That’s right. But it’s actors, the directorial team, Teamsters, the crew, etc. Pretty much everyone on a set.

They’re not getting residuals as a matter of law, but through contract with the unions. And if those residuals are declining, then the unions that they belong to should find some other way of funding the health care plans and whatnot.

Oh please. Millions if not billions of copies of copyrighted content downloaded every year and you suggest there’s no evidence. C’mon.

Downloaded content does not equal lost profits. If none of those users would have bought a DVD, then you’ve lost exactly $0.

On the other hand, you’d still be in an economic recession, and have to compete with video games, music, etc. for consumer dollars.

There’s also stuff like iTunes and Netflix, which is how people watch movies nowadays – instead of buying DVD’s. If the downstream revenues from those services are less than the downstream revenues from DVD’s, then those revenues will be lower, without even considering piracy.

And yes Masnick has pirate friends. Some of the so-called “tech entrepreneurs” who signed the letter Masnick orchestrated have their own history of copyright infringement.

If that’s how you’re judging “pirates,” then the music and movie industries are bigger “pirates” than the tech entrepreneurs – since they’ve had more of a “history of copyright infringement” than the entrepreneurs do.

In any case: one of the selling points of PROTECT IP was that it would not affect any of the entrepreneurs that signed the letter. It is supposed to be narrowly tailored to affect only sites with no purpose other than wholesale piracy of complete media.

But thanks for being honest. By including those entrepreneurs in your definition of “piracy,” you’ve just shown that PROTECT IP is not about sites like NinjaVideo, it’s about anyone who tries to innovate without the legacy industries’ approval.

Bullshit. Residuals are paid on foreign box office, broadcast television, premium cable and basic cable.

None of which are being affected by piracy! You’re really just proving my third point.

And you totall missed this point. Think of what would happen if PROTECT IP was around in the days when VHS was just starting out. Valenti would have labeled all VCR’s were devices “dedicated to infringing activity.” Anyone who made them would have their storefronts shut down; their assets cut off; and all magazines with advertisements for VHS tapes would be required, by law, to pull them.

And the aftermarket from VHS tapes – which, for some studios, dwarfed tickets sales – would never have existed.

Whatever the next version of the VHS tape is, it will involve the internet. PROTECT IP will allow studios to kill it before it’s even born. That’s bad for consumers, and ultimately, bad for the industries themselves. That includes the actors, crew, and etc. who have just lost a future revenue stream.

I guess if damage to society is defined as the inability to get copyrighted content for free, you have a point.

PROTECT IP attacks free speech; quashes competition; and makes the internet less secure. It puts the costs of enforcement onto third-party ISP’s, payment processors, and advertisers. It wastes law enforcement resources on something that isn’t necessarily criminal, and probably won’t stop most infringement anyway. Most importantly, it is a blank check to the goverment and third parties to shut down websites without warning.

Any of these things, alone, would harm the public more than piracy harms the public.

And the best you can come up with is that its opponents just want stuff for free?