SOPA talk, yo.

[Felstaff]

SOPA looking more likely to pass.

With the US government apparently in the pockets of its lobbyists, the MPAA and RIAA, it looks as though Americans are about to be screwed. With the law giving provision to block trade with non-US sites that dabble in copyright infringement, there's a good chance the rest of the business world outside the US will follow suit, and suddenly the internet will no longer be the home of freedom that it was intended to be! #doomsayer #markmywords

[Steax]

I wonder if the, uh, funders supporters have stopped trying to convince people that they have legit reasons. At this point, all supporter statements seem to be along the lines of "We want this to happen. No changes. Nothing. Just this. Whatever. [Statement made last week and has been refuted a million times]. Lalalalalalalalalala."

[LaserGuy]

Horse and Buggy industry is gone, and thats fine. Nobody needs to protect the Horse and Buggy producers, because they are not the victims of crime, they fell victim to a better mode of transportation.

Okay, let's talk about "crime". In Canada, and many other countries, copyright terms last 50 years after the life of the author; in the United States, it's life + 70. So, for example, in Canada, the works of Ernest Hemingway are now public domain. In the United States, they've got 20 more years under copyright. Guess what is going to happen if I, as a Canadian, decide to upload a copy of The Old Man and the Sea on my website for public downloading once SOPA comes into effect? How could that be reasonably considered a crime in any sense of the term, if it is considered public domain in my country? How is it "theft"?

Now, what if I live in Switzerland, where downloading for personal use is perfectly legal? Or in Afghanistan, where copyright laws don't exist at all? In what sense of the term can it be considered a "crime" to do something that is not illegal in the place that you live? Why does the United States have the right to unilaterally apply its laws to other countries?

[Ixtellor]

Ahh, the classic Politician's Fallacy:

1. We must do something
2. This is something
3. Therefore, we must do this.

Ahh the #1 logical fallacy, the strawman.

Sopa provides tools to curtail Piracy... the exact problem trying to be fixed.

And since we can be certain the law won't be applied equally, it's essentially just giving full control to shut down whatever it is you don't like, and let the things you do like, or the corporations that pay you, to keep existing.

That may be valid, but we don't know yet. But your objection is applicable to any crime.
Anti-Trust legislation, banking regulation, credit card regulation, enviromental regulation... we can't be sure those will be applied equally (they aren't), so does that mean your against Environmental regulations?

Have you actually looked at it? It's not reasonable, by any means, it's essentially allowing people and corporations to shut down other sites without any due process, without even the opportunity to defend yourself, as far as site shutdowns go, and then simply trusting them, with no oversight, no liability, and no penalties, to only use it responsibly.

It allows websites and ISP to shut off contact with you. But we have a free market system there are other providers. Google doesn't actually send people to smash your server.

Plus who said you have a right to be on Google? Google is a private company if they don't want to link your website, who gives a fuck.

If google abuses the privledge, stop using google. Let people vote with their fingers.

Especially when DMCA is already so widely abused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca

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.

Not only that, but there's actually up to a 5 year prison sentence for sharing music or movies, ever been videotaped singing happy birthday without authorization? Or taped anything where someone was signing a copyrighted song or had some music playing in the background? Now obviously this would never get enforced in the vast majority of cases, but if you ever piss off a police officer or politician or such, it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

Yea police with limited resources don't have better things to do than risk losing their job over a trumped up charge of copyright infringment on a birthday video.

I guess the proof is in all the people serving prison time for copying televison shows with the VCR's and Beta's.

[Obby]

It allows websites and ISP to shut off contact with you. But we have a free market system there are other providers. Google doesn't actually send people to smash your server.

There's not always alternatives. Out where my parents live, it's Comcast or nothing, unless they want to pay Verizon a very large sum of money to run a fiber optic line out to their area (since Verizon has told them that they have no plans to run a line out there in the near future).

[LaserGuy]

That may be valid, but we don't know yet. But your objection is applicable to any crime.
Anti-Trust legislation, banking regulation, credit card regulation, enviromental regulation... we can't be sure those will be applied equally (they aren't), so does that mean your against Environmental regulations?

And that's a great reason why perceived violations of the law have to go through the courts, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Under SOPA, these sorts of protections do not apply. Moreover, all of the regulations you mention only apply to companies operating within the United States. Companies doing business in other countries are not required to follow the laws of the United States, but will be under SOPA. What is being described here is more like Saudi Arabia passing a law requiring all US banks practice Islamic banking, regardless of whether or not those banks do business with Saudi Arabia.

It allows websites and ISP to shut off contact with you. But we have a free market system there are other providers. Google doesn't actually send people to smash your server.

No, it requires websites and ISPs to shut off contact with you at the request of third parties. Google doesn't necessarily want to shut anybody down. The problem is that SOPA allows company A to tell Google that company B is infringing on their copyright and end relations with them, and Google would be required to do so without evidence or a court order. It's nothing like a free market at all.

[Heisenberg]

Sopa provides tools to curtail Piracy... the exact problem trying to be fixed.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it won't curtail piracy at all. I mean, I guess your statement is true in the sense that "mustard gas is a tool that may curtail shoplifting" is a true statement, but since SOPA is going to be less effective at stopping pirates (who can simply relocate their website) than it will be at shutting down legitimate businesses (whose websites are less mobile) it's actually an awful tool which will do incredible amounts of harm to innocent victims, while possibly slowing down a couple of bad guys, too.

