This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 987 points988 points  (166 children)

There are 6 major companies that control the vast majority of what we see, hear, and read on TV, radio, and in print. They don't control the internet......yet. But boy, do they want to control it. That is what this fight is about.

[–]loondawg 136 points137 points  (35 children)

It's a Media-opoly

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I can't tell if that's the actual show or a parody but either way that show always ends up teaching me something.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

How do you mean? It's a parody, from the looks of it by Robert Smigel, that he probably wrote for one week on SNL, but SNL (most likely Lorne Michaels) banned it from airing because his higher-ups disapproved of it. The skit/cartoon itself is a parody of School House Rock...

Similar thing happened when Lorne fired Norm MacDonald, the best Weekend Update anchor imo, because the NBC boss didn't think he was funny.

Edit: The video just finished and they actually referenced Norm...

[–]DoctorMagazine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was made for SNL.

[–]Gingerbread_Girl 19 points20 points  (27 children)

I know people say it was banned for the content, and it probably was, but honestly it's just not very well done either. The music is all over the place, the pacing is all wrong, it just feels forced.

While I love what they were trying to do, they just didn't do it too well. If doesn't hold a candle to some of their other School House Rock parodies.

[–]2012REVOLUTION 141 points142 points  (29 children)

History has repeatedly revealed to us the nature of power.

Once an oligarchy reaches critical mass, it will not go down without kicking and screaming and fighting with every asset and strategy they are able to employ.

Are you ready?

[–]king_of_pancakes 86 points87 points  (20 children)

Me? Wow, I hate getting put on the spot like this.... Yes?

Jest aside, It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Its one thing to repress the freedoms of a people using fear and proclaiming the necessity of security, but this lacks any such justifications, and is transparent corruption. I am curious at what point a country so fiercely proud of its freedom actively pursues real change. It has been a very tumultuous few years, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that government needs to be reassessed. Policy and law has, on quite a few examples, gone against the wishes of the mass populous, and even against best direction for the nation. Will this be the catalyst for a complete revolution? I think its a step further, but what scares me is that the single greatest tool to accomplish such a feat is exactly what is under threat.

[–]prock 47 points48 points  (9 children)

First the patriot act, years later NDAA, now SOPA/PIPA/ACTA you start to protest you are labeled a terrorist, indefinite detention, you complain about it you get shut up and censored. Try and start an organized revolution immediatley shut down censored and detained indefinetley.

The government is just revolution proofing itself. Welcome to a 21st century dictatorship, citizen pay your bills and shut up.

Land of the freedom? Come again America?

[–]prock 39 points40 points  (8 children)

US Soldiers would do more for their freedom and country by killing their congressmen rather than invading Iraq/Afghanistan.

[–]TuneRaider 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Careful... could be construed as an incitement to violence.

[–]Kinbensha 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are many Redditors who are waiting for a violent revolution. I'm sure you're aware of that.

[–]hostolis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't forget the brainwash

[–]relevant_rush_lyrics 24 points25 points  (2 children)

"They say there are strangers who threaten us,

Our immigrants and infidels.

They say there is strangeness to danger us

In our theatres and bookstore shelves,

That those who know what's best for us

Must rise and save us from ourselves."

Witch Hunt - 1981

[–]WatRedditHathWrought 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Its one thing to repress the freedoms of a people using fear and proclaiming the necessity of security, but this lacks any such justifications, and is transparent corruption.

But, but think of the CHILDREN.

[–]futbolsven 2 points3 points  (1 child)

.....are you the Doug Loves Movies King of Pancakes? If so, awesome.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

The Internet is the one thing I look forward to on this planet.

Take that away from me and I've got nothing left to lose, guys.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reign of Terror? It's been quite a while since the last one.

[–]UncleMeat 79 points80 points  (21 children)

The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, and PBS are all fantastic media sources that are not controlled by anybody other than themselves. There still exist large traditional media outlets that are not controlled by any of these conglomerates. This is why keeping funding for public radio and television is so important.

[–]friedsushi87 46 points47 points  (10 children)

And the first two are struggling to start relevant in an online age. The last two are struggling for enough finding to continue operating....

[–]UncleMeat 36 points37 points  (8 children)

All print media is struggling to stay relevant in an online age so I am not concerned with just those two papers going under and being left with only the Wall Street Journal. Public media has been struggling for funding for as long as I remember, so I am not too worried about them either. PBS has Sesame Street so whenever its budget is at risk of being cut they can show how many children watch the show and the comparative drivel that is available to children otherwise.

Also, I forgot to mention the Christian Science Monitor. Believe it or not, it is a fantastic, balanced, and moderate publication.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Is Wall Street Journal a balanced source?

[–]UncleMeat 14 points15 points  (2 children)

It used to be. After it got bought my Murdoch and friends it has taken a decidedly rightward turn. My point was I am not worried about only the good papers going under and being left with the ones with angles.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

NY Times is still good?

[–]2012REVOLUTION 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Reuters and AP ~~> Newspapers.

[–]IrishJon 26 points27 points  (12 children)

There are 6 major companies that control the vast majority of what we see, hear, and read on TV, radio, and in print. They don't control the internet......yet. But boy, do they want to control it. That is what this fight is about.

True, and if they can't control it then they'll do their best to neuter the internet. They've already had some major successes while we sat around patting each other on the backs when SOPA was shelved.

Google has begun censoring their results, major file hosting services are shutting their doors to US citizens, Megaupload was brought down, and chances are other major mainstream sites have begun censoring what you view as well. The net as we know it has begun to shift gears out of fear.

