We won this round! But it's not over yet... (SOPA/PIPA update)

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

I dont think anyone who wants to get creative on the internet is going to be threatened by any anti piracy law. I must be missing something I guess. I was puzzled why Wikipedia, Google, Amazon etc. are so concerned. I think the only people entities that need to be concerned are those that are illegally hosting without permission copyrighted material for free use.(movie music, book files) I dont see how its messing with anyones personal freedom. Again I maybe I an missing something.

The idea behind this law is for law enforcement to get inside the pirates' "reaction loop" so that they can take offending sites down before the pirates can shift servers. The problem is that the only way they can figure out to do this is to ignore due process.

A site such as Youtube could be taken down because someone had uploaded a video of their child singing along to a copyrighted song on the radio. It trades the presumption of innocence for a presumption of guilt, eliminates the right to face your accuser, and basically puts the accused in a position where all their assets can be seized and frozen before they have an opportunity to answer the charges, let alone mount a defense.

It's a bad law.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The idea behind this law is for law enforcement to get inside the pirates' "reaction loop" so that they can take offending sites down before the pirates can shift servers. The problem is that the only way they can figure out to do this is to ignore due process.

A site such as Youtube could be taken down because someone had uploaded a video of their child singing along to a copyrighted song on the radio. It trades the presumption of innocence for a presumption of guilt, eliminates the right to face your accuser, and basically puts the accused in a position where all their assets can be seized and frozen before they have an opportunity to answer the charges, let alone mount a defense.

It's a bad law.

I doubt that would happen. Again I still think the underlying reason for so many not wanting this is because it will limit what they will have to view and listen to online for free. I highly doubt the recording industry is going to eliminate a video of a kid singing along to a song on the radio.

[emellaich]

Next up looks like OPEN. At least at first glance, it does sound more reasonable.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/24852..._open_act.html

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

That paranoia talking. I an pretty sure that if you have a site that is not using any trademarks or content witout consent you will be fine. Many sites get permission right now to use certain logos, music etc.

The problem is that there are no checks and balances, you don't need to be using any trademarks or content without permission, you just need to be accused of doing so.

It's a really bad precedent, and one we don't need.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

I doubt that would happen. Again I still think the underlying reason for so many not wanting this is because it will limit what they will have to view and listen to online for free. I highly doubt the recording industry is going to eliminate a video of a kid singing along to a song on the radio.

Doubt again: they've already tried.

And then their's this example.

The recording industry has already demonstrated that they can and will do just that. Their track record makes it very clear that they cannot be trusted to police themselves. They need checks and balances and we deserve due process.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The idea behind this law is for law enforcement to get inside the pirates' "reaction loop" so that they can take offending sites down before the pirates can shift servers. The problem is that the only way they can figure out to do this is to ignore due process.

A site such as Youtube could be taken down because someone had uploaded a video of their child singing along to a copyrighted song on the radio. It trades the presumption of innocence for a presumption of guilt, eliminates the right to face your accuser, and basically puts the accused in a position where all their assets can be seized and frozen before they have an opportunity to answer the charges, let alone mount a defense.

It's a bad law.

Agreed.

Our ancestors (parents and grand parents) fought a war 70 years ago to ensure the totalitarian actions that are proposed by such laws never became a reality.

It is a sad day indeed where a small group of corporations, who refuse to make any changes to their outdated business and distribution models, attempt to force the world at large to accept these said same business models.

The world has moved on and they have been left behind.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Doubt again: they've already tried.

And then their's this example.

The recording industry has already demonstrated that they can and will do just that. Their track record makes it very clear that they cannot be trusted to police themselves. They need checks and balances and we deserve due process.

Good examples. But they are examples before a bill is even in place. As you said checks and balances. The recording industry jumps the gun right now. But they wont once a proper bill is in place. I am sure that whatever bill comes to pass it will have the checks and balances you speak of.

For each example you gave there are hundreds of clips on youtube that have songs in their entirety. Youtube should not have pulled the videos from the link you gave me they are getting paranoid as well.

If an anti piracy bill does not have those checks and balances you speak of than I am not for it. Pulling the videos you linked to is like preventing someone from singing a song to themselves in public.

An anti piracy bill should only protect copyrighted material in its original form or prevent people from trying to make money off the material. So if the kid singing the song on youtube was somehow trying to make a buck off it, there would be a problem.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Agreed.

Our ancestors (parents and grand parents) fought a war 70 years ago to ensure the totalitarian actions that are proposed by such laws never became a reality.

It is a sad day indeed where a small group of corporations, who refuse to make any changes to their outdated business and distribution models, attempt to force the world at large to accept these said same business models.

The world has moved on and they have been left behind.

A philosopher once said that man has governments to prevent men (and by extension, corporations of men) from grossly abusing each other, knowing that having a government was better than the abuses that would come from anarchy. A fantasy author once said that the world wars were fought to make the world safe enough so business could do just that, in a disapproving tone. Shortly thereafter, a sci-fi authoress said that governments had no business tampering with the economy, which can be interpreted such that the government can't be allowed to prevent any abuse.

The author and philosopher are largely forgotten today, while the authoress is still an inflencial figure in American economics. Anyone care to guess which ones I'm talking about?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Good examples. But they are examples before a bill is even in place. As you said checks and balances. The recording industry jumps the gun right now. But they wont once a proper bill is in place. I am sure that whatever bill comes to pass it will have the checks and balances you speak of.

For each example you gave there are hundreds of clips on youtube that have songs in their entirety. Youtube should not have pulled those but they are getting paranoid as well.

If an anti piracy bill does not have those checks and balances you speak of than I am not for it. Pulling the videos you linked to is like preventing someone from singing a song to themselves in public.

An anti piracy bill should only protect copyrighted material in its original form or prevent people from trying to make money off the material. So if the kid singing the song on youtube was somehow trying to make a buck off it, there would be a problem.

SOPA and PIPA do not have checks and balances. That's the problem.

Yes, the examples predate SOPA and PIPA; however, the whole point of these laws is to make it easier for the media companies to pull content without oversight - so they're a perfectly good demonstration of what they want to do.

SOPA and PIPA are bad because they are tailored towards the abuse of power not the prevention of copyright infringement.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

I dont think anyone who wants to get creative on the internet is going to be threatened by any anti piracy law. I must be missing something I guess.

The internet was on purpose set-up to stimulate creativity. What a lot of laws that are proposed now want to do is to change these fundamental design decisions. Read some of Lawrence Lessig's books and you will see this argument described in a good way.

Wikipedia have for example said that SOPA and PIPA would have made it impossible to create Wikipedia. And I think that is true.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

I doubt that would happen. Again I still think the underlying reason for so many not wanting this is because it will limit what they will have to view and listen to online for free. I highly doubt the recording industry is going to eliminate a video of a kid singing along to a song on the radio.

You clearly haven't haven't seen all the videos which clearly fell under fair use taken down. The media industry has abused the powers they were given under the DMCA. I absolutely guarantee that they will abuse any new powers they are given. These people only care about the law when it works in their favor.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

That paranoia talking. I an pretty sure that if you have a site that is not using any trademarks or content witout consent you will be fine. Many sites get permission right now to use certain logos, music etc.

Its all speculation on part of people who do not want this. Like it or not this will come to pass. The internet will still be here for all to use. The only difference is you either will have to pay for using certain trademarks, music etc. and pay for content you want to view.

I am beginning to wonder that the underlying fear of many is that they will not be able to view or listen to copyrighted stuff for free any longer.(ie. Some Youtube content)

The excuse I always here is. "If the music, Tv industries had a good business model for obtaining their material, it would resolve much of the piracy." Bunch of BS. As long as people can pirate this stuff they will. There is no business model that will prevent people from obtaining this stuff online for free. Free is always better than paying, right??? If someone can get it for free online there are those that wont pay. This will be policed. Like it or not. Its been a long time coming.

I love the smell of astroturf in the morning...

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/musi...e7gr3Od5XcF9BL

Nope no one would ever use laws to shut down speech they don't agree with. Really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg..._participation

Nothing to worry about, trust in our corporate overlords.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

The excuse I always here is. "If the music, Tv industries had a good business model for obtaining their material, it would resolve much of the piracy." Bunch of BS. As long as people can pirate this stuff they will. There is no business model that will prevent people from obtaining this stuff online for free. Free is always better than paying, right??? If someone can get it for free online there are those that wont pay. This will be policed. Like it or not. Its been a long time coming.

Do you pirate all of your media? You must if, as you say, "free is always better than paying".

The idea of treating everyone as a would-be thief is BS. Good business models have helped reduce potential music piracy. Sure some people will continue to pirate no matter what, but we cannot sacrifice the principles that this great nation was built on in a vain attempt to stop them.

[Ninjalawyer]

The idea that people will always take something for free rather than pay for it has been shown to be incorrect again and again. People pirate because:

1. they want something for free;
2. there isn't a legitimate source for the material; or
3. the pirated version is a superior product.

It's not wrong to say people pirate because they want something for free, but it's a child's level of reasoning to think that that's the only reason.

Gabe Newell's company, Valve, has made tons of money in Russia, not by using restrictive DRM, but by providing games to that market as quickly as possibly and by generally providing a better service than the pirates. This is in spite of the fact that Russia is viewed by a lot of game companies and movie producers as a complete trainwreck when it comes to piracy.

Here's an apposite quote from an interesting interview:

One thing that we have learned is that piracy is not a pricing issue. It’s a service issue. The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates. For example, Russia. You say, oh, we’re going to enter Russia, people say, you’re doomed, they’ll pirate everything in Russia. Russia now outside of Germany is our largest continental European market.

...But the point was, the people who are telling you that Russians pirate everything are the people who wait six months to localize their product into Russia. … So that, as far as we’re concerned, is asked and answered. It doesn’t take much in terms of providing a better service to make pirates a non-issue.

This was the same issue for anime in the 90s. The only way to get decent translations of anime was to pirate it; the producers were taking months or years to translate it from Japanese and sell it in North America, all the while pirates were doing it in days. It didn't help those producers that the pirated versions often had superior translation work.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

Do you pirate all of your media? You must if, as you say, "free is always better than paying".

The idea of treating everyone as a would-be thief is BS. Good business models have helped reduce potential music piracy. Sure some people will continue to pirate no matter what, but we cannot sacrifice the principles that this great nation was built on in a vain attempt to stop them.

Nope. But its the mentality of many who search the net for music and other forms.of downloadable media.

Regardless of what the music and movie industries could abuse. Something has to be done to curb piracy. Again as long as there are firm rules against abuse from the corporations, I am all for it.