SOPA Bill (important read for avid internet users)

exalted512

Let's not get this thread shut down. Just trying to inform people of how this bill could affect all users of the internet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/sopa-internet-censorship-online-piracy-house-hearing_n_1098255.html

http://www.mozilla.org/sopa/?WT.mc_ID=sopa-snippet
-Cody

Jstas

Done.

Passed it around too.

Would have done it yesterday but was still feeling quite sick and not interested in effort.

mhardy6647

Sorry to hear that you're not feeling well, Jstas :-(

With respect to the OP - I would opine (ahem, harumpf) that the fundamental issue transcends partisan... even US... politics, and is instead an issue of the meaning, creation, distribution, and ownership of "intellectual property". In the days of the Industrial Revolution, the articles of commerce were all stuff... now, the articles of commerce are ideas and content; not stuff at all. Who owns those ideas and content? Some one, anyone, everyone? The internet is (still) the Wild West.... but even the Wild West didn't stay too wild for too long.

I'd say it's easy to decry legislation that attacks "piracy" (for lack of a better term) of IP (which I am now going to broaden to include copyrighted/proprietary content)... but I'd reckon that any one of us who stumbles upon a misappropriated bit of our own content (e.g., a borrowed image of an amplifier in a scam CL or auction ad) might feel a little differently about at least the intent of such legislation.

BTW, I think that stuff as an article of commerce will make a big comeback as the supplies of stuff critical to life (food, clean water, energy sources) dwindle over the next half-century or so...

Jstas

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Sorry to hear that you're not feeling well, Jstas :-(

With respect to the OP - I would opine (ahem, harumpf) that the fundamental issue transcends partisan... even US... politics, and is instead an issue of the meaning, creation, distribution, and ownership of "intellectual property". In the days of the Industrial Revolution, the articles of commerce were all stuff... now, the articles of commerce are ideas and content; not stuff at all. Who owns those ideas and content? Some one, anyone, everyone? The internet is (still) the Wild West.... but even the Wild West didn't stay too wild for too long.

I'd say it's easy to decry legislation that attacks "piracy" (for lack of a better term) of IP (which I am now going to broaden to include copyrighted/proprietary content)... but I'd reckon that any one of us who stumbles upon a misappropriated bit of our own content (e.g., a borrowed image of an amplifier in a scam CL or auction ad) might feel a little differently about at least the intent of such legislation.

BTW, I think that stuff as an article of commerce will make a big comeback as the supplies of stuff critical to life (food, clean water, energy sources) dwindle over the next half-century or so...

All that's great and all. You don't want people stealing other people's IP. Fine, whatever.

Thing is, about SOPA, it's not the way to do it.

Censorship and draconian measures to punish the entire bushel over one bad apple by removing your rights is NOT the way to do it.

SOPA is bad because it does not address the problem they are trying to solve and forces you to give up your freedom to choose what you see and don't see for yourself. SOPA gives the government the ability to tell you what you are allowed to see. THAT is bad. For any political party.

Tell me though, how does THAT solve your piracy dilemma? It doesn't really. Mainly because it punishes the wrong people and does nothing to stop piracy. It's not the recipients of the pirated information that are the problem. It's the pirates themselves and SOPA punishes recipients leaving the pirates to go on and pirate another day.

mrbiron

So does mean that the cost of media is going to go down now that more money will be making it's way back to the whiners that don't make enough as it is? Probably not so i don't see what the point of all of this is?

SDA1C

Jstas wrote: »

All that's great and all. You don't want people stealing other people's IP. Fine, whatever.

Thing is, about SOPA, it's not the way to do it.

Censorship and draconian measures to punish the entire bushel over one bad apple by removing your rights is NOT the way to do it.

SOPA is bad because it does not address the problem they are trying to solve and forces you to give up your freedom to choose what you see and don't see for yourself. SOPA gives the government the ability to tell you what you are allowed to see. THAT is bad. For any political party.

Tell me though, how does THAT solve your piracy dilemma? It doesn't really. Mainly because it punishes the wrong people and does nothing to stop piracy. It's not the recipients of the pirated information that are the problem. It's the pirates themselves and SOPA punishes recipients leaving the pirates to go on and pirate another day.

Seems to me its a supply and demand issue. If you punish the user bad enough you will stall the demand ridding yourself of the suppliers.

Is it right ,wrong, indifferent who knows...yet. I think it's safe to say those tactics haven't worked all that well on the war on drugs for example. Without pushing the rules too far here I think its more a case of -can't tax it effectively? make it illegal-. Seems to be the fallback mentality of our leaders as of late.

I assure you, if there was a way to collect taxes on a pirated pirate of a pirate the whole situation would play out differently.

My .02, 1C

mhardy6647

Jstas wrote: »

All that's great and all. You don't want people stealing other people's IP. Fine, whatever.

Thing is, about SOPA, it's not the way to do it.

Censorship and draconian measures to punish the entire bushel over one bad apple by removing your rights is NOT the way to do it.

SOPA is bad because it does not address the problem they are trying to solve and forces you to give up your freedom to choose what you see and don't see for yourself. SOPA gives the government the ability to tell you what you are allowed to see. THAT is bad. For any political party.

Tell me though, how does THAT solve your piracy dilemma? It doesn't really. Mainly because it punishes the wrong people and does nothing to stop piracy. It's not the recipients of the pirated information that are the problem. It's the pirates themselves and SOPA punishes recipients leaving the pirates to go on and pirate another day.

I don't disagree - the problem's pretty endemic with anti-anything legislation, isn't it?

The recipients are a problem - unfortunately - as they are stealing - whether they know it or not. That's a problem.

If someone stole your car, and a third party bought it from the thief on CL... that's a problem... and - legally - there's culpability on the new "owner's" part as well as that of the thief's.

kuntasensei

The funny part about all of this is that none of the industries pushing for it can show that piracy has greatly affected them. They're still all making ridiculous profits, even though the game has changed. At worst, maybe they aren't making quite as much as in their heyday, but they're certainly still doing better than most other industries. The only one who was negatively affected would be the music industry... but that's more because now you can buy a single song that you like instead of getting stuck with the whole album that you don't (and that should have motivated them to put out a better product, but really hasn't). That said, their numbers aren't exactly down now either, once they adjusted to the game-changer that iTunes and ringtone sales was for them.

Not saying that piracy isn't a concern, but I do think that they vastly overstate its affect. Also, I think piracy has spurred these industries to move in a positive direction toward embracing the new digital landscape, hence new avenues such as streaming movies, digital music sales, etc. have opened up to help fill the void. Adapt or go under, people. Pirates will ALWAYS find a way around any obstacle you put in front of them... and this law doesn't prevent anything, since encrypted file sharing will still circumvent it.

maximillian

"The theft of American intellectual property costs the American economy over $100 billion annually ... and thousands of American jobs," Smith declared at Wednesday's hearing. "

Isn't the music and movie industry only about 1/5 to 1/3 that size combined? That number is grossly exaggerated. And thousands of jobs isn't that many considering they would be put to work with $100 B. I guess he couldn't say hundreds of thousand or millions with a straight face.

tonyb

Jstas wrote: »

SOPA is bad because it does not address the problem they are trying to solve and forces you to give up your freedom to choose what you see and don't see for yourself. SOPA gives the government the ability to tell you what you are allowed to see. THAT is bad. For any political party.

Bingo John, it's not about solving the issues at hand, but gaining control over what is visible on the internet under a disguise of protecting you. It stinks of the fairness doctrine under a new name. To me anyway, software security technology should be able to overcome most of these problems.

The internet in general has always been somewhat of a buyer beware type of thing. Enter at your own risk kind of. The companies and individuals who have built up reputations will flourish, the other thieves will eventually get weeded out or the very least tagged as a weasel.

As far as IP theft, don't really see it as a problem of any huge proportions....yet. I think this is all about money, charging other internet companies royalties. Hollywood doesn't have to use the FREE internet, but it chooses to do so knowing full well that the content will get scattered around. Seems to me it's more of a case of wanting their cake and eat it too.

Jstas

But the thing is, this punishment that will stall demand and eliminate the supply because of the lack of demand? It also stalls the supply from the actual IP owners as well. So, it really accomplishes nothing at all and completely kills the entire market, not just piracy.

tonyb

Right John, and who gets to decide who will be punished and who won't ? The government....no political biases there eh.

Jstas

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I don't disagree - the problem's pretty endemic with anti-anything legislation, isn't it?

The recipients are a problem - unfortunately - as they are stealing - whether they know it or not. That's a problem.

If someone stole your car, and a third party bought it from the thief on CL... that's a problem... and - legally - there's culpability on the new "owner's" part as well as that of the thief's.

The courts would beg to disagree. Receiving stolen property and possession of stolen property are not theft. They are accessory to theft and have different sentencing guidelines.

And the recipients are not the problem. Do they add to it? Yeah. But they are only taking what is freely, even if it's illegally, it's freely available. Who made it freely available? The pirate. Get rid of the pirate, not the pirate's consumer. The pirate's consumer is the merchant's consumer as well.

At the same time though, is piracy REALLY the problem or is it a form of civil disobedience? Piracy of IP usually pops up because the value the merchant puts on something is usually far out of line with what the market thinks it's worth. Microsoft, for example. The Windows operating system is typically the most expensive component of your new computer. Why? Other operating systems that are more stable, secure and powerful are GIVEN away for FREE yet MS Winblows costs $400+ for a license level you can actually DO stuff with. MacOS, if bought separately, is less than half the price of Winblows. But Winblows holds over 70% of the consumer market share. Why does MS need to rape you of $400+ to get an OS on your computer? Then we see them post record profits. No wonder people pirate them like crazy. That price is way outta line for a product that is rife with security holes, addled with problems and as unstable as a 3-legged cow being fed a steady diet of vodka. Why do I want to shell out the majority of my monthly take home pay for something like that?

The music industry is another example. New cd? SURE! $18-$24, please. Wha? For what?! Six freaking songs and a piece of photo paper with, admittedly, a crappy picture on it? Look! Even the case is cracked! WTF? Get the hell outta here. Person goes home, finds high quality rip for free on BearShare, listens to heart's content. Record company barely notices, artists gets screwed over. Artists get wise, start releasing and publishing on their own. Their CD's cost $6-$11. People GLADLY pay the artist. Why? Artist's price is in line with perceived value. The problem is so bad that the U.S. Anti-trust courts rule against the publishers and CD prices fall $8-$10 overnight. Sales boom temporarily until people realize the product is crap anymore and don't WANT it instead of not being able to afford it.

Piracy is not a legal problem. Piracy is clearly wrong in the legal sense. Piracy is a moral problem and it's not whether piracy is morally wrong. There will always be pirates. But when 20% of your world wide market is comprised of pirated material, that moral dilemma isn't the piracy but WHY does the piracy exist.

There are greater issues here that stem from outside the pirate world. SOPA and the IP acts stuff will not get rid of the pirate world. What it will do is hinder the free exchange of information and give the pirate world all the more reason to exist. That would be a crime against civilization.

mhardy6647

Jstas wrote: »

The courts would beg to disagree. Receiving stolen property and possession of stolen property and not theft. They are accessory to theft and have different sentencing guidelines.

I didn't say it was theft; I said that there was culpability. There is indeed. Receiving stolen property is illegal (as is theft). The penalties differ, presumably because the offenses differ.

And the recipients are not the problem. Do they add to it? Yeah. But they are only taking what is freely, even if it's illegally, it's freely available. Who made it freely available? The pirate. Get rid of the pirate, not the pirate's consumer. The pirate's consumer is the merchant's consumer as well.

actually, on reflection, I basically agree.

At the same time though, is piracy REALLY the problem or is it a form of civil disobedience? Piracy of IP usually pops up because the value the merchant puts on something if usually far out of line with what the market thinks it's worth. Microsoft, for example. The Windows operating system is typically the most expensive component of your new computer. Why? Other operating systems that are more stable, secure and powerful are GIVEN away for FREE yet MS Winblows costs $400+ for a license level you actually DO stuff with. MacOS, if bought separately, is less than half the price of Winblows. But Winblows holds over 70% of the consumer market share. Why does MS need to rape you of $400+ to get an OS on your computer? Then we see them post record profits. No wonder people pirate them like crazy. That price is way outta line for a product that is rife with security holes, addled with problems and as unstable as a 3-legged cow being fed a steady diet of vodka. Why do i want to shell out the majority of my monthly take home pay for something like that?

The music industry is another example. New cd? SURE! $18-$24, please. Wha? For what?! Six freaking songs and a piece of photo papaer with, admittedly, a crappy picture on it? Look! Even the case is cracked! WTF? Get the hell outta here. Person goes home, finds high quality rip for free or BearShare, listens to heart's content. Record company barely notices, artists gets screwed over. Artists get wise, start releasing and publishing on their own. Their CD's cost $6-$11. People GLADLY pay the artist. Why? Artist's price is in line with perceived value. The problem is so bad that the U.S. Anti-trust courts rule against the publishers and CD prices from $8-$10 overnight. Sales boom temporarily until people realize the product is crap anymore and don't WANT instead of not being able to afford it.

Occupy Microsoft. Apple too, you know?

Piracy is not a legal problem. Piracy is clearly wrong in the legal sense. Piracy is a moral problem and it's not whether piracy is morally wrong. There will always be pirates. But when 20% of your world wide market is comprised of pirated material, that moral dilemma isn't the piracy but WHY does the piracy exist.

There are greater issues here that stem from outside the pirate world. SOPA and the IP acts stuff will not get rid of the pirate world. What it will do is hinder the free exchange of information and give the pirate world all the more reason to exist. That would be a crime against civilization.

I think we're in total agreement for all but the last sentence you wrote. I think civilization could adapt to an internet-free world. Might even benefit. That of course is strictly speculative.

This is a good debate, I'd opine... and also - so far - fairly nonpolitical.

The issue of "legislating morality" is very old (guess it dates to the Fall of Man) - murder, however, is illegal. Not sure why if not for moral reasons (especially with seven billion - and counting - warm bodies breathing air, eating food, excreting waste, using up resources and... stealing music via pirates).

Jstas

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I think we're in total agreement for all but the last sentence you wrote. I think civilization could adapt to an internet-free world. Might even benefit. That of course is strictly speculative.

One: Define civilization.

Two: Civilizations cannot exist without a free exchange of information. In today's modern world, The Internet is not only a free exchange of information, it is a communication avenue as well. Removing The Internet would set us back a hundred years to when the telephone was first in common use. Me, I'd rather address and solve the REAL problem instead of burying my head in the sand and running away from it by turning The Internet off.

BTW, when I say "free exchange of information" I do not mean an exchange of information lacking any fiscal responsibility. I mean an exchange of information that allows me the freedom to choose what I see and hear without anyone else telling me what is allowable and what isn't. I am willing to pay for the information I want/need if that price is in line with the worth of that info. I don't like being screwed out of my money. Nobody else does either. That's why we have anti-trust laws.

quadzilla

My problem with this bill is that it puts the ability to remove a web site from search engines, having sites shut down, etc, in the hands of private companies, and bypasses the legal process. Some of you might think it's not a big deal until someone posts something on one of your favorite sites that someone else claims is infringing and the site gets shut down without so much as a day in court.

So yes, unauthorized use of "intellectual property" is a problem. This bill will just make it worse.

mhardy6647

Jstas wrote: »

One: Define civilization.

Two: Civilizations cannot exist without a free exchange of information. In today's modern world, The Internet is not only a free exchange of information, it is a communication avenue as well. Removing The Internet would set us back a hundred years to when the telephone was first in common use. Me, I'd rather address and solve the REAL problem instead of burying my head in the sand and running away from it by turning The Internet off.

BTW, when I say "free exchange of information" I do not mean an exchange of information lacking any fiscal responsibility. I mean an exchange of information that allows me the freedom to choose what I see and hear without anyone else telling me what is allowable and what isn't. I am willing to pay for the information I want/need if that price is in line with the worth of that info. I don't like being screwed out of my money. Nobody else does either. That's why we have anti-trust laws.

"Free exchange of information" is a pretty young concept (less than 300 years' precedence there out of, roughly, 6 or 8 thousand years of 'civilization').

Just to be clear... the proposal as presented in the link (the only information I have on it to date) sounds awful. I'm not defending it at all.

But...

there does seem to be a "problem" to address - you allude to it as well (actually it's stated explicitly in the quote above). I am not sure that I know what you define as the problem, though.

FWIW, I think the problem is a Babylonian style legal toolkit (i.e., Code of Hammurabi) in an age in which information has become a commodity - as were sheep and concubines and such in Hammurabi's day).

obieone

Somewhere, at Munster cable, a lawyer is touching himself

And yes, that typo was intentional

mhardy6647

Obieone is a wise man. Isn't it Muenster Cable, though? The Cheesy Cable Company...

mhardy6647

speaking of the wonders of the internet...
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?126294-Free-download-The-Full-Version-OF-Pro-Evolution-Soccer-2012

txcoastal1

The other issue is when its done from abroad...who to govern and punish

tonyb

Jstas wrote: »

.

Two: Civilizations cannot exist without a free exchange of information. In today's modern world, The Internet is not only a free exchange of information, it is a communication avenue as well. Removing The Internet would set us back a hundred years to when the telephone was first in common use. Me, I'd rather address and solve the REAL problem instead of burying my head in the sand and running away from it by turning The Internet off.
.

Seems to me civilization got along pretty good before the internet. Free exchange of information ?? C'mon John, before the internet, you had newspapers and the telephone, both of which you had to pay to communicate. Don't get me wrong, I like the internet, but if it was to go away tomarrow believe me, we would adjust and move on.

See, before the internet, you had local tv channels, newspapers,corded telephones as your primary sources to communicate. Newspapers and TV could be controlled, the news was what they wanted to portray without alot of contradiction. The internet has made information instant, cell phone camera's have become the new gun. No more can you so easily spin the news, even though today they still try. What happens can be photographed and spread around the world in an instant. Sound bites too, before anyone has a chance to doctor up anything. Think that might pose a problem for those in power ? Just look around today and see how much world info has been shot across the internet, good or bad. Look how people have organized, OWS, Tea party, even the middle east uprisings, all over the internet. Sounds to me like someones scared stupid. Your, not you John, going to tell me this whole thing is over some piracey ?? B.S. I say. No wonder it has bipartisan support.

Jstas

tonyb wrote: »

Seems to me civilization got along pretty good before the internet. Free exchange of information ?? C'mon John, before the internet, you had newspapers and the telephone, both of which you had to pay to communicate. Don't get me wrong, I like the internet, but if it was to go away tomarrow believe me, we would adjust and move on.

See, before the internet, you had local tv channels, newspapers,corded telephones as your primary sources to communicate. Newspapers and TV could be controlled, the news was what they wanted to portray without alot of contradiction. The internet has made information instant, cell phone camera's have become the new gun. No more can you so easily spin the news, even though today they still try. What happens can be photographed and spread around the world in an instant. Sound bites too, before anyone has a chance to doctor up anything. Think that might pose a problem for those in power ? Just look around today and see how much world info has been shot across the internet, good or bad. Look how people have organized, OWS, Tea party, even the middle east uprisings, all over the internet. Sounds to me like someones scared stupid. Your, not you John, going to tell me this whole thing is over some piracey ?? B.S. I say. No wonder it has bipartisan support.

