US Government Seizing Webpages

[18-Till-I-Die]

Well then lets see them produce something more than a simple physics game, like Gears of War or Half-Life or Modern Warfare 2, and then release it on a humble bundle.

Because I have a feeling it is literally impossible to do that with even slightly more sophisticated and expensive games. If and when they start selling Modern Warfare 3 on a humble bundle, AND--this is key--AND it makes a profit, then I promise I'll be the first to admit it's a brilliant idea that I wish I'd come up.

Until then, all they did was bite into the indie gamer market, known for buying games like Braid in bulk ANYWAY because it's "arty" and appeals to Hipsters and people who think a final boss battle being in reverse is deeply symbolic.

[General Zod]

Well then lets see them produce something more than a simple physics game, like Gears of War or Half-Life or Modern Warfare 2, and then release it on a humble bundle.

Because I have a feeling it is literally impossible to do that with even slightly more sophisticated and expensive games. If and when they start selling Modern Warfare 3 on a humble bundle, AND--this is key--AND it makes a profit, then I promise I'll be the first to admit it's a brilliant idea that I wish I'd come up.

Until then, all they did was bite into the indie gamer market, known for buying games like Braid in bulk ANYWAY because it's "arty" and appeals to Hipsters and people who think a final boss battle being in reverse is deeply symbolic.

Who cares how much it takes to produce? You gave absolutely no criteria in your original post and now you're whining. In any case we have restauraunts that occasionally try out the model as well.

[thejester]

This would be a compelling argument if it wasn't for the fact that there is an on-line subscription option that is available to Australians from NHL Game Center Live

You've only addressed one part of my 'compelling argument' and even then not very well. Gamecenter only offers you monthly or yearly subscriptions - great if you're a hockey devotee, fucking useless if you're a casual fan like me who has neither the time or the interest (or the monthly usage on their internet plan) to watch 40 games of hockey a month. On top of which my internet connection (and that of most Australians, I suspect) is not really the one you'd want for streaming high-quality video, particularly when you're watching hockey, the single sport where HD viewing is actually seriously needed.

To put that money in perspective, for USD 30 I could just get a full cable service anyway and see way more live sport than 40 games a month. And whilst watching GC, I'd presumably STILL have to sit through the fucking ridiculously massive number of ad breaks US broadcasters insist in shovelling into 'live sport'. But of course, CLEARLY all that revenue is needed to keep people in jobs, rather than padding Ted Leonsis' massive pockets or giving Ovechkin 12 milr to do 27 hours work a year.

[Norade]

But there are people saying it's OK to pirate shit?

Tell me, how are the makers of all the wonderful things people see fit to download without paying supposed to make a living? Unless of course something is released to the public domain, but most people making music/art/programs whatever would like something in return for their efforts.

Let's go back to the OP, shall we?

This comes because the site I normally watched sports on was just seized, and already on google you can find the same hosts with their new address providing the same content as before with the exact same url subsitution .net for .me.

It's a search engine you can watch sports on? He's watching off-brand sports?

I was watching the NHL because my computer is more convenient than my TV and I can multitask and do whatever else I like while tabbing back and forth between the game. If I were to do that on cable or satellite, neither of which I'd watch anything else on, I'd be paying around $40/month for games which if teams played 15 games a month and none of them were PPV, would be 45 hours of a potential 720 hours that I could be paying for. I'd be willing to pay the NHL the $2.50 their games actually represent from my cable bill and I'd refuse to pay a cent more unless I chose to go to a game. Except that as the highest ticket prices of the major sports leaguse the only people who can make the game with decent seats are corporate suits who get tickets given to them or can afford to drop $500+ on a night out. That's half my monthly budget.

It just seems like they're playing whack-a-mole trying to stop piracy and frankly I find it stupid to waste people's tax money even trying. Though not providing links or anything because of board rules I will say that 1 person out of 20 in my communications class pays for most music and movies and the rest might buy something they really like. I'd guess that for most people in their 20's this is the way of things.

Again - these people want the "music and movies and the rest" but only 1 in 20 is willing to pay anything at all for them. Again - how do these expect these people who create this stuff to make a living? Or maybe it's just the 20 somethings are sponging off mom and dad still and don't understand the concept of earning a living yet.

