Defeat SOPA

aircooled wrote: Reddit Founder Alexis Ohanian on CNBC: "Why is it that when Republicans and Democrats need to solve the budget and the deficit, there's deadlock, but when Hollywood lobbyists pay them $94 million dollars to write legislation, people from both sides of the aisle line up to co-sponsor it?" http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000067904

Because we voters elect partisan ideologues who never compromise and then reward them for securing pork?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-only-argument-internet-in-favor-sopa/

I have a feeling this is largely tongue in cheek, but I've actually met some people who agree with SOPA. My Mother-in-law in a published author (she has 7 or 8 books out right now) and she supports what SOPA is trying to do. She did very poorly last year because a pirating website put all of her books online and refused to take them down. She eventually was able to coerce some legal action and got her books taken down but the damage was already done.

She wants protection like SOPA offers but even she agrees the current bill (and PIPA) are too much and would give control of the internet to big businesses.

Just a thought here so hear me out.

Recent times has shown and increase in civil unrest globally.

All of these up-risings have been organized and propagated via the internet.

Fast forward to today, the US is showing increasing civil disobedience as is the rest of the world. (Occupy movement, etc) Given the government knows that you can not control a populace that is "militant, organized and armed" Remove one of those and you have control.

SOPA is pitched as a move against online piracy. This has been a movement in the entertainment industry against the internet for a very long time (Remember Metalli-greeds Lars v. Napster in 2000?) So why 12 years later finally get around to doing it? Slow congressional pace? I doubt it. Just now corrupting the right politicians, um, no. So why?

Just a thought here.

bacon!

Thanks for posting the link that SOPA is dead. I read it on GRM first, even though I'm following many of the threads on this.

I can see why an author would support SOPA's effort, but not the method. Unfortunately, the internet is too big for a small group of people to regulate.

SOPA as a gubernment conspiracy to stop civil disobediance? Not sure I'm buying that. More like trying to finish what they started with Napster-BAAAAAAD!, since all that movement really did was strengthen file sharing and produce better products.

Good discussion, nonetheless, but please, stop with the OT line veto discussion. This thread is about SOPA, and it has served me well in that regard this morning.

Here's what I wrote to my representatives:

*Duke wrote:* I am writing in order to strongly urge you to vote NO to the paired SOPA and PIPA acts. These bills are poorly written and allow too many possible abuses to justify any potential good they may provide. I am a strong believer in property rights and I fully support both individuals and corporations in defending their copyright and intellectual property rights. However, these bills are not the way to affirm property rights - they are a gateway to censorship, compromised integrity, and co-opted freedoms. I am anti-piracy in every possible way, but these bills are akin to preventing illegal copying of music by rounding up and destroying every tape recorder, answering machine, and dictaphone to prevent them from being used to duplicate music. Protection of property rights is a just and worthwhile endeavor. However, these bills as written are sloppy, ineffective, and attempt to solve one issue suffered by one portion of the population by irreparably damaging the freedoms and rights of ALL people using the internet. The "Arab Spring" and thousands of other events have proven that uncensored, uncompromised internet information access can make great strides against oppression and toward freedom. Existing laws protect copyrighted materials, and these should be modified or updated to protect property rights without infringing the freedoms of innocent citizen users. I urge you not to let the invaluable asset of internet freedom be damaged or curtailed in this misguided way. It is also highly possible that the issue of "internet piracy" is merely a smoke screen hiding the government's desire to control citizens' access to information. In that case, the United States is stooping to the level of any fascist regime in "protecting" itself. That type of injustice caused the the Founding Fathers and thousands of volunteer patriots to fight and die for a better vision of America. Purposely renouncing that hard-won liberty constitutes a grave injustice inflicted on every individual American. I urge you to vote NO against SOPA and PIPA and to seek a more effective, less invasive method of protecting valid intellectual property rights while ensuring our Constitutional individual liberties. Thank you.

wikipedia is pissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

Google is wearing a black banner today but - still working.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Google should shut down for the day. That would get people fired up.

I would love to see SOPA killed off, but damn, the big internet companies seem to have a lot of influence. I wonder if going after Google will end up being as pointless/dangerous/likely to backfire as going after the news media in the next couple years.

There's a third proposed bill that follows in the paths of SOPA and PIPS - the OPEN Act. Here's one person's analysis:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/the-open-act-significantly-flawed-but-more-salvageable-than-sopaprotect-ip.ars

There's always a need to stay vigilant with clowns we now have in office.

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Google should shut down for the day. That would get people fired up.

Oooh wouldn't that be something?

Isn't this just McCarthyism for a new millennium?

Its not actually dead. that was was a false rumor. Voting starts the 25th

Appleseed wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Google should shut down for the day. That would get people fired up.

Oooh wouldn't that be something? Isn't this just McCarthyism for a new millennium?

A: Google isn't stupid. They make a ton of money a day. Same reason they didn't shut down youtube like they were planning.

B: Considering McCarthy didn't do half the E36 M3 people accuse him of, I'm gonna say no.

Google has far too much cash flow in side bar advertising through their search engine. Their clients would get ripE36 M3 fast.

