Sopa - The discussion

It will eventually pass, not at it's current wording, but some kind of SOPA/PIPA law will eventually find its way to law. There's too much money by the record/studios/etc invested in passing such laws. The trouble is that their business models are outdated, this thing (the Internet) is something that should break old paradigms on how to share knowledge/innovation and how to make revenue of it by the corporations. I get the feeling that they dont want to adapt to this new age. The Internet should remake our way of thinking and living. A huge leap similar from the middle ages to the Renaissance.
 
To me the Internet isnt just a tool that we use for everyday life. The true age of the internet should change everything.  I once believed that if all the information there is, would be open to the public on the Internet. We would find answers and new discoveries exponentially faster than we do today.  Through sharing info (even restricted info). Science, arts, politics should be remodeled by the Internet, not the other way around. 
 
I believe in a truly open source Internet.
I believe that the Internet is more than just a business or a tool. We should dump old paradigms
I do not download music I like. I try to buy from the artists website if not buy at retail stores.
...... lol I got derailed talking about a free internet... well long story short:
 
TL;DR SOPA/PIPA is poorly written, opens more a window for abuse than it is a contribution to legality. Killing the true nature of the Internet.
 
 

Well said, toky.  I agree.

Ok, after this thread thus far, and the video I watched. It sounds like they want to take websites that enables illegal activity with other websites down. Sounds like a mostly great idea needs tweaking. In fact what this law is talking about isn't a far stretch from what I understand of some very reasonable law enforcement already going on. 
 
Really this doesn't sound as bad as people seem to make it out to be except slightly in it's execution. I fail to see how this is all "that" bad. This is a great start to a great idea. America has standards and laws. Some other websites don't operate within those standards or laws. So we are going to make american websites not able to do business with other websites outside our laws or standards.... That doesn't even come close to sounding like a bad idea.
 
My only problem with the bill is that it is very broad and not very specific..... 
 
 

Bails

Spunky

At some point, Google and Yahoo are going to have to take SOME responsibility. They are going to have to, because the alternative is even less desireable.

What is the alternative?

I'd be interested in this, too.

Well the alternative could be an even more unreasonable version of the bill eventually DOES pass. It would help if websites like yahoo and google just come right up front and say "hey, ya know, this is what we'll do to help with this piracy thing" But being flat out against the flow just aint helpin. 

Spunky


It is interesting the more thought I give it.

Going after pirates didn't work.  You can't go after foreign websites - at least not without the origin country's support.  So, what's left?  Get the middle man to do it for you. 

Them's some powerful lobbyists.

Also, I would assume we'd be blocking sites for violating US copyright, no?  But US laws wouldn't apply to a non-US based site.  Yes, I know about the international treaties and such.  Just stick with me anyway...

So, hypothetically, could not the content on that foreign site potentially be legal in the country of origin?   Yet we would/could be blocking that site on the basis of it violating laws it is not bound to follow. 

Isn't that a VERY slippery slope we're thinking about going down?

IMO, you've hit all the relevant nails on the head.
 
And, Yes I think this is a terribly dangerous and slippery slope.

DougMasters
 

Bails
 

Spunky
 

At some point, Google and Yahoo are going to have to take SOME responsibility. They are going to have to, because the alternative is even less desireable.

 

What is the alternative?

 

I'd be interested in this, too. 

 

Well the alternative could be an even more unreasonable version of the bill eventually DOES pass. It would help if websites like yahoo and google just come right up front and say "hey, ya know, this is what we'll do to help with this piracy thing" But being flat out against the flow just aint helpin.  

 


That is a terrible reason to vote for any bill. I am extremely happy that the response to this bill has pretty much ensured that this bill and any bill more unreasonable than this one will never pass.
 
Google is a search provider. It isn't their job, nor should it be, to police the sites that appear on the web. It's like saying the Feds should hold state and city officials responsible for local crimes that occur under their jurisdiction. 

LiquidDreams

DougMasters
 

Bails
 

Spunky
 

At some point, Google and Yahoo are going to have to take SOME responsibility. They are going to have to, because the alternative is even less desireable.

 

What is the alternative?

 

I'd be interested in this, too. 

