SOPA/ACTA Watch

[AKB]

No, we don't have anything illegal going on here, as far as I know. That doesn't mean they still wouldn't block us though. The entire reason everyone is up in arms about this is that they don't really need a reason to pull your site down. YOU have to go to court after your site has been taken down to prove that you don't have anything illegal going on at your site.

[the Savage Hippie]

I will not express my opinion on the matter of downloading games and movies - because there is a reason that's illegal, the same goes for music, but I'm not against piracy at that point.

Explanation:
Okay, so I listen to A LOT of obscure acts from the late 60's and early 70's most of these bands may only have released a thousand copies of the one album they were lucky enough to get released, so I don't see anything wrong for me in downloading their music, because 1) the band's don't make any money if I buy it from a second hand source 2) it's often incredibly hard to come by their records, but if I do and I have the money I will try to get it in its physical form.

[leroybrown]

No law will ever do anything about piracy. Piracy has been a problem since the first people started to write down artists plays to put them on for themselves. The problem isn't that pirates are dicks (which they are), it's that the industry is terrible at providing their services. One of the problems with people who don't believe this is true, is that people believe that piracy basically started with the internet. This is not the case. The industry will always be afraid of new forms of file sharing. No matter how bloody easy we make it for them, they will always kick and scream, complaining about how it's going to destroy their industries.

Piracy is, and always has been, primarily a service issue. If the actual product is easier, safer, better, etc... to acquire through legitimate distributors, most people wouldn't even consider piracy as an option.

What piracy 'is' is open to interpretation it seems. I am against it.

I really don't like cracked. I don't have empirical evidence, but if you could compare the dollar loss attributed to piracy prior to the late 90's, there would be an incredible difference. Where you at Kestral? I know you have a decent argument for the other side of the fence.

And to reiterate: In the event of SOPA passing, the US will not shut down foreign websites. They will block the IP for it's citizens. It can prosecute though, effectively making foreign websites run for the hills. Check out this press release from the pirate bay (TPB):

"SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really."

They are a bit cocky, and the entire press release (http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt) is a little whacked. Piracy really can't be justified.

This is interesting too, you guys mentioned this:

"The word SOPA means "trash" in Swedish. The word PIPA means "a pipe" in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence. They want to make the internet [into] a one way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers. "

I don't exactly approve of SOPA, but I like it's original ideals. I wouldn't bat an eye if anyone decided to shut down The Pirate Bay and other hubs where people download stuff illegally. People complain about the economy and jobs, but I can't imagine it helps jobs when hundreds of millions of movies are downloaded illegally...

Spot on Matt. I agree 100%.

It's funny how they don't see that. THe passing of PIPA and SOPA will:

a) Be the first step towards a totalitarian USA.
b) Ruin the interner, not only for Americans, but for the entire world.
c) Result in the internet being filled with only major media companies.

Regarding your first point, a lot of people feel the same way you do. It's not really the case in my opinion. USA is a 'corporatocracy.' This has been going on for some time (hard to put a date to it). These folks are not interested in bettering their country, they are not patriots. They want to increase profit margins even if the whole world gets screwed. If they didn't overstep their bounds with SOPA I would agree with them on piracy.

I hesitate dropping this, but this is very similar to the 'War On Terror' strategy.

Yeah, like CBS Viacom.

*Dances naked in a pentagram of fire*

[HatofMadness]

Spoiler:

No law will ever do anything about piracy. Piracy has been a problem since the first people started to write down artists plays to put them on for themselves. The problem isn't that pirates are dicks (which they are), it's that the industry is terrible at providing their services. One of the problems with people who don't believe this is true, is that people believe that piracy basically started with the internet. This is not the case. The industry will always be afraid of new forms of file sharing. No matter how bloody easy we make it for them, they will always kick and scream, complaining about how it's going to destroy their industries.

Piracy is, and always has been, primarily a service issue. If the actual product is easier, safer, better, etc... to acquire through legitimate distributors, most people wouldn't even consider piracy as an option.

What piracy 'is' is open to interpretation it seems. I am against it.

I really don't like cracked. I don't have empirical evidence, but if you could compare the dollar loss attributed to piracy prior to the late 90's, there would be an incredible difference. Where you at Kestral? I know you have a decent argument for the other side of the fence.

