SOPA what do you think ?

[skysurfer]

I am definitely against it. There are other legal ways to stop piracy. It is like blocking the roads to places where much criminal activity occurs.
As a way of protest I put a protest banner on all my websites.

[skysurfer]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

It could affect anyone who has a .com, .net or .org domain (as I do) no matter where they or their servers are located.

Taking it to its logical conclusion, if these laws came into effect they would have the potential to disable IceInSpace if someone screamed "copyright" because it is hosted on a US server.

.com/.net domains are only withdrawn if you have registered the domain name in the US.
When IIS is not registrred in the US, it won't affect IIS.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by skysurfer

When IIS is not registrred in the US, it won't affect IIS.

IIS is registered with an Australian registrar (as the whois data for the domain states).

The web server it is hosted on is in the US (as the whois data for the netblock states and traceroute demonstrates), and consequently subject to whatever ratbag laws the US comes up with.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Well SOPA, PIPA = Kristallnacht, Fahrenheit 451, Night of the Long Knives etc etc. That's its conclusion, that's where it's heading and has been for quite some time. Those bills are just the tip of the iceberg. And don't think it will only happen in the US.

[Moon (James)]

Well SOPA, PIPA = Kristallnacht, Fahrenheit 451, Night of the Long Knives etc etc. That's its conclusion, that's where it's heading and has been for quite some time. Those bills are just the tip of the iceberg. And don't think it will only happen in the US.

Whilst this is not the first, nor the last piece of nasty and unpopular legislation, I am impressed by the amazing response that seems to be working. It does give me hope for the future. Perhaps we have finally found a way (other than elections) to get politicians to do what the vast majority of the public want? We can only hope.
James

[renormalised (Carl)]

Problem, James, is that it's too piecemeal and all talk with little action. If you're going to talk, you've got to walk as well. You also have to be very well organised, but vague enough so that those you oppose can't get a handle on you.

[Moon (James)]

with little action

Have you tried going to reddit or wikipedia today? They're offline in protest.
James

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Moon

Have you tried going to reddit or wikipedia today? They're offline in protest.
James

24 hours is nothing more than an inconvenience. Most people will just wait it out and the government....they won't bother to notice or even care. Go offline for 48 hours, or 72 hours. You'll get people's attention then, and if you explain why you're doing it and what the consequences of the actions that have led you to protest are, then they'll take notice. You then have to get them to do something about it and that takes further organisation and effort.

Want to really hurt them....cut off all internet access to the government for a whole week. They could do it if they wanted to. Do it to the music, movie and TV companies too and whoever else is pushing for this. They'll soon get the message loud and clear.

[Moon (James)]

There have already been some positive signs they are backing down, but perhaps my glass is half full today?
Still, I live in hope.

[Barrykgerdes]

This is another stupid US political stunt in the same vane as prohibition.
IF passed the good guys will be the ones to get caught and the bad guys will find another way to get around it.

While I don't like piracy of interlectual and physical property, trying to stop it with this sort of legislation will only catch the unwary while censuring free speech and the pirates will find another way to do it and make more money.

Barry

[TrevorW]

Look how they control (don't) the drug trade, without drugs you've got a whole section of their law enforcement agency that would be without a job ??

Make something cheap enough for the masses so they wouldn't worry about piracy but you can tax it then you wouldn't need these draconian laws.

The same applies to certain drugs.

As Barry said they'll find another way to make money.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

This is another stupid US political stunt in the same vane as prohibition.
IF passed the good guys will be the ones to get caught and the bad guys will find another way to get around it.

While I don't like piracy of interlectual and physical property, trying to stop it with this sort of legislation will only catch the unwary while censuring free speech and the pirates will find another way to do it and make more money.

Barry

Precisely, Barry. However, this legislation is far more insidious than prohibition ever was. Don't think it will be confined to the internet, exclusively.

[Stardrifter_WA]

For an update on SOPA see:

http://www.cnet.com.au/sopa-blackout...012012_lat_l23

[TrevorW]

from the Wired site which is also blanked out

"The problem with SOPA and PIPA doesn’t end with false positives. They would create a terrible precedent that other regimes could use to justify their own censorship efforts, potentially fragmenting the internet into so many islands"

the flow on effects to internet including retail sales would be significant

[skysurfer]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Want to really hurt them....cut off all internet access to the government for a whole week. They could do it if they wanted to. Do it to the music, movie and TV companies too and whoever else is pushing for this. They'll soon get the message loud and clear.

You mean that the internet providers of the Congress / Senate / House or other Washington DC institutes cut off internet access from the US government offices ?
Would be a good idea.

[TrevorW]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Want to really hurt them....cut off all internet access to the government for a whole week. They could do it if they wanted to. Do it to the music, movie and TV companies too and whoever else is pushing for this. They'll soon get the message loud and clear.

you can't do that they'd have nothing to do

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

Does it not cost 25 cents to manufacture a DVD , with a movie inprinted into it ?
We are being ripped off , so I se no problem with this .
Brian.

Originally Posted by DJVege

I hate the movies. Wait... let me explain. I hate all the teenage, kiddie, moron peeps that go to watch the M rated movies... talk on their phones, throw popcorn at their mates and act like idiots!

I like going to the movies if there are not so many people in the cinema (less chance of annoyances). The cost is a lil exy at $13-$15 for adults, but when it's not an every week thing, it's ok.

BUT, I very much prefer to watch 1080p, 5.1 Dolby or DTS on my Home theatre setup (55" screen).

You want to kerb online piracy?? Simple. Grab technology by the ****s; utilise the internet, and offer SD and HD movies at a LOW price.

You will never kill piracy. If you're at school, or at uni (as a child), your parents aren't always going to get you the movie you want... you won't have the money for the games and movies etc... you want to play & watch. So pirated downloads are very attractive.

Once you start making money, like your alcohol preference, you start buying things you couldn't.

eg. At school/uni... how many people were after the cheapest alcohol out there for parties? Now I'm working full time, I indulge in the more premium spirits because I can afford them.

Keep collectors editions of DVD/blurays more expensive. However, keep your average bluray disc under $20. Streaming services with quickflix are $14.99 per month, unlimited. Good price, IF you keep up with title demand! Not as good as some streaming services i the US, but much better than AUS used to have in the past.

My 2 cents.

[TrevorW]

Yeah, but they have to recover the $100,000,000 production cost when it flops at the box office

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

OOPs , them they have to stop paying actors 20 million for 1 movie , they got to get real !!!
Why should we pay for their silly busness decisions ?
Brian.

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Yeah, but they have to recover the $100,000,000 production cost when it flops at the box office

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by brian nordstrom

OOPs , them they have to stop paying actors 20 million for 1 movie , they got to get real !!!
Why should we pay for their silly busness decisions ?
Brian.

U.S. actors are waaayyyy overpaid.

The 6 main actors in 'Friends' received over $1 Million each, per episode!

Some actors get $10 - 15 million per movie!
No wonder they have to recover the $$$

At our expense

When I worked in TV 30 years ago the highest paid Actors I knew of were Don Lane and Paul Cronin.
Don received just under $300,000 per year even when 'The Don Lane Show' went from 2 shows per week to 5 shows per week.

Paul Cronin recieved $500 per week as the Lead Actor in The Sullivans!

Paul Hogan was on a very low income as John Cornell had him contracted to do the 'Paul Hogan Show' for a pittance.
Some of the Crew made more than Paul did!!
He didn't make any decent money out of acting until Crocodile Dundee 2.

When I worked on Movies they actually paid David Gulpilil under $1000 per movie for major roles.

Not many big name Aussie actors were paid more than $5000 per movie back then.
YET, we still had to pay the same price for an Aussie Movie as we did for a U.S. movie

Huge profit in someone's pocket! and it wasn't the Aussie actors.

The whole industry is massively $$$ oriented. And now they want even more.