Are you willing to lose your freedom of speech?
Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Jersey Shore
Vehicle: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8
I don't know what the big deal is anymore. There are plenty of outlets you can use to get around paying out your rear for media. Spotify lets me stream music online while sitting at home, or my fios service has the MusicChoice channels. I have XM radio in my car because I hate all of the FM stations around here. If there is an album I actually want from an artist, I download it online for like $7 or I just buy it in the store. Movies... I pay $1 at Redbox or the $20 a month for Netflix (streaming and 2 DVD delivery). I rarely go to the cinemas because I feel like THAT is piracy... raping people $12 a piece to watch a 2 hour film. Other than that, I'll download random songs here or there on torrents... but it's singles and not full albums.
I will admit I used to HEAVILY pirate years ago, but that was when you had to pay a hell of a lot for music with stuff like Rhapsody and Napster. IRC, torrents, newsgroups, etc. I never got into downloading movies really.
I just don't know what the big deal is anymore. Why do people freak out if they can't see a movie in theaters? Just wait the 3 months and get over it. And if you really want that album, $7-10 isn't a lot of money of you do a digital download. I sure as Hell don't make a lot of money, but I make due. There are plenty of FREE or at least affordable resources out there to avoid the typical piracy that they are trying to prevent.
And 3 years ago, I would be complaining and freaking out about this too since I was super broke and thought paying for music and movies was stupid. But finding out how to do things in a very affordable manner and watching underground artists that I adore STRUGGLE to release music because they can't make anything off their albums... made things manageable.
I will admit I used to HEAVILY pirate years ago, but that was when you had to pay a hell of a lot for music with stuff like Rhapsody and Napster. IRC, torrents, newsgroups, etc. I never got into downloading movies really.
I just don't know what the big deal is anymore. Why do people freak out if they can't see a movie in theaters? Just wait the 3 months and get over it. And if you really want that album, $7-10 isn't a lot of money of you do a digital download. I sure as Hell don't make a lot of money, but I make due. There are plenty of FREE or at least affordable resources out there to avoid the typical piracy that they are trying to prevent.
And 3 years ago, I would be complaining and freaking out about this too since I was super broke and thought paying for music and movies was stupid. But finding out how to do things in a very affordable manner and watching underground artists that I adore STRUGGLE to release music because they can't make anything off their albums... made things manageable.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Vehicle: 2013 Sonata Limited 2.0T
I don't know what the big deal is anymore. There are plenty of outlets you can use to get around paying out your rear for media. Spotify lets me stream music online while sitting at home, or my fios service has the MusicChoice channels. I have XM radio in my car because I hate all of the FM stations around here. If there is an album I actually want from an artist, I download it online for like $7 or I just buy it in the store. Movies... I pay $1 at Redbox or the $20 a month for Netflix (streaming and 2 DVD delivery). I rarely go to the cinemas because I feel like THAT is piracy... raping people $12 a piece to watch a 2 hour film. Other than that, I'll download random songs here or there on torrents... but it's singles and not full albums.
I will admit I used to HEAVILY pirate years ago, but that was when you had to pay a hell of a lot for music with stuff like Rhapsody and Napster. IRC, torrents, newsgroups, etc. I never got into downloading movies really.
I just don't know what the big deal is anymore. Why do people freak out if they can't see a movie in theaters? Just wait the 3 months and get over it. And if you really want that album, $7-10 isn't a lot of money of you do a digital download. I sure as Hell don't make a lot of money, but I make due. There are plenty of FREE or at least affordable resources out there to avoid the typical piracy that they are trying to prevent.
And 3 years ago, I would be complaining and freaking out about this too since I was super broke and thought paying for music and movies was stupid. But finding out how to do things in a very affordable manner and watching underground artists that I adore STRUGGLE to release music because they can't make anything off their albums... made things manageable.
I will admit I used to HEAVILY pirate years ago, but that was when you had to pay a hell of a lot for music with stuff like Rhapsody and Napster. IRC, torrents, newsgroups, etc. I never got into downloading movies really.
I just don't know what the big deal is anymore. Why do people freak out if they can't see a movie in theaters? Just wait the 3 months and get over it. And if you really want that album, $7-10 isn't a lot of money of you do a digital download. I sure as Hell don't make a lot of money, but I make due. There are plenty of FREE or at least affordable resources out there to avoid the typical piracy that they are trying to prevent.
And 3 years ago, I would be complaining and freaking out about this too since I was super broke and thought paying for music and movies was stupid. But finding out how to do things in a very affordable manner and watching underground artists that I adore STRUGGLE to release music because they can't make anything off their albums... made things manageable.
