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

[Sil_liS]

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.

So your point is that those that abuse the law should be rewarded with more laws benefiting them?

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Its illegal but as far as I can tell it still runs rampant. Things need to be better defined and enforced.

Where do you get "runs rampant" from?

Originally Posted by Tony1988

The article mentions that 28% of internet users access unlicensed sites. I dont know if these users are downloading but thats a pretty big number.

Even if they were doing record profits across all boards I dont see how that makes piracy ok.

It doesn't make piracy ok, it just shows that piracy doesn't have a negative effect on their profits. Which is what all the research into the matter has always shown.

[Ninjalawyer]

There's a funny story here on the group CreativeAmerica putting out an ad saying it needs SOPA to shut down Megaupload, which can't be affected by current laws. This warrants at least a chuckle since the ad came out 5 days after Megaupload was shut down. Woops!

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I wouldn't agree to something that allowed removal without FIRST giving the opportunity to defend oneself.

Really? So if some groups is distributing an artist work illegally, they should be free to continue distributing it illegally, saturating the market, undermining the artist ability make a living, indefinitely why the group's off-shore lawyers tie the artist up in court while "defending" their illegal actions?

Do you extend this blanket opposition to temporary injunctions to people selling unsafe counterfeit car parts, dangerous counterfeit medications, and fraudulent financial products?

BTW, I got this press release from some artists unions (I'm a member of a couple) jointly SUPPORTING SOPA and PIPA:
http://www.afm.org/uploads/file/SOPAPIPARelease.pdf
For the record, I disagree with them. I think some new laws and reform may indeed be needed, but not the way SOPA and PIPA are trying to go about it.

ApK

[teh603]

Originally Posted by ApK

Really? So if some groups is distributing an artist work illegally, they should be free to continue distributing it illegally, saturating the market, undermining the artist ability make a living, indefinitely why the group's off-shore lawyers tie the artist up in court while "defending" their illegal actions?

This is where you need is reciprocity treaties based around reasonable and sensible legislation, not blanket censorship designed to encourage malicious claims. You also don't need corporate gatekeepers determining what kind of artistic expression is worth allowing and what is worth suppressing, and SOPA/PIPA would give corporations the tools to do just that, even if no copyright infringement existed or if it was protected by fair use. Thus my comment in another thread about SOPA/PIPA/ACTA potentially destroying academia as we know it; if cited direct quotes are no longer possible, then people looking to get any degree beyond a mere diploma will have to go overseas. I don't really like the idea of getting a Masters from Beijing U.

Do you extend this blanket opposition to temporary injunctions to people selling unsafe counterfeit car parts, dangerous counterfeit medications, and fraudulent financial products?

The thing was, SOPA wasn't pointed at bad car parts or unsafe medications; it was pointed at shutting down user-generated content on websites. There's a huge difference between the two.

Trust me, I've had my issues with car parts. Ever go through five new pickup truck alternators fresh out of the box before you can find one that cranks up enough juice to charge the battery while the lights are on? Or had to go through two or three carburators until you could find one that worked properly? I have with both, and all came from reputable suppliers who just couldn't get "the good stuff" anymore. Its not even that these shoddy manufacturers are infringing patents- because the patents they're using entered the public domain decades ago and the OEM manufacturers have no interest in supporting legacy and classic vehicles.

But by the same token, if my only source for a certain part is Beijing Horseless Carriage Works, its in my best interests to make sure that the Big Three Automakers can't maliciously remove BHCW from the internet to force me to trade in my beloved (and paid for) horseless carriages for some gas-hogging SUV that I really can't afford.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by ApK

Really? So if some groups is distributing an artist work illegally, they should be free to continue distributing it illegally, saturating the market, undermining the artist ability make a living, indefinitely why the group's off-shore lawyers tie the artist up in court while "defending" their illegal actions?

Do you extend this blanket opposition to temporary injunctions to people selling unsafe counterfeit car parts, dangerous counterfeit medications, and fraudulent financial products?

