You can use a VPN to hide your traffic from your ISP. They would only know when and how much your location makes connections. VPN technology is pretty easy to setup and is generally good for security.

On the other hand, to block Facebook, you would have to null route their hostnames. That can become a chore. Even if you don't intend to visit Facebook, unless they are null routed somehow, simply surfing most popular sites will connect you to Facebook. And that's just one site. There's tons of other trackers on the web, and most people couldn't even name a few of them. Yes, there are tools to restrict these, but they aren't as effective as a simple VPN.

I think that this sort of thing is a good argument in favor of the legislation change. This collecting of information was not enabled by the change. This is something that people could have done anyway, and still can do, and even the ISPs could have used similar technology already.

I'm not saying that it isn't bad for ISPs to sell info. I'm not in favor of the big ISPs, but I believe they are what they are because of government intervention, and not in spite of it. Also, this legislation doesn't explicitly allow them to sell information, such as what all the hype tries to indicate. It simply removes some legislation that some of the politicians believed was unfair. If they can block ISPs from selling data, why couldn't they also, by the same argument, block software like this, or sites like Facebook, which people freely give the same information to, and which openly states that they are doing so to track you and sell your habits. Furthermore, a VPN could prevent such tracking by your ISP, but not by itself from these other sites. Facebook is already much better at selling your traffic than any ISP could be anytime soon, and yet nobody is lobbying Washington to demand they add legislation to prevent that.

I'll grant that ISPs are a bit different, but I think that overall, software like this is much more of a potential issue than the legislation it is attempting to protest. If you have a problem with the legislation, you should have a problem with this software also. Or is it only okay because they claim to only be gathering data from people you don't care about?

Piracy is one of the greatest forms of advertising. In some businesses, it's called "word of mouth". Growing up, many of the products I was introduced to, and subsequently became loyal customers of, was thanks to "piracy" of one sort or another. Back then, nobody saw it as a bad thing. The rule of thumb was copy all that you want as long as you don't try to make a profit from it or pass it off as your own.

When I was younger and still listened to mainstream music, my favorite band was Metallica. I heard them on the radio a few times, but I didn't know who they were. That is, until one of my friends loaned me a cassette tape. Then, a series of them. I was hooked. I bought every CD I could find (even though I already had the tapes), and I tuned into every radio station that played them. From what I understand, they owe a lot of their success to piracy. It's a shame that they attacked Napster. By the way, has anybody heard anything from them lately? I wonder how their anti-piracy campaign is working?

It wasn't just music. Everything from software and video games to free food came along my way, and I often rewarded the company with my business. I was always more loyal to companies that treated me like I was a prize to be one, and not a resource to be manipulated. I hope that the media companies realize this before we lose too many of our rights. As for me, I've already given up on them.

Just because you, the end user, doesn't see something, doesn't mean that you aren't actively engaging it. Everytime you open a web page, your browser usually makes several requests to retrieve stylesheets, scripts, and every image on the page. There is nothing that requires those items to come from the site you think they do. If a rogue script is there, then it gets on your computer and likely has all the permission that you've allowed for the page you're on, possibly including cookie information. Also, a script could quietly auto-redirect you to a phishing page, etc.

Very true. It's something that has bothered me for a while. I'd really rather not have Facebook and others tracking me all over the web, and yet, they usually do. Even while you're viewing this very page, there are icons for Twitter, Facebook, and Google which must be loaded from their site. IIRC, some of those ToS won't allow you to use their logo, so it has to come from their site. Even the website has a copy of the image, you still need to use their site for stats and other nifty functionality. In modern sites, that is almost always done by client side JavaScript which makes users send traffic to their site. All of that can be bypassed, but I don't know anybody who does for long.

I think that people would be truly shocked to find out how much information they are sending about themselves, and how many sites collect it that they are unaware of. Most of that comes because of an ignorance about how the web works. What makes it sad is that most of them don't care as long as they get to chat with friends on their Facebook page.</rant>

And why should it? The developer was paid from the initial sale. Part of the value of the product for the initial buyer was the fact that it was his to now keep or sell. Wen you buy something, it's yours, and you have to right to use it, sell it, or throw it away if you want.

