SOPA and PIPA

[scullster46]

So, because today is pretty much SOPA awareness/protest day, I thought that having a thread on the bill here would be a good idea. Here is a good overview on the bill

http://futureoftheinternet.org/reading-sopa

Have at it gents

 

[Anonymous]

I am fully in favour of SOPA. Any law that could see Justin Beiber imprisoned is fine by me.
http://freebieber.org/

In fact, im not sure the law is far reaching enough. I fully support the death penalty for anyone caught singing Justin Beiber songs.

 

[scullster46]

I am fully in favour of SOPA. Any law that could see Justin Beiber imprisoned is fine by me.
http://freebieber.org/

In fact, im not sure the law is far reaching enough. I fully support the death penalty for anyone caught singing Justin Beiber songs.

This I agree with, however it should be a separate law entirely. However then you would be putting all the 14-15 year old girls in jail alongside pedophiles and sex offenders

But in all seriousness, idk how this law can even be considered legal. The internet is more of a sovereign nation than anything else, and although the U.S. has the ability to enforce this law on US sites, the question comes up about how it affects other nations. If Facebook, Wikipedia, Youtube, etc. are deleted, then it affects all the citizens of the free world. I personally don't see how that is legal, as the U.S. doesn't have THAT much power

 

[Cobblestones]

But in all seriousness, idk how this law can even be considered legal. The internet is more of a sovereign nation than anything else, and although the U.S. has the ability to enforce this law on US sites, the question comes up about how it affects other nations. If Facebook, Wikipedia, Youtube, etc. are deleted, then it affects all the citizens of the free world. I personally don't see how that is legal, as the U.S. doesn't have THAT much power

The US might find itself at the short stick eventually. If credit card companies or PayPal will not be allowed to execute transactions, if certain websites will no longer be resolved to IP numbers etc. eventually these niches will be filled by non-US companies, maybe Chinese or Indian. It could be that in the end, the US economy will be hurt more by losing a lot of business than by piracy.

Now, can anybody explain to me when piracy is such a big problem for the entertainment industry, why is youtube still online? In the spirit of this thread, why isn't there cease & desist order for this video for instance which could easily be obtained with today's laws?

 

[usedtobefast]

 

[Amsterhammer]

Yeah but, we can be trusted to use these powers in a good way, because we're democratic and therefore good. They cannot be trusted because they are not democratic and therefore bad.

It's so simple, really.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The US might find itself at the short stick eventually...It could be that in the end, the US economy will be hurt more by losing a lot of business than by piracy.

This.

Piracy is a problem, but this is NOT the way to fix it.

Now...why is youtube still online? In the spirit of this thread, why isn't there cease & desist order for this video for instance which could easily be obtained with today's laws?

Complex issue. First, the link you supply is to a VEVO sponsored video. If you look up Vevo you'll see they are a conduit for payment that goes to the artist/label/distributor. So in the best sense, VEVO is as legal as it gets with YouTube (outside of home videos).

Now if the same video is uploaded by someone else, I believe what's happening is that the search engine won't find it sooner, and eventually Google/YouTube gets around to deleting it.

Some videos that are small excerpts from movies, or fan edits for example, fall into the category that I think the original creator and YouTube finds to be a wash. It helps promote the original work in a sense, so it's not pursued.

I also think there's something going on with the way the profit sharing works. For example, let's say you own a VHS copy of an obscure movie that's not no DVD and not available and you digitize it and upload the entire thing to YouTube in 12 parts. I think this is an area where Google is sharing something with RIAA or film studios and distributors which keeps them off their back about this sort of thing. But I don't know. In a similar sense it has to be seen as the original creator as some sort of wash. The film can be seen, helping promote the film, plus biding time for the owners to release it on DVD (or another way), while giving them a conduit to keep the film alive.

Finally, what I think really DOES need to get pulled, and this is where the law if isn't clear enough, needs to change, is when people put up videos showing how to do something illegally, such as how to get pirated software. I'm not going to supply a link on this one.

