SOPA talk, yo.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby SlyReaper » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:51 pm UTC

lucrezaborgia wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:SOPA goes after Pirates AFTER they pirate. It doesn't use thought crime to shut down potential pirates.


Since SOPA isn't law yet, we really don't know that, do we? DMCA has been used to censor sites and politicians who were for it swore up and down that wouldn't happen. The problem with laws like this is that there is little to no recourse if you don't have the money to fight the large corporations. Why do you assume that only criminals will be affected by this law? Why are we all conspiracy nuts to see the ways that this law could be misused?

Again, this law will not stop piracy. If China can't keep their firewall solid even with the backing of millions of human internet censors, what makes you think that this law will do anything to stop pirating?

What proof do you have that this law won't be misused?

Because the nice men in suits said so.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:02 pm UTC

Oh, the evil government wouldn't be initiating the shutdown requests. No, that'd be the nice trustworthy corporations.

They've never abused prior laws with absolutely no preemptive judicial oversight like the DMCA to take down things they had no right to. How could you question them?
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby yurell » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:12 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:There would be no problem equally if other nations would respect US copyright laws. You can argue they aren't good/fair, but it doesn't give people the legal right to ignore them.


Let's pretend that the it's the US, instead of the UK, that has the KJB under perpetual copyright. This law would mean that any site that had the KJB (which has no copyright in any country except the UK IRL and the US in our example) could just be shut down arbitrarily for holding a copy, even if they broke no laws in their own country.

This isn't a case of other countries not respecting US copyright laws, it's a case of the US not respecting other country's copyright laws.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Kayangelus » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:30 pm UTC

yurell wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:There would be no problem equally if other nations would respect US copyright laws. You can argue they aren't good/fair, but it doesn't give people the legal right to ignore them.


Let's pretend that the it's the US, instead of the UK, that has the KJB under perpetual copyright. This law would mean that any site that had the KJB (which has no copyright in any country except the UK IRL and the US in our example) could just be shut down arbitrarily for holding a copy, even if they broke no laws in their own country.

This isn't a case of other countries not respecting US copyright laws, it's a case of the US not respecting other country's copyright laws.


Only so long as the hosting of that site involved some services on US soil. Like, say, a DNS server on US soil. Mainly because, I don't think the US could do anything about DNS servers not in the US. And yes, the US does have a right to apply its laws regulating DNS servers, to the servers in their own country.

This bill is a horrible piece of crap, but that doesn't mean we need to come up with false reasons to bash it.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Randomizer » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:23 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Out of curiousity, what is your position on DRM as far as this is concerned? Companies aren't required to disclose what type of DRM they use (and generally go out of their way not to), either on the box or in the EULA. Especially if you use Linux, it's pretty easy to run afoul of DRM protections even for legitimate usage since most of them assume you're using Windows.
I think I read that there is some sort of legal thing as to why Linux doesn't come with something that will properly play DVDs. I had to download VLC media player seperately in order to watch my movies. And there was a Prince of Persia game I saw in the store some years ago that said it didn't work with all DVD players (I forget if it stated it was due to copy protection or not, but I believe that was the reason).

There's truth in advertising laws, there's labeling requirement laws, and things like viruses are illegal to distribute. So I'd say there's already case that software makers can't put whatever they want in their code (such as formating your hard drive), and that some things they put in they'd have to list on the packaging whether it be considered DRM or other parts of the software. Are current laws inadequate to deal with DRM/etc.? Quite possibly.

Malice wrote:That's not just their loss, that's your loss, in the event that you would have really enjoyed that movie. Why the hell should the competence or incompetence of the marketing department be the end-all, be-all in terms of your enjoyment of entertainment?
No, it's their loss. I can buy something else instead, maybe a different movie, or put the money towards a bicycle or something else. It's not that the marketing department should be the end-all be all, it's that their packaging didn't provide what I'd consider even a minimum amount of information. Vote with your dollars and all that. If you feel "try before you buy" is the only way you'd buy something, there are ways to do that legitimately, though not always for the specific product you're interested in. If you only want to pay for products who's sellers offer "try before you pay", find products that offer that particular method of sales promotion.

Malice wrote:Regardless, copyright does not exist to make authors feel comfortable; it exists to promote a full and open culture, where "full" requires that artists get paid for their work, and "open" requires that after a certain point they do not. Traditionally "a certain point" is x number of years after publication, mandated by law; pirates propose that "a certain point" is x number of people paying willingly, a number allowed to shift based on the quality and popularity of the work (not to mention the price point, distribution system, etc.).
If one agrees with the "after X number of people pay" concept they can run a kickstarter campaign or similar and post their work in the public domain (or at least license it as free to duplicate) if enough people contribute. Isn't it nice to have new and varied choices in how to distribute one's work? :)

Assume that 1 person distributes ten thousand copies of a book through Pirate Bay; of the ten thousand downloaders, half of them proceed to buy the book. There are also five thousand people who buy the book sight unseen, read it, and lend it each to one friend. Through the former process, the author has earned 5000 * (cover price); through the latter process, the author has earned 5000 * (cover price). In both cases, 10,000 people have read the book. Is there a moral difference between these two scenarios? Should the author care about which process happens? Should we listen to the author's preference?
There are rules that are in place for how one may obtain the fruits of another's labor. I happen to think that drawing the line between the creator's interests and the public's interests at the creator's exclusive right to make copies, with the public's right to do as they wish otherwise with them (well, mostly) is a fair one. Would you suggest a different line be drawn? If you think copyrights are inadequate to protect the creator's interest, would you argue in favor of droit de suite? If you think creators shouldn't have copyright, what rights (if any) would you grant them?

Creators decide whether to make their work and how to sell it on the basis of the rules that are in place. When people break those rules, it adds uncertainty to an already uncertain venture. It also shows the creator that others disregard his efforts to the point of feeling entitled to copies of his work regardless of their intentions to pay, or to otherwise follow the rules as established to obtain a legitimate copy; work which, while others are under no obligation to pay for, he was equally under no obligation to create in the first place. Why should the creator assume that illegitimate copies turn into sales? Even if they did, who says that money is the only thing a creator cares about?

