Why isn't the TEA Party protesting ACTA?

Are you a TEA Party member, & if so do you appose or support ACTA?

I'm a TEA Party member who apposes ACTA	7.1%	[ 2 ]
I'm a TEA Party Member who supports ACTA	0.0%	[ 0 ]
I'm NOT a TEA Party member, but I appose ACTA	78.6%	[ 22 ]
I'm NOT a TEA Party member, but I support ACTA	7.1%	[ 2 ]
What's ACTA & what's the TEA Party?	7.1%	[ 2 ]
Total Votes:			[ 28 ]

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Bubsy

Old Blue Collar Joe

Bubsy

Old Blue Collar Joe

Bubsy

Old Blue Collar Joe

What makes you think you have some inherent right to free entertainment?

I find this interesting so I would respond, I would say I do not.

Its partly both sides' fault. In a society were teenagers think its okay to steal from giant stores, its already an atmosphere that contributes to media piracy on top of the heavy handed approach copyright protectors take only contributes to the monolithic image of media enterprise. Thus making piracy not morally reprehensible in the slightest. Robin Hood and all that.

Of course there are many other factors involved which media creators count on and didn't count on. Such as the sheer power of human 'OCD' and other obsessive things. They create media to be consumed, so what happens? They go to the lowest vine of the tree to acquire it, that being piracy. Free, safe, effective, and fast. Much like that infographic, Pirates in most cases also get a superior product that is free of advertisements and intrusive nonsense. Such as DRM free versions of video games or music. (though I cannot say that music specifically is pirated much anymore, Video Game piracy however seem a hot button thing still.)

Basically what I am trying to say, Thanks to general poor compulsion control of the populous and media companies creating so so much media, its only normal for an expectation of cheap available media.

I find it sad that companies are just STARTING to grasp this. Whereas some have already dug in deep.

I hate the term 'pirates'. They're thieves. All a pirate is is a waterlogged thief. They seem to think that a catchy name makes them better than others.
As for the shoplifting/downloading correlation, I agree. I think that, rather than a simple slap on the wrist, as seems to be the current legal desire, slap them with about 80 hours of community service for every twenty bucks an item costs, plus court costs and a night in the county lock up, I think you'd see a decline in shop lifting.
You damn near have to shoplift a new car to get a sentence any more, and it's time to quit holding hands and start punishing. This 'I am entitled' s**t is getting old.
I'd apply a similar penalty to the downloading thieves, as well, and probably consider limited internet access to their address for a while, or removal of it.

Problem is, there is simply no way to enforce it. At all. That is, without violating civil rights or making the Internet so regulated that innocent users become held to the status of criminals also.

And with modern technology and faster and faster internet, its only going to get soooo much worse. Imagine downloading a complete copy of a blue ray disk through futuristic fiber optic, would take about 4 seconds from anywhere in the world. Though that is far far in the future. (within our own lifetime if something bad doesn't happen)

You are right about the piracy thing, because when I replace it with the word theft, suddenly the argument becomes COMPLETELY different. (SUDDEN SEGWAY)*

*What I mean is, Piracy is basically to me the result of poor service provided by content creators. Where as theft is just theft as in, you are depriving the content creators of what is rightfully theirs.

And now I am all messed up.

According to the power of the free market economy, Consumers will most likely always opt for the better service, legitimate or not. And if Piracy brings better service then they will gravitate towards it. Not to mention its easy to morally justify it.

Now I am rambling, must be lunch time

Anyway, If the consumer had their way in a nutshell:
They would like to be able to watch/play/listen to it in full then have the option to pay for it or not. That is pretty much all I know.

I am hungry bye.

It's only 'easier' as long as they realize that, eventually, thanks to their cheapness, that that collection of movies they made that have actual budgets will be all they have, because, well, when you start stealing a certain amount of money people actually quit making the product, which means...you get to watch the matrix reloaded filmed with a video camera and the special effects are all strings holding s**t up with Nerf guns and actors that barely edged out the mannequin for the role, because, to be blunt, if it ain't making a profit, why spend millions to make it? And please, don't use the 'creative freedom' comment. Investors don't give two ******** in a blender about 'creative freedom'. They aren't funding these things out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing so to make a profit. Why do you think we're seeing less big money releases, and more and more remakes? They're getting paranoid and remaking the same things over and over because it's a safer bet.
I mean come on. A Spiderman reboot? Already?

And the pirate will say "I wouldn't pirate it if it wasn't so crappy."

But also, I seem to dwell in the camp that artistic pursuits are compromised when profit is more of a motive anyway.

But you see, the buyers, if they don't want it, simply don't buy it. The 'I wouldn't steal it if it wasn't so crappy' argument holds no water, because who steals crap? The steal it and then hide behind that excuse so that they don't have to face the fact that they stole it so they could enjoy it.

[Bubsy]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Bubsy

Old Blue Collar Joe

Bubsy

Old Blue Collar Joe

I hate the term 'pirates'. They're thieves. All a pirate is is a waterlogged thief. They seem to think that a catchy name makes them better than others.
As for the shoplifting/downloading correlation, I agree. I think that, rather than a simple slap on the wrist, as seems to be the current legal desire, slap them with about 80 hours of community service for every twenty bucks an item costs, plus court costs and a night in the county lock up, I think you'd see a decline in shop lifting.
You damn near have to shoplift a new car to get a sentence any more, and it's time to quit holding hands and start punishing. This 'I am entitled' s**t is getting old.
I'd apply a similar penalty to the downloading thieves, as well, and probably consider limited internet access to their address for a while, or removal of it.

Problem is, there is simply no way to enforce it. At all. That is, without violating civil rights or making the Internet so regulated that innocent users become held to the status of criminals also.

And with modern technology and faster and faster internet, its only going to get soooo much worse. Imagine downloading a complete copy of a blue ray disk through futuristic fiber optic, would take about 4 seconds from anywhere in the world. Though that is far far in the future. (within our own lifetime if something bad doesn't happen)

You are right about the piracy thing, because when I replace it with the word theft, suddenly the argument becomes COMPLETELY different. (SUDDEN SEGWAY)*

*What I mean is, Piracy is basically to me the result of poor service provided by content creators. Where as theft is just theft as in, you are depriving the content creators of what is rightfully theirs.

And now I am all messed up.

According to the power of the free market economy, Consumers will most likely always opt for the better service, legitimate or not. And if Piracy brings better service then they will gravitate towards it. Not to mention its easy to morally justify it.

Now I am rambling, must be lunch time

Anyway, If the consumer had their way in a nutshell:
They would like to be able to watch/play/listen to it in full then have the option to pay for it or not. That is pretty much all I know.

I am hungry bye.

It's only 'easier' as long as they realize that, eventually, thanks to their cheapness, that that collection of movies they made that have actual budgets will be all they have, because, well, when you start stealing a certain amount of money people actually quit making the product, which means...you get to watch the matrix reloaded filmed with a video camera and the special effects are all strings holding s**t up with Nerf guns and actors that barely edged out the mannequin for the role, because, to be blunt, if it ain't making a profit, why spend millions to make it? And please, don't use the 'creative freedom' comment. Investors don't give two ******** in a blender about 'creative freedom'. They aren't funding these things out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing so to make a profit. Why do you think we're seeing less big money releases, and more and more remakes? They're getting paranoid and remaking the same things over and over because it's a safer bet.
I mean come on. A Spiderman reboot? Already?

And the pirate will say "I wouldn't pirate it if it wasn't so crappy."

But also, I seem to dwell in the camp that artistic pursuits are compromised when profit is more of a motive anyway.

But you see, the buyers, if they don't want it, simply don't buy it. The 'I wouldn't steal it if it wasn't so crappy' argument holds no water, because who steals crap? The steal it and then hide behind that excuse so that they don't have to face the fact that they stole it so they could enjoy it.

It depends on the media.

There is very little media I own that I regret buying.

[Sephistrife16]

I think the reason they've stayed silent, or relatively so, on the matter, is because they're primarily focused on domestic concerns. Most generic Tea Partyers don't strike me as very worldly, intellectual, or reasonably aware people, anyway.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Sephistrife16

I think the reason they've stayed silent, or relatively so, on the matter, is because they're primarily focused on domestic concerns. Most generic Tea Partyers don't strike me as very worldly, intellectual, or reasonably aware people, anyway.

