SOPA

[Teuthida]

Discuss.

[Vampyr]

I've been to reddit at least 30 times today, on instinct.

Now I find myself going there just to check on Twitter updates. o_O

[BreakABone]

I've been to reddit at least 30 times today, on instinct.

Now I find myself going there just to check on Twitter updates. o_O

Some of the Twitter responses to Wiki... has been interesting.

Shows how far.. we've might of come.

[Vampyr]

I like this straight up lie from the MPAA:

https://twitter.com/#!/MPAA/status/159498692963991552

[BreakABone]

I like this straight up lie from the MPAA:

https://twitter.com/#!/MPAA/status/159498692963991552

Actually right now that whole account seems to be fun.

Its like running on pure damage control.

Pretty good TED Talk on the subject
http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

[Teuthida]

I want MPAA to tweet more. It's amazing.

[Vampyr]

I want MPAA to tweet more. It's amazing.

It really is a hilarious read.

websites not affected by #sopa & #pipa have gone #blackout while foreign rogue sites continue to operate today

It's like they legitimately can't comprehend an organization sacrificing for the greater good. It is so far beyond them that someone would look out for someone other than themselves.

[Teuthida]

Heh, I like that they linked to this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57361287-501465/wikipedia-outage-sparks-rage-on-twitter/ which basically is making fun of tweeter users who didn't bother to read that little paragraph on Wikipedia. Looks like MPAA didn't read past the headline.

https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia
https://twitter.com/#!/WikiBlackout

Enjoy.

EDIT: I found those funny at first. Quickly turned sad.

[Teuthida]

http://sopatrack.com/

[TheSlyMoogle]

Totally sad that so many of those people had no clue what is going on.

[Typhoid]

Wikipedia is working fine for me.
I just hit the "stop" button before it loads the black screen that explains all that bullshit.
So...you know - it's not even really down. People are just too dumb to hit "stop loading".

But it's ridiculous that they can't grasp the concept of why.

[Teuthida]

^Exactly

Also:
Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?
Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_SOPA_blackout/Technical_FAQ). Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

[TheSlyMoogle]

This whole blackout has pretty much made me realize how dumb the majority really is. Instead of reading a simple paragraph about what's going on with the web, they just tweeted and facebooked 1000 different "OMG WHAT IS GOING ON INTERWEBZ?"

Fucking idiots.

[Bond]

I haven't had a chance to read the proposed legislation (which just lost several endorsers today), but from my understanding this is the third or fourth revision it is has undergone, and those revisions resulted in the most controversial elements of the bill being removed.

So, it would be interesting if this backlash is intended toward a past form of the bill, or its current form.

[Professor S]

Beware of any regulations that are sponsored by those that would be regulated by them.

[TheSlyMoogle]

I haven't had a chance to read the proposed legislation (which just lost several endorsers today), but from my understanding this is the third or fourth revision it is has undergone, and those revisions resulted in the most controversial elements of the bill being removed.

So, it would be interesting if this backlash is intended toward a past form of the bill, or its current form.

It's still pretty silly, and basically still gives the government and any ISP the ability to say "Hey this website might lead to piracy, shut it down."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

PIPA is actually the worst offender. As far as I know nothing has been edited to that bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

ACTA is the treaty that isn't getting a lot of attention right now, but it's also pretty scary. It's already been signed by several countries, and it's crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement


It's not the piracy thing that scares people, it's the fact that these acts can basically be used to control the internet.

[Neo]

I've come out against FUPAs.

[BreakABone]

It's still pretty silly, and basically still gives the government and any ISP the ability to say "Hey this website might lead to piracy, shut it down."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

PIPA is actually the worst offender. As far as I know nothing has been edited to that bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

ACTA is the treaty that isn't getting a lot of attention right now, but it's also pretty scary. It's already been signed by several countries, and it's crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement


It's not the piracy thing that scares people, it's the fact that these acts can basically be used to control the internet.

And just to show it, Megaupload has been shutdown.

And this is where the biggest problems with SOPA/PIPA comes in. Megaupload as a service doesn't look to provide illegal content (there are several practical use for it, and sites of a similar build)

But it does have illegal content on it, and they try to police it, but you know cut off one head, 2 more pop up.

So how does this bode for sites like MediaFire or DropBox, which provide similar services?

[Typhoid]

*roll roll roll*

This whole blackout has pretty much made me realize how dumb the majority really is. Instead of reading a simple paragraph about what's going on with the web, they just tweeted and facebooked 1000 different "OMG WHAT IS GOING ON INTERWEBZ?"

Fucking idiots.


*Inhale*

That's why I believe technology is ruining young society. Technology is great and all, it makes our lives simpler. But it doesn't make us use our brains. We just do reactionary things to get to the knowledge we need. I used to remember phone numbers. I used to know a lot of them. Now I know I just need to type the first letter of someones name into my phone and their number is automatically brought up onto the screen. We don't need to know the answer anymore, we just need to know how to get to it quickly.


The kids raised these days don't know the concept of patience, reading, or retaining knowledge. They don't need those things when they can just look down at their iphone, click the Wikipedia app, and type in whatever was puzzling them - find the answer - and never think about it again.

People's lives are so inconvenienced by a loss of time we've created Microwaves and Cars. Creating a special niche of people who neither cook properly nor exercise. But now that we've got Tivo, skippable cutscenes, the internet, and ipads - we're creating a special breed of people who neither need to know any actual knowledge (considering they just wikipedia it, relay the fact, close the app), and don't have the patience to read a fucking paragraph.

Technology (of the 21st century) just really, really made people not want to waste their time on reading. "Fuck, why would I read, when I can just click 1 button, and skim for the answer I want."

Technology is slowly killing intelligent conversation, teenager by teenager.

*Exhale*

[TheGame]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201130015

[Teuthida]

Well that's depressing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YwQhNE65wmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[The Germanator]

And this is happening... http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/19/technology/megaupload_shutdown/index.htm

Lotsa chaos out there!

[Teuthida]

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

[Typhoid]

Nice knowing ya, Teuth.
That little clip will land you more years in prison than the guy who killed him did.

[KillerGremlin]

The RIAA has finally figured out how to beat the Internet. It's all about money, and squashing competing content. When SOPA passes, or some other form of the bill, it will be impossible to launch a website.

You will have Youtube for videos. And Facebook for social media. Any other site that tries to host videos will be sued and shut down for copyright. And once you restrict the Internet to one video website, you will have massive censorship. No more videos showing police brutality, no videos challenging the government.

The most offensive thing about SOPA is that it is setting the US government up to police the globe. Today, Megaupload was shut down. In one poof 4% of the Internet disappeared. If that isn't scary I don't know what is.

Congress and the RIAA are quickly realizing that you can no longer profit selling music and movies. So now they are going to sell culture. If SOPA passes, the Internet will be sanctioned, blacklisted, and shut down. You aren't going to have any more culture, creativity, or freedom.

Want to host a new blog or website? Nope! Copyright infringement! SOPA! You want to put your band's music on a website? NOPE! Sony music is going to sue you! You have to host it on Youtube, and pay Sony money. Don't worry though, when we channel the Internet down to 100 websites, it will be a better place.