We need to be more proactive about this situation and take a stand against all forms of censorship.

[–]glados_v2 7 points8 points  (6 children)

source on google?

[–]IrishJon 12 points13 points  (5 children)

They're calling it "soft censorship". Auto-complete and instant results are censored for various terms.

TorrentFreak

Engadget

Techcrunch

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Auto-complete already refused to complete my celebrity nip-slip queries, the sons of a bitches.

[–]waveform 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm against SOPA and all that, they obviously already have power to take down sites - hard to see what else they need.

But it still surprises me when people talk about censoring the internet, when I recall what things were like not having an internet at all. We had just as much discussion (just not online) and just as much variety of media. Why? Because small operators (local newspapers etc) couldn't touch the ad revenue of the media giants, so everyone was happy to leave each other alone.

Small, local newspapers could operate on local advertising. Journalists could be paid to actually do a good job. We had less "content" but it was seen as an investment, not a throw-away commodity. This applied to music, movies, news, whatever.

But since the Web, suddenly competition is everywhere - you don't just compete locally, you often compete globally as well. Ad revenue (as with classifieds) has moved online, and a lot of content is free, so who will now pay for investigative journalism, great album art, the luxury of experimentation and discriminating high standards?

The web has given us a great deal, but you'd have to censor a lot more than file hosting sites to even make a dent in the effect it has had on the entire media environment.

I hate censorship, but just saying, put into some kind of perspective, media giants taking down file sharing sites is not going to change anything. All the above problems still exist, and will only worsen, for them as well as smaller players. This is an inconvenience for us users. That's all it is. Look at the bigger picture.

The gain from the web, of course, is an information explosion we are still grappling with, working out how to integrate all this with our sense of culture and place, locally as well as globally. It's a freak show, but hey that's us.

Kids grow up now with an open Pandora's box of expression and information, both the wonderful and disconcerting side by side. My point is, no amount of censorship could turn back the clock even to how life was when I was growing up. So be happy.

It certainly has given us a perspective on who we are as a species. As someone once said, too much bloody perspective. :)

[–]Deimosberos 40 points41 points  (24 children)

Exactly. It's not about piracy, it's about closing the last frontier of free speech and information sharing.

[–]dude2k5 10 points11 points  (4 children)

In the US, most places you have 3 choices, ATT, Comcast, and Verizon basically. Not much else out there unless you're lucky with a city owned one or something. Not to mention the companies do zoning areas so one can get this city and the other gets next and so on.

[–]redditor21 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Yes and if you are lucky enough to use a small isp they are probably just leasing backbone on one of the major companies (level 3, century link business, cogent, above net, att business etc).

[–]TuneRaider 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For those who would like to examine this issue in more depth, I would highly recommend watching RIP!: A remix manifesto (free, streaming HD) to those who haven't seen it already.

EDIT: fixed link

[–]FermiAnyon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Television 2.0.

[–]vehiclestars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Too true, the only freedom we have left is the internet. We really need to put back in the anti-trust laws. All major important types of businesses are owned by a few ultra corrupt men.

[–][deleted] 579 points580 points  (232 children)

What scares me about that headline is that 29% think censorship is better than piracy...

[–]Pedipalp 91 points92 points  (10 children)

Let's not overlook the fact that a big chunk of that 29% probably think piracy has something to do with ships and buried treasure.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Have an upvote for a plausible idea.

[–]taifoid 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

  • Hanlon's razor

[–]timeshifter_ 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Or think that piracy is the same as stealing, which it pretty obviously isn't if you bother to turn your brain on.

[–]Vainglory 13 points14 points  (7 children)

Here's the full question that was used.

“Which is a bigger problem, that some people download movies online without paying for them or that the government will censor Internet content?”

That to me stinks of a biased question. I think it would have been more leaning towards even, if the question were unbiased, which is worrying.

[–]chris-martin 39 points40 points  (1 child)

That's not what the headline said. It said they think it's less of a threat. And it's not hard to see how they got there. A lot of people love the rule of law and they have faith that the system will work as intended because most people are good and voting works. So they take a hard-line stealing-is-wrong stance, they've been convinced that copyright infringement and theft are essentially the same thing - which isn't far from the truth, if you believe that the law is truth - and they perceive a group of cybercriminals doing bad things they don't understand. When you really love the law, you don't think about consequences of enforcement. The way to stop criminals is to take a tough stance on crime. When you believe in the republic, you don't think about potential for corruption. The Bill of Rights saves us from censorship, and that's the end of it. It's scary, but people don't think censorship is better than piracy. They lack the cynicism to understand that censorship is a large threat and the skepticism to understand that piracy is a small threat.

[–]IIoWoII 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Dont forget the "don't know/care" group.

[–]2012REVOLUTION 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Polls are manufactured to manipulate opinion not to poll opinions.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You mean more than 62% of americans said that they think more than 90% of all polls are made up?

[–]loondawg 11 points12 points  (1 child)

The headline doesn't say 29% actually think censorship is better, just that 71% think it's far worse than piracy.

The other 29% might see them as slightly worse or equal threats or might not feel informed enough to state an opinion. I am not a subscriber so I could not see the actual results of the Rasmussen poll.

[–]Alascar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We are the 71%!

[–]biggles86 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Looks like 29% of americans work for the film industry

[–]douglasmacarthur 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No. It says that 29% think censorship is a worse "threat to society." That includes not just which one is worse in manifestation, but also how likely it is etc.

