SOPA

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

(This isn't directed at you, I was just quoting you.)

So then, legally, anyone who has ever taken a picture of a picture/painting/sculpture is stealing art. Anyone who edits a short version of Star Trek to make some type of comical Jean-Luc Picard video is stealing intellectual property and should be fined/put in jail because that video belongs to (whoever the fuck owns Star Trek).



The reason I find it so hard to stick to one side is that the line is soooo fine. On one hand, I think "Fuck you, you put it on the internet. The internet should be free domain. If you don't want people stealing your shit, don't put them online. I don't leave the keys in my car, or my door wide-open."

I try to defend the other side by thinking "Well I'd probably be a dick about not getting my money, too", but then I just come back to my own "well, I put it on the internet. The internet should be free domain etc etc".

See, if someone is taking physical copies of my CD (or movie), putting those tracks/film onto a computer to give to other people for free - I could see an issue being taken up with that. But if you're putting your own product online, I think you almost immediately waive all right to bitch. if I put my own file online, I shouldn't be allowed to say "hey wait, stop!".

To go back to my "I wouldn't leave my door open" thing. Even though if someone walks into my open house and steals my things - that's definitely their fault. But I was the dumbass who left my door unlocked, and didn't check to see who was walking out with what.

I also think there's a fine line in the term "stealing". I don't download music, but I don't consider it "stealing". Nothing is being lost. technically.

Digitial files do not exist. They are not real things. You put a digital song (easiest example) on a server for paid download. 5 people pay, 3 people dont. Sure, you lost out on the money from those 3 people - but you still have your song. You didn't press any records and pay to put them into a store, and then have those stolen. You technically haven't lost anything.

It's like if you have a printer in your store, and copies are 50 cents. If someone walks in with their own paper and ink, prints something then walks out without paying, what did you really lose.

Edit: To be fair I'll probably be on the other side by next week.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Look Piracy is here to stay.

IT WILL NEVER STOP.

The moment the CD was invented and the ability to rip the files off said CD was there, we have been doing it. The Moment someone realized they could send these files to others was the moment the music industry should have tried to go with the fucking flow instead of jacking up the price of CDs and blaming piracy.

No, i'm not saying piracy is ok. However it has been around for centuries and it will always be here. There is absolutely nothing that can stop it. Before the internet was big people would rip and burn CDs from friends, before that they would record on cassette tapes. VCRs, DVDRs etc. For fuck's sake people used to hand copy books.

Also whoever brought up larceny into this... WTF? Larceny refers to tangible objects. I've never been able to physically touch an MP3 or any other type of computer file.

That's why there are copyright laws that came into place after some motherfuckers with a VCR realized they could make a copy of a tv show on a tape that cost 5 bucks. Before Satellite and Cable TV used to always be free. Broadcast Television was all there was and it's what everyone watched. Before the invention of devices that could play music, people didn't buy it, they listened to it on the radio. A Radio DJ decided what you listened to and who got big.

$$$$$

That's what all this about. Always.

Someday I hope people wake the fuck up and realize that society is ripping them the fuck off.

Thankfully there are protests and reasons to fucking care, and that's the only part of the American Dream that's worth something.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the RIAA already get a certain amount of money for every single CD sold?

Also, the last video TheGame posted blew my mind....At this rate investing in jail building operations seems like an excellent decision.

[TheGame]

Blah so many replies. lol idk if I'm going to read everything tonight. But I want to respond to this.

Originally Posted by Professor S

For clarity's sake, what if Jane broke into a record store and stole hundreds of dollars of CDs. Should Jane go to jail then, or just be fined?

I wouldn't consider it the same because there's no enabler in the case of the store. Jane did all of the dirty work herself if she broke in and stole CDs.

A better example is, if John broke into and stole from the store and was handing out copies of the music he stole from the store for free to anyone who asks for them. And Jane, in the pursuit of not paying for what she wants, happens to take CDs of the hands of this guy.. no she shouldn't go to jail. But yes she should be fined for taking stolen goods and being aware of what she was doing. And if she contributes to shutting down John's scheme then she should get a break. John should go to jail.

This is how I view it, you used the jailbreak example I gave... The first and highest level of responsibility for this should be with the company who made the phone that enables this theft of digital content. Yes, I'm saying it's Apple's fault first and foremost. If they're not doing everything in their power to safeguard and counter against these 'jailbreaks' they should be just as prone to being sued by the companies that provide them with the content and fined by the government.