I support due process. I support being able to put on a defense before being punished. I reject the idea of censorship first, a court battle later, if you can afford one. If you want a prior restraint you can at least allow the accused parties the chance to object before a judge before a take down is issued.

Are you not familiar with anti-slapp legislation?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by teh603

The thing was, SOPA wasn't pointed at bad car parts or unsafe medications; it was pointed at shutting down user-generated content on websites. There's a huge difference between the two.

Indeed, but ONE of those differences is that with digital IP, the damage done is potentially instantaneous and proportionate with the amount of time the materials says visible, and there is a legitimate need to quickly curtail that potential damage on the behalf of the rightful IP owner.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I support due process. I support being able to put on a defense before being punished. I reject the idea of censorship first, a court battle later, if you can afford one. If you want a prior restraint you can at least allow the accused parties the chance to object before a judge before a take down is issued.

Realize I'm not supporting SOPA/PIPA, just commenting on your blanket objection.
I believe in due process and the presumption innocence, too, but if you're beating up someone on the street, I don't expect the cop to have to round up a court order before he makes you stop. Even if it does turn out that the guy you were beating was an RIAA lawyer who totally deserved it.
As for anti-SLAPP legislation, that's great, but as above, it's a matter of determining who's rights are best served and what damage is prevented by making you stop doing something, or allowing you to continue it while the legal issues are sorted. What one party sees as a SLAPP, the other party might see as an honest and necessarily action to protect their interests.

Are you not familiar with anti-slapp legislation?

I am. Now. Thanks to Wikipedia.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by ApK

Indeed, but ONE of those differences is that with digital IP, the damage done is potentially instantaneous and proportionate with the amount of time the materials says visible, and there is a legitimate need to quickly curtail that potential damage on the behalf of the rightful IP owner.

You're underestimating the power of corporate greed and malice. How many people have been prosecuted for fraudulent or malicious DMCA takedowns? I can't think of any. Now apply that same lack of prosecution to SOPA/PIPA.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by teh603

You're underestimating the power of corporate greed and malice. How many people have been prosecuted for fraudulent or malicious DMCA takedowns? I can't think of any. Now apply that same lack of prosecution to SOPA/PIPA.

And neither should you underestimate personal greed and malice. So many think it is ok to just grab an illegal copy of a book because they want to save a few bucks and can't be bothered to read something else.

SOPA/PIPA went much too far, but something must be done.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ApK

Indeed, but ONE of those differences is that with digital IP, the damage done is potentially instantaneous and proportionate with the amount of time the materials says visible, and there is a legitimate need to quickly curtail that potential damage on the behalf of the rightful IP owner.


Realize I'm not supporting SOPA/PIPA, just commenting on your blanket objection.
I believe in due process and the presumption innocence, too, but if you're beating up someone on the street, I don't expect the cop to have to round up a court order before he makes you stop

Please tell me you're joking. You're not seriously comparing copyright infringement (a CIVIL offense) with crimes that cause physical harm? You don't really expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare pirating whatever media to a person getting beaten, or installing faulty car parts which can endanger life?

Are you?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

You don't really expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare pirating whatever media to a person getting beaten, or installing faulty car parts which can endanger life?

That might have been an error on the part of the poster you criticize, but the comparison is easily corrected.

Piracy is comparable to shoplifting your average new release PB, which, at the margins, will be remaindered and then pulped if not stolen. One similarity is that shoplifting appears to be, like piracy, a behavior that most people, at some point in their lives, engage in.

Do I want to give that majority criminal records which would impede their getting productive jobs? No. But, knowing that only partial success is possible, we should discourage such behavior.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Please tell me you're joking. You're not seriously comparing copyright infringement (a CIVIL offense) with crimes that cause physical harm? You don't really expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare pirating whatever media to a person getting beaten, or installing faulty car parts which can endanger life?

Are you?

I guess he is not saying they are the same, just that immediate need for a remedy is the same --- you would want it stopped right now), but acting as if there was nothing wrong with piracy is just as ridiculous. Just because something else is worse doesn't mean piracy is not wrong.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

That might have been an error on the part of the poster you criticize, but the comparison is easily corrected.

Piracy is comparable to shoplifting your average new release PB, which, at the margins, will be remaindered and then pulped if not stolen. One similarity is that shoplifting appears to be, like piracy, a behavior that most people, at some point in their lives, engage in.

Do I want to give that majority criminal records which would impede their getting productive jobs? No. But, knowing that only partial success is possible, we should discourage such behavior.

Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. Please don't muddy the waters with another inaccurate analogy.

I lean rather Libertarian in my views. In my opinion, if something does not cause harm to an external person, then I just don't care. Shoplifting deprives a store owner of an item for which they paid money.

Piracy, in this context, does not deprive anyone of a physical thing. It is argued that it deprives content creators of 'possible' income. However, no creditable study has borne this out, let alone come close to a rigorous estimate of true cost.

Until we can identify what the exact costs of current behavior are, we cannot evaluate the costs inherent in new laws/forced behaviors. However, the costs of proposed legislation like SOPA holds a cost that is too high for even the ridiculously inflated estimates of lost revenue by media giants.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Piracy, in this context, does not deprive anyone of a physical thing. It is argued that it deprives content creators of 'possible' income. However, no creditable study has borne this out, let alone come close to a rigorous estimate of true cost.

Until we can identify what the exact costs of current behavior are, we cannot evaluate the costs inherent in new laws/forced behaviors. However, the costs of proposed legislation like SOPA holds a cost that is too high for even the ridiculously inflated estimates of lost revenue by media giants.

I concur. I tend to be the guy who waits until DVDs and books are in the used book stores before I buy. To some people, the fact that I generally refuse to buy in the primary market makes me no better than a software pirate. These people, generally textbook companies, claim that by buying mostly used books, I'm stealing from the author and publisher.

Never mind the fact that a lot of the books I really enjoy are out of print, and available nowhere else but the used book stores.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by ApK

As for anti-SLAPP legislation, that's great, but as above, it's a matter of determining who's rights are best served and what damage is prevented by making you stop doing something, or allowing you to continue it while the legal issues are sorted. What one party sees as a SLAPP, the other party might see as an honest and necessarily action to protect their interests.


I am. Now. Thanks to Wikipedia.

So really is it a problem to allow someone to respond to a takedown demand with an anti-slapp motion or some other motion before material is blocked? If you can't show cause in front of a judge what justifies a takedown at all?

What these laws are doing is giving an advantage to an unproven claim of monetary damages over free speech rights. Why should money trump speech all things being equal?


And once again I reject this notion people keep posting that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. I'm afraid I don't see any urgency to try to force through badly abuseable censorious laws when media companies are making huge profits.

Now if you want a considered review of current laws, maybe a committee in both houses of congress who will sit down, and make recommendations about what needs to be repealed what needs to be changed what needs to be replaced, one that will take input from all concerned parties not just the MPAA and one who's members have no financial incentive to learn in any direction on copyright enforcement methods, that sounds like a fine idea. It sounds like a fine idea for all aspect of law. One year copyrights and patents, another year environmental regulation, another year trade policy and keep going, every year a group with no financial incentive sorting though the US code and updating it with the times.

But dammit anyone who makes sky is falling claims and doesn't back them is behaving as muck like a child as the people they're accusing of wrongs. There are other things at stake here and solving one problem is not an excuse to create an even larger one with the potential to harm far more people than the first is claimed to.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I guess he is not saying they are the same, just that immediate need for a remedy is the same --- you would want it stopped right now), but acting as if there was nothing wrong with piracy is just as ridiculous. Just because something else is worse doesn't mean piracy is not wrong.

But if something else is worse than risking infringement is preferred to that worse thing. Crime is bad, police state is worse. Fred Phelps is bad, outlawing protests is worse. Time to learn that the cost of good is that some bad will happen.