Stop Online Piracy Act

[jasoncrew03]

Like I've said: I'm all for illegal downloads. TO A DEGREE.

What exactly does "to a degree" entail? That it is not your content being illegally downloaded?

 

[looseliam]

When a piece of music, movie or writing is created and released, there should be a term (of time) in which that product is given the chance to make a profit. After that time, having been released, it is in the public domain and should not be bound by copyright law which serves not to protect anything, but to encourage maximum profits. Neither the music or film industries are suffering from illegal downloads, they are simply making less out of their product.

There is such a term in the US. I'm not sure of the rest of the world. It was recently increased to 70 after death. I'd love for my estate to keep making money on the work I've done over my life.

 

[Apollo]

Gee, not only did I sum up the bill and provide a link to it, but I also summed up most of the posts in this thread. Have you actually read the bill? And if so, show how it prevents me from buying a movie; if you can do that, I may actually buy the censorship argument.


Literacy: The Lost Skill. Using simple words, then: I like the bill as it gives artists more protections. Which people like you think is a bad thing.


No; they oppose it because it's a knee-jerk response to anything that even smacks of limiting their illegal downloads. Like I've said: I'm all for illegal downloads. TO A DEGREE. However, limiting illegal downloads is not the same as censorship; the government is not preventing you from getting your hands on a given movie or preventing its distribution (note: that actually would be censorship). They are merely saying to actually use the artist's preferred means of distribution.

All you've done is call this censorship without actually saying how it censorship. Care to elaborate?

RG

A good example would be JUB. Because of this forum, and us posting mountains of video from YouTube, not all the videos being legal on YouTube. A person could request this site be taken down. You will no longer be able to buy porn through JUB or use this forum to complain about things.

Sakes goes for JUB owned rockettube.com, if a member posts a vid from a porn site that wasn't legally done and Jasun reported it for example, and JUB didnt act fast enough, that site could also be taken down. Essentially ruining a legitimate business. And one outlet for you to legally watch and own some porn. Or even know if the vid you see on Sean Cody is worth buying and downloading.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Why does the United States think it has such control over the world?

The sexiest question you've ever asked!

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

What exactly does "to a degree" entail? That it is not your content being illegally downloaded?

Illegal downloads are actually a part of some business models, where the downloads act as advertising for the movie or other art in question. The best example of this is arguably Japan, where the various companies tolerate illegal copies and even creations derived from their works as long as those works don't cut into the profits of the original or the downloads don't get too numerous.

FWIW...
RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

This legislation is a stepping stone to further censorship.

I don't think "censorship" means what you think it does. "Censorship" is when the government decides that you can't see something and takes active steps in that direction. With SOPA you can still watch Avatar or listen to Lady Gaga; the issue is that you must do so through the artists' distribution venue. Read: The Man is not limiting your ability to listen or watch, just that they would prefer you actually be bothered to buy a copy of it rather than enjoy the free version. If the artist wishes to offer a free version, that option is still available. That's not censorship.

Put another way: Would you mind saying HOW nailing illegal downloads is censorship?

And as for the artists I have the following: work more, bitch less. WHen I built an engine for someone, I was paid once. I wasn't allowed to charge a fee per year or per mile for it's continued use. What did I do? I worked on other projects. I detest the select few who have this "build once charge forever" mentality.

Really horrible analogy. The problem is that too many people have the mentality that they can have the engine rebuilt, but as long as they can get the car out of the shop before they pay, they're cool. That is, the idea is to not pay for a service that is based on your experience and skill, as well as for what you have paid for some of the parts, and then not only not paying for the labor, but making it seem as if you are oppressing them for wanting to get paid for the time and parts you put into the engine.

Better yet, let's say you design a new engine. Keeping to your analogy, I should be able to steal that engine, copy how it works, and then offer a free version of that engine. Should you, as the inventor, not be able to profit off the sales of the engine, or should I be able to replicate it as often as I want without kicking you back some of the profit from the engine? Sure, it would be great to offer it for free, but then the question is how do you take care of your bills.

Seriously: Show me a successful business based on giving away everything and not charging for anything and I'll back off.

RG

 

[gsdx]

Why does the United States think it has such control over the world?

This is US only, you could still go to those sites from Europe or Canada.

I'm a bit confused now. Will this apply only to American websites or will it apply to American surfers?

It would only block the website in America. So say if they took down Facebook, it would only effect facebook in America, and Canada would still be able to see it without restriction.

The internet is region and country based. This would only hurt Americans.

Okay, I'm more confused than ever now that I have read this article:

Twitter general counsel and former Google attorney Alex MacGillivray: "...if a single portion of a site was found to be guilty of copyright infringement, the whole service could be shut down at the domain level, with no regard to the legitimate users of such a service, and no way for those users to recover the precious data they entrust to the cloud."

