Sad but true, it would be really really hard to imagine Facebook, or YouTube appearing under this proposed law.
Oh and Rubio is now against it, to that I refer to him to a comment I saw while surfing: “look how quick Rubio became a flip-flopper!”
And what about Chris Dodd? Accusing the web sites participating in the blackout of acting like a bunch of spoiled children, and advising them to dialogue and discuss the the law first :rolleyes:, when it is already public record that the the ones that did act like spoiled children where the congress critters that already voted down almost all amendments that were proposed during the dialogue that already took place when the law was being discussed. And now that the opposition has finally shown up in force those same petulant politicians that were voting “nay” to sensible amendments so many times in the Judiciary Committee suddenly found “enlightenment”… Sorry, not buying that, keep the pressure guys, now you know what they meant by “eternal vigilance”.
This is incorrect on two points. One, it was a provision removing the detention of US nationals from the scope of the Act that the Obama administration successfully had removed. Two, this was not the grounds upon which Obama was threatening to veto: he was only threatening to veto because he wanted to be the one to decide who gets thrown into a military prison, not Congress.
As for why he didn’t veto… all it would do is make Congress have to overrule his veto with a specific majority (I can’t remember whether it’s 60%, 67% or 75%).
This was not Obama making a stand for the rights of common Americans. It was two muggers getting into an argument about who gets to keep their victim’s watch, and one backing down because he knew he’d lose a fight.
Dang, dude (and you are a guy right) that was one of the funniest a weird things I have ever seen.
The part where the lady is crying and the other cautions her that Disney has claims on those emotions.
OMG.
Priceless.
I have never agreed with Herr Hitler before, but he should go to Congress and plead our case.
Nah, I’m female, but I didn’t make the parody - presumably it’s the people listed under the video, who also credit the copyright holders of the original (brilliant) film.
Well, it’s basically carte blanche for any large corporation, or really any individual with a spite-on, to shut down any site they wish and erase it from search engines and DNS servers like it never existed, with a single email.
Content hosting providers don’t investigate when they receive a Cease & Desist, they pull whatever content is targeted pronto because they, quite reasonably, don’t want any legal trouble. It’s up to whoever’s stuff was pulled down to fight the decision on their own.
In the case of SOPA, considering how vague and all-inclusive the grounds for dubbing a site “pirate”, a court battle would almost always find in the censor’s favour, too, since a single link to a copyrighted bit of material (say, a youtube video of a commercially available song, or a meme image involving Batman… or a Downfall parody) would flag the entire site as a pirate haven in the eyes of the law. Doesn’t even have to be a link posted by the site’s owners - as people have said, a comment left by someone on your blog is enough.
So, yeah. It’s bad as in “no internet any more” bad. To give you an idea closer to home, under SOPA, this very forum could be shut down for good by the first BANNED asshole with a grudge.
Well, in a weird way, I do support some forms of what some of these large corporations consider piracy.
Two specific instances come to mind, of which I do on a regular basis:
I missed a TV show I wanted to see when it aired, or I forgot to set my DVR. I’ll download the episode the next day from a piracy site and watch it so I can be caught up for next week. In my mind, this is no different than if I had recorded it on my DVR. I’m paying for my TV service, and they have acknowledged that “time shifting” a program is ok, and since I can fast forward through every single commercial should I desire, downloading an episode with the commercials removed is, IMO, the same damn thing.
A TV show is off the air, and I want to watch it, but am unsure if I’ll like it. If I can’t find episodes on Netflix, Hulu, or other 100% legal streaming sites, I’ll download an episode of two, If I don’t like it, no big deal, they weren’t getting my money in the first place. If I do like it, I’ll buy the DVDs. In that regard, piracy has helped them.
