How SOPA and PIPA could affect you

Why are sties like Wiki and Mozilla backed out or limited access today? Although some may view it as a whiny cyber version of "Occupy Wall Street", the reality is this is a dire warning of what Americans could face if the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and/or the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) currently before Congress become law.

* Both bills are vaguely worded. As such, they allow the Government and/or ISPs to block access to an entire site (Facebook, eBay, Amazon, Wiki, etc.) if someone posts an act of copyright infringement or attempts the sale of a counterfeit product - even if the website has policies in place to block and/or remove such behavior.

* The entertainment industry is spending millions in lobbying and campaign contributions to have the law(s) passed in their current wording - wording that puts the burden of proof on the website instead of the copyright holder (guilty until proven innocent).

* Given that ISP bandwith is at a premium in many areas, this would allow service providers a legal reason to block some popular sites under the disguise of "copyright infringement" while simultaneously pushing their own sites. Time Warner and Comcast (NBC, regional sports networks) could easily exploit users.​

In this election year, write or e-mail your Congressmen and Senators and let them know that censorship is NOT the way to stop online piracy. The First Amendment is far more important than giving Hollywood an easy way out on tracking a few rouge individuals.

 

i dunno about "rouge" individuals -- i'm kinda PINK, myself -- but it is hardly "a few" pirating things. doesn't every legitimately DLed mp3, for example, lead to 2000-3000+ illicit copies?

i agree the wording is overreaching but this really isn't a case of "censorship". i made that mistake myself in the other thread.

i am conflicted myself about various anti-piracy measures. i am no angel, but it is hard to sympathize with those who openly claim a god-given "right" to steal stuff. it is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong. at least recognize that fact as you do it!

 

It is possible for government and law enforcement to "interpret" a law in a way that creates collateral damage against innocent individuals' Constitutional Rights. Shutting down or restricting a website due to a few individuals who abuse it is like punishing 1,000 students in a school for the bad behavior of one individual.

As an example, I (like a few million other people) sell a few items on eBay each month - all genuine and accurately described. Under the vague wording of SOPA and PIPA, one individual caught selling a counterfeit Rolex watch or knockoff Coach handbag could allow eBay to be targeted as a source of intellectual property violation and subject it (not the individual) to penalties including fines, damages and a complete shutdown of eBay.

Ditto for Wiki. If an individual plagiarizes copyrighted text - even if Wiki removes it upon notice from the copyright holder - the proposed laws are set up to allow "Big Brother" to block access to the entire site, including the 99.99% of content that is not in question of any copyright infringement.

Call it what you want, but blocking access to legal information, goods or services because of a few bad apples is censorship in my book.

Sadly, the Internet is like the rest of the World. Although the vast majority of users are honest, there will always be people who post and do disturbing things.

Anyone who downloads copyrighted content without permission is taking a risk. Although I did use the original "free" Napster years ago, the price of buying or streaming legit copies has dropped to the point where there is no logical reason to swipe stuff online (at my PC repair shop, I see at least a few units per month with viruses and malware that trace back to LimeWire and other file sharing downloads - if you have to spend between $60-$120 to have me remove the creep from your PC, what you downloaded was far from "free" :-D).

This leads me to another point: As a store owner, I have the right to call the police and prosecute shoplifting or bad checks. I do not have the right to force the government to provide an armed policeman at my front door (at taxpayers' expense) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year as a preemptive measure. Why should the entertainment industry get this level of protection at both the expense and inconvenience of taxpayers and citizens?

If SOPA and/or PIPA are enacted, it will likely lead to an explosion of hacking and redirect programs that allow users to enter blocked sites with what amounts to a fake offshore IP address. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how many of these "free" programs will include goodies such as keystroke loggers and other malware to steal your passwords, credit cards, etc. If passed, all SOPA and/or PIPA will do is pretend to solve one issue while creating far worse ones in the process.