 

[elapid]

From my understanding of listening to this morning's CBC news, the issue is not only the government being influenced by big money from major music and movie producers but also the lack of due process. I definitely understand and sympathize with those that are missing out on royalties etc from the sales of music and movies because of online pirating. However, the proposed law allows a site as large as Wikipedia to be pulled off the air if someone complains about an obscure page on their website, and this is done without due process.

scullster46 brought up the question about the ability for the US to enforce a US law on foreign sites. In The Age (Melbourne newspaper) this morning, there was an article about someone that was extradited to the US from a foreign country (Australia or England, cannot recall) to face charges of online piracy despite never having set foot on US soil. He ended up serving time in a federal prison in Virginia. I am not sure how they can do this, but it obviously can be done.

 

[Bala Verde]

I found this article, published by the cato institute, interesting because it actually looks into the claim that revenue is lost. I never understood why it didn't feature more prominently in the discussion. ( I posted it in the election thread, wondering if it could become an issue.)

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/

As one expert consulted by GAO put it, “effects of piracy within the United States are mainly redistributions within the economy for other purposes and that they should not be considered as a loss to the overall economy.” In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses nothing. In the other 20 percent of cases, the result is a loss to the content industry, but not a let loss to the economy, since the money just ends up being spent elsewhere. If you’re concerned about the overall jobs picture, as opposed to the fortunes of a specific industry, there is no good reason to think eliminating piracy by U.S. users would yield any jobs on net, though it might help boost employment in copyright-intensive sectors. (Oh, and that business about 19 million jobs? Also bogus.)

Given today's blackout at least 4 senators reversed their position and would not vote in favor of the bill in its current form.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admi...+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm

Big media continues to push Congress to repay their millions in bribes with punitive legislation

While U.S. President Barack Obama and his advisors haven't always seen eye to eye with digital freedom advocates, they have joined forces with the advocacies on one critical issue. They are at last speaking out against the proposed Orwellian "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) (H.R. 3261) and its Senate counterpart the "PROTECT IP Act" (PIPA) (S.968).

I. White House Blasts Big Media's Anti-Internet Bill

The bills have many controversial provisions. Some of the provisions are controversial due to the outrageous approach they take with online businesses. For example, in a provision likened to an internet death penalty by DailyTech and other sites -- the bills would look to create a takedown system where any site found to be hosting user generated content pointing to infringing content (say a URL to a torrent) could be immediately taken down.

This would be a crippling blow to Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN), Google Inc. (GOOG), online news, and any other site that allows user-generated content, as a malicious user (e.g. a prankster or competitor) could intentionally plant an offending URL and then contact the regulators to take down the site for weeks at a time. The measure would essentially end all American online commerce, online searching, and online news if enforced.

Other measures of the bill are criticized for their heavy-handed approach. The bill would look to put members of the American proletariat in prison for rebroadcasting (the language is ambiguous about the criminality of watching) via streaming copyrighted content. An example of this would be if a sporting event was blacked out locally (this often occurs in professional sports like the NFL if tickets go unsold) and a friend from out-of-town broadcasts the game to you by streaming their view of the game (not blacked out, as it's not the local market).

Even though your friend is giving you access to content you have no easy way of legally accessing, your friend who sent you the stream is now going to prison if they get caught. America already imprisons more of its proletariat than any other nation -- including North Korea and Iran -- and spends an estimated $80B USD annually to keep up this record imprisonment. Thus such measures are at least somewhat controversial.


In a post on White House blog White House cyber-security czar Howard Schmidt and two other key officials echoed criticisms of firms like Google and Amazon, in questioning wasn't cyber equivalent of amputating a limb to combat an ingrown nail.

Writes Mr. Schmidt, "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."
Despite nearly unanimous opposition from America's top online innovators -- Google, Amazon, Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO), Facebook, Twitter and eBay Inc. (EBAY) -- Congress people have vowed to ignore their economic leaders and public outcry and forge ahead with the Orwellian measures.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R- Tex.) who co-wrote SOPA, states, "It is not censorship to enforce the law against foreign thieves."

He claims that 19 million jobs and 60 percent of American exports are at stake in the war to protect intellectual property.