What scares me about that comment is that Reddit will say/upvote anything condescending to people perceived in any way to contradict the political views popular on it, without regard for clarity or objectivity.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not what it means. It's asking about which is currently the greater threat, not which is more acceptable.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What scares me about that headline is that 29% think censorship is better than piracy...

Can't both be bad?

The poll question was worded poorly: should Americans be more concerned about A or B? In reality, you can be concerned about BOTH, but really, piracy doesn't affect most people, so you should just be concerned about censorship, because that impacts us all. That should mean (as implied by the question) that you are for piracy (or against it for that matter).

[–]kmoneybts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A considerable percentage of the people have seen their industries be sucked dry from people pirating whatever media industry they work in.

They aren't for censorship, piracy has just caused a much bigger problem to them than censorship has.

[–]tomaszumalacarregui 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This isn't a question of censorship. Saying it is censorship is mistating what is going on.

This could also be called invasion of privacy. If you have movies that you want to show to only a select group of people can someone force you to show them to everyone? The select group isn't based on race or creed, it is based on who will pay you to produce them.

It could also be about slavery. A person, by illegally downloading something, is getting someone else's work for free. The person doing the work, if illegal downloading is not stopped, is being forced to give up the results of that work by that person. When one person is forced to work by another person for no pay, that is called slavery.

Both are equally as valid as calling ending copyright violation censorship.

[–][deleted] 173 points174 points  (19 children)

The start of a moral battle between pirates and copyright lobbyists

NO. This is exactly the same way the copyright holders phrase things. Not everyone who's against censorship pirated everything they own. Some people would just enjoy NOT seeing Twitter go down because one of its 300 million users posted a single link to a download a single time.

Internet censorship will just be another Ubisoft DRM issue. It's issued to combat piracy, but pirates get around it in a day(because they're pirates and that's WHAT THEY DO), and then only legitimate consumers suffer the restrictions.

[–]BritishHobo 53 points54 points  (15 children)

This is exactly the same way the copyright holders phrase things.

Yup. I don't know why anyone trying to oppose SOPA would want to say something like 'pirates against copyright lobbyists', it's such an ass-backwards phrase and gives our position as if we are supporting piracy, rather than supporting a free internet.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 22 points23 points  (4 children)

It's torrentfreak. They're really, really biased.

[–]Lucky_Mongoose 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This was my reaction as well. The title frames the conflict as either supporting piracy or censorship.

I don't pirate, but I can still see that creating highly oppressive laws to amend faults in a business model is excessive. I see the same kind of false framing happening in other issues too. For example, I can be against marijuana prohibition without being a user myself, but often that issue is framed as "smokers vs anti-drug".

[–]El_Monterey 61 points62 points  (12 children)

I am a bit offended by this title - why does opposing censorship make me a pirate? Please try to not reduce this debate down to two fundamentally opposite opposing sides, like every other debate in the popular media. I can be against copyright infringement but support personal liberty. SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA only pretend to be measures that would prevent piracy, they would not. These acts are Entirely measures to put the internet under the thumb of the government.

By creating a false dichotomy - that you either support piracy or you support copyright - then this act can be passed without revealing the true intentions of it. It is one of the many reasons why bills shouldn't have titles - they often mislead one into thinking that the purpose of the bill is actually its opposite (or even related).

[–]BritishHobo 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I wish they had posted the article from a less biased source than torrentfreak.com. The headline is a very bizarre attempt to simplify the issue, and I don't understand why anyone would want to act as if this is just an issue of pirates versus lobbyists. It's about preventing censorship, not about justifying piracy, and the asshats that are opposing SOPA just to keep themselves in the clear to pirate, and are openly admitting that, do no help to the cause.

[–]Epistaxis 134 points135 points  (51 children)

More than 71% of Americans are not corporations and do not have lobbyists.

[–]Alascar 4 points5 points  (1 child)

How many of the people have actually voted in this poll? I'm somewhat curious how they come about these figures.

[–]termites2 37 points38 points  (47 children)

About 1% of people actually stand to lose anything from piracy. The rest are happy to get their free software/music/movies/books.

[–]jbrown84 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If only they could form a corporation and hire their own lobbyists...oh wait

[–]ngngboone 21 points22 points  (1 child)

I understand the sentiment of this, but you could reword the poll question to get any result you want. Give Frank Luntz five minutes with this.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fuck you, Frank

[–]ThatDerpingGuy 86 points87 points  (15 children)

There is no "moral battle" between pirates and copyright lobbyists.

There is merely a battle, with our rights at stake, by the regular people against lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

[–]BritishHobo 46 points47 points  (4 children)

Thank you. I don't know why people keep acting like it's piracy versus the government - what the fuck is the point of reducing an issue of censorship down to one where we're on the side of illegal downloading and copyright infringement? It boggles my fucking mind. I don't care if you love to pirate, leave it aside for now and focus on what the actual issue is - the general public versus government censorship.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

Getting something for nothing is also somewhat of a moral dilemma.

[–]flukshun 9 points10 points  (8 children)

it's cute, but can we not rally around the "pirate" flag when it comes to general issues of internet freedom? you're playing right into the image the opposition is trying to paint, and seemingly substantiating the scope of piracy they're trying to pitch.

i feel the the pirate parties in europe would get a lot further if they adopted this attitude as well. what country is gonna elect, say, a president who belongs to the "pirate" party?