Perhaps a creator doesn't want more copies in production at all, even if they were paid for. Maybe they have plans to make a touched-up version of their work, and would rather the copy with horrible spelling errors slowly died off. Or maybe a visual artist made a run of 1500 prints, and sold those on the basis of promising customers he wouldn't produce more than that. In that case customers bought it under the assumption they could hang it in their house and guests could admire it without them having seen it 1000 times before, and customers don't want illegitimate copies made. Or maybe an author is simply waiting for market conditions to make doing another run profitable, but if people keep subverting the book's out of print status through illegal copies those conditions will never come.

Another point, is that in making an illegal copy one is implicitly saying, "There are not enough copies of this work to satisfy demand, and an additional copy has value." Now, maybe that additional value isn't enough that one would pay for it, and that's fine, you didn't want it that much or you couldn't afford it or whatnot. But someone else, similarly lacking a copy, may feel that the value of an additional copy in existence is worth paying for.

The absurdity of copyright law has actually led to proposals that library ebooks "expire" (and delete themselves) after x number of reads, which is ridiculous, and only goes to show the stupidity of forcing artificial scarcity onto unlimited goods.
I'd propose that the folks at the library would be foolish to purchase books that delete themselves after being read a certain number of times. And honestly, half the books I check out I don't even end up reading, and I'd doubt I'm the only one like this, making it doubly so.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Malice » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:13 am UTC

Randomizer wrote:There are rules that are in place for how one may obtain the fruits of another's labor. I happen to think that drawing the line between the creator's interests and the public's interests at the creator's exclusive right to make copies, with the public's right to do as they wish otherwise with them (well, mostly) is a fair one. Would you suggest a different line be drawn? If you think copyrights are inadequate to protect the creator's interest, would you argue in favor of droit de suite? If you think creators shouldn't have copyright, what rights (if any) would you grant them?


First, copyright is clearly inadequate to protect the creator's interest, if the creator's interest is truly a matter of fanatical control, since piracy is rampant and by most accounts cannot be stopped by force. Not to go all "can't stop the signal", but you really can't, as piracy will always piggyback on logistical avenues used for legitimate business and communication, a baby inextricably linked with its bathwater. Copyright made more sense when breaking that rule was difficult; it is easy now, and it is only going to get easier from here. A right that can't be protected isn't a right, or at least is worth re-examining.

I believe that creators' rights should be fairly limited in scope; chief among them should be the right to determine who is allowed to sell (not make) copies of their work. And this only for a limited time (20 years is a good starting point, I think). Because honestly, and I say this as a creator, fuck creators. Their right to profit until the ends of time, their right to determine how people use and reuse their work to create new works, their right to print six copies and no more in the interest of artificial scarcity--all of those things I deem incredibly unimportant compared to the beneficial impact of a free and open culture on the global population.

Creators decide whether to make their work and how to sell it on the basis of the rules that are in place. When people break those rules, it adds uncertainty to an already uncertain venture. It also shows the creator that others disregard his efforts to the point of feeling entitled to copies of his work regardless of their intentions to pay, or to otherwise follow the rules as established to obtain a legitimate copy; work which, while others are under no obligation to pay for, he was equally under no obligation to create in the first place. Why should the creator assume that illegitimate copies turn into sales? Even if they did, who says that money is the only thing a creator cares about?


Most creators need money, and it is society's best interest to see that they get some according to the value of the work they produce. But creators will certainly create for other reasons--for fame, enjoyment, practice, a legacy, a fanbase, or simply to satisfy their need for self-expression. Most people don't get into the business of creating expecting to get rich; but we should at least ensure they can have the expectation of making a fair living.

If you're arguing that, without the ridiculously extended and restrictive form of copyright we have now, creators won't create, I'll call bullshit on that all day and night. There are plenty of examples of people who give their art away, from street artists to webcartoonists to independent filmmakers on Youtube or Bittorrent.

Perhaps a creator doesn't want more copies in production at all, even if they were paid for. Maybe they have plans to make a touched-up version of their work, and would rather the copy with horrible spelling errors slowly died off.


They're free to let their "director's cut" compete; if it's truly better, and/or the creator is respected enough, people will view the preferred version.

Or maybe a visual artist made a run of 1500 prints, and sold those on the basis of promising customers he wouldn't produce more than that. In that case customers bought it under the assumption they could hang it in their house and guests could admire it without them having seen it 1000 times before, and customers don't want illegitimate copies made.


Those customers can go screw, really; art should be available to all, not kept locked away by a few.

Or maybe an author is simply waiting for market conditions to make doing another run profitable, but if people keep subverting the book's out of print status through illegal copies those conditions will never come.


Now here's an interesting hypothetical! I believe the author does have options in this scenario, however, most of which involve a direct appeal of the sort that does seem to work (In Rainbows, Louis CK's new video, Humble Indie Bundles). If people like an out-of-print book enough to keep downloading it (to keep it "in print" themselves, collectively), they're likely to be willing to show that appreciation financially.

Another point, is that in making an illegal copy one is implicitly saying, "There are not enough copies of this work to satisfy demand, and an additional copy has value." Now, maybe that additional value isn't enough that one would pay for it, and that's fine, you didn't want it that much or you couldn't afford it or whatnot. But someone else, similarly lacking a copy, may feel that the value of an additional copy in existence is worth paying for.


