SOPA Storms Back

warrenEBB

New member
Nov 4, 2008
64
0
0
My gut reaction was : Why don't journalists just start accompanying these stories with the amount of donations relevant senators and representatives have received from Hollywood and Internet companies?

Then I found this resource (which graphs it rather nicely?) http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

And it doesn't line up as clearly as I would have expected. Can anyone explain why? Is it wrong to cynically expect senators to always vote as they're lobbied?
 

warrenEBB

New member
Nov 4, 2008
64
0
0
I respect your well presented thoughts, Andrew, but think you are stuck in (and spreading) bad mindsets.

Seldon2639 said:
We don't stop throwing people in jail for stealing cars just because we can't stop all car thefts.
Physical theft is a wildly different ballgame from infringing someone's publishing control.
Taking something physically away from you - is theft.
making a perfect copy of something intangible - is not theft.

(I think it's important to maintain the line between theft of actual property and infringing conceptual rights).

Seldon2639 said:
... but I doubt anyone here believes that Dragon Age III gets funding if EA knows people will be able to pirate it without recourse.
The awesome people who made Dragon Age a franchise worth loving: will still be awesome. they will make something new.

Michael Bay won't be able to make 200 million dollar robot action movies without the hollywood system. But he will still be able to make something uniquely his own.
Also, there will still be transformers tie-ins. They might have to go back to something cheaper though (they might even have to go back to just making cartoons? like the ones that made it beloved in the first place?)

The loss of scale and spectacle, afforded by ruthless corporate profiteering - sound scary. But society will happily get over it.
 

White-Death

New member
Oct 31, 2011
223
0
0
MY 'Positive, gentlemanly,relatively sane & calm' reaction to this:
SOPA is like Justin Bieber, or autotune.No matter how much you want it gone, it will stay.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
warrenEBB said:
(I think it's important to maintain the line between theft of actual property and infringing conceptual rights).
The problem is that the distinction is one based on personal belief. The argument is that because it's a non-rivalrous good, taking a copy of it does not remove any value from the original, and does not take the object from the owner. It's a fine argument, but based on the fundamental assumption that whether someone is harmed (and thus stolen from) is based on whether it removes something of value to the person who owns it.

Let me give you a "for instance."

You own a widget, which has no value to you. Its only worth is that you can sell it to me. Let's assume for a second that I'm the only possible purchaser (it's a unique widget). If I take the widget from you, have I harmed you? It does not "cost" you anything, since it wasn't worth anything. The only cost to you is the loss of the profit from selling it to me. Was that theft?

If the difference between taking "real" property and intellectual property is that it does not take anything of value from the owner, then my theft of your widget is not a problem.

warrenEBB said:
The awesome people who made Dragon Age a franchise worth loving: will still be awesome. they will make something new.
Maybe. But without funding? Without the investment (which will only happen with profit motive) to pay for the engine, the programming, the voice acting?

There's this misconception that creation comes from "awesome people", and that copyright protections are simply "corporate profiteering". But, the things we like simply won't be made. You'll have fifty "Angry Birds" clones, and zero Mass Effect games. The next major technological advance isn't going to be some bedroom engineer working by himself, it will require massive research and investment, which will not happen without strong IP protection.

Hell, why would those "awesome people" even make a video game they know can be taken without compensating them, and sold or simply given away by other people? Why would New Line Cinema make the Lord of the Rings movies?

Maybe some people would make things for pure art, but those things will be vastly more limited than what we've come to appreciate. And that's ignoring any technological development, or medical advances, which depends entirely on intellectual property protections.
 

mcnally86

New member
Apr 23, 2008
425
0
0
Tanner The Monotone said:
mcnally86 said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Once Google relocates, felonies among 18-25 years olds skyrocket, and it brings about several lengthy (and expensive) court battles/challenges they will see how much they fucked up.
with a for-profit prison system and a model for entertainment media in which lawsuits are more money than actual product? I'd still say you're an optimist.
Oh no, you forgot the fun part: watching a judge try to compare a law concerning the internet to a 200-year-old document to see if it fits the founders' intentions and if it is "constitutional".
Better than that! I can't wait untill "experts" on the news fight over what the founding fathers would have said about the internet had they had it. They will do this with a straight face.

Personaly I think if we used a time machine to show Ben Franklin an Iphone and watched you tube on it he would burn down his workshop and have a mental breakdown.
....until you showed him internet porn.......
Right I forgot about that. Probably would approve of the supermarket because of the variety in the beer isle. I think toaster ovens/hot plates would do it for him too, he almost killed himself trying to invent one after all.
 

Chunga the Great

New member
Sep 12, 2010
353
0
0
WHY WONT YOU DIE!?!?!?!

OT: Well the blackouts alot of websites are doing should really help alert people to the giant ball of stupidity that is SOPA.
 

headphonegirl

The Troll under the bridge
Oct 19, 2009
223
0
0
poiuppx said:
headphonegirl said:
SirBryghtside said:
I'm either deeply misunderstanding something or he's making no sense.

'Foreign thieves'? I thought SOPA only affected US citizens... and even if I'm wrong, it's still offensive.
unfortunately not, it will probably affect every country in the world to some extent. (y'know with the exception of china who did that to themselves already)
There's a large number of sites in China that are still perfectly reachable, such as The Escapist. I should know, having gone there in person with the laptop I'm writing this on. As such... yeah, it'll affect them too. Just wanted to clarify.
I didn't know that, thanks :)
 

awesomcarter

New member
Mar 25, 2011
12
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
SOPA will pass and then be repealed after the consequences are fully realized. Did anyone expect it to be completely gone?
I think you're pretty optimistic. But I knew it was coming back.

...I just didn't expect it to rise in a day.
Once Google relocates, felonies among 18-25 years olds skyrocket, and it brings about several lengthy (and expensive) court battles/challenges they will see how much they fucked up.
funny thing is that will probably happen in a day
 

The Floating Nose

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2010
328
3
23
Dammit ! I thought this thing was dead, looks like Lamar Smith is one determined son-of-a-***** . If SOPA pass, shit WILL go down, i can see the riots coming from a mile away but it won't stay, if it passes, i give it a month and they will pull the plug on SOPA because of the overall rage that it will cause in the population.
 

Tensacloud

New member
Jul 4, 2011
15
0
0
No, but he wants it to seen patriotic-the American word for nationalist. That stuff was a cause of world war one, wasn't it? I am an American and I am completely against everything that man says. After all, we live in a global age now. "Foreigners" need to be respected more than this. I am good friends with many who aren't from the United States, and it's a shame we still have fools like this in powerful positions in America.
 

boag

New member
Sep 13, 2010
1,623
0
0
katsabas said:
So, your way of dealing with foreign thieves that do 'sooooo much harm' on your economy is by putting people out of jobs, thus lowing the total tax dollars you are going to receive per year. Huh. That's logic.
Dont you know that Tax dollars are delivered by Magic Fairies?

The only thing the Government has to do is approve a spending increase and raise the debt ceiling and they can spend as much money as they want.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html

Of course anyone that is running with a campaign based around responsible economics and budget cuts, is a crazy rich nutjob that wants to steal money from the poor people and give it to corporations.

http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2011/12/ron-paul-conspiracy-nut-anti-semite/

/sarcasm


but seriously, that bill, youd think the senate would have taken the hint by now, lets hope the internet blackout helps out a litlle.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
Aprilgold said:
Technically, if I posted on a blog about a game and talked about it, under Sopa I could be under arrest. Its not attacking the pirate bay its attacking the interenet. This site would be gone and due to this site being very big on copy right infringement, every single person that has talked about a game here would make the owners liable for it. Thus meaning legal repercussions such as lawsuits and the police getting involved.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but "technically" that's incorrect. Discussing (especially for purposes of criticism) copyrighted material would not raise any liability, much less criminal charges. This site would not be at all threatened given that it polices itself well, and avoids copyright infringing content, or links to content, to appear on its forum.

Aprilgold said:
Piracy isn't like regular theft, and as such shouldn't be treated the same. Imagine a copier, now you make a painting and that copier can make a exact duplicate and give it off for free over the web. Sopa isn't exactly aiming to stop piracy, since thats physically impossible to stop. People will always give out the expensive for free, people will always share media with their friends, you can't stop it.
Perhaps. But imagine you own a widget. This widget is worth nothing to you, its only value is that you can sell it. Now, let's assume the only person you could possibly sell it to is me. If I take that widget for myself, have I stolen from you? Why? I haven't taken anything of value to you, all I've done is make it impossible for you to profit from it.

Now, let's say my friend steals the widget for me, and gives it to me. Should what he did be considered "theft", even though there was no intrinsic value to what he took from you, the only "harm" to you was the loss of a sale to me?

Aprilgold said:
SOPA's main push is for the protection of buisnesses, not of the people. Using the hot topic button that is piracy, they just want to be able to censor anything. "I hated XXXXXX Movie because it was XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXX." Do you understand what I mean? They could do that, since I mentioned and talked about the movie, if they don't like my opinion, they can take it away.
That is patently untrue. There is nothing in SOPA which would allow a post (much less an entire site) to be "censored" on the basis that an individual criticized a movie. Wherever you're getting that misinformation, you need to tell them to check their sources.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
Aprilgold said:
The Cool Kid said:
Aprilgold said:
I read through the bill and it isn't tightly worded in slightest. Apparently, one of us is lying out of their arse. It will basically shut down any and all posters of copyright without discrimination, all that needs to be filed is a claim of copyright infringing, site shuts down and persecutors I.E. the staff have a chance to be put in jail.

Apparently doll you haven't read it through enough, or read in between the lines. A tightly worded bill would have every gap covered, here, if I say that this person took something from Cartoon Network, without even a thought, bam, the site is dead in the ground, at least under Sopa thats what will happen.
Where on earth does the Bill suggest that could happen? Did you read it or are you repeating what other sites and people have said under the guise of having read it because you seem to have completely missed the need for the site to be dedicated to theft, and the definition of what a site dedicated to theft is. Can you give me lines and page numbers where you think the bill will shut down all posters?
Seriously, you really want me to go fetch my printed version of the bill and find the line plus page number? Look, I'd rather not fetch it, since I only read it since it came out, and my memory is not that great, like I've said before.

My point is that the wording of the bill is to general, not tight enough. I can't remember if they changed the wording since then but I don't exactly like the fact that they can put you in jail for copy right infringement.
Or just use the online version?
The wording is not general though not to mention there are not one, but two clauses to prevent misuse of the bill. What's wrong for imprisoning pirates? They are as good as thieves so why should they be treated any differently?
I'm going to make this clear for some people, the clause showing there must be evidence of dedication to copyright infringement is not part of due trial. The evidence is not presented in court, it is a direct interaction between corporation and internet service provider. The accused never factors into it and the evidence never has to be presented in court unless the wrongfully accused appeals. This leads into the second problem that lawsuits cost upwards of thousands of dollars in some cases, especially when a huge corporation has huge stockpiles of money for lawyers and legal fees to simply and it becomes a matter of stretching it out long enough that the accused can no longer afford the legal fees and they settle out of court. The law is totally backwards and relies on action being taken first without due trial and having the accused prove their legality rather than the plaintiff proving the accused illegality, Citizens are guilty until proven innocent essentially.
 

Ruedyn

New member
Jun 29, 2011
2,982
0
0
Well, it'll die soon enough. In the meantime, do I want to stay in Canada or Norway. I have family in both.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
Aprilgold said:
Technically, if I posted on a blog about a game and talked about it, under Sopa I could be under arrest. Its not attacking the pirate bay its attacking the interenet. This site would be gone and due to this site being very big on copy right infringement, every single person that has talked about a game here would make the owners liable for it. Thus meaning legal repercussions such as lawsuits and the police getting involved.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but "technically" that's incorrect. Discussing (especially for purposes of criticism) copyrighted material would not raise any liability, much less criminal charges. This site would not be at all threatened given that it polices itself well, and avoids copyright infringing content, or links to content, to appear on its forum.

Aprilgold said:
Piracy isn't like regular theft, and as such shouldn't be treated the same. Imagine a copier, now you make a painting and that copier can make a exact duplicate and give it off for free over the web. Sopa isn't exactly aiming to stop piracy, since thats physically impossible to stop. People will always give out the expensive for free, people will always share media with their friends, you can't stop it.
Perhaps. But imagine you own a widget. This widget is worth nothing to you, its only value is that you can sell it. Now, let's assume the only person you could possibly sell it to is me. If I take that widget for myself, have I stolen from you? Why? I haven't taken anything of value to you, all I've done is make it impossible for you to profit from it.

Now, let's say my friend steals the widget for me, and gives it to me. Should what he did be considered "theft", even though there was no intrinsic value to what he took from you, the only "harm" to you was the loss of a sale to me?

Aprilgold said:
SOPA's main push is for the protection of buisnesses, not of the people. Using the hot topic button that is piracy, they just want to be able to censor anything. "I hated XXXXXX Movie because it was XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXX." Do you understand what I mean? They could do that, since I mentioned and talked about the movie, if they don't like my opinion, they can take it away.
That is patently untrue. There is nothing in SOPA which would allow a post (much less an entire site) to be "censored" on the basis that an individual criticized a movie. Wherever you're getting that misinformation, you need to tell them to check their sources.
They could take down youtube, and this has been covered by several people, if there is a copyrighted song in the background, or a movie poster in the back, the video wouldn't be held responsible, the people hosting it would. There is also no due process here, no legal proceedings, its straight up the copy right owner going "Yeah, I heard this song on this domain, take this domain down. I own the song, and don't want it here." Under Sopa, at least. Here, youtube isn't held responsible, or reddit because the copy right owner can inform the domain that X person is hosting their content and they don't appreciate it, youtube takes down the video and the world spins.

Theres a loss of sale, which is my point. But since I didn't say that it cost this much, you really want to take up a metaphor here, its a fucking metaphor for piracy, which is one of the harder things to explain. My piracy metaphor is still there. Lets say I take a painting thats worth 100$, make a copy of it that is the cost of 0$ and give out the copy of the 100$ painting to everybody via the internet. Essentially, I'm giving away the 100$ painting for 0$ without the consent of the painter, therefore, the people who are taking the the copy are at no harm, but I should be sentenced to jail time for doing this act.

While I didn't phrase it the best. I might as well go back to my youtube example. Someone like TotalBiscuit would lose his job, not only because hes doing all of his things without the consent of the copyright holders. They won't just call up Total Bisuit and tell him to delete all of his videos, they'll just step it up a notch and just shutdown youtube.

Also, don't say partially untrue, then don't point out the true bit.