# The SOPA Thread.



## Blind Theory (Dec 23, 2011)

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 (Dec 23, 2011)

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


----------



## CapinCripes (Dec 24, 2011)

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 (Dec 24, 2011)

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?)


----------



## SirMyghin (Dec 24, 2011)

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.


----------



## SirMyghin (Dec 24, 2011)

brutalwizard said:


> 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.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Dec 24, 2011)

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


----------



## Explorer (Dec 24, 2011)

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*)


----------



## wlfers (Dec 24, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> 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.



Explorer said:


> 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.


----------



## Blind Theory (Dec 24, 2011)

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 (Dec 24, 2011)

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 (Dec 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2011)

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 (Dec 25, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 fuck 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 (Dec 25, 2011)

Explorer said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2011)

CapinCripes said:


> ...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 (Dec 25, 2011)

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 (Dec 26, 2011)

Iamasingularity said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 2011)

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 (Dec 28, 2011)

@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 (Jan 10, 2012)

SOPA: The New American Censorship? - Forbes

_Silicon Valley&#8217;s own Rep. Zoe Lofgren summed up the bill quite nicely, predicting that it would be &#8220;the end of the Internet as we know it,&#8221; and she&#8217;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 &#8211; innovate._

Tech entrepreneurs attack SOPA on the eve of markup

Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter considering &#8220;nuclear option&#8221; 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.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 11, 2012)

See, the big deal about the bill is the broadness & vagueness of it. Look at the PATRIOT act, when it was first introduced, it was only to be used as necessary to capture suspected terrorists when conventional means weren't effective. When people voiced their opinions that it was too "vague", the Gov't assured the public that the Act would not be abused and that everyone was getting worked up over nothing.
Look what happened.... illegal wire tapping, people being held indefinitely without trial or legal representation, etc... The thing with SOPA is that there's no clear definition of what classifies "Copyrighted material". It could mean movies, cds, books, etc.. but it could also mean trailers, images (ie: Jimi Hendrix posters), paragraphs from books... there's no clear cut definition.

So, say for instance you have a blog and post up a picture of the new Avengers movie poster and you talk about how much you're looking forward to it. Technically, the images on that poster are property of the company releasing it and if you don't have permission to use it, you'd be in violation of the new act and could be shut down. Granted, it would be highly unlikely but the fact remains your site _could_ be shut down for even inadvertently violating the Act and *that's* what's making everyone so nervous. In addition to that, apparently there are some technical aspects to it that many have said that if sites start getting blocked & removed from search engines, it can cause errors that could take out sites that have nothing to do with the offending one (ie: collateral damage). In general, it's way too much power to put in the hands of the private sector. 

As per the whole "stealing is still stealing no matter how you try and justify it" argument, If the movie industry doesn't want their movies pirated, the onus is on them to try and fix the situation. For example, they could drop theater prices to try and get people back in that don't want to pay/can't afford $15 a ticket or they could enhance their disc encoding to prevent ripping/copying. Instead, they want to use the Gov't to do the work for them by shutting down websites that _may_ contain so much as a link to unauthorized copyrighted material.

As far as music goes, for those that want to put out music and make a living off it, that ship has sailed. . Look at the Postal Service, thousands of workers are being let go because no one sends mail anymore. E-mail is faster and it's FREE but I don't see any bills being proposed to help them any. What about all of the people who owned/worked in book/music/video rental stores ? Many of them are now out of work because of iTunes, Netflix and Amazon. I saw an interview with Weird Al Yankovic some time ago and he said that he treats his cds as 'business cards' to get people to come and see him live and buy some merch. Look at NIN, Smashing Pumpkins and others, they're literally giving their work away because they know it's going to spread by filesharing anyway. So artists would be better off using the technology to try and get their product out to as wide a base as possible so as to increase show attendance rather than beat their head against a wall trying to keep their music from being 'shared', which isn't going to work.


Bottom line is that media corporations already have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which allows them to go after sites that have copyrighted content on them (look at all of the pending lawsuits against people that have downloaded music). Thing is, they can only go after those that actually have the files (ie: host sites or people with downloaded content on their computer). With SOPA, all they need is so much as a posted link and they can move in. The good news is that with companies such as Facebook, Google and Amazon (among others) being against it, there's a fairly decent chance it'll never pass.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 12, 2012)

This is a great rebuttal to that video, from someone who is VERY anti-SOPA, but showing how that video isn't the best way to look at this.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 12, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> This is a great rebuttal to that video, from someone who is VERY anti-SOPA, but showing how that video isn't the best way to look at this.




To be 100% honest, I've never watched the original video posted at the start of the thread. I tend to avoid 'home-made' Youtube videos where people spout off about whatever crosses their mind. Alex Jones is another crackpot I try to keep away from as well. When something like this pops up, I try to go to several different sources to see who might be making things up and who's dealing with facts. It's just that whenever a group of corporations get together to get a vaguely worded bill pushed through, chances are it's going to be bad news for everyone except them.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 13, 2012)

A cool way developers have come up with to boycott SOPA related companies/products:

'Boycott SOPA' Android App Helps Users Avoid Products Made By Anti-Piracy Bill Supporters


----------



## drgamble (Jan 13, 2012)

This guys argument is like saying Smith and Wesson should be held responsible for murder. They can offer the tools for murder, but if they support laws against murder they are somehow hypocritical. It's hilarious to me the arguments people make to justify stealing. Just because it is online and somewhat anonymous, people think it's ok to steal. The funny thing is that everyone that is complaining about SOPA can't come up with an alternative and give an extreme view of the law. It is aimed at international piracy and follows the same provisions as the DMCA. It is only when websites refuse to take down copyrighted material that they are blocked. As a US citizen, you are entitled to more rights than that. Most of these posting that are anti-SOPA are extremist views that have little bearing on the truth of the matter. I would expect that most professional musicians would support the legislation, and most consumers would not. It always sucks to have to pay for the milk, when you've been getting it free for so long...Even companies that are anti-SOPA have made millions off of piracy. All of this crap is about peopling benefiting either way. SOPA=artists making money anti-SOPA=everyone else getting music free and other companies(Google, Yahoo, Bit Torrent, You Tube, etc.) make the money through advertising. It's not to mention the international companies that produce high quality bootlegs and selll on the internet. These are the people that SOPA actually targets. China is a common culprit to produce bootleg movies and music and without SOPA there isn't any legal recourse that is effective to stop besides blocking the website and cutting off funds to those international counterfeiters. Read the act for yourself and decide what it means. Each side has a sensationalist view depending on their own personal interests.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 13, 2012)

drgamble said:


> This guys argument is like saying Smith and Wesson should be held responsible for murder. They can offer the tools for murder, but if they support laws against murder they are somehow hypocritical. It's hilarious to me the arguments people make to justify stealing. Just because it is online and somewhat anonymous, people think it's ok to steal. The funny thing is that everyone that is complaining about SOPA can't come up with an alternative and give an extreme view of the law. It is aimed at international piracy and follows the same provisions as the DMCA. It is only when websites refuse to take down copyrighted material that they are blocked. As a US citizen, you are entitled to more rights than that. Most of these posting that are anti-SOPA are extremist views that have little bearing on the truth of the matter. I would expect that most professional musicians would support the legislation, and most consumers would not. It always sucks to have to pay for the milk, when you've been getting it free for so long...Even companies that are anti-SOPA have made millions off of piracy. All of this crap is about peopling benefiting either way. SOPA=artists making money anti-SOPA=everyone else getting music free and other companies(Google, Yahoo, Bit Torrent, You Tube, etc.) make the money through advertising. It's not to mention the international companies that produce high quality bootlegs and selll on the internet. These are the people that SOPA actually targets. China is a common culprit to produce bootleg movies and music and without SOPA there isn't any legal recourse that is effective to stop besides blocking the website and cutting off funds to those international counterfeiters. Read the act for yourself and decide what it means. Each side has a sensationalist view depending on their own personal interests.




I realize that the _theory_ behind the bill is to stop piracy. However, the way it's worded, there's no concrete definition of what 'Copyrighted material' actually is. By definition, if you have a blog and post a cool play from a football or hockey game, your site can be taken down under SOPA. If you listen to any sports brodcast, you'll hear the disclaimer "this telecast is property of (CBS/FOX/etc...) any reproduction or re-broadcast in part or in whole without expressed written consent from (CBS/FOX/etc...) is strictly prohibited." That means that if a person re-posts any footage from any broadcast or production, even if it's 10 seconds, they will be violating the bill. Theoretically, these aren't the people NBC/ABC/Fox/etc.. are looking for but the fact remains, they can get the site blocked if they choose to.

The reason a lot of people are opposed to the bill isn't because they want to be able to pirate movies or music. It's because giving the media industry that much free reign over the internet is extremely dangerous. Things people take for granted as 'free use' will no longer apply. Whether it's a panel from an Archie comic, a movie poster, a trailer for a tv show, they're ALL "Copyrighted Material" and can be treated as such. Call it 'paranoid' or say 'that'll never happen' but tell that to the over 100 people that were kept in Guantanamo Bay prison for years with no trial or charges filed against them because of the Patriot Act (which was supposed to be temporary). Whenever broad/sweeping laws like this are put in the hands of giant corporations, they are ALWAYS ABUSED. If some site posts up videos from Fox News showing how they've lied about something, Fox can get it blocked if they haven't asked for permission to use the clip.

So for all the people who think SOPA is just about keeping movies & music from being pirated, you seriously need to do some research. If the bill was re-drafted to specify that they're only going after pirated movies/games/music, there wouldn't be as much of an uproar as there is. The DMCA is already a law, if the industry really wanted to, they could spend the money to get other countries involved but they would rather spend $110 million to make a 3D Smurfs movie. There's no need for a 'carte blanche' law like SOPA just to make it easier for media giants to get sites taken down. The possibilities for serious collateral damage is just way too high. If this passes, what's next ? Eliminating minimum wage because executives are losing too much money by paying workers a whole 2% of what they earn themselves ?
Big Business is taking over and for some bizarre reason middle class people are actually wanting to help them.


----------



## 3salvation (Jan 13, 2012)

I always wonder what makes pirates so cool and 'law enforcement' boyz so fucking boring...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 13, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> If the movie industry doesn't want their movies pirated, the onus is on them to try and fix the situation. For example, they could drop theater prices to try and get people back in that don't want to pay/can't afford $15 a ticket or they could enhance their disc encoding to prevent ripping/copying. Instead, they want to use the Gov't to do the work for them... .



So, using a parallel argument, if women don't want to be raped and if children don't want to be molested, the onus is on them to try and fix the situation, instead of relying on government and the law to stop the rapists and molesters? 

----

I know what "copyright" means, and what "copyrighted materials" means. I also know what "fair use" means. 

Is the argument being made that someone will claim ownership of non-copyrighted material, and then won't be liable for fraudulently claiming ownership? 

Or is the argument being made that use of copyrighted materials is so widespread that the widespread violation of the copy rights of others, and penalties to those who commit those violations, will put an undue burden on those who violate copyright?

I clearly don't understand the issue. Could someone clarify how one could be prosecuted for copyright violation without actually doing so?


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 14, 2012)

Explorer said:


> So, using a parallel argument, if women don't want to be raped and if children don't want to be molested, the onus is on them to try and fix the situation, instead of relying on government and the law to stop the rapists and molesters?
> 
> ----
> 
> ...



For a start, comparing rape and pedophilia to posting a song on Youtube is a bit extreme. Currently, if you are writing a review or editorial piece about a book, movie or song you are legally entitled under the laws of "fair use" to use a sample of said piece. Under SOPA, if the owner of said copyright didn't give you permission to use it, they can have your site pulled until you prove 'fair use', which could take months. You can argue that no one would ever do that but I've seen some pretty bitter people get banned from message boards that would have no problem doing something like that out of spite.

Like I said before, if the bill was clarified or re-written to specify that only sites that are file-sharing or torrenting are being targeted, then maybe people wouldn't be so nervous. Should Youtube (which has millions of users uploading tens of thousands of videos a day) be pulled off line because someone uploaded Van Halen's "Jump" ? 

Passing the bill as is would be roughly the equivalent of McCarthyism back in the 40's & 50's. That was all about "keeping America safe" and look what happened there. People were dragged in left & right with the only proof against them was someone's say-so. The potential for this to go horribly wrong, if history is any indication, is _very_ high. The bill doesn't say the site has to have a minimum number of files on it for them to get it blocked, so it could be one song or a million, no difference. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you stole a pack of gum from a store or killed 50 people with a machine gun, you get a life sentence in prison until they decide to let you go (a lot like Gitmo).