[Felstaff]

"mustard gas is a tool that may curtail shoplifting"

I was going to go with "nuclear weapons as a tool to curtail cockroach population"

[Ghostbear]

Sopa provides tools to curtail Piracy... the exact problem trying to be fixed.

Executing all drug users and shoplifters would provide a tool to curtail drug use or shoplifting- this does not make it a valid solution. SOPA provides a tool to limit piracy, but has negative effects (and HUGE negative effects at that- which you seem to be willing to write off with an ode to Adam Smith) in doing so. I enjoy a functional internet that isn't a the bitch of the RIAA and the MPAA, and I see no reason to create laws that are just gift baskets to them that have negative effects on everyone else.

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.

Here's an example of recent abuse for you. Unless Google is willing to defend their choices in court (which would cost lots of money) they'll be forced to abide by takedown requests from large companies.

EDIT: Double ninja'd!

[Ixtellor]

There's not always alternatives. Out where my parents live, it's Comcast or nothing, unless they want to pay Verizon a very large sum of money to run a fiber optic line out to their area

I give the chance of your parents losing internet access due to SOPA, at 0%. Unless your parents run a pirating site, at which point GOOD.

Executing all drug users and shoplifters would provide a tool to curtail drug use or shoplifting-

Just say Hitler or Holocost next time and don't hide your Godwin argument.

I enjoy a functional internet that isn't a the bitch of the RIAA and the MPAA

Right, the sky is falling. The internet which is a huge part of the US economy is going to be destroyed, because thats what the government and businesses want.

This pretty much sums up half the anti-SOPA posts. The internet is doomed if we dont' stop it. Change SOPA to The Affordable Care Act, and BAM your a republican.

EPA regulations can be abused, but lets go ahead and make the environment safe and deal with the abuses as they arise.

Here's an example of recent abuse for you.

A website was closed down for 10 days as they disputed the copyright infringment.
Hmm # of websites / number of websites shut down for copyright infringment = give me a fucking break. Please tell me you have more than this statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence.
If .000000000000000000001% of McDonalds products caused food poisoning, would you suggest we close it down?

No, it doesn't. In fact, it won't curtail piracy at all. I

Summary: Pirates will find ways to continue pirating.
Because child porn rings are always staying ahead of police, we should give up and not bother.

Or: Copyright infringment is too hard to police, lets not bother.

What is being described here is more like Saudi Arabia passing a law requiring all US banks practice Islamic banking, regardless of whether or not those banks do business with Saudi Arabia.

False analogy. Its as if people in the USA were stealing from banks in Saudi Arabia and they demanded that the thieves be extradited.

SOPA is about THEFT. Stop pretending like Piracy is noble and worthy of protection or just some morally relativistic hobby.

The problem is that SOPA allows company A to tell Google that company B is infringing on their copyright and end relations with them, and Google would be required to do so without evidence or a court order. It's nothing like a free market at all.

That may be valid, but we don't know yet. But your objection is applicable to any crime.
Anti-Trust legislation, banking regulation, credit card regulation, enviromental regulation... we can't be sure those will be applied equally (they aren't), so does that mean your against Environmental regulations?

And that's a great reason why perceived violations of the law have to go through the courts, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Under SOPA, these sorts of protections do not apply. Moreover, all of the regulations you mention only apply to companies operating within the United States. Companies doing business in other countries are not required to follow the laws of the United States, but will be under SOPA. What is being described here is more like Saudi Arabia passing a law requiring all US banks practice Islamic banking, regardless of whether or not those banks do business with Saudi Arabia.

No, it requires websites and ISPs to shut off contact with you at the request of third parties. Google doesn't necessarily want to shut anybody down. The problem is that SOPA allows company A to tell Google that company B is infringing on their copyright and end relations with them, and Google would be required to do so without evidence or a court order. It's nothing like a free market at all.

Google is a big company, just like ISP. They can afford a legal team, and if some moron says "shut down Facebook, they infringed" do you actually think Google will?

Additionally, if you feel Google is to quick to crack the whip, use Yahoo.
If you feel Universal is abusing its power, stop buying (or in your cases... stealing) their products.

Again... all of this is based on wild specultion from a bunch of whiners who have been screaming about it for a decade now.

The internets is ending!!!!
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/se ... t-tre.html

SOPA will compel large corporations to start helping deter piracy instead of letting you guys steal with immpunity. I wager 50% or more of you have pirated material on your computers right now, and your opposition is more about that than any libertarian or pro-business objections to the legislation.

[ShootTheChicken]

Oh my god Ixtellor, you're just too fucking cute. I just want to eat you up!

[Sockmonkey]

Summary: Pirates will find ways to continue pirating.
Because child porn rings are always staying ahead of police, we should give up and not bother.

Or: Copyright infringment is too hard to police, lets not bother.

Now who's making false equiviances? Child porn is the modern Godwin.

[Heisenberg]

Summary: Pirates will find ways to continue pirating.
Because child porn rings are always staying ahead of police, we should give up and not bother.

Yeah... stealing a CD isn't even in the ballpark of molesting children for profit... if only you could understand that...

SOPA is about THEFT.

Exactly right. Have you ever heard of shutting down entire shopping malls to prevent a few CDs being stolen, because I sure haven't. SOPA represents a disproportionate response to the relatively minor crime of internet piracy.

Or: Copyright infringment is too hard to police, lets not bother.

No, you're equating "Let's not create an internet blacklist right now" with "Let's not ever police piracy" which is not only disingenuous but also indicative of your fear of the debating the actual issue. No one has said that but you. Stop saying it.

