SOPA Will Take Us Back to the Dark Ages

[Eterna]

^But that takes work and money, and is much easier for them to oblige us to do things the way they want. If we adapt to their needs, they don’t have to adapt to ours.
It is a combination of arrogance and laziness, qualities as immoral as piracy, which they say they are fighting.

The consequences of these laws will affect many more than the pirates, and I don’t consider a 12 yo girl with unemployed parents who download the last Justin Bieber album because she doesn’t want to be a social outcast a pirate, if she can afford it she’ll pay it. And probably the pirates, who earn lot money with their acts, will be the least affected, they're usually smart people.

Probably if they accept that the Internet exists, that doesn’t have to be harmful, but beneficial, they could earn more money (which is all that matters).

For my education can be a part of the solution, teach children to respect the work of others. But if you educate people, they can become cultured and could realize that the work of many singers, actors, writers... has no quality, and they would not spend their money on them and their products.
And develop quality products is always more expensive (at first) than any crappy song or movie heavily publicized until people think that without spending money on that product their lives would be worse.

 

[Blodeuwedd]

I think it boils down to lawmakers not understanding technology. I read a lot of news-tech related sites and here's one example.

I think also it's important to look at the pockets of those lawmakers - "follow the money" as it is said. If you look at Lamar S. Smith (Rep. Texas), who wrote the bill, at his financial contributors you will see that it is largely the movie and music industry backing it up. It has been shown that people will pay for content if delivered correctly - look at iTunes and Netflix. However there are also setbacks when restrictions are set in place to avoid copyright problems - look at the mess that DRM is creating on ebooks, for example- when you buy an ebook you don't own it, you're licensing it. Pretty ridiculous IMO.

Protecting copyrighted materials is one thing, but it's like having a nasty toe infection that's spreading and having both legs amputated to "fix" it. I'm sure TFS would change greatly. Sourcing where the images were taking wouldn't be enough to salvage it, as the content isn't property of the site or of those hosting the images.

Heck, even places that host information will be lost. Photobucket, Tumblr? Gone. The US has made clear that even providing links to things are enough to warrant the shutdown and the conviction of the website/person in question. Look at here at the extradition of a British citizen. I'm sure many frown at websites as such, but many forums here have posted links to shows for others (I know I have, for Project Runway). Where a lot of the shows can be found on the channel's website/hulu, but it blocks it from everyone not in the USA. So we open technology, but limit it and that is that?

 

[tangerine]

Another thing that Hollywood and the music industry, and to some extent magazine publishers fail to recognize is that availability of material on the internet can also increase sales.

I have bought movies, music and magazines simply because I saw or heard clips or images on the internet and I wanted to own them in their official format.

I take intellectual property seriously; I have to in my job (video distribution). I will not duplicate material without proof of copyright. The content producers should be paid. But as tigerrouge pointed out, the content producers need to adapt to the realities of the world; they can't try to stifle progress just because it is inconvenient for them.

 

[Squizree]

^But that takes work and money, and is much easier for them to oblige us to do things the way they want. If we adapt to their needs, they don’t have to adapt to ours.
It is a combination of arrogance and laziness, qualities as immoral as piracy, which they say they are fighting.

The consequences of these laws will affect many more than the pirates, and I don’t consider a 12 yo girl with unemployed parents who download the last Justin Bieber album because she doesn’t want to be a social outcast a pirate, if she can afford it she’ll pay it. And probably the pirates, who earn lot money with their acts, will be the least affected, they're usually smart people.

Probably if they accept that the Internet exists, that doesn’t have to be harmful, but beneficial, they could earn more money (which is all that matters).

For my education can be a part of the solution, teach children to respect the work of others. But if you educate people, they can become cultured and could realize that the work of many singers, actors, writers... has no quality, and they would not spend their money on them and their products.
And develop quality products is always more expensive (at first) than any crappy song or movie heavily publicized until people think that without spending money on that product their lives would be worse.

Exactly! That's what I was saying before. The people this will affect the least are the pirates. They're the ones who are doing the piracy and they're the ones who will keep doing it, no matter how many obstacles are put in their way. But I don't think corporations really care, if they're gonna get something out of this then why not just play along?