II. SOPA Author Caught Infringing, Feels Above the Law he Pushes on the Proles

Rep. Smith's comment seems slightly misleading, given that the bill contains many provisions that are equally punitive to American businesses and individuals as they are to foreign ones. And there's a strong irony in his hardline towards copyright infringement as the office of Rep. Smith was itself recently caught by the blog Vice stealing content.
While Rep. Smith's office has tried to keep this offense quiet, by offering a newer, cleaner version of the Representative's webpage, Vice was able to locate older version using web tools like the WayBack Engine.It was found that the office of Rep. Smith had illegally used a photograph from artist DJ Schulte as a background, without proper citation (and hence without permission).States Mr. Schulte to Vice:

I switched my images from traditional copyright protection to be protected under the Creative Commons license a few years ago, which simply states that they can use my images as long as they attribute the image to me and do not use it for commercial purposes."

I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that you have provided that the image was attributed to the source (me). So my conclusion would be that Lamar Smith's organization did improperly use my image. So according to the SOPA bill, should it pass, maybe I could petition the court to take action against http://www.texansforlamarsmith.com.

(To be clear Vice and DailyTech can legally repost the image, as we are not reselling it and are properly citing the artist, unlike Rep. Smith.)

The offensive infringement isn't exactly surprising. Recent surveys of active torrents have revealed the offices of members of Congress downloading infringed content, including pornographic films.

Furthermore, SOPA/PIPA's big media backers aren't exactly foreign to the realm of hypocrisy themselves. Major record labels yearly claim access to scores of "unclaimed" independent works in the U.S. and abroad, thanks to favorable laws. Independent artists often find their work stolen by the major labels and are forced to navigate a maze of roadblocks designed to stymie them from recouping the profits the major labels are stealing through wanton infringement. It is estimated that such theft on behalf of major media labels accounts for tens, if not hundreds of millions in lost revenue annually for independent artists.

III. Big Media Looks to Collect on Their Congressional Bribes

The U.S. Recording Industry Association of America, a notorious copyright abuser known for suing dead people and other extreme measures, blasted the White House's opposition to the bills, stating, "[It is illegal for websites] to direct law-abiding consumers to unlawful and dangerous sites. Hyperbole, hysteria and hypotheticals cannot change the fact that stealing is wrong, costing jobs and must be contained."

Similarly the Motion Picture Association of America, another famous enforcement firm, states, "Protecting American jobs is important too, particularly in these difficult economic times for our nation."

These statements are parroted near verbatim by the U.S. Senate Chamber of Commerce, who comments, "Given the broad consensus that this issue needs to be addressed, it is time to come together and adopt strong legislation that ends the ability of foreign criminals to prey on innocent consumers and steal American jobs."

This Congressional echo of America's most notorious and abusive media copyright watchdogs is not terribly surprising. After all, media lobbyists paid approximately 10 percent of active U.S. Senators' total combined election costs, and donated generously to members of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well.

At the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show, Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro, an active technology advisor to federal policy makers, attacked these bribes, stating, "[SOPA is championed by] politicians who are proudly unfamiliar with how the internet works, but who are well familiar with favors from well-heeled copyright extremists."

It remains to be seen, amidst this sweeping bribery of public officials, if the Obama administration would truly be willing to veto a bill like SOPA/PIPA. The administration faces the challenge of trying to push back against an issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support on account of the sweeping bribery. But the administration must weigh the value of its big media benefactors against the value of its legacy -- after all, it could go down in history as the administration that killed the internet economy if PIPA/SOPA passes on its watch.

Most policy makers and critics of SOPA/PIPA agree -- infringement is wrong and needs to be stopped. But as the Obama administration and countless others are stated -- there are less self-destructive, reasonable approaches to fighting piracy. Such positive solutions stands in sharp contrast to the harsh totalitarian policies pushed by big media onto their paid employees, members of Congress.

IV. Who is Fighting For SOPA/PIPA

The U.S. Senators sponsored the PIPA bill:
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Chris Coons (D-Dela.).