 

So-called 'piracy', on an individual level at least, is not 'theft' it is a copyright infringement and a pretty minor one at that. No, I don't do, or condone illegal copying, (I am also in the I.T. industry), but I don't condone stupid, blanket, push-button legislation that will create far more problems than it solves, (if any). In one sense, it's similar to videotaping copyrighted programs from T.V./cable T.V. Technically, you're copying without permission, but so many do it they've had to say that's "fair usage" law. No, I'm not saying that should apply to the WWW, but Draconian measures aren't the answer, either.
People forget why the Internet was created in the first place. It was/is supposed to be a fail-safe way of continuing communications, WITHOUT the control of any group, government or nation. Now all these billionaire movie, music and software moguls want to be something special? I don't see them complaining about the billions of $$$ they are making from the 'Net.
Well I hope that the economy can afford to lose all all the millions of dollars in lost sales in blank DVD's, burners, high-speed internet accounts, etc, etc. Oh that's right- people only use them to make back-ups of their hard drives and stuff they already own. - Riiight!rolleyes
Once again, if someone is using a program, music or movie it should be paid for - no argument there. But it seems to me that SOPA and PIPA are mainly targeting free services like Wiki and YouTube. Is the kind of on-line community you want?

 

Obama Says So Long SOPA, Killing Controversial Internet Piracy Legislation

Killed it in it's current form. I think "on hold" is more on target.

Obama comes out against current SOPA and PIPA legislation, but stops short of killing it

 

Where Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional candidates stand on SOPA, PIPA and the idea of blocking Internet sites in general is an issue every informed voter should investigate.

It isn't a Democrat or Republican issue - how much money the candidate accepted in campaign contributions from the entertainment and media industries speaks louder that the b:***t coming out of their mouths.

 

In the other thread, Mimsy posted a link to a petition that will be delivered to Congress asking them to vote No on PIPA and SOPA.

On the petition page, you can click on the following heading to reveal info about how they use what you submit.
How we use your information

Please sign and submit the petition.

Also, repeating Mimsy, here is the link to Wikipedia's page Learn More about SOPA and PIPA

One portion that really struck me was this:

Apparently, this would/could apply to links on ANY web site.

 

Reminds me of the book burning during WWII, with some faceless bureaucrat calling the shots. I think this would be just the thin edge of the wedge because these bills are so badly written. 8 senators have backed off because of voter dissatisfaction. At least they seem to be dead as Obama won't sign them.

 

Getting the word out is the way to stop this kind of legislation,they know it will not be voter approved so they have to sneakily pass without too much of a fuss. You will notice there was very little build up to this legislation in the media,I think Jimmy Wales's strike is a brilliant publicity tool to get people talking about the issue.

Lobbying? Who came up with that little gem? I hate it,it should be made illegal.

Freedom of information and speech has a cost but the cost is a small price to pay for all its benefits,I think that's all I have to say on the subject.

We have already had similar legislation passed in the UK,it was passed in the middle of night with little opposition,this legislation has had much more coverage which is great and has so far worked to stop it.

 

“That government is best which governs least”

I am against piracy and theft, but I don't see these bills as a good idea. From what I have read, they are very poorly written, and vague. In my opinion, any laws affecting so many people should be very well written, and precise.

 

Just to add to the discussion, www.erfworld.com had a thought that it only really works for companies with large banks of lawyers, so that while disney could have them shut down for some imagined violation, they could not do the same even for a real one, because it's not a legal issue, but simply something that they claim and there's no recourse or investigation, it's simply shut down.

 

> Reminds me of the book burning during WWII

nobody's trying to burn books for content here; the analogy is them trying to burn PIRATE COPIES of books which cut into the sales of legitimate ones. unfortunately, the legislation is written with an eye toward burning the COPIERS themselves. so, yes, i agree it was misdirected.

but when the copiers are being used 99.999% for making those copies, what does one do, exactly? i can see the free speech argument for Napster -- and i partook of it even while thinking it "wrong" -- but cmon! ppl like Drudge who assert their god-given right to DL all that they can find are simply wrong.

Phantom may be too young, but there was actually an active market in VHS trading/sales back in the 70s. The inefficiency of it all kept it from exploding into a big issue, but the content producers were not entirely wrong in trying to derail home taping. Cut to modern day where one can essentially make 500 million copies with one "click" (upload) and it is a serious issue.