And to reiterate: In the event of SOPA passing, the US will not shut down foreign websites. They will block the IP for it's citizens. It can prosecute though, effectively making foreign websites run for the hills. Check out this press release from the pirate bay (TPB):

"SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really."

They are a bit cocky, and the entire press release (http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt) is a little whacked. Piracy really can't be justified.

This is interesting too, you guys mentioned this:

"The word SOPA means "trash" in Swedish. The word PIPA means "a pipe" in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence. They want to make the internet [into] a one way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers. "

I don't exactly approve of SOPA, but I like it's original ideals. I wouldn't bat an eye if anyone decided to shut down The Pirate Bay and other hubs where people download stuff illegally. People complain about the economy and jobs, but I can't imagine it helps jobs when hundreds of millions of movies are downloaded illegally...

Spot on Matt. I agree 100%.

It's funny how they don't see that. THe passing of PIPA and SOPA will:

a) Be the first step towards a totalitarian USA.
b) Ruin the interner, not only for Americans, but for the entire world.
c) Result in the internet being filled with only major media companies.

Regarding your first point, a lot of people feel the same way you do. It's not really the case in my opinion. USA is a 'corporatocracy.' This has been going on for some time (hard to put a date to it). These folks are not interested in bettering their country, they are not patriots. They want to increase profit margins even if the whole world gets screwed. If they didn't overstep their bounds with SOPA I would agree with them on piracy.

I hesitate dropping this, but this is very similar to the 'War On Terror' strategy.

Yeah, like CBS Viacom.

*Dances naked in a pentagram of fire*

What leroy really said was

"

[Abel]

I pretty much am a pirate, yes. And I'm not ashamed for it because I buy games when I like them. For instance, I bought Skyrim and BF3 because I think they are great games, but I pirated MW3 because it's just the same thing every year. I wouldn't buy the most games/programs I pirate anyway.

[AKB]

No law will ever do anything about piracy. Piracy has been a problem since the first people started to write down artists plays to put them on for themselves. The problem isn't that pirates are dicks (which they are), it's that the industry is terrible at providing their services. One of the problems with people who don't believe this is true, is that people believe that piracy basically started with the internet. This is not the case. The industry will always be afraid of new forms of file sharing. No matter how bloody easy we make it for them, they will always kick and scream, complaining about how it's going to destroy their industries.

Piracy is, and always has been, primarily a service issue. If the actual product is easier, safer, better, etc... to acquire through legitimate distributors, most people wouldn't even consider piracy as an option.

What piracy 'is' is open to interpretation it seems. I am against it.

I never said I support piracy in anyway. I agree with you, and am entirely against piracy in all forms. I still stand by my belief that piracy is a distribution problem. As a proof of this, see this interview of Gabe Newell:

"In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty.

Our goal is to create greater service value than pirates, and this has been successful enough for us that piracy is basically a non-issue for our company. For example, prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become our largest market in Europe."

I find it hard to argue with Gabe here. Yes, there are some dicks in the world who would pirate when they have both the income to afford games and access to legitimate distributors. Still, I firmly believe that most people who get pirated games/movies/comics/shows only do this due to a lack of options in acquiring the media legitimately. Take an example from this very fora:

So it turns out that Hasbro are actually taking down the episodes from YouTube.

This isn't a big deal, I'll quite happily buy them. They just have to let me. But for some godless, idiotic reason the iTunes page for the show is region locked, so only people living in the US can buy them. This means I have no choice but to torrent the episodes every week. I've been patient and civil for long enough with these bloody Hasbro people, but their distribution is wrong in the head. Over here in the UK the show airs on a satellite channel, so fair enough, I can't receive it. But even if I could, they're only showing the first half of season one over and over again.

I want to support the show. I really do. But the frickin' company that makes it won't let me. It's all well and good saying that they brought us the show in the first place, and yes, I love them for it (and nerf guns - keep making nerf guns please). But I'm not going to (legally) put up with a company that refuses to continue bringing me the show. There's something wrong with them. For a mega corporation, you'd think they understand the importance of making their product available. Guess not. I'll continue to watch their show - but I'm firm in my belief that if I can't get the show legally, then I'm entirely within my moral rights to obtain it by other routes. I realise that legal rights are somewhat different but hey, if they don't know who I am they can't do squat.