Thank you for not reading the post to its entirety. Once again, this goes will beyond the concept of piracy. I'm not scared about not being able to continue what I do - block my direct access - I'll just proxy jump around the world 3x and you can't trace me. That's not my point, freedom of expression and the act of innovation is on the verge of being crushed.. Take away all the piracy sites, all the email dumps and IRC - but don't take away my right to express myself.
Super Moderator
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 10,795
Likes: 5
From: Pflugerville, TX
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
Miss Adema, you fail at getting the point here. The sites you love where you get your music -even when you are paying for licensed music steaming- can be shut off, entirely, because one of the artists or companies makes a complaint about the site. It's not YOU being shut off, it's your SOURCE. The faucet at your house works great but the water company is forced out of business. Do you have water? Congress is saying
NO
MORE
FREE
MUSIC
FOR
MISS ADEMA!!!
Some people don't like this idea, so we protest the idea of such a law.
NO
MORE
FREE
MUSIC
FOR
MISS ADEMA!!!
Some people don't like this idea, so we protest the idea of such a law.
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 2
From: Lacey, WA
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
Or, someone could post a link to a place to get free music here. And HA could be shut off.
This would potentially lead to a closure of most content sharing sites, such as youtube and photobucket, as well as any other site with content on it. Not removal of content, websites being removed from the internet.
This would potentially lead to a closure of most content sharing sites, such as youtube and photobucket, as well as any other site with content on it. Not removal of content, websites being removed from the internet.
Administrator
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 23,226
Likes: 9
From: Upstate NY
Vehicle: 2010 Genesis 2.0T
Not sure if anyone saw this, but... 
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...i-sopa-exodus/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...i-sopa-exodus/
GoDaddy accused of interfering with anti-SOPA exodus
An effort by GoDaddy customers to boycott the domain registrar over its support for Hollywood-backed copyright legislation has sparked allegations of foul play.
NameCheap, whose chief executive last week likened the Stop Online Piracy Act to "detonating a nuclear bomb" on the Internet, said today that GoDaddy has intentionally thrown up technical barriers to prevent its customers from leaving. It lost over 70,000 domains last week.
It's not alone: at least half a dozen GoDaddy rivals have seized on their competitor's pro-SOPA lobbying to lure its customers away. NameCheap dubbed December 29 "move your domain" day, offering below-cost transfers with the coupon "SOPASUCKS" plus a $1 donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Other registrars such as Dreamhost, HostGator, and Hover.com, and Name.com have offered similar SOPA-related promotions.
"GoDaddy appears to be returning incomplete Whois information to Namecheap, delaying the transfer process" in violation of rules established by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NameCheap wrote in a blog post today. By this afternoon, the company said that GoDaddy had "finally unblocked our queries" and that transfers should now "go smoothly."
For its part, GoDaddy, which has reportedly called customers to ask them to return, denies any wrongdoing. In a statement sent to CNET this afternoon, the company said:
Namecheap refused to say who at GoDaddy was contacted or when. Instead, chief executive Richard Kirkendall sent CNET a prepared statement saying "all we know on our side is that GoDaddy was preventing us from conducting normal business with our clients, and in turn causing harm to our reputation and at the same time overloading our support channels."
"We were quite confident after significant analysis that this issue was not on our end, and after the issue had persisted for more than 24 hours with no response from the other party, we made a blog post clarifying what we felt was causing the issue," the statement said. In a separate forum post, a Namecheap community manager said, without providing any additional information, the company tried "reaching out to GoDaddy" but received "no response."
Criticism of GoDaddy coalesced around a protest thread on Reddit and was aided by Jimmy Wales' announcement last week that "Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy." It inspired GoDaddyBoycott.org, which urged Internet users and companies to "boycott GoDaddy until they send a letter to Congress taking back any and all support of the House and Senate versions of the Internet censorship bill, both SOPA and PIPA." The Protect IP Act, or PIPA, is the Senate version of SOPA.
On December 23, GoDaddy partially caved, announcing that it was no longer backing SOPA, but stopping short of saying it will oppose the legislation. And not until today did it post a clarification saying GoDaddy "does not support" Protect IP, either. (The GoDaddyBoycott.org site, which hasn't been updated, continues to say that GoDaddy endorses the Senate bill.)
A GoDaddy representative did not respond to a question from CNET this afternoon asking whether the company now opposes SOPA and Protect IP.
SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially offshore sites such as ThePirateBay.org.
