iheartmyself Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think that SOPA/PIPA has opposition because people like free speech - and by making collages from popular culture, they can create easy to recognize references. In some cases, effigies.I think that even people who choose to violate copyright are in a sense protesting and making their statement.Their statement, for example, could be: Why do societies care more about some people than others? Why are they so focused on superficial signs for health? Is the short term gain worth more than the long term? What does "adapt to change" mean in a modern, technologically advanced society?I do not think we live in a free society. I think that once we give people a right to certain standards - standards in healthcare, food, living situation, etc., people do not have a right to free speech. For example, people working in factories have little time to learn how to effectively voice their opinions or discuss social issues or ethics if they work full time jobs doing manual labor that makes them so tired they can barely do more than go home and sleep and eat.Then I wonder, is access to modern services and technology restricted because the rate of production and hence supply is lower than the rate of demand? And if so, is access given based on projections for return (for example, its more logical to give a cell phone to someone who will increase total cellphone production 50% than to someone who will either decrease cellphone production or increase production at a rate that is lower.) But of course, the world is not governed by a standard organization or body. So the projections would be made based on special interests of sorts. This means, the optimal choice for a self interested corporation representing 5% of the population might not be the person in the above example who is super brilliant and can increase cell phone production 50%. For a self interested corporation who does not create apps, its possible they see things as, the fewer cellphones we make for x duration of time, the greater the amount of money we make (until the patent runs out or they expect competitors to be able to reverse engineer the technology in a manner that allows them to create competing products).I think that freedom of speech might be like a product for some people - they may want to restrict who can say what for a period of time to maximize personal gains.However, speech is an important part of communication - it lets people be aware of our needs. Boundaries are important too. However, by abusing the power to assert boundaries - for example, using boundaries to intentionally silence the voices of people citing legitimate and legitimately expressed concerns to maximize self interested benefits that are excessive and beyond what is necessary, people are being malicious.I personally do not think I am a "fighter" but I do think that fairness is very important for society - it allows for society to be efficient. Diversity is good for the immune system and other areas. But when it comes to fairness, I find standards to be important. And then, if there are a lot of challenges and special situations, then specialization is important. But I think it is possible that legal systems do not deal with diversity in a just and non-discriminatory way.For me I wish to speak about SOPA and PIPA in terms of my own ideas about society and why people may be opposed to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 SOPA and PIPA are all about control. A government conrolling who and what can be shared on the Internet and who or what will be done about it. It's not a social issue at all. Content on the Internet can be easily copied and distributed.......but ethically and unethically. Laws that limit the ethical use copied content should never suffer because of the unethical use of copied content. That is what SOPA and PIPA does as the laws are written.........punishing the wrong people to try to get the right people. One size fits all mentality. That's why I oppose the two bills before Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 iheartmyself wrote: I do not think we live in a free society. I think that once we give people a right to certain standards - standards in healthcare, food, living situation, etc., people do not have a right to free speech. For example, people working in factories have little time to learn how to effectively voice their opinions or discuss social issues or ethics if they work full time jobs doing manual labor that makes them so tired they can barely do more than go home and sleep and eat. on this point i would actual argue the opposite. in a society that does provide minimum standards of care then free speech is even more important i also take issue with the idea that manual workers have little time. am from generations of blue collar working class family. politics has always been central to us and is debated quite hard sometimes. we have long tradition of unionism, suffragette and minority rights activsim. i also personal recognise the role of business in our community and its benefits. that a topic of hot debate as well in the family, and at trades hall for me personal. am a traitor sometimes and am going to hell for speaking heresy in the chapel (: can point to many people in the working class as being apathetic or to tired to get involved as you put it. same can be said about much of the middle income families as well, and lets not talk about the indolent rich either (: every bill, including these kinds, needs to be debated strongly i think. why are they necessary? what is the point of them? if they suxs then what are the alternatives? are there any alternatives that would suxs less? is doing nothing at all the best option? if so then why so? stuff like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouttime Whybrow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 this is a very very complex subject. the answers aren't really there to be found because of human nature being what it is. i want to say capitalism is the