SOPA will compel large corporations to start helping deter piracy instead of letting you guys steal with immpunity. I wager 50% or more of you have pirated material on your computers right now, and your opposition is more about that than any libertarian or pro-business objections to the legislation.

Personal attacks just show us you have no confidence in your own arguments. One does not have to be a criminal to advocate for civil rights (see: the ACLU, who, incidentally, oppose SOPA because they have this weird thing about civil rights).

[Ghostbear]

Just say Hitler or Holocost next time and don't hide your Godwin argument.

So, no actual rebuttal then? You appear to have missed all the wonderful words I included afterwards.

Right, the sky is falling. The internet which is a huge part of the US economy is going to be destroyed, because thats what the government and businesses want.

This pretty much sums up half the anti-SOPA posts. The internet is doomed if we dont' stop it. Change SOPA to The Affordable Care Act, and BAM your a republican.

Umm.. No? SOPA would drastically change the shape of the internet. Many of us feel it does so to an unprecedented negative degree. The politicians that run the government are concerned with one, and only one, thing: getting reelected. This applies to republicans AND democrats. The RIAA and the MPAA help them get reelected by giving them money. The RIAA & the MPAA (among others, I suppose) want this legislation, because it will give them more power- both economic, legal, and structural.

EPA regulations can be abused, but lets go ahead and make the environment safe and deal with the abuses as they arise.

Strawman- we can be opposed to poor EPA regulations that are ripe for abuse while still supporting the EPA on the whole. An individual can be opposed to piracy while still opposing legislation that attempts to minimize piracy while having huge negative side effects.

A website was closed down for 10 days as they disputed the copyright infringment.
Hmm # of websites / number of websites shut down for copyright infringment = give me a fucking break.
Please tell me you have more than this statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence.
If .000000000000000000001% of McDonalds products caused food poisoning, would you suggest we close it down?

Seriously? OK, same line of (stupid) reasoning:
# of copyrighted works / # of copyrighted works that fail solely because of piracy = piracy doesn't matter
Wow, look, it does nothing to defend piracy does it? You can't look at the total number of websites when noting the number cases of abuse. The cases for abuse need to be taken into account as they are. You can make anything statistically insignificant if you compare it to a large enough body. Examples of corrupt cops are probably about as statistically significant as DMCA abuses, but we care (and we should care!) very much about instances of police abuse.

Summary: Pirates will find ways to continue pirating.
Because child porn rings are always staying ahead of police, we should give up and not bother.

Or: Copyright infringment is too hard to police, lets not bother.

You gave possibly the most insulting reduction of Heisenberg's post possible. "Not curtail piracy at all" is very different from "pirates will continue to pirate". One- specifically, the one Heisenberg stated- means that the law will have none of its desired positive effect.

SOPA is about THEFT.

Fun fact: piracy is not theft. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Google is a big company, just like ISP. They can afford a legal team, and if some moron says "shut down Facebook, they infringed" do you actually think Google will?

Google can afford a legal team, sure, but what about the next Google, the next Facebook, the next Valve, the next Twitter, the next Wikipedia? They won't have the funds to hire legal teams starting out. Also, Google isn't going to get caught up in legal battles over actions that weren't even their own unless it's going to have a very direct affect on their profit.

If you feel Universal is abusing its power, stop buying (or in your cases... stealing) their products.

Still not theft.

Again... all of this is based on wild specultion from a bunch of whiners who have been screaming about it for a decade now.

Or maybe it's based on reasoned analysis of the law in question, along with reading summaries by news organizations that have their own legal teams? No, of course not, we're all crazy.

SOPA will compel large corporations to start helping deter piracy instead of letting you guys steal with immpunity.

Why, exactly, should large corporations be compelled to deter piracy?

P.S. Still not theft.

I wager 50% or more of you have pirated material on your computers right now, and your opposition is more about that than any libertarian or pro-business objections to the legislation.

I wager 50% or more of the politicians supporting SOPA have received funding, directly or indirectly, from major media companies.

[The Great Hippo]

Ixtellor, you have this fascinating (and baffling) tendency to condemn someone for one type of argument right before doing the exact same thing.

[LaserGuy]

What is being described here is more like Saudi Arabia passing a law requiring all US banks practice Islamic banking, regardless of whether or not those banks do business with Saudi Arabia.

False analogy. Its as if people in the USA were stealing from banks in Saudi Arabia and they demanded that the thieves be extradited.

Still doesn't work if the "theft" is legal in the USA as "piracy" of certain works are in other countries. Also, this would require an extradition treaty between the two countries--the Saudis, in this example, would still not be able to unilaterally impose their laws onto other countries, their citizens, or their corporations, regardless of what crime they are attempting to stop. I'll ask again: if a work enters the public domain in Canada, why should a company in the United States have the right to prevent me from distributing it freely on a Canadian website (given that the copyright in the USA lasts 20 years longer than it does in Canada)?

Google is a big company, just like ISP. They can afford a legal team, and if some moron says "shut down Facebook, they infringed" do you actually think Google will?

Why should big companies have better legal protections than small ones? Google isn't going to block Facebook, now, true.* But if this law had passed five years ago? Yes, I expect that they probably would. There is no incentive for Google to bother trying to fight multitudes of claims against small startups.

[*]On the other hand, Google does have a competing product that would benefit greatly from people being unable to access Facebook.