It would allow the Justice Department to obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet providers, and other companies forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish, a kind of Internet death penalty. It's opposed (PDF) by many Internet companies and Internet users. (See CNET's FAQ on SOPA.)
Accusations of hypocrisy help any boycott, and, as TechDirt helpfully noted, GoDaddy condemns intellectual property theft while encouraging customers to buy domains "that are perfect for infringing sites." If you try to buy the domain Chanel.com, for instance, you'll get offered "RealChanel.com" as an option.
Prior to its current public relations debacle, GoDaddy had been an enthusiastic supporter of expanding copyright law to deal with "parasite" Web sites. In testimony (PDF) before a House of Representatives hearing this spring, GoDaddy general counsel Christine Jones endorsed Domain Name System (DNS) blocking as a way to prevent Americans from accessing suspected piratical Web sites.
Jones said that DNS blocking is an "effective strategy for disabling access to illegal" Web sites. It can "be done by the registrar (which provides the authoritative DNS response), or, in cases where the registrar is unable or unwilling to comply, by the registry (which provides the Root zone file records -- the database -- for the entire TLD)," she said.
An effort by GoDaddy customers to boycott the domain registrar over its support for Hollywood-backed copyright legislation has sparked allegations of foul play.
NameCheap, whose chief executive last week likened the Stop Online Piracy Act to "detonating a nuclear bomb" on the Internet, said today that GoDaddy has intentionally thrown up technical barriers to prevent its customers from leaving. It lost over 70,000 domains last week.
It's not alone: at least half a dozen GoDaddy rivals have seized on their competitor's pro-SOPA lobbying to lure its customers away. NameCheap dubbed December 29 "move your domain" day, offering below-cost transfers with the coupon "SOPASUCKS" plus a $1 donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Other registrars such as Dreamhost, HostGator, and Hover.com, and Name.com have offered similar SOPA-related promotions.
"GoDaddy appears to be returning incomplete Whois information to Namecheap, delaying the transfer process" in violation of rules established by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NameCheap wrote in a blog post today. By this afternoon, the company said that GoDaddy had "finally unblocked our queries" and that transfers should now "go smoothly."
For its part, GoDaddy, which has reportedly called customers to ask them to return, denies any wrongdoing. In a statement sent to CNET this afternoon, the company said:
Namecheap posted their accusations in a blog, but to the best our of knowledge, has yet to contact Go Daddy directly, which would be common practice for situations like this. Normally, the fellow registrar would make a request for us to remove the normal rate limiting block which is a standard practice used by Go Daddy, and many other registrars, to rate limit Whois queries to combat WhoIs abuse.
Because some registrars (and other data gathering, analyzing and reporting entities) have legitimate need for heavy port 43 access, we routinely grant requests for expanded access per an SOP we've had in place for many years. Should we make contact with Namecheap, and learn they need similar access, we would treat that request similarly.
As a side note, we have seen some nefarious activity this weekend which came from non-registrar sources. But, that is not unusual for a holiday weekend, nor would it cause legitimate requests to be rejected. Nevertheless, we have now proactively removed the rate limit for Namecheap, as a courtesy, but it is important to point out, there still may be back-end IP addresses affiliated with Namecheap of which we are unaware. For complete resolution, we should be talking to each other -- an effort we are initiating since they have not done so themselves."
Because some registrars (and other data gathering, analyzing and reporting entities) have legitimate need for heavy port 43 access, we routinely grant requests for expanded access per an SOP we've had in place for many years. Should we make contact with Namecheap, and learn they need similar access, we would treat that request similarly.
As a side note, we have seen some nefarious activity this weekend which came from non-registrar sources. But, that is not unusual for a holiday weekend, nor would it cause legitimate requests to be rejected. Nevertheless, we have now proactively removed the rate limit for Namecheap, as a courtesy, but it is important to point out, there still may be back-end IP addresses affiliated with Namecheap of which we are unaware. For complete resolution, we should be talking to each other -- an effort we are initiating since they have not done so themselves."
Namecheap refused to say who at GoDaddy was contacted or when. Instead, chief executive Richard Kirkendall sent CNET a prepared statement saying "all we know on our side is that GoDaddy was preventing us from conducting normal business with our clients, and in turn causing harm to our reputation and at the same time overloading our support channels."
"We were quite confident after significant analysis that this issue was not on our end, and after the issue had persisted for more than 24 hours with no response from the other party, we made a blog post clarifying what we felt was causing the issue," the statement said. In a separate forum post, a Namecheap community manager said, without providing any additional information, the company tried "reaching out to GoDaddy" but received "no response."