I totally agree that pirating is a problem and companies like Time Warner, Comcast, etc.. should have legal avenues to try and prevent it from happening. However, giving them free reign to have any site blocked at any time just has 'horrible consequences' written all over it.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 14, 2012)

It was suggested that victims of crime figure out how to stop that crime without the intervention of government (courts/law/police). I thought that was a absurd, and reduced that argument to absurdity.

Is the suggestion that victims of lesser crimes figure out how to stop that crime by themselves? In that case, who sets what kind of crime triggers intervention, and what kind the police should let slide? What bright shining line (the favorite paradigm used in application of the law) should be used? All theft except piracy? 

----

Your further example is a funny one.

Did you know that SS.org doesn't allow advocacy of piracy, and bans users who so advocate? 

It sounds like your argument is, if users are uploading copyrighted materials to YouTube, and YouTube doesn't take action to stop it, then it's too many users for someone to be able to protect themselves from copyright violation. I don't understand. Why would the number of users have any bearing on someone violating copyright? 

There are legal remedies for those who have their copyrighted materials fraudulently claimed by others. I understand that the claim is being made that such fraudulent claims are made all the time. I'm aware of groups like the Church of Scientology doing so to prevent criticism (and getting slammed in court). I'd be interested in hearing of the many alleged cases where someone wasn't violating anyone's copyright and had content claimed/stolen by others.

(YouTube is a terrible example IMO, as it is rife with copyright violations. One might consider it a clearinghouse for such violation, even though there is other content as well.)


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 14, 2012)

Explorer said:


> It was suggested that victims of crime figure out how to stop that crime without the intervention of government (courts/law/police). I thought that was a absurd, and reduced that argument to absurdity.
> 
> Is the suggestion that victims of lesser crimes figure out how to stop that crime by themselves? In that case, who sets what kind of crime triggers intervention, and what kind the police should let slide? What bright shining line (the favorite paradigm used in application of the law) should be used? All theft except piracy?
> 
> ...



Honestly, aside from torrent sites themselves I don't think there's a single site that tolerates illegal sharing or posting links to sites that do. However, there's a post in the Movies section here that contains a link to the trailer for Prometheus. You can't access it anymore because it was pulled off of Youtube but the fact remains that the original post wasn't deleted. 

Under SOPA, unintentional or not, SS.org could have been pulled down because of that.

People here know it's against the rules to post torrent links or links to pirated material. However, no one thinks posting a movie trailer is pirating "copyrighted material". Nor do they think a blooper from a newscast or tv show is 'pirating' but apparently, according to whichever studio produced it, it is. The real pirates aren't afraid, they'll find away to work around SOPA. It's the innocent people just making conversation in forums like this one who are the ones panicking because they don't want to have their favorite sites pulled down just because they wanted to talk about a movie trailer. Actually, if you browse the "Movies, Books & TV" room, there are quite a few threads that contain trailers, stills from movies, etc... technically, it's all 'pirated' material.

You're also right in saying that if a fraudulent copyright infringement case is made, the site owner probably will be vindicated and have their site unblocked. However, how long will it take to go through the proper procedures ? a month ? 6 months ? a year ? You may as well just scrap it and start a new one because if a site is inaccessible for 6 months, people will forget it and just move on.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 14, 2012)

I know there are sites which have permission to post movie trailers. If someone were to post a link to said site, then it would probably remain open.

You're correct in that many don't think of copyrighted materials as copyrighted materials. That doesn't change the status of said materials, though.

I was trying to find a topic I had made significant contributions to (on another site) through Google, and found a "blog" which had copied almost all of it (except for those parts which made it clear the blogger hadn't written it). I contacted the site's owners, gave my bona fides, and asked that the material be removed. The blogger in question challenged my request, and claimed fair use. Since it was an entire article, and not an example and a link to the original material, that claim was denied. 

SS.org is pretty vigilant. However, you do make an excellent suggestion, in that users could do better in reporting offending material, and thus keeping the site safe from such accusations.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 14, 2012)

I'm going to make an assumption here, and I really want someone to prove me wrong. My assumption is that those that are anti-SOPA, don't have any music or movies that they have themselves published and rely on to make a living. I can't point to one artist out there that is saying anything anti-SOPA at all. Most musicians won't say anything at all, because they'll get flamed by the consumers that want everything for free. SS.org will not get blocked because someone posts infringing content, that is sensationalism at its best just suggesting that would ever happen because SS.org will remove it upon notice. If there are artists on here that are anti-SOPA, can you send me your album for free so I don't have to steal it from somewhere else, I would rather get these things directly from the artist if they actually don't care to make money off of their work. Again, I wish someone here would actually prove me wrong here. This whole thing seems to me to pit artists vs. consumers with the artists standing by SOPA, even if they won't tell you they do. This isn't fighting the establishment that the piracy is hurting, it's the little guys like me that are on small labels or self release their music. It doesn't make sense to make music your career if everyone is just allowed to steal from you.


----------



## Necris (Jan 14, 2012)

Even if digital media was made so that it couldn't be ripped to a computer there are plenty of other ways to copy it.

Long before the internet it was possible to get full albums of music without compensating the artist in any way or even paying for them for that matter, or is the whole tape trading scene that much of a distant memory? The same goes for movies. The same could even go for books. 

Like I've said in a past thread, I buy nearly everything used. My CD's/Tapes/LPs, my DVDs and my books. I am directly supporting the artist no more than a person who downloads files illegally, the only major difference is that I'm not breaking any laws by doing this.
Sometimes I sell or trade my stuff (occasionally after backing it up on my computer, which is legal to do), or let friends borrow it. What they do with it then is entirely up to them. Again, no laws are being broken but no-one is paying.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 14, 2012)

Necris said:


> Even if digital media was made so that it couldn't be ripped to a computer there are plenty of other ways to copy it.
> 
> Long before the internet it was possible to get full albums of music without compensating the artist in any way or even paying for them for that matter, or is the whole tape trading scene that much of a distant memory? The same goes for movies. The same could even go for books.
> 
> ...





Even now, the video game industry isn't only lamenting piracy (they all support SOPA), they're also trying to fix the 'used' game market because they don't get the profit from it. It's funny how companies fail to see the connection between rising prices & dropping quality (in both movies and games) to them not selling as many units. Why pay $60 for a game that you can finish in a couple of hours when you can wait 6 months and get it used for $20 or less.

Here's an ironic twist... late last year a company called Melrose 2 filed a lawsuit against Paramount Studios because over a period of 5 years, they helped fund roughly 29 films to the tune of approx. $375 million. To date, Paramount hasn't paid out a penny in profits to the company despite the fact that the films they helped pay for grossed over $7 billion. Apparently the studio has a habit of under-reporting box office receipts and over stating production and advertising costs so that investors have a hard time trying to collect. 

So who are the _real_ thieves now ???

Paramount sued by financing partner Melrose 2 over blockbuster profits | Film | guardian.co.uk

Also, this is an amazing post I read by a guy called Tim O'Reilly.... 

https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/BEDukdz2B1r


----------



## Explorer (Jan 15, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> Even now, the video game industry isn't only lamenting piracy (they all support SOPA), they're also trying to fix the 'used' game market because they don't get the profit from it.



This is interesting, although I didn't find any aspects of SOPA which deal with buying used CDs and video games. Could someone post a link to this stuff?

I thought it was common knowledge that cassette copying was viewed differently legally than making a perfect digital copy. It's funny someone would wonder if there is a memory of cassette usage, but had forgotten that fact.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 15, 2012)

Explorer said:


> This is interesting, although I didn't find any aspects of SOPA which deal with buying used CDs and video games. Could someone post a link to this stuff?
> 
> I thought it was common knowledge that cassette copying was viewed differently legally than making a perfect digital copy. It's funny someone would wonder if there is a memory of cassette usage, but had forgotten that fact.



There is no mention about the used marked in the proposed bill, it's just that in interviews with game developers, they talk about how much money they lose because people buy used games instead of new ones. That's why they're investing in things like Steam, XBL and PSN. The more people buy games from those sources, the more money stays in their pocket.

Here's an interesting little article..
10 Technologies That Congress Tried to Kill

In the past, the media industry has tried to ban VCRs from being sold because it was going to 'kill' the industry. They also said MP3 players were going to 'kill' the music industry. Any time something new comes down the pike, these multi-billion dollar corporations get in a tizzy because rather than have to adapt to the new technology, they want to have it blocked.

It's just surprising that people are defending these companies that are trying to defend poor business choices by saying 'everyone is stealing their product', when they themselves spend millions on legal maneuvering to defend their own 'stealing'. (there are a LOT of cases where movie studios use scripts/story ideas from writers that they 'turn down' and then turn around and use it anyway so they won't have to pay them)

So yeah, if you haven't read the Tim O'Reilly link I posted, I highly recommend it because he brings up so many valid points that I don't even know where to begin to try and explain them all.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 15, 2012)

I guess I'm confused as to the use of the word "fix" in the context of this next bit.



Spinedriver said:


> Even now, the video game industry isn't only lamenting piracy (they all support SOPA), they're also trying to *fix* the 'used' game market because they don't get the profit from it.



When I questioned this, you clarified:



Spinedriver said:


> There is no mention about the used marked in the proposed bill, it's just that in interviews with game developers, they talk about how much money they lose because people buy used games instead of new ones. That's why they're investing in things like Steam, XBL and PSN. The more people buy games from those sources, the more money stays in their pocket.



Your original assertion sounded like they were trying to illegally set prices, as opposed to legally choosing where and how they will distribute the product they produce. That previous statement is why people feel that there is a lot of falsehood and hysteria going on in this discussion. 

To me, it's starting to look like there is a disconnect between what you're initially claiming is happening, and what is actually happening. Can you see why your statement(s) might get lumped into that camp? That's why usage of hyperbole can hurt one's case, as any factual material gets drowned out by the noise level of false assertions and hysteria.

Largest point against your arguments about how terrible the games must be: If they're so bad, why are people buying them? Is someone forcing them to spend that money?



Spinedriver said:


> It's just surprising that people are defending these companies that are trying to defend poor business choices by saying 'everyone is stealing their product', when they themselves spend millions on legal maneuvering to defend their own 'stealing'.



Actually, the question I ask when deciding if something like this is good or bad is, how does this help protect someone like Tosin Abasi?

His label isn't huge, they don't steal, and they get protection from the lesgislation. It's coincidental that large companies get the same protection. The only ones who get penalized are thieves. 

So, if you're going to argue that Abasi shouldn't be protected, then let's hear it. 

BTW, in case you missed the irony, you're posting about a lawsuit, wherein a company has and is using a legal remedy against another company.. Is it your contention that the smaller company in that case should be without legal remedy? I can't tell. Your arguments are all over the place. 

*It sounds like you want to prevent legal remedies for piracy. Don't justify it through two wrongs making a right, especially if smaller artists and labels aren't involved in that behavior. If you can't justify piracy in terms of Animals as Leaders (other than, I want it but don't want to pay, of course *laugh*), then your arguments are about penalizing the small artist because you don't like big companies. At least be honest about that. *


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 15, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Your original assertion sounded like they were trying to illegally set prices, as opposed to legally choosing where and how they will distribute the product they produce. That previous statement is why people feel that there is a lot of falsehood and hysteria going on in this discussion.


 
Though I can see why you might've taken it that way, I didn't. I could be wrong here, but that may just be because I'm really in to video games and you aren't, as far as I know, so you saw and fixated on the word "fix" in the context you're used to using it, and I saw the whole statement and took it in the context it's usually taken in video game circles. In this case, I don't think it was hyperbole or hysteria so much as ambiguity and making assumptions because not enough clarification is given in the original statement.

For the record, I'm pretty sure he meant "fix" it by trying to make the used game market obsolete by moving towards download only game sales, or by using in-package game codes necessary to access all of the games online content that a person who buys the game used will have to pay extra for. Those are all perfectly legal, yes, so I'm certainly not trying to use that as some sort of point for or against piracy. That doesn't make it suck any less for young or cash-strapped gamers who don't always have $60+ to spend on a game, for whom being able to buy used games at a discount is a real financial boon.

