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

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

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.

I don't support SOPA/PIPA, but bad behavior by others should never be an excuse.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't support SOPA/PIPA, but bad behavior by others should never be an excuse.

Bad behavior certainly is no excuse for SOPA. If they come up with something better we can talk about it, if they come up with somethign worse we will be here talking about it. But either way NO SOPA > SOPA.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

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

Bull. You're stealing someone's rights. You're stealing someone's control.
Basing an argument or a believe on such a daft semantic distinction is tedious at best, and evidence of a wholly unsupportable position at worst.

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.

As a libertarian (note the lower case l) myself, I don't see how you can call yourself that if you're restricting your libertarian views to only things that cause physical or direct financial harm. Having ones rights and liberties damaged is absolutely harm that is just as real, just of a different nature.

Or would you argue that any strangers passing by your house should be allowed to enter your house, hang around, watch tv, stare at you for a bit while you sleep, as long as the don't physically beat your or take anything? No harm done, right?

Piracy, in this context, does not deprive anyone of a physical thing. It is argued that it deprives content creators of 'possible' income.

It deprives them of their right to control their work. It deprives them of protection under the law. It deprives them of the peace of mind that a society of law brings to the people.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Bad behavior certainly is no excuse for SOPA. If they come up with something better we can talk about it, if they come up with somethign worse we will be here talking about it. But either way NO SOPA > SOPA.

No argument from me there.

[MrPLD]

I'm late to this one... but I love it...

I'm a content creator (designs, books, software) but I'm no fan of things like DRM. I don't approve of people pirating my stuff - but in the same breath I also don't approve of things like SOPA/PIPA, primarily because they're not being introduced to legitimately stop pirates, it's being introduced to constrain legit consumers (subtle difference) and provide a convenient way of shutting down anyone/thing they want on an almost-whim. They're merely using the specter of "Pirates" as a compelling fear to try and push the bill(s) through.

The existing laws are already amply useful, the trouble is that there's too many checks and red-tape for the likes of those who want to snuff out content that doesn't agree with their views, or unearths some dirt.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by ApK

It deprives them of their right to control their work. It deprives them of protection under the law. It deprives them of the peace of mind that a society of law brings to the people.

Let me fix that for you, change right to privilege. Copyright isn't an actual right, just something created one day in 1709 to add to the public domain.

If it were a right it'd be the sort of thing you could do in the absence of legislation. Law or no law you CAN shoot your mouth off about anything free speech is a natural right. In the absence of legislation you can't do jack about someone making a copy or distributing it.

And in the US there's certainly no constitutional obligation to have copyright at all. Congress is granted the power not the requirement to make copyright laws, if they want to, for a limited time, to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Let me fix that for you, change right to privilege. Copyright isn't an actual right, just something created one day in 1709 to add to the public domain.

That's not the correct distinction. It's legal right, protected by law. The only difference between it and a natural right is that it also happened to be bestowed by law. No different than the RIGHT to vote.
A privilege is different. It can be taken a away without due process.

A funny thing here is that many people treat the RIGHT of copyright protection as a mere privilege requested by others, which they are free to ignore, and many people treat the PRIVILEGE of driving on public roads as some kind of natural right of theirs that cannot be denied, even by the due process of a DUI conviction, no matter how dangerously they abuse the privilege.
Maybe that's not so funny. The commonality there seems to be that a lot of people see OTHER people's interests as optional, but their OWN interests as absolutes.

ApK

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by ApK

Bull. You're stealing someone's rights. You're stealing someone's control.
Basing an argument or a believe on such a daft semantic distinction is tedious at best, and evidence of a wholly unsupportable position at worst.

Words matter. Semantics matter. If we are not precise in our definitions, or usage of words, then misunderstandings occur. You cannot say "YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN AND YOU'RE A DIRTY SOB FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME" without being exact in your verbiage.

Originally Posted by ApK

As a libertarian (note the lower case l) myself, I don't see how you can call yourself that if you're restricting your libertarian views to only things that cause physical or direct financial harm. Having ones rights and liberties damaged is absolutely harm that is just as real, just of a different nature.

Or would you argue that any strangers passing by your house should be allowed to enter your house, hang around, watch tv, stare at you for a bit while you sleep, as long as the don't physically beat your or take anything? No harm done, right?

You are correct in the lower case 'L'. However, you really need some reading comprehension for the rest of my post. I did not claim to be a libertarian, or be a part of the Libertarian party. I said my beliefs tend to lean libertarian.

Secondly, I did not restrict myself to physical harm. I stated harm. The rest of your emotionally driven post is a mere strawman, not at all rooted in what I actually said. Please try to be logical, and not emotional in these exchanges.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by ApK;

It deprives them of their right to control their work. It deprives them of protection under the law. It deprives them of the peace of mind that a society of law brings to the people.

So then the public should be deprived of their rights under the law? Their peace of mind?

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's not the correct distinction. It's legal right, protected by law. The only difference between it a natural right is that it also happened to be bestowed by law. No different than the RIGHT to vote. A privilege is different. It can be taken a away without due process.

A funny thing here is that many people treat the RIGHT of copyright protection as a mere privilege requested by others that they are free to ignore, and many people treat the PRIVILEGE of driving on public roads as some kind of natural right of theirs that cannot be denied, even by the due process of a DUI conviction, no matter how dangerously they abuse the privilege.
Maybe that's not so funny. The commonality there seems to be that a lot of people see OTHER people's interests as optional, but their OWN interests as absolutes.

ApK

As an artist/writer who's also been a freelance web designer for years, I can tell you the one thing that's consistent: people feel art and writing are "FUN" for the creator, and thus not that big of a deal. I mean if the end result is entertaining in any way, it must have been entertaining to create, so what's the big deal? They think it's a privelege for us to have our work consumed, which is why it's sort of difficult to convince them of the real issue. Namely, that the issue is not consuming something for free that you wouldn't have if it cost you money (which is what they talk about constantly), but consuming something at all that you are asked to pay for first. That's all. At the end of the day SOPA was a ridiculous overreaction, but one that was a result of the public's complete lack of accountability, and in many cases pride in what they're doing. In half of the discussions on the topics of megaupload and SOPA, people bragged about what piracy sites they used and which ones they would switch to if their favorites got shut down. Hiding behind all the excuses doesn't change reality.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

So then the public should be deprived of their rights under the law? Their peace of mind?

As I said above, balancing that is always the real issue in these matters.
The first step is to acknowledge that BOTH sides have a legitimate stake, rather than trying to justify the dismissal of the other's side's interest by claiming "it's not really stealing" or "no one is getting physically beaten" or "I wouldn't have paid money for it anyway", or "I'm doing them a favor by advertising for them" or other rationalizations that often dominate the rhetoric of the self-entitled.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Words matter. Semantics matter. If we are not precise in our definitions, or usage of words, then misunderstandings occur. You cannot say "YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN AND YOU'RE A DIRTY SOB FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME" without being exact in your verbiage.



You are correct in the lower case 'L'. However, you really need some reading comprehension for the rest of my post. I did not claim to be a libertarian, or be a part of the Libertarian party. I said my beliefs tend to lean libertarian.

Secondly, I did not restrict myself to physical harm. I stated harm. The rest of your emotionally driven post is a mere strawman, not at all rooted in what I actually said. Please try to be logical, and not emotional in these exchanges.

I agree with you that semantics are very important, and that people throw up "you're just arguing semantics" wrongly when in fact the semantic distinction is the relevant matter. However, in this case, your semantic argument is the straw man, trying to argue correct and understood terms to deflect and distract from the issue.
The straw man here is that the term "Steal" is wrong or that it would matter to anyone but those trying to rationalize illegal acts. Not only is 'steal' appropriate and correct in common usage, but some of the lawyers among us have pointed out that is is also legally correct and used statutorily for IP violations is some places.
The other straw man is the implication that merely mentioning a violent crime in a post about a civil offense is intended to equate the harm of the two. Most others clearly see that the analogy was to show that the idea of stopping an action before due process is not inherently wrong, and the issue is really to determine more thoughtfully when it's proper and when it's not.

[John F]

Originally Posted by ApK

As I said above, balancing that is always the real issue in these matters.
The first step is to acknowledge that BOTH sides have a legitimate stake, rather than trying to justify the dismissal of the other's side's interest by claiming "it's not really stealing" or "no one is getting physically beaten" or "I wouldn't have paid money for it anyway", or "I'm doing them a favor by advertising for them" or other rationalizations that often dominate the rhetoric of the self-entitled.

Am I missing something. You say "acknowledge BOTH sides", but then seem to comment on one side?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by John F

Am I missing something. You say "acknowledge BOTH sides", but then seem to comment on one side?

If anyone was arguing that SOPA was great and companies should be able to instantly take down anything they want, I'll be posting extreme examples on the other side, I promise.

[John F]

Originally Posted by sbroome

As an artist/writer who's also been a freelance web designer for years, I can tell you the one thing that's consistent: people feel art and writing are "FUN" for the creator, and thus not that big of a deal. I mean if the end result is entertaining in any way, it must have been entertaining to create, so what's the big deal? ...

IMO, the vast majority of people respect artists for there creative ability. Some artists may enjoy there work, but it can be hard work, and it does take a lot of work, in general.

I am not an artists/writer.

... They think it's a privelege for us to have our work consumed, ...

I don't get this impression, in general. Maybe a few fringe cases, but in general, no.

... but one that was a result of the public's complete lack of accountability, and in many cases pride in what they're doing. In half of the discussions on the topics of megaupload and SOPA, people bragged about what piracy sites they used and which ones they would switch to if their favorites got shut down. ...

I didn't get this impression. I can't recall anyone (I'm sure there were a couple a just skipped over) bragging (or showing pride) in the forums I visit. There is much talk about how easy it is to switch, and how dumb the law is, but people aren't saying they are using the site(s).

IMO.