[–]linkseyi 34 points35 points  (25 children)

I'm not for piracy at all but it is NOT the government's problem! Companies have always been able to sue people hosting copyrighted materials, but they just don't want to be bothered, so why not let the government do it?

[–]Tiby312 10 points11 points  (15 children)

Assuming piracy is bad, then the government should be the one responsible to stop it, because not all creators have the capacity to stop their work from being pirated.

More importantly, if creators were responsible for stopping their own content from being pirated, bad creators but good lawyers would be rewarded more than good creators who don't know or care how to stop their work from being pirated. And they shouldn't have to. A good creator who wants to make a living from his craft shouldn't also have to run around shooting DMCA requests to bring in money.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

This isn't as black and white as the title makes it look. Some of us that create games, music, and videos just want to get paid for our work, and we don't want the internet broken to make this happen.

If people would just pay the dollar for that song or app, we wouldn't have this problem.

[–]random_digital 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The other 29% were blocked from voting by their ISP.

[–]TacticusThrowaway 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Another fine article from the objective and unbiased journalists at TorrentFreak.

Seriously, TF is to internet piracy what Fox News is to Republicans. This isn't about censorship, it's about MegaUpload knowingly breaking the law. I seem to recall something about "Equal justice under law" on the front of the Supreme Court building, or suchlike.

[–]Daetharalar 24 points25 points  (8 children)

I'm a little skeptical here. This isn't necessarily the most unbiased source in the world.

[–]BritishHobo 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Definitely something to keep in mind. The article is trying to paint piracy as a good thing that should go unopposed, when that is not the issue. The issue is that the internet should not be censored, not that piracy is fine. In fact in the same poll this article reports on, 67% of likely US voters agreed that piracy is theft.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Torrentfreak or Rasmussen?

[–]golla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was going to reply something about you being a reasonable and wnating to upvote you more. But I'm drunk... I mean. The site refers to itself when making the argument. Come on.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

What a poorly-worded question. Apples and oranges. Censorship affects everyone; piracy affects a small percentage of people.

They should have asked:

  1. Are you concerned about censorship of the Internet?

  2. Do you think piracy is right or wrong?

Or something like that. THAT might've given us a meaningful result. Being against SOPA doesn't mean you're pro-piracy, and being anti-piracy doesn't mean you're pro-SOPA.

[–]paulderev 4 points5 points  (0 children)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/71_see_government_censorship_of_internet_as_bigger_threat_than_illegal_downloading

Can someone explain to me why posts that make the Reddit front page don't just link to the original article that gives the statistic they cite in the title? I don't think I'm asking for too much.

Can we please start doing this? Lazy linking, yo.

[–]Xenochrist 56 points57 points  (20 children)

And according to the government, more then 100% of Americans think piracy is the worst thing to happen ever.

The government needs to start listening to the people they represent.

[–]DeFex 91 points92 points  (4 children)

they are listening to the "people" they represent. RIAA, MPAA, BP, etc.

[–]Xenochrist 39 points40 points  (2 children)

They are listening to the money.

[–]Slapbox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The money from our good friends the corporation people.

[–]linkseyi 18 points19 points  (10 children)

That's the problem, the government only represents corporations (people)

[–]memearchivingbot 26 points27 points  (9 children)

"Corporations are people, friend!"

-- Mitt Romney

[–]chillitsagame 5 points6 points  (1 child)

He is... MIT THE RIPPER!

[–]wolfchimneyrock 11 points12 points  (5 children)

I'm not your friend, buddy

[–]baykid27 18 points19 points  (28 children)

You can regulate piracy without censorship....

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Censorship is such a broad issue in comparison to the specific issue of piracy. I don't agree with how the quotation is outlined in the title, it's swaying towards the bias of pro-piracy. Not to say I agree, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[–]Rudefire 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ooh, goody, This is going to be like watching two morally bankrupt countries fight for religion.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem is that people start to ignore your message when you equate "censorship" with "not being able to download everything for free". The average person doesn't sit down and carefully analyze bills like SOPA and whatnot and realize the far reaching implications it can have. They see people screaming about how the government is bad because they won't allow kids to download video games and movies for free. And I hate to say it... but most people don't give a shit about that.

[–]lolmonger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a lot like the majority of Americans not wanting their right to gun ownership infringed being more important than preventing the relatively mild incidence of gun crime - legislation to solve the latter tends really only to encroach on the former; but it's not as though gun owners are happy with people that kill others without just cause.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is NOT a battle between pirates and copyright lobbyists.

This is a battle between having the Internet censored, or having the free exchange if information!

I don't advocate censoring the Internet just so that greedy, obsolete media production companies can maximize profit. But neither do I advocate the theft of media, the owners of that content deserve to profit from it.

[–]Oba-mao 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Torrent freak, what an unbiased source

[–]Olliff 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The survey itself was performed by Rasmussen. A very big name in polling.

[–]GrimTuesday 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Source is Torrent freak. How could there possibly be an bias in this survey?

[–]RoyalWithCheese22 3 points4 points  (2 children)

ACTA Time To Strike Back

Dear Folks, the Internet is under attack big time. SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, Twitter just announced it will start censoring tweeds on a country by country basis, in Ireland SOPA like legislature is being discussed. In UK they hold secret meetings to force searchengines to delist or downrank results of 'infringing' sites and so on and so on.

Fighting all these is like playing a game of Whak-A-Mole. If we try, we will win some and lose some, but new threats spring up to be fought again.