If this sounds like crazy conspiracy talk, it really isn't. Look at what happened to Megaupload today. And that happened without SOPA.

I always said that technology always wins....I hope that holds up this time around.

[Bond]

Occupy the Internet!

[Typhoid]

I think the only thing this will do for the music industry is destroy record labels. Bands can still put their music on the internet without getting sued, if they don't belong to a label. If they own their own shit, they can do whatever they want with it. If ANYTHING, this is the worst business move those mega-companies could hope for.

because if I have the choice of signing with Sony, and having them take my money for distributing it on the internet, and also paying to put it there;
and
Hosting it myself and not risk getting sued by anyone considering I'm not signed to a label

I think I'd go with option B, and I'm pretty sure most others would, too.
What's the point of signing to a record label, when pressing records is becoming obsolete. It's all about putting it on the internet. Digital copies. I don't need a record label to put my video or song up. I can do that for myself.

[KillerGremlin]

There are just scary implications with SOPA. Rumor on the street is that SOPA is a guaranteed failure. However, SOPA is going to be attached to the end of some "Stop Online Child Pornography Act" that congress will be unable to vote against (because who is going to vote against stopping child porn).

Ultimately you figure this is going to get passed at some point. SOPA is less interesting to 99% of Americans than the Kardashians.

A part of me feels like this country deserves what it has coming. 80% of the lazy fucks in this country don't vote. So this is what you get. Congress with an all time disapproval rating, and this SOPA bill that is going to end the Internet as we know it.

I guess my new hope is that Canada or Sweden declares war on the United States when we try to police the Internet on the other side of the world.

Again: conspiracy talk?

In one fell swoop, the FBI shut down 4% of the Internet's bandwidth today. Megaupload is gone. People had money tied into that website. Megaupload was also DMCA compliant, and removed content when it was reported. Megaupload is no different than any other vehicle that can be used for illegal activity. Youtube for illegal content. The radio for illegal content. Anything really.

But the worst fact? The big bust was in New Zealand. So now we have the United States Global Police Force shoving their policy in other countries over copyright. It's going to get ugly before it gets better.

Let me just say: http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/01%20america%20fuck%20yeah.jpg

AMERICA IS COMING TO YOUR COUNTRY TO BUST YOUR COPYRIGHT LAWS AND ARREST YO ASS! BETTER WATCH OUT RUSSIA!

[The Germanator]

I think the only thing this will do for the music industry is destroy record labels. Bands can still put their music on the internet without getting sued, if they don't belong to a label. If they own their own shit, they can do whatever they want with it. If ANYTHING, this is the worst business move those mega-companies could hope for.

because if I have the choice of signing with Sony, and having them take my money for distributing it on the internet, and also paying to put it there;
and
Hosting it myself and not risk getting sued by anyone considering I'm not signed to a label

I think I'd go with option B, and I'm pretty sure most others would, too.
What's the point of signing to a record label, when pressing records is becoming obsolete. It's all about putting it on the internet. Digital copies. I don't need a record label to put my video or song up. I can do that for myself.

You're right on some of this, but you can't completely diminish a record label's clout. We're actually self-releasing our next album and I'm excited about doing in that way, but there's some hardship that comes with it.

The main thing a record label can do, whether or not you're still physically printing CDs or not, is having money upfront and the experience to make that money work. A label can pay an advance for recording, press, radio plugging, videos, advertising, etc without the band having to pay this cost up front. Of course that means they recoup those costs before the band sees anything, but those things have a ton of value, and if the label doesn't make that money back then it's their problem, not yours.

With self-releasing, of course you can just upload your stuff and hope for the best, but without paying for some of that stuff (press most importantly), it's going to be tough. Of course Radiohead can do it, they don't need press to remind people to buy their music at any cost, but it's tougher when you're say...The Spinto Band.

That said, I'm excited about the self-release prospect. We've gotta put some of our money upfront, but it also means money will be going directly to us when someone buys it from us online, and theoretically we make that money right back and hope to profit on touring/merch/commercials, whatever.

Anyway, this is kind of just an off-topic music industry rant, but I still say that you can't completely disregard labels. They still can be useful in situations.

[Teuthida]

I didn't realize how large MegaUpload was. At least there's still Rapidshare, Hotfile, FileSonic, Wupload, Uploaded, Letitbit, Extabit, FileServe, Mediafire, Depositfiles, Netload, Crocko, Filefactory, Badongo, 4shared, Przeklej, Dump, Uploading, Storage, Megashares, Furk, 4FastFile, UploadBox, GoldFile, GigaSize, Enterupload, TurboBit, Diglo, HitFile, Oron, Kickload, ZippyShare, SoundCloud, BitShare, PiggyShare, UploadStation, FreakShare, x7, SpeedyShare, and Fyels.

[Typhoid]

I agree 100% that the US trying to Police the planet is pretty fucked up. I mean, it doesn't matter if copyright laws in the US are being broken - because they're being broken in a different country where those laws might not even apply.

How can they not grasp that fucking concept. Jesus.


That would be like strolling into another country and being like "Hey, all those married queer people you have here, yeah - we're making all of those marriages null and void despite the fact it's not our right, and it's your country. Alright. God Bless America."


Edit: Germy, I didn't really mean that record labels have NO value (if this passes). I can still see a lot of people going to a record label if they need the money to record and produce and all that - but in the age of everyone having some type of music editor, and most people believing in their own inherent musical ability - I can just see a lot more people saying "Fuck it", and trying to do it themselves. Sort of like how everyone knows at least 6 people attempting to be a DJ/"Music Producer" because they bought a Mac that had Garageband or something. (I'm not omitting the people who actually take it seriously and put money into it.) But it's so easy to just do it yourself and put it up yourself for them, that everyone is doing it these days. I can see that happening to other genres of music in the future, where the market gets flooded with independent basement bands who'd rather not risk getting sued (or something, I don't know. I'm mostly ramble-ranting.)

[manasecret]

Here's the root cause that needs to be fixed --

New drugs, that take billions of dollars to create, and which are a huge plus to society -- only get 7 years of exclusive time on the market before it becomes generic. Why then does something like I dunno, old Mickey Mouse films, or more relevant -- old Beatles songs -- created decades ago for a relative pittance, still get copyright protection? What benefit to society is it for us as taxpayers to pay to protect media from decades ago? They've already made their money on it, and it's so entwined with society that it's impossible to not be a criminal when you sing a song out of hand on a Youtube video, or have it playing in the background.

Allow media holders seven years to make their money on it, not decades or infinitum or whatever it is. That would solve the problem right there, and it's fair. Media makers still get to make exclusive money, and society gets the benefit of the media innovation without having to spend money protecting kings of media forever.

[The Germanator]

Sounds like some Lawrence Lessig stuff Mana, and I agree with you. The funniest part about Disney is that all of their "classic" stuff was reappropriated from classic fairy tales, but if you try to touch a Disney character, watch out...Copywrite law is really whacky.

Anyway, there's this pretty sweet news!
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technology/SOPA_PIPA_postponed/

Hopefully they just drop it.

