It's not Piracy they're against, it's distribution for Independents they fear!

[George Butterfield]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

Hollywood wants to kill the Internet because it threatens their monopolistic control of the theatre distribution system.
They want to force us to watch and pay for "Three Kings" instead of "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia".
They want to keep us stupid.

 

[M Most]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

Hollywood wants to kill the Internet because it threatens their monopolistic control of the theatre distribution system.
They want to force us to watch and pay for "Three Kings" instead of "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia".
They want to keep us stupid.

Nobody wants to "keep you stupid." You, like the folks at Wikipedia, are making this out to be a philosophical issue and some kind of threat to the concept of freedom and free speech. It is none of those things. It is business. Plain and simple. This has nothing to do with some faceless evil corporations conspiring to deny you some sort of inherent rights. It has to do with companies that own things trying to get paid when people use or buy them. That's probably a bit of an oversimplification, but that's what it is. Those who turn it into some personal or human rights struggle are doing what politicians do, which is to take an issue and turn it into something it's not in an attempt to solicit support. Until there was an Internet (which was brought to you largely by the US military, BTW), goods were made and sold. If you wanted something, you bought it. That didn't present any personal freedom issues and it served the needs of business to get paid for their goods and services. Since the Internet, we've now entered an entitlement age, where theft is a lot easier and you're a lot less likely to get caught because you're not in a store, getting caught by a guard, an employee, or a security camera. But make no mistake, there's very little difference between shoplifting a box of golf balls at your local Sports Authority and downloading Torrents of currently released movies. Both are theft, plain and simple. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very well aware that society is changing, business is changing, and genies can't be put back in bottles. But just as humans have a survival instinct, so does business. When faced with theft, business fights back, just as you would if your life or that of your family was threatened. The legislation in question might not be the best attempt at fighting the problem, and I agree it is a bit ill conceived. But don't mistake the ultimate reason for these kinds of things. It has nothing to do with monopolies, lofty goals, or any other overriding concept. It's an attempt to let a particular business continue to operate. That's it.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Nobody wants to "keep you stupid." You, like the folks at Wikipedia, are making this out to be a philosophical issue and some kind of threat to the concept of freedom and free speech. It is none of those things. It is business. Plain and simple. This has nothing to do with some faceless evil corporations conspiring to deny you some sort of inherent rights. It has to do with companies that own things trying to get paid when people use or buy them. That's probably a bit of an oversimplification, but that's what it is. Those who turn it into some personal or human rights struggle are doing what politicians do, which is to take an issue and turn it into something it's not in an attempt to solicit support. Until there was an Internet (which was brought to you largely by the US military, BTW), goods were made and sold. If you wanted something, you bought it. That didn't present any personal freedom issues and it served the needs of business to get paid for their goods and services. Since the Internet, we've now entered an entitlement age, where theft is a lot easier and you're a lot less likely to get caught because you're not in a store, getting caught by a guard, an employee, or a security camera. But make no mistake, there's very little difference between shoplifting a box of golf balls at your local Sports Authority and downloading Torrents of currently released movies. Both are theft, plain and simple. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very well aware that society is changing, business is changing, and genies can't be put back in bottles. But just as humans have a survival instinct, so does business. When faced with theft, business fights back, just as you would if your life or that of your family was threatened. The legislation in question might not be the best attempt at fighting the problem, and I agree it is a bit ill conceived. But don't mistake the ultimate reason for these kinds of things. It has nothing to do with monopolies, lofty goals, or any other overriding concept. It's an attempt to let a particular business continue to operate. That's it.

Very well written Sir!

 

[David Battistella]

A brand new distribution model coming soon George. I promise.

No one needs to strong arm. The free market can take care of itself on merit. Just some people feel they need to stack the deck. This is not the internets problem. It's Hollywoods. Period.



David

 

[Scott Crawley]

As the Wiki page states this is a complex subject not to be taken lightly. I appreciate Mike's POV in principle, but it is over simplified. Copyright violations existed in abundance long before there was an internet, and the most serious theft of intellectual property never involved store security.

For all that the existence of the Internet does to aid in the unlawful distribution of intellectual property, it also aids in the identification of both the sellers and consumers of pirated material. The Internet enabled the RIAA to bring huge cases against these consumers. To further complicate matters, the Internet enables the general public to also become distributors of pirated material. These facts have caused the focus of investigations, prosecutions and the debate to shift from a relatively small number of individuals engaging in very specific activities to the very common activities of the general public. That is when my red flags start going up.