I know that doesn't really advance either side of this thread's discussion, but it's something I care a little about, so I thought I'd chime in .


----------



## Explorer (Jan 15, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> For the record, I'm pretty sure he meant "fix" it by trying to make the used game market obsolete by moving towards download only game sales, or by using in-package game codes necessary to access all of the games online content that a person who buys the game used will have to pay extra for. Those are all perfectly legal... .



I'm aware of his point, that he views videogame companies' movement toward alternate distribution models as negative, but his bringing that up in a discussion of piracy struck me as a strange detour and entirely not related to the topic.

Just because I always like learning something new, is that actually the meaning of the word "fix" in videogame circles, or an attempt to figure out what he was saying? If it's not the common usage (fix = deciding on an alternate distribution model), then it still sounds like choosing a loaded word which wouldn't apply to a legal activity.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 15, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Just because I always like learning something new, is that actually the meaning of the word "fix" in videogame circles, or an attempt to figure out what he was saying? If it's not the common usage (fix = deciding on an alternate distribution model), then it still sounds like choosing a loaded word which wouldn't apply to a legal activity.


 
In this context, yes, it does mean to decide on an alternate distribution model. Video game companies view the current model that allows for the sale of used games as something unfavorable to them, so they want to remedy (not sure if that's better ) the situation to lean more in their financial favor. It'd be silly to claim anything they're doing is illegal, of course, but that won't stop gamers from complaining about it .


EDIT: I'll add that _I've_ at least never seen "fix" used in the same way as "fix the books" in the context of the video game industry, but I suppose I may be putting words in Spinedriver's mouth based on my perceptions of the issue.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 15, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'm aware of his point, that he views videogame companies' movement toward alternate distribution models as negative, but his bringing that up in a discussion of piracy struck me as a strange detour and entirely not related to the topic.
> 
> Just because I always like learning something new, is that actually the meaning of the word "fix" in videogame circles, or an attempt to figure out what he was saying? If it's not the common usage (fix = deciding on an alternate distribution model), then it still sounds like choosing a loaded word which wouldn't apply to a legal activity.



By "fix" I was meaning 'to mend or repair'. In context of a discussion about piracy, it's relevance is that a lot of these businesses tend to blame everyone but themselves when it comes to declining sales. In their eyes, they're losing money because of piracy, second hand game sales, poor reviews, etc.. They never mention that it could be because they're making games no one wants to play or the fact that a lot of people can't afford to pay $60 for a new game anymore so they buy on the "used" market instead.

The point I keep trying to make but you keep failing to notice is that I agree with you that file sharing (to a certain extent) is a problem for some companies. However, SOPA as it exists now is like performing open heart surgery with a broadsword instead of a scalpel. After years of fighting with torrent sites and p2p sites, these corporations have nothing but bad intentions in mind. They are NOT going to ask politely for people to remove files anymore. If they find 'pirated' material or even a link to said material, they are going to have the site pulled even if there are thousands who use the site legally (ie: sharing their own music with each other much like how Trent Reznor did a few years ago).

Here's an excerpt from what Tim O'Reilly wrote:

_I talked with Nancy Pelosi about SOPA the other day, and she said that the experience with piracy is different for people in the movie industry. Maybe &#8212; I&#8217;m not a movie producer. But I do know that right now the entire content industry is facing massive systemic changes, and to claim that declining sales are because of piracy is so over the top. Any company that is providing great content online in a way that&#8217;s easy to use with a fair price has a booming business right now. The people who don&#8217;t are trying to fight that future.

So here we have this legislation, with all of these possible harms, to solve a problem that only exists in the minds of people who are afraid of the future. Why should the government be intervening on behalf of the people who aren&#8217;t getting with the program?_

Is he wrong ?

Here's the link to the full article to show that what I posted is completely within context of the topic.

Tim O&#8217;Reilly: Why I&#8217;m fighting SOPA &mdash; Tech News and Analysis

It's not like I'm trying to convince anyone that 'stealing movies is great, why doesn't everyone do it'. It's not that at all. What I'm trying to convey is that allowing the government (by way of multimedia lobbyists) to censor internet content is only going to make things ten times worse.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 16, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> What I'm trying to convey is that allowing the government (by way of multimedia lobbyists) to censor internet content is only going to make things ten times worse.



Hmm.

I think the reason I'm not viewing this the same way as you is that I don't see legislation which protects against the theft and distribution of copyrighted materials as censorship. 

However, there is definitely legal precedent for organizations which file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, or who wrongfully claim ownership/copyright on material they don't own. The Church of Scientology is one organization which suffers all kinds of legal setbacks, and which gets fined continually, for such behavior... although you have to go to the court records to see the huge percentage of cases which go against them. 

I'm convinced that *if* there were a huge problem with wrongfully claiming copyright, the remedies exist to stop those who do so.

I'm *not* convinced that such happens to a great extent, and I believe that most (if not all) such cases wind up with copyright owners emerging victorious, along with attorneys' fees. 

----

I'd be interested in knowing the percentages of how many piracy cases the RIAA has brought where they lost, and how many in which someone settled or lost due to the evidence. That might provide some insight in how often such laws are abused, and how often they are rightfully applied.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 17, 2012)

It looks as if the bill has been indefinitely put on hold... 



However, I do think I owe you, "Explorer" an apology. I've been doing some reading (largely in part due to your responses) and I think that my alluding to the SOPA act being applied _globally_ may have been a misunderstanding on my part.

If I understand correctly, if the bill should pass, then here's what could happen :

If Paramount pictures gets it's team of lawyers together and proves that a site like The Pirate Bay contains either illegal copyrighted material or links to said material then they file a motion to whichever dept. of the Gov't. that will be responsible for enforcing SOPA. What happens now is that the Gov't will instruct all internet providers *within the United States* to set up a filter that will effectively block all access to the Pirate Bay domain name. Whether it be typing the address in the address bar or looking it up with a search engine. The caveat is that every other country in the world will be able to access it (if I'm understanding it correctly). Seeing how at least 80% of those 'pirating' files are outside the US, the only thing this bill is going to do is give the media industry the ability to censor internet content within the U.S.

But the main issue is that because of these filters, if the Pirate Bay site is blocked, it's possible that other sites with "pirate" or "bay" in their domain name could be affected as well. Not only that sites that have very high visitor /post counts like Harmony Central, The Gear Page, etc.. can't possibly monitor every single post 24hrs a day.

Unfortunately, even if it did pass it wouldn't help indie artists in the least. I own 500+ cds and I'd say easily 80% are from indie labels (ie: Touch & Go, Alternative Tentacles, Epitaph, Invisible, etc..) so I know that these guys are in it for the music. Whereas Warner, Sony, et al... are in it to make money. If it costs $50,000 in legal fees to get a torrent site blocked because of copyright infringement, a label like Sub Pop wouldn't even consider it simply because they probably only make a few hundred thousand a year.
It's corporations like Warner, Viacom, etc.. that can afford to throw $300 Million to a group of lawyers and just let them go at it. Sadly, there's absolutely *nothing* in the proposed bill that would help small independent content creators protect what's theirs simply because they can't afford the team of lawyers they'd need to get anything done.

It's just an unfortunate side effect of the whole 'freedom of information' age we live in. People often forget that those who write books, songs, etc... are trying to make a living out of it. However, since a whole new generation of kids learning to use computers and the internet have probably never gone from store to store looking for a particular book or cd. They just 'Google' it and either use their parents' credit card to buy it on iTunes or they just bit torrent it. To them, it's just "information". It's intangible, it's not like a car or a pair of shoes that are made out of something and were put together by people, a song on the internet is just 'there', to them it's not made of anything, so it shouldn't cost anything either.

So yeah, there definitely needs to be a way to help artists protect their property but a) SOPA/PIPA is *not* it and b) with the way the web is designed, I don't think it's possible unless you have verrrrry deep pockets (which the people that deserve to be protected don't have).


----------



## drgamble (Jan 17, 2012)

The act would benefit indies too. Just because they don't have the lawyers to initiate the blocking, doesn't mean they won't benefit. My music is pirated on the very same sites alongside much larger artists that do have the deep pockets. By having them spend the money and getting the site blocked, it is also one less place for my music to be pirated. These sites don't care if you are a mega million artist or a small indie they offer up content people want to make a profit off of advertising. They don't really care if band x only brings 10 hits, it's still 10 hits.


----------



## mountainjam (Jan 17, 2012)

Wikipedia to Go Dark Tomorrow in Opposition of SOPA

No wikipedia tommarow in protest of sopa. They have my support.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 17, 2012)

drgamble said:


> The act would benefit indies too. Just because they don't have the lawyers to initiate the blocking, doesn't mean they won't benefit. My music is pirated on the very same sites alongside much larger artists that do have the deep pockets. By having them spend the money and getting the site blocked, it is also one less place for my music to be pirated. These sites don't care if you are a mega million artist or a small indie they offer up content people want to make a profit off of advertising. They don't really care if band x only brings 10 hits, it's still 10 hits.



See, it kinda depends on your definition of "indie". I know local bands that have put cds out but would be thrilled if they found out people in Australia, Brazil, Germany, etc... Mainly because they have no means of selling their music there anyway, so if people on the other side of the world are interested, let 'em have it. The one thing every band wants is exposure and for some, file sharing is the key.

That and with SOPA, although the site may be blocked from search engines, the site can still be accessed by typing in the site's IP address. So, those who are intent on downloading it will anyway. The only thing that's going to happen is little by little more and more sites that have nothing to do with file sharing are going to be 'accidentally' blocked.

It's looking more & more that it won't pass anyway so it's back to the old drawing board I guess.


----------



## mountainjam (Jan 18, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> See, it kinda depends on your definition of "indie". I know local bands that have put cds out but would be thrilled if they found out people in Australia, Brazil, Germany, etc... Mainly because they have no means of selling their music there anyway, so if people on the other side of the world are interested, let 'em have it. The one thing every band wants is exposure and for some, file sharing is the key.
> 
> That and with SOPA, although the site may be blocked from search engines, the site can still be accessed by typing in the site's IP address. So, those who are intent on downloading it will anyway. The only thing that's going to happen is little by little more and more sites that have nothing to do with file sharing are going to be 'accidentally' blocked.
> 
> It's looking more & more that it won't pass anyway so it's back to the old drawing board I guess.



 I completely agree. I would rather have people get my music for free and spread the word to their friends if they like it, vs never hearing it at all. If sopa passes, hordes of people arent going to start buying music, there will just be less people listening and following bands, less ticket and merch sales. Musicians are always complaining about pirated music, but how many sold out shows are filled with people who illegally obtained their music? A lot.


----------



## ZEBOV (Jan 18, 2012)

https://www.google.com/
^That link is what it is. Google.com, but with a black box over Google's name. Click it if you haven't already. You'll know what to do after that.
With Google being one of the highest trafficked sites on the internet, everyone who uses the internet, even people who are rarely on Google.com itself, will see this and will know about these bullshit bills. Google's anti-SOPA/PIPA campaign doesn't guarantee that it won't pass nor does it raise my hopes that these bills won't be passed since most U.S. lawmakers don't give a shit about this country anyways. All Google can do is raise awareness.
Because every American that uses the internet now knows or is about to know about these bills in the coming hours, I'm actually kind of worried about what will happen if it passes and gets signed into law. All I know is that a lot of people are going to be very angry if it gets signed into law. There's no telling what the reaction would be though.


----------



## Fiction (Jan 18, 2012)

There's also A LOT of musicians who would prefer their music being pirated and coming to their shows. I've been to a few gigs, where the lead singer will yell out "Download our fuckin' album, we don't give a shit!" etc... IIRC Devin Townsend & Protest the Hero have done just that a few times.

And imagine all the seedy teenagers without 4chan congregate? They'll end up here and the Off Topic section will be filled with cocks.

Literally


----------



## Zonk Knuckle (Jan 18, 2012)

Just go to google, and click the link. It only takes a few seconds. Thanks. edit: oops. I should've known there was a thread already. Mine got appended.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Jan 18, 2012)

this must be an american thing yeah? my google is normal


----------



## Zonk Knuckle (Jan 18, 2012)

Yeah.


----------



## leonardo7 (Jan 18, 2012)

Thrashmanzac said:


> this must be an american thing yeah? my google is normal



Well I live in America and I dont even know what this is about. It says to click the link to tell congress to not censor the web? What types of things might they try to censor?

