SOPA / PIPA ideas

[iheartmyself]

"No doubt piracy is costing the content industries something—or they wouldn't be throwing so much money at Congress in support of this kind of legislation. If we could wave a magic wand and have less piracy, obviously that would be good.  But in the real world, where enforcement has direct costs to the taxpayer, regulation has costs on the industries it burdens, and the reduction in piracy they're likely to produce is very small, it seems important to point out that the credible evidence for the magnitude of the harm is fairly thin."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-regulation-and-the-economics-of-piracy.ars

I think that the cost is simply that piracy, if saturated as a norm into the culture, will de-motivate people to look at artistic production as a career or professional endeavor - art becomes associated with "free" and it will drive people away from it.  Art schools currently cost a lot - and that in combination with messages about college student debt and national economic concerns about employment will draw potential art students away.

I think the purpose of art is to make people's lives better, not worse.  Debt makes people's lives worse.

 

[Bouttime Whybrow]

how many people in sl for example create for the sheer joy of it?

same holds true across all of society. people will always create because really this is nothing else to do.

it just seems like things would diminish because we live in a system in which everything is first based on money and then on need or desire.

a singer won't stop singing just because they now have to wait tables. and then we will hear them sing and we will give them money to do it and ask if someone else who can't sing wait on the tables.

don't believe the illusion we are living in. people will always use their abilities, that's how we got here from there to begin with.

[Toysoldier Thor]

Bouttime beat me to the punch responding to you iheartmyself.

 

Its an complete myth that the creative spirit will be destroyed because of an abundance of piracy in the world. 

I am an artist myself.  I evolved as one over the past 3 years.  The art I have created since I started has maybe earned me a whopping $200 US.  But my creative drive to create art is absolutely NOT DRIVEN because of the all mighty $.  If some day my art becomes popular enough that I could earn even a fraction of an income to live off of, great.  But I surely am not stiffled because I wont make money or because I think if i do become popular pirates will steal from me.

I can tell you that this is true with almost all artists.  It is also true with almost all musicians.  I challenge you to find 3 Artists or Musicians that will post on here and say.... "because of the fear that my creations might be stolen - I dont want to create art or music or animation or make a movie".

Another Myth that the Big $ music and movie industry is trying to BS the governments and population is that pirates are mainly stealing from those creative minds that were behind all those awesome movies, animations, music.   In fact, the ones that are hurt by the pirates are not the actual creators that earn their money as a 9-50 salary.  Its the Industry mogals that own the copyrights to their creations.  The Billionaire corps are the ones that dont like a small portion of their profits taken from them.

The REAL Creators will still have their 9-5 jobs and will STILL NOT get any royalties from the creations they make for Disney Sony etc. 

You have fallen too much for the BS that the movie and music industry has fed you.

If you were an actual artist, musiciam, animator you would realize that your statement was wrong.

[Nalates Urriah]

You missed a major part of what SOPA/PIPA is about. So, your assumption that copyright infringment is costing them money is not quite on the mark.

There are a number of studies that all the music and video copying going on increases sales. Most copied stuff is lower quiality then purchased media. The studies show people listen to the low quality and end up buying the high quality copies of stuff they like.

The things SOPA/PIPA does is shift the cost of pursuing copyright infringement to the tax payer. It saves the media industry a ton of money.

The politicians like it because all it takes to shut a site down is the filing of a complaint. There is no due process. People are placed in the position of proving their innocence. For politcians this will become a great tool for the October Surprise season of politics. They can stifle the opposition by filing a complaint against their sites and commercials. By the time the matter is processed the election will be over.

It isn't like we don't have laws to allow procesution of IP abuse, it is that it is a civil matter that must be handled, paid for, by individuals and companies. SOPA/PIPA attempts to criminalize the matters and shift responsibility for enforcement to the government.

[Usive]

OK, If you have never pirated anything then you are prettymuch disqualified from having an oppinion that bears any weight. I used to pirate a lot, but you know what, after a certain point the novelty wears off, and you find that there are more convenient ways of getting stuff. Music is already streamed live online, so downloading is becoming a waste of bandwidth for potential pirates.

Movies take at LEAST 15 minutes to download, usually it's more like 60-120 minutes, with a good connection, netflix is SO MUCH MORE APPEALING, and what Netflix doesn't have, projectfreetv does... All without the 2 gigs of bandwidth for 1 movie... and have you ever seen how many gigs 1 season of a tv show is? Overage fees on bandwidth keep all but the most dedicated viewers from pirating tv shows.

