The SOPA Thread.

[Blind Theory]

I saw this while browsing Reddit. This guy brings all the facts to the table and brings a whole new light to online piracy. I suggest you watch it.

[Aevolve]

Seen this everywhere, I hope it spreads like wildfire. SOPA is complete and utter bullshit that must be stopped.

[CapinCripes]

if this gets passed i eagerly await the RIAA to make fools of themselves when they sue somebody for downloading John Cage's 4'33" i think that a laugh over that would be the only good thing to come out of this bill.

[Explorer]

Core argument logic failure.

He's contending that the software was promoted in order to defeat copyright.

Has anyone ever followed trials of those who contend that federal taxes in the US are unconstitutional, and they have all kinds of obtuse arguments supporting their position? As far as I'm aware, those trying those strategies, including the authors of the books who claim to know how to make the scheme work, all are found guilty.

I think this guy is in that same boat.

BTW, I am in absolutely no danger of being prosecuted by the RIAA. My lifestyle is such that *I don't steal what I don't buy.* That's it. It's simple.

I understand the appeal of "Screw the Evil Empire!" sentiment. I've pointed out before that it appears artists like Tosin aren't part of that empire, and so if one is pirating AAL and other small label artists, one is stealing directly from the artists.

If you can't afford it, that doesn't entitle you to steal it.

(I do like his faux outrage, talking about how bad it would be that someone would be for encouraging piracy. You know he has hard drives full of stolen material. My main question is, if he's so hot in front of the fire that he has to wear short sleeves, why didn't he take off his hat?)

[brutalwizard]

Originally Posted by Explorer

Core argument logic failure.

He's contending that the software was promoted in order to defeat copyright.

he shows a pretty simple timeline, on how they distributed and showed how to use the software for infringing copyrights.

which under that supreme court ruling makes them as liable as the people doing it.

[SirMyghin]

People will go through extreme means to try and justify their theft, Explorer with the save, nothing uncommon there. While this kind of nonsense may be popular around here, particularly with the younger members, it doesn't really matter how you slice it. A sense of entitlement will never translate into rightful ownership.

[brutalwizard]

Originally Posted by SirMyghin

People will go through extreme means to try and justify their theft, Explorer with the save, nothing uncommon there. While this kind of nonsense may be popular around here, particularly with the younger members, it doesn't really matter how you slice it. A sense of entitlement will never translate into rightful ownership.

This vid doesnt justify stealing copyrighted things.

just proves a point that those who gave away the ability and knowledge to commit the act of stealing such things are just as liable, and many of them are NOW members opposing it.

[SirMyghin]

Originally Posted by brutalwizard

just proves a point that those who gave away the ability and knowledge to commit the act of stealing such things are just as liable, and many of them are NOW members opposing it.

Proves? That is a bit strong. More like supposes. You can buy rope at the hardware store, do you suggest they are waiting for us to all hang ourselves? It is like when people blame their credit card company for allowing them to have 'too much' credit, and consequently accumulate debt, which they chose to accumulate through purchasing outside of their means. Ones actions require responsibility.

[brutalwizard]

Originally Posted by SirMyghin

Proves? That is a bit strong.

okay provides information pertaining to the idea, with pretty undeniable fact's



EDIT did you watch the part of the vid, were there showing that CNET hosted free mp3's of copyrighted material, with a search engine to find certain songs?
7:20 in

if it was such a big deal to them, why would they offer such a service?

[BlindingLight7]

Excuse my ignorance but what is sopa and why should I care?

[Explorer]

I saw parts of the vid where the "evidence" presented was a screenshot of a website with a title frame at the top, which usually means you've clicked into a site using another site. That's pretty common, as is the practice of people having material hosted on sites without the sites' direct involvement. SS.org, for example, isn't the one who makes me post here, but I take advantage of the ability to do so.

Honestly, listening to his voice was hard enough, and I kept hoping he'd knock his own hat off and blind the camera with the glare. He had so many edits in the material that it might well have happened. *laugh*

I also stopped watching it, just listening, because I kept being distracted by his choice of having his camera pointing off-angle, so that he could have the fireplace in the background.... but then constantly craning his neck to center his big head... which brings me back to his hat. *laugh*

----

Let me ask a question, though:

Does this video mean that Tosin should be ripped off by thieves? All I get is that someone is complaining that Tosin shouldn't be better protected.