I daren't send them an email. I'll just get some robotic reply full of ®s and ™s.

As I later explained; the problem didn't lie with Hasbro, but because the legally couldn't distribute the show until it aired on tv, but Tom still didn't have a convenient and legitimate way to watch the show.

I can't support piracy in basically any form imaginable, but I do understand why some people pirate.

[Veck]

MPAA calls the Internet going dark in protest of SOPA "An abuse of power".

In related news, the Eye of Sauron accuses Hobbits of terrorism.

[Fiar]

Of course MPAA would say that, they realize the blackouts were successful in rallying support in favor of the opposition. They don't want their precious bill to fail, so they will say what they can. And it won't do them much good.

[Wolfie]

Of course MPAA would say that, they realize the blackouts were successful in rallying support in favor of the opposition. They don't want their precious bill to fail, so they will say what they can. And it won't do them much good.

Is not our side doing the same thing? saying it will lead to things we have no way of knowing?

not saying they are right but you cant call someone eles out and ignore that our pepole are saying anything and evreything to get pepole to side with us.
Even so much as blocking out sites.

Which one is more exstream there?

[Veck]

It disgusts me that they act in the manner that they do. The MPAA and RIAA are both horrifically corrupt and exploitative institutions and basically economic terrorists, and their self-proclaimed control over everything under their sphere is about as true a sign of power abuse as you can get. For them to accuse an entirely non-profit, completely law-abiding site like Wikipedia of corruption is despicable.

On a more positive note, Rupert Murdoch's empire of sleaze and hatred is continuing to be torn down. I'm starting to think the tweenies might be the beginning of the end of humanity's subservience to the oppressive media.

[Taters]

I'm starting to think the tweenies might be the beginning of the end of humanity's subservience to the oppressive media.

Yes, but remember, if we rid ourselves of the Jagrafess' media control, we'll just find ourselves watching horrible reality shows run by the Daleks.

[Veck]

Right now, the Jagrafess and Daleks have joined up to bombard us with the horrors of the reality news station while also throwing in far too many Bad Wolf references.

[Avron the S'wit]

If we're going to discuss piracy - and that includes those of us who may or may not do it, for whatever reason - just remember to tred lightly. Piracy in its basic nature is still illegal and we cannot, as a community, condone it. But there are several reasons to discuss why people might pirate and whether or not there are better ways to get around it.

The fact of the matter is that piracy is not going to go away. A majority of the problems with pirating, and the ones intended to be targeted by SOPA and PIPA, come from outside of the US and well outside of most Western countries. You are not going to stop that, realistically, with something of this measure, the same way that you are not going to stop drug use with a "war on drugs." What you can do, however, is examine why people outside of that targeted group may pirate. For some, it's as easy as Tom's reason: there is no way for him to legally obtain his show, which he would buy if the option was presented to him. For others, it has to do with what they consider fair and just. You cannot, after all, return a set of MP3s you buy on iTunes and realize you don't like, so why not pirate them to get a sampling?

There's also an anthropological reason. Our idea of enjoying content and storytelling - videos and games being the best example - has changed. I personally wouldn't go to the movies to buy an expensive movie ticket, sit in uncomfortable chairs and fear leaving lest I miss something, and be forced to buy expensive food (since you are no longer allowed to bring it in, as you were when I was younger) to experience a movie when I can watch it in the comfort of my own home, pause if I have an interruption, and do whatever I please to make the experience more enjoyable. VHS, DVDs, and things like YouTube and Netflix have dramatically altered our user experience.

The reality of any thing, particularly with businesses, is that you have to give your audience what you want. If you don't, you fail, and they get it somewhere else. Realistically there is always an economical issue for you, and the fact is half the battle is learning how to profit off of new technology (a conundrum the published journalism area has been trying to get through, and one I'm quite familiar with, having been a printed newspaper editor). What these SOPA protests did was show law makers that there's a new sheriff in town, and it doesn't like not being listened to. I personally don't think that's a bad thing.

Piracy is bad, and I personally don't do it because I would much rather support artists - but so, too, is not examining the debate from all sides to figure out how to go forward and attack something illegal without attacking something that has become who we are.