 

Well the alternative could be an even more unreasonable version of the bill eventually DOES pass. It would help if websites like yahoo and google just come right up front and say "hey, ya know, this is what we'll do to help with this piracy thing" But being flat out against the flow just aint helpin.  

 


That is a terrible reason to vote for any bill. I am extremely happy that the response to this bill has pretty much ensured that this bill and any bill more unreasonable than this one will never pass.

Google is a search provider. It isn't their job, nor should it be, to police the sites that appear on the web. It's like saying the Feds should hold state and city officials responsible for local crimes that occur under their jurisdiction. 

I agree the bill should certainly not pass.
Google is not just a search provider. They are a business making tons and tons of money. They aren't the library.... Your analogy about holding city officials responsible for crimes is flawed as google isn't an administrative body for the internet. A more fitting analogy would be likening google to a business that does business within a local municipality enabling the illegal operation of businesses in a different municipality.
 
Google is a search provider? It's their job? Yeah but it isn't that simple. Why would america continue to remain ok with businesses like google doing business with website or enabling those sites that do things against american law? I am american, i live in america and I do so HOPING my government enforces it's laws within reason. Now I certainly don't see this bill reasonable in execution but something HAS to be done. It ISNT ok to enable illegal activity under the guise of "its the internet bro, everything should be free man" 

Well, under that premise, the USA would enforce all of their laws in every country across the globe. We aren't the only country on the planet and I think other countries deserve to have their sovereignty protected. And I have a very large problem when 99% of this action is because one particular industry can't adapt to a changing business environment. There are laws in the USA that allow copyright holders to protect their rights against violators. Unfortunately, for them, it isn't economically feasibly to their business model to pursue violators in this way. So, they are trying to change the laws.
 
I see a lot of parallells between this topic and the drug war- in reality, it's not a winnable fight.
 
**please note I do not support piracy**

LiquidDreams


So, why don't they just go after the actual sites that host violated copyrighted material? Why are they bothering fucking with sites that link to it? 

Spunky said because many of the sites are not located in the US, and that is correct, but I thought they were targeting Google and Yahoo for two reasons: one, because it creates awareness (look at the disdain and contempt here for anything the recording industry even attempts to do; if it was Google and Yahoo telling you not to pirate, it is a different message) and two, ironically for the same reason that Google and Yahoo are saying they can't help:  because they are big, they have reach, and they are already in the position of touching millions of links to content providers.

LiquidDreams


Well, under that premise, the USA would enforce all of their laws in every country across the globe. We aren't the only country on the planet and I think other countries deserve to have their sovereignty protected. And I have a very large problem when 99% of this action is because one particular industry can't adapt to a changing business environment. There are laws in the USA that allow copyright holders to protect their rights against violators. Unfortunately, for them, it isn't economically feasibly to their business model to pursue violators in this way. So, they are trying to change the laws.

I see a lot of parallells between this topic and the drug war- in reality, it's not a winnable fight.

**please note I do not support piracy**

But thats the point. Other countries sovereignty is protected, isnt in this bill it's the american businesses that are being penalized for supporting illegal activity?
 
You can argue that no legal battle is a winnable fight. Things that will never be eliminated...
 
Drug use, hardcore or any kind.
Piracy
Murder
Theft
Larson
Arson
so on and so on... that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the laws on our own companies. Now to what degree you actually think something should be illegal is always a debate but I dont want to live in a country where laws aren't being enforced.

If I own a business, and my stuff is being sold illegally somewhere else, since I pay taxes to my government and they are supposed to use those things to protect me why wouldn't I fully expect and lobby for my govt. to do just that?
 
The backlash against this bill seems to be less against the bill and more against any enforcement of it on american businesses and that just doesn't make sense to me. Sure you'll never eliminate it completely but in business there needs to be standards. And those have to be enforced. 

Spunky



Oh lord...

Really?  So a little balance and common sense is a bad thing?  I'm sure you'll get the irony, even if it is unintended, but all I'm arguing against is this "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.  I actually agree with most of your positions in one form or another, EXCEPT for the knee-jerk reaction that seems so prevalent here that a) ANYTHING the recording industry does is defacto stupid, greedy and requiring opposition, and b) somehow copyright (and the enforcement of same) is a dirty word.
 
People keep harping on the same points over and over: "it'll shut down sites, it'll shut down sites".  And maybe it will.  But this isn't unlike any one of thousands of bills that have come down this pike before, where the initial effort is deeply flawed, and the sides sling mud and when common sense and reason take back over, it goes to committee and the real essence of the bill(s) gets distilled into something far more workable and acceptable.  This is the process, exacerbated by the election season. 

Stadler

Spunky



Oh lord...

Really?  So a little balance and common sense is a bad thing?  I'm sure you'll get the irony, even if it is unintended, but all I'm arguing against is this "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.  I actually agree with most of your positions in one form or another, EXCEPT for the knee-jerk reaction that seems so prevalent here that a) ANYTHING the recording industry does is defacto stupid, greedy and requiring opposition, and b) somehow copyright (and the enforcement of same) is a dirty word.

People keep harping on the same points over and over: "it'll shut down sites, it'll shut down sites".  And maybe it will.  But this isn't unlike any one of thousands of bills that have come down this pike before, where the initial effort is deeply flawed, and the sides sling mud and when common sense and reason take back over, it goes to committee and the real essence of the bill(s) gets distilled into something far more workable and acceptable.  This is the process, exacerbated by the election season. 

Im very much with stad on this one. In a way this reminds me of the Lacey act... and as far as I know, no mom and pop store has ever been shut down for selling vintage guitars with indian rosewood.
 
Mostly I feel the bill is very flawed but I don't get the knee jerk reaction thing either. 

Not to start a shitfest, but I genuinely appreciate Stadler's views/posts. I certainly do not always agree with his viewpoints. But, I very much respect the points he makes and the time he takes to go out of his way to acknowledge the opinion of the person he disagrees with. If all members were this careful with regards to others' views, we wouldn't even need Mods.
 
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're out of their mind or unreasonable.
 
(You can also add SeventhSon and Spunky to this list. I don't always see eye to eye with them, but after reading their posts for a while, I really respect their opinions.) 

LiquidDreams


I think it has much more to do with there not being much legislation/laws that really affect Google's business. If things start popping up that affect their bottom line, you can bet your ass they will spend whatever it takes on lobbyists to get what they want. We're treading on thin ice with the lobbying issue. So, I am going to leave it at that.

Quoted for truth.  Thank you.
 
The santimony of the tech side of this argument is part of the reason I am going overboard with explaining what this bill does.  It kills me that some people are so ready to castigate the recording industry as "big bad greedy business" and in doing so are only so willing to throw in with what is, well, big bad greedy business of a different sort.  Make no mistake; the positions Google and others are taking on this issue are just that: positions on this issue.  These are tactics and strategies, and these companies are all doing exactly the same thing:  playing to their strength.  If Google's best approach was to pay lobbyists and use the courts, they would in a heartbeat.  In a SECOND, because they have to. They have an obligation to their shareholders.  The MPAA is targeting Washington because they have an established base there (Chris Dodd, former US Senator is the Chairman of the MPAA, and coincidentially, the MPAA is headquartered not in Hollywood, but Washington). 
 
Google had no problem suing Apple, and even the US Government when their interests were being threatened. 
And why doesn't anyone have any heartburn with supposedly content-neutral sites like Google and Wikipedia all of a sudden using those platforms to present content-specific messages?  I mean, I don't have a problem with it, but it does fly against some of the underlying assumptions behind many people's positions supporting these companies, and it certainly does flay against the notion that somehow the tech industry is "above all this". 

LiquidDreams


Not to start a shitfest, but I genuinely appreciate Stadler's views/posts. I certainly do not always agree with his viewpoints. But, I very much respect the points he makes and the time he takes to go out of his way to acknowledge the opinion of the person he disagrees with. If all members were this careful with regards to others' views, we wouldn't even need Mods.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're out of their mind or unreasonable.

(You can also add SeventhSon and Spunky to this list. I don't always see eye to eye with them, but after reading their posts for a while, I really respect their opinions.) 

Thank you for that.  And I extend the same courtesy and respect back to you (and Spunky; I've already covered this with SeventhSon. ;) ).

EXCEPT for the knee-jerk reaction that seems so prevalent here that a) ANYTHING the recording industry does is defacto stupid, greedy and requiring opposition,

 
Just going on history here.  I can't say the recording industry over the last 10 years or so has done anything that isn't stupid, greedy, and requiring opposition.  Playin' the odds.
 
And I also have a *huge* problem with buying legislation.
 
Yes, I realize both are huge generalizations. 
 

and b) somehow copyright (and the enforcement of same) is a dirty word.

 
Not at all.  Although, I do wonder just how much of this is for protecting the artists vs. protecting our business model.  And, I do think copyright needs a serious revision.

Look, too much to try to quote, and the quote function is about as flawed as SOPA and PIPA anyway.
 
Some of you - not all, but some - are getting caught up in the romanticism of the internet, like it is the one last shining symbol of truth, justice, and the American way.  Dudes, 90% of all email now is spam, which is another word for "advertising", which is another word for "business".  The internet is a BUSINESS.  It's not fun to think that way, and Google doesn't want you to think that way, but it is. 
 
The idea of international enforcement of laws is a HUGE issue, beyond piracy and beyond SOPA/PIPA.  It's fun to point fingers at the slow and clumsy government ("yeah, we'lll just bypass the flimdinger, pop in a new HSPF, flag that to the IP of the drambick, and BAM, you're golden!").   How would you like it if we were teaching people how to avoid the DNS or IP or whatever the f it is so that consumers could access child pornography?  Or maybe the real deal, children being sold on the black market? Or maybe we're talking about weapons or drugs of questionable authenticity/origin? 
If I posted a thread here about companies basing their headquarters in foreign countries to avoid tax responsibility in the States, how many would be crying "Foul!!!" on those companies?  Probably a lot.  Not so red, white and blue anymore is it? 

I'm using these analogies not to inflame, but to impress that the mechanism is the same.  There is a law.  Enforceable here.  Not enforceable there. The internet bridges the two, and makes commerce possible both here and there.  How do you provide the protections that the law is intended to provide on that basis?  Lawrence Lessig has made a CAREER out of this one issue.  I don't agree with the limits of it, I don't agree with the ramifications of it, but really, the initial premise of asking those with the best touch to all of these sites to participate in the policing of those sites is not all that crazy or out of whack.  We already do that with ISPs, and we already do that with printed media.  Newspaper - disclaimers to the contrary - can be held liable for publishing advertisements for illegal activities. The general presumption is that newspapers do not have a responsibility to check the veracity of each and every ad, but they have been held responsible when ads are libelous. 
 
I'm not trying to be contrarian or argumentative, just trying to boil this down to the real issue, and weed out the emotional and biased parts of the discussion.

Spunky

EXCEPT for the knee-jerk reaction that seems so prevalent here that a) ANYTHING the recording industry does is defacto stupid, greedy and requiring opposition,

Just going on history here.  I can't say the recording industry over the last 10 years or so has done anything that isn't stupid, greedy, and requiring opposition.  Playin' the odds.

And I also have a *huge* problem with buying legislation.

Yes, I realize both are huge generalizations. 

and b) somehow copyright (and the enforcement of same) is a dirty word.

Not at all.  Although, I do wonder just how much of this is for protecting the artists vs. protecting our business model.  And, I do think copyright needs a serious revision.

Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with you at all, though I would guess (also based on history ;) ) that my revisions to copyright would be different than yours. 
 
But I'm sure you understand that there is no "vs." in your statement. Protecting the artists IS protecting the business model, because that's all it does.  Copyright is SOLELY a commercial issue.  If the IP of the artist wasn't a potential revenue stream, there would be no need for copyright.  That a company gets that revenue is not the deciding factor, since the law doesn't discriminate between who gets what.  The same law that doesn't allow Mike to be paid for WDADU does allow Robert Fripp to be paid for Crimson releases.  Changing the law to prevent Inside Out (or whoever controls the rights for WDADU) from making a buck off Mike would also prevent Robert Fripp from making his living too. (FYI, I may be taking liberties with the WDADU sitiuation; it may not be copyrights that are the hangup there, but you'll get my point). 

^ I agree, which is why I see this issue devolving similarly to matters regarding extradition etc. which we have seen with the drug war. When we can't solve the problem with drug dealers and users inside the USA, the only thing left is to go after the ultimate source. I just don't agree with this philosophy and tactic. 

LiquidDreams


Google is a search provider. It isn't their job, nor should it be, to police the sites that appear on the web. It's like saying the Feds should hold state and city officials responsible for local crimes that occur under their jurisdiction. 

They're not JUST search providers, though.  They are content providers. Maybe Yahoo more than Google, but still.  And when that content is being used in ways that the owner doesn't want (which is their right) problems ensue.
 
And maybe I see this because I am not enamored with the romanticism of the internet, but even if they are just "search providers", there's a sort of "have your cake and eat it too" struggle that has existed long before the internet came up, and that is, if your reason for being is connecting people, and the best way to to X is to target the connections between people, isn't it logical to be asked to participate in doing X?  In other words, Google's argument is that we don't do anything other than connect people with other people/businesses/ideas so we shouldn't have to help.  And the recording industry is basically saying "it costs less, it is more efficient, and more effective to enforce these laws with the help of those that connect people with other people/businesses/ideas".  The problem is that the proposed laws do not do this very well, if at all. 

By the way, I had three alternatives I was thinking of when I said "the alternatives will be worse".  Two of them are:
 
- Google et al proactively becomes more restrictive with the links they provide.  Since all search engines would be in the same boat, presumably the restrictions would be similar, and if not, they would be a marketing differentiator.  IMO, this is a bad thing, because it makes searches content specific and subject to discretion.  I don't know about you, but I don't want someone else deciding what I mean when I do a search (though I recognize that the algorithm does exactly that now).
 
- You get a "tobacco industry type" class action lawsuit against the search providers forcing them to be culpable in some form for the losses to the content generators.  This would possibly lead to a "content tax" which would ultimately be borne by the consumers.  What would scare me is how that would play out.  Would the internet cease to be free?  Would yu have to give your credit card and buy a subscription to google to do searches?  "$0.50 a search, or an unlimited monthly pass for only $9.99!!!" 

A lot of what I said is open to discussion or debate, but I think I am on solid ground when I say that NO ONE - not Congress, the RIAA, the MPAA, or Google et al - has REALLY thought through the ramifications of this discussion beyond the initial issue at hand.  I know for me, the biggest example of the romantic "freedom of the internet" is not that I can download pirated copies of Adrenaline Mob from some site in Kazakhstan, but rather that I don't have to pay a dime for surfing wikipedia and youtube all day long. 
I don't remember the third off the top of my head, but no. 2 was the worst in my eyes.

LiquidDreams


^ I agree, which is why I see this issue devolving similarly to matters regarding extradition etc. which we have seen with the drug war. When we can't solve the problem with drug dealers and users inside the USA, the only thing left is to go after the ultimate source. I just don't agree with this philosophy and tactic. 

But beyond the basic premise of "laws enforceable here, not enforceable there", the drug issue is a hard one to use as a comparison for two reasons:  one, the bad activity isn't limited to the transaction at hand, and two, arguably making the underlying activity legal would remove most of the bad activity.  There is no ancillary crime with pirating (you won't get mugged on the street for money to illegally download the latest Flying Colors release, or you won't overdose on illegal downloading.  Maybe.).  Making illegal downloading legal is a nonsequitor, as really all you could do is remove the price tag, and that would still deprive the artists/industry with the profits they are seeking.  Making drugs legal would arguably regulate the industry better,  reduce ancillary crime, and protect the users from "bad cuts". (FWIW, I did my law school thesis on legalization of drugs). 
 
In short, there are other solutions for resolving the "war on drugs" that aren't present in the copyright issue.

To the above stadler.
 
This is where I start to cringe about it. I feel that everyone is going for hail marry's. Google and the like want to do business as usual and vehemently so. People who own copyright material want to go after these things with seemingly reckless abandon ( thats a little extreme but somewhat apt ) that no one is having the real discussion. Enforcement is inevitable and both sides have legitimate positions and gripes about the concept. So they should really meet in the middle. I fear if they don't we will be left with one far reaching extreme... such as this bill. 

I'm curious:
 
From a legal point of view, what is the justification for different protections between a patent and a copyright?  
 
Other than it being just the way the law evolved.
 

And the recording industry is basically saying "it costs less, it is more efficient, and more effective to enforce these laws with the help of those that connect people with other people/businesses/ideas".

 
Then the recording industry should enlist the help of those providers.  Not force them by law.

Spunky


I'm curious:

From a legal point of view, what is the justification for different protections between a patent and a copyright?  

Other than it being just the way the law evolved.

 
Not sure specifically to what you are referring, but they cover different things (you can throw trademark in there, too).  I'm not an expert on patent law, but I know as a simplistic distinction, "patents" protect the underlying subject matter, and "copyrights" protect the expression.  So George Lucas can have a story about, say, a light saber (lightsabre?),  and you can't use a light saber in your story, but you could invent one and get a patent on it, and George Lucas wouldn't lbe able to build one and sell it (unless he actually developed one as part of his filming of the Star Wars films).  And whoever trademarks the term "Light Saber" might prevent you from calling it that in your story, or him from calling his invention a "light saber" (though maybe not; industry matters). 
 
The short answer to your question is that any differences are theoretically designed to reflect the differences in what the devices are intended to do.  Absent a specific example, not sure where to go next with that question.

Then the recording industry should enlist the help of those providers.  Not force them by law.

You'll get no argument from me on this, but it isn't our decision.  They are entitled to pick the methodology that they think best suits their goals, their outcomes, their resources, and their strategic advantages.  When the Chairman and CEO of one of your biggest allies is a highly respected former 30-year US Senator with a potential presidential/vice presidential CV, you can't ignore the path through Washington.  I think they wildly underestimated (as they have consistently done) the temperature of the water they have chosen to swim in. 

DougMasters


To the above stadler.

This is where I start to cringe about it. I feel that everyone is going for hail marry's.

Good analogy!

The argument against SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with preventing the idiots in congress from passing a technical law that they do not understand the ramifications of in the slightest.  And the other major problem is piracy will not be stopped in the slightest.  Oh no, you blocked the DNS resolution for a site?  If only I could point at an exisiting foreign DNS site...oh wait, I can! 
 
So while not hurting the actual pirate sites, you will be hurting any crowd-sourced content sites.  You will now make a forum like this one approve every post or face a SOPA violation when someone posts a bad link.  Potentially, instead of just deleting the post, they can go straight to a blacklist and disappear from the regular internet.  It is like closing down a giant apartment complex because a person living in one of their apartments was a drug dealer, and the owners are held responsible.
 
Companies need to learn to adapt to changing technology.  These are the same companies that claimed if you are using a DVR and fast forward through the commercials you are a thief.  Adapt to the digital age and make it convenient for people to access your content and piracy goes down.  I know plenty of people that only pirate because they cannot get access to a reasonably priced streaming or digital version of a TV show they wanted to watch.  Offer value added services and normal customers will not pirate.  The hard-core pirates always will, but they will never be your true customers in the first place.

Deaden


The argument against SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with preventing the idiots in congress from passing a technical law that they do not understand the ramifications of in the slightest.  And the other major problem is piracy will not be stopped in the slightest.  Oh no, you blocked the DNS resolution for a site?  If only I could point at an exisiting foreign DNS site...oh wait, I can! 

So while not hurting the actual pirate sites, you will be hurting any crowd-sourced content sites.  You will now make a forum like this one approve every post or face a SOPA violation when someone posts a bad link.  Potentially, instead of just deleting the post, they can go straight to a blacklist and disappear from the regular internet.  It is like closing down a giant apartment complex because a person living in one of their apartments was a drug dealer, and the owners are held responsible.

Companies need to learn to adapt to changing technology.  These are the same companies that claimed if you are using a DVR and fast forward through the commercials you are a thief.  Adapt to the digital age and make it convenient for people to access your content and piracy goes down.  I know plenty of people that only pirate because they cannot get access to a reasonably priced streaming or digital version of a TV show they wanted to watch.  Offer value added services and normal customers will not pirate.  The hard-core pirates always will, but they will never be your true customers in the first place.

What I think makes it worse, is that I think congress knows exactly the possible ramifications and don't care. That scares me even more. 

My main argument against this legislation is that I have zero confidence in the people designing the legislation

Deaden


The argument against SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with preventing the idiots in congress from passing a technical law that they do not understand the ramifications of in the slightest.  And the other major problem is piracy will not be stopped in the slightest.  Oh no, you blocked the DNS resolution for a site?  If only I could point at an exisiting foreign DNS site...oh wait, I can! 

 
Misses the point.  Totally. They don't want to necessarily go from 1,000,000 to 0.  They know they are losing their shirts at 1,000,000, so let's do what we can to get to 100.  Or 1,000.  I think this notion of "blocking the DNS resolution for a site" assumes an awful lot.  Sure there are probably some computer hotshots that have 300GB of music because they masked their IP and did all this nonsense that I know nothing of, but I don't think that is who we are talking about. 

So while not hurting the actual pirate sites, you will be hurting any crowd-sourced content sites.  You will now make a forum like this one approve every post or face a SOPA violation when someone posts a bad link.  Potentially, instead of just deleting the post, they can go straight to a blacklist and disappear from the regular internet.  It is like closing down a giant apartment complex because a person living in one of their apartments was a drug dealer, and the owners are held responsible.

 
Well, that's what the effect of the badly written bill is; all of your concerns can be fixed, though.  Don't need to "approve every post".  Need to add Rule 17: NO LINKS OF ANY KIND.  PERIOD.  POST A LINK = PERMANENT BAN.  Not that this is good, mind you, but it is the likely response.  I like your analogy, and I think that is the problem with the current bills, in that they could operate that way.  But I don't think it will be unreasonable to see a soliution that reads more like:  "It is like closing down a giant apartment complex because a person living in one of their apartments was a drug dealer, and the owners knew about it and did nothing are held responsible.

Companies need to learn to adapt to changing technology.  These are the same companies that claimed if you are using a DVR and fast forward through the commercials you are a thief.  Adapt to the digital age and make it convenient for people to access your content and piracy goes down.  I know plenty of people that only pirate because they cannot get access to a reasonably priced streaming or digital version of a TV show they wanted to watch.  Offer value added services and normal customers will not pirate.  The hard-core pirates always will, but they will never be your true customers in the first place.

Therein lies the dilemma, though.  What's "reasonably priced"?  Because now the standard is "$0".  I tend to think you are right in theory, and wrong in practice.  And besides, the answer to not thinking the price is "reasonable" is NOT to steal it.  It is to not buy it.  That's the catch-22 with this.  I think we all agree that one contributing factor of why piracy escalated is the higher prices and reduced availability of some material (why can I not readily purchase - prefereably from the artist - Peter Gabriel's b-sides??).  The market f-ed itself by not letting it self-correct on its own (it's called the Prisoner's Dilemma, by the way) and instead introduced this false variable into the equation.  The market is not going to go to zero.  It just won't, at least until you get where LiveNation is intending to head, which is having a company serve ALL of an artist's needs, from merch to music to live performances.  LiquidDreams' model is awesome (seriously) but it fails in one regard:  your asking one actor (be it promoters, record label, or merch supplier) to take it in the shorts for the benefit of someone else.  Companies don't - AND SHOULDN"T - work that way.  So you'll end up with LiveNation handling all of it, putting a surcharge whereever they can, and you end up paying. Or stealing, and we're right back where we started. 
 
And while I am sure you get it, you said something about Congress not knowing the ramifications of what they are doing here, and while you are correct, you are only half correct.  Neither side does.   

I think Deaden, Doug, and Fish have nailed a lot of the concern here.

Stadler

  But the underlying premise is not flawed, even if the execution is:  it is asking owners/operators of sites to be responsible for their content.  What the problem is, is that sites like Google and Yahoo, and even Wikipedia, want to be able to act as portals and not gatekeepers.  They want the traffic to flow by, but they don't want to be responsible for it.  

Actually, that underlying premise IS a problem.
 
Do you know how difficult it would be to actively and preemptively police every comment on every post in every part of a website to ensure that NOBODY EVER posts a link to material that could be interpreted as infringing copyright?  With websites as big as facebook, google and wikipedia, it simply cannot be done.

Stadler



Well, that's what the effect of the badly written bill is; all of your concerns can be fixed, though.  Don't need to "approve every post".  Need to add Rule 17: NO LINKS OF ANY KIND.  PERIOD.  POST A LINK = PERMANENT BAN.  Not that this is good, mind you, but it is the likely response.  I like your analogy, and I think that is the problem with the current bills, in that they could operate that way.  But I don't think it will be unreasonable to see a soliution that reads more like:  "It is like closing down a giant apartment complex because a person living in one of their apartments was a drug dealer, and the owners knew about it and did nothing are held responsible.
  

Actually, under SOPA and PIPA, that would not absolve this forum.  Even if a user would be permanently banned for it, it would still be possible to post copyright infringing content on the site, and thus, it could be taken down.
 
Sorry if this is a double post... idk if anyone's responded to my previous post yet... if not, sorry, not trying to cramp up the forum or anything, just saw AFTER I responded to the first bit...

MEGAUPLOAD was just taken down by the FBI. 
 
And they want MORE power with SOPA/PIPA? This whole megaupload case reeks abuse of power. Did you know about the video supporting megaupload was taken also down due to copyright infringement that rightfully megaupload has. Scary the full power of corporations.
 
Also I was thinking that even in a world after 9/11. I could search in google how to make a bomb or join a hate group, but they want to change how search engine works to pressure piracy? So they went after piracy first than national security. These law makers...who are they working for?
 
Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc
 
 

 Granted that in MEGAUPLOAD you could find tons of copyright stuff but so we could find at the beginning of youtube. With the new persecution how many projects like youtube would be shutdown preemptively 

But doesnt youtube now remove things that infringe on copyright stuff if someone complains? My question about the megaupload thing is were they doing ANYTHING to help prevent the piracy?

As much as I don't want the government and industry calling the regulatory shots, I also don't want guys like Stallman, Page, Brin, and Zuckerberg in control either.   So I guess I'm on the fence with regards to SOPA and PIPA.  We have copyright laws and IP laws for a reason and the current "Wild West" nature of the internet is bad for businesses that rely on these laws.  Sites like YouTube blatantly flaunt copyright laws that you or I would be sued for if we did what they do.  You can't have one set of laws for the big companies and another set for everyone else.
 
I like access to content as much as anyone else, but I also understand why certain industries are pushing for this regulation.  Also, I use services like Rhapsody, Netflix, iTunes, Direct2Drive, Steam, Safari Online, etc. that make premium content both affordable AND legal.  Frankly, I'd rather see the internet go in this service-oriented direction than the alternative YouTube-ish and Facebook-ish user content driven direction.
 
BTW, I use this forum enough to justify paying for it as well.  I really wouldn't mind a reasonable fee to offset the cost of moderators, servers, etc.  Yeah, I know that nobody would use this forum if it cost money, but it just goes to show how much we've started taking things that are free to us yet cost others for granted.  The internet isn't "free" nor was it ever meant to be.  It was actually developed for funded military, research, and educational use.  I used it back then.  Anyone remember Gopher or Archie or Veronica?

I'll tell you, I've pirated a lot of things. When I was 14, I had a nickname at my school. Captain Yaple. Yes, Yaple is my last name, and it isn't that clever. Until you realized it was a nickname for a pirate ship they called Mountain Dew. (I drank 4-6 liters of the stuff everyday). My freshman and sophomore years of highschool I literally downloaded TB's (at least 10 or 15) of music and movies. And back then, getting all the hardware to store all of that was expensive. In fact, I did it over the school's network and you could see the bandwidth spikes and night and, as I was told, it was amazing. I literally would bring the network down to a screeching halt at night. A=
 
The older I've gotten, the more I just buy things. Pirating was actually just easier because it was a click away. With the iTunes is (especially on the iPhone), it's just so easy to get things, pirating never happens from me anymore.
 
(though, I still have all the other stuff!)

DougMasters


But doesnt youtube now remove things that infringe on copyright stuff if someone complains? My question about the megaupload thing is were they doing ANYTHING to help prevent the piracy?

Allowing people to post copyrighted material until someone complains about it IS copyright infringement at the volume that YouTube does it.  They've been sued numerous times and lost many of the cases, but not all.  Just goes to show you how much subjectiveness there is in interpretation of law across state and national borders.  Just because they have the bankroll to pay for expensive lawyers, bribes, kickbacks, carve outs, etc., doesn't make what they do right.