Chuck, on the Stop Online Piracy Act
WeirdUniverse.net isn't going dark today in protest of the two proposed anti-online-piracy bills before Congress (as is Wikipedia, BoingBoing, and Reddit), but my view is that the bills nevertheless suck. It's the old Capitol Hill cliche ("Don't throw the baby out with the bath water") at turbo speed. Online piracy is bad (and I ought to know, as I've made my living for 20 years protected by copyrights). However, it's not SO bad that it's worth changing the character of the Internet to tighten the status quo on copyright. The absolutely most absurd part of the controversy is how it came about. Follow the sequence: (1) Lobbyists from the movie and music industries, with so much money bulging out of their pockets that they could barely squeeze through their Congressman's door, dribbling money on the floor behind them, hit Capitol Hill . . (2) to persuade 535 people whose knowledge of the "Intertubes" is barely greater than that of the infamous (late) Sen. Ted Stevens . . that this Internet-thingy is little more than a way for kids to send stupid text messages and play ridiculous war games and thus that what's the big deal about potentially criminalizing every website that didn't cleanse every single possibly-unauthorized image from its pages? (Ah, but in fairness, let me give an alternative view. An alternative view: "Congress sometimes does things that are even stupider than this." There. That's my alternative view.) Thankya, thankyaverrmuch.
Comments
ARGH! Tis worse than having scurvy when some toothsome wenches pass by. Buffer me poopdeck, these scoundrels deserve to walk the plank before being keelhauled then break out the spittoons and grog, we will have ourselves ye merry olde time.
Posted by Pirate Who Doesn't do Anything on 01/18/12 at 06:25 AM
First let me say I in no way approve of censoring the internet and that I agree that 99% of what politicians do is absurd. Now let me ask my question: How is downloading music for free any different than any different than going to the store and shop-lifting the CD? Either way the artist doesn´t get paid for his work. To be honest being 60 doesn´t help, I can remember going to the record store (remember those?) and flipping through the LPs to see if anything new had come in. (No problem with shop-lifting music then, the LPs were too big to get under your jacket.)
Posted by Richard on 01/18/12 at 07:01 AM
Those poor starving artists out in Hollywood. I mean just look at them. They can barely afford to fly to Africa to buy... er, adopt children anymore. Does anyone really know how "artists" make their money? They get contracts from recording complanies/ movie studios. Those companies give them $$. Then the Artist has to go sell CD's/movies to pay back the company. Whatever more they make they get to keep. So yeah they want strict laws. The Companies want to save their investment so they spend $$ in Washington. Politicians want to get re-elected (this is the first and foremost goal of ALL politians regardless of party) so they do what the $$ tells them to do. TA DAA SOPA!
Posted by Todd on 01/18/12 at 08:53 AM
Music...music, I said music. As far as I know no musician I listen to lives in Hollywood and I can´t ever remember Clapton or Springsteen ever flying to Africa to buy a child. But I do know they make wonderful MUSIC that they deserve to be reinbursed for (and that I´m happy to pay)
Posted by Richard on 01/18/12 at 09:00 AM
Richard,
It's not about whether it should be illegal to download music for free without the copyright holder's permission. That is already illegal. Sites get taken down and people get sued already for doing those things. It happened to Napster, and it's happened to some downloaders, as well.
But it currently requires a court and a judge/jury to decide the penalties, giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused (also known as innocent until proven guilty). SOPA would give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser and put the burden of proof on the accused.
It's not about whether it should be illegal to download music for free without the copyright holder's permission. That is already illegal. Sites get taken down and people get sued already for doing those things. It happened to Napster, and it's happened to some downloaders, as well.
But it currently requires a court and a judge/jury to decide the penalties, giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused (also known as innocent until proven guilty). SOPA would give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser and put the burden of proof on the accused.
Posted by jswolf19 in Japan on 01/18/12 at 09:29 AM
What is truly sad is that Congress doesn't amaze me anymore. Maybe they are still trying. I agree with you Chuck, plus pirates fill up the waters with ugly boats.
Posted by Mini Viking on 01/18/12 at 11:34 AM
>> SOPA would give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser and put the burden of proof on the accused.
From what I understand, it also would put the financial burden of policing copyright laws onto businesses that have nothing to do with piracy, except for the fact that 'pirates' might visit their site and post something there. It's kinda like requiring all businesses within a mile radius of a bank to hire guards to pat down customers for guns -- just in case those customers might be thinking of holding up the bank after leaving the store.
So here at WU, we'd have to start monitoring every comment to make sure no one linked to any copyright infringed material. But we have a hard enough time just monitoring comments for spam.
From what I understand, it also would put the financial burden of policing copyright laws onto businesses that have nothing to do with piracy, except for the fact that 'pirates' might visit their site and post something there. It's kinda like requiring all businesses within a mile radius of a bank to hire guards to pat down customers for guns -- just in case those customers might be thinking of holding up the bank after leaving the store.
So here at WU, we'd have to start monitoring every comment to make sure no one linked to any copyright infringed material. But we have a hard enough time just monitoring comments for spam.
Posted by Alex on 01/18/12 at 11:39 AM
@ jswolf Well said!!
@ Richard Also Well said!!
My view of this issue is colored by that of one of my favorite bands, the grateful dead. They used to allow, even encourage their fans to record live performances on tape! Going so far as to provide hook-ups directly to their mixing board to ANYONE in attendance! It never seemed to effect their record sales in a negative way! some say it had a huge positive impact on sales and it definitely increased ticket sales to their shows!
BTW if online piracy is such a problem that no one wants to pay for content, then why is itunes one of the most profitable web sites!!!
@ Richard Also Well said!!
My view of this issue is colored by that of one of my favorite bands, the grateful dead. They used to allow, even encourage their fans to record live performances on tape! Going so far as to provide hook-ups directly to their mixing board to ANYONE in attendance! It never seemed to effect their record sales in a negative way! some say it had a huge positive impact on sales and it definitely increased ticket sales to their shows!
BTW if online piracy is such a problem that no one wants to pay for content, then why is itunes one of the most profitable web sites!!!
Posted by Tyrusguy on 01/18/12 at 11:48 AM
@ Alex Another good point!
P.S. Whatever you did about the spam it seems to be working!!
P.S. Whatever you did about the spam it seems to be working!!
Posted by Tyrusguy on 01/18/12 at 11:55 AM
One more thing, it's all well and good to talk about this issue to each other. But the people we REALLY need to talk to are our congress persons and senators! I have already called mine! to find the phone numbers and email addresses for yours in less than 2 minutes CLICK HERE! Service provided by congress.org Hope you all will and have a great day!!
Posted by Tyrusguy on 01/18/12 at 12:26 PM
My 2 cents.
Yes musicians should be paid for their work. But when you have a built in fan base, it is much easier to sell your music. You get a fan base by having people listen to your music -- on TV shows, the radio, YouTube, in movies.
At some point the question becomes "how much money do you actually need?" If you have $100 million, do you really need MORE money? And, a related question -- is the music we have thrust upon us by the media really the best of what's available??
Personally I'd rather see lots of musicians making a comfortable living and creating tons of great music. I am *not* advocating stealing. It seems to me that the whole method of distributing music is flawed, and SOPA is a bandage on a fleshwound. The real problem runs much deeper.
Yes musicians should be paid for their work. But when you have a built in fan base, it is much easier to sell your music. You get a fan base by having people listen to your music -- on TV shows, the radio, YouTube, in movies.
At some point the question becomes "how much money do you actually need?" If you have $100 million, do you really need MORE money? And, a related question -- is the music we have thrust upon us by the media really the best of what's available??
Personally I'd rather see lots of musicians making a comfortable living and creating tons of great music. I am *not* advocating stealing. It seems to me that the whole method of distributing music is flawed, and SOPA is a bandage on a fleshwound. The real problem runs much deeper.
Posted by girlgeniusNYC on 01/18/12 at 01:28 PM
"How is downloading music for free any different than any different than going to the store and shop-lifting the CD?"
Because the government isn't trying to pass a law allowing your shop to be taken away if a musician believes "in good faith" that you don't do enough to prevent shoplifting. Because this law would apply to someone pinching a Cat Stevens CD from a shop in Mumbai.
SOPA allows for a copyright infringement notice to be issued purely on the argument by any supposedly infringed party. This would require search engines, epayment companies and even ISPs and name servers to withdraw their service (i.e. block the site) or file a court appeal.