And the second highest responsibility would rest with the people who created and/or distributed the content that allows the phone to be jailbroken. These people should go to jail, and should be in part responsible for all of the damages and lost funds Apple had. But only up to a certain period of time, once it's discovered that they're hacking into the system and distributing this information, the company should get a small grace period to get it under control (2-3 months?) and any further activity after that is on Apple.

The absolute lowest priority of blame should be left with the users. Yes, it should be against the law. But don't bankrupt people and send them to prison over it.

To sum it up the problem with this law is they're going to rest too much of the issue on the users and individuals and not the companies or distributors.

Why do I think that is bad? Because when we start paying tax dollars to put people in jail for something it becomes our problem, and Apple would have less incentive to waste extra money to guard against this activity, instead they can just focus on finding who's doing it and let the tax payers pay the rest.

That's just my take on it.

To go back to the analogy.. If the store is blind sided and robbed by John and he's giving the CDs away, 100% on John. But if the store knows inventory is missing for months, and knows it's ending up in the hands of random people on the street... and they haven't found a way to stop it.. then it's the store's fault.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

This is how I view it, you used the jailbreak example I gave... The first and highest level of responsibility for this should be with the company who made the phone that enables this theft of digital content. Yes, I'm saying it's Apple's fault first and foremost. If they're not doing everything in their power to safeguard and counter against these 'jailbreaks' they should be just as prone to being sued by the companies that provide them with the content and fined by the government.

By this logic a company that makes cutlery is responsible for every assault and murder made with their knives. A auto company is responsible if someone intentionally hits someone with their car. A company that makes bricks is responsible if someone throws one through a window.

In my opinion this is a microcosm of one of the major problems in the world today: A lack of personal responsibility. If Apple is the most responsible party when people hack their phones and use them to perform illegal acts, the no individual is responsible for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is different from physical property in some ways, but it's not that different. In the end, stealing is stealing, and it's not the store's fault just because they didn't put enough locks on the door, regardless of whether the property is physical or digital.

[Vampyr]

I think it's significantly enough different to warrant different punishment, though.

When you physically take something, you are denying a sale to whoever you stole it from. Corporations like to say they lost X amount of dollars from piracy, where they make an estimate on how many times something has been pirated and then multiply it by how much the product cost.

They are saying that each instance of piracy is a lost sale. It's not. It's a lost potential sale - there's a huge different. It's actually less than that, since plenty of people buy something and pirate it anyway. The only Wii games that I've pirated are the ones that I actually own.

If you take something physical, that person can no longer sell it. They lose the true value of that object. When you copy something, someone loses less than a potential sale. The person pirating it -might- have paid for it. Maybe.

Is it still wrong? Yes. But it's not the same as theft and shouldn't be punished the same way and the punishment certainly shouldn't be more harsh.

[Professor S]

While I disagree with you, you have a point, but I also think that your argument is one that will lend itself to regulations like PIPA and SOPA. The more you give your opposition the ability to take moral high-ground the more vulnerable the Internet becomes. All they need is a window of righteousness and they'll fix the system to benefit themselves.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

By this logic a company that makes cutlery is responsible for every assault and murder made with their knives. A auto company is responsible if someone intentionally hits someone with their car. A company that makes bricks is responsible if someone throws one through a window.

No that's completely different. Apple and the companies who make apps would still be actively being robbed in the case of a jail break on a phone. If someone buys a product and uses it as-is to commit an act of violence that's the fault of the user and the user alone. (Edit: In most cases)

We're not talking about the hardware. Like people buying iphones to bash people's skulls in. We're talking about a unprotected digital app store that Apple isn't taking the appropriate measures to safeguard. Completely different things.

The phone in essence, is still a store.. not just a product.

In my opinion this is a microcosm of one of the major problems in the world today: A lack of personal responsibility. If Apple is the most responsible party when people hack their phones and use them to perform illegal acts, the no individual is responsible for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is different from physical property in some ways, but it's not that different. In the end, stealing is stealing, and it's not the store's fault just because they didn't put enough locks on the door, regardless of whether the property is physical or digital.

I agree that people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, but I disagree if you say that the company who sells a product and gets robbed repeatedly should not be held responsible for safeguarding their product. If a store doesn't lock up and they get robbed, that's partially on them. If they don't lock up again 20 more times, and get robbed 20 more times... each time it becomes more and more the store's fault.