Ill-considered and far reaching legislation of this type can become a real threat to personal freedoms. I'm not intimately familiar with the EFF, but the topics I have seen them present have been worthwhile. Caution is warranted.

 

[M Most]

As the Wiki page states this is a complex subject not to be taken lightly. I appreciate Mike's POV in principle, but it is over simplified. Copyright violations existed in abundance long before there was an internet, and the most serious theft of intellectual property never involved store security.

Ill-considered and far reaching legislation of this type can become a real threat to personal freedoms. I'm not intimately familiar with the EFF, but the topics I have seen them present have been worthwhile. Caution is warranted.

Well, I did say it was a bit of an oversimplification....

But using your example, it is true that theft of IP has been an issue for some time, but in most cases, it manifested itself through pirated goods - things like pirated videocassettes, DVD's, clothing, and the like. And when the locations of pirate manufacturing or distribution were discovered, raided, and the owners arrested - often in foreign locations - nobody complained about threatening personal freedoms. But change it to worldwide electronic distribution and people seem to think the situation is different. It's not, except that the thieves have become the consumers. Instead of some entrepreneurial - albeit criminal - individual or small group of individuals being the ones profiting from the theft, the consumers themselves are the ones who benefit. So in many people's minds, that seems to make it OK. Except that it's not OK, because it takes money to create the material they're stealing.

I fully agree that this is not a simple problem to solve, because everything today is interconnected, especially when it's digital material. And I also agree - and have already said - that the legislation being proposed is flawed. But the concept of fighting piracy is not some lofty attempt at enslaving mankind and limiting "personal freedom". It is a fight for business survival. Those who don't want to understand that have most likely never run a business and never tried to sell anything.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Things are hardly ever simple, but in the worst case scenario - and the text of both SOPA and ProtectIP are dangerously vague - any site that has a link to another site that once had one single case of an infringing link, could be locked down. This would have dire consequences for open discussion, not least on fora such as reduser.

Here's a good writeup on the technical consequences, should these pass.

 

[M Most]

A brand new distribution model coming soon George. I promise.

No one needs to strong arm. The free market can take care of itself on merit. Just some people feel they need to stack the deck. This is not the internets problem. It's Hollywoods. Period.

You could substitute "Detroit" if you were talking about cars for many years. You could substitute "Wall Street" if you're talking about financial services. You could substitute "big pharmaceuticals" if you're talking about drugs. You could substitute "big insurance" if you're talking about the insurance industry. You could substitute "the health care lobby" if you're talking about health care. You could substitute "Federated Department Stores" if you're talking about almost every remaining department store in the United States. You could substitute "Westfield" if you're talking about nearly every US shopping mall. And you could substitute "Apple, Google, and RIM" if you're talking about smart phones.

The fact is that those are the entities that have power today. You talk about "Hollywood" - which I assume to mean the major studios and their distribution companies somehow acting as one huge evil entity - as if it's unique and therefore has ulterior motives in everything it does. Except that just about every industry in today's world exists the same way - with a very small number of very powerful players and everyone else fighting for the crumbs. When you say "some people", you're really talking about every major player in any industry in the world today, whether you want to think of it that way or not. You can't change that. You can only find a way to make your own way in a world that's now structured that way. The notion that "the free market can take care of itself" is very nice, and a heavily used talking point for politicians who call themselves "conservatives." It's also very naive.

When he makes himself available again, you might want to ask Jim Jannard about ways of surviving in a world where "the deck is stacked" against you. It can be done, and the way to do it is not to complain about those in power or how they got there. It's to do something different and somehow find a way to force people to notice.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Mike I respectfully disagree.
The society is evolving and there is no way around it. You can delay it , slow it down but it's inevitable. Just look in the past....
The basic premise of internet and the freedoms it allows happens to be inconvenient to the elite- tough luck!!!
Again, Darwinian way- the ones that adapt will prevail and the ones that want to keep the status quo will fail.
But make no mistake- there will be blood....(figuratively speaking of course):001_tt2:

 

[Scott Crawley]

Yup, we're on the same page. Please pardon me posting as an edited stream of consciousness and take another look at my changes.

