Jump to content

SOPA


Quin

Recommended Posts

Seeing as there was no thread for this yet...

 

I loved the clip of how a number of Congressman said they "weren't enough of a nerd" to understand SOPA and need to "get some nerds in here."

 

Or as Jon Stewart called them "experts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 12:38 AM)
Seeing as there was no thread for this yet...

 

I loved the clip of how a number of Congressman said they "weren't enough of a nerd" to understand SOPA and need to "get some nerds in here."

 

Or as Jon Stewart called them "experts."

That made me laugh and also hate my country all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 03:41 PM)
Those clips of the congressmen just reminded how f***ed up it is that we have people creating laws where they have absolutely no idea what they are legislating for/against.

 

It actually encouraged me that she is smart enough to ask for help when she doesn't know something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:14 PM)
If piratebay and firstrow.tv get shut down i don't know if ill have any other use for the interwebs outside of cupcake recipes.

 

I'd learn a new hobby then. This bill is gonna get passed with some form of foreign site blocking.

 

They're doing the same s*** they did with online poker. They have no jurisdiction over an overseas website, so they attack the problem from the other end: killing off the demand for the site to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:18 PM)
I'd learn a new hobby then. This bill is gonna get passed with some form of foreign site blocking.

 

They're doing the same s*** they did with online poker. They have no jurisdiction over an overseas website, so they attack the problem from the other end: killing off the demand for the site to exist.

 

I sincerely hope that this completely unnecessary bill dies a quick death, but I doubt it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:04 PM)

In other words, we've just been given a nice real-world example of why SOPA isn't even needed if they go ahead and enforce laws already in place.

 

Of course, it helps that Megaupload had some servers in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:28 PM)
I sincerely hope that this completely unnecessary bill dies a quick death, but I doubt it will.

 

I don't know that it's "unnecessary." Despite my hatred for the big media companies, they do have a legit gripe with overseas servers/domains pirating their stuff and posting it online for everyone to see for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:39 PM)
In other words, we've just been given a nice real-world example of why SOPA isn't even needed if they go ahead and enforce laws already in place.

Of course, it helps that Megaupload had some servers in the US.

 

Not only helps, but that's the only reason they could go after them. With existing law Megaupload could go to Barbados and set up shop and they'd be back in business without breaking the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something should be done about piracy, it is unfair to content producers and will ultimately hurt consumers who value quality new content.

 

Technology will move too fast for any solution to work for more than a very short time.

 

As far as elected leaders needing to be experts, that is impossible. We have to hope they hire the best experts they can and follow sound advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:45 PM)
I don't know that it's "unnecessary." Despite my hatred for the big media companies, they do have a legit gripe with overseas servers/domains pirating their stuff and posting it online for everyone to see for free.

 

They possibly have a legitimate gripe. Their gripe does not support the extreme measures that SOPA/PIPA would put into place. Chris Dodd, now CEO of the MPAA, compared it favorably to Chinese control of the internet.

 

They're crying poor because they (RIAA & MPAA) keep putting out terrible garbage that people don't want to pay retail for and conflate every download as a loss at full retail price.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how...he-u-s-economy/

http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyrig...s-con-congress/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:42 PM)
Also, you gotta laugh at the way things like "$500,000,000 in damages" are calculated. Yeah, you're really losing out on full retail price for every download!

 

it has to be more than that for sure. i haven't paid for a piece of software or an album since 1998, and i know there has to be billions more pirates worldwide doing the same for even longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:42 PM)
You can find the indictment here:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment

 

The logic they lay out makes sense but legally I have zero idea if they have a case.

 

Also, you gotta laugh at the way things like "$500,000,000 in damages" are calculated. Yeah, you're really losing out on full retail price for every download!

 

 

I'm not certain how to calculate the loses. I think it is a fact that a lot of people would do without if they couldn't pirate a copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:48 PM)
Something should be done about piracy, it is unfair to content producers and will ultimately hurt consumers who value quality new content.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $20 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $5 or $10. The same for new movies.

 

If the RIAA and MPAA hadn't been such dinosaurs and completely resisted digital supply going back to Napster, they wouldn't be in these positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:49 PM)
They possibly have a legitimate gripe. Their gripe does not support the extreme measures that SOPA/PIPA would put into place. Chris Dodd, now CEO of the MPAA, compared it favorably to Chinese control of the internet.

 

They're crying poor because they (RIAA & MPAA) keep putting out terrible garbage that people don't want to pay retail for and conflate every download as a loss at full retail price.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how...he-u-s-economy/

http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyrig...s-con-congress/

 

Possibly? s***ty movie/tv show/picture/book or not, if you made it and get the copyright and someone else steals it and puts it out there for free, that's wrong and you have a legitimate gripe to complain about someone stealing from you.

 

And I agree 100% that SOPA/PIPA go too far, but that's why I think ultimately the bill will only have the foreign site stuff in there. That'll appease the "internet industry" since they won't be at the whim of copyright holders to be 100% certain that their sites are clean from any reference to some infringing material.

 

Edit: ugh, i really gotta check my grammEr before hitting post.

Edited by Jenksismybitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:54 PM)
Possibly? s***ty movie/tv show/picture/book or not, if you made it and get the copyright and someone else steals it and puts it out there for free, that's wrong and you have a legitimate gripe to complain about someone stealing from you.