So the 30 something prof and the other 30 or 40 somethings also in my course don't count now Broomstick? How about that fact that my 42 year old Mom and her BF have figured out that buying CD's is stupid? Also, I understand well the realities of being broke and think that most suits should join me here so they can take that golden parachute contract and choke on it if they think they'll get a cent more than I'm willing to pay from me for shit I can get for free and in better quality online.

What are the board's thoughts on this matter?

My thought is that piracy - whether downloading music or watching sports via websites that show copyright broadcasts without permission - is theft. Unless that sports site is a legitimate site for sports broadcasts, but somehow that wasn't the impression I got.

Of course, the government seizing assets without due process is also a form of theft. But then, if you think it's OK to access copyrighted stuff and make copies without permission then obviously you don't understand the concept of intellectual property or copyright, which makes it baffling that you'd get so upset about the government seizing something you think either doesn't exist, shouldn't exist, or has no value. After all the government isn't destroying anything here, or taking a physical object, it's just making the thing hard or impossible to find. The originator still has the coding, right? Nothing has really been taken, right?

Theft of what exactly? I didn't pick up a sports arena and force them to play for me and me alone nor did I make it so I was the only person to catch the broadcast. In fact with some software watching means I can help seed and more people can watch the game.

Also, I never said I was mad at them doing it. Hell it didn't even make me late for tuning into the game and the new site is nicer. I questioned the valuing in doing so when atdhe.net became atdhe.me in an hour or so and the gov't spent money on accomplishing sweet fuck all with your tax dollars. Can you honestly support and idea more vapid and elusive than the war on drugs could hope to be?

Frankly the US should spend more money doing it and see how well it works.

EDIT: Also costing jobs? The companies that aren't hiring back to the numbers they had pre '08 are hurting worse than all the pirates put together. So once again, go fuck our rich corporate masters who are doing everything they can to ensure that hardwork will never again earn you a fortune.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Who cares how much it takes to produce? You gave absolutely no criteria in your original post and now you're whining. In any case we have restauraunts that occasionally try out the model as well.

I don't think it's whining to say I think they're overselling how successful this is on a practical basis, nor to point out that the groups these games are aimed for may go for something "novel" and avant garde simply because it is, and because they're the sort who would.

But you know what, reading some more about it, I will concede that this sounds like at the very least an innovative business plan. Like I said I have no ideas on what to do about piracy myself and while I highly doubt this would put a dent in the Pirate Bay's traffic, I think they may be on to at the very least a way to draw more money from the casual/indie gamer crowd and if the article about the resteraunt is anything to go by this concept probably has a future.

I just don't know...on the one hand you have convinced me the idea has genuine merit. On the other hand, I just don't see how this could fly for a more expensive game with real overhead beyond two guys in their garrage pushing out a tower defense game. I'd like to think they're on to something, God only knows it would be a boon to poor saps like me with limited incomes, but I'm hedging my bets and not outright buying it right now because I need to see some evidence it will work on a large scale.

The acid test for this business model, in my opinion, would be if Apple did something like that for the next Iphone or Ipad. Or if Sony or Microsoft do it for their next console, something huge and with real, obvious risk-reward evidence to look at.

It's definitely a new idea and I would love to see it fly, but until I see a major developer like Square-Enix or Nintendo go for it and, this is key, do it successfully with a profit, I just don't see this putting a real hole in piracy or being a viable business model on a larger stage.

But you're right I was a bit too broad in my initial statement.

[Soontir C'boath]

This would be a compelling argument if it wasn't for the fact that there is an on-line subscription option that is available to Australians from NHL Game Center Live

You've only addressed one part of my 'compelling argument' and even then not very well. Gamecenter only offers you monthly or yearly subscriptions - great if you're a hockey devotee, fucking useless if you're a casual fan like me who has neither the time or the interest (or the monthly usage on their internet plan) to watch 40 games of hockey a month. On top of which my internet connection (and that of most Australians, I suspect) is not really the one you'd want for streaming high-quality video, particularly when you're watching hockey, the single sport where HD viewing is actually seriously needed.

To put that money in perspective, for USD 30 I could just get a full cable service anyway and see way more live sport than 40 games a month. And whilst watching GC, I'd presumably STILL have to sit through the fucking ridiculously massive number of ad breaks US broadcasters insist in shovelling into 'live sport'. But of course, CLEARLY all that revenue is needed to keep people in jobs, rather than padding Ted Leonsis' massive pockets or giving Ovechkin 12 milr to do 27 hours work a year.

Oh please. The only thing you argued was how it wasn't available on television and I pointed out there is another point of access available that is not an illegal streaming of it.

Backpedaling and whining that you don't want to pay $120 USD per year or $24 per month only shows you're not paying for a service that is available legally no matter how much you watch.

[Lagmonster]

Well then lets see them produce something more than a simple physics game, like Gears of War or Half-Life or Modern Warfare 2, and then release it on a humble bundle.

Who cares how much it takes to produce? You gave absolutely no criteria in your original post and now you're whining. In any case we have restauraunts that occasionally try out the model as well.

Your article points out that almost everyone who tries the 'pay whatever' concept goes tits up, because people are assholes. Besides which, INVESTORS care how much shit costs to produce.

If I were an investor, I'd probably be hostile towards a potential developer who said, "And of course, statistically a steady percentage of all people who end up owning a copy will have just downloaded one for free from a pirate". And that hostility would only get worse the more copies the product was projected to sell, because the dollar figure on that percentage would keep getting bigger.

At some point, it would be fucking awesome to see investors just declare musicians, movie makers and game devs dangerous investments and stop giving anyone any money to make things, if only to see the beauty of the "okay, that's it, fuck everybody" school of risk management.

[General Zod]

Your article points out that almost everyone who tries the 'pay whatever' concept goes tits up, because people are assholes. Besides which, INVESTORS care how much shit costs to produce.

That just means it's not viable or profitable for everyone, which I never claimed anyway.

If I were an investor, I'd probably be hostile towards a potential developer who said, "And of course, statistically a steady percentage of all people who end up owning a copy will have just downloaded one for free from a pirate". And that hostility would only get worse the more copies the product was projected to sell, because the dollar figure on that percentage would keep getting bigger.

At some point, it would be fucking awesome to see investors just declare musicians, movie makers and game devs dangerous investments and stop giving anyone any money to make things, if only to see the beauty of the "okay, that's it, fuck everybody" school of risk management.

There's quite a number of musicians, like Radiohead that have made a tidy profit using the "pay what you want" model. So for at least some industries it can be very profitable.

[Mr Bean]

"Pay what you want" isn't business. It's charity.

Charity is also also a business. Business is anything where money exchanges hands for goods and services.
To get back on topic the pay as you go model is not the only model available to online transactions. There are existing models available either via subscription or downloads per dollar. The problem that the sites in question are running into is that Sports games are bound up with all sorts of contracts meant to prevent competition on multiple levels. In twenty years perhaps they will be clued in, but for now they are going to spend much more money fighting the useless fight then money they will make back because it is physically to prevent people who are legally streaming a game from producing an illegal stream even if it's nothing more technologically advanced then pointing a web-camera at their TV screen.

An investor who was not a technological illiterate would not be trying to fight piracy, but limits it's effects on the bottom line. And if they don't broadcast your games in legally in China then the question should be how can we get our games broadcast to China and making money, not how can I stop this piracy.

Let me draw you an example in comparisons to actual theft.
US retailers claim they lose between five billion to just over ten billion a year due to shoplifting in retail stores. Do they lock down their stores with multi-million dollar security systems and multiple armed guards with full body scanners at the door? No, because those measures would not stop all shoplifting and that ten billion is spread across every industry so the loss from each store is perhaps a few hundred a year. Therefor the efforts to prevent shop lifting can't exceed the cost of the shoplifting itself.

This is not a lesson the various media agency's have learned yet about piracy that most traditional retailers have long know. In part because the RIAA and it's ilk like to produce widely inflated numbers. In one case for example the Farcry producers claimed that over a million people had pirated their move and resulted in lost sales of over thirty million dollars. However when the numbers were run the only way that could have been true is if the million people had all payed 25.99$ each for their ticket price because that was the then cost of the not yet released blue ray special edition of the movie. Not the 5$-8$ a movie ticket would have cost. In fact the only way their thirty million figure made sense if nearly 4 million had pirated the movie instead of paying the 8$ ticket price. And that assumes that non of those 4 million people ever went to see the movie in theaters before or after. Because the loss numbers are being so widely inflated these industries are willing to fork over much more money than any sane person normally would to fight these crippling "losses".

[Broomstick]

When I talk about copyright violations as theft I'm not talking about the big mega-corporations I'm speaking as an artist. I have had my work stolen, stolen by someone who then turned around and re-sold it under his name, and who justified is by saying "well, it was out there! I just made a copy."

That IS theft.

So yes, it is a tender subject for me.

Sure, you're never going to eliminate piracy, but that doesn't mean you should tolerate it, either. If say 1-5% pirate the creative world can live with that. If 95% pirate the system collapses.

Norade is talking "I can get it for FREE! I can get it for FREE!" despite the fact it's been pointed out there are legal/non-questionable means of obtaining it legally. Yes, there are companies that gouge the public. They also cheat the artists, too. Those are bad people. But the fact is that producing any creative work takes time, money, and effort and promoting and creative work takes time, money and effort. Somewhere someone has to pay for that. You SHOULD pay creative people for their works if you want them to keep producing - and arguably you should pay them as directly as possibly. If a band is selling their music on line on their own site by all means, go directly to them rather through some distributor.

And frankly, I don't consider "my computer is more convenient than my TV" a valid justification IF the download is illegal (legal downloads I don't give a fuck). Plenty of time I have the TV going while using my computer. Right now I'm getting some shows 6-12 months late because I just can't afford cable or satellite and all I have is broadcast and that's how long it takes them to cycle through to a legal source I can access. Oh, boo-hoo, a little inconvenience. But then, it's a matter of principal with me that I don't frequent sites with illegal downloads. Clearly, others differ on that point.

Yeah, "pay what you want" is fucking bullshit, because 99% of people won't pay jack and then go crowing to their buddies about this great shit they got for free. Or worse yet, send an e-mail along the lines "you're a stupid piece of shit if you think I'm paying anything" which actually has happened to me - I get one or two of those a year from my site. If you DO know someone with a "pay what you want" site fucking pay them for their work. It's not "free". It cost THEM something to make it. If you want them to make more then give a little. If you don't like it, then don't pay for it. It's pretty damn simple, really. The only time I do "pay what you want" is AFTER the first publication of something, when I've already made something for my time and effort, and at that, I usually have to adhere to an agreement to not re-release the work until a certain amount of time has passed so the first publisher can make their slice of money. Given that that has been VASTLY more profitable for me than simply self-publishing I can work with it. That is, in fact, one of the reasons artists aren't entirely self-publishing these days. You make more money if you can get picked up by a reliable company that has distributing and marketing power.

And yes, how things are sold is changing. I sold my first work 30 years ago - digital and electronic rights were pretty much non-existent. I used to have to type my written works on a manual typewriter, now all submissions are e-mail. Payment used to be a check in the mail, now sometimes it comes to my electronically. 30 years ago the idea of self-publishing was ludicrous, now it's common. It's neither good nor bad just different, and meanwhile we'll have to adapt and change. Yes, right now some companies are shooting themselves in the foot because they aren't adaptable. They'll go away.

[Darksider]

There's also the fact that the penalties are complete bullshit as well. To add to Bean's shoplifting example, If you steal an item from a store and you get caught, there will be a small fine, maybe a little jail time, probably probation or community service if you're a minor or it's a first offense. If you pirate the same CD off the interwebs, there are all of the above penalties plus confirmed jail time and a 500 fine per copyrighted work (not sure if it's per song or per CD.) oh, and you open yourself up to a lawsuit from the RIAA or the MPAA that could leave you and your family penniless and impoverished 'till the day you die.

No one here is saying that Piracy is justifiable, or that it's morally right, we're just saying that people don't deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for it. I wouldn't be if I stole a bunch of DVDs from a store and committed actual theft, so I should not be in danger of it if I acquire those same DVDs in a manner that does not actually deprive the producers of said material of any of their product.