While the consumer has always benefitted from piracy they never profited and since they were largely invisible they were safe from the retribution of their victims. Mr. And Mrs. America were complicit in the crime but not really the perpetrators.

This idea of retribution is where I think the IP owners need to be cautious. It seems evident that much of the continued suffering the music industry is experiencing is backlash against RIAA cases that created a perception of hostility toward the customer. It would seem that the focus needs to remain on the distributors and the profiteers rather than the average end user.

But using your example, it is true that theft of IP has been an issue for some time, but in most cases, it manifested itself through pirated goods - things like pirated videocassettes, DVD's, clothing, and the like. And when the locations of pirate manufacturing or distribution were discovered, raided, and the owners arrested - often in foreign locations - nobody complained about threatening personal freedoms. But change it to worldwide electronic distribution and people seem to think the situation is different. It's not, except that the thieves have become the consumers. Instead of some entrepreneurial - albeit criminal - individual or small group of individuals being the ones profiting from the theft, the consumers themselves are the ones who benefit. So in many people's minds, that seems to make it OK. Except that it's not OK, because it takes money to create the material they're stealing.

I fully agree that this is not a simple problem to solve, because everything today is interconnected, especially when it's digital material. And I also agree - and have already said - that the legislation being proposed is flawed. But the concept of fighting piracy is not some lofty attempt at enslaving mankind and limiting "personal freedom". It is a fight for business survival. Those who don't want to understand that have most likely never run a business and never tried to sell anything.

 

[David Battistella]

It's to do something different and somehow find a way to force people to notice.

That is exactly what I was talking about Mike.

I do think that the free market can take care of itself. RED is a perfect example of one person tyring to change things a lot of people did not feel "correct" about.

I was saying that the problem is not the internet. It is ANYONE wanting to or thinking they can control it. Once it is controlled it actually looses it's power. But the same thing happed to TV and the Movie industry so why not the internet, right? Well, the internet is a different beast. It really is.

David

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Normally political threads here get shut down. However, the SOPA / PIPA topic is very relevant to many of us and what we do on a day to day basis. I'm not a fan of SOPA or PIPA, the underlying concepts and reasons for protection are sound, but that's where it ends for me.

As a creator of content, I usually applaud efforts to secure our IP against piracy and unauthorized use. As a long-time IT professional and entrepreneur, I'm sick to the core after reading these acts and contemplating the possible abuses and ramifications. As pointed out by Martin, this legislation is curiously vague, and yet it is at the same time oddly specific in some ways. IMO, legislation that grants one entity the right to sue another for non-performance, involving IP that neither of them own or are a party to, is opening a gateway to huge problems. Many in the entertainment industry, at the studio level primarily, are calling the positions of Google (and similar companies or ISPs) "naive" or "foolish". The only thing I see in this whole mess that fits those descriptions is the belief that this legislation would have any meaningful impact on piracy.

New distribution model? Yes, it's coming. And so are different financial and business models for the media industry as a whole. And with over the top legislative antics like this, it will come even faster. With many studios seeing hard financial times (or so they claim in the face of some of the highest gross revenue numbers ever), I really can't see how this is a good path to travel at this time.

As M Most points out, "It's to do something different and somehow find a way to force people to notice.", sure it is that. And I do think something drastic does need to be done to get people to notice and start to care. That said, I just don't see this as being the way. Not feeling it with this whole approach...

 

[Elsie N]

There comes a time when those who make the laws have to take into account how their laws will be received and tailor the laws so they conform to what will be allowed by those in opposition... depending on the strength and power of that opposition. This let's the lawmakers appear to still be in charge, but actually just means they have tested the waters and properly determined the strength of the waters flow.

If in this case the lawgivers do not make the law palatable, I'm guessing battle lines will be formed and depending on how fervent is the hacking community, a mighty Internet battle may be waged that is much more destructive than is the status quo. The public will be neutral in its passion, maybe leaning a little toward the hackers.

An all-encompassing law may create alliances of opposition that are normally unnatural ones.

I know this is kind of a broad overview but I think that's what should be looked at first and revisited during the process before settling on the details.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Normally political threads here get shut down. However, the SOPA / PIPA topic is very relevant to many of us and what we do on a day to day basis. I'm not a fan of SOPA or PIPA, the underlying concepts and reasons for protection are sound, but that's where it ends for me.

As a creator of content, I usually applaud efforts to secure our IP against piracy and unauthorized use. As a long-time IT professional and entrepreneur, I'm sick to the core after reading these acts and contemplating the possible abuses and ramifications. As pointed out by Martin, this legislation is curiously vague, and yet it is at the same time oddly specific in some ways. IMO, legislation that grants one entity the right to sue another for non-performance, involving IP that neither of them own or are a party to, is opening a gateway to huge problems. Many in the entertainment industry, at the studio level primarily, are calling the positions of Google (and similar companies or ISPs) "naive" or "foolish". The only thing I see in this whole mess that fits those descriptions is the belief that this legislation would have any meaningful impact on piracy.

New distribution model? Yes, it's coming. And so are different financial and business models for the media industry as a whole. And with over the top legislative antics like this, it will come even faster. With many studios seeing hard financial times (or so they claim in the face of some of the highest gross revenue numbers ever), I really can't see how this is a good path to travel at this time.

Amen.

I am all for reasonable government involvement in the narrow spectrum of cases where it makes sense and adds to the welfare of the population. This is not one of them.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The government is a complete joke. Congress has a 5% approval rating from the American people. They are corrupted by special-interest money. These are the last people on earth I want "regulating" the internet.

It's time the recording and entertainment industries stop acting like spoiled crybabies and adjust their business model to modern times.

 

[David Battistella]

It's time the recording and entertainment industries stop acting like spoiled crybabies and adjust their business model to modern times.

As if NAPSTER was not enough of a wakeup call? Did they not have enough time to invent a new model? It's bloated. It is changing, has changed and happens in an eyeblink.

But actual bombs will be dropped on people over this because that is how much is at stake.

David

 

[M Most]

T
It's time the recording and entertainment industries stop acting like spoiled crybabies and adjust their business model to modern times.

They have been doing just that. Or do things like licensing to the likes of Netflix, Apple, Amazon, cable VOD and the like, and the creation of things like NBA TV, MLB TV, Hulu, and numerous other services - all while maintaining the existing distribution paths - not count? It's easy to point to one industry effort and use that as a litmus test or an example. The problem is that it's just not accurate. Protecting IP on the Internet is only one item on a much longer agenda. The large media companies have been and continue to push towards new models and new distribution methods, as well as new revenue streams. They have also been very forward thinking in digital distribution in theaters - or does funding the deployment of digital projection worldwide not count, either?

If you're suggesting that they should give away everything for free, they clearly don't agree with that. But your characterization of the situation is a bit unrealistic, to say the least.

 

[J Davis]

Who's going to sit for hours waiting on a download when netflix and spotify provide an affordable library?
A new market solution is to sell convenience ... not implement heavy handed SOPA tactics

Support wikipedia. Have you called your representative yet?

 

[M Most]

Mike I respectfully disagree.
The society is evolving and there is no way around it. You can delay it , slow it down but it's inevitable. Just look in the past....
The basic premise of internet and the freedoms it allows happens to be inconvenient to the elite- tough luck!!!
Again, Darwinian way- the ones that adapt will prevail and the ones that want to keep the status quo will fail.
But make no mistake- there will be blood....(figuratively speaking of course):001_tt2:

IBM->Microsoft->Apple.

Sony Walkman->Apple iPod.

TRW->Google.

If you think that somehow it's now different, that "the people" are going to somehow rise up and claim power, you need to look at history, especially economic and business history.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

 

[David Battistella]

It's all very hard to keep a lid on Mike. It's not just the indusrty, it's a generational thing. I can not see a generation (the next one) contemplating paying for anything over the internet. This will only begin to happen when there is a "value" attached. I don't want to sound like a grumpy guy, i'm not, I just don't see how any person who has viewed the internet a free abundant source for everything from homework, to software, to porno. It's like this whole thing is an attempt to put a lid on something after the pot has boiled over. The whole thing is both late and ill concieved. The internet is about opening minds, not restricting access.

That said, they need to find a better way than this to police "internet crime". The big problem is that the US has not been able to get copyright agreements in place with countries like Russia. WHY? Because the US lawyers who go there to negotiate copyright end up dad or shot. (this is true)

David