The problem here is that despite the destructive potential and overwhelming increase in government power SOPA represents, the media companies don't care about that. Their stated goal is they want their IP protected and sheltered from those who abuse it and this bill would help hamper those that do(even if its a bazooka fired at a bullfrog).

The problem with critics of SOPA is that they offer no meaningful alternative to protecting IP of creators.

I in fact will charge that they benefit from this feature tacitly and have no interest in protecting IP. So the charge to the hill of high moral ground by SOPA opposers rings ridiculously hollow to me.

Their experts say it won't block piracy at all, but I reject that argument on the basis of piracy still needing to follow revenue stream of some kind to be in any way lucrative enough to bother. When you mess with the US dollar stream to those parties, you are making it ridiculously hard for a pirater to want the hassel. Once you make it just as onerous to collect funds as it is to secure IP rights from the holder, you've effectively won the war.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But there is something deeply troubling about a book author trying to sell an ebook to feed themselves, or an independant movie maker doing the same, both upload content, and a pirater downloads it once and redistributes it with impunity all because the piece of equipment doing the work is in a non-extradition country.

But they'd make a point by doing it wouldn't they.

I was thinking more toward McCarthy's Hollywood blacklist. So...yes.

Since when was piracy ever lucrative?

Piracy arises out of the need for distribution in a market that is overpriced.

Take US textbooks for example. A $30 international version of a textbook can easily be a $240 textbook in the USA. The only difference is the problems in the back of the book. This situation creates a need for piracy in the USA due to a completely unacceptable price level.

I've never seen an international textbook available on any torrent site. I have found most of my US textbooks available on these same sites. I would GLADLY pay $30 for my textbooks. $240 each for 4-6 textbooks every semester nearly increases my tuition by 25%

madmallard wrote: but I reject that argument on the basis of piracy still needing to follow revenue stream of some kind to be in any way lucrative enough to bother.

That's like saying people who create computer virus' do it for the money, which in large part, is inaccurate (that was the nicest way I could word this, I'm doing my best to be civil).

Taiden wrote: Since when was piracy ever lucrative? Piracy arises out of the need for distribution in a market that is overpriced. Take US textbooks for example. A $30 international version of a textbook can easily be a $240 textbook in the USA. The only difference is the problems in the back of the book. This situation creates a need for piracy in the USA due to a completely unacceptable price level. I've never seen an international textbook available on any torrent site. I have found most of my US textbooks available on these same sites. I would GLADLY pay $30 for my textbooks. $240 each for 4-6 textbooks every semester nearly increases my tuition by 25%

There is some truth to this. Music piracy was rampant until Amazon and a few others started offering DRM free music. Now most of the music hounds I know buy their music legally and much cheaper than before. Piracy averted.

http://vimeo.com/31100268

HiTempguy wrote:

madmallard wrote: but I reject that argument on the basis of piracy still needing to follow revenue stream of some kind to be in any way lucrative enough to bother.

That's like saying people who create computer virus' do it for the money, which in large part, is inaccurate (that was the nicest way I could word this, I'm doing my best to be civil).

Are they doing it for the kids?

http://theoatmeal.com/

Xceler8x wrote:

Taiden wrote: Since when was piracy ever lucrative? Piracy arises out of the need for distribution in a market that is overpriced. Take US textbooks for example. A $30 international version of a textbook can easily be a $240 textbook in the USA. The only difference is the problems in the back of the book. This situation creates a need for piracy in the USA due to a completely unacceptable price level. I've never seen an international textbook available on any torrent site. I have found most of my US textbooks available on these same sites. I would GLADLY pay $30 for my textbooks. $240 each for 4-6 textbooks every semester nearly increases my tuition by 25%

There is some truth to this. Music piracy was rampant until Amazon and a few others started offering DRM free music. Now most of the music hounds I know buy their music legally and much cheaper than before. Piracy averted.

Indeed, I know the amount of music/movies I download have dropped to pretty much nil since the advent of Netflix and Pandora.

SOPA. It is like preventing farts by sewing your shiny happy person shut.

Taiden wrote: Since when was piracy ever lucrative? Piracy arises out of the need for distribution in a market that is overpriced.

You say "need." But the correct term is actually "opportunity." The opportunity reflects a path of lesser resistance. Piracy is a reflection of economic activity that is not thru legal channels, but is still economic behavior.

You using the word 'need' implies a moral correctness of price for something, implying you or anyone somehow has right to dictate that in a moral sense rather than an economic one.

Take US textbooks for example. A $30 international version of a textbook can easily be a $240 textbook in the USA. The only difference is the problems in the back of the book. This situation creates a need for piracy in the USA due to a completely unacceptable price level. I've never seen an international textbook available on any torrent site. I have found most of my US textbooks available on these same sites. I would GLADLY pay $30 for my textbooks. $240 each for 4-6 textbooks every semester nearly increases my tuition by 25

And yet you've neatly illustrated exactly what I was talking about, i'm afraid.

Who says you get any input on what the textbook vendor and publisher charge? The only input you have is buy, or not buy. Your opinion of unacceptable is immaterial beyond not purchasing.