Stand Together: The Gaming Community vs SOPA and PIPA

You did not even watch that video, now did you? Shame on you.

PS. As a member of capitalist fat cats club, you people should be the one who figures out that free market is going to fix the issue all by itself like it has done with everything in the past.

Why would I need to watch a youtube video when I've actually read the bills, the applicable statues, and all the relevant case law? I'm not particularly interested in what some guys on youtube think is fair and just, just because someone wants to watch a video for free, doesn't give him the right to.

You would hear what smarter people have to say, that also have read the bill

I agree. I say: Let's browse torrent websites all over the world and download every torrent we could possibly find!

This is different. MegaUpload does not upload it's content itself, neither is it designed for uploading illegal content (in most countries, sharing copyrighted material isn't illegal at all, but that aside). With torrent websites, at least I can understand.

It's sharing, not stealing. That's like me making pictures of my vacation, and a friend copying those. Why would I get mad? It's free to copy, and I still have the original. This way, we can both enjoy the pictures.

Indeed. Conservative. Look at it from a different perspective. If I see that movie on MegaUpload, I will probably download it. But if I see a trailer of that movie, I wouldn't drive a few miles to the store, buy it there for a lot of money and watch it at home. This is as with most pirating. I download torrents when I'm bored and want something to do fast, and this way I wouldn't have to go to a store a few miles away to buy it, which costs me time and money. And why would you feel sorry for the movie industry anyway? Name me one movie that failed entirely just because of pirating?

Aside, pirating can also be a good thing for the industry, and people who don't pirate themselves. This forces the industry to look for alternative ways to gain money out of movies. Advertising for example. This is the key feature that makes YouTube so popular; you don't have to pay money for a service which does gain the company money.

If a movie doesn't completely fail, why fire the people working on it? You haven't read most of my post, have you? If you would have read it, you would have seen the fact I said that:
A) Most pirates weren't going to buy the movie anyway,
B) This forces the companies to look for other ways to make money out of a movie,
C) Copying isn't illegal at all,

So, how am I killing the industry again?

In that case film stars and fat cats are destroying the industry. And how about a video I put up here a page ago?

Even if you take the figures from D3ad's video as accurate, by his basic calculations (by his math the average job cut was paying 35ishK) they would be earning a few thousand over the median income. It's a question of methodologies, but here's a basic hint - if they're cutting lower level jobs that means that they're paying these guys less money, meaning you're not going to see large salary figures.

To something Fey said somewhere, copyright infringement is illegal. Like it or not, in America you're not allowed to do it. I'm happy to debate the ethical dimensions to the law, but you can't say it's legal because it's not.

To the general argument of the video and what you guys are saying. True, it doesn't stand to reason that every download is a lost sale, or that it precludes a future sale. However, every time you watch something that's been illegally downloaded you are still costing them money. There are plenty of paid services (netflix, hulu plus, hbo go, on demand) that provide the same function as torrenting. Is there a difference in convenience? Sure, but a minor one. The real difference is the cost to user. However the cost to the supplier is different then the cost to the user. The supplier makes his money in part of royalties from every watch, but more out of contractual obligations and advertisements. You're denying this piece of the equation to him by illegally downloading. Especially in the case of MEGA, not only are you denying the supplier, but you're actually empowering the pirate, who is reaping his own earnings off things. This is the difference again in the case of watching a legally purchased DVD with a friend, then downloading something online. In the case of MEGA, they (Mega having facilitated this not directly stolen) have stolen a product, and then are selling it back to you. That profit that they are getting is wrong. That is the theft, that is money that should be going to the supplier and not some third party pirate.

In MEGA's case specifically, you see a picture of a few individuals who earned close to 200 MILLION dollars, by encouraging (they both themselves uploaded copywrigted material, encouraged other users to do so, and even paid other users to do so) other people to share content with strangers. Most of yall's arguments fall flat when you consider the facts of the MEGA case, and the extent to which they went to circumvent the law. There are plenty of sites out there that are compliant with US law, but MEGA was not, which is why they were rightfully targeted.

Cool story bro, but I don't care about some freedom hating nazi muslim country laws.

I'm fine debating what the laws "should be" but Fey made an incorrect statement that copyright infringement is legal. It is not....