SOPA

[chinaski]

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It could potentially effect this forum.

If you're not familiar with SOPA I recommend a quick read here since it effects everyone online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

Educate yourself and pass the word along. Don't let an uniformed and uneducated Congress control your access to the internet.

[CROSSBOLT]

Given the performance of our present Atty. General Eric Holder I have no faith that this thing would be anything but more tyanny from an out of control government. I am against SOPA. Laws are in place to aid victims of copyright infringement and such.

Karl

[JHScoot]

hey is this sopa thing available for download? right after i finish grabbing a few movies i can check it out

[chinaski]

my apologies for the politically-themed thread. Just getting the word out to all MB members who aren't familiar with this issue. I'll understand if the thread gets closed.

[SoCalScooter]

(brief summary from a LifeHacker post - see full post at Lifehacker.com/5860205 which include links to calling/emailing your congressmen and petitioning with American Censorship Day)

Essentially, SOPA makes it possible for companies to block the domain names of websites that encourage copyright infringement or that actually appear to be infringing on copyrights.

That means that if Modern Buddy had a post or two that could be interpreted as pirate-friendly, the domain could be blocked so it would be unaccessible by visiting modernbuddy.com.

What the Bill can't do is block numeric IP address, so you could still access MB or any other site by typing in the IP address in your navigation bar. This is important because it means that the bill won't really DO ANYTHING to stop downloaders of pirated content.

Basically, the bill will be no good at stopping piracy—what it was designed to do—but excellent at censoring any web site capable of providing its users with the means of promoting pirated content or allowing the process.
(Read: Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, Reddit, etc, all could be shut down because a user posts a copyrighted image or other content)

Because what we really need is ineffective censorship and more frivolous lawsuits.

All politics aside, this is poorly written legislation that does not accomplish its intended purpose. Please call and email your congressperson (Senate is gone for the year, but email your Senator too).

[chinaski]

There is a similar bill in the Senate, PIPA (Protect IP Act) that is just as ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

[Syd]

Opponents of the bill include ... the ACLU...

On December 13, Julian Sanchez of the Libertarian think tank Cato Institute came out in strong opposition to the bill saying that while the amended version "trims or softens a few of the most egregious provisions of the original proposal...the fundamental problem with SOPA has never been these details; it’s the core idea. The core idea is still to create an Internet blacklist..."

Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows.

[ericalm]

Given the performance of our present Atty. General Eric Holder I have no faith that this thing would be anything but more tyanny from an out of control government. I am against SOPA. Laws are in place to aid victims of copyright infringement and such.

This is precisely the kind of political yammering that will get this thread locked immediately.

BUT… I'm not sure how to discuss this issue without it getting political. Let's please leave out blanket criticisms of the government, "the system" and politicians, and espousing support or criticism for one ideology or political party.

It's okay to have an opinion, but let's try to keep this limited to this topic. Yes, I know all things are interconnected. No, I don't care to read anyone's political rants, even if I agree with them.

That said…

SOPA is bad. It's bad for the Internet, it's bad for the economy (losses from piracy not equal to potential losses to everyone should every search engine on the planet get shut down), it's bad for Modern Buddy. It's poorly-written legislation that only accomplishes its intent by damaging (relative) innocents. And it shows an ignorance of the Internet and how it works common with these laws.

This kind of far-reaching and almost impossible to actually implement Internet legislation has been passed before, then pretty quickly stricken from the books and never actually enforced. While I'd predict a similar fate for SOPA (should it even pass), I certainly wouldn't rely on that happening.

I completely sympathize with the need to protect copyright, intellectual property, and the rights of all kinds of creators on the Internet. I deplore the attitude that "everything online is free to use for whatever." I agree that piracy is a huge problem. This is not the way to fix it.

[Raiderfn311]

Thank you very much Eric. Needed to be said.

[ericalm]

That means that if Modern Buddy had a post or two that could be interpreted as pirate-friendly, the domain could be blocked so it would be unaccessible by visiting modernbuddy.com.

Let's talk about what this would actually mean.

I created a post with a YouTube video of a clip from "Anchorman." This clip was not provided by the motion picture studio and not distributed in a way allowed by fair use laws.

We have links to downloads of user and service manuals.

Various members have copied and pasted large sections of copyrighted news stories, magazine articles or web posts—more than what is allowed by law—into posts here, sometimes without proper attribution or links to the source material. (I seriously frown on doing this!)

MANY members are using copyrighted images as their avatars or have posted other images to which they do not have proper permissions or rights.

Any of these things could be enough to trigger MB getting blacklisted.

[Edwub]

via /.


Congress's Techno-Ignorance No Longer Funny

The links are worth a read.

