Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Seismica]

Who said a retail copy of Windows 7 isn't overpriced? The OEM prices are good though, in my opinion for a retail copy.

When you think about it though, the operating system is one of the most important things that you get when you buy a computer. Without it what are you going to do, run Linux?

I think the OS is quite reasonably priced. Plus, they have quite large discounts for OEM and Student editions as you mentioned. And the upgrade prices are relatively fair too.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

When you think about it though, the operating system is one of the most important things that you get when you buy a computer. Without it what are you going to do, run Linux?

Get an OEM/ Student version or just pirate it. My question is: why won't they lower prices? I mean, if they do, their revenue will increase due to the large increase of sales.

 

[bevo]

It's amazing the excuses people can come up with to justify completely dismissing the arguments of "pirates".

Piracy is not stealing. It's piracy. It's making a copy of digital information, which does not cause the person(s) who produced and thus "own" that data to lose their copy. It's just making them lose potential money that they've (rightly or wrongly) assumed they could make from it. Whether you're against piracy or not, that's simply how it is. So quit trying to gloss over the nuances of the subject by equating it with simple theft.

But in any case, it really doesn't matter what your stance is on piracy. If you're against censorship, you should be against SOPA regardless. Free speech is more important than, say, the record industry being able to make all the money they believe they would be making if it weren't for piracy.

You guys really have no idea what it's like to get stolen from as a business owner. So you are saying if someone comes to your house, and you tell them you are going to pay them to shovel snow from your driveway, and you don't pay them, you wouldn't consider that stealing from them? They haven't lost any money, and it was money they assumed they could make from shoveling your driveway.

It is against the law to use the material everyone is talking about without paying for it, plain and simple. You guys can justify it how ever you want, but it is stealing. Many people worked very hard to produce the software you are talking about. I really don't understand how this is so hard for you guys to understand.

I bet if you asked 10 people who have never been on a computer, if you take computer software that you are suppose to pay for without paying for it, they will all say you stole it.

We have come to a time that people no longer understand what it means to work hard to make a product. To work hard and have pride in earning the things they have. If any of you had a business worth anything you would not want someone taking your products regardless if it cost you money or not, or how much money you have in the bank.

I have given many examples with other overpriced real world items and no one seems to want to take those without paying. You do it because you can, and that is the mentality of todays world. I want it, and I want it now, and I'll get it whether what I am doing is right or wrong.

Piracy is stealing. If everyone stole autocad and no one paid for the software, they would lose a ton of money. Just because they broke even doesn't mean that now it's OK to start stealing it because they won't lose any money now.

 

[Lain]

You guys really have no idea what it's like to get stolen from as a business owner. So you are saying if someone comes to your house, and you tell them you are going to pay them to shovel snow from your driveway, and you don't pay them, you wouldn't consider that stealing from them? They haven't lost any money, and it was money they assumed they could make from shoveling your driveway.

Not sure if theft would be the right word for that, either. You've decieved them and screwed them over, and it's certainly not right, but you technically haven't stolen anything from them. I would call it breaking a verbal agreement.

And in any case, I just said that piracy wasn't exactly theft, not that it was entirely unlike theft. There are similarities, absolutely. But there are nuances to piracy that make it different.

Piracy is different from your example here in the sense that every time that person shovels snow, they're putting in all new effort. With media, it's made once and then can be duplicated infinitely with almost no effort. Also different from your example is the fact that there's a verbal agreement by both parties that shoveling snow is worth a certain amount. With media, it's typically put out at the highest price that the publisher believes it can get away with without shunning more of its target demographic than it's worth.

I bet if you asked 10 people who have never been on a computer, if you take computer software that you are suppose to pay for without paying for it, they will all say you stole it.

Well that's all well and good, but asking people ignorant of the topic about it in a very simple way is bound to get you a simple answer. And yes, when you gloss over the nuances of piracy, it's like stealing. But there are quite a few very important nuances.

Piracy is stealing. If everyone stole autocad and no one paid for the software, they would lose a ton of money. Just because they broke even doesn't mean that now it's OK to start stealing it because they won't lose any money now.

It's certainly not ok to pirate AutoCAD just because they've broken even. If anyone uses that as a justification for their piracy, they're wrong.

But yes, if everyone stole AutoCAD instead of buying it, they'd make absolutely no money. And they'd never even recover the time and money they spent making AutoCAD.

Why though? Only because the people who would've and could've bought it if it wasn't pirate-able is included in "everyone".

BUT!

...We're getting off-topic here. This thread isn't about whether piracy is justifiable or not. It's about whether this SOPA censorship is justifiable or not.

 

[HACKr]

You guys really have no idea what it's like to get stolen from as a business owner. So you are saying if someone comes to your house, and you tell them you are going to pay them to shovel snow from your driveway, and you don't pay them, you wouldn't consider that stealing from them? They haven't lost any money, and it was money they assumed they could make from shoveling your driveway.

Except Autodesk/Adobe/<insert professional software corporation here> didn't make their software banking on the thought that thousands of teenagers with no ties to any professional industry would buy their product and make them their money. None of 'em would've bought it anyway. But some of them do pirate it. The company would make just as much money off of this group of people whether or not it was possible to pirate their software. This amount of money is nothing.

Actually, I take that back. They can make money off of these people. Some of the people who wouldn't have bought it anyway get their hands on it, try it out, find out they like it and consider actually buying it and possibly even going into business.

However, if you're going to put me in the pro-piracy group because of what I have to say, I think my stacks of Records, CDs, Games, Books etc say otherwise.

Out of curiosity, Bevo, are you for or against this bill?

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's amazing the excuses people can come up with to justify completely dismissing the arguments of "pirates".

Piracy is not stealing. It's piracy. It's making a copy of digital information, which does not cause the person(s) who produced and thus "own" that data to lose their copy. It's just making them lose potential money that they've (rightly or wrongly) assumed they could make from it. Whether you're against piracy or not, that's simply how it is. So quit trying to gloss over the nuances of the subject by equating it with simple theft.

But in any case, it really doesn't matter what your stance is on piracy. If you're against censorship, you should be against SOPA regardless. Free speech is more important than, say, the record industry being able to make all the money they believe they would be making if it weren't for piracy.

I take it that you've never spent years and invested your own money, designing and developing a product, then registering it, trademarking it and patenting it, manufacturing it and marketing it, only to have somebody else rip off all you hard work so they can make a quick buck? It's the same as this.

Glossing over nuances or not, piracy is as illegal as stealing.

And as far as free speech goes, preventing people from illegally distributing something isn't censorship, it's up holding the law.

 

[W3H5]

No copyright laws in China = No claim of piracy!

[Insert Troll face here]

 

[Seismica]

Get an OEM/ Student version or just pirate it. My question is: why won't they lower prices? I mean, if they do, their revenue will increase due to the large increase of sales.

In terms of CAD software I certainly agree with this. In terms of operating system with an approximate 90% market share, price elasticity is not an issue as demand is so high. In theory they could charge more than they do now and still have similar sales because there are very few alternatives, none of which are as good as Windows (Apple operating systems have some advantages but tend to be designed to specific hardware, so it's not something you can slap into a homebuilt rig).

 

[bevo]

Out of curiosity, Bevo, are you for or against this bill?

I actually like the idea of the bill. It would make sites responsible for what is put on there by their users. When you have a web site you are almost completely unaccountable for what goes on in it. It would force sites to moderate all of the content that is posted on it. Would that suck for the site, yes. It would really make it hard to run a site and would make it much more expensive. In a normal business world I am responsible for what my small community does there. If someone is selling drugs at my work place, and I know about it, and don't do anything about it, I get in trouble. I have to maintane a safe environment for them to work in and that costs money. The internet has just grown into it's own world that can not be controlled and is left to run wild and do whatever you want in it. This is not how the world is suppose to work and younger and younger children are being exposed to this. We need to do something that helps make people accountable for what they do online.
That's what the parent in me thinks about it, and the part of me that worries about our youth and they way kids interact with each other.

Being a frequent user of it though thinks that it would suck. Forums would have to be super moderated, and that would be expensive. Alot of the smaller sites wouldn't be able to do it, and have to shut down. I wouldn't be able to watch videos of parkour guys falling off a dumpster to the sound of some horrible dubstep music, or the latest video of the newest game from gamescom. There would be alot of cool things that would be gone from the internet. Plus and really the only reason I don't want it to happen, they would no doubt also abuse this bill for reason other then piracy, and let big company decide what makes it online.

I think the bill is a good idea but it would need a great unbiased governing body, which would no doubt not happen. If it passes it passes and if it fails it fails. I want it to fail. I'm just glad they are thinking about doing something to try and make the internet a more lawful place. It is by far the biggest thing in the world, and it needs to have laws that are inforced like the rest of our lives. There is no reason you should be able to go home and get into a lawless world and spend countless hours there. It flows over into people and childrens normal lives and starts to change the way they percieve what is right and wrong.

This thread is a perfect example of the internet changing what people think is right or wrong. I seem to be in the minority of people who thinks piracy is totaly wrong. Taking something that you are suppose to pay for is obviously wrong, but the way the internet is now has made many people believe that this is ok, and they find ways to try and justify doing it. It's just like a drug addict saying that just because I'm not hurting anyone else that drugs should be legal. In actuallity though, they have no idea who they are hurting or what all the money spent on drugs is doing to the economy. This thread alone should make people realize how the internet is changing peoples perception of what is good and bad. And taking something you are suppose to pay for without paying for it, that you don't need for you to live, is in no way a good morale choice.

 

[nk4e]

Have you encouraged or contacted your congressmen/women yet?

 

[RACECAR]

Just now (Not sure how new or old this is), I came across a video talking about a new Bill that could be passed by Congress That could affect many sites, including Social Networking sites (not just Facebook).

Link Here

Whats everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[Grayfox]

Protect ip/sopa

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=232285

 

[RACECAR]

Ok, so I should've looked in that section of the forum instead of here.

 

[Lain]

Glossing over nuances or not, piracy is as illegal as stealing.

And as far as free speech goes, preventing people from illegally distributing something isn't censorship, it's up holding the law.

I never said piracy wasn't as illegal (or as wrong, for that matter... since illegality isn't necessarily equivalent to wrongness) as stealing, I just said it wasn't stealing.

And while the idea of the bill is good, I don't think it'll be good in practice. People WILL find ways around it. And for the non-pirates, it could (in theory) lead to sites like Youtube and Megaupload being blocked. Not to mention it sets the precedent for the government to block access to sites it doesn't like.

 

[HACKr]

Actually, the idea of the bill is not good at all. It shows a serious lack of understanding of how the internet works. Again, this very site would be under the gun to be censored. Think about how many gameplay videos etc are posted here. It serves less to protect any sort of intellectual property and more to stifle user generated content. They want to turn the internet into pretty much a slightly more interactive TV rather than the vast landscape of user generated content it is now.

 

[Alex.]

I like his view on this matter (warning: profanity)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijqjHo3_H8s&feature=feedu

This is a crime against our rights, plain and simple. As a lot of people said, if we lose the first amendment, we have the second to use.

A good watch.

 

[Grayfox]

What is the second amendment?

 

[nick09]

This.

 

[Grayfox]

This.

You do know saying it's the right to bear arms would have been way easier.
I had to start Firefox since the GTP app won't leave GTP waters.

I think that should be changed.

 

[Azuremen]

You do know saying it's the right to bear arms would have been way easier.

I think that should be changed.

You think the document that the US Government is built on should be changed... for what reason?

 

[Grayfox]

The fact it is too easy for one too get a gun, I'm not saying get rid of it but make it harder to get a gun & prevent people from stockpiling ammo.

Were the school shootings enough to show how easy it is for someone to get a gun?

 

[ChaosStar79]

That's kind of entirely different topic.......

 

[Azuremen]

The fact it is too easy for one too get a gun, I'm not saying get rid of it but make it harder to get a gun & prevent people from stockpiling ammo.

Were the school shootings enough to show how easy it is for someone to get a gun?

Right. Unlike your country, we kind of built ours on having guns to fight off the British. This country would tear itself apart if they tried to ban guns; completely different culture over here. I love shooting, even if I haven't done it for years, but I started handling guns when I was 4 years old, different views than you certainly have.

And that topic has been beat to death in a different thread.

The big thing here is that SOPA effectively violates the first amendment, and the aspect of innocent till proven guilty - two major cornerstones to the US government and legal system.

 

[Jump_Ace]

Petition signed and posted on FB 👍


Jerome

 

[MatskiMonk]

The big thing here is that SOPA effectively violates the first amendment, and the aspect of innocent till proven guilty - two major cornerstones to the US government and legal system.

How does the AUP fit with the first amendment?

 

[Azuremen]

How does the AUP fit with the first amendment?

What do you mean? The AUP is a user policy you agree on when you sign up for a privately own and operated forum. It isn't the government telling Jordan all the conditions under which his private forum has to be run.

But I don't really see why the AUP and SOPA have much in common, or why you brought it up still...

 

[MatskiMonk]

What do you mean? The AUP is a user policy you agree on when you sign up for a privately own and operated forum. It isn't the government telling Jordan all the conditions under which his private forum has to be run.

But I don't really see why the AUP and SOPA have much in common, or why you brought it up still...

Sorry, didn't mean to infer they had anything in common, just asking the question (since I'm not familiar with the bill of rights), why doesn't (something such as..) the GTP AUP, contravene your right to free speech?

 

[Azuremen]

Sorry, didn't mean to infer they had anything in common, just asking the question (since I'm not familiar with the bill of rights), why doesn't (something such as..) the GTP AUP, contravene your right to free speech?

I answered you already - this forum is privately own and operated. Jordan could ban anyone, for any reason, at any time. The end.

Or, in another example, it is how a business can refuse service to a customer, period. Or, I can go out on my lawn and put all kinds of signs out there, yell about this or that, but if I go onto my neighbor's lawn and do the same, he can tell me to piss off.

 

[Jordan]

Sorry, didn't mean to infer they had anything in common, just asking the question (since I'm not familiar with the bill of rights), why doesn't (something such as..) the GTP AUP, contravene your right to free speech?

The actual text of the amendment makes it more clear regarding what "freedom of speech" actually means:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. citizens do have freedom of speech on the Internet, so long as they do it on their own property/website.

 

[Grayfox]

U.S. citizens do have freedom of speech on the Internet, so long as they do it on their own property/website.

If Julian Assange was an American citizen, I don't think he will have the right to use the 1st Amendment.