Ignoring books, your point doesn't make much sense as written. Making an illegal copy of a movie or CD isn't saying "There are not enough copies of this work to satisfy demand"; it's more a function of the price being too high, where price means the monetary cost as well as the associated intangibles (DRM, the ease of finding or downloading). As you say, the value inherent in the copy isn't worth the legitimate price, but the same value may be worth the near-zero cost of pirating it. Someone else may feel it's worth it to pay the full price, and creators/distributors are encouraged to use those intangibles (a physical copy, an easy-to-use store, DRM-free files, the chance to support a creator) to keep that business.
Image

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby yurell » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:01 am UTC

As an aside, I just got linked this by a friend and thought it amusing:
US congressman is opposing SOPA because he loves LoL.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:52 am UTC

Randomizer wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Out of curiousity, what is your position on DRM as far as this is concerned? Companies aren't required to disclose what type of DRM they use (and generally go out of their way not to), either on the box or in the EULA. Especially if you use Linux, it's pretty easy to run afoul of DRM protections even for legitimate usage since most of them assume you're using Windows.
I think I read that there is some sort of legal thing as to why Linux doesn't come with something that will properly play DVDs. I had to download VLC media player seperately in order to watch my movies. And there was a Prince of Persia game I saw in the store some years ago that said it didn't work with all DVD players (I forget if it stated it was due to copy protection or not, but I believe that was the reason).

There's truth in advertising laws, there's labeling requirement laws, and things like viruses are illegal to distribute. So I'd say there's already case that software makers can't put whatever they want in their code (such as formating your hard drive), and that some things they put in they'd have to list on the packaging whether it be considered DRM or other parts of the software. Are current laws inadequate to deal with DRM/etc.? Quite possibly.


The DeCSS algorithm which Linux uses to playback DVDs is considered to break DRM protections, and is thus illegal.

Also, as a counter-example, Sony created a virus that infected machines on CDs as a form of "copy protection". There are plenty of examples where companies abuse DRM in ways that hurt legitimate consumers. True, the law makes it illegal, but when the FBI arrests people for studying DRM, good luck proving that certain forms of DRM are harmful to consumers.

That said, I understand the importance of copyright and again, I feel like I should say that I might even be in favor of the powers granted to the Attorney General. (The FBI / Justice Department always have had powers to screw us over, and they do so regularly. Nonetheless, they do it with at least good intentions in mind. At worst, they go on power trips, but its not like they want to quash free-speech). The free market? Fuck that. DMCA takedowns are over 30% fraudulent:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200903 ... 4126.shtml
In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.


SOPA has higher potential of abuse than DMCA. (Instead of forcing you to take down infringing material, your advertising partners and financial services will be cut before you can even defend yourself in court). The free market rewards those who crush competitors, and giving stronger tools that can be abused just forces everyone to get better lawyers... instead of focusing on making better websites.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:49 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml
In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.


SOPA has higher potential of abuse than DMCA. (Instead of forcing you to take down infringing material, your advertising partners and financial services will be cut before you can even defend yourself in court). The free market rewards those who crush competitors, and giving stronger tools that can be abused just forces everyone to get better lawyers... instead of focusing on making better websites.
That's interesting, but in the case of DMCA, does a federal judge have to actually be involved? What I'm asking is--do SOPA and DMCA have similar levels of accessibility?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:07 am UTC

Approximately. SOPA has a slightly higher barrier to entry, to further entrench big players - no judicial review, but it must be rubber-stamped by somebody at the Justice Department but all it requires is a claim the action is taken in good faith and it's not meant to constitute an alternative to judicial review. Backers of SOPA specifically said this was important because judicial review would take too long, and the claim volume would overload the courts - so read between the lines a tiny bit with those arguments and there's no chance it'll be any kind of real review.

There is no pre-emptive judicial review for the DMCA, but the DMCA is much more targeted (a DMCA notice takes down one allegedly infringing item, not an entire domain and a company's financial assets) and there is a counter-notice procedure which allows the content host to put it back online immediately while still giving them safe harbor protections (after which it is handed to the courts if the entity which initiated the notice wants to take legal action) which does not have an equivalent in SOPA.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Randomizer » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:33 am UTC

Malice wrote:If you're arguing that, without the ridiculously extended and restrictive form of copyright we have now, creators won't create, I'll call bullshit on that all day and night.
I think I was arguing the difference between lending another person a copyrighted work and creating duplicates of it. :p "It's wrong but I don't give a shit" or even "Copyright is evil!11!!" is easier to swallow than "Because it's legal to sell or lend copyrighted works, it is therefore moral to illegally copy them", which is a disingenuous fucking bullshit justification. I am frustrated because I do not know why this is not obvious to others, and apparently requires arguing the merits of copyright to explain. I'm done. Just let me know if I've succeeded in making my point.

Ignoring books, your point doesn't make much sense as written. Making an illegal copy of a movie or CD isn't saying "There are not enough copies of this work to satisfy demand"; it's more a function of the price being too high, where price means the monetary cost as well as the associated intangibles (DRM, the ease of finding or downloading). As you say, the value inherent in the copy isn't worth the legitimate price, but the same value may be worth the near-zero cost of pirating it. Someone else may feel it's worth it to pay the full price, and creators/distributors are encouraged to use those intangibles (a physical copy, an easy-to-use store, DRM-free files, the chance to support a creator) to keep that business.
I meant not worth the price to the person who would prefer obtaining an illegitimate copy, not it's inherent value. Value is subjective. There are a lot of products I wouldn't want for free, but which someone else might pay a significant amount for. I don't see inconvenient shopping as a reasonable excuse to obtain something illegitimately instead of paying for it. Also, I wasn't thinking about DRM, just the product itself.

I do think if someone makes an illegitimate copy, they are indeed saying there are not enough copies in circulation to satisfy demand. Otherwise, why make a copy? They're also saying that, despite demanding it, they are either unwilling or unable to pay for it. If unwilling, maybe they only demand it a little bit? Or maybe zero is the only price they're willing to pay? Anyway, the creator is under no obligation to cater to those who undervalue their work, just as a potential customer is under no obligation to purchase something which is overpriced. If the creator really wants to make the sale, they can lower the price a bit. Or if the buyer *really* wants that specific product, they can open their wallet a bit. If not, there are plenty of other products they can spend their money on.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Steax » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:48 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Backers of SOPA specifically said this was important because judicial review would take too long, and the claim volume would overload the courts - so read between the lines a tiny bit with those arguments and there's no chance it'll be any kind of real review.