problem, but really any system will eventually be the problem because some people will eventually corrupt it, there for, capitalism like any system can be good or bad. the bottom line is ALL people MUST have access to the means of production. from there it can be survival of the fittest. we must all be able to draw water from the well, what we do with that water tells the tale of what our abilties are. if you use it wisely you will grow a crop of plants and feed your family while i will squander it and be poor. then that is my problem not yours. but as it is some people want to control the flow of water and decide who gets what and why. no, no one can own the oceans, no one can tell me i can't draw water to arrogate my farm. fair is we both have the means and if you are a better farmer than me then you will succeed and i will fail. fair is fair. but some bastards feel they should control the oceans just because they can and that makes them feel they are superior to you and so you should naturally bow to them and accept their benevolence in allocating whatever amount they deem you should have. up until now most aspects of society had a naturally high barrier of entry, like say a tv network, anyone could have a tv network if you had the formidable means to acquire or build one. and so networks like abc or cbs could dictate what you hear and see, after all it their network. but now the barrier is so low anyone is already their own worldwide network if they want it to be. so now the powers that be can't control production and distribution anymore like record companies, they are seeking to control it through artificial means such as laws that have no real basis is reality. is there really any need for a record companies anymore? really, sure they still can provide so useful services but the main ones, recording and distributing, are no longer needed from them. anyone can record and distribute their own content. view that across all traditional media and you will realize that the problem is the dinosaurs don't want to lay down and die, they believe it is their right to control everyone's life, that you must first pay them and then you are legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Bouttime Whybrow said: "this is a very very complex subject. the answers aren't really there to be found because of human nature being what it is. i want to say capitalism is the problem, but really any system will eventually be the problem because some people will eventually corrupt it, there for, capitalism like any system can be good or bad. the bottom line is ALL people MUST have access to the means of production. from there it can be survival of the fittest. up until now most aspects of society had a naturally high barrier of entry, like say a tv network, anyone could have a tv network if you had the formidable means to acquire or build one. and so networks like abc or cbs could dictate what you hear and see, after all it their network. but now the barrier is so low anyone is already their own worldwide network if they want it to be. so now the powers that be can't control production and distribution anymore like record companies, they are seeking to control it through artificial means such as laws that have no real basis is reality. is they really any need for a record anymore? really, sure they still can provide so useful services but the main ones, recording and distributing, are no longer needed from them. anyone can record and distribute their own content. view that across all traditional media and you will realize that the problem is the dinosaurs don't want to lay down and die, they believe it is their right to control everyone's life, that you must first pay them and then you are legit." ----------------------------------- I highlighted the part I just can't agree with. Everything else, though not completely in agreement, I can go along with. Not all people "MUST" have access to production. All should have the right to access but that is different from must have. And in the US people pretty much do have that access (within limits of course). But to say the must have access is saying that having access to production is the same as saying everyone must have oxygen to survive. I understand what you are saying about access though. If someone has the means then there certainly should not be artificial barriers put up to prevent the access. And SOPA and PIPA (as the laws are written) put up barriers.......artificial barriers to boot. It's a law with supposedly teeth to stop digital content theft.......it won't do that. It will put up barriers for legitamate access to digital content. Mostly it's the entertainment industry rooting for the bills (especially the RAIA who have been at the forefront of media being copied and illegally distributed on the Internet). I can certainly see where that impacts the rights or the artists. And there are laws that are in place right now to deal with those infringements........the RAIA has vigorously beeng using those laws for several years now. But, it's difficult and expensive for digital rights to be enforced on the Internet.......the entertainment industry doesn't want to have to spend the time, effort or money to claim their rights. So, they lobby the US Congress to create a law where the protecting their legal rights is easier. But who are they hurting? The content thieves? Or the people like you and me? Thieves will continue to be thieves, SOPA/PIPA or not......it won't dent the digital content pirating problem at all. It will put many barriers in front of honest users of digital content available on the Internet. Enhance the present laws (or make better use of them) to fight the problem. Don't create a one size fits all law that punishes the honest users because it's easier for a special interest group. It's already maddening that I can't use my legal Windows 7 license on two computers that set on the same desk, using the same keyboard, mouse and monitor (connected with a KVM switch) because of Microsoft's restrictions on the licensing of Windows 