Everything else has been outsourced, do we really want to lose Hollywood?

 

Firstly, my lifespan goes well before the V.C.R. era, I remember all the censorship arguments, well. I have also studied the history of Hollywood and they, (the Hollywood multi-millionaire producers), have cried foul at every technological advance.
They complained when 'Talkies' came out; they complained when T.V. was invented; they complained about photocopies, they complained about the VCR era; they complained about, CD's, MP3's and now they complaining about the Internet and ready access to to information, (whether authorized or unauthorized). They had all actors bound to contracts for many decades, so that they could control them and pay them peanuts, too. It's about a very rich and powerful lobby group concerned with nothing more than total control of the money, media and power, usually at the expense of others. This may be great for the Billionaire moguls, but it is not so great for the economy and the public.
NONE of the already super-rich and powerful are going broke, or losing their houses, or going hungry because of a percentage that doesn't paid for. Like I said, I believe that if you're using a commercial product, it should be paid for - yes. But what they are trying to do is stitch up a very lucrative market for themselves, (the internet). This WILL result in restrictions of OUR rights and freedom of knowledge that has made the internet the success story that it is. It has very little to do with evil pirates sending companies broke, (which, like them or loathe them, they don't), much more to do with greed and power mongering, at the expense of the public that made the 'Net what it is today.
You want to be charged every time you use Wiki or Youtube, with a content reduced to a company controlled menu, which charges money every time you use it. Because it's the free services that are either going to go under, or be severely crippled, not the big entertainment and media Co's.
A big percentage of the moguls profit comes from the WWW, which has been established by enthusiasts and , (at the time) small companies. It is also very debatable how much a copyright infringement does actually lose people money, (as wrong as it is, i.m.o.). That is another debate I won't go into, here.
Bottom line is, if we, the general public don't watch very carefully what sort of legislation is trying to be slipped under our noses, (always under the guise that it's somehow for our own good rolleyes), then pretty soon we won't have our freedoms and privileges any more. Don't believe that? It has already been happening for decades. Internet control and censorship is just a part of it. What is more important - protecting the fat bank account of billionaires, or personal freedoms of communication and knowledge? - You decide.

 

Very true. As you noted in the full post, the entertainment industry has been screaming "foul" every time new technology comes out.

What's especially interesting is some media conglomerates benefit from the very technology they claim is cutting into their intellectual property rights! If you download and burn a Sony Motion Pictures release on a VIAO PC using blank Sony Blu-Ray discs. If you download a Warner Brothers movie using Time-Warner cable Internet. If you share clips from Saturday Night Live (NBC) on Comcast cable Internet. The list goes on and on...

In Houston, Comcast is now promoting 100MB+/s home high-speed Internet service (about $130/month). Given I can easily stream (legal) 1080p HD video on my lowly 8MB/s Comcast service (about $40/month), I can think of few reasons (other than bulk downloading of "shared" Blu-Ray movies) for adding an extra $90/month to my existing Comcast bill to get 12 times the speed.

It's too bad the Supreme Court can't review the Constitutionality of proposed laws (versus ones that have already been signed into effect). Although anything is (unfortunately) possible, I have my fingers crossed that, if anything resembling SPOA or PIPA is enacted, the ink from the President's signature won't even be dry before the ACLU challenges it under the First Amendment and the Supreme Court slam dunks it into the "What the hell were they thinking" archive of unconstitutional attempts at censorship.

 

I'm not sure this totally fits, but it's the first thing I thought of when I heard about all the "Rockefeller", Draconian style language of these bills. The obsession with power, and "wealth" is at an all-time high (Rockefeller, high, I made a funny!) in today's society. The words of Lord Acton so continually ring true century, after century. What did psychology call some of these type of folks? Control freaks, as I recall...


CODA, by Ray Bradbury

About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed reading my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles.

But, she added, wouldn't it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women's characters and roles?

A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book were Uncle Toms and why didn't I "do them over"?

Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped.

Two weeks ago my mountain of mail delivered forth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story "The Fog Horn" in a high school reader.

In my story, I had described a lighthouse as hav*ing, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a "God-Light." Looking up at it from the view-point of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in "the Presence."

The editors had deleted "God-Light" and "in the Presence."

Some five years back, the editors of yet another anthology for school readers put together a volume with some 400 (count 'em) short stories in it. How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupassant and Bierce into one book?

Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every metaphor that weighed more than a mosquito—out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron's mouth twitch—gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer—lost!

Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Dostoevsky read like—in the finale—Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been ra*zored. Every image that demanded so much as one instant's attention—shot dead.

Do you begin to get the damned and incredible picture?

How did I react to all of the above?

By "firing" the whole lot.

By sending rejection slips to each and every one. By ticketing the assembly of idiots to the far reaches of hell.

The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people run*ning about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh -day Adventist, Women's Lib/ Republican, Mattachine/ Four Square Gospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.

Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minori*ties, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.

"Shut the door, they're coming through the win*dow, shut the window, they're coming through the door," are the words to an old song. They fit my life-style with newly arriving butcher/censors every month. Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with censorship and book-burning in the fu*ture, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn Del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place.

A final test for old Job II here: I sent a play, Leviathan 99, off to a university theater a month ago. My play is based on the "Moby Dick" mythology, dedi*cated to Melville, and concerns a rocket crew and a blind space captain who venture forth to encounter a Great White Comet and destroy the destroyer. My drama premieres as an opera in Paris this autumn.

But, for now, the university wrote back that they hardly dared do my play—it had no women in it! And the ERA ladies on campus would descend with ball-bats if the drama department even tried!

Grinding my bicuspids into powder, I suggested that would mean, from now on, no more productions of Boys in the Band (no women), or The Women (no men). Or, counting heads, male and female, a good lot of Shakespeare that would never be seen again, especially if you count lines and find that all the good stuff went to the males!

I wrote back maybe they should do my play one week, and The Women the next. They probably thought I was joking, and I'm not sure that I wasn't.

For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangu*tan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversation*alist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mor*mons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent type-writers. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intel*lectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall.

For, let's face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Ham-let's father's ghost and what stays is dry bones. Laur*ence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably,are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer—he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail.

In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-defiations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whis*per with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book.

All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try.

And no one can help me. Not even you.

 

Short summary of SOPA:

Let's say that I decide that I want to post a gameplay video of my modded Skyrim in the the Games forum here on MGs, to show everyone how great the game can look on PC. Let's say Bethesda decides that my posting that screenshot violates their copyright, and it's such a severe violation it needs ot be dealt with. The way SOPA is written, Bethesda has the legal right to block the entire domain majorgeeks.com because of my gameplay video, and it's up to MGs to prove their innocence. They can't be unblocked until they do.

There's all sorts of things wrong with this. First, it moves the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Second, it removes due process; in my example above, Bethesda is not required to contact MGs abut this before blocking the domain. Third, and perhaps most importantly, SOPA is not necessary. Under existing legislation today, if Bethesda were to contact MG's management with proof that copyright infringement is happening on the site, MGs are legally required to assist in stopping it, by removing the video. (Shortly after that, my account would be banned to the high heavens and back for getting the site into legal trouble LOL)

If I decide to put my gameplay video on YouTube.com, that entire domain would be blocked for anyone on the internet, in the same scenario.

SOPA is not only unnecessary and overly harsh, it is frighteningly ignorant about how the internet works, and even more ignorant about exactly how copyright infringement online happens, and why.

 

Phantom, if you don't like how the billionaire moguls overcharge you for movies, then don't WATCH them. If you don't, as an actor, like how they fatten themselves while paying you peanuts, then don't WORK for them. Neither is an excuse for stealing from them.

Again, I'm no angel, but call a spade a spade. The reason movies will soon cost $80 a showing -- or even the $8-12 of present day -- is b/c they have to subsidize bums like us stealing copies off of p2p! We both know that.

