How would SOPA affect us?

by Aussie Oz 19 Replies latest jw friends

  • Aussie Oz
    Aussie Oz

    I note a lot of recent news about SOPA and both sides of the story.

    I hope this will not turn into a debate about it or its legalities or the constitution, it's about the effect of it itself.

    Mixed in no doubt is a large amount of speculation from both sides as to how it will or will not work and the 'freedoms' under threat. I beleive the concept of protecting intelectual property etc is fine, as i want the same protection for my artwork etc, but i gather this bill may go to far as it were...

    Many feel it will adversely effect the internet in as diverse ways as making sites shut down either by force in in self protection such as ETSY, FLICKR, UTUBE, WIKIPEDIA and SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES.

    Is it all being blown out of proportion?

    Do we as an online community very used to posting, cut n paste, links etc face the risk of Simon having to pull the pin?

    I can't see how posting relevant snippets or links as per the old standard of copyright laws being a problem as opposed to whole articles etc...

    What is the general consensus?

    Oz

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    They once tried to prohibit booze. They created a very powerful criminal class and had to back down on the booze. Same thing will happen if they try and prohibit behaviour on the net. Media is too expensive and the market is correcting that.

  • Aussie Oz
    Aussie Oz

    Yes Qcmbr, but is it not really a case of 'the market' trying to get the 'media' for nothing?

    That is the 'piracy' the media is trying to stop is it not?...not the making it cheaper.

    A movie or a song online for $2 or $10 really is not expensive. Part of me sees the issue because i don't like it when someone pirates my wifes graphic art rather than pay her $20 for a copy.

    Back to my point though, regardless of the arguments...How will it affect OUR online community?

  • zagor
    zagor

    Basically, wtbs will be able to sue you for every article you quote on a website for which they haven't given their permission...

    As far as industry is concern, many forget that Silicon Valley would never have existed if this thing was in place over last few decades. There is not a single company there that hasn't benefited from someone else's idea.

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    The reason why media is too expensive is simple supply and demand. There are so many types of media that it is not even feasible that I will be able to consume - let's narrow it to films - all the films produced. In this oversupply situation charging £10/$10 is not a good market price (in my case I always wait to buy last years blockbusters for £3 which is the price I am prepared to pay for main stream films.) I think we'll see media move to a subscription only service where selling an individual media item will no longer be possible but subscribing to a warner distribution channel will be.

    In your wife's case - assuming she has a good niche - she can still sell for a market price.

    In all cases thievery is wrong morally and socially expensive however thieves exist on both sides, the media seller who overprices their product creates a market for thieves and exploites (steals utility from) the consumer by artificailly controlling supply. The consumption of artistic products should not be free but nor should it be constrained.

    This act however, is not about stopping thieves (that battle is utterly lost) it is purely about distorting the market to steal utility from consumers and has a side effect of curtailing some of the most incredible sources of information such as wikipaedia. When laws are put in place to constrain freedom - no matter the excuse - the result is that the law abiding majority pay more for a reduced service (check for example what has happened to your holiday flight routine since a single terrorist attack was used as an excuse to visually strip search you.) Never ever get fooled into thinking that anything in politics is about principles - its always about money, always.

    p.s. not that money is actually a bad reason to do things! It just menas that the counter argument should always show how the misuse of resources is not morally better than a market driven resource allocation. In other words this act is wrong because of its cost not because thievery is right. Thieving can be solved by resource allocation much better than by law and punishment:)

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    SOPA will go way beyond preventing piracy, which it won't be very effective at doing. The effect will be removal of any site that is even suspected of having a single link to infringing material. Proof is not required. Mere suggestion that it could have a link is enough--meaning the Washtowel Babble and Crap Slaveholdery could knock out all apostate web sites merely by claiming that they have copies of old rags that are copyrighted, or links to such copies. That will give the Washtowel Slaveholdery the upper hand on anyone that is seeking information about the religion, and people will be joining the cancer to find out about it like they did in the mid and late 1980s.

