No, I don't think the bill language is reasonable. These two links show why the language is vague. Also, lawyers are unreasonable and will fight to the death over interpretations. Why even open the door for them anyway?

http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technica … a-and.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201201 … sary.shtml

On the other hand look at the propaganda that "Creative America" is putting out:
http://creativeamerica.org/media/upload … -17-12.pdf

People have lost their jobs, been sickened, and even died over rogue websites.

lol really? And did anyone really ask if iTunes is gonna be shut down?

lastly, and this is a selfish view of mine, but I really believe that free, unrestricted technology development is key to our future and i would rather put the hands of this country in our tech companies than in movie studios and record labels.

Marble101 wrote:

This is the American Congress, one of the most corrupted of 3rd wrold countries. It has fallen into the wrong hands.

oh god! the recession was so bad that we became a 3rd world country!

kainzero wrote:

lastly, and this is a selfish view of mine, but I really believe that free, unrestricted technology development is key to our future and i would rather put the hands of this country in our tech companies than in movie studios and record labels

Due to law action by the MPAA, Megaupload.com has now been taken down! I find it all pretty worrisome.

Why on earth did MU host in the USA? Surely they could have seen this coming?

I imagine the media companies are just frittering their money away fighting windmills like the war on drugs instead of looking for constructive solutions (like Steam), so they're only hurting themselves. I imagine (or I'd hope) a lot of people will be turned off by their worsening reputation enough to stop buying their products if this goes on.

I'm worried how readily countries like the UK are willing to hand over any citizens the US wants to arrest instead of trying them in their own country too.

Last edited by dizmox (2012 January 19, 4:56 pm)

If they can down sites like MU so easily what do they even need SOPA for?

They've already set a precedent to shut down any site that happens to host copyrighted material giving chalked up calculations of lost revenue, even though as far as I know MU took down offending material when asked. Even they fail in forcing SOPA or SOPA v2 through so they'll just continue with their plans illegitimately.

Last edited by dizmox (2012 January 19, 5:19 pm)

ファブリス wrote:

"The conspirators allegedly paid users whom they specifically knew uploaded infringing content and publicised their links to users throughout the world," a statement said.

"By actively supporting the use of third-party linking sites to publicise infringing content, the conspirators did not need to publicise such content on the Megaupload site."

I guess we'll have to see what happens to RS, MF, etc. It seems a bit strange that MU would pay users to upload files that find there way there anyway...

IceCream wrote:

... i don't really like to see megavideo go, but lets face it, hardly anyone ever really used it for anything other than piracy, so... i'm actually more surprised they've taken this long over it.

yeah it takes them long. Because there are lots of things that you have to do to be able to control people even slightly. Very very many things.
And they can't keep up with this everything that's happening.

...So that's why they came up with SOPA and PIPA.Maybe.
It would make their work easier.

For an example of the kind of dishonest stuff these corporate thugs will do to get their way:

In December 2011, Schmitz's Megaworld (owner of Megaupload, Megavideo, Megalive and more) released its "Megaupload Song" promotional music video, which featured Kanye West, will.i.am, Jamie Foxx, Sean "Diddy" Combs, Alicia Keys, Chris Brown and more lauding the service. Universal Music Group (UMG) responded by using the DMCA takedown process to have the clip removed from YouTube and other sites. Schmitz accused UMG of sending "illegitimate takedown notices", since UMG did not own the song in question, and Megaupload went on to file a lawsuit against UMG.[6][27][28] A statement released by UMG claimed that a special arrangement exists between UMG and YouTube which allows UMG to take down any videos featuring their artists, regardless of copyright status.[29] This claim was later explicitly denied by YouTube,[30] which has since reinstated the video.[31]

Why is IP and copyright even protected by law? it's pure protectionism. Just because a whole load of people's jobs are dependant on maintaining their monopolies doesn't mean we shouldn't abolish these stupid laws. Publishers business model is threatened now we have better copying technology. In the past other people have lost jobs due to atomisation. May as well ban tractors because it reduces employment on farms.

If things keep on progressing in the direction of controlling the Internet, then people must wake up and take action, like boycotting companies that support such acts. I personally started thinking about adopting new "hobbies".

This is ridiculous, the Internet belongs to everybody, how dare they think they can ban and take down as they wish.

If this continues, cyber war will come soon, Internet dictators vs freedom fighters, exactly like what's happening in some middle eastern countries, I believe there's no difference.

Edit: After reading about SOPA, I remember back in the days when illegal stuff was sold on CDs, maybe those days will come back? LOL
They can never stop piracy, maybe companies should adopt new creative ways to stop piracy from taking their products, else they should shut up and stop trying.

Last edited by undead_saif (2012 January 21, 11:48 am)

nadiatims wrote:

Why is IP and copyright even protected by law? it's pure protectionism. Just because a whole load of people's jobs are dependant on maintaining their monopolies doesn't mean we shouldn't abolish these stupid laws.

Agree. I just don't think that stealing copyrighted works is making a worthwhile statement or making a positive change. Positive change happens when individuals have the passion to put together new services, new ways of buying and selling, new ways of crowdsourcing and so on.

That's why I think the guys at megaupload are "parasites" (to quote myself). They're taking advantage of the situation and loop holes in the laws, they are posturing and pretending to be the good guys when all they do is take without giving back anything worthwhile.

wrote:

That's why I think the guys at megaupload are "parasites" (to quote myself). They're taking advantage of the situation and loop holes in the laws, they are posturing and pretending to be the good guys when all they do is take without giving back anything worthwhile.

This just demonstrates how the bad guys have already won, they've managed to convince the world that copying is bad. If you sell me a watch, I'm free to reverse engineer, rebuild it and presumably sell it, but if you sell me a book or music file or whatever it's wrong? It's wrong because now our duplication technology is really good? Laws are supposed to promote fairness, but copyright and IP laws are just a way to grant monopoly privileges to certain groups (and this mainly benefits publishers etc not the artists/designers). Copyright an IP laws never even existed before 1709.

nadiatims wrote:

This just demonstrates how the bad guys have already won, they've managed to convince the world that copying is bad. If you sell me a watch, I'm free to reverse engineer, rebuild it and presumably sell it, but if you sell me a book or music file or whatever it's wrong?

Firstly, if it's a patented watch design, no you can't legally make the exact same watch, but that's beside the point.

I hope you understand how completely ridiculous your analogy is.  If you copy a watchmaker's design, you may give him some competition but you do not take away his ability to sell more copies of that watch unless you find a way to manufature it with the exact same quality for a fraction of the price.  The same is not true for creative works.  When you can make an exact copy of some text, video or music and distribute it unrestricted, why would any of these works ever sell more than one copy?  Who would but it? And for how much?  Sure, it might sell a few copies if it's put in some fancy package and sold for a pittance, but as iPads and their ilk make books and other physical media obsolete, even that route is going to eventually dry up.

I'm curious where you get this sense of entitlement that makes you think you have a right to the fruits of others' labor without paying for it.  Why shouldn't writers and musicians be paid for their work?

nadiatims wrote:

JimmySeal wrote:

Firstly, if it's a patented watch design, no you can't legally make the exact same watch, but that's beside the point.

and don't you think thats completely ridiculous?

Not in the slightest.  Inventors should have some assurance that they will be able to capitalize on their ideas and not have someone profiteer off their innovation and hard work a month after they release it to the world.
But as I already said, that's beside the point.

we passed laws allowing people to attempt to hold onto their ideas after letting them go (keep their cake and eat it too).

This makes no sense.  The creative ideas behind an ephemeral artistic work such as a book or audio recording have no value if the creator keeps them to his or herself.  They also have almost no value if the artist is only able to sell one copy of it before someone goes off and distributes it to everyone on the internet without restriction.  It only has any real value when they are able to release it to the world and still hold the rights to indicate how it is distributed, so no this is not a case of having one's cake and eating it too.
People like you who spend $8 on a CD and think that gives them the right to give a copy to everyone they know are the ones who are trying to have their cake and eat it 100 times.

If you sell me a physical object it becomes my property, which I am free to do with as I like, including duplicating.

On what grounds are you making this claim?

Why should it be any different if you sell me a manuscript/a song or anything else?

Because the work that goes into an artistic work is an intangible commodity that extends far beyond the simple act of printing it.  It only has any monetary value when there is control over how it is reused.  The same is not true for a physical product like a car or television.

You pass it on, it becomes mine. If you forbid me to do with it as I please, you are imposing yourself on my property rights (eg. the rights to use my time/my paper/my printing press/whatever).

The paper and the ink are yours.  The content belongs to someone else.  You do not have a right to reproduce their intellectual property the same way you don't have a right to print counterfeit money. Artists have a right to have their intellectual property protected.  Your rights are not the only ones in play here.
By spending $8 on a CD or book, you have not purchased the countless hours of work that went into producing it.  That is not yours to squander as you see fit.  You have simply purchased the right to use that media in accordance with the copyright agreement.

If a writer (or anyone else for that matter) sells their ideas to someone on the agreement that they keep them secret and that person reveals it then they are breaking a contract (and can be pursued by the law), but a third party who finds the information somewhere never entered into any contract so they aren't doing anything wrong.

Thanks to copyright law, anyone who consumes a copyrighted work is implicitly entering a contract not to reproduce it without permission. If you don't like that, don't consume it.

The person who benefits from copyright laws obviously is the holder of the copyright, but they are able to externalise the cost of enforcement to the state, even though it provides zero benefit to the tax payer.

Copyright protects the artists who can expect some remuneration for the creation of a quality work, the publishers who pay the artists for the right to produce and distribute it, and the consumers who can enjoy quality work thanks to the protection provided by copyright.  Copyright provides a very real benefit to nearly all taxpayers.

Copyright an IP laws never even existed before 1709.

What's your point?  A lot of laws didn't exist before 1709.

I asked a very pertinent question in my last post which you did not answer, so I will ask it more precisely this time:
How would you propose that writers and musicians receive any benefit from their written works and recordings if they can only sell one copy before it's reproduced ad infinitum without any benefit to the person who produced it?

Last edited by JimmySeal (2012 January 22, 5:27 pm)