Additionally, if you feel Google is to quick to crack the whip, use Yahoo.

Umm... I don't see what difference this would make. Presumably whoever was filing the claim would file it with all of the search engines, and they would all be required by law to comply. The whole point is that Google doesn't have a choice about whether or not they blacklist somebody.

[Ixtellor]

Yeah... stealing a CD isn't even in the ballpark of molesting children for profit

Stop trying to rationalize your crimes by saying "their not as bad as X".

Have you ever heard of shutting down entire shopping malls to prevent a few CDs being stolen, because I sure haven't.

Horrible analolgy. Nobody has been shut down yet. The only people who should be worried are piratebay and p2p theft sites.

This is why your irrational, you believe that SOPA is going destroy the internet even though no copyright enforcment EVER has done that to any industry. (See Cassette tapes)

One does not have to be a criminal to advocate for civil rights

I am just hypothizing that your motives are guiding your judgement and those motives come from the desire to steal and less about patriotic ideals regarding liberty. (I love the ACLU but don't agree with them 100% of the time)

SOPA would drastically change the shape of the internet

Again, basically the entire argument from the anti-SOPA posters. You have haven't been right about a single internet destroying prediction yet, so I see no reason to listen to you guys now.

Ixtellor, you have this fascinating (and baffling) tendency to condemn someone for one type of argument right before doing the exact same thing.

I'm generally doing it to prove a point, by following up with an equally illogical example. Tone was apparently lost.

while having huge negative side effects.

Your unsubstantiated claims are getting old. (Now go find one example out of several billion and explain how significant it is)

# of copyrighted works / # of copyrighted works that fail solely because of piracy = piracy doesn't matter
Wow, look, it does nothing to defend piracy does it? You can't look at the total number of websites when noting the number cases of abuse. The cases for abuse need to be taken into account as they are. You can make anything statistically insignificant if you compare it to a large enough body. Examples of corrupt cops are probably about as statistically significant as DMCA abuses, but we care (and we should care!) very much about instances of police abuse.

Ok how about this: Total number of Windows 7 licenses purchased and total number pirated/stolen. China alone = its a big problem.

Or # of illegally download songs versus number of legal sites shut down by copyright laws.

I win.

Fun fact: piracy is not theft. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

AGAIN with the moral obfuscation to absolve yourself. You owe Company X , Y amount of dollars for using their product. You didn't pay... hence you stole from them.

Why should big companies have better legal protections than small ones?

False dilemma. We all get equal legal protection in the court of law.[I think you are saying :Why should big companies have better legal represenation?

Thats how modern western societies work and your asking a bigger question, basically advocating for some kind of communist model when it comes to legal representation.

People with more money can afford better lawyers. You should get used to that.

I'll ask again: if a work enters the public domain in Canada, why should a company in the United States have the right to prevent me from distributing it freely on a Canadian website (given that the copyright in the USA lasts 20 years longer than it does in Canada)?

Because the product was produced in the USA.

If a car is stolen in the USA and sent to Canada who doesn't happen to have laws against selling stolen cars, are you suggesting the company has no legal recourse? Does the company have the right to go reclaim their stolen property?

Again, you have to twist the facts to suit your selfish morality. You think piracy sites in Canada should be left alone... presumably because you like piracy <---- AKA THEFT.

Lets condense the entire argument of the anti-SOPA people.

1) SOPA will destroy the internet and make it a horrible place. Also known as the "Chicken Little Argument".

2) Piracy isn't theft and those companies should quit whining and learn how to make money off my pirating (in the real world we call it stealing)

3) Stopping Piracy is to hard, so lets not bother.

4) Some of you are raising concerns for problems which can be easily monitored. I am all for that. The law should not be abused and anyone who does abuse it should face consequences, the least of which should be public outcry. But until this actually happens in any remotely significant scale, lets calm down. Unfortunatly, your concerns are being drowned out by 1,2, and 3.

Ixtellor

P.S. If in the future you could just number your responses 1-3 it will be easier to respond.
Example: Piracy-is-Awsome says "1,3, 3, 2, 1, 1".

[Felstaff]

If a car is stolen in the USA and sent to Canada who doesn't happen to have laws against selling stolen cars, are you suggesting the company has no legal recourse? Does the company have the right to go reclaim their stolen property?

[Xeio]

Ok how about this: Total number of Windows 7 licenses purchased and total number pirated/stolen. China alone = its a big problem.

Or # of illegally download songs versus number of legal sites shut down by copyright laws.

The number of non-infringing youtube videos that have been taken down via the DMCA is non-zero so there is collateral damage, if you're trying to say there isn't.

Also, if we're going to do some extrapolation from past laws, shouldn't we take into account that they've essentially been very ineffective at stopping piracy while simultaneously stripping away even more consumer rights? Is that not a reason alone to oppose poorly thought out legislation like SOPA?

[The Great Hippo]

Stop trying to rationalize your crimes by saying "their not as bad as X".

Okay, I think you need to slow down, because, as I see it, you're failing at reading comprehension.

You said (correct me if I'm wrong): "We don't stop chasing down child porn rings just because it's hard."

Heisenberg said (correct me if I'm wrong): "Piracy isn't child porn; the stakes aren't nearly as high. And besides, we aren't saying 'don't stop piracy', we're saying 'in your rush to stop piracy, don't do more harm than piracy itself'."

(This, by the way, strikes me as an enormously reasonable concern, and one that is ongoing throughout law enforcement. In your attempt to adjust people's behaviors, what new set of behaviors do you incentivize?)

