SB Nation Opposition to SOPA
SB Nation has issued a formal statement on SOPA, in light of today's online "blackout" protests. Read about it here.
4 months ago
WholeCamels
61 comments
2 recs |
Comments
SOPA would pretty much ruin SBN
Its all about the []_[]
#FirePaulHolmgren
by philiafan14364 on Jan 18, 2012 11:38 AM EST reply actions
…not to mention the rest of the Internet.
Follow @PhillyFollower
Writer at Iggles Nest
#HireSpags
#StopSOPA
by PhiladelphiaEagles on Jan 18, 2012 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
SOPA is awful, it puts SB Nation and The Good Phight at risk in a bunch of ways.
That said, I really wish people would actually, you know, pay for stuff instead of using torrent sites.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
The White House has already said SOPA would be DOA, so why such a fuss?
by Boundforbeach on Jan 18, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Have to make a public example out of it, or else it’ll definitely be back if Romney becomes President. Though it might be back anyway.
I really wish people would actually, you know, pay for stuff instead of using torrent sites.
Steam and iTunes prove that, given the opportunity, lots of people will happily pay for stuff instead of downloading from torrent sites. That’s what really gets me angry about SOPA/PIPA. The current business model followed by many in the entertainment industry is dying and they’re just trying to hang on to it for dear life instead of innovating, like you’re supposed to do in these kinds of situations.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 18, 2012 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
SOPA/PIPA
I’m in the mood for Mexican food now.
by Cormican on Jan 18, 2012 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
PIPPA
I’d hit that…
"He's a bum...this one stinks...this jerk can't play."-- A father teaching his daughter the Phillies lineup from the program roster, the Vet, c.1998
I really wish people would actually, you know, make stuff available for sale that I want to buy. I’ll admit to having used torrents, but it’s primarily been to find ten to twenty year old books whose publishers are out of business and who current rights are held by corporations who have expressed no interest in republishing the works in question. If a good is not available on the free and open market, alternative channels will be sought. Economics is not rocket science.
Bob.
Good point. Or what about out of print records or really underground stuff. There’s alot of old punk and metal records that are out of print that you’ll never find on iTunes.
No difference to the artist either way though, since they don’t make cash on either transaction.
I’ve mostly used torrents for stuff I already had and either wore out and/or had in an obsolete format (all of my Overkill/Nuclear Assault/Possessed/Uniform Choice/etc. stuff I bought on tape in the late 80’s / early 90’s before CDs took over). I also used them for a few years for new releases when I was doing album reviews for a metal website (I always went and bought the good ones).
Most artists don’t make a whole lot even on the new sales. That said, each non-buy due to pirating (which doesn’t equal the number of pirated downloads, and may actually be a negative number if the pirating encourages more purchases than it discourages) is still lost income for the artist. It just happens to be far more lost income for the RIAA’s member companies.
In sarcasm mode here for a minute, but I’m just waiting for these companies to go after the biggest filesharers of all – libraries.
Bob.
well, actually, libraries are a good point, sarcasm or not, as are used markets… because, in fact, “each non-buy due to pirating” cannot necessarily be said to be lost income… it could be lost income, or it could be like that tape someone made you of that band you liked, after which you got obsessed and bought everything they did, or it could be a sale you never would have had in the first place
Uniform Choice? I didn’t take you for an SE HC kinda guy. I was more partial to Verbal Assualt and Life Sentence.
Then don’t listen. And don’t illegally download. This isn’t a loaf of bread to feed your starving family.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
Grooveshark’s where it’s at. Free music on my computer, and for $8 a month I get it on my phone. It’s great.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 18, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Most songs on iTunes are $0.99. Only shitty modern day pop music singles are more. May I suggest avoiding that heap of garbage? It will save you $0.30 per song.
I consider myself a pretty frugal person, but I have no problem spending money for songs I like and listening to them over and over again. Hell, you can buy select games sports games for $1.99, including every Phillies game from the 2008 Playoffs. It’s totally legal. And totally awesome.
If money is that tight with you, there are numerous ways to legally listen to music you like for free.
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
While there are more than stupid pop songs at $1.29, I totally agree with you as to spending money for the songs I love and the videos I want to watch. By paying for them, I insure that music and television keeps getting made- something that will not happen if people continue to steal it.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
There are a ton of site where you can legally listen to music free
Theres always Pandora or Slacker Radio if you want a radio station.
Or as TheOrangeCone mentions you can use Grooveshark (which I recommend) or Spotify if you want to tailor playlists of specific songs to your liking.
Penny Arcade has one of the better arguments against piracy.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 18, 2012 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Amazon mp3s are mostly .99. Google is at .69 for a lot. Cheaper by the album, sometimes greatly cheaper.
I’m locked in with amazon, and I get mp3s, not whatever iTunes uses. And I play them on my rio pmp 300.
Why look'st thou so?' -"With my crossbow
I shot the Albatross."
by RememberthePhitans on Jan 18, 2012 4:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
when I download rap mixtapes, which are intended to be free, would that be against this stupid law too?
Last name Ever
First name Greatest
#PayDeSeanJackson
The point isn’t that any individual act would be against the law – the point is that the places where you might access those things that might be illegal wouldn’t exist anymore.
These are pieces of legislation designed to prevent sharing entirely, not track down illegal sharers.
How long does something that’s blocked from access continue to exist?
If a tree falls on the internet, but the DNS won’t allow you to see treefalling.com, will they stay in business?
by Steve J on Jan 19, 2012 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
In other news...
Cole apparently won’t take Jered Weaver money, ie, no hometown discount. Let the posturing commence. link
Might want to put this in the Hamels post so it doesn’t get overlooked. Or a FanShot.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jan 18, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry… give me a 15 yard penalty for illegal trying to jack a thread. Won’t happen again.
by Boundforbeach on Jan 18, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
The worst part of this—and other anti-piracy bills—is the vagueness of the language. It allows for intentional misintepretation and abuse of the law it intends to create. This is certainly not in the best interests of a “free” country.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
No SOPA, radio!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 18, 2012 1:53 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I said this on another blog but...
I find it interesting that both politicians and sports GMs fail to realize action for the sake of action doesn’t help anyone. There is a problem, but this isn’t how to fix it.
by RogueConvict on Jan 18, 2012 2:17 PM EST reply actions 3 recs