"They probably won't have enough time to figure them all out, so lets just assume guilt and punish them until proven otherwise... which probably won't happen, hence the first part of this sentence."

... I'd have thought these people would be a bit smarter. Can you cite that? I'd like to bring it up in other debates outside this forum.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Griffin » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:08 pm UTC

"Because it's legal to sell or lend copyrighted works, it is therefore moral to illegally copy them", which is a disingenuous fucking bullshit justification. I am frustrated because I do not know why this is not obvious to others, and apparently requires arguing the merits of copyright to explain.

This really depends a lot on your assumptions though. I can see axioms that would make the first statement obviously true, and axioms that would render it utterly false. The reason it's not obvious to others that it is a bullshit justification is that with a different framing, it isn't it. If the main justification for copyright is "Creators should be paid in order for people to enjoy their work, i.e. people should be not be able to experience the work without rewarding the creator", which many of the pro-copyright people have argued, than the argument makes perfect sense. It's an untenable stand to argue from that axiom and claim lending and reselling is alright but copying is not. (Many entertainment industries come from this direction and are actually consistent, having attempted to limit or illegalize both these situations).

However, yes, if your justification for copyright is something else, the statement probably doesn't matter much.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:25 pm UTC

Randomizer wrote:I think I was arguing the difference between lending another person a copyrighted work and creating duplicates of it.

But duplication is the natural way to deal with digitized information. You don't move it from place to place, you make a copy at the other place. From server to client, from one machine to the other, from storage to memory, all the time. Sometimes the system forgets the original version, but that's entirely optional.

Copyright was made for printed text, and it is based on a division that comes natural for such objects: you don't accidentally print a text, so it's easy to divide rights based on that. The buyer can do anything they want with the physical object, except creating a typeset to print out more copies. Typeset creation was usually fairly expensive, so the original printer was often the only person who could viably run off more copies.

That's important: the division between "right to use" and "right to copy" is not a deeply considered platonic ideal of rights. It was a practical choice, which was once upon a time clear to recognize and often easy to enforce. For a while, recorded music and movies could be fitted in the same pattern.

At this moment in time, that same division happens to be extremely vague and hard to enforce. It requires complicated technology and rather invasive policing to enforce the same division between usage and copying that was once a natural division. And even where it can be enforced, it's vague when it should exactly be enforced.

Is copying bits from storage to volatile memory "duplication"? Surely not. How about copies from one of my PC's hard drive to another of my PCs? From my PC to my portable device? From one of my devices to one of my wife's devices? To a device of my fiend, who would lend the physical book in the old days? Can I sell a copy, like I can with used books? Can I sell a copy if I then delete my own copies? Can I time-share my copy on the internet when I am not using it? If I happen to store the file in a publically-accessible place, am I responsible if it gets copied by others? Is stripping DRM in itself bad, or only the results?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:21 pm UTC

Steax wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:Backers of SOPA specifically said this was important because judicial review would take too long, and the claim volume would overload the courts - so read between the lines a tiny bit with those arguments and there's no chance it'll be any kind of real review.


"They probably won't have enough time to figure them all out, so lets just assume guilt and punish them until proven otherwise... which probably won't happen, hence the first part of this sentence."

... I'd have thought these people would be a bit smarter. Can you cite that? I'd like to bring it up in other debates outside this forum.


I too have heard this argument. Its best to go to the primary source on the matter...

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf ... 152011.pdf

459 pages? :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Gahhhhh.

---------------------

Here's the bit I can find on the proposed amendment:

Pg 386
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
You know, again, in terms of a small operating company, a Web site, they might employ 10 people, 15 people. For them to muster the legal fees and make the case could very well be putting their entire company on the line, using all of their revenues, all of their investment that has been made in the company to be able to make the defense. And it is very reasonable, given that the process of making the defense itself could jeopardize their existence of the business even if they succeed, that they would be able to recover those expenses.
Again, it will cause those who would seek to enforce long-shot suits -- again, short of willful, you willfully wielding this weapon, but a long shot, you know, the willful window is very narrow. Even if there is a 5 or 10 percent chance of winning, this could be used very broadly in cases where 9 out of 10 times the defendant prevails, but is nevertheless put out of business by the legal fees that are incurred in the process of rightfully defending their claim that eventually gets adjudicated.
So I think it is an excellent amendment, and I do support it.
I yield back.


Fuck yeah Mr. Polis. Way to represent us. The retort?

Pg 387
Mr. Chaffetz. I appreciate your yielding.
If they are right, and they win, they are not going to be liable for the costs. Both examples that you gave me, you are right.


Pg 388
Mr. Berman. All I know is you do this, and people who are right and are concerned about any litigation and the probabilities of what happens will be deterred from exercising their rights. You are right.
The surest way to shut down these cases is to adopt a provision like this and disincentivize a well-meaning, good-faith, small copyright owner with perhaps their first movie, or their first song, or their first book from exercising their rights.
I urge a no vote.


Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
This amendment would go far beyond the award of reasonable attorneys' fees. It would provide for the reasonable attorneys' fees of all parties to the litigation and of all witnesses, including experts, whether or not compelled by process or not. So this is an open invitation for the defense in such an action to overload the plaintiff with possible costs, which would be a great deterrent for the plaintiff to actually even bring the case. So it is just unlimited opportunity within the scope of this amendment to prevent parties from being able to take their matter to court. I think that this is too broad.


Supporters of SOPA are more worried that Copyright Holders will be disincentived to enforcing the powers of SOPA... than protecting the rights of typical web sites. Mr. Berman's argument is interesting, because it shows just how much they don't know the internet. SOPA protects small owners according to him. The amendment was voted down.

The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 11 Members voted aye, 22 Members voted nay.
Chairman Smith. A majority having voted against the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.


