From what I read in the article this morning, they cant touch them because they arent on US soil. Their mistake was having servers in Virginia which made it easy to form a case and get them extradited. Kinda the same thing that happened to all the poker sites. They operate them offseas but you can still gamble on them from the US and they cant do anything about it.

This is one of the reasons they're trying to censor the internet with the whole PIPA/SOPA stuff. If they cant touch the company, they will simply go China on your *** and block access to it for Americans. Another example would be the shutting down of Sopcast while firstrowsports.tv remains.

 

Indicment ok, but here's where I always see a problem... I know they pull these numbers out of their butt. The real answer is no one knows the amount and no one will ever know. The problem is the plaintiffs choose an arbitrarily high number.

 

Just to let everyone know... I guess SOPA failed. Got this in my email today after emailing my congressman last night.

Hi everyone!

A big hurrah to you!!!!! We’ve won for now -- SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today -- the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled.

The largest online protest in history has fundamentally changed the game. You were heard.

On January 18th, 13 million of us took the time to tell Congress to protect free speech rights on the internet. Hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, people all around the world saw what we did on Wednesday. See the amazing numbers here and tell everyone what you did.

This was unprecedented. Your activism may have changed the way people fight for the public interest and basic rights forever.


The MPAA (the lobby for big movie studios which created these terrible bills) was shocked and seemingly humbled. “‘This was a whole new different game all of a sudden,’ MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times. ‘[PIPA and SOPA were] considered by many to be a slam dunk.’”

“'This is altogether a new effect,' Mr. Dodd said, comparing the online movement to the Arab Spring. He could not remember seeing 'an effort that was moving with this degree of support change this dramatically' in the last four decades, he added."

 

I'm pretty sure there was a study or something that found that "pirates" spend more money on music and movies then "none pirates".

 

From what I read this morning, SOPA and PIPA were put on ice and will be put before Congress again when they're re written. They will more than likely try to pass it when the media attention is elsewhere.

Oh and I saw this on Facebook no idea if its true.

Avatar: Top grossing movie
Avatar: Top downloaded movie

I guess it doesnt hurt their bottom line when quality products are made. I know I download all sorts of pirated software but stuff I like gets bought and supported.

 

I think piracy helps by forcing companies to create quality over quantity. I too purchase things that are worth my money.

 

Tim O'Riley (O'Riley Media) wrote a fantastic article in 2002 about how piracy is a lot like progressive taxation. Worth a read, dude is a genius

Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution - O'Reilly Media

 

It is a stretch to say that piracy leads to higher quality products. Without piracy people would still only buy that which they feel is worth there money. IMHO, it is piracy that leads to lower quality, as profits are diminished and studios must produce what is guaranteed to sell, rather than risk it and push the limits.

It is our god damned "gimmie gimmie gimmie" culture. We want, therefore we think we can have. We don't want to pay, therefore we think we can take.

 

the question is, are profits really diminished? a poor kid in india isn't going to buy a $25 bluray copy of The Hangover so its not like the producers have lost a sale. even folks here in the states... would you really pay for that DVD of The Houston 620 or are you only downloading it because its free and available right now?

...are we hurting the BBC by pirating Top Gear episodes that wont ever air here and aren't available on DVD in NTSC formatting?

tricky questions...

 

If you can't afford a $25 blu-ray of The Hangover, do you deserve a copy of The Hangover? I'm not sure where this sense of entitlement comes from that just because you want something, you get to have it. If a company feels they can't afford usage rights to one of my photos, but still uses it, you can be damned sure they'll be in court.

As For Top gear, if purchasing is not available, then it does seem like a different situation than just not being able to afford it, or not feeling it is "worthy" of your money.

 

What's wierd is its a bunch of AMG benzs and then a A170 which is basically a honda fit mercedes

 

Calm down there tiger, You totally misse the point... Re read my post. I'm not making a value judgement that says one form of piracy is bad and another is ok...

I'm saying that most piracy does not result in revenue loss because the people who are doing te piracy wouldn't have gone out and bought the film just because an illegal download was not available.

How is lack of affordability and lack of physical access any different? Both situation would never have been a sale so there is no revenue leak.

 

The one thing I took away from this Megaupload article was: Swiss Beatz is the CEO?!

 

I understand ehat youre saying, i just dont agree with it. To me, unavailable in your market is like dividing by 0.

If available, lack of revenue loss does does not make copyright infringement ok.

 

I never said that makes it ok, I said there is no calculable financial loss associated with it.

If I jack a design from your site that represents revenue loss, as I am a current consumer of your copy protected works (Plastic heart shirts, etc). If I listen to a Katy Perry song that has been illegally uploaded to YouTube there is no revenue loss because there is no conceivable scenario in which I would pay for her music.

Piracy is a lot like the Indie Band paradox, whereabout bands are attempting to become famous and successful but they only have credibility and fan appeal because they are unknown.