[General Zod]

Yeah, "pay what you want" is fucking bullshit, because 99% of people won't pay jack and then go crowing to their buddies about this great shit they got for free. Or worse yet, send an e-mail along the lines "you're a stupid piece of shit if you think I'm paying anything" which actually has happened to me - I get one or two of those a year from my site. If you DO know someone with a "pay what you want" site fucking pay them for their work. It's not "free". It cost THEM something to make it. If you want them to make more then give a little. If you don't like it, then don't pay for it. It's pretty damn simple, really. The only time I do "pay what you want" is AFTER the first publication of something, when I've already made something for my time and effort, and at that, I usually have to adhere to an agreement to not re-release the work until a certain amount of time has passed so the first publisher can make their slice of money. Given that that has been VASTLY more profitable for me than simply self-publishing I can work with it. That is, in fact, one of the reasons artists aren't entirely self-publishing these days. You make more money it you can get picked up by a reliable company that has distributing and marketing power.

Except a number of artists who have done the "pay what you want" method have made millions doing so, with plenty copying the model. So you're clearly wrong. I'd also like to see evidence for that "99%" claim. In any case none of this ranting and random anecdote insertion addresses the point of the government using questionable legal authority to seize domains.

[Darksider]

A quick addendum to my last post, because it honestly just popped into my head right now.

There are occasions when there is a legitimate case to be made that the individual pirating materials should be liable for damages, but honestly I think the threshold for that should be proven harm to the creator of said content. I'm thinking along the lines of something like the asshole who torrented Stuart's Salvation war stories off the site and actually prevented them from being published in book format. If piracy actually prevents the release of copyrighted material, then by all means sue the bastard who released it into bankruptcy.

[General Zod]

We recently had another thread about this in N&P. I find it hard to believe that internet idiots are better at business than experienced businessmen, and these threads just tend to reinforce that belief.

Except a number of those 'experienced businessmen' and other people who want to crack down on file sharing are clueless about new technologies. Exhibit A. This assclown's definition could just as easily describe an irc chat, aim, a regular http direct download or something like rapidshare.

Consider, for instance, this excruciating description of BitTorrent: "A Bit torrent (referred to in short as 'torrent' or 'torrent file') is a files distribution system used for transferring files across a network of people." Yikes. Would you put this man in charge of your computer crime investigations?

[General Zod]

Except a number of artists who have done the "pay what you want" method have made millions doing so, with plenty copying the model.

That's not true.

Ever heard of Radiohead?

[General Zod]

It's an accurate definition of the term. It was taken out of context, but I'd suspect he just said what needed to be said - the specific implementation details are often irrelevant to programmers, and are much more so for business stakeholders.

Really, every time someone says LOL IDIOT DOESN'T KNOW TERMS, that someone just looks like the idiot. Remember "series of tubes"?

I'd hardly call it accurate when it can be talking about any number of file-sharing methods. Even wikipedia has a better definition for fuck's sake.

[Darksider]

I'm thinking along the lines of something like the asshole who torrented Stuart's Salvation war stories off the site and actually prevented them from being published in book format.

When an RIAA spokesman says something like that, it's exaggerated bullshit coming from a greedy liar.

When Stuart says it.... well, I'll let you finish the sentence.

Um, in stuart's case, there is sufficient evidence to show that the individual providing the torrent harmed his ability to distribute his content. It actually prevented the two existing novels from being published in book format, and caused him to stop writing the third. is there any evidence that any single individual pirating copyrighted material inflicts that much damage on works produced by larger entities? Mind you, I already stated that I am not defending Piracy as moral I am simply stating that the punishments should fit the crime. If you get caught torrenting a season of a T.V. show, you should be penalized accordingly, rather than sued into bankruptcy as the RIAA is wont to do.

[General Zod]

I'd hardly call it accurate when it can be talking about any number of file-sharing methods. Even wikipedia has a better definition for fuck's sake.

Why is it distinction relevant?

Because we're talking about a group responsible for investigating illegal activity. Vague definitions don't really help their case if they ever get to court.

[General Zod]

Um, in stuart's case, there is sufficient evidence to show that the individual providing the torrent harmed his ability to distribute his content. It actually prevented the two existing novels from being published in book format, and caused him to stop writing the third. is there any evidence that any single individual pirating copyrighted material inflicts that much damage on works produced by larger entities? Mind you, I already stated that I am not defending Piracy as moral I am simply stating that the punishments should fit the crime. If you get caught torrenting a season of a T.V. show, you should be penalized accordingly, rather than sued into bankruptcy as the RIAA is wont to do.