Oy...it just cements our corrupt human nature even more. People are selfish, the more they get, the more they want.

 

[Blodeuwedd]

This interesting blog talks about how publishers are against libraries in general and this quote stood out for me:

As has been noted many times, by many people, we’ve juiced up the entirely artificial copyright laws of the world to the point that if libraries weren’t already a centuries-old cultural institution, there’s no chance they’d ever be able to come into existence today

Also, the Feds have shut down Megavideo.

 

[Squizree]

omg, really? Megaupload is huge, I can't believe it's over. That's rather understandable really.

But I'm more amused that the founders were arrested about an hour away from me

 

[Blodeuwedd]

I've been reading the comments on reddit and MU actually has DMCA rules for the content uploaded on their servers, like Youtube. Unlike YT, they don't have the lawyers to back them up. Tv shows and movies are also on youtube, but don't get reported as often or flagged as often.

 

[tangerine]

There is a pretty big difference between what Megaupload was doing and what YouTube does, here's part of an article that talks about some of the differences (I bolded some text

Going after Megaupload, one of the most popular sites in the world, might seem a strange choice. (As an example of its scale, Megaupload controlled 525 servers in Virginia alone and had another 630 in the Netherlands—and many more around the world.) For years, the site has claimed to take down unauthorized content when notified by rightsholders. It has registered a DMCA agent with the US government. It has created an “abuse tool” and given rightsholders access. It has negotiated with companies like Universal Music Group about licensing content. And CEO Kim Dotcom sent this curious e-mail to PayPal in late 2011:

Our legal team in the US is currently preparing to sue some of our competitors and expose their criminal activity. We like to give you a heads up and advice [sic] you not to work with sites that are known to pay up loaders for pirated content. They are damaging the image and the existence of the file hosting industry (see what's happening with the Protect IP Act). Look at Fileserve.com, Videobb.com, Filesonic.com, Wupload.com, Uploadstation.com. These sites pay everyone (no matter if the files are pirated or not) and have NO repeat infringer policy. And they are using PayPal to pay infringers.
​

But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other. Because of this, the government says that the site does not qualify for a “safe harbor” of the kind that protected YouTube from Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit. For instance, the “abuse tool” allegedly does not remove the actual file being complained about by a rightsholder. Instead, it only removes a specific Web address linked to that file—but there might be hundreds of such addresses for popular content. In addition, the government contends that everything about the site has been doctored to make it look more legitimate than it is. The “Top 100” download list does not “actually portray the most popular downloads,” say prosecutors, and they claim that Megaupload purposely offers no site-wide search engine as a way of concealing what people are storing and sharing through the site. Megaupload employees apparently knew how the site was being used. When making payments through its “uploader rewards” program, employees sometimes looked through the material in those accounts first. "10+ Full popular DVD rips (split files), a few small p*rn movies, some software with keygenerators (warez)," said one of these notes. (The DMCA does not provide a "safe harbor" to sites who have actual knowledge of infringing material and do nothing about it.) In a 2008 chat, one employee noted that "we have a funny business... modern days [sic] pirates ," to which the reply was, "we're not pirates, we're just providing shipping servies [sic] to pirates ." Employees send each other e-mails saying things like, “can u pls get me some links to the series called ‘Seinfeld’ from MU [Megaupload]," since some employees did have access to a private internal search engine. Employees even allegedly uploaded content themselves, such as a BBC Earth episode uploaded in 2008. Other messages appear to indicate that employees knew how important copyrighted content was to their business. Content owners had a specific number of takedown requests they could make each day; in 2009, for instance, Time Warner was allowed to use the abuse tool to remove 2,500 links per day. When the company requested an increase, one employee suggested that "we can afford to be cooperative at current growth levels"— implying that if growth had not been so robust, takedowns should be limited. Kim Dotcom approved an increase to 5,000 takedowns a day. Employees also had access to analytics. One report showed that a specific linking site had “produce[d] 164,214 visits to Megaupload for a download of the copyrighted CD/DVD burning software package Nero Suite 10. The software package had the suggested retail price of $99.” The government's conclusion: Megaupload knew what was happening and did little to stop it.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]arstechnica.com
[/FONT]

 

[Squizree]

^ Yeah, that's why I can understand shutting down Megaupload. They were fully aware of copyright offenses, yet did very little. I'm not sure if anyone knows or remembers but a member here was actually fined about 5000 Euros for uploading copyrighted fashion shows. So they did punish certain times.

 

[wild roses]

Youtube is also owned by Google which makes a difference too. (Google opposes the strict interpretation of online copyright. It believes in copyright laws, but that information should be available and accessible to everyone, so their lawyers will put a fight.)

 

[whysper]

Well well, looks like the "author" of the SOPA bill is also ironically a copyright violator too! I REALLY detest Lamar Smith (as everyone should). This bill was CLEARLY not thought out.

The Author of SOPA Is a Copyright Violator

 

[saann]

I think it boils down to lawmakers not understanding technology. I read a lot of news-tech related sites and here's one example.

I think also it's important to look at the pockets of those lawmakers - "follow the money" as it is said. If you look at Lamar S. Smith (Rep. Texas), who wrote the bill, at his financial contributors you will see that it is largely the movie and music industry backing it up. It has been shown that people will pay for content if delivered correctly - look at iTunes and Netflix. However there are also setbacks when restrictions are set in place to avoid copyright problems - look at the mess that DRM is creating on ebooks, for example- when you buy an ebook you don't own it, you're licensing it. Pretty ridiculous IMO.

Funny because the film industry went through the same phase when TV arrived, and it went through that same phase again when VCRs/Betamax arrived. When Betamax arrived some even called it the death of cinema and what's interesting is if one looks up the Universal/Disney vs (Sony) Betamax case you'll see them trying to sue Betamax for reasons quite reminiscent to what SOPA stands for. And they lost.

And what happened? The industry only grew bigger, with them finding a way to make a revenue from this new format. Something they should have started working on when Internet popped up in every household.

Another thing they don't seem to have learned is that these things only help the spreading of their film. Having copyrighted material on the internet is half the promotion. Like Tangerine said, I've lost count on how many books, films or songs I've bought after being introduced to it through the internet. I've even downloaded shows/films that I've actually bought.


This is basically old industry mentality, not understanding how to adapt with the changing outlets.


On another note, I think this is a reflection of what they're experiencing as a loss of profits, with their content being consumed through other outlets. But what they don't seem to understand is that every download/streaming doesn't equal losing a paying customer. Because people are willing to pay for film/music etc when they believe it to be worth the price. Look at what happened in East Asia when piracing was at its worst, Hollywood started investing in world wide premieres and not having their audience over there wait too long for the release and voila! Suddenly they have a huge market over there. Not to mention the successes of modern successes of Avatar, The Dark Knight, Bridesmaids or musical artists like Adele etc that have proven that people are still willing to pay for things. I think they're just having a hard time coming to terms with a public that has the privilege of selecting between what is being offered to them a bit more wisely. Not to mention an industry that getting dumber and dumber. I mean they're making films that are more expensive each year, you have upcoming 'John Carter' reportedly being made for 200m+, you had 'Green Lantern' being made for 200m+.. this is all minus marketing. I mean, are they really expecting big profits with budgets like this. Maybe try investing in four 50m films that are actually good rather than placing all of it on a CGI adventure that's likely to fail

Don't blame to public for not buying your crap

 

[YoninahAliza]

^That's so spot on about the movie industry. I'm actually pretty disappointed that some people in the industry are supporting SOPA because one would think they would welcome the sharing of content. It's a free form of publicity really. The more people who see a trailer or scenes from a movie the more likely it will get press and have people attend shows at the theater. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to see a movie/buy a song/etc after being introduced to it through a medium which is now being threatened by SOPA. People are becoming more selective in a way too, they are choosing what they want to see and what they are willing to pay for, so maybe the film industry should take a step back and think about making more quality films rather the crap that's currently in theaters. Then maybe ticket sales would rise.

 

[Fatalefashion]

It will be my end! No Fashion shows.

 

[Squizree]

^That's so spot on about the movie industry. I'm actually pretty disappointed that some people in the industry are supporting SOPA because one would think they would welcome the sharing of content. It's a free form of publicity really. The more people who see a trailer or scenes from a movie the more likely it will get press and have people attend shows at the theater. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to see a movie/buy a song/etc after being introduced to it through a medium which is now being threatened by SOPA. People are becoming more selective in a way too, they are choosing what they want to see and what they are willing to pay for, so maybe the film industry should take a step back and think about making more quality films rather the crap that's currently in theaters. Then maybe ticket sales would rise.

Yeah but I assure you that an extensive majority of the people who watch trailers on the net will just Google it and watch a pirated or leaked or leaked version instead. The movie industry loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year because of illegal movie streaming. Same with cartoons, sitcoms, documentaries and soap operas. The entertainment industry is within its right mind to support this bill, because trust me, if the industry wanted to generate public interest in a movie they have the means and the money to shove it down people's throat.

And don't get me started on video games. SOOO many of my friends have pirated games on Playstation, XBox, PC and Nintendo. And let's not forget computer based emulators! If you have a good computer, you literally don't have to spend a CENT on gaming. I'm completely not surprised that the entertainment industry is backing this bill up, it's within reason. But the problem with this bill is just how far it's going to go to protect these rights and how much power it's going to give corporations in order to do so.

 

[Squizree]

It will be my end! No Fashion shows.

I'm pretty sure you'll be fine. For one thing you're in Brazil and this is only affecting the US for the meantime. Secondly your fashion shows are allowed to be redistributed I think.

 

[wild roses]

Yeah but I assure you that an extensive majority of the people who watch trailers on the net will just Google it and watch a pirated or leaked or leaked version instead. The movie industry loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year because of illegal movie streaming. Same with cartoons, sitcoms, documentaries and soap operas. The entertainment industry is within its right mind to support this bill, because trust me, if the industry wanted to generate public interest in a movie they have the means and the money to shove it down people's throat.

And don't get me started on video games. SOOO many of my friends have pirated games on Playstation, XBox, PC and Nintendo. And let's not forget computer based emulators! If you have a good computer, you literally don't have to spend a CENT on gaming. I'm completely not surprised that the entertainment industry is backing this bill up, it's within reason. But the problem with this bill is just how far it's going to go to protect these rights and how much power it's going to give corporations in order to do so.

Oh, please. The industry has partially brought this on themselves. How many times do the studios re=re-release movies saying "this is the deluxe edition!" and then do anothe release less than a year later? People shouldn't have to buy multiple editions just to get the best quality deluxe version of the movie, but they pull this stunt all the time and then act innocent about it.

People don't like getting fooled. I like special features (I'm quite the wh*re for BTS stuff) and obviously I'm going to want the most loaded product. But I don't have money to waste. It pisses me off when I have to buy a product yet again. (Luckily, I have wised up and will hold off buying a dvd for years if I'm certain if it will get a re-re-re-release. Like HP. Or LOTR.)

And, when they aren't re-re-re-re-re-releasing movies "with all new features not to be found on previous editions," they are saying movies will only be available for a limited time. Like Disney. Now Warner Brothers. I'm not going to plan my movie funds budget on some bigwig's schedule especially when I have bills to pay and other interests.

And people don't have money to just throw away either. Everything is so expensive nowadays. Everything. Buying DVDs and CDs are luxuries for me. I have to budget them (I like coffee tables books as well as and even used used copies can be expensive depending on the rarity of the book). But entertainment bigwigs act like we aren't in a recession. That life is just as grand as it was in the 1990s. When it isn't.

If I really love something, I do eventually get a legal copy of it.

And kudos to whoever mentioned the $200m budgets on films. I remember when "Waterworld" and even "Titanic" were released and there was such outrage--even from Hollywood--for so much money being spent to produce a film. The fact that it's standard nowadays scares me. I know CGI is expensive, but I also think films that cost that much shouldn't be the norm. (If I recall correctly, there was also a romantic comedy---of all genres-- the film name eludes me--that cost $100m a year or so ago. It flopped. I would love to know how the money got thrown away and misbudgeted on that.)

 

[Squizree]

Oh, please. The industry has partially brought this on themselves. How many times do the studios re=re-release movies saying "this is the deluxe edition!" and then do anothe release less than a year later? People shouldn't have to buy multiple editions just to get the best quality deluxe version of the movie, but they pull this stunt all the time and then act innocent about it.

People don't like getting fooled. I like special features (I'm quite the wh*re for BTS stuff) and obviously I'm going to want the most loaded product. But I don't have money to waste. It pisses me off when I have to buy a product yet again. (Luckily, I have wised up and will hold off buying a dvd for years if I'm certain if it will get a re-re-re-release. Like HP. Or LOTR.)

And, when they aren't re-re-re-re-re-releasing movies "with all new features not to be found on previous editions," they are saying movies will only be available for a limited time. Like Disney. Now Warner Brothers. I'm not going to plan my movie funds budget on some bigwig's schedule especially when I have bills to pay and other interests.

And people don't have money to just throw away either. Everything is so expensive nowadays. Everything. Buying DVDs and CDs are luxuries for me. I have to budget them (I like coffee tables books as well as and even used used copies can be expensive depending on the rarity of the book). But entertainment bigwigs act like we aren't in a recession. That life is just as grand as it was in the 1990s. When it isn't.

If I really love something, I do eventually get a legal copy of it.

And kudos to whoever mentioned the $200m budgets on films. I remember when "Waterworld" and even "Titanic" were released and there was such outrage--even from Hollywood--for so much money being spent to produce a film. The fact that it's standard nowadays scares me. I know CGI is expensive, but I also think films that cost that much shouldn't be the norm. (If I recall correctly, there was also a romantic comedy---of all genres-- the film name eludes me--that cost $100m a year or so ago. It flopped. I would love to know how the money got thrown away and misbudgeted on that.)

There's not a single thing in your post that I disagree with. No, people shouldn't have to re-buy copies of films over and over again just to extras. And no, people don't like to be fooled. And yes, things aren't cheap anymore. But at the end of the day, these corporations are in their legal right to do all of that and to sue/shut down third parties who aren't respecting that right.

So the person you're really talking about here is the government. They're the ones who give corporations the rights to re-re-re-release products, and they're the ones who are behind this awful bill. And let's be realistic, companies are greedy and they'll milk anything if it'll generate profit, and they'll go as far as they can within the law to do so.

The problem here aren't the private companies, they just want their money, who wouldn't? The problem are the people running this whole show, the government, namely this Lamar guy. It's like the old saying "Don't hate the players, hate the game"

 

[tangerine]

...But the problem with this bill is just how far it's going to go to protect these rights and how much power it's going to give corporations in order to do so.

This is the whole thing in a nutshell. Intellectual property should be protected. But the SOPA and PIPA bills in their current form overreach, badly, and are open to interpretation far beyond the stated intention of stopping piracy and the siphoning off of profits.

 

[wild roses]

The problem here aren't the private companies, they just want their money, who wouldn't? The problem are the people running this whole show, the government, namely this Lamar guy. It's like the old saying "Don't hate the players, hate the game"

I don't think you are fully informed on how the US govt puts bills into action. Or how influential lobbyists are in controlling the US govt.

Lamar sponsered the bill, but the lobbyists working for the entertainment industry are the reason why he put his name on it anyway. And the reason why it was even before Congress in the first place: the government didn't come up with their bill on their own. It was lobbyists that insisted it was a issue, and because of the lobbyists, the bill got written. Nobody got just woke up one day and decided pirating is an issue. (It's been widely reported who the lobbyists are who got Lamar and others to make it an issue for Congress to vote upon. So it is rather foolish of you to insist that private companies had nothing whatsoever with the bill being on the table right now.)

And, it's a well-understood by most people that politicians are oiled by lobbyists. Quid pro quo. It's only when the lobbying is caught and protested (as it was soundly on Jan 18 by people and many corporate internet sites in this case) that politicians try to act clean.

And, note, too that many of the cosponsers have pulled their support from the bill when they were called out on their own illegal usages of copyrighted materials. (They were stunned that simply using a photo as one's twitter background is pirating. MSNBC did a rather amusing story on it.)

Obama isn't behind the bill, either.