SOPA

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.