I understand that we kinda need to read the amendment itself to see what they're talking about (especially to evaluate Mr. Johnson's argument), but you can see the concerns of the members here.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Felstaff » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:13 pm UTC

Pro-SOPA opening statement wrote:"The bill in Congress now, critics say, goes much too far. The Internet's potential could be crippled. The bill could turn out to be the executioner of the Internet's real promise."
With all the strident and unfounded claims that have been made about H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, one can be forgiven for thinking those words were written about this bill. But those words were published 15 years ago and the bill that critics targeted for defeat was the measure that was eventually signed into law as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or the DMCA. A dozen years later, Wired Magazine called it "the law that saved the Web" and wrote "Blogs, search engines, e-commerce sites, video and social networking portals are thriving today thanks in large part to the notice and takedown regime ushered in by the much-maligned copyright overhaul."
In hindsight, what so many had attacked and feared helped promote and advance their interests. It is my view that providing new effective tools to combat the theft of intellectual property online will similarly promote the interests of all stakeholders.
While the DMCA helps, it only applies in limited circumstances. It provides no effective relief when a rogue Web site is foreign-based and foreign operated like Pirate Bay, the 89th most visited site in the U.S. It doesn't protect trademark owners and consumers from counterfeit and unsafe products like fake prescription medications available on legitimate appearing but unlicensed online pharmacist. It doesn't assist copyright owners when foreign rogue sites are devoted to the theft of intellectual property on a massive scale. Finally, it does nothing to address the use of intermediaries such as payment processors and Internet advertising servicers that are employed by criminals to fund illegal activities. That is why the Stop Online Piracy Act is needed.
This bill will make it more difficult for those who engage in criminal behavior to reach directly into the U.S. market to inflict harm on American consumers. Laws equip U.S. authorities and rights holders to take action against criminals who operate within our borders, but there is no parallel authority that permits effective action against criminals who operate from abroad.
The situation has deteriorated to the point where the Registrar of Copyrights testified before this committee last month, "It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail."
As of this morning, typing "download movies for free" into Google will take you to sites like Pirate Bay that offer free copies of infringing films and TV shows. While the Internet should be free, it should not be lawless.
The problem of rogue Web sites is real, immediate and increasing. It harms companies across the spectrum. And its scope is staggering. One recent survey found that nearly one quarter of global Internet traffic is infringing. The resultant economic losses runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Since the U.S. produces more intellectual property than any other country, our citizens have the most to lose if we fail to engage in and implement meaningful solutions. I believe the manager's amendment addresses the legitimate concerns that have been expressed, including protection of the First Amendment, due process and the integrity and security of the Internet.
The manager's amendment also includes provisions that ensure the protection of the Internet and its underlying system. It makes clear that no harm can come to domain name system security extensions, DNSSEC, by eliminating any requirement total director redirect users to another site. It protects the security and integrity of the DNS by establishing a kill switch that will allow a provider to not carry out an order upon a finding that it would impair the security or integrity of the system. The amendment ensures that the bill cannot be construed to require any order that would harm the DNS and requires a study to ensure no DNS harm.
This is a good bill that is the product an extensive process that has involved Members on both sides of the aisle. The manager's amendment improves the legislation, increases industry support and ensures the promotion of American innovation and the protection of U.S. jobs. I encourage members of the committee to support the amendment and look forward to working with all who are committed to enacting an effective and comprehensive measure.


Anti-SOPA opening argument wrote:I wanted to talk about the amendment in its entirety, because I think it is important to have an overview of the manager's amendment itself. We will discuss various elements through the amendment process. But I think from cybersecurity to technical experts, the bill's impact on the security of the Internet and the integrity of the basic infrastructure of the Internet is very much at risk.
We have heard from civil libertarians about the bill's inconsistencies with the constitutional rights to free speech and due process, and we are mindful that today is the birthday of the First Amendment. We have heard from entrepreneurs and venture capitalists about how the bill could stymie online innovation, from human rights and religious freedom advocates about how the bill could make it impossible for the United States to stem the tide of Internet censorship around the world and I think it is important to think and contemplate what is at stake here and what we are doing here, because I do think it is historic.
Some have said that the Internet is lawless. The Internet is not lawless. Conduct on the Internet can break the law and can be punished, just as in the physical world. But, up to this point, our government has always gone after the criminality on the Internet at each end of the network. It has shut down the illegal conduct at its source. It has punished Internet users for what they use the Internet for. But it has never tried to use the communication network itself to make illegal conduct impossible. If this bill passes with the mandate for domain name and other Internet filtering intact, I think it will be historic, and not in a good way. I don't think they will be going back. I think once the government has a taste of this power, the temptation to exert an ever-greater amount of control over the Internet through filtering technology will be irresistible.
The U.S. Government has never tried to monitor mail sent through the Post Office to prevent some category of illegal content from ever being sent. We have never tried to filter the telephone networks to block illegal content on the telephone network. And yet that is precisely what this legislation would do relative to the Internet.
There is nothing wrong with shutting down illegal conduct at its source or investigating and punishing illegal conduct when it happens online, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with installing checkpoints in communications networks in an attempt to prevent illegal communications from ever being transmitted in the first place.
Right now, there is a struggle going on worldwide for what the future of the Internet is going to be. Foreign governments like China and Iran already are using some of the same technology that this bill encourages to censor the Internet. These same governments are striving to gain control of the Internet's basic infrastructure through authority asserted by the United Nations and the international telecommunications union. If this bill passes, I believe it will aid this push for more direct government control, and I think it is going to be even harder for the United States to resist it.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it just last month, "Fragmenting the global Internet by erecting barriers around national Internets would change the landscape of cyberspace. In this scenario, the Internet would contain people in a series of digital bubbles rather than connecting them in a global network." But that is precisely the approach embraced by this bill.
I think we will get caught up in the details of the bill. That is entirely appropriate. That is what markups are for. But as we consider this legislation, I hope that we will step back and contemplate the larger ramifications for what we are doing here today.
I would also note that we have seen editorials in most of the major newspapers of the United States, including the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the L.A. Times, in opposition to this bill. Yesterday, a major union of creative professionals, the Writer's Guild of America West expressed serious concerns about this bill. The Washington Post published an online article noting opposition to SOPA from many journalists. And just yesterday, the American Newspapers Editors Association sent a letter to the committee opposing the bill and the manager's amendment. Universities have come out in opposition to the manager's amendment.
And I am sure we will have a debate about the major cybersecurity concerns, but I would like to submit to the record the column written by Stewart Baker, the former Assistant Secretary For Policy at DHS and the former General Counsel at the NSA opposing the manager's amendment and indicating that it would still do great damage to Internet security by putting obstacles in the way of DNSSEC, the protocol being designed to limit Internet crime.
So, bottom line, we do need copyright enforcement, but there is a better way to do it, without the collateral damage to cybersecurity, innovation, commerce and the First Amendment that the manager's amendment poses

