Bradr Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.com/embed/WJIuYgIvKsc Link to comment
Husker_x Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.c...bed/WJIuYgIvKsc Watched the video. It's simply disgusting that the same corporate entities--to a one--who were flagrantly promoting the 'piracy' software, making money hand over fist with it, are the same ones today attempting to assault internet users across the world. When will these fools learn? It's great to see our old pal the RIAA, the ones who relentlessly pursued college students, children, and single mothers in their mafia campaign of intimidation against their own customers. A friend of mine got dinged for downloading a single song to the tune of four grand, and any attempt to fight the lawsuit would result in a new figure of somewhere around half a million dollars. This is all pretty simple. Take one example. The idiots at Amazon think that it's fair to charge someone $14.99 for an ebook, a book which they did not have to deforest Canada to create, buy ink to print print, hire a company to ship, store in a heated warehouse, pay someone to sell, or make the coffee, or clean the bathrooms; in their deranged minds it's fair to charge a customer virtually full price (at Wal-mart the same book might go for $17.99). I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up. No one who had any computer know how would buy the book at that price, especially when the book is about double the price of a trade paperback. No one with any know how should pay the same price, and frankly I think it's unethical to charge them something that ridiculous and then attempt to take over the internet when they refuse to pay it. Especially with lending libraries right down the block. What's even worse is in my case, I WANT to support authors and publishers. I'd go out of my way to support them with my business. But I'm not going to get bent over to do it. So their choice is to either offer books at a fair price for the actual product I'm receiving, or keep on like they're doing and see where that gets them. About half the time I've ever watched 'pirated' films or TV shows, I've gone on to buy a copy of the movie or the show. It's a way to test run something you didn't get a chance to see in theaters, don't have access to, etc. The internet is a fact of existence now. I suggest companies start finding creative user-driven solutions to market their content instead of thinking they can Big Brother this problem away. It's not going away. It CAN'T go away. I'm simply astonished that no one learned a damn thing from the RIAA fiasco. Despite all their shameful efforts, they accomplished exactly nothing in curbing 'piracy'--a word I hate, by the way. Download rates of 'pirated' material were either rock steady or showed a slight increase. I could rant all day, but these newest Orwellian efforts by corporations need to be soundly and decisively beaten. 1 Link to comment
Husker_x Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The online protests are already having an impact. Marco Rubio backed away from the legislation. Others are retreating as well. Sponsors dropping off. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204749-websites-strike-to-protest-online-piracy-bills Link to comment
Lil' Red Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This bill needs to be axed. Giving the government any form of censorship of the internet could lead to serious problems. Here's a link for a petition against it: http://americancensorship.org/ Link to comment
redblooded Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.c...bed/WJIuYgIvKsc This is all pretty simple. Take one example. The idiots at Amazon think that it's fair to charge someone $14.99 for an ebook, a book which they did not have to deforest Canada to create, buy ink to print print, hire a company to ship, store in a heated warehouse, pay someone to sell, or make the coffee, or clean the bathrooms; in their deranged minds it's fair to charge a customer virtually full price (at Wal-mart the same book might go for $17.99). I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up. No one who had any computer know how would buy the book at that price, especially when the book is about double the price of a trade paperback. No one with any know how should pay the same price, and frankly I think it's unethical to charge them something that ridiculous and then attempt to take over the internet when they refuse to pay it. Especially with lending libraries right down the block. What's even worse is in my case, I WANT to support authors and publishers. I'd go out of my way to support them with my business. But I'm not going to get bent over to do it. So their choice is to either offer books at a fair price for the actual product I'm receiving, or keep on like they're doing and see where that gets them. This isn't an amazon issue any more then itunes charging 1.29 for non-drm'd songs instead of 99 cents was an apple issue. The publishers set prices in their agreements to sell copies. Amazon isn't as ubiquitous as Itunes was for digital music once napster died. Amazon doesn't have the clout (or the negotiating balls) to be able to tell publishers what they can charge like Apple did with music. Edit: and while I agree with the sentiment on pricing since creating digital copies of something is essentially free, that's a publisher issue, it's got almost nothing to do with the bills and their goal. They might as well have just called it the "try and legislate thepiratebay, firstrowsports, zonein tv, and the like off the internet" acts, which is what they were. The goal, and they are very open about this, is to try and enforce US copyright laws across the english speaking internet since they haven't been able to buy the ability to legislate what they want in places like Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc where they think US copyright is nuts. The problem arises in the fact that they want every site to basically be held responsible for every link a user posts, ISPs to be responsible for where people surf, advertising suppliers and money transfer companies(paypal) to seize funds, and domain registrars to sieze domains and redirect them to the FBI (Much like the DHS ICE program is already doing illegally with the compliance of registrars like godaddy). Which is absolutely censorship already and when they find something they deem infringement they pull the plug on the entire website which just makes it even worse censorship. Link to comment