To be clear, I said that the person who steals should still go to jail, and the people who use the stolen products should still be fined. But the ones who aren't securing their product should also be held accountable. In other words, everyone up and down the chain should be held responsible.

[Professor S]

Typhoid - Your comparison of taking pictures of photos is not relevant because photos only create the image of a painting, they don't create an exact duplicate down to the paint, canvass, strokes, and even molecules. When you steal digital property, you are stealing a 1 and 0, atom by atom, clone of the product. A better analogy would be to compare it to counterfeiting.

But to my main point: Putting aside the moral arguments, I ask that people who disagree with me answer the question of perception of morality. Think of how morally complex you are making this. The greyer the area, the more opportunity the government and industry have of enacting legislation to control your activity on the internet.

Think long term and with a wide lens. In trying to create moral judgements making intellectual theft less egregious than physical theft, you are opening up a perceived moral argument against a free and open internet, which has really little to do with the small niche market of exchanging copyrighted material. In the end, to most people this sounds like people trying to protect their ability to steal shit.

If those that operate on the Internet refuse to regulate themselves when danger arises, then the government will do it for them and it will have a far larger impact on all of our lives than removing or regulating file-sharing websites. Don't give them the excuse.

That's all I have to say on that.

[Vampyr]

My main reason for saying these things didn't really have anything to do with SOPA or PIPA or how the internet should be regulated.

I just think the people who have been caught and punished for copyright infringement have been treated unconstitutionally. The punishment does not fit the crime and is absolutely inhumane.

And I don't understand what type of argument you expect us to make. If I act like there is no moral grey area and I say "internet is free and open", that sounds even more like I'm trying to defend someone's ability to steal something.

The problem here is that the people voting on this legislation is primarily old white men who have no idea how the internet works, and they're making laws to regulate how the internet works. How many of those senators and congressman do you even think know what a DNS is?

I'm pretty sure the reason SOPA and PIPA got so far is that the strain of thought in most of their heads was "Herp derp piracy sounds bad, this is anti piracy"

I think the best we can do is try to teach them, and pray they are willing to be educated.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The problem here is that the people voting on this legislation is primarily old white men who have no idea how the internet works, and they're making laws to regulate how the internet works.

So old black men are more tech savvy?

[Typhoid]

The problem here is that the people voting on this legislation is primarily old white men who have no idea how the internet works, and they're making laws to regulate how the internet works. How many of those senators and congressman do you even think know what a DNS is?

Yeah, that's probably the main problem.
They have no real idea what the internet is, and seemingly can't grasp it at all.
They can't comprehend that it is invisible, and doesn't really exist.

They're trying to regulate it as if it is a physical, tangible thing that can be owned by a country.
Technology expands toooo fast now, and it's destroying everything. The iphone has changed a lot of the world. It's made the answer to everything at everyone's fingertips at every second of every day. The iphone was released only 5 fucking years ago. 5 years. And now it's probably the single most important device that exists simply because it makes every piece of media, every person on the planet (as long as they have a device that's capable) and information so accessible. But the Baby Boom (and pre BB) generation couldn't even grasp how to properly program a VCR 20+ years ago - most of which are probably just figuring out how to send a text message, and the logical convenience behind it - and now they're expected to make critical decisions on the regulation of something they probably have experience with only through hearing their grandchildren talk at family functions.


I'm not sure if I believe what I'm about to say is a good idea or not, but it's just a thing I'm going to type.


I think the internet should be regulated simply by whatever country the offender is in. Nothing more, nothing less. Wherever that server is located, if whatever is on that server is within the legalities of the country it is in - tough shit. But that doesn't mean you can't go after the people who download that media, so long as they are in a country where whatever-it-is happens to be illegal.


I hate to jump to such an extreme, but take child pornography. I completely disagree with it as a thing, it disgusts me, and I believe everyone who does a thing that like is the worst person alive. However, if it was made in (Country A), and [for sake of this] child porn is legal to produce - then that is "fine" (Hypothetically). So long as it took place in that country, and was within the boundaries of that countries laws.
However if someone from (Country B) wishes to view that material made and distributed online from (Country A), and it happens to be illegal in (Country B) - go after the person who looked for it - not the person who made it. Unless it is illegal in the country it was happening in.

It's like going to Thailand to fuck a Thai hooker, then coming back to your own country and getting arrested for soliciting an underage prostitute.
That is joke.