LOL! (from Mr. Watt, the Gentleman of North Carolina) wrote:Mr. Chairman, I am a pretty old-fashioned guy who still hasn't figured out how, or even whether I want to use all the fancy technological advances that are out there. But as I have evaluated the issue of online piracy over the last several months, it has been both informative and increasingly alarming to me the extent to which these criminal enterprises can flourish unabated over the Internet. Music and movies, handbags and air bags, perfumes and pharmaceuticals, toothpaste and tool kits, you name it, it has been or will be the target of pirates intent on turning a quick buck without any regard for the grandmother whose health is put at risk, the first responder whose equipment is inadequate, the artist whose work is misappropriated, the worker whose job is eliminated, and perhaps as disturbingly, the young person who is socialized to think getting other people's stuff free or cheap is perfectly acceptable behavior.
This issue is not only about protecting the health and safety, intellectual property, competitiveness and economic growth of our Nation, it is also about preserving who we are as a Nation.
...
We don't let pawn shops operate freely without -- I mean, we don't ask them to monitor what they get in the pawn shop, but we do have the authority to go into that pawn shop and figure out where criminal activity is taking place. And I think this bill really does exactly that. It allows us to get into the Internet and say, look, you can't engage in these kind of things just because you are operating on the Internet. You can't engage in them in the real world. Why would you think that you would be able to get away with engaging in them in the virtual world?
So, from my perspective, just as a simple Hyperchicken from a backwoods nebula an old country boy, and, you know, this is the only way I can understand this complex stuff, we need parallels in the virtual world to what we have in the real world. And I think this bill draws the appropriate balance to get us into space. And while I am happy to continue to work on it, I think the manager's amendment has gone a long way in some respects, even further than I might have been willing to go. But I think we have got a good balance. We will continue to work on it, and I think we will have a good bill at the end of the day
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:30 pm UTC

Question:

If this bill will hurt business, why are both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau in favor of it.

Premises that keep coming up:
1) If a law can be abused, it is a bad law.
2) If anecdotal evidence demonstrates a law has been abused, regardless of how insignificant its frequency, it is a bad law.
3) Previous laws that were/are easy to abuse, are absued constantly, but there is no proof of this because its sooo easy to abuse.

I would love to hear people defend these premises or at the very least... give evidence to support their claims. Perhaps the number of times DMCA has been abused, even though it governs BILLIONS, if not trillions, of applicable events.

How many small business have gone bankrupt due to DMCA litigation, in which they were in the right?
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Felstaff » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:Question:

If this bill will hurt business, why are both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau in favor of it.

You know the MPAA and RIAA? Aside from having billions and billions of dollars in their pockets, they also have politicians in there, too. Powerful lobbyists, they are. With a dying business model and steadfast refusal to adapt to the fact that kids these days, they don't go down to the nickel Odeon on a Saturday with their pocket money to catch the latest talkie.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:You know the MPAA and RIAA? Aside from having billions and billions of dollars in their pockets, they also have politicians in there, too. Powerful lobbyists, they are. With a dying business model and steadfast refusal to adapt to the fact that kids these days, they don't go down to the nickel Odeon on a Saturday with their pocket money to catch the latest talkie.


According to the alarmist segment, every company will be at great risk of having their sites shut down over false/trivial accuastions.
Internet companies are also BIG time players in the chamber.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
ShootTheChicken
Best. Cheerleader. Ever.
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:11 am UTC
Location: America's Hat

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby ShootTheChicken » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:58 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:
LOL! (from Mr. Watt, the Gentleman of North Carolina) wrote:I don't understand anything that's being talked about, and I will make it quite clear that my lack of understanding is emphasized. But family values. Thank you.
SecondTalon wrote:the Hot Freshness of Wicked Classic.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:13 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Felstaff wrote:You know the MPAA and RIAA? Aside from having billions and billions of dollars in their pockets, they also have politicians in there, too. Powerful lobbyists, they are. With a dying business model and steadfast refusal to adapt to the fact that kids these days, they don't go down to the nickel Odeon on a Saturday with their pocket money to catch the latest talkie.


According to the alarmist segment, every company will be at great risk of having their sites shut down over false/trivial accuastions.
Internet companies are also BIG time players in the chamber.


Incidentally, Yahoo has already left the Chamber of Commerce because of SOPA. Google, along with the Consumer Electronics Association (apparently 2200 firms) are considering doing the same.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Yakk » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:18 pm UTC

Hurting business, in the sense of SOPA, refers to "hurting business that could exist in the future".

Business organizations today consider hurting business to be "hurting the profitability of businesses based on business models that exist today". Because they are funded and backed by businesses that where, in the past, highly profitable. As such, their goal is to make said businesses continue to be profitable.

So if someone invents the motor-car, the highly profitable horse breeding, carriage and buggy-whip industries will lobby against allowing it, because it will hurt their business. And because motor-car manufacturers don't exist yet, and who they are going to be is not yet determined to the level where they can capture the profits and redirect them to lobbying, one would expect business lobbyists to lobby for the motor-car to be banned from the roads. It is in their rational self interest to prevent the motor-car from being successful, and it is far easier to crush that kind of thing than it is to engage in transformative change in their business model (which has multiple dangers -- they could be wrong about the motor-car fad, and they could be incompetent at becoming motor-car manufacturers).