    It will also restrict your freedom to speak out against the Establishment. User uploaded content will be suspect of having links to "infringing material" and will have to be heavily moderated or shut down. Most sites will choose to shut down, especially if SOPA and not PIPA passes (SOPA adds the ability to get sued, not just shut down, for infringing material). Alternative news media and health sites will be eliminated through this--all it takes is for the big drug companies or CBS to cry "infringement", and the sites get shut down (and, under SOPA, sued).

    Additionally, it will restrict online businesses. All Walmart needs do is claim that Battery Junction or L.L.Bean is "infringing" on some tiny detail, and their sites get pulled down. They don't need to prove the infringement--a claim is enough. Fine businesses like Stonewall Kitchen, L.L.Bean, Battery Junction, Christmas Lights Etc, 1000 Bulbs, and Tiger Electronics will face these claims from Walmart, Target, Morgue Stanley, and Best Buy. This will limit your ability to get good products--I myself use those would-be affected companies to buy batteries, flashlights, chargers, clothing, electronics parts and tools, decent food preparation products, light bulbs, and Christmas supplies not available at Walmart and Home Dumpot. I would rather spend the extra money--which is soon to become toilet paper anyways--now, on quality, than save it now by buying rubbish and having to replace it after my money becomes worthless.

    Another unexpected effect is it will narrow your entertainment choices. You have a small-time band, and wish to post a video on YouTube to bypass "Clear(??)"Channel radio. So you perform it, only to find YouTube is shut down because they cannot prevent the tiniest chance of "infringing content". Or, your video has a note (yup, one single note) that matches a note on a copyrighted song. So, the record labels or "Clear(??)"Channel radio sues for infringement on that note. While under normal law it will do nothing, under PIPA it will get your video pulled down and the site closed down. Under SOPA, the site will also face getting sued. Jail time is also a possibility if they feel like pursuing it.

    Which could lead to even worse. With alternative sources for music shut down (even iTunes and Rhapsody could be shut down for allowing some limited sharing and/or samples to be played without buying the songs), you are limited to the radio. They quit any pretense of entertainment and just play rubbish all the time. Maybe even one song--the Ingrid Michaelson Everybody Everybody song, which to me is complete rubbish, comes to mind--all the time. Just because people no longer have the option of getting their music online or buying new MP3's. While SOPA will not stop you from playing existing MP3's you own, it will stop you from playing streaming content or renting songs from Rhapsody (as tethered downloads). Once your license expires, that's it.

    Instead, to buy a song, you need to buy a physical CD. And it will not be like the CDs you got in the 1990s. You will need a special player, and there will be a "huge catalog of more than 800 CDs" to choose from. "More than 800 titles--probably not much more. They will be all rubbish. No more of the hot titles like Saturday Night Fever, Thriller, Rumors (Fleetwood Mac), Led Zeppelin's boxed set, The Eagles Greatest--just the crap that got forgotten for good reason. You will buy the CD, and get the "right" to play it a limited number of times. If you skip around, each time you start the disc anywhere on it, it uses up a play right. Attempting to copy it onto another format (MP3, mini disc, cassette, or another regular CD) will result in the snitch chip in the CD you are trying to copy deactivating your right for that disc and any other discs under your ID.

    All this, because they can get away with it. Why carry a catalog of 12 million CD titles when you can just get the 800 or so cheapest and crappiest CDs, get the license to sell them, and charge 500 toilet papers or more for a single disc with a mere 5 play rights per disc? And, the artists would get virtually nothing--the Rothschilds would end up getting virtually all the money. All because the competition is knocked out--once you knock out the competition, it is only a matter of time before it degenerates to this level. And, with the United Tyranny of Stupidity preventing new businesses from starting up (anyone trying to sell the other 11,999,200 CD titles will find they cannot get licenses to do so, and anyone trying to sell regular CDs with unlimited play rights and fair use rights will also find they can't get licensed in the United Tyranny of Stupidity).