In other words, if one bad apple posts something to Twitter that is deemed a violation of copyright, say a picture of a new movie poster, according to the wording of SOPA, Twitter, and every user of the site, would be shut down.

While this is a U.S. law, it's not just the people in the U.S. who are going to be effected by it. Most domain names from around the world, whether they are .com, .net, or .org, are managed by a domain name registry in the U.S.. So, even though you may be a Swedish travel site, since you have a .com at the end of your address, you are technically registered as a U.S. site. The proposed law effectively asserts jurisdiction over tens of millions of domain names, no matter where the site creators actually reside.

So Canada will be as effected by this law as the U.S., with Canadians having their civil liberties dictated and restricted by Hollywood and the U.S. government. The precedent that this sets for other countries who are looking for ways to justify having control over internet access and use is alarming. The degree to which we may have insight into the day to day struggles of people in places like Libya, China, Iran, or any number of countries that experience political and civil strife, could be legally curtailed all under the thin veil of protecting the entertainment industry.

http://pop-ed.celebedge.ca/2011/12/...p-online-piracy-act-or-sopa-supporters-a.html

So, the US WILL control the world.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Sakes goes for JUB owned rockettube.com, if a member posts a vid from a porn site that wasn't legally done and Jasun reported it for example, and JUB didnt act fast enough, that site could also be taken down. Essentially ruining a legitimate business. And one outlet for you to legally watch and own some porn. Or even know if the vid you see on Sean Cody is worth buying and downloading.

Note: You yourself pointed out that the mods would need to not act fast enough. In general, they have set up rules that prevent that illegal vids from being shown, give copyright holders the ability to decide whether or not to show their images, and a dozen different ways in which JUB acts in good faith to respect businesses while at the same time ensuring users get enough content to make them happy.

At the same time, however, even though failure to heed those rules can result in the material being deleted or the person being banned from the site, you are not referring to any of them as censorship. All SOPS is saying is that sites that encourage illegal activties will be given a chance to do something about it, and if they do not they will be shut down. I'm not seeing how it's censorship. For that matter, you're not exactly saying HOW it's censorship....

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

GSDX:

So Canada will be as effected by this law as the U.S., with Canadians having their civil liberties dictated and restricted by Hollywood and the U.S. government. The precedent that this sets for other countries who are looking for ways to justify having control over internet access and use is alarming. The degree to which we may have insight into the day to day struggles of people in places like Libya, China, Iran, or any number of countries that experience political and civil strife, could be legally curtailed all under the thin veil of protecting the entertainment industry.

Exactly which civil liberties are being restricted here? Fair Use and the First Amendment rights still apply. There is also the issue that real-world issues apply; sure, I as a copyright holder can slam someone for having their two-year-old sing a version of my song (they are after all changing my property in ways I may not prefer), but I would still need to deal with the PR backlash. And it's generally acknowledged that if I put time and effort into something, as well as pay for the equipment, then I should get something out of the deal besides well wishes.

"Civil liberties". Yet another buzzword that as soon as it is mentioned, brains are required to shut down and just go with whatever the person is saying, no matter how idiotic it is....

RG

 

[healingduck]

Funny thing is, You hear the RIAA and the DHS complaining so loud about this, yet I saw something similar to this a few days ago on the news.... http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57345342-245/bittorrent-downloads-linked-to-riaa-dhs-ip-addresses/

Not only are they probably doing it themselves, but as others have stated, I'm sure this is part of a bigger scheme. In my opinion, there are other ways the bill could have been written. I have not read over the bill myself, but for the sounds of it it seems like its overreaching. People WILL pirate regardless. Period. But its a matter of do they want to sign a bill giving them these ridiculous rights.

What can they do about it? I don't know. Should something be done about pirating? Eh.... I'm sort of neutral on it. I understand both sides of it. It's really a shame when a game or CD gets X amount of sales and was pirated hundreds of thousands of times. But on the same token, I can't even imagine paying $1 per son on iTunes. I would have paid over $1000 on music...... Yea. I was a bit pissed when they shut down Limewire, but I found another way to download music. So I guess I would be ''pro-pirating'' in certain situations.

<insert all pirating is wrong>

 

[Apollo]

Note: You yourself pointed out that the mods would need to not act fast enough. In general, they have set up rules that prevent that illegal vids from being shown, give copyright holders the ability to decide whether or not to show their images, and a dozen different ways in which JUB acts in good faith to respect businesses while at the same time ensuring users get enough content to make them happy.

At the same time, however, even though failure to heed those rules can result in the material being deleted or the person being banned from the site, you are not referring to any of them as censorship. All SOPS is saying is that sites that encourage illegal activties will be given a chance to do something about it, and if they do not they will be shut down. I'm not seeing how it's censorship. For that matter, you're not exactly saying HOW it's censorship....

RG

Valid note. But they would only be given a certain time and just because they stop one poster one day does not mean another poster the next day wouldn't do it again. Also, imagine If a dick company (a competitor without a forum perhaps) decides to delve into 3 or 4 year old post that has been dead for just that long and report all those. Suddenly mods and admins for who this is a part time thing or simply a volunteer service are busy trying to keep up with requests or preventing new ones from popping up. A vicious cycle that will hurt the business.

I'm all for a bill protecting artists rights. But not one that hurts small businesses in the process so you are forced to go to a artist poorly made site that offers nothing good and charges you insane prices because a law prevents smart competition and innovation.

 

[Apollo]

Note: You yourself pointed out that the mods would need to not act fast enough. In general, they have set up rules that prevent that illegal vids from being shown, give copyright holders the ability to decide whether or not to show their images, and a dozen different ways in which JUB acts in good faith to respect businesses while at the same time ensuring users get enough content to make them happy.

At the same time, however, even though failure to heed those rules can result in the material being deleted or the person being banned from the site, you are not referring to any of them as censorship. All SOPS is saying is that sites that encourage illegal activties will be given a chance to do something about it, and if they do not they will be shut down. I'm not seeing how it's censorship. For that matter, you're not exactly saying HOW it's censorship....

RG

You are correct that SOPA is giving companies opportunities to protect their content, but all these sites also understand human nature and further the nature of governments. This bill gives too much power to major corporation to destroy or shit down sites that might hurt or destroy the business or huge cash flow of the major businesses. CD's and DVD's used to be seen as the end of media industries and businesses attempted to destroy them. In the end, they forced companies to innovate and ended up increasing their profits in a major way.

Now online media and streaming is that new avenue and just like what came before it, there is piracy attached. Just like mixed tapes and recorded shows were the piracy of old. If these companies want to compete and survive in the digital age, they need to again innovate and progress instead of running to this weak and greedy congress.

It seems to me the FCC is one of the only agencies that still have the balls to protect the people and try and maintain competition.

 

[Apollo]

Another good, real life, example is the patent laws around the world. Patents are great thing and should completely exist. But the laws are in some cases way too loose and hurts compegition and innovation.

Apple v HTC and Samsung. None of these are small companies. It Apple has managed to have HTC phones in the US banned that allow hyperlinking on their phones because Apple owns the patent. Samsung has won a battle in Europe where Apple can no longer sell iPhones and iPads or any iOS device in European nations for violating one of their patents. All started by Apple. Apple is going after the phone makers instead of Google which makes the Android OS. Android has pushed a lot of innovative designs and features in their android platform that has forced apple to play catch up (even if no one will admit it) and improve their mobile OS which came in the form of iOS 5.

The great alternatives and competition android offers is hurting the iPhone and iPad business so instead of making a infinitely more compelling product, they are suing the problem away. Apple was able to get android devices banned in Europe, Australia and the US. All of these countries and continents have democratic, free market societies but these companies are instead using the courts for their problems.

Now if apple can do this to two of the largest corporations in the world. Samsung being bigger than Apple by leaps and bounds, imagine what could happen to the really small guys who don't have legal armies?

Patents shouldnt go away, but there needs to be serious reform worldwide. Or else you won't be able to buy an iPhone of HTC android if you want.

Mind you, all companies have the ability to repeal and some have successfully.

I am also writing all these posts from my iPhone 4s because I am not home.

If you want to read about all this stuff just good patent wars or tech patent wars. All these lawsuits are legit claims. Some are absolutely absurd like the hyperlinking case.

 

[Apollo]

Conservatives Lining Up In Opposition of SOPA.

Views on copyright law have never broken down cleanly along ideological or partisan lines, but many of the key supporters for the Stop Online Piracy Act have come from the political right. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and it enjoys support from right-leaning, corporate-funded organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Tax Reform.

But a growing number of right-leaning individuals and organizations have come out against SOPA. Last Wednesday, the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation's largest and most influential conservative think tanks, published an article by senior research fellow James Gattuso warning about the "unintended consequences" of SOPA. And on Thursday, he was joined in opposing SOPA by Erick Erickson, editor of the popular conservative blog RedState.

In his article, Gattuso noted that SOPA would undermine Internet security by delaying the implementation of DNSSEC and by causing Internet users to use offshore DNS servers to circumvent DNS blocks. He also warned that government regulation of search results would be "the first step down a classic slippery slope of government interference that has no clear stopping point."

Seems, this bill is over.

A great example of what happens when a tech company turns agaisnt it's own. Considering who GODaddy sells and advertises too, I am surprised they supported it. They should have known the tech powers that be would hate this bill.

Major Internet companies have formed a united front in their opposition to the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act. Well, almost. One exception has been the domain registrar GoDaddy. In a op-ed published in Politico shortly after SOPA was introduced in the House, GoDaddy applauded the bill and called opponents "myopic."

Now furious Internet users at reddit (owned by Advance Publications, which also owns Condé Nast) have organized a boycott of the registrar.

The article doesnt note how in one day over 20,000 domains transfered from the site.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

This is the part that's sort of amusing me. You have people that haven't read it, yet nonetheless feel that they have to comment on it. How can you intelligently comment on something you haven't read? It's right up there with people that refuse to read Catcher in the Rye because they don't read sports books...

But on the same token, I can't even imagine paying $1 per son on iTunes. I would have paid over $1000 on music...... Yea. I was a bit pissed when they shut down Limewire, but I found another way to download music. So I guess I would be ''pro-pirating'' in certain situations.

So why not subscribe to a site that allows all the downloads you could ever want, even if it limits the numbers of devices you can listen to them on? Napster is one example of this; you pay $15/mo, and you can listen to all the music you want on your computer and two other devices. You do have to log in every few days, but otherwise you're paying about the same as you would for one or two CD's. And there are equivalent options for movies.

With all of the options available, I just don't see the reason why there is as much pirating as there is. It gets really amusing when you realize that some of these pirates are paying more per month pirating than they would getting the songs and movies legitimately, and then they complain about the money aspect....

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Now online media and streaming is that new avenue and just like what came before it, there is piracy attached. Just like mixed tapes and recorded shows were the piracy of old. If these companies want to compete and survive in the digital age, they need to again innovate and progress instead of running to this weak and greedy congress.

Mixed tapes and recorded tapes in and of themselves were never piracy; various court cases eliminated them from contention as long as they were only used for personal reasons. Now, if you copied them and then sold them, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

The problem is that we need to reward those who do the innovating rather than those who scavenge them. That's why I'm pro-copyright laws. At the same time, those same innovators should be prevented from total monopolies; that's where anti-trust laws come into play.

I just wish people would actually read SOPA and stop exaggerating what it can do...

RG

 

[Apollo]

Mixed tapes and recorded tapes in and of themselves were never piracy; various court cases eliminated them from contention as long as they were only used for personal reasons. Now, if you copied them and then sold them, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

The problem is that we need to reward those who do the innovating rather than those who scavenge them. That's why I'm pro-copyright laws. At the same time, those same innovators should be prevented from total monopolies; that's where anti-trust laws come into play.

I just wish people would actually read SOPA and stop exaggerating what it can do...

RG

All of the examples I have provided are examples of what could happen under the law. I am not exaggerating one bit. I even showed what happens when corporations have absolute power over something through international patent law.

The hyperlinking case for example...Apple got that patent in the 90's and mobile phones have been hyperlinking since phones had the capability to do it, and now all of a sudden it a problem, but only with one of their biggest competitors.

This law is too loose, and gives to much power to the major labels and to the government. Innovation doesn't happen if they aren't allowed to sample or nock ideas off of other technologies already in the game.

I undestand your mired in, and I understand your stance. I agree their should be some type of legislation, but this legislation is the wrong legislation. It needs to be re-written, and personally, I think it should be something that gives the FCC the power and authority to deal with it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Using simple words, then: I like the bill as it gives artists more protections. Which people like you think is a bad thing.

You've bought the corporate line lock, stock and barrel -- the above statement is wrong.

It doesn't protect artists at all -- it protects corporations. Artists can be better protected by ditching the corporations they whore for and forming cooperatives. They could sell their music for half the price what the corporations do, and earn more.

And that's not the issue anyway -- the issue is that this would hand the government the tools to shut down anything they felt like, any time they wanted, merely by claiming there was a copyright infringement.

 

[star-warrior]

I've just synched my iphone, does that mean the music there which is a copy of the stuff in itunes from my original cd's will get caught up in this act? Afterall, there's nothing stopping me transferring via itunes flawless copies of each song I like onto cds and accidentally letting someone else benefit from it, who then loads it on their itunes, etc....

 

[Kulindahr]

People who learn nothing from history....


Musicians and scribes hated the printing press back in the Middle Ages for the same reasons.

But this time it isn't the musicians or scribes who are doing the screaming, it's the corporations -- the artists are being used as an excuse to protect corporate profits, and expand government power.

This isn't the first incarnation of this bill. So far they've all been knocked down by the efforts of honest people -- but the next version is already in the pipeline, already introduced in Congress, called "PIPA" or something.

The corporations can afford to keep doing this forever, because they use the money of the people they're trying to manipulate/oppress. The only way to end this kind of thing is to support an amendment stripping corporations of all political rights.