 

And I agree 100% that SOPA/PIPA go too far, but that's why I think ultimately the bill will only have the foreign site stuff in there. That'll appease the "internet industry" since they won't be at the whim of copyright holders to be 100% certain that their sites are clean from any reference to some infringing material.

 

Edit: ugh, i really gotta check my grammEr before hitting post.

 

I'd have to dig but I believe impact studies have been done that show an increase in overall sales. Either way, my point (which I completely failed to actually make!) was that their gripe in relation to their desired solution is laughable.

 

from the Cato article:

Believe it or not, though, it’s actually even worse than that. SOPA, recall, does not actually shut down foreign sites. It only requires (ineffective) blocking of foreign “rogue sites” for U.S. Internet users. It doesn’t do anything to prevent users in (say) China from downloading illicit content on a Chinese site. If we’re interested in the magnitude of the piracy harm that SOPA is aimed at addressing, then, the only relevant number is the loss attributable specifically to Internet piracy by U.S. users.

 

Again, we don’t have the full LEK study, but one of Siwek’s early papers does conveniently reproduce some of LEK’s PowerPoint slides, which attempt to break the data down a bit. Of the total $6.1 billion in annual losses LEK estimated to MPAA studios, the amount attributable to online piracy by users in the United States was $446 million—which, by coincidence, is roughly the amount grossed globally by Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel.

 

So in a fantasy world where U.S. movie pirates don’t just circumvent blockage with a browser plugin, and SOPA actually stops all online movie piracy by American users, we get a $446 million economic benefit to the United States in the form of movie revenues, and presumably comparable benefits in music and software revenues? Well, no. Remember our old friend the Broken Window Fallacy. It’s true that some illicit U.S. downloads displace sales of legal products. But what happens to the money the pirates would have otherwise spent on those legal copies? They don’t eat it! As that same GAO report helpfully points out:

 

They b****ed and moaned with the advent of VCR's. It would destroy the industry. Instead, it boasted sales and spurred an entirely new one (home video). They need to adapt with technology, not severely alter its fundamental structure because they want more profits.

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balta brings up a great point here:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...p;#entry2537157

 

Soxtalk could be completely shut down and scrubbed from all Google searches etc. if a company who owned a copyrighted article copied in full to this forum requested it.

 

edit: I've also read, from numerous sources, that this wouldn't actually do anything to seriously stop piracy. It'd be about as effective as the War on Drugs, with less bloodshed but still huge disparate impacts on everyone but the RIAA/MPAA.

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 04:52 PM)
It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $20 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $5 or $10. The same for new movies.

 

If the RIAA and MPAA hadn't been such dinosaurs and completely resisted digital supply going back to Napster, they wouldn't be in these positions.

 

 

I agree. However, you could keep rolling this back all the way to free so I'm not that certain it is relevant.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $20 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $5 or $10. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $10 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $3 or $5. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $5 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $1 or $2. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $1 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $.5 or $.25. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want a pirate download for an album but would gladly download a free copy from the official source. The same for new movies.

 

Someone check me on this but iirc I was paying $10 to $15 for 8-Tracks and albums in the 1970s. Adjusted for inflation, that makes music, even at $20 a CD, cheaper today than 40 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:01 PM)
I'd have to dig but I believe impact studies have been done that show an increase in overall sales.

 

They b****ed and moaned with the advent of VCR's. It would destroy the industry. Instead, it boasted sales and spurred an entirely new one (home video). They need to adapt with technology, not severely alter its fundamental structure because they want more profits.

 

The profitability arguments don't really fly these days. Maybe back in 2001 when all this stuff was really coming to a head (with music anyway) and you didn't have the memory capabilities we have today. Back then you might have downloaded a few albums and then grabbed a copy of the CD so you could listen to it on the road or something. But nowadays everything can be digital and you can take it anywhere you want to go (via a flashdrive, memory card, smartphone, external hard drive, etc)

 

Are we really naive enough to think that if I'm watching Lost or The Dark Knight off a torrent (in 1080p, 5.1 quality...not some s***ty grainy version) that I'm going to then go waste 25 bucks on the blu-ray copy? Or after I finish a book on my e-reader i'm going to get the hard copy?

 

Yes, there have been a few examples where smart entertainers (Radiohead, Louis C.K.) have scrapped the backing of a major media company and offered up their stuff for a cheaper price on their own dime. But those are special circumstances. 95% of copyright holders can't do that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:01 PM)
I'd have to dig but I believe impact studies have been done that show an increase in overall sales. Either way, my point (which I completely failed to actually make!) was that their gripe in relation to their desired solution is laughable.

 

from the Cato article:

 

 

They b****ed and moaned with the advent of VCR's. It would destroy the industry. Instead, it boasted sales and spurred an entirely new one (home video). They need to adapt with technology, not severely alter its fundamental structure because they want more profits.

 

How can they make profits and allow piracy? I have yet to figure out a business model that allows for a company to make money while allowing someone to pirate their work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 05:01 PM)
I'd have to dig but I believe impact studies have been done that show an increase in overall sales. Either way, my point (which I completely failed to actually make!) was that their gripe in relation to their desired solution is laughable.

 

from the Cato article:

 

 

They b****ed and moaned with the advent of VCR's. It would destroy the industry. Instead, it boasted sales and spurred an entirely new one (home video). They need to adapt with technology, not severely alter its fundamental structure because they want more profits.

 

 

I don't think VCR's are a relevant comparison. The logistics are a gazillion times different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...