    Thus, in the name of stopping people from stealing music online (which it will not do, since people will find illegal software to do it anyways, at higher risk of getting worms), commerce will be limited to Walmart and whatever supermarkets Morgue Stanley manages to buy out. Information will be restricted to what the Establishment wishes you to see, including restricting apostate forums and web sites. Alternative media will be wiped out. And alternative sources for music (Internet Radio and the legal downloading sites for music and movies) will be shut down using some obscure portion of the law. Leaving customers with no choice but to buy whatever rubbish the established businesses wish to sell.

  • worldtraveller
    worldtraveller

    Censoring the internet is totally wrong!!

    What's next...closing used book stores?....used record stores?..swap meets?...blocking copy(cut) and pasting in computers?

    Killing Youtube? Amazon?

    Are vcrs considered illegal? Cassette decks? How about mm sticks?

    This p.o.s. legislation is sponsored by the Republican controlled congress. The same bunch who want less government. Hypocrites, all of them!

    If Obama signs it, he will get his a** handed to him come November.

    So where did I sign an agreement that said that I could only use a dvd for myself. Where does it say on the front of the box in clear non lawyer speak? Intillectual property" my butt. Never again will I purchase music or movies! NEVER!!

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Morgue Stanley manages to buy out.

    LOL! Or Goldman Sucks!

    And alternative sources for music (Internet Radio and the legal downloading sites for music and movies) will be shut down using some obscure portion of the law. Leaving customers with no choice but to buy whatever rubbish the established businesses wish to sell.

    Nah. They can try but they will lose. You can't stop the signal.

    This p.o.s. legislation is sponsored by the Republican controlled congress. The same bunch who want less government. Hypocrites, all of them!

    Plenty of Democrats sponsored it buddy. It is a bipartisan ass pounding.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/house-introduces-internet-piracy-bill/2011/10/26/gIQA0f5xJM_blog.html

    The main authors of the bill were Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Howard Berman (D-Calif.).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislators_who_support_or_oppose_SOPA/PIPA

    House of Representatives:

    Senate:

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Interesting observations from a Democrat-oriented political site:

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/19/sopa-activism-moves-republicans-more-than-democrats/

    Yesterday’s SOPA strike was enormously successful, not only raising attention to the issue but moving a tremendous amount of politicians for a one-day event. Over 4.5 million people signed Google’s petitionagainst SOPA. The Wikipedia action gave high-profile attention to the issue as well, and even if Facebook and Twitter’s responses were muted, overall the online community made themselves heard.

    But those of us charting the protest yesterday were struck by how most of the lawmakers turning against the bill were Republicans. If you look at the latest whip count on PIPA, for example, you see that more Republicans oppose it at this point than Democrats.

    Instead, Democrats by and large finessed their responses, claiming that they would work to fix the finished product. Markos Moulitsas lets Democrats have it:

    You have an entire wired generation focused on this issue like a laser, fighting like hell to protect their online freedoms, and it’s FUCKING REPUBLICANS who are playing the heroes by dropping support?

    Those goddam Democrats would rather keep collecting their Hollywood checks, than heed the will of millions of Americans who have lent their online voice in an unprecedented manner.

    Are they really this stupid? Can they really be this idiotic?

    Are they really going to cede this issue to Republicans, hand them this massive public victory, then get left with nothing but public scorn when SOPA and PIPA go down in flames?

    Democrats better start lining up on the right side of this issue.

  • Aussie Oz
    Aussie Oz

    1. Does this mean then that being able to quote limited portions of books etc as is allowed under copyright laws curently will no longer be legal?

    2. I remember the days of VHS and how we were all told there would be video police who could enter your home and check for 'illegal' tapes from the TV...never happened of course, could this be the same? I mean, surely this will be too hard to police except for the most obvious and flagrant stuff...

    Maybe we better all swap, trade and download everything we can before big brother deletes the past.

    Oz

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit