The Internet Needs Laws

[Joshimodo]

To echo everyone else here: Laws already exist and are in place.

That said, we are in a Wild West time period. The Data Rush instead of the Gold Rush, hacking and piracy instead of robbery and highwaymen, and so forth.

 

[xDarc]

I ask you, Escapists: Should the Internet have laws and some form of control? How should people and companies be allowed to protect their intellectual property?

Protect them from what?

If you mean protection from others stealing their IP, selling their IP and profiting from it, protections already exist.

If you mean protection from file sharing, then no absolutely not. For the same reasons they never made laws to protect IP from any of the devices people have used to share media over the past century. That's the whole flaw with how the media wants to "protect" their property, by targeting the medium or the device.

Just like guns don't kill people, the web doesn't illegally download. So leave it alone.

 

[Redryhno]

The problem isn't the absence of laws, the problem is that the internet is too big to patrol and enforce the laws already set in. Same goes for the real world. Resources are too few and projects are too many. course funding wouldn't be as much of a problem if politicians didn't get lifelong incomes for ten years of "service", or whatever they call it now.

Which brings in the big problem with a lot of claims:

Realism.

It's completely unrealistic to expect the internet to be fully policed.

This does mean bad people will do bad things, but again, the same's true in the real world, as you already said.

The internet is an even harder place to police. The big problem is making it easier will either strip the rights of legit users or severely limit functionality.

It's not the best scenario, but what can we do?

All that can really be done is what's happening now. they police high risk areas, and when they find new outlets for the same things, they try to close off that position too. it's too hard to police the whole internet, as you said as well, but by letting a few minor things slip they're able to catch that much more of the major problems.

 

[Blobpie]

The internet is the internet because of the complete freedom it offers.

But by it's very nature, the fact that the vast majority of the population of the internet is anonymous, following through on these laws would be extremely difficult.

 

[w00tage]

Today, sites across the Internet are going on strike to protest SOPA and PIPA. Their aim is certainly noble, and it may stop these particular bills, but it's a delaying action at best; there is too much money being lost by people and companies for them not to keep fighting for some form of substantial copyright protection.

Sorry, but that is what we refer to as a "big lie" - an statement that's repeated so often and loudly that it is accepted as truth, even though there's no evidence to back it up.

To put the false premise of "ten bazillion views on Youtube is ten bazillion lost sales" to bed, let me borrow an analogy from another thread where I had the same discussion.

Consider what would happen if every store in the US said "tomorrow, EVERYTHING IS FREE". How many people, who have had the chance to buy the same products at any time, but haven't, would go out and load up with free stuff?

Everyone, that's who. Me included, because there's always something I can use, but (and this is the important part) don't want to buy. If I want something, have the money for it, and I'm ok with the price, I buy it. If I don't buy it, it's because I don't want it, don't have the money for it, or don't agree with the price.

So if I go out to the store on "free day" to get something I could have bought all along, there's no way that means that I would be buying it if "free day" had never happened.

I hope this analogy proves to everyone that claiming that an unlicensed use of content (viewing or download) equals a lost sale is completely false. Hate to say it like this because I don't want to be seen as siding with IP theft, but there is no proof that anyone is being harmed at all by unlicensed content distribution.

 

[Mariner]

I don't trust a human to make or enforce laws over the internet.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

It has laws we don't need to add any more right now.

 

[baconfist]

If I had an apple in each hand and told you that the one in the left hand was free then said the one in the right costs $5 and I get to kick you in the testicles, which apple would you be more likely to take? Companies like EA spend a lot of time and effort developing code to protect their products from theft. Then they make code to spy on their customers and pull products off platforms like steam, which to me is the same as trying to kick me in the balls when I want to buy stuff from them.

There's so many things that software companies could do to reduce piracy but they would rather find new ways to kick you in the balls.

So many companies trying so hard to stop people from stealing their work so little time spent making their work easier and cheaper to buy.

 

[chadachada123]

Today, sites across the Internet are going on strike to protest SOPA and PIPA. Their aim is certainly noble, and it may stop these particular bills, but it's a delaying action at best; there is too much money being lost by people and companies for them not to keep fighting for some form of substantial copyright protection.

Sorry, but that is what we refer to as a "big lie" - an statement that's repeated so often and loudly that it is accepted as truth, even though there's no evidence to back it up.

To put the false premise of "ten bazillion views on Youtube is ten bazillion lost sales" to bed, let me borrow an analogy from another thread where I had the same discussion.

Consider what would happen if every store in the US said "tomorrow, EVERYTHING IS FREE". How many people, who have had the chance to buy the same products at any time, but haven't, would go out and load up with free stuff?

Everyone, that's who. Me included, because there's always something I can use, but (and this is the important part) don't want to buy. If I want something, have the money for it, and I'm ok with the price, I buy it. If I don't buy it, it's because I don't want it, don't have the money for it, or don't agree with the price.

So if I go out to the store on "free day" to get something I could have bought all along, there's no way that means that I would be buying it if "free day" had never happened.

I hope this analogy proves to everyone that claiming that an unlicensed use of content (viewing, equals a lost sale is completely false. Hate to say it like this because I don't want to be seen as siding with IP theft, but there is no proof that anyone is being harmed at all by unlicensed content distribution.

At first, I had no idea where this analogy was going. Then once it got closer to the end, I was like "oh...I see what you're doing there..." and was impressed. I agree completely.

Much of the piracy problem can be solved by simply offering real prices. The majority of Americans can't afford more than a couple of games and a few albums per year. Were they able to afford more, they would pay for more, but holding them to maybe 50 new songs a year...it's unrealistic. They aren't lost sales, because they would have never gotten the money to begin with.

On the other hand, many new artists become known because of file-sharing. My friend pirated Enter Shikari's first two albums, and it's because of him that I became a fan and saw them live. Without that exposure, Enter Shikari would have lost some $60+ from me alone (ticket + shirt, subtracting some presumed costs).

 

[Torrasque]

The internet has laws. The laws are also enforced.

I dont see what the hell you are on about.

Thats all I really have to say about this subject.
Pretty sure this is trolling.

 

[Forgetitnow344]

More laws on the internet would be ludicrous. Look at all of the laws in place already and then find a particular porn site as accessible as Youtube FULL of bestiality and child pornography. I'd link to it, but I'm pretty sure that would get me banned. If you're really curious, know it extremely super unsafe for work. I'm sure you can find it if you try. Go ahead, she isn't looking.

But that site exists and is full of illegal content despite the laws against it. The internet doesn't cause any problems that don't already exist in the world, and more legislation will not fix that.

 

[AtheistConservative]

Frankly, I haven't heard ANYBODY in the anti-SOPA movement bring up any alternatives to the issue. And, really, until there is a viable alternative path, legislation is the go-to, quick-and-dirty 'solution' to the problem that will be presented.

Here are a couple of the problems.

1st. This isn't a solution. The people who essentially only pirate instead of buying, will easily get around this. Likewise truly dedicated pirating sites will find ways around this as well. Meanwhile the people who do get punished will be those that get in the way of big corporations.

2. There already exists fairly workable alternatives. Whether it's ads or a reasonably priced pay subscription, most people are willing legally get their entertainment. What most people have a problem with, is when the only legal way to get something is to pay absurd prices for it. Steam is another excellent example of how to do things right. An old game is not worth $20, but it might be worth $2.

 

[Eggbert]

By posting that link, under SOPA it would be possible to prosecute the owners of the escapist, and give them a considerable amount of jailtime.

(1) They didn't post the link.
(2) It's a short cover of a song that should fall under fair use.
(3) The US government could take down the escapist permanently, just for one link.

If you're still sticking to your guns, 0/10.

You are now my hero for coming up with the most succinct expression of why SOPA/PIPA are stupid.

Also, I'd prefer an anarchic internet, thank you very much.

 

[The_Echo]

Today, sites across the Internet are going on strike to protest SOPA and PIPA. Their aim is certainly noble, and it may stop these particular bills, but it's a delaying action at best; there is too much money being lost by people and companies for them not to keep fighting for some form of substantial copyright protection.

Too much money being lost? Is Justin Bieber going to have to sell one of his eight cars to support himself? Is Activision no longer capable of pumping out a new Call of Duty, which has a multi-million budget, every single year? Will James Patterson have to move out of his mansion in Palm Beach for something more humble? Will James Cameron's next film have to work around a budget akin to Paranormal Activity's?

No. The rich are still rich, and that's not going to change just because people who wouldn't pay aren't paying. They're hardly lost sales when people aren't looking to buy.

OT: The Internet already has laws. They seem to be working just fine to me.

 

[balanovich]

The internet has laws. The laws are also enforced.

I dont see what the hell you are on about.

The thing is, the laws as they are do not work, as is evidenced by the rampant and easy piracy of media. This leads to companies trying to protect their property by creating increasingly draconian measures to protect them. I'm not an expert in copyright law or other laws that govern media and free speech, so I want to know if anyone out there knows a better way to structure the laws of the internet rather than the "our way or no way" version proposed in SOPA and PIPA.

Laws entail a court system. These legislations will give the power to the companies themselves, rather than the judicial system, to decide if something is allowed or not.


Companies are in it for the profit, not for justice, they will abuse this power to make more money and in doing so censor everything.

So do you think we should make a deciding body, perhaps an organ of the UN charged with finding and maintaining a balance with copyright and free speech?

What right does the the UN have over countries who aren't part of it ? As much as I like the idea of having a general overseer of the net, though trusting it to be fair and uncorrupted is another thing, such an entity doesn't exist. (And remember how the effective the UN was at stopping US from invading Iraq.)

So we're left with countries building cybernetic walls around themselves. But build them to high and you'll create separate entities in the internet. The internet is like water. You can't stop it unless you stop it completely, but then you become a desert. Personally, I prefer a foggy marsh filled with venomous snakes, nasty parasite and creepy bugs.

I agree that the laws haven't been successful in stopping piracy, but it's impossible. The war on crime is never over. Not even in dictatorial regimes like China or worst, North Korea.

Piracy has existed for... at least 30 years. And the industries complaining now have nonetheless managed to grow bigger and bigger. So it's not and overwhelming plague that will kill gaming and Hollywood and the music industry.

I find it despicable that so much effort is put into that branch of crime fighting when not as much is put into fighting that branch of crime instead of more important ones...like drugs or prostitution or human trafficking.
I wonder why .... lets look at the victims.... Multimillion corporations versus drug addicts, whores and people who can't vote. So Sad.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Though, I do find it funny, when laws are enacted or used or even attempted (however badly) ot punish people who do profit from copyright infringement (aka that UK student the US wants extradited) there's always an uproar.

Taking the UK kid. Did his directly infringe? Nope. Not one iota. Is it legal to do what he did where he is? Yeppers.

But, do we all know that he was fucking around and circumventing laws? Yes, yes we do. I think someone said he made upwards of 200000 dollars from ads on his site. 200 grand...

So this wasn't small time peanuts.

As much as I detest the MPAA and their ilk, when you have people like that UL kid doing his stuff and no one stops it or is able to stop it...

well boys and girls, that's how SOPA' are made...

Nice combo of self entitlement, NIMBY-ism and rage against the "man"

(for the record, IMO the kid should not be extradited, the UK should have a look at if and how he's abusing the laws and fix that if need be)

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

I smell another pirating trap thread. Admins, can we lock this topic indefinitely due to possible flaming/legal contradictions?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Oh hey it's propaganda kid again, I see they are still paying you enough to keep this up.

I would repeat myself for the fifth time in your threads so how about you just start linking to those and we can all be better off.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Laws are needed, sure. But laws that take into account the fact that the net works differently to the traditional media distribution forms that the entertainment industry is used to.

Also, I remain unconvinced that any single country should be able to pass legislation that will globally affect the internet. The web is a global community, and should be legislated as such. Maybe that means some kind of UN department of the internet, I don't know. But one country should not be able to enact poorly worded policy that will censor huge and global chunks of the internet under the assumption that everything with a .com or .org in it is American.

 

[Setch Dreskar]

From reading a little bit of this, and trying to stay on a neutral footing since this can get opinionated very fast it seems what you want are laws to stop piracy?

Well the problem is Piracy is not illegal, its a term that has been thrown around alot but it has no judicial merit, its why countries like the UK don't put someone to trial for piracy itself and why Torrent sites are a grey area. What Piracy is, is a breach of copyright which is not laybreaking but copyright infringement. Does it make it any better? Well no, but it isn't illegal, it is just morally wrong. However Copyright holders can choose to target those that threaten or damage their copyright, unfortunatly with Pirate Bays 'King Kong' defense this has largerly proved fruitless.

SOPA's intent is to allow the Copyright holder to target the company hosting the illegal content since they cannot target the users, or hold the company/orginization/person hosting it responsible for its users actions.

Unfortunatly what the bill gives to Copyright holders is so vague and broad it can be easily abused and yet still fall safely in the bill's supposed balances. We have all seen what Warner Music Group has done with Youtube, hell they almost got away with declaring a song they didn't own copyright infringement because it had a message they didn't like in it. (Actually I am glad Megaupload got them back for that)SOPA would give them much more power to stop this by using some other user as the scapegoat to punish the entire site.

The same can be said of PIPA though PIPA's only goal was to get passed quietly while everyone was upset with SOPA, but thankfully people caught on to it as well. But then again that's my opinion, I would personally hope that these bills and anything in the future like them would never pass. We have one true internet law and that one gets overused so much its absured, see the Warner Music Group vs Megaupload for a very good example of this. Though yes it was overturned the point was WMG thought they could get away with it in the first place.