It's quite interesting reading some of your posts Alan. I doubt we would agree on much but the way you write indicates alot of thought has gone into it.

I have been watching the US NFL football championship games today.

After seeing the adverts for upcoming movies, I shall find boycotting them quite painless.

If the entertainment industry is concerned about lost revenue, perhaps it should stop blaming bittorrent and start producing stuff that's more than a glorified plotless CGI cartoon.

Sheesh.

The internet was created by good hearted intelligent folks,I mean I got my first domain name for free,then an evil ISP I was on tried to sell it to me... so I cursed them and left.

I agree with H_TeXMeX_H its up to each of us to resist in our own way according to our abilities and conviction... I hate these greedy good for nothing skumbags.

Or maybe that's what they want you to think...?

What you're effectively saying is that anonymous should stop because they're making hackers or those against SOPA/PIPA look bad and leading to the passing of more acts like SOPA? Almost every protest, ever since the advent of mass media has made protesters look bad, because the media companies have done their damnedest to make sure of it. If there is a "peaceful protest" of 10,000 people and 50 yobs who just turned up to trash some shops, loot and fight the police, the media will be there filming the yobs. If there is a peaceful protest with no yobs present, the media will focus on those seen to be laughing and joking or dressed in an eccentric manner. A protest goes on for hours, possibly days, the media shows you a few seconds in a news reel.

Your next inferred argument is that because anon are perceived to be feeding such legislation rather than preventing it that they must be "government black ops". The issue there is that if people start to think that groups like anon are "black ops", they will start to lose support and the public's sympathy with these "hacktivist" groups as a whole will be diminished - which plays right into the hands of the government - and of course their bedfellows the big media corporations.

In my opinion it doesn't matter whether anon are the real thing or not - we will probably never know. Whatever they do, the media and the administration will focus on their perceived bad points. If anon hit a big corporation's website, the media will focus on the details of the ordinary people who had accounts there. If anon DDoS e.g. a credit card company, the media will focus on the effect on "the customers". The real problem is quite simply fat cats losing money, but that will be hidden behind the scenes with preference given to the "inconvenience to our customers"...

You know... I can't actually remember a "peaceful protest" achieving much... ever?

Look at the protests against the 2003 Iraq War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Februa...ti-war_protest

Now compare that to the Arab Spring, where people took up arms in an attempt to overthrow dictators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_spring

Compare it also to strike action - where an oppressed work force withholds it's labour in the pursuit of better conditions and pay. If those same workers had restricted their activities to turning up on Saturday morning before lunch with their placards simply chanting, workers would still be "enjoying" industrial revolution pay and conditions... Strike action worked because it hit the big businesses where it hurts: in the pocket. In short without some real incentives for change the status quo prevails.

Insurrections, rebellions and insurgencies worked historically because they hit the oppressive, dictatorial regime in the only way they would understand it.

Now I would like to see how a "peaceful internet based protest" works.

Lots of 'do not buys', I guess I know what your megaupload premium account was used for.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...rested-924657/

Do not buy, isnt going anywhere near far enough IMO. Not buying isnt going to change much, unless you can get a very large percentage of the population to go along with you (doubtful). Even if that happened, we would probably end up with RIAA/MPAA screaming even louder that 'due to piracy we are losing $XXXXXXXX, its got to be cracked down on even harder!'.

DO BUY from people who are independant of RIAA/MPAA, or better active in fight against RIAA/MPAA, DRM and the like. That will keep sales going, making the likely RIAA/MPAA 'we have to crack down even harder' response less likely. Added bonus, it would show RIAA/MPAA we dont want the dross....er....'products' they make.

Go to places like this to get some music-

http://www.nettwerk.com/

Also, +1 to a lot of you, in particular-
k3lt01- Totally valid point, using "gubmint" shows no respect at all. While some governments might not diserve respect, teating them without respect does the idea being put forward no favours.
caravel- That said what I was thinking, saved me doing a much worse job of putting forward the idea you did.

To put my own spin on it- the whole 'boycott' idea is the state sanctioned way of dealing with the 'problem'. If the colonies had only tried petitioning the crown or parliment in 1776 you would have a different date for the breaking away of the Thirteen Colonies....if it happened at all.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...box-office.ars
Makes ye wonder where all their loss is in the first place

It is their estimated loss, eg virtual money loss, eg somewhat non existent loss.

The flawed logic imo is thinking one download = one lost sale

Which is an ad hominem argument.

I have to say that I don't think the spelling/slang used by the OP is at all relevant to this debate or even an issue. There are other points far more worthy of challenge.

It's common policy/practice and perhaps made famous (infamous?) by Microsoft.

I don't know, but

is a false assertion. It most definitely is possible to compete with free. Just offer a superior service. It isn't hard to beat the quality of most of the crappy cams that end up on p2p networks. Most of them have poor picture quality, and terrible sound. I'd much rather watch a legitimate stream, or even rent a disc, for a satisfying viewing experience. As for going to the cinema ... well ... that's just not very fun for me.

Some may not be aware that Youtube offers legitimate streams for many movies and television shows. (I don't know whether they are available to users outside North America, but that's a separate issue.) Just browsing through the Free Movies and Classic TV sections, I see a great deal to keep me occupied.

Not really, in common law it would show H_Tex as an unstable, unreliable and hostile witness.

Never go down to the lowest common denominator in a discussion, if you are ripping at others never give them anything to show your at the same level. This is not just a spelling mistake it is a deliberate action by someone who shows a massive amount of disdain for anything governmental. Instead of acting in a childish manner he should in actual fact give options (not like don't buy) that the governments could use.

It has been common policy for years (circa 12th-13th centuries), way before MS was even a pipe dream. Economics depends on profit and loss, if you haven't made as much money as you did last year or as much as you predicted you would you have to show a loss somehow. This has been going on since before the beginning of the capitalist system and stock markets.

This is not a court of law, it's a forum and your post was what amounts to "playing the man rather than the ball".

No one was ripping at anyone as far as I can see until you joined the discussion with:

If someone wants to show disdain for government and spell government "gubmint" that's up to them. It's what's loosely referred to as "freedom of speech". As to how he appears to others or comes across, railing against someone for their spelling/slang in this pedantic fashion reflects much more poorly on yourself than it does on them.
Talk about missing the point...

No one was talking about profit and loss, but MS and other media corporations equating downloads to lost sales - despite not actually making losses.

Sorry but it is you who has missed the point with the point of my posting.

So therefore nothing H_Tex says here is worth anything.

Um how do you figure that? I am pointing out the flaws in H_Tex's method, if he (or you) doesn't like that then I can't help it, but while people claim the higher ground and behave in a manner that lowers their appearance they are doing themselves, and their message, a disservice.

I haven't railed against anyone and if I have then it is the same you are doing now to me and what he is doing with nearly everything he discusses. You can't have it both ways Caravel, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Again it is you who has missed the point.

It is all part of the business model and has been for 900 years, MS did not make it (in)famous. Point is someone does something so someone else says its taking away from me so I am losing even though I have spent all this money. It is money they never had but they felt they had the potential to earn if it was not for outside interference.

You're seriously clutching at straws here... I still don't see how your ad hominem posts in this thread are justifiable.

No you're attempting to point out the flaws in the poster not the method. When you attack someone as "childish", attack their use of language or delivery, you're attacking the poster - you're not intelligently taking on their argument. In fact you're almost certainy taking "the higher ground" and doing yourself and your message a disservice, if you are going to nit pick over spelling...

I haven't used a personal attack, debasing words such as "childish" nor picked fault in another posters spelling or delivery of their post.

I'm fairly certain that it will not be possible to convince you otherwise, so let's leave it at that: Agree to disagree? I'm done with the thread anyway.

@ Caravel, your entire post just did what you say I'm doing to H_Tex. Well done!

So you expect me just to stop because you say "so lets leave it at that", sorry Caravel it doesn't work that way.


Regardless of your intentions in this thread I will take my right of reply to you.

Just because you interpret my actions one way does not mean my intent was what you think it was. I will comment, just like you have, on posting styles if I wish to. If I choose to call a posting style as childish then so be it if you choose to take it as though I am saying the poster of that style is childish then the problem is yours not mine.

Am I? So how does asking H_Tex a question become offensive to you? Asking pertinent questions of someone who continuously posts as a cyber activist is my justification. He claims other groups are "black ops", he claims they do nothing for the cause so I ask a relevant question about what he is doing.

So you didn't see me asking him what is he doing?

Nit picking? Hmmm, I made a post a few days ago and yesterday you come in and get going on it. I like how your using my words against me, well done. Problem is you are taking my discussion and twisting its intent to suit your purpose. I asked H_TEx a pertinent question about his style and approach you however haven't asked anything pertinent.

Haven't you? so why then are you arguing with me? What is your point here? If discussing the posters style is offensive to you why are you doing it? Let H_Tex answer a very simple question about his style and reasons for posting the way he does. Let H_Tex offer relevant evidence so we can understand his reasoning. That way other people might get an understanding of why he posts the things he does and why he posts the way he does.

If you wish we can continue this further, you can PM me anytime you like and we can discuss posting styles and their merits in private.

In some ways, yes, but there is a bit of history between k3lt01 and H_TeXMeX_H.

I'd disagree. It doesnt make the point H_TeXMeX_H is trying to make useless, but it does reduce the quality of the arguement IMO. Still, its not worth pulling the daggers out over terminology.....besides being pointless, it reduces the quality of the whole thread. Comon caravel and k3lt01, you're both better posters and thinkers than that. Degrading into mud slinging and 'who said what to who' isnt really going to do much but derail what could still be an interesting discussion and exchange of points of view. :D

I'd prefer to see investment/profit ratio and ROI (rate of return) rather than straight takings. Point though, its not like the box office is dropping...

IMO the one download = one lost sale is something that RIAA/MPAA should know isnt true, or is at least debatable. No doubt they do use that logic though, at least in public, even if they know, or at least suspect that its not really true.

SOPA/PIPA is far more complex and far-reaching than just MPAA/RIAA materials. Even in the basic outline you will see 'counterfeit goods', and in some ways that is a bigger target than online 'piracy'. SOPA/PIPA is a 'big stick' that could (will, almost certainly) have effects on online activities far outside the 'piracy' area.