 

Then there are video game. The fact is you can't engage in any kind of online play or program features if you pirate a program. Also, video games tend to have bugs and viruses when they are pirated. The cracks themselves are a form of virus, making video game torrents a favorite hiding place for trojan horses, since you have to assume the crack virus is just that and nothing more.

 

SOPA/PIPA are attempts at global censorship. the U.S. goverbment already controlls our news on tv. The day is fast approaching when most if not all broadcasting will be done on the internet. The government simoly wants to regain the absolute controll it used to have over it's citizens knowlege and organization. As is it is next to impossible to identify skilled people on the internet, even those who may be terrorists. Also, the lobyists are using campaign money as bribes in this whole fiasco

 

But honestly, have you ever heard of programs like gentoo? They are what people in oppressed countries like China and Iran use to pirate things, and SOPA/PIPA can not stop these programs as they are direct p2p programs... essentially limewires grandparents.

 

 So you see, piracy is not free, and in fact costs more than other methods of obtaining these things and people eventually realize this. Censoring the internet would just punish the innocent while doing little to stop piracy. The people who know nothing about piracy are the ones that will be hindered. Though, I suppose if you make the populace ignorant for long enough they might forget how to work arround the system.

[Usive]

Also, there are legitimate reasons for pirating.

 

Examples (from my own life : p)

1. Put disk 3 of my Rome Total War Game in a redbox case on accident and then returned it

2. Someone stole my windows 7 disk and activation key adn I needed a clean install

3. I lost the serial to my video game which I purchased legitimately

4. I purchased microsoft office and the activation code didn't work

5. I wanted to play a game that is no longer sold

6. I needed an opperating system which is no longer sold, for an old computer

And I'm sure there have been others I don't remember atm.

[Ziggy21 Slade]

---

Usive wrote:

Also, there are legitimate reasons for pirating.

 

Examples (from my own life : p)

1. Put disk 3 of my Rome Total War Game in a redbox case on accident and then returned it

2. Someone stole my windows 7 disk and activation key adn I needed a clean install

3. I lost the serial to my video game which I purchased legitimately

4. I purchased microsoft office and the activation code didn't work

5. I wanted to play a game that is no longer sold

6. I needed an opperating system which is no longer sold, for an old computer

And I'm sure there have been others I don't remember atm.

---

None of these are legitimate reasons for pirating, mislaying things or having them stolen does not give you any entitlement to then go and steal a replacement, the suggestion is totally ridiculous.

---

SOPA/PIPA are attempts at global censorship. the U.S. goverbment already controlls our news on tv. The day is fast approaching when most if not all broadcasting will be done on the internet. The government simoly wants to regain the absolute controll it used to have over it's citizens knowlege and organization. As is it is next to impossible to identify skilled people on the internet, even those who may be terrorists. Also, the lobyists are using campaign money as bribes in this whole fiasco

---

This is absolute poppycock of the highest order, this legislation (if you actually bother to read about it) is clearly designed specifically to target websites who's main aim is the sharing of copyrighted material, there is no reason whatsoever why it would affect the opertaions of news or blogging websites, if a web site is currently distributing copyrighted materials it can be shut down, remember Napster? this legislation makes that process quicker and easier it has absolutely nothing to do with controlling news or the flow of information. I dont understand your point about indentifying skilled people, what evidence is there of bribery? how many people have been convicted in relation to this, or is that just more hearsay you overheard somewhere and repeated.

---

Usive wrote:

So you see, piracy is not free, and in fact costs more than other methods of obtaining these things and people eventually realize this. Censoring the internet would just punish the innocent while doing little to stop piracy. The people who know nothing about piracy are the ones that will be hindered. Though, I suppose if you make the populace ignorant for long enough they might forget how to work arround the system.

---

You need to make your mind up, either this legislation is going to have an effect, which you may or may not be worried about, or it isn't, there doesnt seem much point in posting all your fears about this and concluding with 'actually it's not going to work anyway'

I agree with Toy in that I do not believe this will reduce creativity in the related industries, as he says artistic expression comes from within and cannot be affected by legislation, but I think it's wrong to pretend that the only people who have anything to gain from this legislation are Music and Movie Industry Moguls, they may have the most to gain, but there are thousands and thousands of small software development companies who currently find it hard to prevent their software from being stolen, this is bound to affect their growth and their ability to employ. Similarly I recently saw an interview with an up and coming unsigned band who had some success with their latest releases but had also had hundreds of thousands of copies of their latest single illegally downloaded, they pointed out that they had costs to cover, 5 band members need to earn a wage, studio time, producers to pay etc and this was much more of a struggle than it would have been had at least a proportion of those copies been paid for.

[Usive]

I was posting a balanced argument. The point being that letting people pirate will actually lessen the occurance of piracy more than anything else and that they can not prevent it anyways due to the existance of basic peer2peer software.

In regards to the media, I was saying that it helps prevent piracy, not that SOPA would damage the functionality of media

And in response to your comment that SOPA will not affect blogs and such, as a mattter a fact it will. Sites that allow users to upload items free and at will will be required to view and OK EVERY SINGLE upload before allowing it to go through. This would result in the end of free services such as youtube, the increased costs of such monitoring will ensure this.

 

And your argument about the software companies loosing money was nullified by me statement which pointed out that almost any program that has any kind of online function can not be pirated.And as for the bands, plenty of great artists are embracing the torrent sites and openly upload thier music (And I'm not talking 3rd rate bands, I mean younger upcoming bands). They charge more for thier performances instead and having gone to a couple of these myself I can tell you, they make that money back.

 

Frankly I think (and your use of insults supports this) that you are biased and do not analyze both sides of the issue. This topic is akin to that of prohibition, abortion, and the legal status of ilicit drugs, it comes down to a question of rights and freedoms and having to ask if the rights of the many are getting stepped on for the rights of the few. There is no RIGHT answer, someone gets burnned no matter what. My point was simply that the few who are getting burned by the status quo should get to work and find a new way of doing things/ Life can never be completely fair for everyone and they need to deal with that fact like the rest of us.

My ideas aren't supposed to be scientiffically infoulable btw miss "you're full of poop". I am just posting the jist of my oppinions because I don't waant to spend 2 hours writing an essay. Ask me politely and I am always glad to give more details... But not a billion questions at a time please.

 

P.S. You think reason 4 is poppycock? I buy a product, take it home, and the activation key they charged me for is crap, and thier customer support is flooded by people with the same issue, so I go find my own solution.

[Ziggy21 Slade]

---

Usive wrote:

I was posting a balanced argument. The point being that letting people pirate will actually lessen the occurance of piracy more than anything else and that they can not prevent it anyways due to the existance of basic peer2peer software.

---

I dont think that you actually believe allowing something to happen will stop it from happening, how ?. I agree it can never be irradicated but peer to peer systems only work if someone tracks the files and provides links to them, that is exaclty who this legislation targets.

---

Usive wrote:

And in response to your comment that SOPA will not affect blogs and such, as a mattter a fact it will. Sites that allow users to upload items free and at will will be required to view and OK EVERY SINGLE upload before allowing it to go through. This would result in the end of free services such as youtube, the increased costs of such monitoring will ensure this.

---

You see I really don't want to be rude and insult you but you make it so hard when you include statements like this one. Please go and Wiki SOPA and actually find out some genuine information about the thing you are protesting against, then please copy and paste the part of  the legislation that demands that sites are required to view and ok every single upload. I can tell you now that you won't be able to because it just isn't there, I dont know where you have got this from, but it simply isn't true, it doesnt even have a faint smell of truth about it, its completely and utterly made up. 

Its interesting that you apparently have access to Youtube's financial accounts and are able to calculate the potential revenue changes they will endure and predict their imminent demise. Perhaps you would like to share some of the actual facts and figures that led you to this conclusion or dare I suggest, that again you have no facts or figures and again are repeating a bit of hearsay that you think sounds good and scary.

---

Usive wrote:

In regards to the media, I was saying that it helps prevent piracy, not that SOPA would damage the functionality of media....

....And in response to your comment that SOPA will not affect blogs and such, as a mattter a fact it will. 

---

Errr, so it will or it won't affect the media? You dont seem too sure, just as a reminder this is what you actually said....

SOPA/PIPA are attempts at global censorship. the U.S. goverbment already controlls our news on tv. The day is fast approaching when most if not all broadcasting will be done on the internet. The government simoly wants to regain the absolute controll it used to have over it's citizens knowlege and organization

So according to you in the above statement you are making the point that the media helps to prevent piracy and you aren't suggesting that media operations will be adversly affected by SOPA. I have to say that is not the meaning I drew from this statement.

 

---

Usive wrote:

And your argument about the software companies loosing money was nullified by me statement which pointed out that almost any program that has any kind of online function can not be pirated.And as for the bands, plenty of great artists are embracing the torrent sites and openly upload thier music (And I'm not talking 3rd rate bands, I mean younger upcoming bands). They charge more for thier performances instead and having gone to a couple of these myself I can tell you, they make that money back.

---

Ah so you don't just handle Youtube's accounts you are apparently the financial consultant for a number of bands and as such are in a position to talk about their profitability too, please give examples of the running costs for an up and coming band, along with their profits from record sales, showing these profits reduce over the time and be replaced with profits from live perfomances. Ok maybe thats a bit over the top, please provide one single actual checkable fact that supports this argument.

---

Usive wrote:

P.S. You think reason 4 is poppycock? I buy a product, take it home, and the activation key they charged me for is crap, and thier customer support is flooded by people with the same issue, so I go find my own solution.

---

Yes of course I do, and you know it is too, you can throw in as many feeble excuses as you like, stealing is still stealing, even with the highly unlikely scenario you give above. If I am driving past your house and my car breaks down I dont then have the right to steal your car because it happens to be close by, I can't vist the local Ford dealership or drive to their Dagenham plant and help my self to a new one either. My rights as a consumer demand that Ford provide me with a car that is as described and is fit for purpose, if it isn't I have the right to complain and they are obliged to satisfy my complaint. Even if they sold me the worst most useless heap of scrap of a car ever at no point do I have the right to help myself to a new one.

If you would like to put this to the test give 20th Century Fox a call and tell them you have just illegally downloaded a copy of Titanic because they didnt have it available in Blockbuster, make sure you leave your name and address I am sure they will get back to you, although I doubt they will be calling to tell you its fine you stole their movie especially if Blockbuster was busy.   

The thing that really winds me up is that these exact same nonsense arguments are what copybotters use to justify their dirty deeds here. 

 

 

 

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

Ziggy,

First of all I am happy that at this time this debate about SOPA is based on a bill that thankfully was retracted.  If there is one good thing about the Internet its that politically motivated bills custom designed for mega-billion-dollar industries with powerful lobby groups still must face the even more powerful factor of the world-wide public.  This includes all those voters that a misguided, lobbist-swaying, questionable intent politician so badly needs to further or even continue his career.  Most politician are driven by two things... Power/Money and the strong desire to stay a politician.  As such, it will be very hard for the movie / music mega corps to try to slide in these laws that try to pass their responsibilities onto others and remove the rights of other citizens in this world.

So now that it is understood we are talking about a historical event that never was...

Not many if any on this forum are debating with you Ziggy that a legit copyright holder of some content has the right to protect his/hers/its (I used "its" because the copyrights to many of the content that SOPA was really fine tuned to protect was the copyrights owned by a faceless major corporation that really has no creative skills in and of itself) copyrights as well as to dictate how the content can and cannot be used.

Where you are in disagreement with almost all other posters in this forum and with everyone that saw SOPA / PIPA as a dangerous and destructive bill is in your belief when it comes to copyright protection, THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.  In other words you believe that:

 

1. it is alright that laws should be put in place that transfers the responsibility, costs, enforcement, monitoring, and burdens of the copyright owner to the tax payers and the other major industries on the Internet with NO compensation to any of these non-interested players being compensated to protect YOUR copyright
2. it is OK that anyone can be accused of and punished for a crime before being proven guilty or innocent in a court of law where the accused has a right to defending him/her/itself prior to punishment being rendered.
3. SOPA was actually a fair bill designed for all copyright owners to use and that it would honestly benefit a small artist like me or garage musician or a SecondLife content creator.  i.e. you believe the BS in the bill
4. That the details of the SOPA bill would not have been abused by the mega movie / music industry to serve their purposes and crush any hint of what they believe is an infrigement of copyright in the blind goal to squeeze every cent of revenue from their copyrights.

This is where you are on the other side of the debate with the HUGEEEEE outcry from all sectors of the Internet that massively protested against SOPA and PIPA. 

A simple question to you Ziggy.  Do you ever wonder why if SOPA was such a fair and honest and upstanding bill, why did it come up against such massive worldwide protest ... including from some of the Internet's largest players like Google Wiki and countless others?  Do you not honestly feel maybe there was something wrong with the bill that you so strongly believe in?  Do you honestly feel that only those that agree with SOPA actually read the SOPA bill and everyone else that protested against it never read the bill??