The video demands that we disregard the arguments of those who have something to gain, which means we can toss out the guy who made the video. Tosin is a better representative of who gets damaged.

Balding, chubby unmarried guy fail. (yes, i went there, because i let this guy into my home virtually for too long. *laugh*)

[athawulf]

Originally Posted by SirMyghin

Proves? That is a bit strong. More like supposes. You can buy rope at the hardware store, do you suggest they are waiting for us to all hang ourselves? It is like when people blame their credit card company for allowing them to have 'too much' credit, and consequently accumulate debt, which they chose to accumulate through purchasing outside of their means. Ones actions require responsibility.

That analogy is kind of off. If the hardware store added a tag saying "list of uses- suicide", was the majority provider of said suicide rope, and in turn was part of an organization which profited greatly in a righteous legal witchhunt for those who used their product for the use in which they marketed it for.. I'm not saying what transpired was illegal (I'm not as versed in law as some of you may be) but it sure seems shitty.

Now I'm not agreeing fully with the video but he does bring up a few points. He does also leave out a few facts, especially the one about how cbs has only owned cnet for ~3 years out of the decade he rants about.

Originally Posted by Explorer

Honestly, listening to his voice was hard enough, and I kept hoping he'd knock his own hat off and blind the camera with the glare. He had so many edits in the material that it might well have happened. *laugh*

I had a few urges to see if my hand could go through my monitor and slap him. His demeanor was quite annoying.

[brutalwizard]

Originally Posted by Explorer

The video demands that we disregard the arguments of those who have something to gain, which means we can toss out the guy who made the video. Tosin is a better representative of who gets damaged.

the only thing that i got out of this video was that some of the corporations that support the RIAA, are also at fault under the ruling of the mentioned supreme court ruling.

so unless this sopa also encompasses those company's that now support it, I AM NOT FOR IT IN THE LEAST BIT.

[Blind Theory]

I don't want people to get the wrong idea and think I'm trying to advocate online piracy. I myself purchase all the music I own either through iTunes or in the form of a CD. Same with DVD's and whatever else can be pirated online. I am just using this video to show that the companies behind the bill should be the farthest from supporting it. So sorry if it came off that way, I don't endorse that shit. I just thought the overall idea of it was important to hear and important to help stop a bill that is out of line from passing.

[Explorer]

Assertion: Some companies might not be able to use the legislation to secure damages because they helped advocate and promote piracy.

Beyond that, what is the problem with the legislation, again using Tosin as an example?

Sorry to be so dense about this. It just seems like the argument against this legislation is similar to arguments made when I was growing up. "Freedom of speech is a bad thing... because the neo-Nazis use it to march!" Honestly, if it were about voting for or against legislation because of who is for or against it, I'd be all about voting against the wishes of Captain Cap-Covered Comb-over.

Tell me what's inherently bad about the legislation itself, instead of telling me about the people who want it.

[Pooluke41]

Originally Posted by Explorer

Tell me what's inherently bad about the legislation itself, instead of telling me about the people who want it.

Well, essentially it stops things like Youtube and facebook.

But, more importantly it would make sites like this have to make sure no copyrighted material on it. And as we are all GAS addicts and Guitar Droolers this site could be shut down easily.

[Explorer]

So, are we talking about no using stock photos for illustrative purposes in a casual way, generally regarded to be fair use, or posting of copyrighted material like rips from a CD on YouTube?

Again, I'm not trying to be dense, but I've heard a lot of hysteria in the past like, "Oh, you won't be able to post video of your videogame play-throughs!," which is false and a misunderstanding.

I know there's a lot of bands which still use Facebook for self promotion. I don't understand how this will stop those bands from using material to which they own the copyright. Could anyone clarify why an artist could be stopped from doing so?

Similarly, I watched a video earlier, linked to from here, which demonstrated the Blackouts Modular Preamp and which used the code YouTube itself provides for users to embed video from YouTube with YouTube's blessing. Would posting of such videos be disalloweed, even though the video was original, and would SS.org be prohibited by utilizing YouTube's provided method for embedding videos? I don't see how legislation could possibly limit someone from giving away something they already own.

I keep turning it over, but it appears that the only material which would be affected would be copyrighted material for which permission was not secured. Is there another possibility, or are we back to the "property is free!" argument?