That's not the information I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the whole of human knowledge that is available at your finger tips instead of having to truck on down to the library and hope they have the book you need. Research papers, dissertations, publications, it's all out there and easy to get. Everything from how to fix a leaky toilet to the double slit test that proves Quantum Mechanics.

And it's not over piracy, it's over digital rights and intellectual property. What sucks about it is this.

Say tonyb writes a research paper on the quantum mechanics of toilets. At the same time, completely independently, Keiko writes a similar paper on a similar set of experiments and work he did to find the same results as you. You publish your work first while Keiko's is being peer reviewed. Keiko's peers start looking for citations and find your work. They go back to Keiko and say "This tonyb dude already did this." Keiko gets all pissed off and goes and finds your work on the internet. He claims IP infringement and has your website with your valid work and results that you did independent of Keiko shut down. Keiko just has to call up your ISP and tell them you're a lying, thieving **** with no proof other than his similar work and he can get you shut down. Sucks, right? Keiko throws a hissy fit and shuts your stuff down because it's similar to his and he wasn't first? Yeah, that's a drag but guess what? Under SOPA and that IP Act, there's not a single thing you can do about it besides appeal it in court and then you have to prove beyond a doubt that you did not copy Keiko's work.

Personally, I think that sucks. Why do we have it? Because the RIAA and MPAA think that everyone out there is a bunch of crooks and that's why they are losing money. Not because of the garbage they are putting out or that everyone is suffering in an economic downturn but because we're all a bunch of pirates and need to be punished.

mhardy6647

The "double-slit" test demonstrates the wave nature of electrons; that doesn't in and of itself "prove Quantum Mechanics". I hope you didn't read somewhere on the internet that it did... but it may well say that somewhere. Actually, as of now... I guess it does.


http://xkcd.com/978/

The issue of IP ownership cited in post #24 certainly is an important - and not trivial - issue, though.

newrival

Jstas wrote: »

SOPA is bad because it does not address the problem they are trying to solve....

They aren't overly concerned wih solving the proble. They're looking to make money. They realize that many of the people downloading/viewing streams likely wouldn't buy the product if they had to pay for it. So what's the most profitable? Litigation. Demand huge penalties that are exaggerated compensation based around "sales they are being deprived of." Criminalizing it is a boon for the production houses and copywright holders. Not to mention the lawyers who are lobbying for it.

Lawyers (wide sweeping generalization, i know) love regulation. Why? to conserve our freedoms? keep us safe? Hell no. It's job security. The Law system is constructed to keep lawyers in business. Ever noticed how many members of congress and the house are lawyers? It's an absolute disgrace and this issue only speaks to the larger issues of the government

unc2701

Or as a simple way to think about this:
As the law currently written, is the following thread could result in the polk website being taken down:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?126243-Apple-magsafe-airline-adapter

Will it? No, not likely. Unless someone gets a bug up their ****. Say, Sony. They have a good bit of IP and sell speakers... they see any kind of link to their IP on a rival's forum? Take it down.

Basically this could kill every forum on the internet, because it becomes a massive liability.

But we can trust the IP owners to not abuse new powers that they are granted, right?
http://gizmodo.com/5839739/warner-bros-sued-for-copyright-fraud-and-abuse

Suuuuuure.

Piracy is wrong, but this is not the solution.

Jstas

mhardy6647 wrote: »

The "double-slit" test demonstrates the wave nature of electrons; that doesn't in and of itself "prove Quantum Mechanics". I hope you didn't read somewhere on the internet that it did... but it may well say that somewhere. .

Ummm...no, I was over-simplifying to make a point.

mhardy6647

Okey dokey; that's good.

Jstas

SOPA is dead.

http://www.examiner.com/computers-in-denver/house-kills-sopa

But PIPA, the Senate's version, is still alive and kicking.

Glowrdr

Jstas wrote: »

SOPA gives the government the ability to tell you what you are allowed to see. THAT is China.

Fixed

cfrizz

One down, now it's time to go after PIPA!