Your response is a cheap rhetorical ploy that targets Heisenberg as a criminal merely trying to protect their crimes rather than point out a perfectly reasonable concern. I am suddenly reminded of Scientologists who enjoy disrupting critical dialogue with constant, belligerent shouts of "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?" This is an obfuscating tactic that does nothing to further actual dialogue. I recommend that you dispose of it.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I'll do it anyway: I don't think you're currently putting up enough good faith to discuss this reasonably. If you're going to assume everyone who takes issue with this is just trying to protect their pirated Justin Bieber collection, then we really can't have a useful dialogue us. Even if you're right, it doesn't make these concerns any less valid.

[Heisenberg]

Summary: Pirates will find ways to continue pirating. Because child porn rings are always staying ahead of police, we should give up and not bother.

Yeah... stealing a CD isn't even in the ballpark of molesting children for profit

Stop trying to rationalize your crimes by saying "their not as bad as X".

*I yield to Hippo's analysis of this situation*

Horrible analolgy. Nobody has been shut down yet. But they will be, that's how a blacklist works.

So if your argument is that it isn't bad because the bad things haven't happened yet, can I counter that SOPA doesn't stop piracy because it hasn't stopped any pirates yet? That'd be pretty dumb, right?

I am just hypothizing that your motives are guiding your judgement and those motives come from the desire to steal and less about patriotic ideals regarding liberty.

Your unsubstantiated claims are getting old.

[LaserGuy]

I'll ask again: if a work enters the public domain in Canada, why should a company in the United States have the right to prevent me from distributing it freely on a Canadian website (given that the copyright in the USA lasts 20 years longer than it does in Canada)?

Because the product was produced in the USA.

Why does it matter where it is produced? The activity is not taking place in the United States, and the copyright is protected and enforced not by American law, but by Canadian law, regardless of its origin. Seriously, this is the way copyright law has worked for over 100 years.* If I am doing something that is legal where I live, it does not matter if it is illegal somewhere that I do not live, because those laws do not apply to me. I do not have to follow Shariah, because I do not live in a country that practices it. I do not have to follow American law, because I do not live in the United States. It is ludicrous to think that it could possibly work any other way. It may be illegal for Americans to download such works, but it is not illegal for me to upload them, or for other Canadians to download.

[*]Amusingly, the United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1988, in no small part so that American book publishers could pirate the works of foreign authors.

If a car is stolen in the USA and sent to Canada who doesn't happen to have laws against selling stolen cars, are you suggesting the company has no legal recourse? Does the company have the right to go reclaim their stolen property?

They only have recourse as far as Canadian law allows, or based on whatever treaties exist between Canada and the United States. American law does not apply here. If selling stolen cars is legal in Canada, then, yes, absolutely, they have no recourse because as far as Canada is concerned no crime was committed. American police cannot come into Canada and arrest somebody without permission of the Canadian government, any more than Canadian police can come into the United States and arrest somebody without permission of the American government.

Again, you have to twist the facts to suit your selfish morality. You think piracy sites in Canada should be left alone.

No, I think that piracy sites in Canada should be dealt with by Canadian law, and piracy sites in the United States should be dealt with by American law. If piracy, or certain forms thereof, happen to be legal in Canada, then I see nothing wrong with Canadians behaving in a way that is consistent with their laws, even if that is not consistent with the laws of the United States.

[Ixtellor]

Argument #2

You owe company X , Y amount of dollars but you did not and won't pay. Your a thief.

The number of non-infringing youtube videos that have been taken down via the DMCA is non-zero so there is collateral damage, if you're trying to say there isn't.

Throw up some data.

I also hope its more than person X had their "cat video" taken down and/or kids that put up South Park clips.

1) Those people whose videos were removed need to demonstrate damages. If they are a business and can show a loss of revenue (hits) due to abuse, they have a legit complaint.

If you removed all the legit complaints about DMCA and youtube versus teenagers with movie clips, I would love to see that data.

Is that not a reason alone to oppose poorly thought out legislation like SOPA?

Fact or Opinion?

I imagine that millions of dollars and thousands of man hours went into SOPA. Congress is taking a break to further reflect on the law.


To GreatHippo,
I merely threw in my opinion about the motives. I am happy to stop.

But the fact is several of "your sides" responses are in direct defense of piracy. ("Its legal in Canada so I should be able to do it.")

Laws are bad because I don't want to follow them, makes up a signficant portion of "your side". Its why we see so much garbage about piracy !theft.

[LaserGuy]

But the fact is several of "your sides" responses are in direct defense of piracy. ("Its legal in Canada so I should be able to do it because I live in Canada.")

FTFY.

[ShootTheChicken]

Laws are bad because I don't want to follow them

As far as I can tell, you're supporting this position. Your government doesn't like the current laws because they don't want to follow them, and is therefore trying to enforce their laws worldwide.

[Ixtellor]

But the fact is several of "your sides" responses are in direct defense of piracy. ("Its legal in Canada so I should be able to do it because I live in Canada.")

FTFY.

More justification for theft.
Your government in defacto collusion with a piracy website allows you to easily steal products from companies that say "Hey stop stealing my property"

Company X informs you that your stealing, and your defense is "I'm outside your jurisdiction"

Also, are you admitting that when Americans use your Canadian piracy sites, they are stealing?

Its nothing but moral obsufcation and semantics to justify theft.

As far as I can tell, you're supporting this position. Your government doesn't like the current laws because they don't want to follow them, and is therefore trying to enforce their laws worldwide.

SOPA will block your website and fine Google,the ISP, and any other facilitators who allow it commit crimes.

Assuming your right (and it raises interesting questions), wouldn't "your" sides argument also be contradictory? Your mad that the USA is going to Sweden to 'commit a crime' when your goal is to commit crimes from Sweden.

I think your analyis, if valid, equally calls out both sides.

P.S. If you rape someone on a cruise ship no nation has the jurisdiction to punish you, therefore what? We shouldn't bother seeking justice? We shouldn't infringe on the rights of cruiseships to facilitate rape? SOPA = if you commit a crime we are coming after you and you can't hide in nations that facilitate and condone the crime.

[The Great Hippo]

You owe company X , Y amount of dollars but you did not and won't pay. Your a thief.

I don't have enough information to make that call. Obviously, I'm guilty of a crime, but is it theft? Couldn't it be fraud? Is not paying taxes as a form of demonstration against the government 'theft' (or is it just the crime of 'not paying your taxes')? And as it applies to piracy, what's actually been stolen? The possibility that I might give you my money? How do we measure that possibility? What happens if I pirate your music, then buy it immediately after (because I liked it so much!)? Under your definition, would I still be guilty of theft ("I stole this candy bar, and liked it so much I came back to pay for more!")?

Equating piracy with theft limits the dialogue. Piracy should be illegal, sure--but it's clearly different than theft. That's why we have a different word for it.

To GreatHippo,
I merely threw in my opinion about the motives. I am happy to stop.

But the fact is several of "your sides" responses are in direct defense of piracy. ("Its legal in Canada so I should be able to do it.")

Laws are bad because I don't want to follow them, makes up a signficant portion of "your side". Its why we see so much garbage about piracy !theft.

Speculation concerning the motives behind debate adds nothing to the debate itself (except, of course, in cases where the debate is about why we're debating!).

Anyway, I'd wager that most of the opposition isn't out of fear that piracy will end (piracy will never, ever end; SOPA might put a dent in it, but I guarantee you that a year later, that dent will be gone), but rather the long-term consequences the policy will have for everyone--pirates and non-pirates alike.

[felltir]

Piracy should be illegal, sure

I disagree. I pirate most things. Films, games, music. My hard-drive would give Ixtellor a fit.

You know why? Because I want to try before I buy. And buy I do. I will always buy something I have pirated if I consider it to be good enough to deserve me having paid for it. But I don't feel bad if I don't consider it worth my money, because it wasn't worth my money. I am spared the disappointing game, the let down plot, the sub-par chord. All I waste is my time, and not my hard earned money.

Piracy is not theft. Theft is a problem because if you steal something, that person cannot then sell it. If you pirate it, it (for this piece of anecdotal evidence at least) makes me MORE likely to buy it.

Example: Repo: The Genetic Opera. A film I have watched dozens of times. One of my favourites. I worried, due to the content, that it might be triggery for me. So I downloaded it, watched it with some friends at a party. I loved it. Logged onto Amazon that very night, and bought myself not one, but two copies (one as a gift). I wouldn't have even considered buying that if I saw it in the shop without having seen it, even with my friends' reccomendations. Piracy, in this case, resulted in 2 more sales than they would have got. I view piracy as a useful tool as a consumer. An unofficial "try-before-you-buy", if you will. And I think it should be legal.

[Malice]

But the fact is several of "your sides" responses are in direct defense of piracy. ("Its legal in Canada so I should be able to do it because I live in Canada.")

FTFY.

More justification for theft.
Your government in defacto collusion with a piracy website allows you to easily steal products from companies that say "Hey stop stealing my property"

Company X informs you that your stealing, and your defense is "I'm outside your jurisdiction"

Also, are you admitting that when Americans use your Canadian piracy sites, they are stealing?

Its nothing but moral obsufcation and semantics to justify theft.

Let's assume for the sake of this paragraph that we're discussing stolen cars. If an American car thief ships 500 stolen BMWs to a fence in Canada, where the law considers the cars to be legally acquired, is that still theft? Absolutely. Can America do anything about it? Well, they can do one of three things.

1) Lobby Canada to have American cars considered under the same laws as Canadian cars (the "make Canada match our copyright laws" solution)
2) Ask Canada to extradite the Canadian fence (the "make Canada arrest the guy" solution)
3) If Canada refuses, literally go to war. (the Bin Laden solution)

Moral accusations can cross national borders; but the respect of sovereignty demands that you do not prosecute crimes committed in foreign countries without a prior agreement with that country--particularly when that country does not consider the action in question to be a crime. The only way around this is to actually go to war (as the US did in Afghanistan) or in other ways break sovereignty:

4) Use actual wizards to stop the Canadian fence from selling the cars to anyone, even other Canadians (the SOPA solution)

The fourth solution is physically possible, because at present, website registration takes place in the US for the entire internet (ie., all the wizards live here--if SOPA passes, expect that to change), but it represents a direct refutation of the sovereignty of other nations whose corners of the internet SOPA will fuck with. Why is sovereignty so important? It's what keeps Americans from being arrested for crimes like "homosexuality", "spitting in public", and "not worshipping Great Leader". And it keeps those other countries from fucking with our gay chat rooms, our public spitting web forums, and our Kim Jong Il-mocking Tumblrs.

If you can't solve the problem of piracy without breaking the fundamental rule of international diplomacy, you're not trying hard enough.

[Ixtellor]

Piracy should be illegal, sure--but it's clearly different than theft. That's why we have a different word for it.

Its semantics. The reason I keep making the point is to curtail this belief that Piracy isn't bad. People rataionalize all kinds of bad things by changing the vocabulary. I think its evident on here that several people have already rationalized away their crimes.

You owe a company money for their product, which you acquired illegally.
(If you steal something, then go back later and pay for it, sorry, you still stole it.... but you did make reparations.) (out of curiousity, what % of the products you obtain illegally do you go back and pay for. I personally don't take things illegally. )

Genocide = Police Action
Segregation = Home owner privacy
States Rights = racism, as in, I think a private business should be able to hire who ever they want. Its just a less horrifying way to say "I hate black people".

[felltir]

I'd like an answer to my points from you, Ixtellor.

[The Great Hippo]

Piracy should be illegal, sure

I disagree. I pirate most things. Films, games, music. My hard-drive would give Ixtellor a fit.

You know why? Because I want to try before I buy. And buy I do. I will always buy something I have pirated if I consider it to be good enough to deserve me having paid for it. But I don't feel bad if I don't consider it worth my money, because it wasn't worth my money. I am spared the disappointing game, the let down plot, the sub-par chord. All I waste is my time, and not my hard earned money.

Piracy is not theft. Theft is a problem because if you steal something, that person cannot then sell it. If you pirate it, it (for this piece of anecdotal evidence at least) makes me MORE likely to buy it.

Example: Repo: The Genetic Opera. A film I have watched dozens of times. One of my favourites. I worried, due to the content, that it might be triggery for me. So I downloaded it, watched it with some friends at a party. I loved it. Logged onto Amazon that very night, and bought myself not one, but two copies (one as a gift). I wouldn't have even considered buying that if I saw it in the shop without having seen it, even with my friends' reccomendations. Piracy, in this case, resulted in 2 more sales than they would have got. I view piracy as a useful tool as a consumer. An unofficial "try-before-you-buy", if you will. And I think it should be legal.

You've described the positive aspects of piracy, and I'd certainly agree--piracy can be highly beneficial, particularly with the right business model! But does the fact that it may generate more revenue necessarily mean it should no longer be illegal? Isn't it my right as an artist to determine who can and can't have my work?

And how do you feel about non-digital mediums being pirated? I can grab a comic book off the shelf, tear out the pages, scan them, upload them on the internet, and now anyone can read it for free--is that okay? Is that my right as a consumer? What if I stole that comic book in the first place--is it suddenly 'not okay' for me to also scan it and upload it? Or is the theft wrong but the scan fine?

My point here is only to demonstrate how piracy is complex, and resists simple answers. Keeping it illegal--but not treating it as a serious problem (because really, honest to God, it isn't one)--seems like the most reasonable approach.

Its semantics. The reason I keep making the point is to curtail this belief that Piracy isn't bad. People rataionalize all kinds of bad things by changing the vocabulary. I think its evident on here that several people have already rationalized away their crimes.

Why is it bad? What's at stake? Piracy seems as troubling to me as shoplifting. This is why discussions like these always baffle me--on one hand, you have people screaming about liberty, and on the other, people screaming about the right of creators to protect their creations. In reality, neither of these things are at stake. It's only our bizarre response to piracy that causes them to be at stake.

[Ixtellor]

Piracy should be illegal, sure

I disagree. I pirate most things. Films, games, music. My hard-drive would give Ixtellor a fit.

Paraphrasing the rest: "I steal, heres how I justify it."

Some thoughts:
1) Demos, samples, movie trailers.
2) How did people get by before easy piracy?
3) Your right, stealing is easier than buying. If you steal something and you don't like it... oh fucking well, no sweat off your back.
4) I bet you played a game you derived pleasure from... just not enough pleasure (in your mind) to justify actually paying for.
5) If a movie isn't perfect, you justify why you won't pay for it. Sure it was good, but that ending wasn't good enough --- No bucks for you!.

[The Great Hippo]

Paraphrasing the rest: "I steal, heres how I justify it."

HOW MANY CRIMES HAVE YOU COVERED UP TODAY?!

[Weeks]

I'm against SOPA because as far as I can tell, a very large portion of completely legal Internet companies are going to be adversely affected by it. It's kind of like Youtube videos being taken down when they're actually lawful, like parody videos.

It's a clearly inefficient solution, if it can be considered a solution at all. Being for or against piracy doesn't matter much here, because its incidence will not be affected very much.

Feel free to deduce from my position if I'm a pirate or not.

[LaserGuy]

Company X informs you that your stealing, and your defense is "I'm outside your jurisdiction"

Uh, yes. Just like how an American company can pump CO2 into the air without being subject to one of Canada's provincial carbon taxes. Do you understand what the purpose of jurisdiction is?

Also, are you admitting that when Americans use your Canadian piracy sites, they are stealing?

If an American uses a Canadian website to infringe copyright, then yes, that American is infringing copyright even if the content is legal in Canada. Unless the American happens to be in Canada at the time, of course, in which case, it is perfectly legal and would not be piracy. When in the United States, you are subject to American law; when you are in Canada, you are subject to Canadian law. It's not that complicated. If you are 19 years old (18 in some places), you can come to Canada and buy liquor, even though it is illegal to do so in the United States. But you wouldn't be able to import it back into the United States. You follow the laws of the country you are in.