Help me out here.

[CapinCripes]

Originally Posted by Explorer

So, are we talking about no using stock photos for illustrative purposes in a casual way, generally regarded to be fair use, or posting of copyrighted material like rips from a CD on YouTube?

Again, I'm not trying to be dense, but I've heard a lot of hysteria in the past like, "Oh, you won't be able to post video of your videogame play-throughs!," which is false and a misunderstanding.

I know there's a lot of bands which still use Facebook for self promotion. I don't understand how this will stop those bands from using material to which they own the copyright. Could anyone clarify why an artist could be stopped from doing so?

Similarly, I watched a video earlier, linked to from here, which demonstrated the Blackouts Modular Preamp and which used the code YouTube itself provides for users to embed video from YouTube with YouTube's blessing. Would posting of such videos be disalloweed, even though the video was original, and would SS.org be prohibited by utilizing YouTube's provided method for embedding videos? I don't see how legislation could possibly limit someone from giving away something they already own.

I keep turning it over, but it appears that the only material which would be affected would be copyrighted material for which permission was not secured. Is there another possibility, or are we back to the "property is free!" argument?

Help me out here.

the problem here is that under the current DMCA a company can issue a take-down request for one of your videos that you can in turn fight if you feel that the video you posted was not of infringing nature. or in other words you get the due process that is guaranteed to you in the 14th amendment. the problem with SOPA is it puts the cart WAY the .... before the horse and allows companies to request sites be de-listed, which in simpler terms means can only accessed by typing in the direct I.P. address. (for example if ss.org was de-listed i would have to manually type SS.org's ip which is 208.43.77.232 into my address bar to be able to access it.) this means that before you are proven guilty of anything your material, infringing or not has been made inaccessible to the average user. this is in direct violation of the 14th amendment's due process clause which states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " because of the fact that even though a website or a video you post is not a tangible possession it is legally still considered to be your property. the other problem with SOPA is the fallacy that by de-listing sites you can effectively stop piracy. the problem with this is that like in my example of if SS.org were de-listed one can simply type in the ip-adress of an infringing site in order to access it. this means that while average Joe on the street may not know enough to be able to download anything, any experienced user can still download all they want by simply having a phone book full of ip-addresses. also if you think that companies will not abuse SOPA look no further than the how to draw Yngwie thread.

[ZEBOV]

Originally Posted by Explorer

If you can't afford it, that doesn't entitle you to steal it.

Which is why I have hardly heard anything from AAL's 2nd album. (Honestly, I've been listening to Vildhjarta's debut on youtube every day, but I refuse to download the album unless I pay for it.)

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by CapinCripes

...because of the fact that even though a website or a video you post is not a tangible possession it is legally still considered to be your property.

the other problem with SOPA is the fallacy that by de-listing sites you can effectively stop piracy. the problem with this is that like in my example of if SS.org were de-listed one can simply type in the ip-adress of an infringing site in order to access it. this means that while average Joe on the street may not know enough to be able to download anything, any experienced user can still download all they want by simply having a phone book full of ip-addresses.

So, just thinking out loud... if someone falsely claims that they own your property, isn't that fraud? And, isn't that actionable, and (if it interferes with one's income) criminal?

I've got no problem with going after a thief claiming my property, whether corporate or otherwise. I'm sure the ACLU would lend a hand as well, if it involves civil liberties. Theft *and* harassment isn't normally viewed kindly by courts.

Fortunately, the act of claiming ownership of someone else's material in that way leaves digital fingerprints all over the place. The same way people claim that they were hacked and that someone else was pirating material, and the courts nail things down... that is likely what will happen if such a company claims ownership.

----

Regarding and extending your second point, that criminals will always find a way to steal, murder and rape regardless of how difficult the law makes it... how nice to know how a dedicated criminal would work his or her way around the law to continue those activities. That's not exactly a great counter argument to having those laws and penalties in place, though.

[Iamasingularity]

Informative rant. I`m dissapointed in the actions of the government though. Thats not how you teach people not to pirate (especially the cases in this video) I can`t express but show concern for these laws being put in any place. The way this is going, people`s rights are in danger/and people who have commited the crime are not been taught or warned about this. I really pity the very notion to think that this is the way to solve things. Stuff has come to the point that wherever you go there are lines you may trip over without warning. I don`t think these laws are gonna take place, but the idea of corporations and government working together to make such claims should be taken seriously and a guideline for copyright material revisited.

[Spinedriver]

Originally Posted by Iamasingularity

Informative rant. I`m dissapointed in the actions of the government though. Thats not how you teach people not to pirate (especially the cases in this video) I can`t express but show concern for these laws being put in any place. The way this is going, people`s rights are in danger/and people who have commited the crime are not been taught or warned about this. I really pity the very notion to think that this is the way to solve things. Stuff has come to the point that wherever you go there are lines you may trip over without warning. I don`t think these laws are gonna take place, but the idea of corporations and government working together to make such claims should be taken seriously and a guideline for copyright material revisited.

That's the dangerous part of implementing laws like these. Those that pirate, will always find a work-around. Who's to say that companies like Sony, Warner Bros, etc... won't hire people to upload 'copyrighted' material to sites they want taken out. Under the proposed law, they can then have the site blocked from being accessed until the legal wrangling is done, which can take months or even years.

That is WAY too much control to put in the hands of private interest groups. It's also quite ironic that the music/film industry that is pushing so hard to pass this has been blatantly ripping off people for decades themselves. How many different versions of the Lord of The Rings Trilogy are for sale ? Star Wars ? They have no shame repackaging the same thing a dozen times trying to get people to buy it over & over but the second someone 'illegally' downloads a song or video, they claim it's driving their company into bankruptcy.

Granted, I know there's no one putting a gun to anyone's head making them buy various editions but for film buffs, they tend to like special features, commentaries, etc.. But what they're doing (many times) is taking a DVD, putting a new 10 cent label on it and re-selling it as a 'special edition' because they added a couple of tv promo spots they found on Youtube. (selling someone something convincing them it's something else is very close to being fraud)

[mountainjam]

I will continue to support my favorite musicians by buying their music. I always have. But I dont want my internet to be censored. I cant see music and movie sales going up if sopa passes. Its just another law in favor of industry. Musicians will continue to stay broke, while pirates will just find a way around the law, such as what has already happened before this terrible bill has even passed.

[Explorer]

@Spinedriver - I didn't understand your point.

First you introduce the general principle that even if there is a law against theft, rape, murder, or whatever, people will still commit those crimes. Is your point that we therefore shouldn't have those laws?

If a company says that a person is uploading particular copyrighted media, then wouldn't the logs show who had uploaded that copyrighted media? And, if it was a company stooge, then wouldn't that come out either when that person was prosecuted? It sounds like you're proposing that companies, rather than going after real thieves, will be reduced to targeting websites because there are no real thieves to be found. That seems a little unlikely, especially with the huge amount of piracy around.

SS.org is pretty good about not promoting bad things, so they can show they perform due diligence. If a company/website can show that they practice due diligence, there isn't much chance (meaning close to nil) that Sony will be able to show that site/company is promoting piracy.

The last part of your rant, that someone selling a product in different forms is stealing when it sells that product, is bizarre and hard to take seriously. You yourself admit that no one is forcing someone to buy anything. Your outrage about this makes me wonder... if you can get this worked up about a copyright holder selling the copyrighted properties, do you have even more outrage about those who are stealing outright?

Basically, if you can't come up with that same outrage, you're coming across like the guy in that initial video, trying to find something wrong with the copyright holder's positions in order to justify stealing.

If you *can* come up with even more vitriol about thieves than those who are legally selling material, I'm definitely interested in hearing what you have to say.

Looking forward to reading it!

[Mexi]

SOPA: The New American Censorship? - Forbes

Silicon Valley’s own Rep. Zoe Lofgren summed up the bill quite nicely, predicting that it would be “the end of the Internet as we know it,” and she’s right. The bill will undoubtedly set off a firestorm of lawsuits, eliminate jobs, stymie creativity and make it harder for the innovators who created the Web to do what they do best – innovate.

Tech entrepreneurs attack SOPA on the eve of markup

Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter considering “nuclear option” to protest SOPA | ExtremeTech

some of the biggest companies in the world like Facebook, Google, AOL are protesting SOPA, so I think they might have some legitimate concerns. if SOPA passes, even posting a link to a video from news source could land you with a felony charge.