Mitt Romney made a good deal of money off his Staples investment. Does that justify walking in and stealing paper clips?!

 

Copyright infringement is not stealing. It makes me very tired and sad to see so many otherwise intelligent human being completely fail to realize this fact. It's not stealing, no more than fraud is the same as stealing. Deliberately using hyperbolean terms for shock value not only makes argument sound stupid when they're not, it confuses the issue at hand, and makes civilized discourse next to impossible.

CatT, please tell me you did not just imply that if someone is against SOPA they are automatically for copyright infringement and piracy and fully support that kind of behavior. Because if you didn't mean to imply that, you certainly came across as if you did.

 

I am with Mimsy. The appearance of illegality should never be judged as illegal. That is why we have courts. I think the SOPA, as written, bypasses the legal system.

I am wondering, as written sites have to prove innocence, verses proof of guilt. Wrong way to go. Just because you have a sports car that can exceed the speed limit does not make you guilty of speeding.

 

I never though I'd be in agreement with you on anything political, but here we are. LOL

 

Suggest you re-read my posts. You're either missing my points or deliberately ignoring them. I stated several times in each post the if you use a commercial copyrighted program or movie, you SHOULD PAY for them. I don't know how I can be clearer than that.

Both illogical, and unproven sensationalism rolleyes. Movies WON'T cost 80 bucks a showing, because no one will go to them if they do. The movie and software Co.'s are making record profits, not losses.

Speak for yourself. If you are, or have been involved in, any copyright infringements, (which is NOT the same as theft), then don't tell us about it.
I run a business, so does Jim and Tim, and any such activities are a strict no-no, for very obvious reasons.

Well, once again, if you think that copyright infringements are the same as shoplifting and Grand Theft Auto, then that's your problem. It's so so obviously silly, I don't even want to discuss it rolleyes. Let me repeat again, just for the hard of hearing/reading. If you want to use someone else's copyright material - BUY the damn thing!

 

LOL Mimsy, I am actually a very easy going crazy conservative. :-D:-D

But, it is great to see different people coming together to protect the basic internet we use.

If you look at if from a political standpoint, how hard would it be to claim a political site was sharing files, and get it shut down... Scary. :major

 

Amen to that. SOPA/PIPA have nothing to do with stopping piracy, anymore than taking a flame thrower to a couple of kittens is helpful if a lion escapes the local zoo.

And I'm a rabid left-extreme liberal. You and I should never talk politics.

It is, and it's reassuring that people on the internet at least still have their priorities in order. We might disagree on everything else, but on this one issue, we can overlook that an work side by side towards a common goal, because working together benefits everyone. Mature adults FTW! :-D

 

I have to ask, what does Staples, Romney, and stealing paper clips have to do with this thread?


"is b/c they have to subsidize bums like us stealing copies off of p2p! " You said it. Stealing copy righted material is illegal, I hope you are only jesting.

I don't download movies, don't rent them, don't watch them. I do care about the free exchange of the internet.

 

I know this is pushing it on the MG forums, but, Mimsy, is it not more constructive for us to talk, and express our views, and discuss more?

MG's wants to stay a help forum, and I respect that. Perhaps we can meet one day on another forum and discuss ideas. To me, that is the key. Different people offering solutions, not arguments.
:cool

 

i guess i AM missing the point. how is copyright infringement "not" stealing? and how is FRAUD "not stealing"? bernie madoff didn't hold up a 7-11, he defrauded people. is he not a thief?

if i distribute 2 million copies of twilight online, i am clearly cutting into the studio's profits. that is theft, pure and simple. WHAT AM I MISSING?

i agree that going after the hosts -- or the XEROX corp in the book examples -- may be misdirected. and i agree that there are "burden of proof" issues, even if going after the correct parties. but theft is still theft -- the only "hyperbole" i'm seeing here is several people saying that infringement itself is not criminal!

oh, and Phantom's screed against the super-rich, the powerful, and the billionaire moguls. i'm still not seeing how their "record profits" justifies others taking a bite out of it.