[Taters]

It starts with a simple and reasonable idea: "Don't use our products without paying for them". After all, if they created it, they have a reasonable right to charge money for people to use it. The issue comes when we start broadening the definition of "use". If, for example, you could get free Cadillacs, say from someone in another country who bought one and copied it(why he'd do this, I don't know), Cadillac would be well within their rights to complain. However, if they took it further, and said, no, you CAN'T have a test drive, either buy it or go away(Oh, and no looking at the cars or at pictures of them either), THEN we would start approaching RIAA levels of idiocy, and that's where the real problem lies. Where does it stop? Do we shut down musical review magazines for daring to use track titles and band names without paying? The law should be in place to make sure people ask permission before using someone else's work(and give them credit, too), it shouldn't be a tool to let people say "Well, if you want to use a snippit of this music to introduce your morning radio show, it will cost you money. Every time you use it." Also, I think a lot of these people are missing a really big point: free use of certain things(say, let's play videos), is FREE ADVERTISING. You'd think that alone would have them drooling, and I don't know why it doesn't.

[Avron the S'wit]

The law should be in place to make sure people ask permission before using someone else's work(and give them credit, too), it shouldn't be a tool to let people say "Well, if you want to use a snippit of this music to introduce your morning radio show, it will cost you money. Every time you use it."

I concur!

I wonder if the proper art of citation and attribution is lost on people. When the web came along and introduced the world to us to collect as easily as copy and paste, people sort of forgot to educate others, particularly the young, on the importance of giving credit where credit is do. I think that's easily demonstrated in all of the plagiarism issues you see in school papers. Perhaps we've forgotten the importance of that in sight of technology?

[Veck]

I think by now it's become clear that stopping piracy isn't the goal of the lobbyists supporting this. They have surprisingly little to gain from completely smashing piracy as it makes up a fraction of their total sales, but they have a lot to gain from being able to silence the internet, a medium that has allowed more and more competition for their umbrella corps to seep through than ever before. Their goal is, and always will be, to dominate their industry, and by being able to make sure their voice is the only one that can be heard, they will do that.

[Fiar]

Taters brings up a good point on what will go away if this were to pass. Free advertising, sites like TGWTG (That Guy With The Glasses) does free advertising and it's been quite profitable for those he's done reviews on. Even for obscure movies like, "The Room" has gotten a lot more attention thanks to Doug Walker on the basis of, "It's so bad it's good". Sadly Tommy Wiseau is an idiot and tried having the video taken down, despite the fact it helped his movie gain more attention in the first place.

I digress, when you take out free marketing, I think some companies will see just what that bit of lenience did for them in the first place. And you can't go back when bills like SOPA/Protect-IP are put in effect.

Edit: No, I'd never guess the goal of these bills are to truly stop piracy, it's so those involved gain greater control and can stifle rising competition by claiming them rogue, while continuing to earn money. Which is what it comes down to, control and profits.

[Avron the S'wit]

Also of interest for my fellow Americans, if you feel so inclined (and you should!): a list of those in congress who support and oppose SOPA and/or PIPA, courtesy of ProPublica, and how to contact them. Remember, these people represent you: let them know how you feel!

(My favorite state congressman, Rush Holt, D-NJ, opposes. Go Holt!)

Edit: Also, non-Americans, I also now have something you can do as well: petition the State Department, which deals with international affairs.

Congratulations! Now everyone can join in! No more whining - get to signing!

[Fiar]

Signed like, 3 petitions, sent a couple emails....No calls though, but I try to spread the word as well.

[POMC S117]

So, how will this get passed? Will it be like in the UK where they need a 55% majority to pass it?

[Avron the S'wit]

Everyone could benefit from learning about the US' legislative process...myself included!

Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.

[POMC S117]

What's Obama's position on this?

[Avron the S'wit]

The White House issued a statement against it in its current form and asked for revisions, if I'm not mistaken.

[Eltee]

Same as Obama's usual position: Whatever will garner the most voter support.
I keed, I keed.

[Taters]

Well, thanks to Avvie's list, I now know that Scott Brown opposes it(which is good because I like him), and wishy-washy John Kerry, is, as usual, not to be found taking sides. So good, we're in agreement(sort of) here in MA, anyway.