Did it ever cross your mind that they have no issue with slamming thieves?

[Sephistrife16]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Sephistrife16

I think the reason they've stayed silent, or relatively so, on the matter, is because they're primarily focused on domestic concerns. Most generic Tea Partyers don't strike me as very worldly, intellectual, or reasonably aware people, anyway.

Did it ever cross your mind that they have no issue with slamming thieves?

Not really, no. Like I said, I don't believe the vast majority of Tea Partyers have even been paying attention to it. Assuming my belief (unsubtantiated by any actual research) hits close to home, that would thereby mean that they don't really feel one way or the other about ACTA, considering they'd have no information regarding it, which makes their issues or indifference regarding thieves in relation to ACTA moot.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Sephistrife16

Old Blue Collar Joe

Sephistrife16

I think the reason they've stayed silent, or relatively so, on the matter, is because they're primarily focused on domestic concerns. Most generic Tea Partyers don't strike me as very worldly, intellectual, or reasonably aware people, anyway.

Did it ever cross your mind that they have no issue with slamming thieves?

Not really, no. Like I said, I don't believe the vast majority of Tea Partyers have even been paying attention to it. Assuming my belief (unsubtantiated by any actual research) hits close to home, that would thereby mean that they don't really feel one way or the other about ACTA, considering they'd have no information regarding it, which makes their issues or indifference regarding thieves in relation to ACTA moot.

I know quite a few, just as I know some occupiers. The Tea Party members have no issue with ACTA or SOPA, as they view it as laws to hammer thieves, and all thieves deserve to be hammered.

[Wraith of Azrael]

Ah yes, the whole argument of "All people who pirate are thieves" type of deal.

There is a very interesting problem with this and that is that ones use of something does not prevent someone elses use.

When I steal someone's sandwhich,car, bike, or whatever physical property they have it prevents someone else from using it.

Someone can't eat a sandwhich when you've already ate it.

However when it comes to music,movies, and games there is an issue.

Ones use of music, movies, or games does not actually prevent someone else from using it because it's not a physical copy.

What this results in is loss of potential revenue. As Joe mentioned it's an incentive to not make a game, music, or a movie. However it is difficult to prove.

What tends to be ignored however is that industry changes. The music industry could not stay the same forever, nor could movies, nor could even games, it must all change or be wiped out.

Piracy is here to stay whether people like it or not. What industry tries to do is try to crush it instead of advancing. The problem with trying to crush piracy is that you can't crush piracy without effectively killing filesharing. Because file sharing is such a major thing in this day and age be it for game companies and other perfectly legitimate practices you can't crack down on one without adversely affecting the others. This is why people don't like some legislation which deals with piracy. Because it tries to strangle perfectly legitimate file sharing. And some places rely heavily on that.

The only other choice is to advance, which is happening in some areas.

Games must move to extra downloadable content and online components because making a strictly solo play game will inevitably be pirated (because the advantage to buying it is negligible).

Music must move away from being strictly about the music. As music will be pirated (so long as file sharing exists) it must move away from actual music and more into other things. Things such as physical band products such as wallpapers, shirts, or other paraphanalia as well as an increase in concerts (many agree that it is better to actually be at a concert than simply watch a video of a concert).

Movies and T.V on the other hand usually must do something else. It's the one industry which is often hurt the most however even it can make advances. For the case of movies, it would be moving away from movie theatres and more onto things such as Netflix. Movie companies will have to sell to groups like Netflix the ability to host the movie on their website and in exchange Netflix charges its 7.99 a month to its customers for high quality movies available to be watched on your T.V, Computer, or whatever.

However, the industry is never open to change and finds it much better to crank down on file sharing as a whole than to realise that they must change or face becoming obsolete.

So long as file sharing exists piracy will never disappear, the goal is to adapt to it not crush file sharing as a whole.

[Disa Uniflora]

I'm particularly unmoved by the plight of the MPAA and RIAA because for years they've habitually tried to screw the actual artists and producers, like bands, directors, actors, and all the little people who are the heart of the industry.