However, these are specific instances, and I’m well aware that there are lots of people downloading season after season of shows instead of buying DVDs, and downloading albums instead of buying them on iTunes or Amazon. But the MPAA/RIAA’s insistence that every download is a “lost sale” is asinine…I know plenty of people who pirate more because they can than because they actually desire the content they’re downloading. I have a friend with at least 10 terabytes of downloaded TV and movies, mostly of stuff he has no desire to watch, and never will. He does it more because he can, and maybe partly because he sees himself as some sort of digital-age archiver, or something…like in twenty years, people will be clamoring for episodes of Dragonball Z and he call act all smug and be like,
“I got this.”
While something should be done to help curb that, this bill goes too far.
And doesn’t address the source of the problem in any way whatsoever. Sure, sites like PirateBay and TV streaming sites are convenient for casual users, but a) streaming sites are already getting shut down left and right and forced to move every other month, which doesn’t seem to inconvenience them altogether much and b) they’re not and have never been where piracy happens. They’re a front, a fence, a retailer.
Tortuga always has been on IRC, on FTPs with phat pipes (either private or hacked without the owner being any wiser), on private instant messengers and even moreso on plain word of mouth. It was true back when copying that floppy was a big no-no, it was true back in my 0-day wAr3z high school days, and it’s still true now. As for the distribution angle, I don’t think SOPA even does anything re:peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent so…
SOPA is not just using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. It’s using a sledgehammer to smash a picture of the fly. René Magritte would disapprove.
One of the many evil features of SOPA/PIPA is that it would immunize hosting providers from any contractual or other liability for shutting down a site that was later vindicated as non-infringing – as if the playing field weren’t already skewed heavily enough in favor of the accuser.
Amen, Brother! I can hear the crunch of the crocodile’s jaws from here! I was directed earlier to EFF and was impressed. If you don’t join them, at least follow them to get a timely heads up for the next go-round.
For the record, I do support file-sharing, or “piracy” as RIAA would have it. I have used it for frivolous ends, sure. I have been able to watch programs not broadcast in my area because of the internet, and have used various online means. I do feel bad for any money I may have cost someone using a non-tracked means rather than an advertising-supported, pageview-counting means, but I don’t think non-tracked reproductions should be illegal.
The legal mechanism to punish someone who puts up an illicit rip of entertainment content would be used (and is used) to suppress embarrassing facts about various interests around the world.
The “cure” (dramatic control over information) is worse than the “disease” (lower revenues in entertainment). The least we should do is fine-tune IP law so it can’t cover vital true information (as in the lawsuits that end in gag orders now). Maybe we should give on IP and fund the arts through direct patronage.
Precisely my tack with the Lars Ulrich dustup awhile back, a rock god turned corporate schmuck the minute he decried his victimhood and got litigious with his own teenage fans.
Look at games piracy and Steam. Valve figured out that if your DRM is not onerous and you provide high value for the cost of a game, people will actually buy them, rather than pirate them. You’ll still get pirates, but most people will support your company. I never really pirated games (though I had access through a few of my friends) but all temptation to do so went away when Steam came around.
Also, look at Apples and iTunes. Sure, there’s still a lot of music piracy, but Apple showed that if you actually give value for money and, further, make it EASY to give money for stuff you actually want (reasonably priced singles rather than overpriced albums and few stupid DRM restrictions), people will flock to you. Helps that they had a hardware tie-in. Also, turns out that people who pirate also end up buying a lot of music, too.
Basically, you don’t fight piracy with stuff like SOPA. You use the power of the market to fight piracy.
My sentiments exactly. People want convenience, high fidelity and reasonable cost/usage on the whole. I think iTunes, NetFlix, and broadband on-demand services are proving to be a success.
Besides, if you’re a media company and you cripple the internet with something like SOPA, there goes all your free and viral word of mouth and sampling you’ve been benefiting from.
For posterity, here’s the form letter I got back from my congressman, Sandy Levin [bolded his stance]:
[QUOTE=cmyk]
Can anyone, anywhere, figure out a way to even put a dent in mitigating piracy? Other than actually pulling the plug on the entire internet.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for one thing, one would have to establish whether or not piracy is an actual problem to begin with.
This is a real question. I know RIAA and their ilk have been hard at work to present it as a seminal truth, but really, 99% of pirates are pirating things they wouldn’t have bought anyway. Is is wrong for them to enjoy the creative work of someone they didn’t compensate ? Of course it is. Should the providers of said work tally each instance of piracy as a lost sale, to be compensated ? Fuck no. But each and every one of their piracy-related cost estimates does.
But to answer your question anyway: straightforward competition.
Right now, pirates can get me a video game ten times faster than Steam can, for free and without any sort of DRM hassle whatsoever. Don’t have to install your third party crap, or register for your publicity chainletter, don’t get to be bombarded by your NEWS! SALE!!!, don’t have to make an account on your buggy lagged forum, don’t have a limited number of installations. Don’t have to deal with your offensive DLC monetizing plan, either.
Pirates can get me an obscure DVD you don’t sell anymore, or only sell in a different DVD zone. Hell, pirates can get me stuff that you haven’t even gotten around to subtitle yet !
Pirates can show me a handful of episodes of a show I’m iffy about and wouldn’t ever blindly drop 50 euros on for a full season.
Pirates can get me that one song I want to hear without asking me to buy an entire album I give less than a shit about (granted, that one issue is less marked these days)
And all of that they do without the backing of the billions of dollars the entertainment industry boasts, without advanced hardware or supercooled server farms or ISPs in their pockets. Why can’t 20th Century Fox give me any of those services themselves ?
Literally the only thing that stands between me and this ease of access are vague ethical hangups, which more often than not are put into question by the way publishers act towards the very artists they purport to defend and represent ; and the customers they depend on and are asking to act ethically (or ELSE).
I’m very much opposed to SOPA/PIPA, but let me play devil’s advocate to this line of thinking. Suppose I write a song. You or nobody else has a right to hear that song, even if you would pay a million dollars for it. I could never record it. I could give it away for free. If I choose to release that song only on an old Edison wax cylinder, delivered to your home by mule, is that not my absolute right as the owner of the IP?
If so, why “must” the RIAA change with the times? Can’t anti-trust laws or other competitive measures be used to lure artists away from these organizations that refuse to change?
Not technically true, at least if you publish the song. I just need to wait until the copyright term expires.
This is a very modern (last 50 years or less) interpretation of intellectual property. The ostensible reason for granting creators copyright at all was to encourage the development of creative works. Giving them absolute control in perpetuity was never considered a valid option (though our current copyright policy does indeed give copyright virtually in perpetuity). Having works get into the public domain was considered as much a public service as granting creators a limited term of copyright.
If you don’t publish, it’s also not really enforcing your “rights” so much as keeping a secret. It’s akin to Coca-cola and KFC maintaining trade secret protection for their recipes, rather than patents or copyrights.
They “must” because their business model is failing, not due to any philosophical debates. I suppose they could also choose to go out of business, but I was assuming that was off the table as a valid option. If other competitive measures lure artists away, it just proves their business model was bad and they should have changed strategies.
The reality of the situation is that they can’t maintain their monopoly on their own preferred terms. Their current business model is apparently untenable.
Their current legislative strategy is also untenable. Using legislation to enforce changes in behavior (particular for popular activities) has a bad historical track record. Hence, they “must” change with the times if they want to continue existing as money-making entities.
Something that might help piracy is to synchronise release dates of TV shows and movies. It wouldn’t be automatically easy because it would require networks in different countries to cooperate, and wouldn’t apply to shows that become popular by surprise, but, say, things like Dr Who, Sherlock and House have a guaranteed international audience. If you make people wait to get it legally, then they won’t wait.
Dr Who is sometimes broadcast at the same time, doesn’t it, or roughly, with time zone differences? The Walking Dead is too. So it can be done.
Maybe somebody should do a study on the download rates on big sites like Piratebay for synchronised episodes vs non, compared to viewing figures.