7. I had to either buy another Windows 7 license, get Linux or put an old Vista copy on the other computer. But Microsoft's method is fair, it makes it harder for illegal copies of their operating system to be distributed over the Internet (or even hard copies on disk) and it doesn't interfer with the honest other than the mild irritation of not being able to have the same Windows OS on both computers. It's also not a law. Microsoft it taking care of it's product without infringing on my rights to access. Laws have a problem when written poorly...........unintended consequences. I've written my Congressman and both my Senators about my objections to SOPA and PIPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 can make a mistake i think to make an assumption that if record companies just went away then will all be peaches and cream. record companies are channels, thats all really. channels for recording artists to reach a wider audience than on their own have always had the opportunity to self-produce even in olden days. people did all the time. made their own tapes, published their own books, made movies, etc. just had to distribute it and get shelf space in the bookshop and record stores. airplay on radio and screenings in movie theatres and on tv. is quite hard to do that sure interwebz makes it way easier to distribute ur stuff. is cheaper as well. but in a massive virtual universe of a zillion digital images and sounds, is quite hard to get attention. can put on youtube or even ur own blog is true. if look at it careful though can see is same old same old. people with talent getting spotted on youtube or whatever and they take the deal that will get them on iTunes and a zillion customer audience on fb, twitter, etc. all managed for them by someone else. usual a management company of some kind, with or without a recording or movie studio depending on the type of artist signed the dinosaurs just change their spots really i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouttime Whybrow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 the bottom line is ALL people MUST have access to the means of production. from there it can be survival of the fittest i don't understand why you would disagree with that? do you believe some people should not be able to record their music, to water their own farms, to shoot there own videos? to create their own bandwidth, to be able to reach out to who ever they want in comparison to some other person? certainly you don't believe there are "special" people who have more rights than others. just to be clear, what i mean by means of production is a kin to a hammer and nails and screw drives and such. can company really own the vegetable "corn"? what is it about "must" that bothers you? yes, it is like oxygen. the internet is a means of production, it MUST be accessible to all equally, not that jimmy over at comcast can decide who gets how much access to it. "we run this". god bless anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouttime Whybrow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 i didn't say it'd be peaches and cream. but we would still have good music produced and artists will still get paid good money. they always had the ability to self produce but not at a professional level, not like now. they could distribute but not like now. the fact is anyway you want to look at it the paradigm is changing, listing on itunes is the same as being distributed by BMG a decade ago. out with the old and in with the new. the very basis of progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Okay..........that's not how I read what you said. But, with your explanation it does make a little more sense to me. I still don't totally agree with the basis of your entire post but now that I understand I can't argue much. Just can't get too enthusiastic about where you are basing your opinion on. Minor (but substanial) disagreement. I'm not for SOPA and PIPA........neither are you. Different reasons is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 yes. thats my point tho. not just anyone can list their stuff on iTunes. its a record store and a broadcaster combined. iTunes in a position even more powerful than oldskool recording company + radio/tv station combination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 But they certainly don't need a law to help them squash the competitors. And SOPA/PIPA do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 true. bc itunes doesnt allow ripped content on their site at all. they police their own servers. unlike say megaupload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 It's up to the people who have an interest to protect their own property. Don't make it difficult on everyone because someone doesn't want to put the effort or spend the money to protect their property. Apple and Microsoft both protect their property using methods that don't impact everyone like a law enforced by a governement does. No tax dollars or enforcement dollars are spent for Apple to create and enforce a policy along with methods to make it difficult for the protection of their property........that's how it should be. I have no interest in Apple's iTunes making or loosing money.........Apple does so why should I suffer for their interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 while ppl continue to thief other ppls stuff then will always be laws. is a societal thing. if ppl didnt thief stuff and do damage to others then dont need any laws and dont need any government either of any kind. maybe one day ppl will stop thiefing stuff that doesnt belong to them and stop hurting each other. hope so anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 We have a law. DMCA. There are also laws that can be used to make life difficult on thieves..........that's how Megauploads got busted in Singapore a few weeks ago. Yes, we need laws. And laws must be both used and upgraded to cover technological growth............we just don't need laws that are, in essence, written by special