It's sort of (......) like what happened with a guy named Marc Emery. the 52 year-old Pot King. The guy lived in Vancouver, and sold pot seeds - which is legal in Canada - online to people in the US (And other places). He is now serving 5 years in an American Federal prison. The same sentence length someone would get for this dumbass SOPA shit.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Think long term and with a wide lens. In trying to create moral judgements making intellectual theft less egregious than physical theft, you are opening up a perceived moral argument against a free and open internet, which has really little to do with the small niche market of exchanging copyrighted material. In the end, to most people this sounds like people trying to protect their ability to steal shit.

The penalty has to fit the crime. I think I made it very clear how it's different, so no need to explain this again. Supporting heavy penalties and prison time for individuals who have pirated materials doesn't get to the source of the issue, and is going to cost us money and adds to a much bigger issue that we already have.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The penalty has to fit the crime. I think I made it very clear how it's different, so no need to explain this again.

Here is the problem: No one cares what you think, or how different it may be, even if you're right. They are looking for opportunities to push through laws to benefit themselves. You all seem to think that those that want to push PIPA and SOPA don't understand how the Internet works. That is ridiculous. They are very well aware of how it works, and that is EXACTLY their issue.

Again, making it complicated only gives your opposition opportunity to do what they want. This is how the world works. Get used to it and triangulate. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

[Seth]

Regulating this in the form of 'anti piracy' laws that pursue jail time and ludicrous fines will only result in further loss of productivity in the larger society. Both national and global. Production will slow as well because the internet won't have the same traffic numbers which directly infuse marketing's reach.
They somehow think that people who are pirating creative media have expendable income that is being horded or fed into a 'black market'. This isn't the reality. Canada is a debt society and is only increasing in debt.
Archaic business models that don't represent the floundering economy is the problem, and the redirection of their own production ability away from supporting artists, towards lobbying and regulation which hurt the consumer.

The contradiction of logic tends to lend support to the notion that this is more about information control and less about copyright infringement in and of itself.

Congress and constitution are no longer protective if this is ratified, or left unchecked with preventative laws:

Update: An earlier version of this post claimed the act required Senate ratification. Reports are conflicting, but it appears this is not the case. ACTA has been signed as a sole executive agreement, meaning the president’s signature on this is all it takes for it to become law, though Sen. Ron Wyden has questioned the constitutionality of that move on the part of the administration.

Cory Doctorow describes the agreement as “a secretly negotiated copyright treaty that obliges its signatories to take on many of the worst features of SOPA and PIPA. The EU is nearing ratification of it. ACTA was instigated by US trade reps under the Bush Administration, who devised and enforced its unique secrecy regime, but the Obama administration enthusiastically pursued it.”

While this may be the case, it is much more difficult to assess the actual impact of the bill on US law. It may end up having a negligible affect on US IP law and internet freedom. It may have a slow impact that creeps up over the years. The lack of transparency has made it very difficult to assess, especially given the numerous governments involved. Whether or not it represents as great a threat as its critics claim, it is always worrisome when these sorts of agreements are worked out without public input.

From the EFF update on developments in ACTA in 2011:

While Internet blacklist bills exploded into the domestic U.S. Congressional scene this year, foreboding international forces are also posing new threats to the Internet around the world. The most prominent of these is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), signed by the U.S. in 2011, which would strengthen intellectual property enforcement norms between signatory countries, handing overbroad powers to the content industry to preserve their antiquated business model. ACTA was widely criticized for being negotiated in secret, bypassing national parliaments and the checks and balances in existing international organizations. One of the most disheartening features of this plurilateral agreement [1] is that it creates a new global IP enforcement institution to oversee its implementation.

Eight[2] of the 11 ACTA participating countries have signed the agreement and the battle now mainly lies in the European Union. This week, the Council of the European Union—one of the European Union’s two legislative bodies, composed of executives from the 27 EU member states—adopted ACTA during a completely unrelated meeting on agriculture and fisheries. It is now up to the European Parliament, the EU’s other legislative body, to give consent on ACTA in the coming year. The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee has discussed the agreement on December 20th, and released its very guarded opinion, summarily stating: “It appears that the agreement per se does not impose any obligation on the Union that is manifestly incompatible with fundamental rights.” This opinion is not surprising, given how the Committee newsletter [doc] published a few days prior spoke highly of ACTA, hinting strongly that it is supportive of its signature.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...you-meet-acta/