The following U.S. Representatives sponsored the SOPA bill:
Lamar Smith (R-TX) [house.gov] *
John Conyers (D-MI) [house.gov]
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) [house.gov]
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) [house.gov]
Tim Griffin (R-AR) [house.gov]
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) [house.gov]
Theodore E. Deutch (D-FL) [house.gov]
Steve Chabot (R-OH) [house.gov]
Dennis Ross (R-FL) [house.gov] *
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) [house.gov]
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) [house.gov]
Lee Terry (R-NE) [house.gov]
Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) [house.gov]
Mel Watt (D-NC) [house.gov]
John Carter (R-TX) [house.gov] *
Karen Bass (D-CA) [house.gov]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) [house.gov]
Peter King (R-NY) [house.gov]
Mark E. Amodei (R-NV) [house.gov]
Tom Marino (R-PA) [house.gov]
Alan Nunnelee (R-MS) [house.gov]
John Barrow (D-GA) [house.gov]
Steve Scalise (R-LA) [house.gov] *
Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) [house.gov]
William L. Owens (D-NY) [house.gov]

If you have thoughts on this issue, please email your local representatives and let them know how you feel, and consider your incumbent Senator/Representative's actions come election time.

 

[usedtobefast]

just as an FYI, i am a content producer and i understand copyright infringement. the record industry as we know it is a dead horse and the movie business is headed the same way. you have to adapt to the changing times or die. i support ownership of all creative property, you have to protect yourself from the getgo nowadays. easier,yet harder than it used to be. censorship is not a good thing, because...it never works. folks find a way around it,eventually.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULsiXVkKINA

 

[Cobblestones]

Complex issue. First, the link you supply is to a VEVO sponsored video. If you look up Vevo you'll see they are a conduit for payment that goes to the artist/label/distributor. So in the best sense, VEVO is as legal as it gets with YouTube (outside of home videos).

Now if the same video is uploaded by someone else, I believe what's happening is that the search engine won't find it sooner, and eventually Google/YouTube gets around to deleting it.

See, and this is where I can't follow. So Vevo compensates the label (from what kind of revenue?). Still, for me, the consumer, it's free and therefore almost indistinguishable from an illegal download.

I think the psychology works against the business. These songs are pushed through radio play, MTV, youtube etc. They are in the public space so much as to make them virtually common goods. We are talking about pop culture. Same with movie clips, TV shows etc. I think the disconnect between getting exposed to pop culture so heavily, while insisting on an entirely proprietary model of distribution is what makes people like me shake their heads at copyright laws.

Anyway, closer to my taste of music, why has this not been pulled during the four years it has been up? It doesn't seem to be sponsored by Vevo or whatever.

I think your other point is also very valid. Obscure works which are not available any more should lose their copyright protection. Clearly there's no more money to be made, so why enforce copyright? It seems ludicrous.

 

[hfer07]

Bon Jovi claimed that Steve job was responsible for "killing the music industry" with the apple gadgets & web stores

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/bon-jovi-steve-jobs-killing-music_n_835818.html

......meanwhile, the same Bon Jovi acquired a humble 125 millions dollars in earnings last year behind U2

http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/06/17/forbes-2011-top-earners-list-gaga-bon-jovi-u2/


just an example of how hypocrite are those from the music Industry on copyrights & media-when in reality shows how they keep making a lot of money regardless the issue of piracy......

 

[Amsterhammer]

Given today's blackout at least 4 senators reversed their position and would not vote in favor of the bill in its current form.

The Empire strikes back. Sort of.

Eight US lawmakers have withdrawn their backing from anti-piracy laws, amid "blackout" protests on thousands of internet sites.

Two of the bill's co-sponsors, Marco Rubio from Florida and Roy Blunt from Missouri, are among those backing away.

The list of senators no longer backing Pipa includes Mr Rubio and Mr Blunt, and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, all Republicans, as well as Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans Ben Quayle of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska and Dennis Ross of Florida said they were no longer supporting the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), joining Pennsylvania Democrat Tim Holden.

Mr Ross tweeted that he was no longer supporting Sopa, because as "a true free marketer, I want IP protected correctly".

In a Facebook posting, Mr Rubio said he and fellow Senators "heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the internet".

Mr Hatch called Pipa "not ready for prime-time" and said he would remove himself from the bill's list of sponsors.

The US news website Politico estimated that 7,000 sites were involved by early Wednesday morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16623831

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Megaupload.com is no more, shut down.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

There are plenty of alternatives to Megaupload - even if it stays down - and plenty of others will fill the void.

Good post Bala Verde, that I think nails it. Props to the Cato Institute (who I don't always agree with).

just as an FYI, i am a content producer and i understand copyright infringement. the record industry as we know it is a dead horse and the movie business is headed the same way. you have to adapt to the changing times or die.

Ditto. And I completely agree with you. Adapt or die.

Anyway, closer to my taste of music, why has this not been pulled during the four years it has been up? It doesn't seem to be sponsored by Vevo or whatever.

Obscure works which are not available any more should lose their copyright protection. Clearly there's no more money to be made, so why enforce copyright? It seems ludicrous.

As to the Coltrane clip, is not the answer within your post? Let's pretend I'm a member of his family and own the rights to his music. As that video is not likely to be able to be purchased or seen anywhere else, I would fully support it being on YouTube for all to see to keep John's spirit and music alive. It makes people more aware of his gift, and with that promotes him and makes it more likely people will seek out more of his music, some of which they will pay for, giving me more money.

I probably could push YouTube to attach ads to the video, and claim the rightful recipient of all profits from it. But that would probably be counter intuitive as the music may get less hits.

If this video is available for purchase as part of a more completely collection, I could also probably compel YouTube to put links on there showing how to pay for it. Or I could push them to put links to where to legally download or purchase his music. But it's not entirely necessary.

The last thing I would do though, here in 2012, is ask to have it removed and try to sue Google/You Tube to do that. Though some neanderthals in the recording industry would probably think doing so is a good idea, I think it is anachronistic, backwards, short-sighted thinking. And a key reason why RIAA and the music industry as we know it is dying.

They fight every change in technology instead of learning to embrace it and make it their own. They did this with cassette tapes, DAT tapes, Napster, and everything else. They have a total fear of any form of risk, have no idea how to adapt, and are so short-sighted in their comfort and greed they are killing themselves and have no one else to blame. Steve Jobs was right (of course, duh), as were Sean Parker and the Fannings. If the RIAA had any sort of vision or foresight they would have made a huge offer to Parker and the Fannings and bought Napster in it's infancy back in 1999. If they had done this it would have been them, in their own control, who would have sold how many ever billions of songs through the web, not Steve Jobs and Apple. And they wouldn't have ended up wasting zillions on mostly frivolous lawsuits and lobbying trying to prevent something they were nearly powerless to stop.

I should note that my senator, Ron Wyden, has said he will filibuster this bill, though Harry Reid has said he will try to stop him.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

yea lotsa alternatives but my money down the drain with megaupload lol

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

What did you do, buy a lifetime account?!

 

[Amsterhammer]

Perhaps 'Anonymous' is taking revenge? Try accessing fbi.gov.

 

[scullster46]

The effects of yesterdays protests

 

[Bala Verde]

The effects of yesterdays protests

Good to see this is happening. A bill written by 'big Hollywood' stooges, agreed to in backrooms, cheques made out to sponsors for upcoming elections, a couple of charade hearings with 'experts' on the payroll of the industry that plugged the bill, and they almost got away with it.

Go back to the drawing board and with each pen stroke think ... 'proportionality' and 'necessity'...

 

[Ferminal]

Perhaps 'Anonymous' is taking revenge? Try accessing fbi.gov.

http://anonops.blogspot.com/2012/01/internet-strikes-back-opmegaupload.html#comment-form

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Megavideo also gone now lol

 

[hrotha]

Megavideo also gone now lol

Megavideo and Megaupload were the same company, they went down at the same time.

Anyway, SOPA and PIPA are clearly the product of middle-aged and old men legislating about something they know very little about.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Sopa and Pipa bills postponed in US Congress

The US Congress has halted debate on two contested anti-online piracy bills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed a vote on the Protect IP Act (Pipa) scheduled for Tuesday.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith then said his panel would not consider the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) until a compromise was reached.

The decisions follow protests by online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, and thousands of other websites, which went "dark" in protest for 24 hours earlier this week.

"In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the PROTECT IP Act," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said in a statement on Friday.

Mr Smith, a Texas Republican in the House of Representatives, said in a statement: "I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16655272