The health of business as a whole might be much better with motor-car manufacturing replacing the horse-breeding, carriage and buggy-whip industries, but that doesn't concern the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce's purpose is to defend the pre-existing businesses, not business as a whole.

On top of this, mature businesses tend to be more politically active, rather than working on the business of business and producing stuff. So a growing industry (like those that transact business on the 'net) might have less political clout than older businesses for their size, let alone their prospective sizes.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:So if someone invents the motor-car, the highly profitable horse breeding, carriage and buggy-whip industries will lobby against allowing it, because it will hurt their business.


A counter example is finance. Companies come up with new finance mechanisms all the time that will harm older models of 'business'. The Chamber, as far as I can recall, has supported every advance in Finance, investing, and capital industries.

I feel comfortable stating the Chamber has a much bigger history of fighting regulation of new industry than of protecting existing industries from competition.

Hence, I think your argument has little support.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

The New Yorker has an interesting piece on the works of James Joyce, which have just become public domain in Ireland and the United States, how the estate has aggressively used its copyright to suppress even legitimate uses of the works, and the corresponding massive surge of new creative works that are being spawned as a result of the move to the public sphere.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Griffin » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:32 pm UTC

But the movie and music industries have a long history of attempting to choke their potential future competition to death in the cradle with a variety of government supported aggressive tactics (and been fairly successful at it for large lengths of time), such that competition can only prosper by fleeing those regulations and finding safe haven elsewhere.

I mean, come on - that is how Hollywood was BORN.

The current players do not care about and have a lot more clout than the up and comers.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

I don't know why I'm bothering, because you seem to automatically disregard anything anyone else says as wrong, but:
Ixtellor wrote:Question:

If this bill will hurt business, why are both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau in favor of it.

First you have Felstaff's reason- the people in charge of them have been lobbied by the RIAA & MPAA. Then you have Yakk's reason- many of the businesses they represent might not be hurt by this. I don't think your question is particularly telling however, because it can be responded to with a question of its own: If SOPA is so good for copyright holders, then why are many companies whose business is based around copyrighted materials dropping support for it, or never supported it in the first place?

Ixtellor wrote:1) If a law can be abused, it is a bad law.
2) If anecdotal evidence demonstrates a law has been abused, regardless of how insignificant its frequency, it is a bad law.
3) Previous laws that were/are easy to abuse, are absued constantly, but there is no proof of this because its sooo easy to abuse.

I would love to hear people defend these premises or at the very least... give evidence to support their claims. Perhaps the number of times DMCA has been abused, even though it governs BILLIONS, if not trillions, of applicable events.

Remember that time where I gave you an example of DMCA being abused, and you ignored it as "statistically insignificant"? And now you say there is "no proof". Please, if you going to disagree with people, don't dismiss their evidence out of hand and then argue that they aren't providing any evidence. It's rather rude.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Dudes. This is someone who doesn't even know what SOPA does. Probably think it has something to do with blowing up ships in Somalia. Or protecting our borders from illegal space aliens. Or fuck, who knows.

Also, Felstaff, I totally read that last quoted bit in the Hyperspace Chicken's voice. It works incredibly well.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:03 pm UTC

Hippo, you can be at least politie enough to direct your complaints to Ixtellor themselves.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Steax wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:Backers of SOPA specifically said this was important because judicial review would take too long, and the claim volume would overload the courts - so read between the lines a tiny bit with those arguments and there's no chance it'll be any kind of real review.


"They probably won't have enough time to figure them all out, so lets just assume guilt and punish them until proven otherwise... which probably won't happen, hence the first part of this sentence."

... I'd have thought these people would be a bit smarter. Can you cite that? I'd like to bring it up in other debates outside this forum.


I too have heard this argument. Its best to go to the primary source on the matter...

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf ... 152011.pdf

459 pages? :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Gahhhhh.

---------------------

[snip]

I understand that we kinda need to read the amendment itself to see what they're talking about (especially to evaluate Mr. Johnson's argument), but you can see the concerns of the members here.

Those quotes are from the debate I was referring to. The amendment was basically to require a trial to invoke the provisions in SOPA. I watched that part on CPAN.
Ghostbear wrote:I don't know why I'm bothering, because you seem to automatically disregard anything anyone else says as wrong, but:
Ixtellor wrote:Question:
If this bill will hurt business, why are both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau in favor of it.

First you have Felstaff's reason- the people in charge of them have been lobbied by the RIAA & MPAA. Then you have Yakk's reason- many of the businesses they represent might not be hurt by this. I don't think your question is particularly telling however, because it can be responded to with a question of its own: If SOPA is so good for copyright holders, then why are many companies whose business is based around copyrighted materials dropping support for it, or never supported it in the first place?

Basically this. The US Chamber of Commerce doesn't exist to represent the interests of business, it's a PAC - it exists to represent the political desires of its biggest contributors. And its biggest contributors that give a shit about SOPA are industry orgs like the RIAA and MPAA. Every time they get the chance state and local "Chamber of Commerce" orgs distance themselves from the US one, because it is not the same thing.

I don't really know what to say about the BBB except that they do not in any fashion represent any business but their own, which is licensing their intellectual property - a logo.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:59 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote: Hippo, you can be at least politie enough to direct your Ad Hominem attacks to Ixtellor themselves.


Fixed.

Also, I suggested Hippo move his attacks to PM 3 pages ago so we could debate. He declined and insisted on continuing his barrage of personal attacks in public. (39 incidents by my last count)

Ghostbear wrote:Remember that time where I gave you an example of DMCA being abused, and you ignored it as "statistically insignificant"?


Correct, I am still waiting for anything other than a few anecdotal incidents out of billions of 'actions'. I think its a poor way to determine if a law should be a law.

I would say if you can prove that the law is abused in 1% of all potential instances, that would be more compelling. (Example: Out of 34 million traffic arrests, police didn't read the Miranda rights X amount of times.) (Even Better the MPAA misued DMCA rules X amount of times out of Y billion downloads/links to copyrighted materials)

I just keep hearing "You know... " followed by "That one time at band camp" "Proofs".

