. Reno, with a population of over 200 000 people isn't exactly the 'middle of nowhere'. Not to mention that this is one of the very reasons why high speed internet prices are cheaper in the US than in Canada; There is greater competition. Competition benifits the consumer. But if you want to be a lazy consumer who assumes their option is a monopoly when it's not a monopoly... Well, you certianly wouldn't be the first apathetic consumer.
Of course a lot of areas have other options to choose from, but you also have to be realistic. As I myself found out months ago, not every provider will go to the area you live in. Certainly people should not assume there is a monopoly, it is just that some of us already know better through our own efforts. Of course that isn't a "true monopoly" but it might as well be, to a degree.
 

Judge Spear

Well-Known Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Holy shit...this thread got way more serious! All this is now far beyond my feeble understanding. o_O
 

Bipolar Bear

Phallus Fellater
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Oh boy! Here we go again! \=)
 

Xenke

Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Wow, the 'articles' in this thread are weakkkk.

Really, there's only two that are worth linking, the other two are sourced from the CNET article, and second-hand news isn't really news.

As for people having 'options', in a lot of cases they really don't. I believe here I have a grand total of two options that don't totally suck, and of those two we currently have one and I haven't done any further research to see if the other is truly viable.

That said, there's so little to even confirm that this is even a thing that I'm not holding my breath. The large lack of anything credible or current on this matter throws doubts over it's value.

And even so, all most people pirate are luxury items (i.e. you're not pirating stuff you need to live, not even close), so... just deal with it? I'm not sure you need to have your music and games for free, though at least the arguments for why people pirate music makes some sense.

Oh boy! Here we go again! \=)

Nice contribution to the thread. I see we're using our brain today. Clearly.
 

Mircea

Active Member
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

I hope you are right and the information isn't all true. Part of my worry comes from SOPA, which we all know was real. Not hard to expect something like it or worse again. If SOPA didn't exist, I might have found something like this unbelievable... but in year 2012 something like that law was still possible to propose, and no one was investigated for all the harm that was caused by even just proposing such a thing. So I take any such articles with maximum caution.
 

mrfoxwily

Most definitely male.
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

Considering we didn't agree to this, can't current users sue their ass?

I've noticed in the past that if even the media attacks it, it tends to fail.

I can't find anything about cell phone providers being included. 4g tethering might be a good workaround.

EDIT: This news is from 4 months ago. Aren't there any developments?
 
Last edited:

Term_the_Schmuck

Most Interesting Man on FAF
Re: Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting Ju

The irony is that the last time there was a thread on copyright you were going "well if you use firefox or google in anyway you are supporting a company that uses software from <can't remember their name>" Why the sudden change? Last time you were saying that the exact opposite now?

Uh, that was me bringing that up, not Ashley.

I'm not arguing against copyright, all I am saying is that the prison terms and such is getting way the fuck out of hand.
Also the problem with the multiple counts charges, considering how much the average internet user illegally downloads they could theoretically put most internet users in prison for the amount of time and sue them for that amount of money.

I'm guessing you must have skimmed my previous post because you're still exaggerating the penalties of copyright infringement. The people who face jail time are the Kim DotComs of the world who are running an operation like MegaUpload where he is directly profiting from knowingly and willingly hosting content that doesn't belong to him for profit due in part to the subscription service he offered. Something like that will land you in prison. Downloading songs off of torrent sites will only net you a civil law suit where you will be expected to pay back the money allegedly lost or was potentially lost. More often than not, in my profession I've found, if say you're using a copyrighted song in a production, you're more likely to get a cease and desist letter before any sort of legal action is taken.

Don't you think there is something wrong whenever a massive chunk of the populace can theoretically be put in jail and sued for half a million dollars?

There's certainly something wrong in exaggerating what the penalties are for copyright infringement. Quit the scare tactics. And now I know you're not bothering to rea my posts because I've already mentioned that the kind of numbers brought up by the RIAA and MPAA on lost revenue are astronomical and take great liberties with the figures.

While yes you do have a point, BUT when a notable chunk of the populace are considered criminals that can be put in prison for decades for something that has literally no actual effect on sales that is a problem.

Again with the exaggeration. I guess while I shit on people's parades in these threads, you enjoy being our resident Miss Information. :V

The whole argument that big name corporations are losing massive amounts of money due to copyright theft is a gray area while debating the impact of copyright infringement cause on the one hand you have one side that says it doesn't effect our economy and on the other hand you have the RIAA trying to sue limewire for $45 trillion. Granted the amount was deemed ridiculous, but when you have companies trying to sue for more money than the gdp that is way waaayyy wwwaaaaaayyyyyy the fuck ridiculous.

Again, I've already said that. You're just repeating what I previously said but using more words to do so. But copyright infringement on the Internet has had an effect on the industry and when you're talking about say a video game company that's sinking millions of dollars into a project that developers are putting their hearts and souls into, losing out time with their families to make a game for people to enjoy, and we have a contingent of people who say, "well fuck them they don't deserve my money, but I deserve to still play the game" there's a fundamental problem not just with the logistics but with the mentality of that person.

Basically what I'm getting at is you do have a point, but I doubt there is a actually accurate number for the amount of money companies lose to copyright infringement due to how much the estimates get blown out of proportion.

I believe the accurate number does exist and the numbers are clearly fudged when considering how they come up with the figures, from what I've seen based mostly around the idea of having content on a torrent site amounts to the cost of the content to the nth power because of the potential of that content being downloaded by someone else. And no, the average citizen isn't going to jail, they're looking more at a fine and repaying some roundabout figure for the perceived damages they're allegedly responsible for.
 
Top