Recording artists already made practically nothing from CD release, or suffered net losses, as a result of the large percentages going to the record labels themselves and marketers. CD releases really act as little more than a tool for exposure, a tool rapidly growing defunct with the informative powers of the internet at our finger tips. In actuality, touring and selling their merchandise is how most bands earn a living. This is part of the reason why I'm so enthusiastic about seeing the bands I support whenever they come to Vancouver or cities nearby enough, and why I always take home some merch from every show. I do what I can to support the artists as best as I can. The recording industry? I hope it burns in a fiery pit.

As much as I hate the recording industry through, film studios still manage to take that cake for being generally sinister in their business practices. Hollywood accounting has been quite thoroughly documented over the years and has brought various motion picture studios legal consequences in the past. Runaway production as well, much of it the result of subsidies (and the vast majority of those being Canadian, I'm ashamed to say), is cited as a thorn in the side of the little guys in the entertainment industry. Essentially, it's the outsourcing of production to other countries of television shows and films primarily released or broadcast somewhere else, usually the United States. The problem here is that government incentives to the film studios are what make this happen, not the 'will' of the free market. This has resulted in competing subsidies and counter-incentives in order to woo production back to its native market. Obviously this serves two purposes: the waste of taxpayer dollars in the case of subsidies and the lining of pockets higher up in the studios, the pockets of people who aren't deeply affected by where the labour goes as a result of this shell game.

Now, these are just my personal feelings, so let that be understood ahead of time. I think the recording and entertainment industries are bloated. I think that both of them run on assumptions about how big budgets have to be, how much revenue must be taken in, etc. I think that these assumptions are broadly based on the fact that, for much of their existence, these record companies and studios have exerted a great deal of control over their respective industries, far moreso than one would see elsewhere. They've had the creative control to decide which acts will get signed on to a label and often in what form. They've acted as the life line between artists and the superstructure that makes them successful, such as advertising agencies, ticket companies, industry techs, and venue operators. They often have final say on whether a film will ever see the light of day and they've had a special relationship with theatres for most of their existence, allowing the two to control the scope of a film's release. Essentially, I see these industries as having been able to dictate the terms of their existence too extensively and for too long, and the result is that it's now expected that films must gross this much, or observe this balanced portrayal of races and genders, or to sell this many CDs. And when you cut through the bullshit, I don't think many of their assumptions are true at all. I know bands that don't buy into the industry at all, who get their own vinyls pressed or even release their music for free and just live off the touring. I know of independent films that have been incredibly popular and low budget films that have looked fantastic and made huge profits. For all the glitz and glamour and attention that the industries pile on top of their A-listers, very few of them are at all talented, whereas there are countless fresh new faces and relative unknowns who do their job ten times better and get paid god know's how much less because some executive doesn't think they focus test well enough. I could go on but I think I've said enough about that. They've been masters in their own homes, dictating to the market what sort of product to expect, but in just this one aspect their mastery has vanished.

The years are beginning to pass these industries by, and I feel that if they were more naturally inclined to see themselves as being at the behest of the market and less inclined to picture themselves as being omnipotent within their respective spheres of influence they'd perhaps be more adaptable to the change that, sooner or later, they'll have to go through. File-sharing isn't always legal, that much is certainly true, but regardless of legality it's a liberating experience. It's millions and millions of people who've for years had to wait on someone else's schedule to enjoy entertainment, or who've had to shell out this much money in order to enjoy the work of their favourite artists because prices have been so inflated by the time a product gets to store shelves. Suddenly those restrictions have disintegrated, and now the RIAA and MPAA think that they're going to be able to just have them restored? They're completely delusional if they think they can shut that Pandora's Box. And while they struggle to do so, they are going to be passed up by people who embrace direct-to-market release, who offer people so much more than they had for so much less than they once paid, and with greater promptness. People have proven themselves to be willing to pay for the services that many of them can already get for free. There's still an expectation on the part of most people that if they're getting something it's fair that they should be paying for it. As Netflix, iTunes, and others have proven, it's a burgeoning, legitimate market, and if the traditional recording companies and studios don't jump on that, I certainly won't give a s**t when they suffer the consequences. I already don't. ******** them both.