[Bond]

Apparently a few legislators will attempt to tack it onto an anti-child-pornography bill sometime in the future. Classy.

[Typhoid]

Apparently a few legislators will attempt to tack it onto an anti-child-pornography bill sometime in the future. Classy.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, threaten them into opposing a bill that also has anti-child-porn attached to it.

[TheGame]

Well, if you can't beat 'em, threaten them into opposing a bill that also has anti-child-porn attached to it.

Hopefully the media and people don't act stupid enough to let this slide.

Wait.. all the major media companies support this...

Ahem, hopefully the people aren't stupid enough to let this slide.

[TheSlyMoogle]

I don't think they'll let it slide.

[KillerGremlin]

I hope it doesn't slide, but like I said early in this thread...

There are just scary implications with SOPA. Rumor on the street is that SOPA is a guaranteed failure. However, SOPA is going to be attached to the end of some "Stop Online Child Pornography Act" that congress will be unable to vote against (because who is going to vote against stopping child porn).

Ultimately you figure this is going to get passed at some point. SOPA is less interesting to 99% of Americans than the Kardashians.

A part of me feels like this country deserves what it has coming. 80% of the lazy fucks in this country don't vote. So this is what you get. Congress with an all time disapproval rating, and this SOPA bill that is going to end the Internet as we know it.

I stand by that statement. I think most Americans are too preoccupied to care. The fact that SOPA is being called the "anti-piracy" bill by news outlets is upsetting too. So far every news story I have seen makes it sound like people are in favor of piracy...

The only way I see prolonged defeat of the legislation in this bill is if a company like Google:

1) Blacks out ALL their services for a day; no Gmail, no blogspot, no Google Voice, no Android, no hosting, NOTHING

2) Google has a press conference where they discuss how much information they have. Google is a scary entity. They know what type of strange porn you search for, they know about your web browsing habits. But MOST importantly: they also know what strange porn your Congressman looks at. They know what Obama searched for.

Transparency always wins. If Google becomes a transparent entity...then everyone gets their grievances aired our. :D

Kind of like in Mean Girls.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

I find it legitimately hard to see a happy ending to this process. As defeatist as it may sound, I don't see any reason why pushing this same bill as an attachment to a "stop child pornography act" would fail. However, I do have the utmost faith that the informed will continue to be able to pirate their warez.... always has happened, always will happen. I'm curious to see how individual prosecution for copyright infringement will be carried out outside of U.S. jurisdiction though.....

[Ginkasa]

I'm curious to see how individual prosecution for copyright infringement will be carried out outside of U.S. jurisdiction though.....


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/13/uk_student_extradition_piracy/

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

O’Dwyer is being extradited under controversial laws agreed by Tony Blair in the wake of the September 11 attacks – then billed as essential to the war on terrorism - which are currently being used to try and extradite Gary McKinnon on hacking charges. Under the terms of the deal US authorities have only to show “reasonable suspicion’ of a crime, while UK requests have to come with proof.

....terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

[Professor S]

This issue is directly tied to the over-regulation of American business. Gimpy hinted toward the marriage of government and business earlier in another thread, and SOPA and PIPA are just another example of it. Want to wonder why there is a sense of inevitability around this? Because moneyed interests want it to happen.

The only way to prevent things like this from happening is to put a firewall between business and government. You might say this will lead to corporations running the country... but um, isn't that kind of what's happening now when we have more regulations than at any time in US history? Without regulations/government intervention business has no means of forcing individuals to do anything. They have to compete, and create better products quickly and cheaply. The ONLY time business gets past this hard and fast rule is when government uses force to manipulate markets.

While I've never considered myself a fan of completely free markets, the more I see the inevitable effects of regulatory capture, the more I keep changing my mind. If Paul wasn't so myopic, or borderline anti-Semitic, on foreign affairs I'd have a hard time not supporting him.

[Professor S]

As for the problem of intellectual piracy, this is an issue of policing, not prevention.

[Typhoid]

(For the record I basically agree with your entire post, I just don't want to quote the whole thing.)

The only way to prevent things like this from happening is to put a firewall between business and government. You might say this will lead to corporations running the country... but um, isn't that kind of what's happening now when we have more regulations than at any time in US history?


I was just having a joking conversation the other day and said "Within the next 10 years considering corporations are people, I can see a company running for President of the US. 'Tyler Perry presents Coca-Cola's United States of America.'"

But the more I think about it, the more I can tangibly see some corporation actually attempting to run for President, and just use the CEO as the figurehead of that corporation, thusly he becomes the one running for President under the name of (company).

I just think someone in the near future (Not mega-near) will probably grow a giant sack overnight and have that "I've got the perfect idea" moment, and then a room of like-minded businessmen (also working for the same company) will inevitably like that idea. I'm sure a few people have tossed the idea around legitimately, but there just haven't been the right amount of yes-men in the room with him at that time.


Unrelated rant:

I hate the stampede to stop piracy of music and movies. A lot of people act as if it's a brand new ideal that just popped up. Like there were never any bootlegged concerts in the 80's/90's, or like nobody recorded sports events or movies from TV as soon as the VCR and blank tapes were invented. How many people taped songs onto a casette from the radio. I'm sure most of our parents (if not us ourselves) probably still have boxes full of (formerly) blank VHS tapes with old cartoon movies or favourite sporting moments from your local (or favourite) sports team on them. Just boxes and boxes of 20-30 year old pirated material that never gets watched. At least when people pirate music/shows nowadays it keeps that show/band relevant. Pirating may be keeping a lot of bands and shows alive a lot longer than it would be if people actually had to pay for the music/Blu-Ray of show.

How many bands started out simply because of some kids illegally downloading one or two tracks that caught on like wildfire. Then that band gets signed, and the people who want to shut down piracy ironically don't really realize that sharing the media, or leaving it there for all to enjoy is the best option for everyone, long-term. Look at Chuck Norris. Old clips of his show from online made him relevant again. Now he endorses bullshit products - but still, because of piracy (technically), he can have a career in the 21st century, and completely random products are more likely to sell because of that.

What about taking a picture of a painting. (I wonder if you could circumvent that if you're taking a picture of someone taking a picture of a painting - or taking a picture of a picture of a painting.)

What bugs me is that some act like nobody buys things, and 100% of people download the music/show/movies for free. Whenever piracy is occurring, no matter what it is - for every pirate you have pirating something, there are 5 times the amount of people (if not more) legally buying your media. So what if 1 kid from white suburbia downloaded 4 tracks from your new CD, what about all of the people who physically bought a copy, or paid for the download. Always focusing on "we're losing so much money", and not "wow, people are still actually willing to pay us for this! We should be grateful we're making a meaningful product for the consumer!" But everything to them is "me me me, money money money. When do I get mine?"

Even look at legitimate pirates from hundreds of years ago. For every pirate you had, you had 5 people who were not pirates. Or the Somali pirates now. For every Somali pirate there is, there's probably at least 8 regular Somali people. Y'arr.

[KillerGremlin]

You know things are bad when Prof S is rallying for Ron Paul. :p

I kid, I kid....

I have a few observations, and a couple of questions that I want to ask as launching points for future discussion in this thread. My observation is that we now face a global crisis similar to the Religion vs. Government crisis that resulted in many revolutions in the 1700s and 1800s. The US Constitution is a system of checks and balances that attempts to limit government. I feel like the next big war is going to be a global war where we flush out both politicians and the business folks who pull the strings in politics. We need a separation of Government from Business/Lobbying. This is a topic well beyond my area of expertise...and obviously the Government needs to regulate ethical business practices so that we do not have another Great Depression. But you get the feeling that we need A) Transparency, and B) A law that prohibits conflicts of interest.

What is a conflict of interest? When someone who gets to decide on laws also receives funding that could influence that decision.

The US Political system is bloated beyond belief anyway. You don't need a billion dollars to run for President, or at least you shouldn't. And more importantly...if you are running a business...you shouldn't have elevated influence because you can throw money at a problem. Everyone should have the option to vote equally: whether you are a poor inner-city family or a billionaire CEO of some huge banking company.

My observations/questions:

It seems like the economy is going to get worse again before it gets better. How will that impact the state of government affairs?

There is a myth that the US doesn't manufacture things. That's not true. So I won't even go there. However, it seems like many of the industries that do a lot of lobbying are made up of FARTS: Forced ARTificial Scarcity.

The RIAA and MPAA shouldn't exist. They peddle an industry funded by FARTS.

Big Pharma also peddles an industry funded by FARTS. Medical pricing has inflated ridiculously over the past few years.

I'm sure there are other industries peddled by FARTS. If you kill lobbying, the RIAA/MPAA will disappear in a few years, I think. I think you will also see a huge drop in the cost of healthcare and medical expenses.

The issue is...there are wealthy, powerful people who want to sell American culture and profit on these FARTS. The goal of SOPA seems to be to spread FARTS to all corners of the world.

I honestly think that the world is going to be a shitty, depressing, dystopian society if we cannot nip this in the butt. You will have governments being strung along by a handful of uber powerful billionaires, while a lot of poor people will just manage to get by. You have laws like SOPA and the Patriot Act which allow the government the shortest route to imprison people for violating the wishes of people peddling FARTS. Pretty depressing.

Thoughts? What to do? Where to go? How do you stop the lobbying and create a separation of Business and Government, but still keep some of the necessary regulation...

To me, it is all about healthy boundaries. Your doctor or therapist doesn't hit on you because it is a violation of boundaries. Teachers shouldn't flirt with their students: it is a boundary issue. To some extent, you probably shouldn't fuck your coworkers....because it is a boundary issue. When you become a Congressman or a Governor or a Senator or the President, you shouldn't have certain conversations or accept money from groups/people/organizations that you will then go vote on.

The Government is supposed to support the interests of the people, not a few business CEOs.

[Typhoid]

3 joint-spawned posts in one. Oh glorious day. I need a hobby.

I honestly think that the world is going to be a shitty, depressing, dystopian society if we cannot nip this in the butt.

Buds.
You nip a bud.
Like cutting the bud off of a weed before it can bloom.
Just a personal hate.

Like when people say "I could care less".
Oh, you can? That's nice. Me, on the other hand, I couldn't care less. My capacity for caring is already at it's minimum.

To some extent, you probably shouldn't fuck your coworkers
Woah woah woah. What if they're incredibly sexy?




I think this paragraph should be read by every person in your country. No joke.

The US Political system is bloated beyond belief anyway. You don't need a billion dollars to run for President, or at least you shouldn't. And more importantly...if you are running a business...you shouldn't have elevated influence because you can throw money at a problem. Everyone should have the option to vote equally: whether you are a poor inner-city family or a billionaire CEO of some huge banking company.

[KillerGremlin]

Yeah...I confess...if your coworker is smoking hot you should probably go for it. Something about not passing up a golden opportunity....

You could even go for it at work. I do think the desk fantasy is hot. And the copy room is definitely hot....


I realize that lobbying has been going on forever. Maybe it wasn't a big deal in the past. Sure, the Oil Companies lobbied in the past. But for most people, driving is more important than the ocean or some obscure piece of Alaskan wildlife. I think most people are okay with cutting down a forest so that they can use their car.

Now we have reached a point where lobbying is resulting in the government passing Draconian laws...we also see the bloat in industries like medicine. Add in things like the declining education and the current state of the economy and EEEK.

I seriously think the solution is flushing DC out. Something akin to a revolution with a drafting of something like separation of Church and State. Only separation of Government and Business. And that should include "charity" and "off the book" exchanges. If the IRS can track me down for missing a bill and unleash the wrath of a full audit, the IRS should be able to keep tabs on its politicians.

[TheGame]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jp8nA4LTKEc?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jp8nA4LTKEc?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-tD1yaE0GfQ?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-tD1yaE0GfQ?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[KillerGremlin]

I mean I don't want to say it isn't possible and then...it becomes possible.

But there has to be so much shit on those megaupload servers that no human could possibly sort through it in a reasonable amount of time. And an IP Address is not clear evidence of downloading. Think of the thousands of appeals that the RIAA would have to deal with...I don't think they would actually target 25% of the population. They are probably going to target single individuals on a per case basis. But even that is futile, because who has a million dollars? These lawsuits are frivolous which is why they've been stopped.

The end game is finally controlling the Internet and the distribution of data. Moving forward, if they can control how you obtain your digital media, you will be forced to pay what they ask for. It will be no different than Cable TV.

It's all about control. Some time in the 1990s the MPAA/RIAA lost an opportunity to jump on a golden business opportunity, online file sharing, and fell victim to Napster/p2p/etc. Now you have bandcamp, paypal, amazon with its DRM-free mp3s, etc. The middle man has been cut out thanks to the Internet, and they don't like it.

The middle man should have no say...because as has been pointed out a million times: a downloaded album is not a net sales loss. There is a good chance the person who downloaded the album wasn't going to buy it in the first place. So by that logic, there really is no damages. With the Internet, you can go to Radiohead.com and give the band 10 dollars direct for a Lossy FLAC encoded album that is DRM free. In less than...Napster was what? '98? In less than 10 years the Internet killed corporate music.

According to my folks, there was a time when cable TV was commercial free. I think it's pretty retarded that cable is a paid service, and it has commercials. I think what is even more retarded is they don't offer some premium package for 5 or 10 dollars more a month to not watch commercials. The Internet is changing the way we advertise, commercialize, and harass consumers. It's fucking ridiculous that I buy a PC game and have to verify some DRM bullshit on the internet. It's fucking bullshit that I pop in a blu-ray movie and have to sit through 15 commercials for shitty movies I don't want to see. These are all reasons piracy is rampant. The suits brought this fate on themselves...and I hope the tech world is smart enough to keep progressing to win this war.

I'm done supporting shitty service. I buy a lot of things, and I support developers who respect their customers. I buy games that are DRM-free, I buy Apps on my phone, I even have purchased Windows because I like the OS. I support bands too as often as I can. I feel like most people are in my camp.

[TheGame]

I mean I don't want to say it isn't possible and then...it becomes possible.

But there has to be so much shit on those megaupload servers that no human could possibly sort through it in a reasonable amount of time. And an IP Address is not clear evidence of downloading. Think of the thousands of appeals that the RIAA would have to deal with...I don't think they would actually target 25% of the population. They are probably going to target single individuals on a per case basis. But even that is futile, because who has a million dollars? These lawsuits are frivolous which is why they've been stopped.

The end game is finally controlling the Internet and the distribution of data. Moving forward, if they can control how you obtain your digital media, you will be forced to pay what they ask for. It will be no different than Cable TV.

I think it's deeper than that. The "end game" here isn't just controling the internet, it's controling people.

No, they're not going to arrest 25% of people who use the internet. But if a person becomes an issue via the internet or other means, they will use that information to build a case against them and silence them for good. The fact that they now have this in their pocket is the issue, similar to the guantanamo bay and the NDAA issues but less obvious in it's attempt to be able to pick and choose who they lock up.

[Teuthida]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-01-23/file-sharing-anti-piracy/52760484/1

They're dropping like flies. :(

[Typhoid]

So here's a question I have, I mean the answer might be obvious, but you never know.


So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

[Vampyr]

So here's a question I have, I mean the answer might be obvious, but you never know.


So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

I don't have any statistics, but I would say a combination of both. Obvioiusly, media like music, books, and movies are the lifeblood the corporations that sell them. They can't simply be given away for free, nor should they.

These works take a massive amount of talent, people, and money to create. If no one paid for them, they wouldn't even exist.

And put yourself in an artists shoes. You spend a ton of time and put a lot of work into creating something, then you see people taking it without compensating you at all. They're essentially telling you that your labor of love is worthless to them.

But at the same time, artists get ripped off by corporations. Corporations take about 90% of the sale of media. Not to mention media is expensive to purchase, because of how bloated corporations are. They have a lot of people to pay, so a movie that should cost $5 costs $20.

In order for these corporations to survive, they have to adapt. They need to stop applying an old business model to a world where it doesn't work any more. They need to embrace digital distribution and build a service that is better than the one you can get for free.

They can probably continue to get away with ripping artists off, because artists are desperate to make it big.

The bright side is, once you do make it big, you can do whatever the hell you want. Nine Inch Nails gave away their latest album. Louis C.K. sells his stuff directly to fans at like $5 a pop and makes a killing. Once you're name is out there and you have a fan base, you don't need the corporation any more.

[TheGame]

So who exactly is against this; the spread of media for free.
Is it the people who would profit the most off of it (The 'corporations'), or is it the people who are making the music/art/movie?

That depends on what type of "media" you're referring to because it has so many different meanings. It is hard to draw a line.

For example: (This is 100% opinion)
1) Jane jailbreaks her iphone and downloads hundreds of dollars of music for free that was intended to be sold. - Should Jane go to jail? No. Should Jane be fined? Yes, and the fine should be no more then the amount an average american makes in a month. And for first time offenders, if they can provide details on how they obtained their pirated materials then the fine should be waved.

2) Jane purchases a music track legally, but then she turns around and makes a music video with the sound playing for youtube. Should she go to Jail? I'd still say no. Should she be fined? No, that would be youtube's legal issue to deal with because they provided the forum to post the video. Unless they can prove that Jane profited from posting such a video it's on the site.

3) Jane purchases a music track legally. The track is 6 minutes long, but she uses a 2 minute exert of the track as background music for something she puts on MegaUpload. Should she go to Jail? Nope. Should she be fined? Nope. Once again, it depends on if she profited from placing that video up. If she used the music to sell a product or promote a website that she gets a paycheck from, then fine her.

----

I guess to sum it up. I have a problem with individuals being harshly punished for obtaining or using copywrited material. I have the samethoughts on the war on drugs, even though listening to stolen music is less harmful then being hyped up on meth and being on the streets.

Yes individuals should be held accountable IF they're directly stealing content or using it in the pursuit of profit. But stopping the people who enable it is a lot more important.

[Professor S]

That depends on what type of "media" you're referring to because it has so many different meanings. It is hard to draw a line.

For example: (This is 100% opinion)
1) Jane jailbreaks her iphone and downloads hundreds of dollars of music for free that was intended to be sold. - Should Jane go to jail? No. Should Jane be fined? Yes, and the fine should be no more then the amount an average american makes in a month. And for first time offenders, if they can provide details on how they obtained their pirated materials then the fine should be waved.

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

[Vampyr]

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

In laymen terms there is no difference, but in legal terms there is.

Downloading a copy of a file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Theft means that the other person was deprived of their item.

[Professor S]

In laymen terms there is no difference, but in legal terms there is.

Downloading a copy of a file is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Theft means that the other person was deprived of their item.

You are referring to larceny, a form of theft (non-violent), and that is indeed associated with jail time, either state or county.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1105

larceny

n. the crime of taking the goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the intent of keeping them. It is one form of theft. Some states differentiate between grand larceny and petty larceny based on the value of the stolen goods. Grand larceny is a felony with a state prison sentence as a punishment and petty larceny is usually limited to county jail time.

[Professor S]

Overall, I think we need to be VERY CAREFUL that the argument against SOPA and PIPA does not degrade into defending the theft of intellectual property. There are already laws against stealing intellectual property, and they should be enforced, but if the argument is allowed to be redefined as "I want my free shit" rather than "I want my rights protected" then those that would push internet ownership will win because they will claim moral high ground.

Stealing intellectual property is an immoral side-effect of having a free and open internet, and should not bee the poster child of a free and open internet.

[KillerGremlin]

Look, we've had this argument a thousand times and everyone here is just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think we can all agree though that if Jane walks out of Best Buy with a CD she isn't going get fined 1.25 million dollars. If she downloads 15 songs she might.

There is also a fundamental difference from a technology, legal, and moral standpoint between copyright infringement vs. taking a physical product from someone.

There are gray area issues at stake...like how long should a copyright be good for? What should the fine for copyright infringement be? What are the real damage when someone is the victim of copyright infringement.

These are all good questions that require serious thought and maturity. SOPA and PIPA give too much power to a single group (government) and make it very easy to shut down websites on the basis of copyright. The last person you want with this power is the RIAA/MPAA.

[Vampyr]

I saw an image the other day that basically said:

Penalty for downloading Michael Jackson's music: 5 years in prison

Penalty for killing Michael Jackson: 4 years in prison

Which is what the doctor who's actions supposedly killed MJ got.

edit: And if you read my post before last you can tell I'm obviously not trying to defend copyright infringement. The people who create digital media deserve to sell it for money - no questions asked. Anyone who thinks that these things should be free is absurd...if they were free, very few people other than hobbyist would even be creating them. There would be no movies or games to pirate.

[Typhoid]

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

(This isn't directed at you, I was just quoting you.)

So then, legally, anyone who has ever taken a picture of a picture/painting/sculpture is stealing art. Anyone who edits a short version of Star Trek to make some type of comical Jean-Luc Picard video is stealing intellectual property and should be fined/put in jail because that video belongs to (whoever the fuck owns Star Trek).



The reason I find it so hard to stick to one side is that the line is soooo fine. On one hand, I think "Fuck you, you put it on the internet. The internet should be free domain. If you don't want people stealing your shit, don't put them online. I don't leave the keys in my car, or my door wide-open."

I try to defend the other side by thinking "Well I'd probably be a dick about not getting my money, too", but then I just come back to my own "well, I put it on the internet. The internet should be free domain etc etc".

See, if someone is taking physical copies of my CD (or movie), putting those tracks/film onto a computer to give to other people for free - I could see an issue being taken up with that. But if you're putting your own product online, I think you almost immediately waive all right to bitch. if I put my own file online, I shouldn't be allowed to say "hey wait, stop!".

To go back to my "I wouldn't leave my door open" thing. Even though if someone walks into my open house and steals my things - that's definitely their fault. But I was the dumbass who left my door unlocked, and didn't check to see who was walking out with what.

I also think there's a fine line in the term "stealing". I don't download music, but I don't consider it "stealing". Nothing is being lost. technically.

Digitial files do not exist. They are not real things. You put a digital song (easiest example) on a server for paid download. 5 people pay, 3 people dont. Sure, you lost out on the money from those 3 people - but you still have your song. You didn't press any records and pay to put them into a store, and then have those stolen. You technically haven't lost anything.

It's like if you have a printer in your store, and copies are 50 cents. If someone walks in with their own paper and ink, prints something then walks out without paying, what did you really lose.

Edit: To be fair I'll probably be on the other side by next week.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Look Piracy is here to stay.

IT WILL NEVER STOP.

The moment the CD was invented and the ability to rip the files off said CD was there, we have been doing it. The Moment someone realized they could send these files to others was the moment the music industry should have tried to go with the fucking flow instead of jacking up the price of CDs and blaming piracy.

No, i'm not saying piracy is ok. However it has been around for centuries and it will always be here. There is absolutely nothing that can stop it. Before the internet was big people would rip and burn CDs from friends, before that they would record on cassette tapes. VCRs, DVDRs etc. For fuck's sake people used to hand copy books.

Also whoever brought up larceny into this... WTF? Larceny refers to tangible objects. I've never been able to physically touch an MP3 or any other type of computer file.

That's why there are copyright laws that came into place after some motherfuckers with a VCR realized they could make a copy of a tv show on a tape that cost 5 bucks. Before Satellite and Cable TV used to always be free. Broadcast Television was all there was and it's what everyone watched. Before the invention of devices that could play music, people didn't buy it, they listened to it on the radio. A Radio DJ decided what you listened to and who got big.

$$$$$

That's what all this about. Always.

Someday I hope people wake the fuck up and realize that society is ripping them the fuck off.

Thankfully there are protests and reasons to fucking care, and that's the only part of the American Dream that's worth something.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the RIAA already get a certain amount of money for every single CD sold?

Also, the last video TheGame posted blew my mind....At this rate investing in jail building operations seems like an excellent decision.

[TheGame]

Blah so many replies. lol idk if I'm going to read everything tonight. But I want to respond to this.

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

I wouldn't consider it the same because there's no enabler in the case of the store. Jane did all of the dirty work herself if she broke in and stole CDs.

A better example is, if John broke into and stole from the store and was handing out copies of the music he stole from the store for free to anyone who asks for them. And Jane, in the pursuit of not paying for what she wants, happens to take CDs of the hands of this guy.. no she shouldn't go to jail. But yes she should be fined for taking stolen goods and being aware of what she was doing. And if she contributes to shutting down John's scheme then she should get a break. John should go to jail.

This is how I view it, you used the jailbreak example I gave... The first and highest level of responsibility for this should be with the company who made the phone that enables this theft of digital content. Yes, I'm saying it's Apple's fault first and foremost. If they're not doing everything in their power to safeguard and counter against these 'jailbreaks' they should be just as prone to being sued by the companies that provide them with the content and fined by the government.

And the second highest responsibility would rest with the people who created and/or distributed the content that allows the phone to be jailbroken. These people should go to jail, and should be in part responsible for all of the damages and lost funds Apple had. But only up to a certain period of time, once it's discovered that they're hacking into the system and distributing this information, the company should get a small grace period to get it under control (2-3 months?) and any further activity after that is on Apple.

The absolute lowest priority of blame should be left with the users. Yes, it should be against the law. But don't bankrupt people and send them to prison over it.

To sum it up the problem with this law is they're going to rest too much of the issue on the users and individuals and not the companies or distributors.

Why do I think that is bad? Because when we start paying tax dollars to put people in jail for something it becomes our problem, and Apple would have less incentive to waste extra money to guard against this activity, instead they can just focus on finding who's doing it and let the tax payers pay the rest.

That's just my take on it.

To go back to the analogy.. If the store is blind sided and robbed by John and he's giving the CDs away, 100% on John. But if the store knows inventory is missing for months, and knows it's ending up in the hands of random people on the street... and they haven't found a way to stop it.. then it's the store's fault.

[Professor S]

This is how I view it, you used the jailbreak example I gave... The first and highest level of responsibility for this should be with the company who made the phone that enables this theft of digital content. Yes, I'm saying it's Apple's fault first and foremost. If they're not doing everything in their power to safeguard and counter against these 'jailbreaks' they should be just as prone to being sued by the companies that provide them with the content and fined by the government.

By this logic a company that makes cutlery is responsible for every assault and murder made with their knives. A auto company is responsible if someone intentionally hits someone with their car. A company that makes bricks is responsible if someone throws one through a window.

In my opinion this is a microcosm of one of the major problems in the world today: A lack of personal responsibility. If Apple is the most responsible party when people hack their phones and use them to perform illegal acts, the no individual is responsible for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is different from physical property in some ways, but it's not that different. In the end, stealing is stealing, and it's not the store's fault just because they didn't put enough locks on the door, regardless of whether the property is physical or digital.

[Vampyr]

I think it's significantly enough different to warrant different punishment, though.

When you physically take something, you are denying a sale to whoever you stole it from. Corporations like to say they lost X amount of dollars from piracy, where they make an estimate on how many times something has been pirated and then multiply it by how much the product cost.

They are saying that each instance of piracy is a lost sale. It's not. It's a lost potential sale - there's a huge different. It's actually less than that, since plenty of people buy something and pirate it anyway. The only Wii games that I've pirated are the ones that I actually own.

If you take something physical, that person can no longer sell it. They lose the true value of that object. When you copy something, someone loses less than a potential sale. The person pirating it -might- have paid for it. Maybe.

Is it still wrong? Yes. But it's not the same as theft and shouldn't be punished the same way and the punishment certainly shouldn't be more harsh.

[Professor S]

While I disagree with you, you have a point, but I also think that your argument is one that will lend itself to regulations like PIPA and SOPA. The more you give your opposition the ability to take moral high-ground the more vulnerable the Internet becomes. All they need is a window of righteousness and they'll fix the system to benefit themselves.

[TheGame]

By this logic a company that makes cutlery is responsible for every assault and murder made with their knives. A auto company is responsible if someone intentionally hits someone with their car. A company that makes bricks is responsible if someone throws one through a window.

No that's completely different. Apple and the companies who make apps would still be actively being robbed in the case of a jail break on a phone. If someone buys a product and uses it as-is to commit an act of violence that's the fault of the user and the user alone. (Edit: In most cases)

We're not talking about the hardware. Like people buying iphones to bash people's skulls in. We're talking about a unprotected digital app store that Apple isn't taking the appropriate measures to safeguard. Completely different things.