P.S. If you rape someone on a cruise ship no nation has the jurisdiction to punish you, therefore what? We shouldn't bother seeking justice? We shouldn't infringe on the rights of cruiseships to facilitate rape? SOPA = if you commit a crime we are coming after you and you can't hide in nations that facilitate and condone the crime.

If a cruise ship is in port, then it follows the laws of the port it is under. If it is in territorial waters of a country, it mostly follows those laws although some specific exceptions apply. Otherwise, it follows the laws of whatever country it is registered with. American laws only apply to cruise ships that are either registered in the United States (of which some, but not all, are) or are currently in American ports.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm against SOPA because as far as I can tell, a very large portion of completely legal Internet companies are going to be adversely affected by it. It's kind of like Youtube videos being taken down when they're actually lawful, like parody videos.

It's a clearly inefficient solution, if it can be considered a solution at all. Being for or against piracy doesn't matter much here, because its incidence will not be affected very much.

Feel free to deduce from my position if I'm a pirate or not.

SO WE HAVE MORE CRIMINALS HERE THEN

[Yakk]

More justification for theft.
Your government in defacto collusion with a piracy website allows you to easily steal products from companies that say "Hey stop stealing my property"

I hereby assert property rights over the oxygen you are breathing, and state that in order to legally breathe my oxygen, you must pay me 95% of your post-tax income.

Do you dispute my property rights over the oxygen you are breathing? But what, this is a physical thing.

How about if I assert property rights over the concept of breathing oxygen, and offer you a license to do it for the same terms. This is intellectual property.

Do you dispute my right to this intellectual property? Suppose I had a nation that gave me these intellectual property rights. Would you dispute it then?

Company X informs you that your stealing, and your defense is "I'm outside your jurisdiction"

I've informed you that you are stealing -- both my oxygen, and my monopoly on the use of oxygen to breathe. What is your defense?

Its nothing but moral obsufcation and semantics to justify theft.

Have the courage of your convictions -- that everyone should consider whatever anyone else considers their property rights as being a valid, absolute claim, no matter what US laws says. So, stop breathing.

Or is there something in particular about these particular "intellectual property" claims that make them more legitimate? If so, then it is the legitimacy of the claims (the nearly unlimited right to monopolize, for an unlimited time (extended 20 years every 20 years, so there is no effective upper bound on the length), the right to copy or produce derivative works of any written body of text, artistic expression, etc -- and the ability to transfer this right to a person or organization of your choosing. The right to build protective devices around said content, and prosecute anyone for describing how to bypass those devices.)

If you are living in another nation, with differing opinions on what the rights and powers of copyright owners should be, to the degree to which some behavior that is illegal in the USA is legal in Canada, why should US law trump Canadian law? And if so, when should non-US law trump US law? In what situations?

[Griffin]

So, Ixtellor, stop responding to everyone else, just for a moment.

I do not engage in any of the forms of copyright infringement you are opposed to. The few examples I do would most likely be found perfectly acceptable under fair use laws - educational dissection of products I've already purchased, for the most. If you find that to be theft - fine, never mind.

But I do not pirate. I do not yearn to possess things without paying for them. I have a netflix account for my movies, Pandora (where I pay for my music by listening to advertisements) for the music listening needs not covered by my cd collection, and the few games I play were freely distributed - and I paid for them anyway.

So please, drop your "they are only against SOPA because they are pro-piracy" bullshit. I am against SOPA, because I have looked at it. I work in the technical industry. It is a terrible, lazy law being pushed by people who have publicly proclaimed they have no idea what they are doing. It will have damaging consequences, in the same way the DMCA had damaging consequences - and the DMCA has, in fact, done quite a bit to change the shape of the tech industry.

The benefits from the DMCA can be argued to be worth the sacrifices upon those who did nothing wrong. No law is perfect.

Now, SOPA - This law WILL be used to squash criticism and dissent - we know those, because it has happened, the most recent and widely public example being the Universal take down. We know why it happened - limited oversight and limited consequences. SOPA suffers from these same flaws, but moreso. We do not know how often it will happen or the extent of the damage it will cause.

The question, then, becomes a question of "will the benefits of this probably law outweigh the damage it does".

Nothing I have said above is, or at least should be, controversial. If you want to argue those points, specifically (rather than making new and unrelated tangents and arguing against points I did not make), feel free to do so.

Otherwise, say you agree - at which point we can attempt to have a reasonable discussion, starting from a reasonable base. Note that it is perfectly acceptable for you to get to this point with me and still answer that last question with "Yes. Yes it will.", but I'd like us to have at least somewhere to work from.

[Zarq]

Piracy should be illegal, sure

I disagree. I pirate most things. Films, games, music. My hard-drive would give Ixtellor a fit.

Paraphrasing the rest: "I steal, heres how I justify it."

Some thoughts:
1) Demos, samples, movie trailers.
2) How did people get by before easy piracy?
3) Your right, stealing is easier than buying. If you steal something and you don't like it... oh fucking well, no sweat off your back.
4) I bet you played a game you derived pleasure from... just not enough pleasure (in your mind) to justify actually paying for.
5) If a movie isn't perfect, you justify why you won't pay for it. Sure it was good, but that ending wasn't good enough --- No bucks for you!.

Ok, how about this then. Currently, the only illegally downloaded stuff on my computer is the 4th season of QI. This is not legally available anywhere, and there are no plans of making it so. It is still illegal for me to download though, the right holders have not giving permission for this. They are not losing money (potential or real) from me downloading this, since there is no option for me to give them money for it. I would if I could. Shoot.