Summary:
We used to laugh when politicans didn't understand how the internet works. Now we should be super worried that they don't care to learn.

Also, I always love slashdot commentary.

[charlie55]

.....All politics aside, this is poorly written legislation that does not accomplish its intended purpose.....

Actually, it does fulfill it's real, intended purpose: giving the appearance of doing something without actually doing it. Legislation at all levels is rife with this kind of stuff.

[iMoses]

Let's stop piracy... those Johnny Depp movies are just dumb... ugghhh

Political comments, even lighthearted, edited out by Admin. Even when in jest, once political parties are mentioned, the thread goes to hell.

[chinaski]

They won't be voting on SOPA until after Christmas break but I wanted to pass along some resources before the thread gets locked and incase they approve the bill/the shit hits the fan.

DeSOPA
This is a link to an add-on for Firefox allowing you to circumvent any DNS blocking
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/desopa/

MAFIAAfire
Essentially the same thing as DeSOPA
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... edirector/


cheers

[Raiderfn311]

Let's stop piracy... those Johnny Depp movies are just dumb... ugghhh

Political comments, even lighthearted, edited out by Admin. Even when in jest, once political parties are mentioned, the thread goes to hell.

Wasnt expecting that! Thanks!

[still shifting]

Sopapilla yes very big here in the south west I like them starght , hot with honey. That is my last word. R

[JHScoot]

i'm not sure i am so "anti piracy" or anti anything on the internet except anti child porn, which is obvious to be imo. and i don't think we have such systems in place for that, although there are other things. yet not as far reaching as this. guess its more important to protect money then children?

i see the internet as an open market. a flea market with very little security. you are responsible for your own little booth. if you choose to sell on the internet or digitally you could suffer some losses. but you don't lock down the whole damn thing because YOU have incurred some losses. you either take them into account, or take them off the digital market. no fair? i once heard thats what life was like

movies? so long as studios are making profits and all the "little people" (actors, artists, sound guys, grips, writers, etc) have gotten paid for their work i don't care about the execs, and i am pretty sure even with piracy residuals keep coming in. now maybe not as much profit as without piracy but nor would so much money be made without the internet. so its the proverbial double edged sword, but it works. so don't take one edge of that sword away. could be a case of "careful what you wish for."

music? i use a service. why would i buy music anymore? i rent it. i spent half my life buying music and got tired of buying something i already have. music is free already and everywhere. its in my car, at work, in the coffee shops, clubs, concert stages, and friends and families homes. why buy something i "hear" all the time? and its my assertion music is a "pure" art form. no one is guaranteed to become rich or famous playing it. and all through the years it was the execs who took the money and ran while the artists were "supported" but cash poor after they collected their royalties which were determined by a bad contract at fuzzy math

these days artists large and small have finally been able to make a living by touring. don't even need a label you can DIY, make a living, and be happy. but to promise a musician riches and fame and then claim its the fault of piracy they can't make a living playing music is false. and maybe people who started playing music for the love of it don't give a crap, anyway? because they might have their own site, label, and can deal with fans their own way. this threatens the big labels. i say competition is good

hands off the internets or get off the internets. pretty simple

[ericalm]

movies? so long as studios are making profits and all the "little people" (actors, artists, sound guys, grips, writers, etc) have gotten paid for their work i don't care about the execs, and i am pretty sure even with piracy residuals keep coming in. now maybe not as much profit as without piracy but nor would so much money be made without the internet. so its the proverbial double edged sword, but it works. so don't take one edge of that sword away. could be a case of "careful what you wish for."

There's a reason (some) industry trade unions support SOPA; piracy has had a palpable effect on incomes and employment. Yeah, the industries still need to figure shit out, but the effects of piracy are far beyond just income to high level execs. The International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees is hardly a billionaire's club.

Residuals pay for a lot more than exec and actor Ferraris and Malibu playhouses. The industry pension and health plans receive a lot of funding from residuals.

A GAO report from a couple years ago cast doubt on a lot of the numbers bandied about from flawed industry reports, but still concluded:

Negative effects on U.S. industry (from piracy) may include lost sales, lost brand value, and reduced incentives to innovate. However, industry effects vary widely among sectors and companies. The U.S. government may lose tax revenue, incur (intellectual property) enforcement expenses, and face risks of counterfeits entering supply chains with national security or civilian safety implications.
…
The U.S. economy as a whole may grow more slowly because of reduced innovation and loss of trade revenue.

I've no doubt that entertainment industry honchos use piracy as a scapegoat and a red herring when explaining issues that ultimately stem from slow adoption of digital technology, distribution and adherence to pre-Internet revenue models. Many of their problems are their own damn fault, IMO, or simply due to the rest of the world moving a lot faster than they can keep up. In some ways, SOPA is an attempt to drag things down to their speed.

But piracy is a huge problem (even if not as big as they claim) and has an impact on the larger economy, especially in California. Lost tax revenues, increased unemployment, fewer productions all depress the state's economy. It's not just movies and music; piracy is a big kick in the junk to Silicon Valley, too.

Regardless of how you feel about SOPA, it's pretty hard to argue that piracy isn't so bad because people are getting paid.

[neotrotsky]

OK, as someone who works in the arts, I feel I have quite a bit to say on this subject:

-Piracy is bad. Actors, musicians, technicians, designers and writers all lose money. It's expected that a consumer-driven society expects one-click instant gratification and any way to get more for less is good, especially if you can screw "big business". The problem is that the artist is the one who ultimately lose. Movies aren't made by million-dollar celebs only. 90% of the work force are blue collar techs, welders, mechanics, seamstresses, stylists, janitors and everyone in between. They don't make any more than the average of anyone in related fields in non-movie industries. Piracy DOES cut down on their pay and usually the lowest rungs are the first one to get squeezed.

-Piracy is a direct result of the technological ignorance of major producers and record labels. When the MP3 player exploded onto the scene by Rio corporation, there was ZERO method to distribute music on a large scale. This is when Napster gained traction. Now that people could afford MP3 players that actually had decent room (256mb to 1.5GB), they wanted music to put on it. Ripping CD's was cumbersome, and when they found a one-click solution to get stuff and found out it could be free, then they jumped on it. It was easy, didn't require anything fancy and could get them what they wanted. Converting music to MP3 at the time ('98 to 2001) was difficult since most computers weren't friendly to the idea. Services like Napster and Cloudcity could get you pre-packaged music and free!

When many asked why folks like Sony and RCA couldn't do it, they had no decent answer. That's because they didn't have the technology to do it. It was out there, but they saw zero need to invest the millions needed to set up a network. They honestly felt that physical media was the only way to go. Now, this is one of the few places where I give credit to Apple for actually creating something innovative: iTunes. It gave a simple one-click solution. Many record labels insisted that online distribution was a failure waiting to happen because there was no way to ensure that it wouldn't be "stolen" by more tech savvy consumers, and continued to experiment with failed DRM technologies that lasted only a few weeks before being cracked.

But, Apple made the process as simple as possible, and introduced the idea that you can buy one song at a time, for just $.99. This made music purchase easy, one-click affairs that were auto-loaded onto their iPods. Soon, Apple was the largest music distributor. This is because they knew that people wanted easy, and would pay for it instead of stealing it *if* you made it painless. People will pay for good product, but only if you can get it to them as fast if not faster than other means that may not be legal.

This is something the major studios for film still cannot understand. They would rather invest in outdated technology instead of actually understanding what the consumer wants and rebuilding the ENTIRE way media is marketed. Amazon also got this right with the publishing industry (in a way). They not only created the one-click method of book sales, but they also made apps for OTHER devices, making it easier. This is the "new" edge that is now overshadowing Apple: Diversifying the WAY it gets content to customers, much like Apple did.

Both focus on a service-driven business model. The media content is now only a part of the larger equation. Before, it was only about the physical disc or tape, and how it got there wasn't important to the major labels. Now with technology making ripping easier, the only way to make THEIR service easier is to get it to consumers faster, in better quality and in easier ways. Amazon and Apple are reaping the benefits of this. Netflix and Hulu are starting to gain traction in this method as well. Major studios, record labels and companies like Blockbuster and FYE music aren't, because they are focused on the product only, and not making it easier for the consumer.

These factors are what the studios fail to understand, and they are using their still-substantial power to convince less-technologically-educated politicians to pass laws that give more censorship ability to private companies to simply wipe clean any reference to *their* content. Instead of helping consumers get new product with ease, mega-entertainment companies would rather demand higher prices for slower, less accessible storage and delivery methods while insisting that everyone on the internet is a potential criminal. Of course, some politicians are more than happy to do this because they know that this bill can be used for other means...

And, this new bill can be used to suppress competition from companies not wealthy enough to convince lawmakers to censor others who would try to wipe out competition. It gives the old-guard media groups an iron fist with which to strangle any new market entries while threatening anyone who demands more from media groups to do better, like many software and consumer-centric sales companies like Apple and Amazon have done.

When you can't compete, make it illegal for competition to challenge you.

[neotrotsky]

i'm not sure i am so "anti piracy" or anti anything on the internet except anti child porn, which is obvious to be imo. and i don't think we have such systems in place for that, although there are other things. yet not as far reaching as this. guess its more important to protect money then children?

i see the internet as an open market. a flea market with very little security. you are responsible for your own little booth. if you choose to sell on the internet or digitally you could suffer some losses. but you don't lock down the whole damn thing because YOU have incurred some losses. you either take them into account, or take them off the digital market. no fair? i once heard thats what life was like

movies? so long as studios are making profits and all the "little people" (actors, artists, sound guys, grips, writers, etc) have gotten paid for their work i don't care about the execs, and i am pretty sure even with piracy residuals keep coming in. now maybe not as much profit as without piracy but nor would so much money be made without the internet. so its the proverbial double edged sword, but it works. so don't take one edge of that sword away. could be a case of "careful what you wish for."

music? i use a service. why would i buy music anymore? i rent it. i spent half my life buying music and got tired of buying something i already have. music is free already and everywhere. its in my car, at work, in the coffee shops, clubs, concert stages, and friends and families homes. why buy something i "hear" all the time? and its my assertion music is a "pure" art form. no one is guaranteed to become rich or famous playing it. and all through the years it was the execs who took the money and ran while the artists were "supported" but cash poor after they collected their royalties which were determined by a bad contract at fuzzy math

these days artists large and small have finally been able to make a living by touring. don't even need a label you can DIY, make a living, and be happy. but to promise a musician riches and fame and then claim its the fault of piracy they can't make a living playing music is false. and maybe people who started playing music for the love of it don't give a crap, anyway? because they might have their own site, label, and can deal with fans their own way. this threatens the big labels. i say competition is good

hands off the internets or get off the internets. pretty simple

The problem with this logic is that there is a lack of understanding on how the current film and music industry operates. In short: Executives will cut costs at the bottom and work their way up, but never get to the top (their profits). This means piracy costs get translated to lower wages for the production staff. I have seen this in my own industry, with my average pay going down $10 to $15 and hour at least! And, executives aren't willing to move otherwise.

Relying on cloud-only music services to me is dangerous. This means you don't own ANY of the content you have. You simply lease the right to hear it. This isn't always bad for streaming services for the commute and such. But, what if a song or a book on your Kindle or a movie on Netflix is politically charged, or promotes a message someone in power (like a politician or a megacorp CEO or a religious group) doesn't like? They can simply demand, with this new bill or by just doing it illegally because those with money don't have to follow the law in the US, that it be struck from the servers. That book you "paid" for or that song on your playlist will no longer exist. They control what you have, and you don't have a right to any of it. THIS is why purchasing hard files, to me, is preferred. Yes, it *could* be copied, but as I mentioned before, if you make media easy enough to buy people WILL buy it! It's a proven fact. The problem is the studios and recording Execs don't want to make it easy... they want to make it expensive and difficult so they can control what is out there.

As for "DIY" labels... you can't survive on it. Apple and Amazon are as guilty as the big studios in a small respect: If you're not on a "recognized" label, you won't be listed in their online markets. And, when someone wants easy, they just click iTunes or go to Amazon. If it's not there, they don't buy it. This means you get zero coverage. It's like payola for airtime, but now it's for bandwidth. Artists make little as it is off of record labels. If you think recorded musicians are all million-dollar rock stars, I have bad news for you: even alot of "famous" name musicians aren't that wealthy. Money these days for songs pretty much all go to the studio and the executives. Musicians are LUCKY to see 5% or less of that. Nearly all music groups make their salaries off of touring, and it's not an easy life. The old image of the music industry from the 80's no longer applies. And those "rap stars" and all their bling? Credit loaded and loaned. Nearly every major rapper that is a one hit wonder goes bust. So much so that it's joked that 8 out of every 10 Bentleys are repos in California

[agrogod]

Not that this is the same thing, but insane legislation just the same. Just heard of a near by state either enacting or soon to be, legislation BANNING the saying "Merry Christmas" on state funded sites. When will this end?

[JHScoot]

movies? so long as studios are making profits and all the "little people" (actors, artists, sound guys, grips, writers, etc) have gotten paid for their work i don't care about the execs, and i am pretty sure even with piracy residuals keep coming in. now maybe not as much profit as without piracy but nor would so much money be made without the internet. so its the proverbial double edged sword, but it works. so don't take one edge of that sword away. could be a case of "careful what you wish for."

There's a reason (some) industry trade unions support SOPA; piracy has had a palpable effect on incomes and employment. Yeah, the industries still need to figure shit out, but the effects of piracy are far beyond just income to high level execs. The International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees is hardly a billionaire's club.

Residuals pay for a lot more than exec and actor Ferraris and Malibu playhouses. The industry pension and health plans receive a lot of funding from residuals.

A GAO report from a couple years ago cast doubt on a lot of the numbers bandied about from flawed industry reports, but still concluded:

I've no doubt that entertainment industry honchos use piracy as a scapegoat and a red herring when explaining issues that ultimately stem from slow adoption of digital technology, distribution and adherence to pre-Internet revenue models. Many of their problems are their own damn fault, IMO, or simply due to the rest of the world moving a lot faster than they can keep up. In some ways, SOPA is an attempt to drag things down to their speed.

But piracy is a huge problem (even if not as big as they claim) and has an impact on the larger economy, especially in California. Lost tax revenues, increased unemployment, fewer productions all depress the state's economy. It's not just movies and music; piracy is a big kick in the junk to Silicon Valley, too.

Regardless of how you feel about SOPA, it's pretty hard to argue that piracy isn't so bad because people are getting paid.

i understand losses / piracy on a physical scale. people who package, label, and mass produce physical discs for sale in the market place. and tbh i don't understand how it exists given how easy it is to DIY if you want to watch a movie or have an album to call your own. but yes that exists and i am all for stopping it

but there is also this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/13/m ... mongering/

and that has been going on for a number of years now. say, since the internet business and digital content delivery really ramped up. so i am trying to weigh that against a persons right (i think) to privacy and to use the technology available to them as they see fit for private and personal use

i am all for profits, people getting paid, and people being cared for. and i understand "the biz" enough to know most people in it are just everyday hard working people. are the people who sign their checks to be appreciated and applauded. sure. is the biz doing fine? seems to be. for those at the top, at least. or at least they don't seem too affected judging by that report.

its as if they are saying as the writers strike and the carpenters work 16 hour days, "hey we are rolling in money but you know, those pirates took yours!"

i am just not sure making websites out as conspirators as the right way to go, along with making criminals of people who do nothing more then the equivalent of borrowing a DVD from a friend for the night

The problem with this logic is that there is a lack of understanding on how the current film and music industry operates. In short: Executives will cut costs at the bottom and work their way up, but never get to the top (their profits). This means piracy costs get translated to lower wages for the production staff. I have seen this in my own industry, with my average pay going down $10 to $15 and hour at least! And, executives aren't willing to move otherwise.

Relying on cloud-only music services to me is dangerous. This means you don't own ANY of the content you have. You simply lease the right to hear it. This isn't always bad for streaming services for the commute and such. But, what if a song or a book on your Kindle or a movie on Netflix is politically charged, or promotes a message someone in power (like a politician or a megacorp CEO or a religious group) doesn't like? They can simply demand, with this new bill or by just doing it illegally because those with money don't have to follow the law in the US, that it be struck from the servers. That book you "paid" for or that song on your playlist will no longer exist. They control what you have, and you don't have a right to any of it. THIS is why purchasing hard files, to me, is preferred. Yes, it *could* be copied, but as I mentioned before, if you make media easy enough to buy people WILL buy it! It's a proven fact. The problem is the studios and recording Execs don't want to make it easy... they want to make it expensive and difficult so they can control what is out there.

As for "DIY" labels... you can't survive on it. Apple and Amazon are as guilty as the big studios in a small respect: If you're not on a "recognized" label, you won't be listed in their online markets. And, when someone wants easy, they just click iTunes or go to Amazon. If it's not there, they don't buy it. This means you get zero coverage. It's like payola for airtime, but now it's for bandwidth. Artists make little as it is off of record labels. If you think recorded musicians are all million-dollar rock stars, I have bad news for you: even alot of "famous" name musicians aren't that wealthy. Money these days for songs pretty much all go to the studio and the executives. Musicians are LUCKY to see 5% or less of that. Nearly all music groups make their salaries off of touring, and it's not an easy life. The old image of the music industry from the 80's no longer applies. And those "rap stars" and all their bling? Credit loaded and loaned. Nearly every major rapper that is a one hit wonder goes bust. So much so that it's joked that 8 out of every 10 Bentleys are repos in California

yes well i don't see that as a problem with my logic, i see it as a problem with exec logic and who gets paid, how and why. per my link i posted above in my reply to eric. this will not be a politic discussion per forum rules, but don't get me started with who works for what and why in corporate america atm

so far as music, i agree with you. i think i reflected that in my first post, last paragraph. hey forget the 80's i am a semi walking, talking encyclopedia of rock n roll. it is not easy to make a buck in the music "biz." and to support any sort of anti piracy anything in the music industry (which i understand is wider then popular artists) kind of makes no sense to me. and i am someone who has spent many thousands of dollars over the years on music

so i have followed artist and see where they land over the years. today i see ones i grew up listening to still out there, making a living, an without record company support. as you said: shows, touring, DIY. still tough, but viable

i like to use my fave band as an example. X, from Los Angeles. been a fan for 28 years, been to countless shows, have all their albums. paid for, of course. one of the most celebrated bands in rock n roll history and they never got rich, not even close. but they remained artists, remained musicians, remained true, and pushing 60 years old they still kick ass today, 33 years after they started

i mean i love the idea of a rockstar as much as anyone. but as said, i am one of those irritating purest types when it comes to music and i don't give damn if justin beiber or anyone associated ever makes another penny tbh

[BuddyRaton]

I like Irish Spring SOPA cause Swedish chicks dig it!

[neotrotsky]

movies? so long as studios are making profits and all the "little people" (actors, artists, sound guys, grips, writers, etc) have gotten paid for their work i don't care about the execs, and i am pretty sure even with piracy residuals keep coming in. now maybe not as much profit as without piracy but nor would so much money be made without the internet. so its the proverbial double edged sword, but it works. so don't take one edge of that sword away. could be a case of "careful what you wish for."

There's a reason (some) industry trade unions support SOPA; piracy has had a palpable effect on incomes and employment. Yeah, the industries still need to figure shit out, but the effects of piracy are far beyond just income to high level execs. The International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees is hardly a billionaire's club.

Residuals pay for a lot more than exec and actor Ferraris and Malibu playhouses. The industry pension and health plans receive a lot of funding from residuals.

A GAO report from a couple years ago cast doubt on a lot of the numbers bandied about from flawed industry reports, but still concluded:

I've no doubt that entertainment industry honchos use piracy as a scapegoat and a red herring when explaining issues that ultimately stem from slow adoption of digital technology, distribution and adherence to pre-Internet revenue models. Many of their problems are their own damn fault, IMO, or simply due to the rest of the world moving a lot faster than they can keep up. In some ways, SOPA is an attempt to drag things down to their speed.

But piracy is a huge problem (even if not as big as they claim) and has an impact on the larger economy, especially in California. Lost tax revenues, increased unemployment, fewer productions all depress the state's economy. It's not just movies and music; piracy is a big kick in the junk to Silicon Valley, too.

Regardless of how you feel about SOPA, it's pretty hard to argue that piracy isn't so bad because people are getting paid.

i understand losses / piracy on a physical scale. people who package, label, and mass produce physical discs for sale in the market place. and tbh i don't understand how it exists given how easy it is to DIY if you want to watch a movie or have an album to call your own. but yes that exists and i am all for stopping it

but there is also this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/13/m ... mongering/

and that has been going on for a number of years now. say, since the internet business and digital content delivery really ramped up. so i am trying to weigh that against a persons right (i think) to privacy and to use the technology available to them as they see fit for private and personal use

i am all for profits, people getting paid, and people being cared for. and i understand "the biz" enough to know most people in it are just everyday hard working people. are the people who sign their checks to be appreciated and applauded. sure. is the biz doing fine? seems to be. for those at the top, at least. or at least they don't seem too affected judging by that report.

its as if they are saying as the writers strike and the carpenters work 16 hour days, "hey we are rolling in money but you know, those pirates took yours!"

i am just not sure making websites out as conspirators as the right way to go, along with making criminals of people who do nothing more then the equivalent of borrowing a DVD from a friend for the night

The problem with this logic is that there is a lack of understanding on how the current film and music industry operates. In short: Executives will cut costs at the bottom and work their way up, but never get to the top (their profits). This means piracy costs get translated to lower wages for the production staff. I have seen this in my own industry, with my average pay going down $10 to $15 and hour at least! And, executives aren't willing to move otherwise.

Relying on cloud-only music services to me is dangerous. This means you don't own ANY of the content you have. You simply lease the right to hear it. This isn't always bad for streaming services for the commute and such. But, what if a song or a book on your Kindle or a movie on Netflix is politically charged, or promotes a message someone in power (like a politician or a megacorp CEO or a religious group) doesn't like? They can simply demand, with this new bill or by just doing it illegally because those with money don't have to follow the law in the US, that it be struck from the servers. That book you "paid" for or that song on your playlist will no longer exist. They control what you have, and you don't have a right to any of it. THIS is why purchasing hard files, to me, is preferred. Yes, it *could* be copied, but as I mentioned before, if you make media easy enough to buy people WILL buy it! It's a proven fact. The problem is the studios and recording Execs don't want to make it easy... they want to make it expensive and difficult so they can control what is out there.

As for "DIY" labels... you can't survive on it. Apple and Amazon are as guilty as the big studios in a small respect: If you're not on a "recognized" label, you won't be listed in their online markets. And, when someone wants easy, they just click iTunes or go to Amazon. If it's not there, they don't buy it. This means you get zero coverage. It's like payola for airtime, but now it's for bandwidth. Artists make little as it is off of record labels. If you think recorded musicians are all million-dollar rock stars, I have bad news for you: even alot of "famous" name musicians aren't that wealthy. Money these days for songs pretty much all go to the studio and the executives. Musicians are LUCKY to see 5% or less of that. Nearly all music groups make their salaries off of touring, and it's not an easy life. The old image of the music industry from the 80's no longer applies. And those "rap stars" and all their bling? Credit loaded and loaned. Nearly every major rapper that is a one hit wonder goes bust. So much so that it's joked that 8 out of every 10 Bentleys are repos in California

yes well i don't see that as a problem with my logic, i see it as a problem with exec logic and who gets paid, how and why. per my link i posted above in my reply to eric. this will not be a politic discussion per forum rules, but don't get me started with who works for what and why in corporate america atm

so far as music, i agree with you. i think i reflected that in my first post, last paragraph. hey forget the 80's i am a semi walking, talking encyclopedia of rock n roll. it is not easy to make a buck in the music "biz." and to support any sort of anti piracy anything in the music industry (which i understand is wider then popular artists) kind of makes no sense to me. and i am someone who has spent many thousands of dollars over the years on music

so i have followed artist and see where they land over the years. today i see ones i grew up listening to still out there, making a living, an without record company support. as you said: shows, touring, DIY. still tough, but viable

i like to use my fave band as an example. X, from Los Angeles. been a fan for 28 years, been to countless shows, have all their albums. paid for, of course. one of the most celebrated bands in rock n roll history and they never got rich, not even close. but they remained artists, remained musicians, remained true, and pushing 60 years old they still kick ass today, 33 years after they started

i mean i love the idea of a rockstar as much as anyone. but as said, i am one of those irritating purest types when it comes to music and i don't give damn if justin beiber or anyone associated ever makes another penny tbh

Yeah... but being a "walking encyclopedia of rock 'n roll" isn't the same as those of us who actually work in the industry. You know, the ones people pirate FROM. A living from touring only isn't a good living... try working 12 hour days nonstop for months or YEARS, with some bands lucky to get a few hundred a night to split between 3 to 10 people. To those guys, the idea of their recordings being a "loss leader" just because some recording CEO is too lazy to invest in new technologies is as stupid as the 15 y/o brat on torrents because he's too lazy and spoiled to actually pay 99 cents for the track he can own.

[PeteH]

Amen, Neo. I had to drill a most emphatic lesson into my kids about downloading music that they found 'for free' on the Internet. The eldest, who I expect should know better, got into the habit of torrenting BBC content when he was away at school, but I've given him the not-on-my-infrastructure speech.

Don't Steal.

[ericalm]

i like to use my fave band as an example. X, from Los Angeles. been a fan for 28 years, been to countless shows, have all their albums. paid for, of course. one of the most celebrated bands in rock n roll history and they never got rich, not even close. but they remained artists, remained musicians, remained true, and pushing 60 years old they still kick ass today, 33 years after they started

There are very few bands you could say this about, though, and it's not like it's been a cakewalk for the members of X. They're still getting by doing club dates. John Doe and Dave Alvin are the only ones who actually sell records—and not many at that. Despite their fame and longevity, they're barely better off than many young working musicians.

I've had friends who had gold records and singles, who still get played on the radio, and who were working at Starbucks. Those who've gone the indie route, signed to smaller labels or self-releasing, can't support themselves by playing either, no matter how many shows they do. Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! are the exceptions. Try selling 100K units out of the back of a van now…

Making it as a working musician can be done, but it's no easy feat and doing it successfully is pretty rare. Making records (for labels, yourself, whoever), selling music online and playing shows is probably one of ways of making a living as a musician with the lowest probability of success.

(Want to make money playing live? Wedding singer. Cover bands and blues bands. It's still a crummy living for the most part.)

That said… Are you going to theX/DK/Avengers Under a Big Black Sun show at MOCA? I'm kind of hoping X shows up with original lineup and just plays that whole album. It's a members only show for now, but a friend who's a member says public tickets will be available at some point.

[siobhan]

I like Irish Spring SOPA cause Swedish chicks dig it!

Back attcha. Now let's keep this thread on topic!
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VjSNrg7T0Wo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Syd]

Chest Hair Club for Men?

[JHScoot]

Amen, Neo. I had to drill a most emphatic lesson into my kids about downloading music that they found 'for free' on the Internet. The eldest, who I expect should know better, got into the habit of torrenting BBC content when he was away at school, but I've given him the not-on-my-infrastructure speech.

Don't Steal.

wow pete that is a pretty light punishment for theft. wonder if it would be the same if they were "stealing" CD's and DVD's from the store? or scooters! would they get the same little talk? wish my dad were like you growing up. i mean i didn't steal but if i had no worries. dad will just give me that little talk again!

but of course your kids aren't theives. are they? and if theft is in fact what it is i am afraid your little slap on the wrist may send the wrong message about the consequnces of stealing

i like to use my fave band as an example. X, from Los Angeles. been a fan for 28 years, been to countless shows, have all their albums. paid for, of course. one of the most celebrated bands in rock n roll history and they never got rich, not even close. but they remained artists, remained musicians, remained true, and pushing 60 years old they still kick ass today, 33 years after they started

There are very few bands you could say this about, though, and it's not like it's been a cakewalk for the members of X. They're still getting by doing club dates. John Doe and Dave Alvin are the only ones who actually sell records—and not many at that. Despite their fame and longevity, they're barely better off than many young working musicians.

I've had friends who had gold records and singles, who still get played on the radio, and who were working at Starbucks. Those who've gone the indie route, signed to smaller labels or self-releasing, can't support themselves by playing either, no matter how many shows they do. Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! are the exceptions. Try selling 100K units out of the back of a van now…

Making it as a working musician can be done, but it's no easy feat and doing it successfully is pretty rare. Making records (for labels, yourself, whoever), selling music online and playing shows is probably one of ways of making a living as a musician with the lowest probability of success.

(Want to make money playing live? Wedding singer. Cover bands and blues bands. It's still a crummy living for the most part.)

That said… Are you going to theX/DK/Avengers Under a Big Black Sun show at MOCA? I'm kind of hoping X shows up with original lineup and just plays that whole album. It's a members only show for now, but a friend who's a member says public tickets will be available at some point.

yeah i know it hasn't been easy for X. i meant it when i said i have literally been following them for 28 years. Billy Zoom left in 1985 after five albums with $200 in the bank. Exene had to sue Viggo Mortenson for more child support, as it seemed he started to control too much of their kids future without input from Exene. so it became a "dad is going to do this and dad wants that" sort of deal at the time (a few years back, at least). she declared $60,000 annual income and listed Librarian as her occupation. so sure, that is hardly riches. but it is a living playing music and its gotta beat breaking rocks in the hot sun i would think

plus i think she fudged the numbers to get more cash. X is "incorporated" so fuzzy maths apply

i saw DJ playing a gig at the Eagle Rock Lanes with Ray Campi. the entire show i kept thinking "that drummer is GREAT wtf this is a bowling alley!" it was too dark to see. after the show i walk out into the lanes and their is DJ, soaked in sweat packing up his gear. so i understand a gig is a gig. and that night it was his gig. man that was good...

i met Dave Alvin one night outside the El Rey. a real pleasure for me, and something of an honor. i shook his hand and i tell you, probably the strongest grip imaginable he had. and so casual about it. seemed a nice guy

platinum selling artists working at Starbucks? wonder if they ever saw a dime? from the execs to promoters to managers and agents, everyone gets a taste. i would just like to cut out that middle a bit and have more go to the artists

oh, and thanks for the heads up about the MOCA gig. i will look into it

and while i know it is juvenile i mean, thats one of the great things about rock 'n roll, right? so here is a video that pretty much sums up a good part of the music industry for me

idk maybe i am too old school about this stuff. my old rebellion still comes through a bit to this day i am afraid. oh well

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5RAQXg0IdfI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and a little dark beauty for the morning...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3giBqOkBxmQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

couldn't resist

[ericalm]

platinum selling artists working at Starbucks? wonder if they ever saw a dime? from the execs to promoters to managers and agents, everyone gets a taste. i would just like to cut out that middle a bit and have more go to the artists

They got some money but not enough to see them through the recording of their second album. Then that got delayed, etc. etc., Starbucks.

On the other hand, another friend's band was signed to Geffen when it was bought out and whittled to nothing during all of the label consolidation in the '90s. They had hired a lawyer instead of a manager when getting courted by majors. They had a 3-record deal, had released one EP and an LP, neither of which did anything much in sales. When their contract got bought out, they each walked away with around $250K, a pretty good haul for being paid to leave. I don't think any of them are musicians now. Smart guys.

[PeteH]

JH - you misunderstand. The emphatic discussion was preemptive. If they get caught, having been warned, the world will land on them.