interest groups that benefit only the special interest groups (or, if not only special interest groups, not overly restrictive to disinterested parties). I'm not against laws to protect digital property rights........I'm against laws that violate digital property rights while protecting only special interest. SOPA and PIPA both do exactly that........violate my rights but protect special interests rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ps just add here i think iTunes is great. same SL. linden not yet on the same path as apple but they getting there. i think if anything is a dinosaur on the interwebz its the upload-someone elses-stuff-and-get-paid-for-it model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 if by special interests we mean copyright and ip then we on the same page. they should be afforded the same protection under the law as any other property i realise that lots of ppl see a difference between b&m stores and digital stores somehow. i dont. if you can get busted for allowing your b&m premises to house stolen goods and actively promote that and reward ppl for doing so, then i dont see why you shouldnt get busted in the same way and have your digital premises shutdown i cant see how anyones right to visit a online hotshop overrides the right of property owners in these circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 "i cant see how anyones right to visit a online hotshop overrides the right of property owners in these circumstances" -------------------------------- There is no difference.........theft is theft no matter how it happens. The laws against digital theft are the same as laws against shop lifting. The DMCA provides a way for the owner or the digital content can "call the police".......that is basically what the DMCA is all about. Then, just like a shop lifter it goes to a court of law. There are no police on the Internet to come, take a report, recieve the complaint, and arrest the shop lifter. The ISP or site where the digital content is stolen is compelled by the law to take the content down until there is a resolution or a counter claim. The counter claim is that presumption of innocence and the content can be reinstated by the site owner or ISP (they are under no legal obligation to reinstate the content but most do because no one is guilty until some court has determined that they are guilty). A DMCA take down notice can only be made by the owner of the IP for the content........just like only the brick and mortar store can make the claim that a theft took place (Jimmy Doolittle at the check out cannot make that complaint). Once the complant is made it moves to the court system and the procedure is exactly the same for both types of theft. The Internet presents problems that a physical store/shop doesnt have. It's global. Varying laws for the same offense. Different standards for dealing with theft. It really makes protecting the IP rights difficult. Some solution to address the the major differences in digital and phyical items needs to be hammered out. The special interests I was talking about are those "store" owners (the digital ones) lobbying the Congress of the United States for a law that basically gives them the right to make the "arrest". By passing any legal requirement to make an official complaint to any authority........they simply want to be able to call the ISP or site owner and tell them to take down the property the ISP or site don't comply then the US government steps in and shuts the ISP or site down. That's without any court action. That's the danger of SOPA and PIPA. Too much power to a special interest group without any presumption of innocence. You'r guilty because someone says you are guilty........and instead of a court deciding on our guilt, the court decides on your innoncence. Exactly backward from the legal system in the United States. I live in the United States and I don't like the law. It's bad law, poorly written and completely against everything in the US legal system. Come up with a law that works and does not trample on my rights.........leave the special interests out of the writing of the law. Do it right. The two bills on hold (but not defeated) at the Congress of the US are written with the special interests concerns with no concern for the public and/or innocent content creators, sharers, providers. Just the special interests concerns are addressed. Until that happens use the existing laws. I'm not against a good law to protect IP rights for everyone one........one that will work without destroying my rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothGirl Demonia Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj_cIiu3hU4 First, Let me make it clear that I do not support Copyright Infingement, and I hate things in Second Life such as Stealing anothers work, or copyright violations in general that would hurt another such as a gaming industry, or music artists etc, so I am not for piracy in any way. However I understand that DATA is free, Like it or not Piracy in Second Life will always exist, Piracy on music, movies, games will always exist. However it doesn't mean you have to be part of the piracy in doing it yourself, supporting it in any way, and does not mean that it is right either it just means that like it or not people are going to pirate and illegally share stuff take this for example. * I go to a video store and rent a movie rental for 5 days, i take that movie watch it myself, give it to my neighbors to watch, let my friends come to my house and watch it etc, even if it was a new release guess what, the movie artists just lost profit right there possibly, that is just one example, and the fact that information is free like it or not people will do what they want with it some will do bad things others will do good things and thats where the whole Internet is made of cats comes into play.* I also Understand That SOPA/PIPA, is not the way to go as it restricts our rights and freedoms. Over all, I do not mean to put those developers on this grid some who trust me into believing I support their works stolen, but Our United States Constitution comes before anything else, and we start changing it breaking things before long we will have no more free rights. Hey guys wake up, want to see what this is causing? http://anonops.blogspot.com/ <<<--- for all your news on SOPA/PIPA, and random politics, it goes around the internet its FREEDOM OF SPEECH & Free information spread it around be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 i heard one of the main reasons they went after mega upload was because that dotcom guy was paying people to put that bad content on there.. this is just from an article..but if it were true then they really were not unaware..they were pushing for it which would make them an active party to it rather than one that doesn't know.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 i dont think any of these bills says that anyone can walk into someone elses place and shut them down. only a judge can make that order. ppl can petition the court to do that tho. same way you can petition the court to get back any other kind of stuff that you own, held by someone else illegally. you have to satisfy the court that it is your property before the judge will issue any order of any kind. if you cant do that then you wont get the order + yes i understand that people point to DMCA and say thats it. but thats not it example. kim dotcomm of megaupload is not being extradited to face DMCA violations. he is being extradited to face charges of racketeering. criminal conspiracy, wire fraud and all kinds of other heavy stuff. he also charged with violations of the existing copyright codes, which have nothing to do with DMCA. he is facing serious bigtime jail. and because of those charges all his money and assets been frozen, his site shut down. he hasnt even been convicted of anything yet. hes in another country even. but thats the current law and that imo is the real and actual problem with the existing criminal code and the proceedings written into them so what happens if mr dotcomm does get convicted of those kinds of charges? what happens to google/youtube executives, lindens even, and heaps more content hosting companies? are they going to face the same kind of charges? if mr dotcomm gets convicted of heavy duty crime then why not them also? what are they doing differently? observing DMCA and plead safe harbour? mr dotcomm is going to try that for sure. if that defence fails then what happens? all his records have been taken and will be used in evidence against him. he doesn't have any hope of beating this. the records he kept of his activities are going to hang him. the usa law enforcement authorities are already pulling these out in the extradition hearing this is a serious problem and i dont get that people dont see it. i know is popular at the moment to chant freedom against bills like sopa/ipip whatever and rage against the evil empires and government whatever. but whats the current alternative to new law? its not DMCA. its the existing criminal code and its overkill imo. but thats what you have now today and its being applied now today. if people in usa are cool with that then ok thats their choice other countries have had a look at it from this perspective as well as all the others. some have designed new laws just bc their existing criminal code was overkill and recognised how serious that was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ps whats the alternative to the current situation? do what iTunes do. make the host responsible for the stuff on their sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 16 wrote: i dont think any of these bills says that anyone can walk into someone elses place and shut them down. only a judge can make that order. ppl can petition the court to do that tho. same way you can petition the court to get back any other kind of stuff that you own, held by someone else illegally. you have to satisfy the court that it is your property before the judge will issue any order of any kind. if you cant do that then you wont get the order Why did you think a judge must be involved? Is it because the alternative is that outrageous, dangerous, and that much of an attack on the rights of everyone else that it's something you'd never have imagined and have trouble believing anyone would even try to pass into law? Actually this bill does not do what you seem to think it does. It would not remove any of the prosecutory frame work being directed at megauploads but instead expands criminal culpability and makes more acts criminal than previously were. It looks almost as though you don't know what this bill does but you like what you were told it would achieve. If I told you a bill would stop creepers fiddling with children, would you just gormlessly say "yay" and advocate for it without bothering to read that it does so by exterminating all people under the age of 18 and killing all subsequent children at birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 you're missing the point is two laws. DMCA and the existing criminal code. there is no inbetween. slap on the wrist or the bighammer people arent debating this. where is the debate to overhaul the existing code? thats what bills are for. you debate them and you change them and you keep debating and keep making changes until you get good law or you just campaign to get bills chucked out. thats actually way easier to do than try to make good law so anyways whats your solution? i know what your objections are now. or are you happy to leave things as they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 yes thats true. records were seized in the raid. some of them have been presented at his extradition hearing. they dont look good for him. one of the users uploaded something like 19,000 movies over a period of years. based on the numbers of downloads, megaupload paid the user about $3-4000 or something. am just going off memory. is court news tho that report the exact details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now