The phone in essence, is still a store.. not just a product.

In my opinion this is a microcosm of one of the major problems in the world today: A lack of personal responsibility. If Apple is the most responsible party when people hack their phones and use them to perform illegal acts, the no individual is responsible for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is different from physical property in some ways, but it's not that different. In the end, stealing is stealing, and it's not the store's fault just because they didn't put enough locks on the door, regardless of whether the property is physical or digital.

I agree that people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, but I disagree if you say that the company who sells a product and gets robbed repeatedly should not be held responsible for safeguarding their product. If a store doesn't lock up and they get robbed, that's partially on them. If they don't lock up again 20 more times, and get robbed 20 more times... each time it becomes more and more the store's fault.

To be clear, I said that the person who steals should still go to jail, and the people who use the stolen products should still be fined. But the ones who aren't securing their product should also be held accountable. In other words, everyone up and down the chain should be held responsible.

[Professor S]

Typhoid - Your comparison of taking pictures of photos is not relevant because photos only create the image of a painting, they don't create an exact duplicate down to the paint, canvass, strokes, and even molecules. When you steal digital property, you are stealing a 1 and 0, atom by atom, clone of the product. A better analogy would be to compare it to counterfeiting.

But to my main point: Putting aside the moral arguments, I ask that people who disagree with me answer the question of perception of morality. Think of how morally complex you are making this. The greyer the area, the more opportunity the government and industry have of enacting legislation to control your activity on the internet.

Think long term and with a wide lens. In trying to create moral judgements making intellectual theft less egregious than physical theft, you are opening up a perceived moral argument against a free and open internet, which has really little to do with the small niche market of exchanging copyrighted material. In the end, to most people this sounds like people trying to protect their ability to steal shit.

If those that operate on the Internet refuse to regulate themselves when danger arises, then the government will do it for them and it will have a far larger impact on all of our lives than removing or regulating file-sharing websites. Don't give them the excuse.

That's all I have to say on that.

[Vampyr]

My main reason for saying these things didn't really have anything to do with SOPA or PIPA or how the internet should be regulated.

I just think the people who have been caught and punished for copyright infringement have been treated unconstitutionally. The punishment does not fit the crime and is absolutely inhumane.

And I don't understand what type of argument you expect us to make. If I act like there is no moral grey area and I say "internet is free and open", that sounds even more like I'm trying to defend someone's ability to steal something.

The problem here is that the people voting on this legislation is primarily old white men who have no idea how the internet works, and they're making laws to regulate how the internet works. How many of those senators and congressman do you even think know what a DNS is?

I'm pretty sure the reason SOPA and PIPA got so far is that the strain of thought in most of their heads was "Herp derp piracy sounds bad, this is anti piracy"

I think the best we can do is try to teach them, and pray they are willing to be educated.

[Professor S]

The problem here is that the people voting on this legislation is primarily old white men who have no idea how the internet works, and they're making laws to regulate how the internet works.

So old black men are more tech savvy? :p :D

[Typhoid]

The problem here is that the people voting on this legislation is primarily old white men who have no idea how the internet works, and they're making laws to regulate how the internet works. How many of those senators and congressman do you even think know what a DNS is?


Yeah, that's probably the main problem.
They have no real idea what the internet is, and seemingly can't grasp it at all.
They can't comprehend that it is invisible, and doesn't really exist.

They're trying to regulate it as if it is a physical, tangible thing that can be owned by a country.
Technology expands toooo fast now, and it's destroying everything. The iphone has changed a lot of the world. It's made the answer to everything at everyone's fingertips at every second of every day. The iphone was released only 5 fucking years ago. 5 years. And now it's probably the single most important device that exists simply because it makes every piece of media, every person on the planet (as long as they have a device that's capable) and information so accessible. But the Baby Boom (and pre BB) generation couldn't even grasp how to properly program a VCR 20+ years ago - most of which are probably just figuring out how to send a text message, and the logical convenience behind it - and now they're expected to make critical decisions on the regulation of something they probably have experience with only through hearing their grandchildren talk at family functions.


I'm not sure if I believe what I'm about to say is a good idea or not, but it's just a thing I'm going to type.


I think the internet should be regulated simply by whatever country the offender is in. Nothing more, nothing less. Wherever that server is located, if whatever is on that server is within the legalities of the country it is in - tough shit. But that doesn't mean you can't go after the people who download that media, so long as they are in a country where whatever-it-is happens to be illegal.


I hate to jump to such an extreme, but take child pornography. I completely disagree with it as a thing, it disgusts me, and I believe everyone who does a thing that like is the worst person alive. However, if it was made in (Country A), and [for sake of this] child porn is legal to produce - then that is "fine" (Hypothetically). So long as it took place in that country, and was within the boundaries of that countries laws.
However if someone from (Country B) wishes to view that material made and distributed online from (Country A), and it happens to be illegal in (Country B) - go after the person who looked for it - not the person who made it. Unless it is illegal in the country it was happening in.

It's like going to Thailand to fuck a Thai hooker, then coming back to your own country and getting arrested for soliciting an underage prostitute.
That is joke.



It's sort of (......) like what happened with a guy named Marc Emery. the 52 year-old Pot King. The guy lived in Vancouver, and sold pot seeds - which is legal in Canada - online to people in the US (And other places). He is now serving 5 years in an American Federal prison. The same sentence length someone would get for this dumbass SOPA shit.

[TheGame]

Think long term and with a wide lens. In trying to create moral judgements making intellectual theft less egregious than physical theft, you are opening up a perceived moral argument against a free and open internet, which has really little to do with the small niche market of exchanging copyrighted material. In the end, to most people this sounds like people trying to protect their ability to steal shit.

The penalty has to fit the crime. I think I made it very clear how it's different, so no need to explain this again. Supporting heavy penalties and prison time for individuals who have pirated materials doesn't get to the source of the issue, and is going to cost us money and adds to a much bigger issue that we already have.

[Professor S]

The penalty has to fit the crime. I think I made it very clear how it's different, so no need to explain this again.

Here is the problem: No one cares what you think, or how different it may be, even if you're right. They are looking for opportunities to push through laws to benefit themselves. You all seem to think that those that want to push PIPA and SOPA don't understand how the Internet works. That is ridiculous. They are very well aware of how it works, and that is EXACTLY their issue.

Again, making it complicated only gives your opposition opportunity to do what they want. This is how the world works. Get used to it and triangulate. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

[Seth]

Regulating this in the form of 'anti piracy' laws that pursue jail time and ludicrous fines will only result in further loss of productivity in the larger society. Both national and global. Production will slow as well because the internet won't have the same traffic numbers which directly infuse marketing's reach.
They somehow think that people who are pirating creative media have expendable income that is being horded or fed into a 'black market'. This isn't the reality. Canada is a debt society and is only increasing in debt.
Archaic business models that don't represent the floundering economy is the problem, and the redirection of their own production ability away from supporting artists, towards lobbying and regulation which hurt the consumer.