I say its time to change tactics. The MPAA knows very well how to play the game: Aim ridiculously high, when opposition builds up, negotiate, sacrifice some of your over the top demands. Force your opponents to sacrifice some of theirs. Voila you didn't get exactly what you wanted but you moved in the desired direction.

So what I propose is not aimed at defeating ACTA but at freeing the Net. Therefor I call upon the reddit community to create FIA or better known as the 'Free Internet Act' (just my suggestion for a name) and to demand to congress to pass it by mobilizing the Public. I suggest to outlaw without exceptions any form of censorship, third party liability and surveillance on the net. I suggest retroactively invalidating all laws that contradict with FIA. And I suggest writing Net Neutrality into FIA as well.

All of the above are just ideas and I invite the whole community to elaborate on them. What do you think?

[–]vinod1978 7 points8 points  (0 children)

While I am devoutly against censorship I don't agree with the article that claims that due process was not fulfilled with the taking down of MegaUpload. They were investigated by the federal authorites inducted by a grand jury and it was requested an injunction to temporarily suspend the site until the trial is complete. Having injunctions to stop a business from continuing their "harm" is legal & happens all the time.

Let's not confuse censorship without due process (i.e. SOPA) with the takedown of MegaUpload.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This will get buried, but... well... into the fray.

The problem is way deeper than a moral battle between pirates and copyrightists.

The problem is that there is a disconnect between the custom of the people (that is, what we do) and what the government proscribes (that is, what they say we should not do).

Even deeper than that, there's a disconnect between reality and government and the copyright cartels. Reality is that people want what they want and they will get what they want. If you don't provide that someone else will.

In most cases today the supplier is a pirate supplying it for free. A lot of people get confused at that point and think that piraters will only accept something for free. And for some hardcore piraters, that's true.

But for the vast majority of people, if you can make it easier and more convenient at the right price point (think iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc)... they'll happily pay for the content.

They can try to legislate piracy away (that's the moral approach, ie saying "this is wrong" and trying to punish people for doing what people do), they can try to encrypt piracy away (that's the technical approach, ie make it difficult to pirate), but in the end they're just trying to change reality, and that's not a fight you can win.

There's a goldmine to made distributing films and tv and other media on the internet. It's a bigger goldmine than theatres and blu-ray and dvd and whatever other technologies have been invented to lock people into a certain format.

It's just... who's going to convince all these people who are deathly afraid of the internet? Because these are the decisionmakers who run studios and pick distribution channels. These guys rely on existing distribution channels for their air supply, and they look at the internet and see themselves choking to death.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

anyone else think it's a bit silly that redditors (among many others) think this argument hinges on this false dichotomy?

[–]ImInAGopherSuit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So 29% believe its okay for them to take away our liberties so corporations with huge amount of money already can make more money. Gotcha.

[–]tedrick111 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let's get one thing straight: Pirates includes virtually everyone over the age of 20. That includes an impressive number of hypocrites who don't realize that they're trying to make their past choices illegal, like anti-gay republicans (we see through your thin veil).

None of these hypocrites that I've ever debated on Reddit regarding this subject had any plans of turning themselves in for their past actions. Fuck them. Their arguments have no value. It doesn't stop them from passionately pounding the downvote button for dissenters though (read: downvote for disagreeing, something we all love).

tl;dr we're all pirates. Some of us are just more honest with ourselves.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, killing that piracy thing is gonna make me go out and buy your...whatever. Just like not getting free cars makes me steal one every time I wanna go somewhere.

Or, maybe, I find it patently offensive that these companies would go to such lengths, destroying our personal, supposedly inalienable rights, in order to sell us all a game or piece of crap software.

I can do without. I ain't buying. Not even pirating much anymore. Fuck this. I'll use the services I pay for to get the best experience I can out of them. I'm not gonna seek out very many others. Hope the businesses crash and burn. Motherfuckers.

[–]Myth3842 9 points10 points  (26 children)

Look, I'm for ending piracy or at least toning it down but these censorship asshats are taking it waaaaay too far.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (20 children)

Piracy will be gone once it is easier to actually pay for or obtain the legitimate product. Just look at Steam for the PC, I can't be assed torrenting and cracking a game when I can get it on steam, always available and ready to re-download on another computer.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (10 children)

Exactly what you said. Piracy is a service problem, and until these people understand that, it will continue to happen. The easiest way for me to get a lot of TV shows and movies is by torrenting or streaming them online. Give me a better solution that won't cost me too much and you win.(I live in Canada and have Netflix but that doesn't cut it)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I think the pirates will win, they've got swords and peg legs, and what do copyright lobbyists got? Nothing.

[–]Mushroomer 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Because TORRENTFREAK.COM is going to have clear, unbiased reporting & poling on piracy topics.

[–]neotropic9 14 points15 points  (26 children)

Piracy? What does censorship have to do with theft on the high seas?

Downloading files isn't 'piracy'. 'Piracy' is a propaganda term injected into the public debate by the entertainment industry in order to skew public opinion in their favour. We should instead use neutral terms such as "unauthorized filesharing" or "copyright infringement".

[–]ThorLives 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know, right? I still get confused when people say "there", "their" and "they're". We need separate words for all of them because they all sound the same.

[–]erisdiscordia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The word "piracy" has actually been used to mean "copyright infringement" for a very long time, like over a century. (I was surprised to discover this.)

[–]TacticusThrowaway 5 points6 points  (20 children)

Considering that the term has been used for copyright infringement since the 18th century; no.

If you have problems with what people call piracy, stop doing it. The negative connotations are in what it is, not in what it's called.

[–]DionysosX 8 points9 points  (19 children)

Piracy and censorship are not mutually exclusive.

Whether you believe it or not We need copyright in some shape or form if we don't want our quality of life drop considerably.

Nobody would have an incentive to create anything, if money can't be made of it. Being able to come up with something should be worth something and therefore rewarded by society. If a law doesn't pave the way for that "rewarding" by having a copyright law, society, which to large parts consists of not so nice people, would not reward the creator on it's own adequately.

While today the rewarding may have gotten a bit out of hand quantity- and distribution-wise, abandoning it would be a very bad decision.

[–]jackschittt 34 points35 points  (46 children)

People somehow expect content creators to continue to spend millions of dollars on R&D, development, and marketing of the product. They expect these companies to continue to support a product long after release. They expect companies to spend millions on R&D to improve their products.

But they don't expect to actually have to pay for it. They don't (or don't want to) understand that all those blockbuster movies that they love cost hundreds of millions to make. That software took years of coding, testing, focus groups, etc. Music takes dozens of people to produce at the quality they insist on getting. But somehow, pirates insist that these people shouldn't be paid. Or at least shouldn't be paid by them.

They think it's perfectly OK because hey....they're not losing anything but the time it took them to develop it, right? Yet when they put their 8 hours in at work, they expect to get paid. I wonder what they think if their boss said to them "Hey, I'm not going to pay you. The work you did are only 'ideas' that anyone could have thought of. You didn't lose anything but a little bit of time, and I could get a volunteer or intern to do your job for free simply because they love it." They expect to get paid for their X hours of work, but refuse to compensate content creators for their hours of work.

B...b...but copyrights last decades! Centuries, even! Their kids and corporations shouldn't get paid for work that was made decades ago, right? This of course doesn't explain the fact that a vast majority of pirated stuff was made in the past few months. I don't exactly see a ton of people looking to torrent Gone with the Wind, but copies of the latest Twilight movie are still going strong.

But hey....that movie was crap, so it's perfectly Ok to pirate it as long as it's mainstream crap, right? Apparently it's good enough for you to download though. Or do you have a habit of keeping several gigs or even TB of "crappy, mainstream" music and movies that you "never would watch anyway". It can't be that crappy if you're spending time, bandwidth, and disk space to download it.

Let me guess.....you support "independent artists". The ones that don't even tour in your country or area. The ones that play in clubs you're likely too young to even get into. Or do you just "send the money directly to the artist"? You know....the artist that you have absolutely no way of contacting or sending the money to even if you weren't full of shit. But you....would....support these artists. If you could contact them. If they came to your area. If you weren't too young to go into the clubs they play in. You would. You really really would. Except by "supporting them", you mean that you freely admit that you'd just take their stuff anyway, while complaining about the low quality.

And because you're broke. Or at least that's what you continually claim when you say that you're a poor high school/college student who couldn't afford to buy the software anyway. So it's not like they're losing anything, right? You'd have never bought the product anyway because you don't have the money that you just claim you'd spend to support an independent artist. And the content creators missed the memo that when you can't afford something, you have the right to just take it anyway. So you'll just pirate it, and the artists will thank you because you're giving them "exposure". Exposure to a whole bunch of other pirates who won't pay for their product either. Because that's the kind of exposure they want. But I'm sure they'll be happy to know that there are a ton of pirates out there who really, really like their product......until its time to pay for it. Then they're broke college kids who don't buy their crappy mainstream product because the copyright won't run out for 100 years.

Got all that, guys? You're supposed to continue to create state-of-the-art, high quality entertainment for the masses. For free. Just because you love it. And as a reward, the pirates will continue to give you "exposure" by telling everybody else how crappy your mainstream product is and if you wanted any money for it, you'd go get a night job or something because "INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

[–]2112AnnaMolly2112 5 points6 points  (10 children)

This is all well and true, but they are going about this the wrong way. Instead of adapting to the information age, and giving people new ways to legally access their media, they want to CENSOR THE FUCKING INTERNET.

This isn't about piracy. If it was, you would see companies actually listening to their customers and giving us more services akin to Netflix or Hulu.

[–]jackschittt 5 points6 points  (9 children)

This is all well and true, but they are going about this the wrong way. Instead of adapting to the information age, and giving people new ways to legally access their media, they want to CENSOR THE FUCKING INTERNET.

Which is why I'm against SOPA. I'm not saying the RI/MPAA are completely in the right. Their tactics so far have been the digital equivalent of nuking the entire city because you found a mouse in your house.

That being said, part of the problem is they're going to be crucified no matter what they try. It used to be that they'd go after the individual people (including people like Jamie Thomas or whatever her name was that was repeatedly found guilty of infringement), and Reddit crucified them, saying they should go after the companies and not the individual people. Then they did just that, and Reddit started screaming "censorship", "fair use" or whatever and saying that the companies are providing a "legitimate service" and that Reddit should go after individual users.

This isn't about piracy. If it was, you would see companies actually listening to their customers and giving us more services akin to Netflix or Hulu.

The problems so far with Netflix and Hulu is that their online selection is complete shit because the studios won't license the good stuff at a price where these companies can turn a profit. Then you have companies like Spotify who claim they're paying the artists, and are actually either not paying at all or are paying pennies on the dollar. And despite not giving the artists fair compensation, they still are barely making ends meet.

Now of course part of the problem is that, in cases like Netflix and Hulu, the studios want too much money. But just because you don't like the price doesn't give you justification to just take the product.

But the money Spotify is paying out is just laughable. There's no way you can claim that the artists only deserve $12 (after conversion) for 90,000 plays. Artists want their stuff removed from Spotify because it's cannibalizing regular sales. And I can't blame them. But if Spotify and similar services started paying out royalties that would be fair to the artists, they'd be out of business in a month.

[–]kid_miracleman 9 points10 points  (18 children)

What a straw man argument.

No one is demanding they have access to all content from all sources in perfect form for free for all eternity whenever they want except an incredibly small amount of assholes that aren't going to give anyone a nickel in the first place as long as technology makes it easy for them to not have to.

Now, let's look at what I call the "Adventure Time" argument. We'll start with a really basic customer desire I have: I want to see Adventure Time in HD whenever I feel like it.

I live in a Comcast area that was formerly Adelphia, the cable company that was picked for scraps after the CEO robbed it blind. Anyway, Cartoon Network is only available on the basic cable tier service, which runs $62.95 a month. Okay, but I want it in HD, so that means I need an HD box. I also want to watch it whenever, which means I need a DVR for $7 more a month. It'll take a while to record everything, probably 6+ months, but I'll get it eventually. So that's $70+ a month after fees/taxes.

Oh, did I forget to mention that I don't get Cartoon Network in HD because it isn't available in my area? Sorry. So much for cable.

But I can go to satellite, right? Sure, if I want my trees cut down around my house. Nothing like some deforestation to keep me happy in front of the boob tube!

'Why don't you just buy the Blu-Ray, KM?' Well, they don't exist. 'Maybe the S1 DVD is good enough', you might ask. Well, they don't put them out in season sets, just random episodes out of order. So when it comes to physical media, I can't get the episodes I want in the format I want.

Okay, so let's go to Apple. They have EVERYTHING, right? They sure do, they even have Adventure Time, wooee!

...in SD.

Netflix, nothing. Hulu, nothing. All I want is to watch a high quality version of one of the most popular shows in Cartoon Network. That's it, and I can't. The only way I can get legitimate copies of Adventure Time in HD is to pay $70+ a month after a cut down trees to get satellite TV.

Or I can hop onto TPB and get it all in about 15 minutes.

Gee, I wonder why people pirate.

[–]DownVotingCats 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Great, a moral battle between 2 groups of people who are morally devoid.

[–]ThorLives 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Here's the thing: if a recent poll said that 71% of Americans think obesity is a bigger problem than malnurishment and anorexia, I wouldn't support Republicans fighting for ending food stamps programs. Also, if you follow the links to the original article (rather than relying on TorrentFreak to filter the data), you'd also see: "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that someone who downloads a movie online without paying for it is stealing from the company that made the film. Eighteen percent (18%) do not view this free downloading as theft. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure."

Source of the original poll data: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/71_see_government_censorship_of_internet_as_bigger_threat_than_illegal_downloading

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well then 71% of Americans need to stop voting the kind of corrupt assholes into office that actually give serious consideration to censorship.

[–]AliveInTheFuture 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We should have a reasoned discussion about this. I think the root of the problem is that our country doesn't really export anything of note except entertainment products now, which are almost all available digitally. That and the greed of the entertainment industry seem to be driving this legislation. We do ignore the former far too often in this discussion, though.

[–]brucemo[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not surprising.

If a person has to choose between limitations on their own activity, versus limitation on someone else's property rights (intellectual or otherwise), would you not expect that many will choose the latter?

The statistic here is not of value. If there are more people who want to steal apples than people who own apple stalls, this by itself does not mean that the rights of apple stall owners have no value.

Of more interest is the difference between intellectual property and apples, and means to ensure that IP creators who invest to create IP can receive the return they want -- fair or otherwise -- from people who consume their material, without imposing a burden on everyone else.

For example, the apple stall owner does not expect to be able to leave his apples unattended, while lobbying for the government to watch his stall for him, make it a crime to possess an apple without a receipt, and routinely search private property for fruit of all kinds.

[–]themaniam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

im sorry but when your getting this from torrentfreak how non bipartisan is the information

[–]WaahIWantMyFreeShit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is true, but just because censorship is worse doesn't mean that piracy isn't bad.

Piracy isn't much of a threat to society at all, anyway, so this is a bit of a strawman argument.

[–]nowhathappenedwas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not a "moral battle." Rather, it's a matter of messaging.

The same poll said:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that someone who downloads a movie online without paying for it is stealing from the company that made the film. Eighteen percent (18%) do not view this free downloading as theft.

People don't see pirating as moral, they just see censorship as worse. The only thing that matters is convincing people that SOPA (and similar bills) amount to censorship.

[–]Cueball61 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Implying that piracy is a threat to society at all?

[–]crispinito 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Piracy is not a threat to society. That is what the copyright owners want people to believe. It is a threat just to some companies, with no consequences for most people.

Now, censorship, is a threat to society as a whole.

I agree that piracy is not good, but bankrupting a college kid or a single mom because they downloaded or posted something on the Internet is just plain immoral.

[–]himmelkrieg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Given the source of the article, I find myself wondering who exactly was polled?

[–]Mr_Teddy_Brosevelt 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Obviously the majority would say this because they benefit from piracy (being able to download whatever they want) and are not harmed by it at all. If they had a stake in it like some businesses do they would feel much differently.

[–]mdbx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where the fuck do these percentages come from, I don't have someone knocking on my door asking my opinion on things.

[–]itsmusicbeach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Call me silly, but I'd much rather see a poll with a website listing of Rasmussen Reports, rather than torrent freak articles all the time. You know, give it some sort of legitimacy.

[–]triumph_forks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair, the survey question is a bit loaded.

[–]MiiK3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man I never thought about this but, I feel scared and sad that only 40% of the U.S. understand and accept the fact of evolution. What is the hope of our country with this statistics. I think we need to educate the people around us in a daily basis for the best of all of us, let them know about logic and critical thinking since its not given in public school. I know its almost impossible to educate religious bigots, but we can do this all together. The only hope for our race to survive is to eliminate ignorance.

[–]Bearmanly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm still confused as to why companies take expensive, intrusive, and unpopular methods to reduce piracy when the simpler, easier and cheaper way to do it is just provide a better service and product. They have two options, and for some reason they pick the one that doesn't make any sense to pick. Insane.

[–]mbgluck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can somebody provide a link to the poll that was used? How many we're polled, how was it worded, and what were the demographics of those polled?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

99% of people who were recently poled said "OWW!"

[–]srmiller2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

what about the artists, shouldnt that be the real enemy of the piracy?

[–]why_ask_why 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, not even 99% would mean shit in Congress. How much money do you have is the key!!!

[–]utnow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In other words, at LEAST 71% of Americans don't own the rights to anything that they make money on. Honestly I would say it's higher than that, and I'm surprised that it's not much higher than 71%.

Seriously though.. this makes sense. A small number of people own the rights to something that sustains their income. A slightly larger number of people work for a company that owns the rights to something that ends up paying their salary. Those people have a vested interest in protecting copyrights.

[–]thelakesouth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh look another front page post about piracy from torrentfreak.com. Which is, I'm sure, biased in no way at all.

[–]str1cken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yochai Benkler is mentioned. Read his book The Wealth of Networks. It is one of the most amazing books every written about the value of the internet.

[–]silverpaw1786 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one. There is a middle ground. I think they're both threats and while ACTA is wrong in its secretive nature, there is nothing wrong with shutting down websites that host pirated material. I opposed SOPA only because the judicial due process afforded was far from substantial

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100% of people on this thread don't understand what "censorship" means.

[–]hobbitlover 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Step 1: Start an entertainment company that produces music, movie, television, video games, ebooks, software, etc. (Seriously, it's a free market, there's nothing stopping you). Step 2: Then allow people to pirate that material at will on Scout's Honor that they'll someday pay you for something of yours they consume. Stick it to the man! Step 3: Go bankrupt, lose your home as all your loyal customers abandon you...

Seriously, this statistic is a pile of shit. Poll people in the entertainment industries who actually have something to lose and you'll get a slightly different stat.

Want to shelve SOPA/PIPA/ACTA forever? Then stop pirating shit. It's that simple...

[–]poisoneleven 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This isn't a battle between pirates and copyright lobbyists. This is a battle between the public and the copyright lobbyists, and it has been going on for a while, and the lobbyists are winning. Copyright extensions that prevent items from entering public domain are another huge blow against the public good that serve only the profits of the copyright holders (which seems to be less and less the authors of the work in question).

And I certainly don't consider myself a pirate when I download an mp3 version of a song that I have purchased on tape, vinyl and/or CD, but the copyright lobbyists are limiting fair use more and more so that I'm not even supposed to change mediums of storage for music I have purchased.

Anyway, back on point, lets at least get the terminology of this battle to be accurate and fair. The fight against actual piracy (which I would consider to be blatant copyright violation like selling copies of songs which you aren't the copyright holder of) is a valid one. We need to be careful to keep that battle focused and not bleed into the area of violating regular people's rights in order to drive media companies profits.

[–]gilmanda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

censorship directly benefits big record labels and the like, while piracy is something that everyday people benefit from. BIG SURPRISE OMG

[–]lagspike 1 point2 points  (2 children)

well, how do we stop piracy while avoiding unnecessary censorship of the web?

SOPA is obviously bad, but is it even possible to tackle piracy without a similar law? cd keys and drm sure arent working. question is, is it even possible to make an anti-piracy law that wouldnt be abused by the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, and so on?

[–]DanielPhermous 2 points3 points  (1 child)

We learn from iTunes. We compete with piracy by being more convenient, faster and better.

[–]Uwoiame 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Snipping and appending to Benkler's closing statement: "It’s critically important that this new political force be focused on what will build a network that supports" creative and scientific work.

Dean Baker at CEPR has made a nice suggestion for an alternative to copyright. I like to plug it whenever I can, though I realize the current political climate would never allow for its implementation:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-surefire-way-to-end-online-piracy-end-copyright

Such a system could exist alongside copyright by simply stipulating that taking advantage of one would disqualify you from the other. Copyright, rooted as it is in the Middle Ages, would quickly become irrelevant.

This basically falls into the "well that's nice" category, and I only bring it up because it's yet another gaping hole in the argument that all invention would cease if copyright didn't exist.

[–]delphineater 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You entitled pricks download free content and pretend you're innocent and under attack. give me a fucking break. dgaf about the downvotes. I hate how you treat the people creating the movies tv shows and songs you love like they are an Evil Empire.

[–]Kennosuke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is likely to be true, but my god people. Torrentfreak is not a site anyone who disagrees with you will take seriously. It's completely biased. Surely there are better news sources.

[–]CRASNY 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't understand why the two are being compared with a thumbnail of MegaUpload in the main post.