Criticism of GoDaddy coalesced around a protest thread on Reddit and was aided by Jimmy Wales' announcement last week that "Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy." It inspired GoDaddyBoycott.org, which urged Internet users and companies to "boycott GoDaddy until they send a letter to Congress taking back any and all support of the House and Senate versions of the Internet censorship bill, both SOPA and PIPA." The Protect IP Act, or PIPA, is the Senate version of SOPA.
On December 23, GoDaddy partially caved, announcing that it was no longer backing SOPA, but stopping short of saying it will oppose the legislation. And not until today did it post a clarification saying GoDaddy "does not support" Protect IP, either. (The GoDaddyBoycott.org site, which hasn't been updated, continues to say that GoDaddy endorses the Senate bill.)
A GoDaddy representative did not respond to a question from CNET this afternoon asking whether the company now opposes SOPA and Protect IP.
SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially offshore sites such as ThePirateBay.org.
It would allow the Justice Department to obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet providers, and other companies forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish, a kind of Internet death penalty. It's opposed (PDF) by many Internet companies and Internet users. (See CNET's FAQ on SOPA.)
Accusations of hypocrisy help any boycott, and, as TechDirt helpfully noted, GoDaddy condemns intellectual property theft while encouraging customers to buy domains "that are perfect for infringing sites." If you try to buy the domain Chanel.com, for instance, you'll get offered "RealChanel.com" as an option.
Prior to its current public relations debacle, GoDaddy had been an enthusiastic supporter of expanding copyright law to deal with "parasite" Web sites. In testimony (PDF) before a House of Representatives hearing this spring, GoDaddy general counsel Christine Jones endorsed Domain Name System (DNS) blocking as a way to prevent Americans from accessing suspected piratical Web sites.
Jones said that DNS blocking is an "effective strategy for disabling access to illegal" Web sites. It can "be done by the registrar (which provides the authoritative DNS response), or, in cases where the registrar is unable or unwilling to comply, by the registry (which provides the Root zone file records -- the database -- for the entire TLD)," she said.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
From: Boston
Vehicle: 2006 Pontiac GTO
I love how people who aren't against this crap are not defending the idiotic proposal but defending the (so-called) reason for which they are being proposed.
Guess what - nobody gives a sh*t WHY a law is being proposed. You should care about what that law means and what its consequences will be.
The very fact that some US entity will be able to blacklist sites should be a deal breaker. That's not what the internet is or what it should ever be. A US-specific blacklist is pretty much just like China's great firewall. Add on top of that that any site can be blacklisted WITHOUT ANY FORMAL PROCESS, and an entire friggin site can be blacklisted because of a single thing on it, regardless if it was user-posted or not.
The consequences can be very far reaching. One of them is that any smaller/startup competing with sites like Google or Youtube will have a lot of trouble to stay afloat just because of the huge investment it needs for policing the content in order to not get blacklisted.
The DMCA has shown that the RIAA and other groups will stretch any existing law as far as they can. Did you not hear about any of the court cases where people were sued for astronomical amounts of money for downloading a few songs or a movie? Imagine what they will do if this crap becomes law.
I am not against SOPA because I like to pirate crap. Believe me, it wouldn't really stop the more tech-savvy folks anyway. I am against it because it is complete bullshit, and because I am not retarded. The fact that it is even remotely possible that it will pass is a testament to how strong the lobbying is, how little our politicians understand about technology, and that really they don't give a sh*t.
Guess what - nobody gives a sh*t WHY a law is being proposed. You should care about what that law means and what its consequences will be.
The very fact that some US entity will be able to blacklist sites should be a deal breaker. That's not what the internet is or what it should ever be. A US-specific blacklist is pretty much just like China's great firewall. Add on top of that that any site can be blacklisted WITHOUT ANY FORMAL PROCESS, and an entire friggin site can be blacklisted because of a single thing on it, regardless if it was user-posted or not.
The consequences can be very far reaching. One of them is that any smaller/startup competing with sites like Google or Youtube will have a lot of trouble to stay afloat just because of the huge investment it needs for policing the content in order to not get blacklisted.
The DMCA has shown that the RIAA and other groups will stretch any existing law as far as they can. Did you not hear about any of the court cases where people were sued for astronomical amounts of money for downloading a few songs or a movie? Imagine what they will do if this crap becomes law.
I am not against SOPA because I like to pirate crap. Believe me, it wouldn't really stop the more tech-savvy folks anyway. I am against it because it is complete bullshit, and because I am not retarded. The fact that it is even remotely possible that it will pass is a testament to how strong the lobbying is, how little our politicians understand about technology, and that really they don't give a sh*t.