The contradiction of logic tends to lend support to the notion that this is more about information control and less about copyright infringement in and of itself.

Congress and constitution are no longer protective if this is ratified, or left unchecked with preventative laws:

Update: An earlier version of this post claimed the act required Senate ratification. Reports are conflicting, but it appears this is not the case. ACTA has been signed as a sole executive agreement, meaning the president’s signature on this is all it takes for it to become law, though Sen. Ron Wyden has questioned the constitutionality of that move on the part of the administration.

Cory Doctorow describes the agreement as “a secretly negotiated copyright treaty that obliges its signatories to take on many of the worst features of SOPA and PIPA. The EU is nearing ratification of it. ACTA was instigated by US trade reps under the Bush Administration, who devised and enforced its unique secrecy regime, but the Obama administration enthusiastically pursued it.”

While this may be the case, it is much more difficult to assess the actual impact of the bill on US law. It may end up having a negligible affect on US IP law and internet freedom. It may have a slow impact that creeps up over the years. The lack of transparency has made it very difficult to assess, especially given the numerous governments involved. Whether or not it represents as great a threat as its critics claim, it is always worrisome when these sorts of agreements are worked out without public input.

From the EFF update on developments in ACTA in 2011:

While Internet blacklist bills exploded into the domestic U.S. Congressional scene this year, foreboding international forces are also posing new threats to the Internet around the world. The most prominent of these is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signed by the U.S. in 2011, which would strengthen intellectual property enforcement norms between signatory countries, handing overbroad powers to the content industry to preserve their antiquated business model. ACTA was widely criticized for being negotiated in secret, bypassing national parliaments and the checks and balances in existing international organizations. One of the most disheartening features of this plurilateral agreement [1] is that it creates a new global IP enforcement institution to oversee its implementation.

Eight[2] of the 11 ACTA participating countries have signed the agreement and the battle now mainly lies in the European Union. This week, the Council of the European Union—one of the European Union’s two legislative bodies, composed of executives from the 27 EU member states—adopted ACTA during a completely unrelated meeting on agriculture and fisheries. It is now up to the European Parliament, the EU’s other legislative body, to give consent on ACTA in the coming year. The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee has discussed the agreement on December 20th, and released its very guarded opinion, summarily stating: “It appears that the agreement per se does not impose any obligation on the Union that is manifestly incompatible with fundamental rights.” This opinion is not surprising, given how the Committee newsletter [doc] published a few days prior spoke highly of ACTA, hinting strongly that it is supportive of its signature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/

[TheGame]

Here is the problem: No one cares what you think, or how different it may be, even if you're right. They are looking for opportunities to push through laws to benefit themselves. You all seem to think that those that want to push PIPA and SOPA don't understand how the Internet works. That is ridiculous. They are very well aware of how it works, and that is EXACTLY their issue.

Again, making it complicated only gives your opposition opportunity to do what they want. This is how the world works. Get used to it and triangulate. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

Not sure why you quoted me.

I agree that the movie/music industry interests are pusing to pass laws that only benifit themselves. They should be paying to safeguard their material, but instead the tab is going to be left with us.

I also agree that the government knows exactly how the internet works and exactly what they're doing. I never once said they didn't.

And who's making it complicated? I'm supposed to accept an outragous law just because the opposition might paint it as supporting piracy? I could care less what they think, I only deal with facts here. And the fact is, the american people should not have to pay to protect an industry that is not taking steps to try and protect themselves.

Toss Robin Hood's (aka the people actually circulating pirated materials) ass in jail, he's the thief. Not the people who benefit from his charity. I can live with reasonable fines, but 5 years in prison is way too much.

What's next? We going to start tossing people in jail 5 years for driving 10MPH higher then the speed limit? They're actually putting people's lives in danger. Hell, the penalty for second hand piracy will be worse than a DUI in california. You can't tell me this isn't bullshit....

[Professor S]

Here is the bottom line: The way the momentum is moving, and the fact that the opposition is persistent and devious, we are left with two choices IMO: Lose internet based file "sharing" of lose the Internet as we know it. Lose a small chunk of a free and open Internet, or lose the free and open Internet entirely. Take your pick.

Agree or disagree, that's how I see things winding up in the current environment.

[Seth]

Prof, that's interesting. The question I have is how would file sharing be stopped without infringing on the 'openness' of the internet? Who writes those parameters outside of some other(conventional investigation, sniff-out) form of enforcement.

I'm personally against taking tax dollars away from other, important funding programs and redirecting it towards another law enforcement sector.


The Game: Are you basically saying that companies are at fault for not coming up with the magic DRM pill for their products? Because, DRM isn't possible, imo, without requiring the consumer to be connected 100% of their 'use time' to the internet for verification.
I personally won't buy a product that requires that. Looking at you Ubisoft.
Or even the 3DS. Probably would have bought one if nintendo hadn't adopted stealth updating.

[Professor S]

Prof, that's interesting. The question I have is how would file sharing be stopped without infringing on the 'openness' of the internet? Who writes those parameters outside of some other(conventional investigation, sniff-out) form of enforcement.

I'm personally against taking tax dollars away from other, important funding programs and redirecting it towards another law enforcement sector.

I wouldn't be sure of the specifics, but in essence there need to be laws specific regarding appropriate use of electronic property, and IMO they should be equivalent (or very close to equivalent) to those laws protecting personal property. Most people just don't understand, or agree with, the idea that you can make such a hard line between stealing data or stealing a physical item.

Like with most laws, they should be enforced when a crime takes place, and not try and prevent the law from being broken in the first place.

[TheGame]

Here is the bottom line: The way the momentum is moving, and the fact that the opposition is persistent and devious, we are left with two choices IMO: Lose internet based file "sharing" of lose the Internet as we know it. Lose a small chunk of a free and open Internet, or lose the free and open Internet entirely. Take your pick.

Agree or disagree, that's how I see things winding up in the current environment.

So your opinion is that common sense can't possibly win so we shouldn't even fight for it. Someone has a bad outlook on the world.

My opinion is, if you don't fight for it things are just going to get worse and worse. Throwing people in prison 5 years for downloading digital content without paying for it is not going to be the end, especially if we just bow our heads and let it happen.

[TheGame]

The Game: Are you basically saying that companies are at fault for not coming up with the magic DRM pill for their products? Because, DRM isn't possible, imo, without requiring the consumer to be connected 100% of their 'use time' to the internet for verification.

I personally won't buy a product that requires that. Looking at you Ubisoft.
Or even the 3DS. Probably would have bought one if nintendo hadn't adopted stealth updating.

If the company wants to make their product more sellable by not protecting it, that's a business decision. If they don't want their stuff stolen and use DRM as their solution, that's also a decision.

[TheGame]

Most people just don't understand, or agree with, the idea that you can make such a hard line between stealing data or stealing a physical item.

I agree with the idea that stealing personal property and stealing digital property should have the same penalty. Maybe even worse for stealing digital property.

And receiving stolen property when someone else actually stole it should have the same penalty as using stolen digital content that was actually stolen and distributed by someone else.

The hard line is between what is stealing, and what is receiving stolen property. Not between what's digital and what's physical.