redblooded Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Lee Terry removed his name and support from SOPA today, fyi. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.c...bed/WJIuYgIvKsc This is all pretty simple. Take one example. The idiots at Amazon think that it's fair to charge someone $14.99 for an ebook, a book which they did not have to deforest Canada to create, buy ink to print print, hire a company to ship, store in a heated warehouse, pay someone to sell, or make the coffee, or clean the bathrooms; in their deranged minds it's fair to charge a customer virtually full price (at Wal-mart the same book might go for $17.99). I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up. No one who had any computer know how would buy the book at that price, especially when the book is about double the price of a trade paperback. No one with any know how should pay the same price, and frankly I think it's unethical to charge them something that ridiculous and then attempt to take over the internet when they refuse to pay it. Especially with lending libraries right down the block. What's even worse is in my case, I WANT to support authors and publishers. I'd go out of my way to support them with my business. But I'm not going to get bent over to do it. So their choice is to either offer books at a fair price for the actual product I'm receiving, or keep on like they're doing and see where that gets them. This isn't an amazon issue any more then itunes charging 1.29 for non-drm'd songs instead of 99 cents was an apple issue. The publishers set prices in their agreements to sell copies. Amazon isn't as ubiquitous as Itunes was for digital music once napster died. Amazon doesn't have the clout (or the negotiating balls) to be able to tell publishers what they can charge like Apple did with music. You're actually right about publishers setting the prices. They are certainly where a lot of the blame lies. However, Amazon is not exactly without recourse. Hence the dark cloud hovering over the big publishers when Amazon considers going into e-publishing for themselves. Also, the fact that you would give me a two dollar discount for a piece of data when I have to spend at the low end around 75 bucks to buy the reading device makes it your problem. Link to comment
redblooded Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.c...bed/WJIuYgIvKsc This is all pretty simple. Take one example. The idiots at Amazon think that it's fair to charge someone $14.99 for an ebook, a book which they did not have to deforest Canada to create, buy ink to print print, hire a company to ship, store in a heated warehouse, pay someone to sell, or make the coffee, or clean the bathrooms; in their deranged minds it's fair to charge a customer virtually full price (at Wal-mart the same book might go for $17.99). I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up. No one who had any computer know how would buy the book at that price, especially when the book is about double the price of a trade paperback. No one with any know how should pay the same price, and frankly I think it's unethical to charge them something that ridiculous and then attempt to take over the internet when they refuse to pay it. Especially with lending libraries right down the block. What's even worse is in my case, I WANT to support authors and publishers. I'd go out of my way to support them with my business. But I'm not going to get bent over to do it. So their choice is to either offer books at a fair price for the actual product I'm receiving, or keep on like they're doing and see where that gets them. This isn't an amazon issue any more then itunes charging 1.29 for non-drm'd songs instead of 99 cents was an apple issue. The publishers set prices in their agreements to sell copies. Amazon isn't as ubiquitous as Itunes was for digital music once napster died. Amazon doesn't have the clout (or the negotiating balls) to be able to tell publishers what they can charge like Apple did with music. You're actually right about publishers setting the prices. They are certainly where a lot of the blame lies. However, Amazon is not exactly without recourse. Hence the dark cloud hovering over the big publishers when Amazon considers going into e-publishing for themselves. Also, the fact that you would give me a two dollar discount for a piece of data when I have to spend at the low end around 75 bucks to buy the reading device makes it your problem. They actually are going into publishing themselves because they were angry about the prices the old guard publishers are setting and realized that if they could get the authors directly they wouldn't have to deal with those publishers anymore and could actually sell more books. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.c...bed/WJIuYgIvKsc This is all pretty simple. Take one example. The idiots at Amazon think that it's fair to charge someone $14.99 for an ebook, a book which they did not have to deforest Canada to create, buy ink to print print, hire a company to ship, store in a heated warehouse, pay someone to sell, or make the coffee, or clean the bathrooms; in their deranged minds it's fair to charge a customer virtually full price (at Wal-mart the same book might go for $17.99). I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up. No one who had any computer know how would buy the book at that price, especially when the book is about double the price of a trade paperback. No one with any know how should pay the same price, and frankly I think it's unethical to charge them something that ridiculous and then attempt to take over the internet when they refuse to pay it. Especially with lending libraries right down the block. What's even worse is in my case, I WANT to support authors and publishers. I'd go out of my way to support them with my business. But I'm not going to get bent over to do it. So their choice is to either offer books at a fair price for the actual product I'm receiving, or keep on like they're doing and see where that gets them. This isn't an amazon issue any more then itunes charging 1.29 for non-drm'd songs instead of 99 cents was an apple issue. The publishers set prices in their agreements to sell copies. Amazon