Which do you think Google, Paypal and the rest will do? Fight expensive court cases on behalf of some third party? Or just implement the takedown and leave the site owner, who could be half a world away, to get it back online?
Because the government isn't trying to pass a law allowing your shop to be taken away if a musician believes "in good faith" that you don't do enough to prevent shoplifting. Because this law would apply to someone pinching a Cat Stevens CD from a shop in Mumbai.
SOPA allows for a copyright infringement notice to be issued purely on the argument by any supposedly infringed party. This would require search engines, epayment companies and even ISPs and name servers to withdraw their service (i.e. block the site) or file a court appeal.
Which do you think Google, Paypal and the rest will do? Fight expensive court cases on behalf of some third party? Or just implement the takedown and leave the site owner, who could be half a world away, to get it back online?
Posted by Dumbfounded on 01/18/12 at 01:58 PM
Oh, and if someone evades a takedown by just registering a new site name and you list it, SOPA means they can take your site too.
Posted by Dumbfounded on 01/18/12 at 02:00 PM
The claim of the industry that it is losing billions each year to piracy is ludicrous! Most of the people who are d/loading music and movies aren't/weren't going to purchase them in the 1st place!
Secondly.... If the industry would get it's pricing more in line with the low cost of distribution over the internet they just might reduce the piracy in both directions.
Price a CD in the store then price the cost of d/loading, burning, and printing to create the same thing in you home. A digital book is almost 100% profit because there is not paper, ink, distribution, storage, sales people, etc. involved in the sale!
There are 2 sides to this story that congress couldn't see if you waved a $1,000,000 in their collective faces.
Secondly.... If the industry would get it's pricing more in line with the low cost of distribution over the internet they just might reduce the piracy in both directions.
Price a CD in the store then price the cost of d/loading, burning, and printing to create the same thing in you home. A digital book is almost 100% profit because there is not paper, ink, distribution, storage, sales people, etc. involved in the sale!
There are 2 sides to this story that congress couldn't see if you waved a $1,000,000 in their collective faces.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 01/18/12 at 04:00 PM
I think we should sell "SOPA on a ROPA" ... a mouse shaped bath bar with some kind of pirate or piracy themed symbol on it.
Posted by BD (BrokeDad) on 01/18/12 at 04:24 PM
Yeah! To fund the opposition against SOPA, what a great idea sweetie.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 01/18/12 at 04:27 PM
This goes back to the era of Reagan and toughened drug patents. In fact, it goes back centuries to publishers and copyright legislation.
In general, poor starving artists are cited to justify this invasive intellectual property protection, yet the beneficiaries are big record labels, pharmaceutical companies, etc. You're just providing a right to sue, and the only people who can afford to sue have big bucks. The net result is more monopoly power which can only be effectively wielded by the very people you don't want to have more power, who -- surprise, surprise -- just happen to be the people who lobbied for the extra monopoly power in the first place.
Open up more opportunities to sue, and you can guarantee professional litigators will line up to sue. They do it for the same reason that dogs lick themselves inappropriately: because they can.
In general, poor starving artists are cited to justify this invasive intellectual property protection, yet the beneficiaries are big record labels, pharmaceutical companies, etc. You're just providing a right to sue, and the only people who can afford to sue have big bucks. The net result is more monopoly power which can only be effectively wielded by the very people you don't want to have more power, who -- surprise, surprise -- just happen to be the people who lobbied for the extra monopoly power in the first place.
Open up more opportunities to sue, and you can guarantee professional litigators will line up to sue. They do it for the same reason that dogs lick themselves inappropriately: because they can.
Posted by Harvey on 01/18/12 at 06:33 PM
This cr@p has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with control. It rankles my @ss that ANYONE in the United States would even consider this action.
I'm fairly sure this is NOT what The Founders had in mind for the government.
I'm fairly sure this is NOT what The Founders had in mind for the government.
Posted by Schteveo on 01/19/12 at 07:07 AM
The best most concise explaination I've ever heard of what's wrong with our government in 1:41 Thanks to Neil deGrasse Tyson!
Posted by Tyrusguy on 01/19/12 at 11:05 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Category: