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

[tompe]

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.

I think only the public have a stake. The goal is to maximize or get enough creation. If we think about how things should be and how laws should be designed.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think only the public have a stake. The goal is to maximize or get enough creation. If we think about how things should be and how laws should be designed.

The other party is the individual. If the individual has no stake, who's doing the creation, and why? That individual might be a person, or some other entity, like a corporation, but in either case, if you're really going to to take the position only the public have a stake and the individual doesn't, I'll just have to disagree.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by John F

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.


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

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.

Megaupload was hosting pirated material (should note, I used it as an FTP replacement for exchanging files with clients who were not tech-savvy enough to use FTPs, so I was kind of shocked to learn it had an illegal side), got taken down, and Anonymous responded with a hacking attack. What did you see the public reaction to be? I saw a lot of either indifference or support for Anonymous, which is amazing to me because just a couple days earlier I saw everyone talking about google's "end piracy, not libery" petition. So did the public celebrate something being done to end piracy, or was it just lip service? And almost everyone who talked about it said "I used it to watch movies" or something to that effect.

[Sil_liS]

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?

This doesn't happen only to artists/writers. The people who enjoy their work more usually get handed more things to do, with the colleagues and bosses giving the impression that they did the coworker/employee a favor. It's also true for those who work better or faster. And the result is that they get payed less for the amount of work.

Originally Posted by sbroome

Megaupload was hosting pirated material (should note, I used it as an FTP replacement for exchanging files with clients who were not tech-savvy enough to use FTPs, so I was kind of shocked to learn it had an illegal side), got taken down, and Anonymous responded with a hacking attack. What did you see the public reaction to be? I saw a lot of either indifference or support for Anonymous, which is amazing to me because just a couple days earlier I saw everyone talking about google's "end piracy, not libery" petition. So did the public celebrate something being done to end piracy, or was it just lip service? And almost everyone who talked about it said "I used it to watch movies" or something to that effect.

From what I've read on the internet it was mostly "I used it to watch porn". I don't see why you would expect the people who used it to start cheering that it was taken down, and most of those who didn't use it probably didn't know that it existed.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This doesn't happen only to artists/writers. The people who enjoy their work more usually get handed more things to do, with the colleagues and bosses giving the impression that they did the coworker/employee a favor. It's also true for those who work better or faster. And the result is that they get payed less for the amount of work.


From what I've read on the internet it was mostly "I used it to watch porn". I don't see why you would expect the people who used it to start cheering that it was taken down, and most of those who didn't use it probably didn't know that it existed.

I don't expect them to. I'm saying that people who'd just signed a petition a day earlier entitled 'end piracy not liberty' probably didn't actually care at all about ending piracy, which is the attitude that allows the government to say "let's create SOPA" in the first place.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

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.

What about this:

Originally Posted by ApK

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.

Groups that you are a part of supported SOPA. Did you give extreme examples to them?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

I don't expect them to. I'm saying that people who'd just signed a petition a day earlier entitled 'end piracy not liberty' probably didn't actually care at all about ending piracy, which is the attitude that allows the government to say "let's create SOPA" in the first place.

So what? The author of SOPA infringed on someone's copyright.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ApK

The other party is the individual. If the individual has no stake, who's doing the creation, and why?

Individuals? Maybe because they feel like it and are stimulated by getting paid. Or maybe for some other reason. I do not understand the question. The goal of the part whose wishes was the only important thing was to make sure that things got created. So obviously the resulting system must be a system were things get created.

But it the wanted things get created in some other way (appear in thin air or whatever) then that is perfectly OK also and then we do not have to pay people to stimulate creation.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Megaupload was hosting pirated material (should note, I used it as an FTP replacement for exchanging files with clients who were not tech-savvy enough to use FTPs, so I was kind of shocked to learn it had an illegal side), got taken down, and Anonymous responded with a hacking attack. What did you see the public reaction to be? I saw a lot of either indifference or support for Anonymous, which is amazing to me because just a couple days earlier I saw everyone talking about google's "end piracy, not libery" petition.

I saw Anonymous reaction as a protest against the methods. And it was that protest that was cheered. And the methods were bad for many reason. One reason was that people that used the service for work or other legitimate purposes suddenly without warning lost access to their files.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So what? The author of SOPA infringed on someone's copyright.

There's this point on almost all internet discussions of SOPA where people start to ignore common sense and pretend that the folks who pirate are all freedom fighting modern-day Robin Hoods who care about due process, and the authors of SOPA are all Dick Dastardly mustache-twiddling waterboarders. Sorry. I just don't care. If some kind of clear hypocrisy is pointed out to you and your response is "so what" I'm assuming you aren't actually looking to discuss the topic.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by tompe

I saw Anonymous reaction as a protest against the methods. And it was that protest that was cheered. And the methods were bad for many reason. One reason was that people that used the service for work or other legitimate purposes suddenly without warning lost access to their files.

I was one of those users who lost the files (although I also have a website with unlimited bandwidth and storage so it's not a big deal). However your point speaks to what I'm referring to above, where all of a sudden people who pirate content and knowingly do things that are illegal are obsessed with due process and turn into a bunch of Perry Mason clones. As for Anonymous, I don't feel that a group that hacks or sends DOS attacks to anyone who disagrees with them has a right to talk about unreasonable methods.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

There's this point on almost all internet discussions of SOPA where people start to ignore common sense and pretend that the folks who pirate are all freedom fighting modern-day Robin Hoods who care about due process, and the authors of SOPA are all Dick Dastardly mustache-twiddling waterboarders. Sorry. I just don't care. If some kind of clear hypocrisy is pointed out to you and your response is "so what" I'm assuming you aren't actually looking to discuss the topic.

If some kind of clear hypocrisy is pointed out to you and your response is to ignore it and pretend that SOPA was made by upstanding citizens for upstanding citizens I'm assuming you aren't actually looking to discuss the topic.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by teh603

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.

I can't recall ever meeting such a person. But here's where they are in error:

When I buy a PB, I generally go to bookfinder.com and purchase the cheapest copy. As soon as I do, the price of the cheapest used copy available on the internet usually rises. When the next person comes along and compares the price of the cheapest used, and cheapest new, legitimate copy, there is less advantage to buying used, so they may buy new or eBook. And when hundreds of thousands of people like me are pushing up the price of used books, this gives publishers room to charge more for the new or eBook product.

It's best for authors and publishers that I buy new, but used sales, just like library borrowing, do benefit them.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

these may have been shelved but theres still ACTA and the Protect Children from Internet Pornography plans out there-

"ACTA is an international trade agreement currently negociated by the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia as well as a few other countries, whose aim is to enforce copyright and tackle counterfeited goods (hence its acronym: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).

The main problem with this treaty is that all the negociations are done secretely. Leaked documents show that one of the major goal of the treaty is to force signatory countries into implementing anti file-sharing policies under the form of three-strikes schemes and net filtering practices."

http://www.stopacta.info/

""The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American." Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it."

"As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn't require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history -- being suspected of any crime is enough. (It may even be made available in civil matters like divorce trials or child custody battles.) Nor do police need probable cause to search this information. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner says, (R-Wisc.) "It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I'm not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...r-good/242853/


"A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.

It represents "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...snooping-bill/

A friend just sent me an email on this the other day. I guess President Obama already signed ACTA back in October.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-...rse-than-sopa/

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

Carol