Is it to much to ask for some meaningful evidence to support the primary premises of your argument? (Swans eat their young because I saw A swan eat their young at the park)
{Lets have standards}
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:28 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:I would say if you can prove that the law is abused in 1% of all potential instances, that would be more compelling. (Example: Out of 34 million traffic arrests, police didn't read the Miranda rights X amount of times.) (Even Better the MPAA misued DMCA rules X amount of times out of Y billion downloads/links to copyrighted materials)

KnightExemplar wrote:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml
In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
ShootTheChicken
Best. Cheerleader. Ever.
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:11 am UTC
Location: America's Hat

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby ShootTheChicken » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:57 pm UTC

I'm sure this hard data will result in Ixtellor changing their mind. I can foresee no other possible outcome.
SecondTalon wrote:the Hot Freshness of Wicked Classic.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:13 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:Remember that time where I gave you an example of DMCA being abused, and you ignored it as "statistically insignificant"?


Correct, I am still waiting for anything other than a few anecdotal incidents out of billions of 'actions'. I think its a poor way to determine if a law should be a law.

"Billions" is a bit hyperbolic I think. But if you want more examples, here:

First, my initial example given. Here is one example. This is another, with links on that article to three more. There are five examples here. One more. And another. And this one. How about this one, or this one? And one last one.

I found all of those, 17 examples in total, with just a few minutes on Google- if you need more examples, I'm going to go ahead and tell you to do your own research.

Ixtellor wrote:I would say if you can prove that the law is abused in 1% of all potential instances, that would be more compelling. (Example: Out of 34 million traffic arrests, police didn't read the Miranda rights X amount of times.) (Even Better the MPAA misued DMCA rules X amount of times out of Y billion downloads/links to copyrighted materials)

DaBigCheez has this part covered [EDIT: More accurately: DaBigCheez bringing up an earlier post by KnightExamplar has this covered] . A 57% abuse rate is pretty significant, not to mention another 37% that just isn't a valid copyright claim at all.

Ixtellor wrote:I just keep hearing "You know... " followed by "That one time at band camp" "Proofs".

Is it to much to ask for some meaningful evidence to support the primary premises of your argument? (Swans eat their young because I saw A swan eat their young at the park)
{Lets have standards}

See, this is the part that's rude from my perspective- you ask for proof, people provide you with evidence, then you say "no, none of this counts" and then attack us for not offering you any evidence. Perhaps it's just an example of poor word choice, but if you say that people have offered zero evidence when they have, it just comes across as being a troll. If you wish to say the evidence is insufficient- fine, I'd disagree (strongly), but it wouldn't necessarily be being needlessly rude. This is why a lot of people in this thread are attacking you- whether you feel it is fair of them to do so or not.

EDIT: Gave credit to everyone that deserves it.
Last edited by Ghostbear on Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:51 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Belial » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Zamfir wrote: Hippo, you can be at least politie enough to direct your Ad Hominem attacks to Ixtellor themselves.


Fixed.

Also, I suggested Hippo move his attacks to PM 3 pages ago so we could debate. He declined and insisted on continuing his barrage of personal attacks in public. (39 incidents by my last count)


Did you just "fix" mod text, and also backtalk a moderator ruling in-thread?

There are like 4 posters on N&A that no more about being banned than you.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:43 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:DaBigCheez has this part covered


Just to make sure credit for bringing in data isn't being falsely attributed to me - KnightExemplar posted that link/data earlier in the page, I was just bringing it up as a specific rebuttal since it seemed to have been skipped over.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:DaBigCheez has this part covered


Just to make sure credit for bringing in data isn't being falsely attributed to me - KnightExemplar posted that link/data earlier in the page, I was just bringing it up as a specific rebuttal since it seemed to have been skipped over.

Good point, I edited it to give KnightExemplar credit as well.

----------------------
Does anyone know when congress is expected to vote on SOPA?

User avatar
dragonmustang
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:51 pm UTC
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby dragonmustang » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Does anyone know when congress is expected to vote on SOPA?


The Senate is expected to vote on PIPA on the 24th, but the House is up in the air on SOPA. Rep. Smith says they're about halfway through the committee hearings, and it could be on the floor in a matter of weeks: http://news.yahoo.com/author-u-online-piracy-bill-vows-not-buckle-013659789.html

Smith's thoughts on timing are near the end of that article.
"You can't always argue with all of the fools in the world. It's easier to let them have their way, then trick them when they aren't paying attention."

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Game_boy » Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:28 am UTC

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... n-sopa.ars

"SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) announced that he would be pulling the DNS-blocking provisions from his own bill."

"Six GOP senators who served on the Senate Judiciary Committee (which unanimously approved the legislation last year) wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to postpone a vote on PIPA to give them more time to study the legislation."
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:30 am UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:DaBigCheez has this part covered


Just to make sure credit for bringing in data isn't being falsely attributed to me - KnightExemplar posted that link/data earlier in the page, I was just bringing it up as a specific rebuttal since it seemed to have been skipped over.


The ultimate irony? I got it from this guy.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=76484&start=160#p2854605

Ixtellor wrote:Thanks for the data dump. The only "Abuse" I saw was from google using it against competitors the slight majority of the time, and the belief that 37% of their accusations were not valid. Sounds like the result of a bad data sorting problem. Google basically had to watch out for ALL internet users, so obviously they are going to have a harder time policing their content.


I was hoping to bring it up to him because he clearly knew about this statistic. What did he think was wrong with it? Its very hard to argue against those facts... 37% of DMCA take downs don't even have to deal with copyright infringement? Thats abuse by any stretch of the imagination.

(Well, also this guy said it first: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=76484&start=120#p2853113 But the point was brought up a while ago but then just... ignored and dropped...)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: SOPA talk, yo.

Postby Obby » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:27 am UTC

On a related note, seven co-sponsors for PIPA have asked Reid to cancel the vote. PIPA, for those not aware, is basically the Senate's version of SOPA. The article title only says six, but after it was published another senator added his name to the list of those making the request.
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: idonno and 17 guests