Stuart's just a crybaby. Movie studios have early versions of films leaked all the time, but they can't afford to not release them.

[Mr Bean]

We recently had another thread about this in N&P. I find it hard to believe that internet idiots are better at business than experienced businessmen, and these threads just tend to reinforce that belief.

We recently had this thing where the entire US economy melted down because Experienced Businessmen knew less than idiots on the internet.

Having experience is great, but history has show time and time again that Businessmen while great at running an existing business, are pretty shitty about dealing with new technology. Or need I remind you that experience businessmen fought the following items and tried to ban them when first put on the marketplace.

Sewing machines
The printing press
Electricity
Gunpowder
Libraries
Now getting into the modern age and things really take off
Audio tapes
VCR's
Optical Disks
Home CD-Burners
Digital Downloads
Plus thousands of little one off inventions that make disseminating content easier, the record lables tried to ban streaming are still trying to get torrenting software banned and filesharing in general.

I could list you a dozen more examples, when new technologies show up they are feared and fought against, this has been a universal pastime of human history, for every great inventor there have been five people trying to ban that invention because it upsets the status quo as the ease with which garments could be produced threatened the old sewing guilds, or the printing presses threaten the monks or gunpowder threatened the aristocracy.

[Broomstick]

Except a number of artists who have done the "pay what you want" method have made millions doing so, with plenty copying the model.

Some have done so - but how many were already known before moving to that model? For an unknown, are the odds of making a living better with "pay what you want" or attempting more traditional channels?

I'd also like to see evidence for that "99%" claim.

Oh, please - it should have been obvious that's a WAG.

Although I suspect if I bothered to pull the stats from my website you'd just dismiss it as anecdote.

In any case none of this ranting and random anecdote insertion addresses the point of the government using questionable legal authority to seize domains.

Just to make it plain - I think it's wrong for any government to seize/shut down a webite in another nation that is not violating any laws. US law does not apply in Spain, for example. Even more so, if someone in Canada is downloading something from a Spanish site the US has no business in any of that.

There are occasions when there is a legitimate case to be made that the individual pirating materials should be liable for damages, but honestly I think the threshold for that should be proven harm to the creator of said content. I'm thinking along the lines of something like the asshole who torrented Stuart's Salvation war stories off the site and actually prevented them from being published in book format. If piracy actually prevents the release of copyrighted material, then by all means sue the bastard who released it into bankruptcy.

^ This.

This causes real damage.

And, for the record, I agree that punishment should scale with the damage done.

[Broomstick]

I'm thinking along the lines of something like the asshole who torrented Stuart's Salvation war stories off the site and actually prevented them from being published in book format.

When an RIAA spokesman says something like that, it's exaggerated bullshit coming from a greedy liar.

When Stuart says it.... well, I'll let you finish the sentence.

Um, in stuart's case, there is sufficient evidence to show that the individual providing the torrent harmed his ability to distribute his content.

Other than the rare compilation, I am not aware of any book publisher willing to publish anything that's been distributed over the internet. Even an excerpt from a work in progress made available can eliminate all chances of the full work being book published. Yes, having someone offer a bit torrent of your work will fuck up your ability to publish. The publishers don't care if you consented to the distribution or not.

It actually prevented the two existing novels from being published in book format, and caused him to stop writing the third.

I'd say eliminating the possibility he can receive compensation for his effort is damage enough.

[General Zod]

Some have done so - but how many were already known before moving to that model? For an unknown, are the odds of making a living better with "pay what you want" or attempting more traditional channels?

At least a few.

Oh, please - it should have been obvious that's a WAG.

Although I suspect if I bothered to pull the stats from my website you'd just dismiss it as anecdote.

Dinky personal websites aren't really all that relevant.

[General Zod]

Because we're talking about a group responsible for investigating illegal activity. Vague definitions don't really help their case if they ever get to court.

This is why context is important. Did this come from a brief press report? Someone summarizing some points to the public or his boss? A lawyer's argument?

I'm not sure the distinction between bittorrent and aim direct transfers or whatever matters in any of them.

After going over the Affidavit I'm inclined to concede that he really was taken out of context, but that doesn't make it any less painful to read.

[Broomstick]

Like I said - you'll dismiss anything I have to offer as an anecdote.