How many other industries let you sell something, and then still keep all rights to it? When a car company sells you a car, they don't demand that every time you sell that car, they get a portion of the sale. If you buy fries at McDonalds, your friend doesn't have to pay McDonalds a fee if you give them one of your fries. Suppose that I went out and built a radio and sold it to somebody. You would think I was crazy if I demanded that each time it was sold or given a way, I should get some of the profit. You would think me insane if I pushed laws demanding that you never take it apart or use its parts for other things. And yet, that is exactly what you propose for games. It's interesting to see how you and others like you have been conditioned to express shock and resentment when it's legal for people to do the same things with media that they do with any other legal product.

Also, it's been a while since I've bought any games, but I find it unlikely that somebody would pay 90% of the new product price when they could get the new, out of the box version for only 10% more. Of course, if they would, that only goes to further show how much resentment people are feeling for the manufacturers.

I think that you miss the point. Nobody is trying to stop them from making a profit. This isn't about us trying to make them poor, it's about people being fed up with companies acting more like parasites trying to squeeze more revenue from their product their predecessors did and is worth paying. They treat the consumers like they need their products. They forget that people aren't always able or willing to pay higher and higher prices for their merchandise.

Sure, F2P games are often there to provide a profit. We don't have a problem with that like we didn't have a problem buying and trading games back in the 80's and 90's. When I was growing up, part of the fun of buying a game was that after you got bored with it, you could trade it off with one of your friends. You'd still buy the latest games that came out when you had the cash, but your old games still held value. Even in this new age, I still enjoy breaking out the old Nintendo games sometimes.

As a side note, there are many truly free games out there. It's called OSS. I know that some people will complain about the low quality compared to the more polished proprietary games, but at least we have some free options. As for me, I haven't found any game, for pay or for free, that I enjoy as much as nethack. So, let them make a profit, but when that profit is made to spite the consumer, I say it's time to look for an alternative.

These protests might do a little good and kill some of these bills. The problem is that the bills keep coming. How long will people protest? They will eventually tire of protests and blackouts for each and every bill. The only answer is to stop it all at its source.

This sort of legislation is being funded and pushed by the big media companies who are afraid of losing their oligarchy. If we want to do something that will last, we need to limit their funding and rethink how we get our information and entertainment. Y Combinator has already planned to fund such startup companies, and Reddit already has it's own community to gather ideas. I think that it's time to do more to address the real problem.

I'm a bit on the fence. I don't like mandated censorship (by governments), but I'm sometimes okay with private entities censoring themselves. The problem here is that Twitter seems to be bending to the will of the various governments, and doing so in a time when it's best to act out against those governments. However, something else that I must consider is that if it doesn't comply, it might have to be banned by those governments, so this might actually allow them to be more useful there. After all, people can still get useful information out by bypassing censorship. In the end, I'm still not strongly on either side.

That's exactly the point. These media companies have been expanding their "rights" for years while shrinking ours. If the copyright system was anything like it is now back when these companies started doing business, they would have been sued out of existence before anybody knew who they were. They want to make it big playing by one set of rules, but then change the rules to prevent others from doing the same.

I think that it's a wonderful idea. Hollywood is already on the way out, and it needs a shove. We need to see more real innovation from the public, and not the same old stale model. There's a new community on Reddit seeking to do just that: /r/KillHollywood. I don't know if that is where the next big idea could come from, but it could be a place to give some of us a voice.

Gold is very practical. What makes it so valueable is the fact that it has uses in many situations and across different cultures. In a society interested in manufacture, gold can be made into a very thin conductor that doesn't corrode. Practically all societies adorn themselves or their possesions with jewelry, and gold is shiny and able to be easily crafted which makes it well suited to that. Gold does not corrode and can be melted to remove impurities and reformed into new uses when the old form goes out of style. It's easy to store and carry requiring no special containment or transport conditions.

It's important to base a currency on something static, whatever that may be. As it is now, once I get my paycheck, it's worth less than it was when I worked for it. Until something changes, it isn't a bad idea to buy whatever you know you will need as soon as it is practical. Buying your grocieries as far in advance as you can is a good idea. At some point, the system will collapse. How hard is uncertain, but things can't go on like this. Ammunition might be a good investment. Even if thre is a bloodless revolution, you can still use the rounds for hunting or self defense. For the long term, gold is still the best bet, though.