isn't as ubiquitous as Itunes was for digital music once napster died. Amazon doesn't have the clout (or the negotiating balls) to be able to tell publishers what they can charge like Apple did with music. You're actually right about publishers setting the prices. They are certainly where a lot of the blame lies. However, Amazon is not exactly without recourse. Hence the dark cloud hovering over the big publishers when Amazon considers going into e-publishing for themselves. Also, the fact that you would give me a two dollar discount for a piece of data when I have to spend at the low end around 75 bucks to buy the reading device makes it your problem. All manufacturers set base prices, and MSRPs. It goes something like this. Amazon charges you $15 for something(and eBook, or whatever) Amazon is going to have a profit margin, maybe 15%, so $2.25, the other $12.75 Amazon owes the maker for each copy they sell. Same way a brick and mortar store would. Sometimes they will have allowances to lower the cost to the end consumer, other times not, and that can change on a weekly, or monthly basis. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Glad huskerboard isn't going dark. Here's some interesting insights, if you can actually get through how annoying this guy is... http://www.youtube.c...bed/WJIuYgIvKsc This is all pretty simple. Take one example. The idiots at Amazon think that it's fair to charge someone $14.99 for an ebook, a book which they did not have to deforest Canada to create, buy ink to print print, hire a company to ship, store in a heated warehouse, pay someone to sell, or make the coffee, or clean the bathrooms; in their deranged minds it's fair to charge a customer virtually full price (at Wal-mart the same book might go for $17.99). I'm sorry, but it's time to wake up. No one who had any computer know how would buy the book at that price, especially when the book is about double the price of a trade paperback. No one with any know how should pay the same price, and frankly I think it's unethical to charge them something that ridiculous and then attempt to take over the internet when they refuse to pay it. Especially with lending libraries right down the block. What's even worse is in my case, I WANT to support authors and publishers. I'd go out of my way to support them with my business. But I'm not going to get bent over to do it. So their choice is to either offer books at a fair price for the actual product I'm receiving, or keep on like they're doing and see where that gets them. This isn't an amazon issue any more then itunes charging 1.29 for non-drm'd songs instead of 99 cents was an apple issue. The publishers set prices in their agreements to sell copies. Amazon isn't as ubiquitous as Itunes was for digital music once napster died. Amazon doesn't have the clout (or the negotiating balls) to be able to tell publishers what they can charge like Apple did with music. You're actually right about publishers setting the prices. They are certainly where a lot of the blame lies. However, Amazon is not exactly without recourse. Hence the dark cloud hovering over the big publishers when Amazon considers going into e-publishing for themselves. Also, the fact that you would give me a two dollar discount for a piece of data when I have to spend at the low end around 75 bucks to buy the reading device makes it your problem. They actually are going into publishing themselves because they were angry about the prices the old guard publishers are setting and realized that if they could get the authors directly they wouldn't have to deal with those publishers anymore and could actually sell more books. Which is more than fine with me. The old guard publishers went the way of Hollywood, frankly. Generally I'm a big fan of Amazon. I own a Kindle. I use the hell out of it. I don't often go to--cough--other places to find books. But take something like Stephen King's new book. The hardcover runs about $17.50 on Amazon. The Kindle version is 14.99. Seriously? I mean...seriously? I buy a hi end Kindle and a nice case for around 200 bucks and you're telling me that if I'm interested in reading this title the best you can do for me is two dollars. I'd rather they didn't offer an electronic file than pretend this is quality savings. Anyway, I'm pretty well resigned to the reality that the ereader savings are still a few years down the road. The publishers remind me of the recording industry, trying to push back the tide. Amazon offers enough quality content and free classics to balance things in their favor. There's also ways to get your hands on pretty much anything you want for zero dollars. My thing is I'd like to see some progress. Fifteen bucks for a Microsoft Word document e-mailed from a computer in Maine and plastered on the web is just stupid. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Senator Patrick Leahy's Facebook page is being bombarded by people who oppose him on PIPA/SOPA. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/SenatorPatrickLeahy Link to comment
redblooded Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 http://abcnews.go.co...93#.Txh4V28V2I4 Why do we need these acts again? Ohh right so if your site has someone even link or mention them you can get taken down as well. Also pay no mind to the fact that none of the people that run that business were actually in the US or citizens here. Basically the internet revolts around furthering those powers and now we get to see the powers we've already given up. Wonder where the people running rapidshare live that they couldn't pull that off. And if SOPA/PIPA actually get through expect this site to be taken down sooner or later for this post. Link to comment
redblooded Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 and 15 minutes after, anonymous declares war again, taking down the justice department and several other sites. (a couple good multipart atricles on anonymous here and here) wonder if it's extended: Link to comment
redblooded Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 I feel bad for replying to the other threads and knocking this one off the top. Link to comment
Haspula Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Found a state with a somebody pro SOPA: http://sopatrack.com...rep-lamar-smith edit: just looked him up. HES THE SCUM WHO CREATED IT?! Link to comment
Recommended Posts