:confused

 

You are missing, in my personal opinion, a lack of quoting skill. I don't think anyone has said stealing is OK. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. If that law passes, as I read it, if I, against the TOSS of this site, linked to a pirated site, MajorGeeks could be shut down, until they could prove their innocence.

Too much power for too little proof.

 

Word.

Word.

LOL

 

Because he's a fraudster:-D Because if you hold up a 7-11 its stealing not fraud and if you download copyright material your in breach of copyright law and are not either A. A fraudster or B . A thief You are C. A copyright infringer.

The law has these definitions in place to distinguish between crimes and more importantly has punishments to reflect the severity of the crime.

Example : If I steel a chocolate bar from a store I am a chocolate bar thief or just thief

I am not

A.Fraudster- For defrauding Mr Wonka of said chocolate bar,I just sflat stole it.

B. A child abuser - For the emotional stress caused to charlie when he I hawk the golden ticket on ebay to a Rich guy hooked on Acid

Copyright infringment is what it is stated,copyright infringment.

 

That the legal definitions of these crimes are different. Fraud is fraud. Theft is theft. Copy right infringement is neither.

When you steal from someone, you deprive that person of a piece of property. They lose a physical object, that you now have possession of. Copy right infringement does not do that. If I was to put a copy of a song up on a torrent site somewhere, the copy right holder has not lost access to the song, they still have it and can continue to sell it as they see fit. A song does not go away from iTunes simply because someone somewhere pirates it.

This insistence that copy right infringement is the same as theft is very common among people who are deeply emotional about online piracy, who see the TV commercials and listen to the talking points, but don't actually understand the issue at all. People who feel deeply and passionately, without bothering to educate themselves on the matter. They know that piracy is wrong and are filled with moral outrage, and they seem to honestly believe that's all they need to know.

I hope you're not one of those people, because if you are, you are so emotionally invested and so unable to listen to my point of view (because you know what a morally corrupt criminal I am--I'm a filthy online pirate!) that this post I just typed up was a complete waste of time.

 

Arggg Captn Mimsy. Are ye sure you are a left winger... :-D:-D

OT, and NOT PG, but here is a link to some funny cartoon from the Napster era. I love 'Good or Goblin'. **NOTE, NOT PG, adult language and humor.**

http://www.snarkrocket.com/blog-archives/old_cartoons/napster_bad/

 

CatT, as stated your quoting skills have much to be desired.
No one has said it's okay to infringe on Copyrights,or to steal, or do any other illegal/immoral activities. Illegal copying is not the same as shoplifting for the same reasons why mugging some one at gunpoint isn't the same thing as C/C fraud.
As for my so-called "screed against the super-rich, the powerful, and the billionaire moguls". Suggest you go back and reread it, since you are indeed missing much, not just of my posts, but everyone else's, too.

Like the others, I am objecting to heavy-handed Draconian laws that will, i.m.o. (1) Do nothing to curb, 'Piracy', as already stated I.P.'s can be disguised and altered and criminals will just operate from countries like the Russian Federation, China and S.E. Asia, eastern Europe, etc., or any other nation that doesn't give a rat's about America or Hollywood, just like the vast majority of them do already. And guess what? SOPA, PIPA, F.B.I., and anyone else can do NOTHING to stop it, short of invading them, I guess. Sad, but true.
(2) Place unfair and uncalled for punitive measures against many sites, especially those offering a FREE service, now. Hence the protests.
(3) Potentially infringe greatly on personal rights and liberties of the whole nature of the internet, which, as I've already stated, is to provide UNINTERRUPTED communication, free of any commercial group, nation, or individual.
I don't give a toss how much businessmen make, I am a businessman too, but I do care when a medium I use daily is being compromised by unbridled greed and power-plays. It then becomes mine, and everyone else's' business.

If anyone is cool with being controlled and milked by a select few, then fine.rolleyes But a lot of people object, and rightfully so, i.m.o.

I'm done explaining this. I am just glad that it has been brought to light in time in the U.S. But, I'm guessing SOPA and PIPA and their allies aren't done yet, and will try and slip something else by in the near future.

 

Well said Phantom.

The reason I am against it is possible abuse. Yeah, gubment abuse and corruption, it does not really happen. But, what if I have a forum that competes say with Major Geeks. What would be an easy way to get them shut down... Or say a political forum. Perhaps I don't agree with the politics of that site. Would it be too much of a stretch for me to join the site I don't like, and post links to torrents and pirate sites, then report said site before the mods could find my post and remove it?

If it got to that point, every post would have to be reviewed before being on the site. That would be a lot of fun when someone is trying to fix a BSOD and needs some help. And I would think it would be a nightmare for the mods! But under the loosely worded bill, that could happen. And THAT would kill free speech on the interweb. I am pretty sure it would kill the OT area in this forum, and in many other ones.

We used to have the HBT section, which the owner(s) decided to do away with. While I don't agree with that, that is the right of the site owner to do with the site as they please. I like that a lot better than some gubment agency deciding what is OK and having the power to kill a whole website.

 

Hollywood don't want to pay investigators to track the IP address of the people doing the Illegal downloads, and take them to court. Instead They just want a short cut. That hurts everyone.

 

yeah, after you've entirely usurped their market! good luck with that.

 

If they are good they'll still make an extremely good living doing gigs.

IMO the word market doesn't even belong anywhere near the word music.

If you want a market share become a broker,if you want to make music grab an axe and crank it to 11!!!

Maybe a slightly liberalopian view of society though :dood

 

That's an extremely good point. There just seems to be something about the word "free", and anything described by it, that irritates the pushers and orchestrators of SOPA/PIPA and there kind to the point they feel the need to stamp it out of existance.

From what I've been reading, folks are spending considerably less time watching T.V., hence fewer advertising hours watched. Substantially less money is being spent by movie goers, so less money at the box office. Sales on new TV(s) and commercial DVD(s) are down by a large percentage and the blu-ray push hasn't quite worked like it was hoped, nor is 3D catching on like they desire.

Not that the economy might have something to do with this or maybe, just maybe, the content they are shoveling out has anything to do with it. Satellite and cable companies have been adding feature upon feature to attract customers, but what is the use if all the features are wrapped around garbage content. But nooooo, it's all due to piracy and copyright infringement, or so they would have us believe. Piracy and copyright infringement should be stopped, I'm sure it has an impact, but in this case they are just terms being used by one group in an attempt to hoodwink a much larger group into letting the first group take control.

These policy makers are supposed to be experts in law, and yet these policies are written in a manner to be vague, open to their interpretation at a later time of their choosing. Except one point is clear, any perceived encroachment of these vague rules will be considered actionable.

What these power brokers see is, they are losing to the wonder of the internet in general. They missed the boat and now they want a piece of the action. Pardon, they want to take it over completely and this is one of their attempts.

To bad the politicians don't have the same zeal for doing away with the malware industry that is costing companies fortunes. If they did, indeed that might put a big dent in the copyright infringement and piracy problem they're squawking about.

 

Oh yes. Total equal-rights-civil-liberties nutcase. :dood

You're proving the point I made in an earlier post. If you genuinely believe that piracy of music and movies is "usurping the market" and leads to lost sales, then you barely have even the most basic understanding of the issue, and lack the knowledge and understanding of it to be able to phrase a coherent argument.

There is nothing wrong with that. We can't all be educated on every issue, we pick the ones we care about and learn about them. Freedom of speech and information is one I am passionate about, so that is one I'm familiar with. I am utterly clueless about Wall Street regulation, so I stay out of discussion about that issue.

What you need to realize is that a music pirate doesn't think "should I pirate it or buy it? Hm... I'll pirate it." They look for the music they want on their favorite source, and if what they want is not there, they just don't get it. They hardly ever pay for anything, which means that one pirated song does not equal one lost sale, because the ones torrenting it would never dream of spending money for it in the first place. That entire "argument" is at best a strawman, at worst intentionally deceitful propaganda.

This reminds me of someone, I don't remember who, who was sued by the MPAA for illegally downloading a movie. One of the first things he said in his defense was that if he really was going to pirate a movie, it definitely wouldn't be Gigli, and he was insulted that anyone would suggest it.

 

Mimsy: "Oh yes. Total equal-rights-civil-liberties nutcase." Most every conservative I know is all for equal rights and civil liberties. :cool

David: Good post, my point about the HBT forum being removed was that the owners of the site did it as a choice. The gubment did not force them to remove say the Major Geeks download site, or the whole website because of possible abuse by a member, before the mods could remove the bad torrent links.

When I see M&M (yeah, I know it is spelled wrong) and The Oprah in the welfare lines, I will feel sorry for hollywood and it's precious pennies.

 

that is simply not true. granted there are some pirates in that mold, but the average teenager, college student, etc. who wants their gaga fix will break down and dish out cash on a CD, iTunes, or other DL site if the pirate sources prove nonexistent/overly cumbersome.

may not be 100% of them, but a significant percentage.

and it's certainly not ZERO! so it's cutting into sales (incl paid DLs) to some extent, no matter how you spin it.

if i buy 12 perry como CDs, pay to DL 3 more, then DL one last one on the "sly", i am screwing como and his people out of 1/16 of their due revenue. if everyone is so high and mighty here about how they'd "never do that", then why can't they just admit that it's theft?!

doesn't matter whether he's a billionaire, whether he's greedy, or whether he expects 42 bucks for a crappy album. if that's the price and i obtain it by surreptitious means, i have STOLEN it from him. plain and simple.

and forget MUSIC for a moment. what about pirate SOFTWARE? u certainly can't assert that the average pirate looking for windows 8 (say) would say "guess i'll go without" if he didn't find it!!

good god, no. he'd give it the old college try for a certain amount of time, give up, and then buy a paid copy while swearing under his breath. that is the way of the world.

 

CatT, is that just your opinion, or do you have stats and links to verify the information you give? Do you have stats of the average software pirate vs the MP3 pirate?

Or, is it just your opinion? And I have no facts on this, this is simply my opinion. WalMart has shoplifting. They adjust their prices so that they make a profit, even while loosing some merchandise to theft. Do you not think the music and software companies do the same? :confused Do you not think they employ accountants and explore profit vs loss?

And, just to be clear, I do not condone piracy (except on everyone talk like a pirate day, and even then, just speech).

I was at the Office Depot today, Win7 was a little over $200, WTF, I can order it (legally) from the Egg for around $100. Seems OD has shrinkage in the software section... (Win7 64 bit pro)

 

Prove that.

 

Correction:

There just seems to be something about the word "free", and anything described by it, that irritates the pushers and
orchestrators (oh, yea, we are talking about music, aren't we ) of SOPA/PIPA and Their Kind to the point they feel the
need to Grab it, gain Control of it, charge an exorbitant Fee for it and make a Profit.

Yep, that's why they're Experts. rolleyes

The proposed process of shutting down supposedly complicit web sites because of the actions of Others, sort of reminds me of the
practice of "shoot first and ask questions later".

It would make it legal to impose punishment for alleged "crimes" or infractions based solely on the premise of guilt by association.
It completely circumvents the requirement of Due Process ( 2 ) .

And, there is no clear statement or definition of Where the culpability Ends.

It's like a cascade in reverse. Like a nuclear chain reaction - out of control.

 

"The proposed process of shutting down supposedly complicit web sites because of the actions of Others, sort of reminds me of the
practice of "shoot first and ask questions later".

One of the basics of gun safety, "Know your target, and what is behind it."

 

i believe the burden of proof falls upon those who assert it is ZERO.

altho i suspect it is 30 or 40%, truth is, if it is even 1%, i would still call that "significant".

i repeat, tho, i am against SOPA and PIPA. i'm just aggravated at people here referring to the "greed" or the "exhorbitant prices" of an industry which is basically the victim here.

 

As I said before, prove that.

 

Back up your statement with facts. Yes, you prove it. We live in a society where we are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Is it 30%, 40% or 1%? Just curious. I would think most places would be very happy with a 1% loss.