Edit: I responded to a thread that got merged with another one that probably explains everything. So I guess I have a few pages to read then


----------



## ZEBOV (Jan 18, 2012)

leonardo7 said:


> Well I live in America and I dont even know what this is about. It says to click the link to tell congress to not censor the web? What types of things might they try to censor?
> 
> Edit: I responded to a thread that got merged with another one that probably explains everything. So I guess I have a few pages to read then



Simply put, our internet in the US is in danger of being more censored than the internet in China, thanks to some proposed laws. Add the proposed laws to the fact that some American corporations are so greedy that they'll call just about any website a "rogue site" just to have it shut down (it would be very easy to do if the bills are passed), and almost everything on the internet would be blacklisted/shut down/fill-in-the-blank. Monster Cable has already made it obvious that they would do just that.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/184288-monster-cable-pathetic-company.html

Internet service providers would also lose a fuckload of money because the internet would become so useless that many people would end their subscriptions, myself included.


----------



## leonardo7 (Jan 18, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> Simply put, our internet in the US is in danger of being more censored than the internet in China, thanks to some proposed laws. Add the proposed laws to the fact that some American corporations are so greedy that they'll call just about any website a "rogue site" just to have it shut down (it would be very easy to do if the bills are passed), and almost everything on the internet would be blacklisted/shut down/fill-in-the-blank. Monster Cable has already made it obvious that they would do just that.
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/184288-monster-cable-pathetic-company.html
> 
> Internet service providers would also lose a fuckload of money because the internet would become so useless that many people would end their subscriptions, myself included.





Blind Theory said:


> 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.





I may have completely misunderstood the point but my conclusion is that the companies that created the file sharing software sure did create therefore expose a "flaw" that apparently ultimately did give their case of censorship quite the push they wanted it to have. All they had to do was build the flame and patiently wait roughly a decade or so to see major declines and changes in the entertainment industry and companies' sales take place to really strengthen their case. Google has been doing extremely well so its no wonder they oppose it. Regardless of what we all want, at least its all understood that its all about money. I mean, the internet may be about exposure and entertainment for all of us, but the internet came about over a vision that money was the main purpose behind. Money created it and money can try and destroy it. The fundamentals of greed have always lurked in the shadows of monetary gain and/or loss.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 18, 2012)

https://www.google.com/

daily doodle blackout


----------



## GazPots (Jan 18, 2012)

No doodle for me, just says google as usual.


----------



## Necris (Jan 18, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> Simply put, our internet in the US is in danger of being more censored than the internet in China, thanks to some proposed laws.


Nice use of hyperbole.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 18, 2012)

GazPots said:


> No doodle for me, just says google as usual.


 
should just have to click the icon for daily doodle image of the daily doodle image being blacked out lol.

Maybe I'm having another shamenic flashback from my TRIP to arizona.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jan 18, 2012)

Nah, I see it. SOPA or some shit.


----------



## Blake1970 (Jan 18, 2012)

Some info on the protest. 

Source: Online protest threatens piracy bill &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## AgileLefty (Jan 18, 2012)

the Agileguitarforum.com has been blacked out for 24hrs. in protest 

www.agileguitarforum.com

SS.org, prepare for even MORE "questions about Agile..." threads!!!


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 18, 2012)

The biggest problem about SOPA is that it allows private corprorations to shut down sites under _the mere assumption_ of piracy which translates as "any site they declare are pirating will be closed until a judge decides otherwise at their simple request". 
Easy to kill the competition that way.

Simply put, youtube will say Dailymotion is pirating, Dailymotion will say youtube is pirating, both will be shut down without any kind of legal judgment before the fact.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (Jan 18, 2012)

Here is a link to the blog of that prior video.

How CNET/CBS interactive ignited and Fueled the Phenomenon of Internet Piracy


----------



## leandroab (Jan 18, 2012)

_Two months later..._

Skynet is created.


----------



## Thep (Jan 18, 2012)

I hope everyone here has already taken action, but if not, 

Contact Congress - OpenCongress


----------



## Osiris (Jan 18, 2012)

Google is against it, this shit is contacting the fan at a rapid rate.


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 18, 2012)

i still dont see it, nor do i see any icon to let me see it.
i only see a link to say 'Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web!"

and its not showing up here either:
http://www.google.com/doodles/finder/2012/All doodles


----------



## Valennic (Jan 18, 2012)

I can see it just fine.

You guys just have x-ray vision or something.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 18, 2012)

Make alcohol illegal: people got it anyway
Prohibition on drugs: we still get them, grow them, or some people make there labs every day
Ban Napster: Kazaa starts, along with so many others.
People are already downloading music via youtube. 

What's next a voice monitor to stop me from swearing? The government's role isn't to be our parent.

They won't be able to stop people from getting what they want. If there's a will, there's a way.

Censorship and prohibition go hand in hand in my eyes and when it was illegal for a kid to watch porn back in the day and you had to try and catch glimpses in the scramble vision from the cable service...yeah, kids found away around that too


----------



## Alberto7 (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm guessing it's only for the US Google site? I can't see it either, and I'm outside the US. The other guys in this thread that can't see it are also outside the US... That might be why... But I don't know. I wanna see it.


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 18, 2012)

well, even if we are out of usa, if we type in '.com' rather than '.ca' (for canada or anything else), then it SHOULD show...

but here is an article and story, and picture about it:





http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...me-page-to-support-of-wikipedia-sopa-protest/


----------



## Blake1970 (Jan 18, 2012)

^
lol I remember trying to catch a glimpse on skinamax back in the day!


----------



## Alberto7 (Jan 18, 2012)

Whenever I type "www.google.com" it redirects me to the Bahrain site. I haven't been able to access the US site (although if I type "www.google.es" or "www.google.co.ve," for example, it does access the Spanish and Venezuelan sites, respectively). But, like I said, I could well be talking out of my ass.


----------



## themike (Jan 18, 2012)

Here's a print screen of what we see. I'm pretty sure it determines your county location by your ISP location, and not just using .com. 

When you click the black box it brings you to this site:

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/


----------



## Alberto7 (Jan 18, 2012)

Awesome! Thanks for that


----------



## gunshow86de (Jan 18, 2012)

mountainjam said:


> Wikipedia to Go Dark Tomorrow in Opposition of SOPA
> 
> No wikipedia tommarow in protest of sopa. They have my support.





brutalwizard said:


> wikipedia doesnt work haha



1. Press the "esc" key as soon as the Wikipedia page loads.
2. Check my user title.
3. Use Wikipedia as normal.




brutalwizard said:


> craigslist isnt working today either



Works fine for me.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 18, 2012)

Since the point keeps getting raised that *some* artists are on board with having their material pirated, but since no one has said that *they themselves* are all right with having their material pirated, I'm still hoping someone will post who is a working musician who is giving away their material for free. 

----

If they added teeth to the bill, enabling those who are unfairly accused of piracy of getting damages should that not be the case, would that make it more palatable? 

All the hypothetical cases being presented are about someone being falsely accused, and of the chilling effect that will have. If there was a requirement that someone be on the hook legally when claiming ownership, and being prosecutable should they wrongfully claim ownership, would that make it acceptable?

Remember, theft and perjury don't require the person wronged by such actions to pay for the enforcement. One doesn't require a team of lawyers when someone steals your car or wallet.

----

One more thing: Is "Pirate Bay" an actual site? One can use eBay's name on this site, so I'm hoping it's not more hyperbole.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 18, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> craigslist isnt working today either



I heard Monster Cables would try to shut them down (and eBay) if SOPA passed. Not sure if this is true or not.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 18, 2012)

Blake1970 said:


> ^
> lol I remember trying to catch a glimpse on skinamax back in the day!



Skini-hax is what I called it back in the day rofl!


----------



## leandroab (Jan 18, 2012)

I can't see why the hate on soup/kite worldwide!


----------



## mountainjam (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Since the point keeps getting raised that *some* artists are on board with having their material pirated, but since no one has said that *they themselves* are all right with having their material pirated, I'm still hoping someone will post who is a working musician who is giving away their material for free.



Red Seas Fire

There yah go bud. Enjoy a *free* download from working musicians, who happen to be members of ss.o

Edit- Taproot, a band with 5 studio albums that has been touring for the past 10 years said this on FB today "End Piracy, Not Liberty! Censoring the internet is not the answer. Vote NO on PIPA and SOPA. #KnowledgeisPower"


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jan 18, 2012)

I read that this bill will make anyone who covers or remixes someone else's music without their permission a criminal.

Seriously, what the fuck is this, North Korea?

That would mean my Youtube channel would be full of criminal activity. Fuck this.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 18, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> I read that this bill will make anyone who covers or remixes someone else's music without their permission a criminal



I thought this was long-since established via copyright laws.. (?)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 18, 2012)

Here's an interview with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about why Wikipedia decided to have a blackout in protest of SOPA:

Why Wikipedia went down at midnight - CNN.com


Explorer, you might find this little bit particularly interesting, since it touches on a reason SOPA is bad that has nothing to do with whether or not people can pirate music:

*CNN: *You mentioned earlier that these laws would 'censor' the Internet. How so exactly?

*Wales:* One of the provisions in the Senate version, which is still out there, is that under certain circumstances Internet providers would be required to block access to sites, by removing them from the DNS entry list. So if you type in the domain of a site that's been accused of being devoted to infringement of copyright you wouldn't get an answer of whether that site exists. That's exactly what China does. They do blocking at the DNS level.

*CNN: *Do you oppose that on a technical level or is it the philosophy behind it?

*Wales:* It's a little bit of both. As we look at some of the interesting work that's going on technologically for DNS security, ways of validating that this is the correct website ... This is an actual critical problem that is being solved at a technical level. Except that DNS blocking would break the solutions that are already being implemented.

The more philosophical point is (that) if you asked me where the Pirate Bay is located and I tell you the answer -- it's at this IP address -- that is speech. The Supreme Court has held that code is speech. And it doesn't matter that it's done on a computer or done face to face or done in a newspaper, reporting the facts of the world is protected speech. I don't believe the DNS blocking provisions will pass First Amendment muster, anyway, but it seems a shame to spend two years and a lot of court costs fighting something that's absurd on the face of it.​


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 18, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I thought this was long-since established via copyright laws.. (?)


It's why Weird Al always asks for permission to cover people's songs.

-------------------------------------------
I'm completely apathetic to the bill, if sites are going to get shut down for copyright violations then they get what they deserve. 

I have to agree with Explorer about the sensationalism getting the best of people.

This was just posted to my facebook page after I said That I don't care about SOPA:







Apparently, I'm a rib moving communist? This is almost as bad as the NDAA thread.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 18, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It's why Weird Al always asks for permission to cover people's songs.


 

I thought he just asked as a courtesy to the artists, because he doesn't want to upset anybody by doing a satire of their music without their permission (incidentally, his music is satire, not covers, so it's a different thing entirely).


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 18, 2012)

> If they added teeth to the bill, enabling those who are unfairly accused of piracy of getting damages should that not be the case, would that make it more palatable?



No. The legal stuff must be done *before* closing a site, and closing it must be announced by a judge. You do know perfectly well that no web site for 6 months can kill a business. No amount of money will repair that, the owner maybe, but the new unemployed etc ? No.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 18, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I thought he just asked as a courtesy to the artists, because he doesn't want to upset anybody by doing a satire of their music without their permission (incidentally, his music is satire, not covers, so it's a different thing entirely).



It is and isn't. The backing tracks used and reproduced for the satirized songs are part of the original copyrighted material. To the public it's "oh he's asking so he doesn't offend people", but in the background there's more to it. 

Remember when Coolio "didn't" give permission for Gangsta's Paradise to be parodied? There was a big hubbub about it back in the 90s, I'm barely old enough to remember anything about it except for his discontent and Al apologizing.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 18, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I thought he just asked as a courtesy to the artists, because he doesn't want to upset anybody by doing a satire of their music without their permission (incidentally, his music is satire, not covers, so it's a different thing entirely).





Under current copyright laws, parodies are totally legal as long as credit is given to the original artist. Weird Al is just a nice guy like that.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 18, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> I read that this bill will make anyone who covers or remixes someone else's music without their permission a criminal.
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is this, North Korea?
> 
> That would mean my Youtube channel would be full of criminal activity. Fuck this.



No actually it's America and is actually already illegal via copyright laws. By permission, it means paying a royalty to the creator for every copy distributed. The SOPA/PIPA is a way to enforce what is already law without going after every single American that has already broken the law. Would it be better if the government went out and locked everybody up that downloads copyrighted material illegally?


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 18, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> I read that this bill will make anyone who covers or remixes someone else's music without their permission a criminal.
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is this, North Korea?
> 
> That would mean my Youtube channel would be full of criminal activity. Fuck this.



Sounds more like China IMO (they've censored google for years). North Korean's are too busy splitting one piece of rice to even understand what the internet is. 

What's sad is I can only imagine how many dollars are being wasted on creating and fighting SOPA. Why even go there. Don't we have bigger things to deal with as a country?

Edit: that hitting the 'esc' key on wikipedia worked for me. Thanks!


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 18, 2012)

At times I think the OWS generation needs it -_-



drgamble said:


> No actually it's America and is actually already illegal via copyright laws. By permission, it means paying a royalty to the creator for every copy distributed. The SOPA/PIPA is a way to enforce what is already law without going after every single American that has already broken the law. Would it be better if the government went out and locked everybody up that downloads copyrighted material illegally?


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 18, 2012)




----------



## Sicarius (Jan 18, 2012)

Because a politician is really the one who makes and codes their webpage.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 18, 2012)

ASCAP - What You Need to Know About the Protect IP (U.S. Senate) and the Stop Online Piracy (U.S. House) Acts


----------



## wlfers (Jan 18, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Because a politician is really the one who makes and codes their webpage.



That's the whole irony of it.


----------



## engage757 (Jan 18, 2012)

this is some bullshit here. hope everyone signed those petitions.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 18, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It is and isn't. The backing tracks used and reproduced for the satirized songs are part of the original copyrighted material. To the public it's "oh he's asking so he doesn't offend people", but in the background there's more to it.
> 
> Remember when Coolio "didn't" give permission for Gangsta's Paradise to be parodied? There was a big hubbub about it back in the 90s, I'm barely old enough to remember anything about it except for his discontent and Al apologizing.


 

Weird Al doesn't use the same backing tracks as the artists for the satire, he has his own band that plays them. What he's doing is satire, and there is legal precedent for it being perfectly legal to do without the original artist's permission. Simple as. He doesn't need to asks them, he chooses to.

The FAQ on Weird Al's website clear both that and the Coolio issue up:

"Weird Al" Yankovic: Frequently Asked Questions

The relevant Qs:


*Does Al get permission to do his parodies? *

Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties. 

*What do the original artists think of the parodies? *

Most artists are genuinely flattered and consider it an honor to have Weird Al parody their work. Some groups (including Nirvana) claim that they didn't realize that they had really "made it" until Weird Al did a parody of them! 

*What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise." *

That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. To this day we're not exactly sure who got their facts wrong, but Al sincerely apologizes to Coolio for the misunderstanding. 

*Have any artists ever turned Al down for a parody? *

Even though most recording artists really do have a pretty good sense of humor, on a few very rare occasions Al has been denied permission to do a parody. Actually, the only artist to turn Al down consistently over the years has been the Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. Go figure.


----------



## Osiris (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Since the point keeps getting raised that *some* artists are on board with having their material pirated, but since no one has said that *they themselves* are all right with having their material pirated, I'm still hoping someone will post who is a working musician who is giving away their material for free.




http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/re...ree-instrumental-progressive-metal-djent.html


----------



## soliloquy (Jan 18, 2012)

for those trying to access wikipeida or any other blocked site, just press escape before the page loads fully.

you're welcome


----------



## gunshow86de (Jan 18, 2012)

^

_*cough*_ post #85 _*cough*_


----------



## Necris (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Since the point keeps getting raised that *some* artists are on board with having their material pirated, but since no one has said that *they themselves* are all right with having their material pirated, I'm still hoping someone will post who is a working musician who is giving away their material for free.


With the money all of us have put into our recording gear, our instruments, lessons if we have taken any and just the amount of time we put in to each song we write we should _all _want to be compensated for our efforts. Yet many members of this forum have offered their music up for free download with the option of buying a physical copy if one exists and it's not just members of this forum many bands on bandcamp follow the same idea while being fully aware of the likelihood they won't make any money doing so.
Whenever I get around to recording again anyone can download the album for free (whether you like it or not is beside the point). If I decide to make physical copies or pay to have them professionally pressed the option to download for free will still be there.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 18, 2012)

Necris said:


> With the money all of us have put into our recording gear, our instruments, lessons if we have taken any and just the amount of time we put in to each song we write we should _all _want to be compensated for our efforts. Yet many members of this forum have offered their music up for free download with the option of buying a physical copy if one exists and it's not just members of this forum many bands on bandcamp follow the same idea while being fully aware of the likelihood they won't make any money doing so.
> Whenever I get around to recording again anyone can download the album for free (whether you like it or not is beside the point). If I decide to make physical copies or pay to have them professionally pressed the option to download for free will still be there.



A little caveat about this is that as a band starting out you do have to give some stuff away. If you feel like giving it all away for free, that's your choice. The part that sucks though is, even though you give your music away for free, the bandcamps, soundclouds, facebooks, youtubes, etc of the world ARE making money off of the music that you give away for free. If its ok with you that someone else makes more money off of you than you do that's fine, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to distribute your music.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 18, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> I'm completely apathetic to the bill, if sites are going to get shut down for copyright violations then they get what they deserve.
> 
> I have to agree with Explorer about the sensationalism getting the best of people.
> 
> ...



I guess the thing of it is, much like the political site, people can "violate copyright laws" without even meaning to. Re-posting a movie trailer is technically 'pirating' in their eyes.

As for the sensationalism aspect, private industry should not be allowed to dictate Government policy. No one in the Gov't is introducing a bill keeping companies from laying off a few hundred people and moving the factory to China just to increase profits. Neither are they introducing bills to make multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney pay more than 15% tax on their income when people that make minimum wage have to pay 35%. So why should everyone sit idly by and let a handful of corporations dictate what people should or shouldn't have access to on their internet connection that they pay for.

I mean seriously, here's what's going on in Canada now... 

Irene Mathyssen, MP: Caterpillar Lockout: Harper Turns Back on Canadian Workers

A US company bought a diesel locomotive factory in Ontario last year and as of Jan 1st, they locked out all 400+ employees because they refused to take a 55% wage cut, benefits cut and a 'drastic' reduction in their pension (even though the company is still very profitable). Yet, the Government won't lift a finger to help and this is all a perfectly normal 'business practice'. 

However, if some tween happens to watch "The Little Mermaid" on her computer without paying for it, (if it were up to Disney), she deserves to be thrown in prison.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 18, 2012)

Necris said:


> With the money all of us have put into our recording gear, our instruments, lessons if we have taken any and just the amount of time we put in to each song we write we should _all _want to be compensated for our efforts. Yet many members of this forum have offered their music up for free download with the option of buying a physical copy if one exists and it's not just members of this forum many bands on bandcamp follow the same idea while being fully aware of the likelihood they won't make any money doing so.
> Whenever I get around to recording again anyone can download the album for free (whether you like it or not is beside the point). If I decide to make physical copies or pay to have them professionally pressed the option to download for free will still be there.



Even when bands get signed to major labels, it's long been understood that if you want to make a living being in a band, you _have to tour_. Period. That and sell a good selection of merch. It's like I said before, Weird AL said that musicians need to treat their recordings as if they were business cards. You use the recordings to get people to come to the live show.

Not only that but in the past, bands were pretty uptight about selling their music because they had to pay to get the music pressed/duplicated. When you are sitting on 1,000 copies of a cd, you're kind of inclined to want to sell them and get your money back. Now that digital distribution is quickly becoming the standard, the only cost to a band is recording (which many bands want to do for themselves anyway). Once you upload it to Bandcamp or iTunes or wherever, it's all gravy so charge $5 if you want.


----------



## ZEBOV (Jan 18, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> It's why Weird Al always asks for permission to cover people's songs.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> I'm completely apathetic to the bill, if sites are going to get shut down for copyright violations then they get what they deserve.
> ...



I'm all for sites dedicated to copyright infringement being shut down, but the biggest problem with the bill is that is allows so much room for abuse. If these bills are passed into law, anyone can claim that any website is dedicated to copyright infringement, and the websites will be shut down until a judge can review it. What if Myspace claimed that Facebook infringes Myspace's rights? What if some asshole who was permabanned from SSO claimed that this site infringes their rights? And I have no doubt that competing corporations will repeatedly shut each other's sites down. Zzounds, musician's friend, sam ash, american musical supply, guitar center, etc., could all shut each other's websites down.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Since the point keeps getting raised that *some* artists are on board with having their material pirated, but since no one has said that *they themselves* are all right with having their material pirated, *I'm still hoping someone will post who is a working musician who is giving away their material for free. *





Osiris said:


> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/re...ree-instrumental-progressive-metal-djent.html


 
Osiris, I hate to be dense, but are you also C2Ave, the person whose thread to which you linked? 

I wanted some input from someone who works as a musician, and to ask a few questions about the motivations to work as a musician but to give away full recordings. Since there's a rule against having two user names here, I suspect you didn't create that work. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was hoping for. 

So, Mountainjam, are you one of the members of that group? If so, my question (as stated before) is, are you okay with someone taking your material without your permission? I'm not talking about you setting any parameters. If someone just took the music and lyrics, and claimed it as their own, you'd be okay with that? 

And, if you're not in that group, I appreciate the assist in finding members who have given away the material, but my hope is that this thread interests them enough to post in it. 

----



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Explorer, you might find this little bit particularly interesting, since it touches on a reason SOPA is bad that has nothing to do with whether or not people can pirate music:*CNN: *You mentioned earlier that these laws would 'censor' the Internet. How so exactly?
> 
> *Wales:* One of the provisions in the Senate version, which is still out there, is that *under certain circumstances* Internet providers would be required to block access to sites, by removing them from the DNS entry list. So if you type in the domain of a site that's been accused of being devoted to infringement of copyright you wouldn't get an answer of whether that site exists. That's exactly what China does. They do blocking at the DNS level.​


 
That *is* intriguing. I'm sorry that the "certain circumstances" wasn't clarified. It could be anything from a court finding of fact to just hearsay. I don't know. Do you?

I'd look it up on Wikipedia, but, well, you know... *laugh*

----



Andromalia said:


> No. The legal stuff must be done *before* closing a site, and closing it must be announced by a judge.



So... it's not just an arbitrary closing of a site, but has to pass judicial review? That's not what's being bandied about everywhere. No wonder some of the assertions in this thread confuse me.

----

Necris, so as a working musician, and a possible provider of free content which you could potentially sell, are you okay with someone else making that choice for you? Deciding if you will offer it for free, or setting a price on it and selling it as theirs on their website without asking your permission? 

----



Spinedriver said:


> Even when bands get signed to major labels, it's long been understood that if you want to make a living being in a band, you _have to tour_. Period.


 
I'll advance that, if a band signs a shitty contract, then if they agreed to a crap deal on recordings, then they won't make money selling those recordings. That's a little different from asserting or assuming that the general understanding is correct. 

The last time I had an attorney go through a contract, the label and distributor wanted to tack on all kinds of conditions. I pointed out that I already had the masters, there were no studio costs to recoup, and a host of other things. The argument from the other side of the table was, Well, no one has ever challenged those things before!

We wound up signing with another label for distribution, but your example just makes it seem like getting ripped off in a contract is a done deal. If you don't like a contract, *don't sign.* 

The major irony of your point is that, in this topic, there is a lot of worry about losing rights, but your statement about the general understanding in contracts is that you just have to count on losing rights, instead of fighting for them. What's up with that?

(A lot of the same ideas crop up in those "Pay for play?" threads. It's interesting how many just acquiesce.)


----------



## C2Aye (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Osiris, I hate to be dense, but are you also C2Ave, the person whose thread to which you linked?



No, I'm C2Aye. Cut me some slack Explorer 

Edit: The intention was the Cassini was to be free in order to gain a foothold in the particular music scene I was interested. I then gave the option to pay what you want while maintaining the free download option. There's pretty much no chance of me making a living from recordings before I became better known so it's worth it in order to reach that end. In terms of pirating of the album, since it's free, it actually works in my favour of increasing the distribution radius of the record if you will (it was astonishing the amount of websites that with links to websites like fileshare etc, just days after I released Cassini). More people get to download it from various sources, more people hear about me and end up listening to my music, liking my facebook and may even eventually see me live once I get to that stage. 

If I ever started charging for music, I think I would have to accept that people will always pirate as well as acknowledging the help it may have gave me in getting started up. Also, in metal especially, most of your money is made touring and selling merchandise I guess and although I'm not sure how much extra you could have made if everyone bought your album instead of pirating it. I'm not at that stage anyway, so I'm not going to worry about it.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 18, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> I'm all for sites dedicated to copyright infringement being shut down, but the biggest problem with the bill is that is allows so much room for abuse. If these bills are passed into law, anyone can claim that any website is dedicated to copyright infringement, and the websites will be shut down until a judge can review it. What if Myspace claimed that Facebook infringes Myspace's rights? What if some asshole who was permabanned from SSO claimed that this site infringes their rights? And I have no doubt that competing corporations will repeatedly shut each other's sites down. Zzounds, musician's friend, sam ash, american musical supply, guitar center, etc., could all shut each other's websites down.



I think that's taking the whole thing and blowing it way out of proportion. Not to mention we're not talking about the "rights" a person has, but whether or not their IPs or Copyrighted material is being used with out permission. 

I'm sure there are regulations in other laws that state what can and cannot be done when dealing with online retail outlets.


----------



## Necris (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Necris, so as a working musician, and a possible provider of free content which you could potentially sell, are you okay with someone else making that choice for you? Deciding if you will offer it for free, or setting a price on it and selling it as theirs on their website without asking your permission?


If I were to put out an album for free on to the internet the decision of whether or not I personally was offering it for free would have already been made by myself. 
If you are referring to someone making and selling a physical copy of the album I offered up for free I honestly wouldn't care, it's not as though sales are being stolen from myself since on my end there are no sales to be made. Unauthorized releases are par for the course in the type of music I play and I've accepted that just as I've accepted the existence of filesharing.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> That *is* intriguing. I'm sorry that the "certain circumstances" wasn't clarified. It could be anything from a court finding of fact to just hearsay. I don't know. Do you?
> 
> I'd look it up on Wikipedia, but, well, you know... *laugh*


 

I assume the certain circumstances would be whatever SOPA is attempting to make punishable. I don't think the circumstances are the point, though, because the issue is that having the sites DNS blocked _for any reason_ is a free speech violation.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 19, 2012)

I shouldn't try to speak for anybody else, but I _think_ that when Explorer is talking about "working musicians", what he means is people who's primary source of income is their musical work. No day jobs like waiting tables, sitting at a desk, mixing concrete, or whatever.

If one puts a free album out as an attempt to increase their listener base, that's clearly not the same situation as an artist who's next several paychecks depend on how well their album sells.

I realize I'm not furthering the discussion, but I wanted to point out what seems to be a misunderstanding in some of the dialog here.


----------



## Randy (Jan 19, 2012)

Haven't been following this thread but viewing the last few pages, it seems like the big debate going on in here is over whether or not piracy is fair and (IMO) totally misses the main point of opposition against SOPA.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm afraid I don't qualify as a working musician, Explorer, but Radiohead's _In Rainbows_ was released on a "pay what you want" basis, including paying nothing at all, in 2007. 

2011's _The King Of Limbs_ was a paid download, at about half the price of a CD, so take from that what you will.


----------



## xeonblade (Jan 19, 2012)

Peavey, my son, I am utterly disappointed. Fucking SOPA supporter, along with Gibson and Fender.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jan 19, 2012)

xeonblade said:


> Peavey, my son, I am utterly disappointed. Fucking SOPA supporter, along with Gibson and Fender.



where did you get that list of gear companies that support/go against this thing anyways?


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 19, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'll advance that, if a band signs a shitty contract, then if they agreed to a crap deal on recordings, then they won't make money selling those recordings. That's a little different from asserting or assuming that the general understanding is correct.
> 
> The last time I had an attorney go through a contract, the label and distributor wanted to tack on all kinds of conditions. I pointed out that I already had the masters, there were no studio costs to recoup, and a host of other things. The argument from the other side of the table was, Well, no one has ever challenged those things before!
> 
> ...



Sadly, a lot of young bands that get offered major deals either don't think to or can't afford to have a lawyer read over/explain a contract like that. It's good that you were smart enough to know what you were getting into. There are a number of bands that have successful careers working on a major but for every one of them, there are hundreds that end up splitting up and deeply in debt. I know you said that "If you don't like a contract, *don't sign.*" but for some, when the 'world tour' carrot gets dangled in front of them, it's too hard to say no.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 19, 2012)

Varcolac said:


> I'm afraid I don't qualify as a working musician, Explorer, but Radiohead's _In Rainbows_ was released on a "pay what you want" basis, including paying nothing at all, in 2007.
> 
> 2011's _The King Of Limbs_ was a paid download, at about half the price of a CD, so take from that what you will.



NIN also released "The Slip" as a free download along with about 6 other versions (ranging from a $5 art & better quality MP3's pack to all inclusive special editions with physical stuff etc..).

16Volt released their entire back catalog for free also on their website when Eric brought the project back to life after a near 10 year hiatus in 2007.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 19, 2012)

@Spinedriver - To say that a group is overcome with greed and then falls for a bad deal is far different from saying that one must sign a bad deal in order to sign with a label. I think we both agree that no one is being coerced into signing those shitty deals. Where I think we differ in opinion is in putting the responsibility for signing that shitty deal squarely on the person/group who agreed to that shitty deal. 

You say it's a general understanding that one signs away one's ability to make money on recordings (again, weird and ironic given how many are arguing about rights in this topic). I say it's like an adult falling for the Nigerian Scam. One view is about the world beating someone down. The other is about someone making a bad choice. 

Only one view allows someone to learn from their mistakes and to do better. 

----

Necris, again, you'd be okay with someone taking your material, selling it, putting a copyright on it in their name? 

And again, for all of you who are not the ones releasing the free material, I appreciate you wanting to speak for, say, Nine Inch Nails, but you can only guess as to whether those groups would be willing to give away not just free copies, but also the copyright. 

I was asking because, in case you've forgotten my original question, a lot of people were making comments about how working musicians felt about others violating their copyright. A lot of examples have been posted of groups giving stuff away, but few (if any) comments from those who have actually done so, and *none of those examples are yet of someone who didn't make their own choice. *

If my question seems too subtle, then is it possible that similar misunderstandings lie at the heart of the opposition to SOPA? This thread has had a huge amount of assertions which turned out to not be as represented.


----------



## Necris (Jan 20, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Necris, again, you'd be okay with someone taking your material, selling it, putting a copyright on it in their name?


Yes, yes, and no. However the first two could be done without the third and I would have no problem with that. 

Upload it to blogs, burn copies and sell it from your distro, burn copies and leave them in random places in your city, use them as a dink coaster, I don't care as long as it's known that I created and own it.


----------



## fantom (Jan 20, 2012)

leonardo7 said:


> Regardless of what we all want, at least its all understood that its all about money. I mean, the internet may be about exposure and entertainment for all of us, but the internet came about over a vision that money was the main purpose behind. Money created it and money can try and destroy it. The fundamentals of greed have always lurked in the shadows of monetary gain and/or loss.



I would strongly argue that the internet was probably one of the cheapest products ever made. And considering the amount of jobs and revenue it has created, it has a pretty fricking ridiculous investment to return ratio. Outside of that... Poop on SOPA/PIPA! Yay politics online.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jan 20, 2012)

Wow, I didn't realize that this was my thread Changed the name on me.


----------



## Mexi (Jan 20, 2012)

PIPA on hold because of "legitimate issues" raised by protestors and companies. 

Statement from Chairman Smith on Senate Delay of Vote on PROTECT IP Act

edit: seems what is getting lost on people in this thread is that the largest implications from SOPA aren't with copyright infringement but _ internet censorship_ and _freedom of speech_ in general, under the banner of protecting intellectual property with broad, generalized legislation


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 20, 2012)

In protest of all this SOPA/PIPA bullshit I closed alot services associated with it.
In the deepweb I was on an IRC where there was talk about creating traffic to stall some companies who supported the SOPA/PIPA acts. Other than that I have no idea what the Anonymous group has planned. I wish I could help them but there`s not much I can do.


----------



## mountainjam (Jan 20, 2012)

SOPA Is Dead: Smith Pulls Bill


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 20, 2012)

mountainjam said:


> SOPA Is Dead: Smith Pulls Bill



"They should have expected us"

We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> In protest of all this SOPA/PIPA bullshit I closed alot services associated with it.
> *In the deepweb I was on an IRC where there was talk about creating traffic to stall some companies who supported the SOPA/PIPA acts.* Other than that I have no idea what the Anonymous group has planned. *I wish I could help them but there`s not much I can do.*





Iamasingularity said:


> "They should have expected us"
> 
> We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.



Are you admitting on a public website being around what sounds like a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, and wanting to aid and abet such an act?

Further, the idea that someone would be supportive of a criminal act because one doesn't like the politics of the victims sounds like Kristallnacht, and not just in a general sense. I don't like thugs whether they are fundamentalists, fascists, white supremacists or whatever group which just wants to take a shit on someone's rights under the law.

I certainly hope that all those who have been worried about websites being shut down without due process would be horrified by such an attack. We'll see if the posts in this thread show such outrage going in the other direction.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 20, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Are you admitting on a public website being around what sounds like a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, and wanting to aid and abet such an act?
> 
> Further, the idea that someone would be supportive of a criminal act because one doesn't like the politics of the victims sounds like Kristallnacht, and not just in a general sense. I don't like thugs whether they are fundamentalists, fascists, white supremacists or whatever group which just wants to take a shit on someone's rights under the law.
> 
> I certainly hope that all those who have been worried about websites being shut down without due process would be horrified by such an attack. We'll see if the posts in this thread show such outrage going in the other direction.



Hmm, come to thinking of it, its wasn`t my personal goal at 1st in understanding their direction. I don`t want to start an argument or such, but if you want to rely on services such as 7string you ought to think of the consequences both SOPA/PIPA will have on the internet. I myself am not breaking any laws or causing such trouble that I know of. At the end of the day I know petitions will only stall this act. We`re good for now, but to think that its over is a mistake.


----------



## Necris (Jan 20, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> "They should have expected us"
> 
> We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.




 Openly claiming a connection to an "Organization" who commit criminal acts on a public forum seems to be a lack of good judgement on your part, if not a lack of intelligence in general.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 20, 2012)

Necris said:


> Openly claiming a connection to an "Organization" who commit criminal acts on a public forum seems to be a lack of good judgement on your part, if not a lack of intelligence in general.



Who said there was a connection? When did talking to people become a crime?
And my own opinion to wish I could be of someone`s aid in stoping an act/law I find very threatning to online freedom? Naah, see this is the very thing we should be worried about. People trying to silence others because of such allegations. Its very humorous to me to find myself in a situation where people assume that I am some criminal because I exchange and ask questions concerning Anonymous. That to me seems not very bright itself.


----------



## Necris (Jan 20, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> Who said there was a connection? When did talking to people become a crime?
> And my own opinion to wish I could be of someone`s aid in stoping an act/law I find very threatning to online freedom? Naah, see this is the very thing we should be worried about. People trying to silence others because of such allegations. Its very humorous to me to find myself in a situation where people assume that I am some criminal because I exchange and ask questions concerning Anonymous. That to me seems not very bright itself.


You use their logo as your avatar, you repeat their slogan as though claiming resonsibility, you stated you were a part of talks to crash websites of companies which supported SOPA/PIPA, you spoke of a desire to aid them. What am I missing?

Wanting to aid and wanting to understand are two very different things.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 20, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Are you admitting on a public website being around what sounds like a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, and wanting to aid and abet such an act?
> 
> Further, the idea that someone would be supportive of a criminal act because one doesn't like the politics of the victims sounds like Kristallnacht, and not just in a general sense. I don't like thugs whether they are fundamentalists, fascists, white supremacists or whatever group which just wants to take a shit on someone's rights under the law.
> 
> I certainly hope that all those who have been worried about websites being shut down without due process would be horrified by such an attack. We'll see if the posts in this thread show such outrage going in the other direction.


 

The oppression of freedom of speech or expression is only a bad thing when the government does it. Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 20, 2012)

Necris said:


> You use their logo as your avatar, you repeat their slogan as though claiming resonsibility, you stated you were a part of talks to crash websites of companies which supported SOPA/PIPA, you spoke of a desire to aid them. What am I missing?
> 
> Wanting to aid and wanting to understand are two very different things.



Alright let me explain then. The logo is to raise awareness. I don`t know what you are thinking, but by using the logo as the avatar I am merely addressing the group`s efforts in this ongoing situation. Not to instill fear in others as if I`m going to hack this website or launch an attack on the government/etc. I quoted their slogan because it fitted the withdrawl of the SOPA act, not because I think myself of a part of some mysterious organization that only likes claiming responsibility for the ongoing take down of SOPA/PIPA related sites. And yes, I talked in an IRC where people were discussing of crashing websites that supported SOPA/PIPA. I don`t see a problem in that. I dug through, found the IRC and just listened and seldomly talked. I just wanted to know what really were all about unlike the assumptions people make about the discussion. There are no weapons of mass destruction or any talks of assasinations or such, lol. Just people talking about the situation, and parties talking about take down of sites. There is no big plot to totally undermine the US government. Just talk to stop what is censoring thier image of freedom. When I said "I wish I could help them but there`s not much I can do." I acutally meant that I had no means of helping them with their site-attacks (because I`m not a hacker) other than spreading awareness on the matter. Maybe you should go to an Anonoymous meeting near your area. The people who join in the meetings arn`t people brandishing knives or carrying loaded guns, just people who want to discuss and think of ways to stop this nonsense and keep an internet a free place like 7string.org.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2012)

I like this.



Necris said:


> ...(Y)ou spoke of a desire to aid them. What am I missing?
> 
> Wanting to aid and wanting to understand are two very different things.





Iamasingularity said:


> Alright let me explain then. When I said "I wish I could help them but there`s not much I can do." I acutally meant that I had no means of helping them with their site-attacks (because I`m not a hacker)... .



The explanation is simple. He does wish he could aid in the terrorist cyber attacks, but the only thing stopping him is that he doesn't have the mad haxor skillz to do so.

I like how his explanation is exactly what we thought, but he thought he could explain it in a way that sounded different. *laugh*

----

I know it might be hard to understand, but you're talking about wanting to aid a group which has previously published the credit information of people who had committed no crime, because the group was angry/petulant about a third, unrelated party. They also didn't like what a legitimate company was doing in terms of charges (am I remembering the Sony thing right?), so they attacked that company in the name of free... er, petulance and bullying.

Since you're motivated to help with spreading the word about injustice, you might want to contribute to this thread. Go make the world a better place.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 20, 2012)

Yeah how _dare_ he try to commit terrorist attacks, doesn't he know that the government has a monopoly on that one?


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 21, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Necris, again, you'd be okay with someone taking your material, selling it, putting a copyright on it in their name?



The assertion you're trying to present is way off track. If someone were to download a band's music, repackage and market it as their own, it would become READILY apparent once they played a live show that it wasn't them. They would not last long, I assure you. 
Also, if they never played live and were only selling it online, they still wouldn't make any money because the whole context of the thread is that people are downloading music and not paying for it. Not only that but if you want to sue a website for illegally sharing your material that's one thing. To sue a person/band for plagiarism is entirely another, even though they are both _technically_ copyright violations. It would be the same difference between using a stolen credit card or just stealing the money out of the person's wallet. The end result may be the same but the means by which they do it are entirely different.

Apple Inc. seems to be 'violating' copyright to a certain extent as well (so it's not just 'rogue' websites after all). It seems that if you use their iBook Author software to write something and they decide not to publish it to their website, you are not allowed to post it elsewhere. Meaning, that by submitting it to Apple for approval, they're 'copyrighting it in their name' and assuming ownership. Much like the comic book industry did back in the 40's & 50's. It was only a couple of years ago that the relatives of Siegel & Shuster (the creators of Superman, whom have both died) saw their first royalty payments from the decades of Superman comics, merchandise and licensing because of an old draconian policy.

Apple&#039;s mind-bogglingly greedy and evil license agreement | ZDNet

I just find it funny that you think these sites should be blocked if the owners can't fully monitor what content is uploaded by users ( some have millions a day) but yet, if someone who signs a record deal gets screwed because the agent didn't fully disclose everything in the contract, it's the signee's fault for not asking about things they were unaware of. There's no reason why they can't put the contracts in terms the average person can understand. They do it in hopes that the person won't have a lawyer look over it so they can exploit them later, which makes them just as much a 'predator' as any other criminal.

It's unusual these days to find someone who feels sorry for those poor multinational corporations who only make tens of Billions a year in profit by exploiting labor in 3rd world countries, paying little to no income tax, etc... All they're trying to do is control the flow of internet content within the U.S. It's almost like a guy can't earn a dollar anymore.....


----------



## ilyti (Jan 21, 2012)

I love how outwardly civil you guys are being with each other. You have the time to think very carefully about your wording, and type it on a message board. But if you were in a room together this would have degraded into a screaming match long ago. I mean, 6 pages, and this shows no signs of ending.... Nobody will budge on either side of this argument, so just please, agree to disagree.

My


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 21, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Nobody will budge on either side of this argument, so just please, agree to disagree.
> 
> My



This IS a DISCUSSION forum, so as long as its civil, i dont get the opinion of not having a discussion on it


----------



## Explorer (Jan 21, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> The assertion you're trying to present is way off track.



M point, which is apparently to subtle for some, is that people are making the false assertion that working musicians don't care if someone violates their copyrights in ways the copyright holders didn't decide. I suspect that can be laid to rest as incorrect.

I know that you keep making it about evil corporations, while I'm still making it about the average writer/artist. That's like arguing that freedom of speech should be curtailed based on the neo-Nazis or the WBC, or on one religious group's sensibilities being offended by black metal or other musics. One law for everyone is a better rule, don't you think?


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 22, 2012)

Explorer said:


> One law for everyone is a better rule, don't you think?



If that were true the world would be a much nicer place. I couldn't agree with you more that the poor should have just as much access to justice as the wealthy but more times than not,it's just not the case. Once in a while it happens but (primarily in the US) real justice seems to only apply to those that can afford it. The doctor that killed Michael Jackson got 4 yrs in prison. The West Memphis 3 got 18 years for murders that had no concrete evidence that they did it.

Sadly, not many politicians are all that interested in laws to protect 'lower class' (economically speaking) citizens anymore, unless it's to give them longer prison sentences for lesser crimes or to take away services that they need like health care or programs for public schools (ie: music and art).


----------



## Kemono (Jan 22, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> 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.



I sent that to my senator and rep for California. I was one fighter against Internet censorship -- and that's really what it is about, censorship, so the government can, as Joe Lieberman put it "shut off a part of the internet," like China does. 

I am seeing a lot of misunderstanding being boldly broadcast by other posters. 

The man in this video goes at length to explain the hypocrisy of SOPA's sponsors who* happen to be the same media conglomerates who have abetted such piracy. 

The reason the media does this is simple: They want to control information. There is a reason you won't hear about SOPA, PIPA, or NDAA on the mainstream media networks. The establishment mainstream media serves up the same shit, regardless of channel. The mainstream media is essentially General Electric, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Co., Viacom, and News Corporation and their subsidiaries. They act as an arm to the U.S. government. 

* Corporations are people.


----------



## Kemono (Jan 22, 2012)

Then again, for a forum where moderators censor and delete threads, I can see how some would find censorship to be perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Necris (Jan 22, 2012)

Kemono said:


> Then again, for a forum where moderators censor and delete threads, I can see how some would find censorship to be perfectly acceptable.


Cute. It's funny how if you read and then follow the rules and don't post pointless threads or necrobump old ones your posts won't be deleted and your threads won't be closed. Try it some time.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 22, 2012)

Kemono said:


> Then again, for a forum where moderators censor and delete threads, I can see how some would find censorship to be perfectly acceptable.



Oh fuck, SOPA was passed!


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2012)

@Spinedriver - So, you're saying that Tosin wouldn't be protected by SOPA?


----------



## chevymeister (Jan 23, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> "They should have expected us"
> 
> We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.


 Well, you're not anonymous anymore... lol


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 23, 2012)

chevymeister said:


> Well, you're not anonymous anymore... lol



Try me.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 23, 2012)

chevymeister said:


> Well, you're not anonymous anymore... lol



Always good to know where our extremists lay, no? Anyone who is so rash as to take harmful action in light of their correct (but minority accepted) world view is less dangerous if you can keep an eye on them. There are right ways to do things, but so many just resort to the criminal in hopes the ends will justify the means.


----------



## L1ght (Jan 23, 2012)

Wait I thought that SOPA bill was halted? I don't understand..


----------



## drgamble (Jan 23, 2012)

SOPA/PIPA was only intended to deal with foreign websites. If your servers happen to be here in the United States (as is the case with MegaUpload) there are already laws in place to shut down the website.


----------



## L1ght (Jan 23, 2012)

Yeah so... can someone tell me definitively if the bill was halted or passed? The interwebs sucks. I keep finding shit that says it has been halted, and others that say it hasn't.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 23, 2012)

It has been tabled for now, but I don't think it is just going away like many had hoped. I look to see it pop up again in another year with some changes.


----------



## Tanoma (Jan 23, 2012)

L1ghtChaos, SOPA and PIPA bills Have been halted.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jan 23, 2012)

L1ghtChaos said:


> Yeah so... can someone tell me definitively if the bill was halted or passed? The interwebs sucks. I keep finding shit that says it has been halted, and others that say it hasn't.



guess some people have different variations on the meaning of: "the bill has been shelved" or "indefinitely postponed"

some may say that its pretty much dead already
others may say that its just taking a coffee break before someone has to go and dig it up again


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jan 23, 2012)

L1ghtChaos said:


> Yeah so... can someone tell me definitively if the bill was halted or passed? The interwebs sucks. I keep finding shit that says it has been halted, and others that say it hasn't.



They were both halted, however ACTA is now presenting similar or worse issues as those with SOPA and PIPA, and is being presented as an international treaty.


----------



## L1ght (Jan 23, 2012)

True. Now can the bill(s) be brought back at any time? Or do they have to wait a certain amount of time before it's brought back? How does that work? I'm not truly opposed to the bills, I just think that as they stand, they would do more damage then help, and that they need to seriously be revised and edited. Idk..


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 23, 2012)

Explorer said:


> @Spinedriver - So, you're saying that Tosin wouldn't be protected by SOPA?



Sadly, probably no more than he already is now. All SOPA was going to do is block sites from being accessed inside the US. Anyone outside the country wouldn't notice a thing (where roughly 80% of file sharing is done). If the artist has decent financial backing and finds out that a site or sites are illegally offering downloads of his recordings, he can sue them under the DMCA. 

Here's an excerpt from a piece written by Mike Loukides on O'Reilly Radar.

"_ If we're going to talk seriously about piracy, it's not kids downloading the odd song or TV episode, nor is it third-world software developers downloading the ebooks that I've edited and written. That's shoplifting at worst, and while I'm not going to condone shoplifting, it's a cost of doing business, and not a particularly large one. As Tim O'Reilly has argued, and as O'Reilly's sales indicate, the additional exposure you get through piracy more than compensates for any "lost sales," especially since the sales you lose are the sales you were never going to make in the first place. Sites that sell copyrighted music that they have not been licensed to sell are a more serious problem, but again, this is a problem that's easily solved by making your work as widely available and as easily accessible as you can; this will put parasites out of business.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) have to be understood in this light: it's just another IP land grab. It's an attempt to frighten those who would compete with the established media companies, an attempt to assert monopolistic control over creativity. The ability to take domains offline without due process, even on the basis of inadvertently linking to copyrighted material, is nothing if not an attempt to legitimize theft on a grand scale. Because there is no due process, a defendant can't respond until he's already out of business; and then, it's a matter of whether the defendant can outlast Hollywood in their ability to pay legal fees. "Justice" is meaningless if you run out of money before you get to the end of your case_

On pirates and piracy - O'Reilly Radar


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2012)

Hmm. Bill O'Reilly's views about it just being the cost of doing business sound a little different from Keith Merrow's. I'd suggest that Bill is speaking for himself in terms of how he feels about his ebooks being ripped off (presumably after he got a big advance, and physical copies distributed), instead of Keith's knowledge that he can't afford to get physical CDs made because his stuff was pirated within a few few days of its release. Keith's ability to make seed money to keep moving forward was taken from him. 

Again, you're going with those at the top in discussing the issue.


----------



## Asrial (Jan 24, 2012)

SOPA and PIPA is water in comparison to ACTA.
ACTA can first and foremost ciminalize 95% of the internet. You posted a link with a band from youtube? Then that's it, you are done.
How will they regulate this? They will put surveillance up EVERYWHERE. All your credit card transactions will also be recorded.
Also think they can cut crops and medicine if they so desire, even though it saves lifes.

Fuck ACTA.


----------



## Necris (Jan 24, 2012)

Asrial said:


> SOPA and PIPA is water in comparison to ACTA.
> ACTA can first and foremost ciminalize 95% of the internet. You posted a link with a band from youtube? Then that's it, you are done.
> How will they regulate this? They will put surveillance up EVERYWHERE. All your credit card transactions will also be recorded.
> Also think they can cut crops and medicine if they so desire, even though it saves lifes.
> ...



Got anything that can back that up, like a link where I can read the bill itself? I'd like to read it over and come to my own conclusions rather than take your word for it.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jan 24, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> Sadly, probably no more than he already is now. All SOPA was going to do is block sites from being accessed inside the US. Anyone outside the country wouldn't notice a thing (where roughly 80% of file sharing is done). If the artist has decent financial backing and finds out that a site or sites are illegally offering downloads of his recordings, he can sue them under the DMCA.



By 80% of the file sharing you mean 80% of the downloads or, like, '80% of the file-sharing sites are hosted outside the US'? Be as it may, if the bill passes and it works, odds are that other countries follow through. 

I can't see a valid reason to support piracy. It sucks being a musician these days, and that's _because_ of file sharing. I know that it's not my music anyone is sharing, but the thing is, why would anyone buy my music, however cheap it is, if they can get _anything_ for free? Paying $0.50 for one song is infinitely more expensive than paying 0$ for the full Opeth discography.


----------



## GazPots (Jan 24, 2012)

Necris said:


> Got anything that can back that up, like a link where I can read the bill itself? I'd like to read it over and come to my own conclusions rather than take your word for it.



I presume this is what he's referring to.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## drgamble (Jan 24, 2012)

Yeah, that's just a wiki article on the treaty and for me, I have to seriously question wikipedia's neutrality based on recent events.


----------



## Necris (Jan 24, 2012)

http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...ciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf

Here is the actual finalized English version of the treaty.

This probably deserves it's own thread.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 24, 2012)

drgamble said:


> Yeah, that's just a wiki article on the treaty and for me, I have to seriously question wikipedia's neutrality based on recent events.



Tell me more. I want to know more about your thoughts on this.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 24, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> It sucks being a musician these days, and that's _because_ of file sharing.



Yeah, it's obviously because of file sharing, not the fact that everybody and their uncle is in a band, which leads to the market for music being saturated (with a large volume of bands that sound almost the same, which can be translated into bands being substitutes for others, insofar as that it is irrelevant as to which band the buyer/listener supports [if they don't support them all], because the difference is negligible). This saturated market pushes a lot of the smaller acts off to the side because there's too much music and too few buyers, so obviously the supply and the demand aren't in equilibrium.

It also doesn't help if you are making brutal technical blackened deathdjentgrindbreecorecore jazzed thrash and looking for a profit, because even if all the people who can get into the music would buy your album, you'd end up with thirty bucks anyways. 

If you're in the music game to make money, you pretty much have to go mainstream, or you'd have to create something unique, yet somehow accessible to a decently sized audience. 

And even then, there's no guarantee. Playing the music industry game is a risk. Companies and corporations, big and small, set aside resources, products and services that they know will be stolen (shoplifting, etc), through educated calculations and guesswork, and work around that to try to make sure that they still pull in enough profit, otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they do (no for-profit company would be reckless enough to go into business when they foresee losses, unless the goal is something other than pure profit). The same goes for musicians who try to make money off their music. As much as you may not like it, you're going to have to account for piracy through filesharing, and work around that.

At the end of the day, for the musician it comes down to a tradeoff between profit and listeners. If one would plot two graphs of the supply and demand (one for selling music, one for giving it away for free), the main thing that would be noticeable would be the number of listeners, and this, of course, is dependent on many factors, including genre, the quality of the recordings, methods of advertising, and many others, so every band's graphs would be somewhat unique. The thing that would remain is whether you'd want more money or more listeners, or somewhere in between (free streaming, paid download?), and then figure out a plan of a attack.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 24, 2012)

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

What he said....


----------



## Wolf ov Fire (Jan 26, 2012)

WE NEED to fight this.

End of story.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Jan 26, 2012)

This may be the SOPA thread but I thought you all may like (Or not...) to hear this,

ACTA has been signed by EU, but they will vote on it this year.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 26, 2012)

Well that's not good. Got a link?


----------



## Pooluke41 (Jan 26, 2012)

UK signs ACTA as activists urge resistance | Networking | ZDNet UK

May be false for all I know.


----------



## Duelbart (Jan 26, 2012)

I can confirm that Poland, at least, signed ACTA. It was funny though, on the week before there were major real life protests as well as internet ruckus. And right now there is much hate on the government.


----------



## Necris (Jan 26, 2012)

ACTA has been signed by the United States, the European Union and 22 Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 26, 2012)

Time to move to the Moon, then.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 26, 2012)

Asrial said:


> SOPA and PIPA is water in comparison to ACTA.
> ACTA can first and foremost ciminalize 95% of the internet. You posted a link with a band from youtube? Then that's it, you are done.



You know, if this were true, why does YouTube/Google have a process by which you can not only send links to videos, but also embed them on other sites? 

Sharing videos - YouTube Help

Out of curiosity, where did you read that flight of fancy? And, now that you know that none of the proposed legislation stops a legitimate business or a coypright owner from sharing their/his/her own materials, will you go back and correct them? Will you stop spreading misinformation? 

I hope the answer is yes!



Wolf ov Fire said:


> WE NEED to fight this.
> 
> End of story.



Fight piracy, or better enforcement of antipiracy laws? 



ArkaneDemon said:


> Time to move to the Moon, then.



Why? 

----

Here's what's funny to me.

I work for a company which does a lot of business. This stuff will have zero negative impact on us. 

I've talked to other people at other companies (big and small), some of which write software and systems, some of which are ISPs and other providers, and none of them (including their legal departments) foresee any negative impact on them.

All my friends who are working musicians, and who have income from recordings also foresee absolutely no negative impact from this. 

I think that it's strange, the dichotomy between those with whom I interact IRL, as well as on other websites, and this site.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 27, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Here's what's funny to me.
> 
> I work for a company which does a lot of business. This stuff will have zero negative impact on us.
> 
> ...



From what I understand, you are correct. ACTA is merely a means for countries to 'synchronize' (to use an expression) their copyright laws. The US may have regulations that don't exist in France and Germany may have laws that don't exist in Japan, etc... ACTA is a way to get everyone on the same page.

It's interesting to note though that the EU official that was overseeing the drafting of ACTA has resigned in protest. From Global Post.com

_In a strongly-worded statement on his website, Arif said he wanted to &#8220;condemn the whole process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation with civil society, a lack of transparency since the beginning of negotiations, repeated delays in the signature of the text without any explanations provided, rejection of the European Parliament&#8217;s recommendations as provided in several resolutions by our assembly.&#8221;_
_Arif complained that efforts were being made by right-wing parties to &#8220;prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter,&#8221; and that he would &#8220;not take part in this masquerade.&#8221;

Although some of ACTA&#8217;s more divisive provisions have been cut out of recent drafts, such as the threat to cut users&#8217; Internet access off, penalties for infringing copyright, or aiding and abetting any infringement, have been negotiated behind closed doors, according to the Daily Telegraph._

Starting to sound like another PATRIOT Act....


----------



## Explorer (Jan 27, 2012)

I"m not just talking about ACTA, but also SOPA, and that neither would have affected the various companies and people I deal with. 

When you talk about SOPA and ACTA being like the Patriot Act, in what specific ways? Is this just hyperbole, in order to get an emotional reaction, regardless of being untrue?


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 27, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I"m not just talking about ACTA, but also SOPA, and that neither would have affected the various companies and people I deal with.
> 
> When you talk about SOPA and ACTA being like the Patriot Act, in what specific ways? Is this just hyperbole, in order to get an emotional reaction, regardless of being untrue?



They are like the PATRIOT act in that they were written 'behind closed doors' and every attempt was made to push it through into law without the public's knowledge. The P.A. was a 1000+ page document that was handed out in the middle of the night and most that voted on it never read it.

As for SOPA, if it wasn't for people writing about it on the internet, no one would have known about it because not a single major news network reported on it until Google, Wikipedia, etc.. all drew attention to it. (their parent companies sponsored it, so why jinx it by telling anyone about it).

As for ACTA, it's all over the news. "Kader Arif condemned the ACTA deliberation process, saying that he witnessed "never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted". Meaning that there are things in there they don't want the public to know about until it's been ratified and therefore could possibly get it blocked, just like SOPA.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...27/top-eu-official-kader-arif-resigns-protest

http://www.digitalspy.ca/tech/news/...-agreement-rapporteur-kader-arif-resigns.html


On a side note, how can either you/your friends/people you've talked to know it won't affect you if you don't know what's in the bill (ACTA) ? If the man who was overseeing it couldn't get certain sections of it clearly defined, how can anyone not associated be so certain it won't apply to them ? The millions of people in the U.S. protesting SOPA aren't all 'pirating'. The thousands in Poland aren't protesting because they won't allowed to steal movies anymore. They just don't feel that *THEIR* government should be allowed to pass legislation without telling *THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT* exactly what it is they're pushing through. Posting a bill online full of legal doublespeak doesn't quite cut it. When a doctor explains a procedure to a patient, they tell them in terms they can understand. When the gov't decides to pass a new law, there's no reason they should not have to do the same.

edit: I just found it this morning: (from Matador Network.com) It's kinda funny/interesting


----------



## Explorer (Jan 28, 2012)

*sigh*

Okay, so SOPA, the Protect IP Act (which no one has really mentioned) and ACTA are evil, because everyone who is has come out with oblique or straightforward defenses of piracy/theft has known all the bad stuff contained therein, and those who aren't worried about them, and who are producers, and who don't engage in piracy, aren't worried only because no one knows what is in them.

I don't think I have anything further to contribute to this thread, as things currently stand, than this: The guilty flee even when no one pursues.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 29, 2012)

You know, I was typing out a huge reply to all the people who said something about what I said, complete with justifications and clarifications and all that other stuff, but then I stopped and realized what I was doing. I reassessed and reanalyzed my positions on those things and I remembered and reinforced the fact that I have extremely little faith in people and humanity in general, so instead of posting what I was going to post, I&#8217;m just going to leave it alone and withdraw from this thread and threads of this nature for a while. I&#8217;ll probably go back to lurking more than I post. Sorry for the interruption to the thread.


----------



## CapinCripes (Jan 31, 2012)

what i think a lot of you are getting caught up in this discussion is that a lot of you are presenting an argument that is a basic straw man fallacy. for example I (who could care less if every pirate was arrested tomorrow as long as due process was carried out) presented the point that SOPA as it was written violated our due process rights (position X) while many of you who were arguing that the people who are against SOPA are because they have some inherent guilt and are trying to defend a supposed right to pirate (position Y a distorted version of position x) you attack the positions of people who hold position X with position Y and in doing so you create an arguer that is a non-sequitor and a straw man fallacy mixed into one. honestly i was hoping for a scholarly debate in this thread but i have been sorely disappointed.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 31, 2012)

CapinCripes said:


> honestly i was hoping for a scholarly debate in this thread but i have been sorely disappointed.


 











I suppose you glossed over the posts in the thread that _did _mention the problems with the bill that stemmed from Free Speech and Due Process issues, then?


----------



## CapinCripes (Feb 1, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I suppose you glossed over the posts in the thread that _did _mention the problems with the bill that stemmed from Free Speech and Due Process issues, then?



no i didn't the post was directed at the fact that those posts were the minority not the majority.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 1, 2012)

CapinCripes said:


> no i didn't the post was directed at the fact that those posts were the minority not the majority.


 
Fair deuce .


----------



## Randy (Mar 16, 2012)

American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 12 | The Raw Story


----------



## Blake1970 (Mar 16, 2012)

^
I was reading about that the other day. Interesting.


----------



## nickgray (Mar 19, 2012)




----------