I will give you credit that you openly admitted that your position in this debate is biased as you are a coattail rider on one of these mega-movie corporations and as unfair as SOPA was for most, it would have personally benefitted your short term goals.  I know you dont really care that the bill would have penalized other industries on the Internet and that it would have stepped on basic human rights of any free citizen in this world and that several other major sectors of the internet were to go under.   So it is hard to debate with anyone that so strongly believe in the principal of "THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" when you are not on the side that will be injured.

The fact that even you cannot argue is .... The responsibility, cost, burden of protecting a copyright falls 100% on the lap of the copyright holder.  There are laws in place now that allows ANY copyright holder to protect their copyrights FAIRLY.

You just believe that the responsibility of protecting copyrights should be place on others and that the rights of the copyright holder should trump all other fundamental rights that any human should be able to maintain.

 

[Ziggy21 Slade]

Just to make my position clear.

I don't like the idea of this legislation or the latest proposed versions of it. I also don't like, as I think you know, daft conspiracy theories and internet myths being quoted here as if they are facts, that is what my posts take issue with. 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Ziggy21 Slade wrote:

Just to make my position clear.

I don't like the idea of this legislation or the latest proposed versions of it. I also don't like, as I think you know, daft conspiracy theories and internet myths being quoted here as if they are facts, that is what my posts take issue with. 

---

Glad you clarified your point as your postings gave me the impression you were in full support of it.

This is a hugely emotionally charged topic - as was clearly proven by the level of protest demonstrated to stop the bill.  I mean how many times do you have an internet organization the size of WIKI actually execute a full day BLACK OUT in protest of a proposed law?  It is rare and it should speak loads to the lobbiest that bamboozled this Texas politician to bring their written bill forward.

You might be interpreting that presented theories are "facts" but you do realize that your "presented theories" also could be interpreted to be fact when they clearly are unproven theories as well.  So both sides in this debate made theories about something that cannot be proven unless the bill actually did become law.

The problem is that if our theories become proven after the bill were to have become fact.... there would be NO WAY to get us out of this stupid law. 

So... it is best to shut down a stupid law before it becomes a stupid law.

[Usive]

See now, you are taking the broader arguement I made earlier and using it as a contradictory argument, however my second argument was simply addressing the specific attacks you made on my 1st.

 

1. I did not say that allowing it would prevent it, simply curtail it and promote self policing by the creators of such content, in such an extent it would be much more efficient than any legislation. As I said, no government can prevent it . This has been proven in China and Iran.

2. I appreciate our attempt to be polite but I must point out that your reliance uppon a wiki site as a refference for your argument immediately disqualifies any points you make unless you provide a more substantial refference. An example of why this is so showed up last week when a professor at the University of Princeton attempted to correct an inaccurate historical article on wikipedia and they rejected his corrections on the basis that "to many writers for the site supported the inaccurate information".

As for the youtube thing, I was simply using youtube as a refference, it is a VERRY SIMPLE concept of both accounting and ecconomics. Holding websites so liable for every single thing uploaded by users arround the world that they must approve all of it first inevitably raises costs. The money that ppays for these extra costs does not just matterialize out of thin air, it is passed on to the consumers (Economis/Accounting 101).

Lastly on this point I got my information regarding the Sopa and other bill from the website Demonoid.me which has citations as to where THEY located the quotes, should you feel so obliged as to do the research for yourself. (See now I am the only one in this conversation allowing people to fact check)

3. It WILL affect media. Not as it now stands but as it is evolving to be. In other words it will harm media in the long run by limiting the profitability of the most obvious outlet for expansion. The government has censored the news and other media since the Vietnam war and has since grown accustomed to this. The growing popularity and migration of media to the web has loosened thier hold. Thus regaining this absolute power is inevitably a motive "power held is power used". Also, these 2 bills would give the U.S. global controll over the web, allowing them to censor as they see fit. This would include any site based anywhere in the world which they deem a threat to national security.

 

4. If I buy a product and it is faulty, according to your statement, then It is my fault and I must purchase another. Better yet, lets use your car example. If I purchase an automobile from a car dealership and the key for the car does not work, then, according to your argument, I must purchase a new car. No, I can not go and have someone make me a key to start this car for which I have already paid, because this would be stealing, despite having already purchased the vehicle, and not even driven it off the lot yet.

 

To sum up my argument, you are very biased, are using arguments with Wiki sites as thier sole support, and are not very plessant to be quite frankly honest. Also, I suggest you go and take some 100 level classes in ecconomics and preferrabbly accounting as well before attempting to comment on the financial tolls these bills would have on companies.