SOPA

OK; so I'm trying to make head or tail of the pros and cons of the now defunct SOPA, but I'm still scratching my head. Is it not in appropriate that something needs to be done about internet piracy?

If so what is the best way to go about it? What's good and bad about the law? Seems like there's a lot of hypocrisy and double standards on both sides of the discussion based on who is going to make or lose money. Google for example seems to be quite happy with internet laws that allow them to dominate the web, but are unhappy with laws that might limit the money they make from less than reputable internet operators. Even on this site, which is clearly anti-SOPA in general, there seem to be some double standards for example the complaints about use of photographs and copyright infringement. Aren't media companies entitled to protection from piracy, just as photogs are?

I know I may be opening a can of worms, but it seems we have not had any heated discussions on Wetpixel for a while.

Oh boy, where to begin. For me the main problem is that it bypasses all forms of due process. Basically as a target of SOPA/PIPA you get shut off, and have pretty much no recourse. It gives the justice department cart blanch to label you a pirate without any proof. The second part most people dislike is that these were paid-for laws. They were basically acquired for money by the big content players. Very recently this has even created quite a stir as the money aspect surfaced in an unexpected way. The content industry is desperately clinging to an old business model that obviously has been deemed dead by almost everyone but them. They need to reinvent themselves and create a product that people actually want.

Finally there are technical aspects. The way SOPA was going to implement their warrantless shutting down of sites around the world was by basically breaking the Domain Name System and putting everyone at risk.

There's lots of other things wrong with it. I kind of liked this video..

Oh, and that worst part (i re-watched the video), SOPA/PIPA gives everyone involved a waiver of liability in case they get it wrong. That's just insane and is completely counter-intuitive to having a fair system. It gives rights holders a no-risk method to over-reach when it comes to label sites pirates. And it's not like this is not likely to happen.

Since I am directly affected by internet piracy (and I like to poke fun at Cor, who has been directly affected:)), I'll jump in for a bit for the other end.

SOPA and PIPA were both sponsored by MPAA and other agencies with money from content producers, who want to stop piracy from hurting their bottom line. Let's first acknowledge that most people who weigh in on this matter have no idea about the opposing industry, so they are either very savvy about the internet or the content provider industry, but usually not both. Most of the pro-internet arguments shout outdated industry practices, private interest lobbying etc etc, which generally true but lacks detailed accuracy or facts.

The entertainment industry's system of revenue is old and entrenched. It generates a lot of revenue from these "archaic" systems which support the industry. For eg., TV ads (in program and commercial breaks) pay for the programs, just as DVD/BD/Cinema/ad space within films pay for films etc. You can't have it any other way, even with the advent of streaming TV/movies/PPV etc, since a large part of internet connections at tied to computers, not the TV. Internet content distribution just isn't mature enough to support the industry as is, nor will it likely be able to in the near future.

Obviously there are countries with "more amenably" lax copyright laws that don't protect, even though there are international treaties like WIPO and Berne. Enforcement is a big issue and as we all know, it's obvious some countries won't enforce anything.

Now the SOPA/PIPA gang shout lost jobs/revenues, but if one looks at the numbers, they are being very generous with how much they are losing. Their estimates aren't accurate but exaggerated, since many people who use pirate content won't necessarily buy the legal content. However, it is still a significant loss. The entertainment content makes it all the more interesting since it plays such a large part in our society, just as the internet has in the last 20 years.

While I don't agree with the judge/jury aspects of SOPA/PIPA, there is no easy way to stop IP theft either. I also think that even if SOPA/PIPA were enacted tomorrow, DNS would simply go underground and beat the system without hardly skipping a beat. I think it's the idea of restrictions that pisses people off, just like when WP instituted NSFW,NWS requirements for posts. Many people complained even though it doesn't really affect them directly, just because the idea of restrictions exits. For the most part, SOPA won't affect the majority of internet sites which don't host files, embed content etc. ISPs and server services could be affected (like Filesonic/Fileserve cutting filesharing to avoid ending up like Megadownload). The 2 industries most directly affected have value in modern society. So it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

It comes down to the responsibility of content on a website. For instance, a WP member posted an illegally obtained image etc, WP would technically be responsible and possibly be shut down. So where does the responsibility of ensuring legal posts lie? With the members (who possibly could be dumb or vindictive) and the site admin, or the IP owner who has to scour the internet to find copyright theft.

There will always be a large population of people who'd rather not pay for their content, just as there is obviously a big push toward protecting revenues from the industries. If content were not so entrenched into our cultures, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think SOPA/PIPA is ready for prime time, but I think it's in the right direction for protection of IP. The issue of US IP vs the ROW also plays into the WIPO enforcement problems. So I think SOPA/PIPA lite will probably resurface as lawmakers tweak it.

Oh boy, where to begin. For me the main problem is that it bypasses all forms of due process. Basically as a target of SOPA/PIPA you get shut off, and have pretty much no recourse. It gives the justice department cart blanch to label you a pirate without any proof. The second part most people dislike is that these were paid-for laws. They were basically acquired for money by the big content players. Very recently this has even created quite a stir as the money aspect surfaced in an unexpected way. The content industry is desperately clinging to an old business model that obviously has been deemed dead by almost everyone but them. They need to reinvent themselves and create a product that people actually want.

 

Finally there are technical aspects. The way SOPA was going to implement their warrantless shutting down of sites around the world was by basically breaking the Domain Name System and putting everyone at risk.

 

There's lots of other things wrong with it. I kind of liked this video..

 

Yeah, I personally am in agreement that this is mostly evil; like most government efforts to control anything. Ironic how the internet is ultimately one of the most libertarian mechanisms. I think what's scary about it is that when the internet 9/11 happens as it's bound to, things will really swing in the opposite direction when everybody starts screaming for blood.

I guess the real reason we dont need SOPA is that we know that pirates can be arrested just fine without the SOPA carpet bomb laws.

That's just one high profile shut with a 2 year investigation, while PirateBay and other websites based in who knows where will take up the slack within the hour. These guys have been hiding behind the weak WIPO enforcement. There is a big need to be better enforcement tools.

Im glad to see sane minds have prevailed and SOPA is pocketed for now. Hopefully to be replaced by something less draconian and bananarepublic-ish. Where accused actually have rights (I know, rights are sooo last century), and where abuse of the system can actually be punished (instead of writing in a waiver for yourself).

The facts are, the big players in the content industry wrote themselves a nuclear weapon law to fight their corporate war, and got called on it. When it was clear it was a nuclear weapon most support disappeared. And to add insult to injury, now the content industry is openly threatening the politicians that realized they were supporting a really bad piece of legislation.

Finally, I dont think RIAA/MPAA can be trusted with this kind of power.

The problem at the root of it all are the inherent weaknesses in the current internet structure, making it effectively impossible to police except with draconian type control as the Chinese well demonstrate. The issues of course are not only a matter of piracy and scams, but also the smooth functioning of every aspect of the economy and national security. It's been explained to me by someone who really knows how vulnerable the whole internet is. Interestingly the pirates and scam artists have no interest in bringing the internet down, as of course they make their living from it. On the other hand, if someone capable were intent on bringing the internet down, there is a clear scenario where people would starve.

Laws like SOPA that expect the government or some other entity to police it are misguided on many levels, and unfortunately simply will not work with our present internet structure. That's why a few smart people strongly believe that an alternative internet designed from the ground up for how the internet actually is used,is essential, rather than the original intent as a fancy email server for some university grads.

That's the whole problem, they're trying to desperately cling to an ancient business model with more and more heavy weaponry. But the genie won't be put back in the bottle. People have seen the future, and they like it. The content industry would like everyone to think this is all about theft. But it isnt. Research has shown that downloaders actually spend most money on content. For a lot of people it's about ease of use or even about availability. In europe we cant even get most current TV shows until a full year later. To me this is unacceptable in this day and age. Instead of the industry trying to cling to this system of worldwide fiefdoms, they need to embrace the new century and offer me products I actually want. I cant even PAY to get Homeland in NL.

So, to summarize..

[sORRY, THIS CONTENT CANT BE VIEWED IN YOUR REGION]

Actually Cor, that's where you as a consumer cannot say " if I can't get it, then I'll steal it by downloading it!" is wrong. It is precisely this age of instant gratification with that attitude that this issue is that pervasive. I have to say,"Too bad!" Downloading is stealing. Every country that has copyright laws support this argument. Just because someone wants instant gratification of whatever program, doesn't mean they can get it. It's like me saying I want a D4 but the waiting list is too long so I'll just go steal Jeff's!

You want the programming, then pay for a Slingbox, HD DVR cable box and internet service at someone's house in the US (you can even use mine) and you can watch whatever you want. I do that for the UK because I want the programming and am willing to pay for it when I want it. There is also the fact that people just don't want to pay for what they can get free. It's human nature! To deny this is stupid. Even I complain why Amazon charges more for a .Mobi vs a paperback, but if I want that book, I either pay for it or live without it. I wouldn't support stealing because I respect creative works. I know I'm in the minority.

There are a lot of things wrong with zonal licensing but it also feeds the content providers. The programs like Homeland are paid for by the existing infrastructure. Showtime lives off cable subscriptions, without this infrastructure, you cannot have programming like it or any of the other stuff which cost possibly millions of dollars PER episode. Going to internet without TV prime time etc, will just shrink budgets to where the programs would have terrible production value. I can't imagine Hugh Laurie accepting less than $10k an episode for House, or Claire Danes or Mandy Patinkin either for Homeland!

The reality is the system has money because of the entrenched way of distribution. They are preparing for the internet rush. PPV and on demand TV are moving towards that. I don't think it's ready for prime time yet. Internet content just does not have the quality of broadcast, which is why I won't pay for iTunes anymore but invested in HDMI recording and desktop capture off cable feeds, because I want 1080 resolution. Even Slingbox sux but I live with it for sport events.

As for the draconian laws, you and I both know that DNS would just go underground and business would be as usual within a day. Just as you say you want your content right now, the content producers are saying our content is ours and if it's on a website or IP, we want it off right now. Let's see who wins!

Probably 2 main types of anti-SOPA people, those who really worry about freedom, and those who think it's OK to steal.

It is NEVER okay to suspend due process no matter how well-meaning the enforcers may be. SOPA/PIPA, the NDAA, Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security and yes, even the IRS are all about taking away your rights as a citizen. I am personally astounded with the things which have been codified into law "for our own good" in the past 12 years.

Go try and take a photo of a Federal building or train station and see what happens to you. Argue with a TSA agent, see what happens. Say just one thing a flight attendant doesn't like and you might get booted from a flight. Today, it's giving license for our government to take down a web site for copyright infringement, but both of these laws are written so vaguely (on purpose I might add) where they can also take down a site for almost any reason at all. Anti-Govt. opinion site? You are done. Instructions on how to avoid speed traps? Kill that site immediately in the "public interest". Pro- or Anti- Global Warming site? Depending on who's in power, you are dangerous - kill that site!

There is absolutely no way you can convince me we need Police State laws like SOPA/PIPA, NDAA, FISA and the others. The MPAA and RIAA are bringing giant suitcases of money to Washington to lobby Congress for enforcement. They can't figure out how to market their products properly, so the answer is to bribe politicians instead.

JP

I think the issue on both sides come from vested interest groups, hugely exaggerated to exact the emotional/paranoid effect so the general public opinion can be swayed. Anti-Sopas will scream perceived end of freedom rhetoric, bring up obscure examples of how it affects the "little guy" etc! They depend on escalating the paranoia of "freedom", when actually it won't actually ever affect most people who stay out of filesharing etc.

The pro-SOPA exaggerate loss numbers for PR, flex the $$$ muscles and affect change via law! They can't really piss of the public too much since they rely on the public to buy their products.

If the content providers didn't have such a big market, I doubt there'll be such be vivid and active discussions. Shows how much we've got the convenience of entertainment media engrained in our lives!

While I am not exactly pro-SOPA/PIPA, I'm more than a little tired of the rampant piracy. Why should the burden of finding IP online fall to content providers, instead of the hosts? It's theft and it's supported by a large majority of people, who don't respect it. So there must be laws to chase these guys since present methods are slow and easily bypassed by hiding in some country that doesn't enforce copyright protection. When these countries face being cut off from the internet, then they'll start removing these illegal elements. Unfortunately, the reality is that the black market will always exist. It just depends to what extent.

Actually Drew, you are completely wrong You'll be surprised, and probably dismayed beyond believe, but downloading (including copyrighted material) is fully legal in NL (and afaik in many other european countries) for private individuals. Not just tolerated like drugs, but legal. The laws surrounding this have been tested again and again, and have remained in place. What is not legal is distributing, and I personally have no problem with the MegaUpload raid. These guys made money by redistributing copyrighted material, and thats illegal almost anywhere. So no, you can not accuse me of stealing if I download something, because it is not stealing. No matter if you think it is. It is a common misconception though, lovingly perpetuated by content industry as FUD, so I dont blame you for not knowing this

Now lets get one other thing straight, I dont even watch Homeland But im sure many tens of millions of people around the world do download it and similar programs. Instead of vilifying them all, think about it for a second. You've got tens of millions of people that are dying to watch these shows or play these games. They converse with their friends on a global social world about this. They want this stuff, BAD! Stop keeping it from them, and I'll bet you, a significant percentage will pay for it. Thinking you can put this genie back into the bottle is wishful thinking. You must see this Drew. Yes, a certain percentage will still want to get it for free, and that has existed before the internet. Probably everyone swapped tapes in high school.

The sneaky circumvention you described (Slingbox, HD DVR cable box and internet service) is most likely not legal. Are you allowed to redistribute your cable TV to a third party in another content zone thats not you? Im sure someone had the sole redistribution rights for most shows on your cable channel in my content distribution zone.

I also dont really agree with your depiction of my examples being 'obscure'. They were highly publicized cases, and only a couple of examples that show RIAA and MPAA can not be trusted to do the right thing. Unlike you, I believe the MPAA and RIAA will go on a rampage once they get cart blanch and immunity from any prosecution if they get that power. They'll be like a meth addict that just discovered the greatest high ever. They will start shutting down everything they dont like. And then try and put THAT genie back into a box. Nothing you say can bring me from that believe, because they have proven over and over again how they operate. Just look at the MediaSentry debacle.

Probably 2 main types of anti-SOPA people, those who really worry about freedom, and those who think it's OK to steal

Loftus, if you're referring to me, you may not realize this, but SOPA doesn't affect me. It only affects Americans. SOPA is meant to 'protect' Americans from foreign websites containing dangerous materials like counterfeits and illegal content. Just like the Chinese government protects their citizens, and the Iranian protects theirs, and the Syrian theirs. If SOPA would get enacted, the US would lose all credibility on a global stage when it comes to telling other regimes that they should not prevent their citizens from reaching certain content. Im anti-sopa, because I believe SOPA as an implementation is completely off base. It is wrong for many many reasons, as I have explained slightly because there's plenty more to discuss

But just like Drew is tired of the piracy, im tired of Big Content. In 1998 the DMCA got enacted (and subsequently heavily abused), and in the 14 years(!) since, very little has changed. They just want bigger and larger weapons to keep the vested interests intact while the rest of the world is trying to move on.

Cor

Disclosure: My iphone is not jailbroken, i LOVE and heavily use steam, all my mac software is legal, and I dont watch TV much

Loftus, if you're referring to me, you may not realize this, but SOPA doesn't affect me. ch TV much

No really not referring to you at all, have no idea what you do; but I do think there are a lot of people out there who simply think it's OK to download something knowing they're meant to be paying for it. No different to using one of your photographs without your permission really. Let's say you have a photograph that you set a price for, is it OK that someone uses it just because they think you want too much for it? So you may not like Big Content for example, but you have a choice to watch their stuff or not. Their business model may suck, and the market will decide on that by choosing not to purchase their stuff, completely different from stealing their stuff.

My thought is that when listening to the SOPA anti-SOPA discussion it's interesting to see the main motivation; is it because one is concerned with the freedom and abuse issues, or is it because one thinks there is no right to intellectual property, and it's OK to steal just because you can.

Just because I don't agree with someone's terms regarding purchasing their property, does not mean I have the right to take it. I have a choice to agree to someones terms and pay for it, or decline.

I feel pretty strongly about the SOPA thing with regards to the freedom and abuse issue and the fact that it's unworkeable just like you do, I just don't like it when people are against SOPA just because they think anything out there is theirs for the taking. There's a difference.

I think any discussion about SOPA is meaningless if you're not willing to discuss why people download, and are only concerned with the fact they're not allowed to. They do. En masse. Ignoring it is just silly. You can try and fight the symptoms, or the cause. Yes, some people want things for free. But another, and I think large, reason is that there just hasnt been any alternative. I think it's highly naive to think you can get people away from downloading without an alternative.

Now, Steam is a really cool and working alternative and I love it. And you may hate or love apple, but itunes is at least somewhat trying (although they have stupid zoning issues as well).

Why can't we have Steam for TV, Movies, Documentaries, etc

I think any discussion about SOPA is meaningless if you're not willing to discuss why people download, and are only concerned with the fact they're not allowed to. They do. En masse. Ignoring it is just silly. You can try and fight the symptoms, or the cause. Yes, some people want things for free. But another, and I think large, reason is that there just hasnt been any alternative. I think it's highly naive to think you can get people away from downloading without an alternative.

 

Now, Steam is a really cool and working alternative and I love it. And you may hate or love apple, but itunes is at least somewhat trying (although they have stupid zoning issues as well).

 

Why can't we have Steam for TV, Movies, Documentaries, etc

Agree with you.

Just think it's necessary to separate the freedom / abuse / workability issue, from the right to to have/take/download something just because one can.

While theres something to be said for not criminalising personal copying, we are in a very different era from cassette tapes. Its not an absolute difference, but it is a difference of huge magnitude.

The free aspect of digital copying is a real market killer. The only way to fix this is to make it so that free is irritating or annoying, which has to be achieved by a variety of methods - piracy doesnt need to be eliminated, it just needs to be made inconvenient for the majority of people.

And thats why they will keep going after sites, trying to enact laws, sue etc, because they know it will have some effect on peoples comfort with doing it and as a result make legal options like steam more attractive.

Otara

Cor, NL is part of WIPO, yet allows stolen copyrighted material within its borders with lax enforcement and by that , internationally. This is the type of lax enforcement of copyright infringement that requires stronger prevention. And yes it is stealing to download anything that is copyrighted because once you put it in a publicly available and not pay for it, unless the license is paid for. The copyright is broken ONCE there is no license paid for the material. Common internet fable of legality, check with your lawyers. Sorta like streaming music from a website to play at a club because they can't pay for the DJ to appear at the club, or watching Homeland (which I also don't watch but know the peeps) recorded from Showtime in the US and distributed on the internet, which somehow mysteriously falls into NL servers. Come on, now who has wool over their eyes. You are much smarter than me, so how can you not see that?

As I said before, I do agree that the market will have to change but the money offered within the internet structure is nothing compared to what is available in the entrenched (and archaic) system. In about 5-10 years, when 2k TV with internet capability penetrates more worldwide, these companies will start having a bigger presence on the internet via whatever outlet like Google,Netflix,iTunes etc. Another reason why there are licensing zones is due to various taxes on the product (even over the internet). Then people would justify d/ling pirate copies because it's more expensive in the EU vs the US (hey income/VAT is higher so duh!). Most people want things as cheap as possible, free if possible. The internet makes this even more pervasive due to the global access. There have been a push toward online content broadcast via a pay system but hampered by various zonal taxes. Ready to change to a global tax system?!?

I agree that the discussion should also be about the reasons behind piracy, but let us be VERY real about this. The people who are willing to sit through Avatar on their computer watching a shaky videocam version aren't going to be the ones who pay for an IMAX 3D experience. Nor will most of them who happily download via torrents etc. And the reason is cost (internet connection) and ease of availability. The real market all this is about is the small segment like yourself, willing to pay for content but don't have access to it (well easy access). And it's not large enough to cater to at any serious level, especially since the price will be biggest determinant. Pricing will be crucial and it's difficult to lower prices to include those who'd still prefer it free. This is all conjecture as I talked to stats guys who make mathematical assumptions on this vs going out to do surveys. But all the marketing research shows the money to be made from this segment isn't a lot, or at least enough to forgo the present old system. That may change in the next few years.

And it's because of the pirate market movie companies delay the launch of the latest movies in many countries. A big production like say Dark Knight Rises, will generally make $3-400mil in the US and double that worldwide. So the ROW market often doesn't outperform the US market (exceptions like Titanic and Dark Knight exist!) in terms of earnings, so yeah, there is a delay (although it's getting much better due to international distributors insisting on same/near same day openings, less they lose it out to piracy over the internet when it hits back to the fringe willing to pay $X market. Hence the demand you say that exists may be there globally, but then again the local distribution infrastructure would lose money. Technology will probably render many of these archaic systems obsolete, once fiber networks penetrate more. Siri will evolve to a reader of news in whatever language/accent/gender voice, so internet blogs can be considered news feeds (oh great!). That day won't come for awhile.

Btw, Slingbox is totally legal since 1. you pay for the cable subscription and hence the license for the progamming, 2. the viewing of programming is fair use. I can record programming ANYWAY I want at home, so long as it stays within my property and is not available to the public. It's not sneaky at all otherwise Slingbox would be dead long ago. As long as the subscription license is paid and the viewing is fair use, it's legal. So if you want to watch Real Housewives of XXXXX, just let me know! My offer stands!

I'm not saying the MPAA/RIAA are going to be saints, hence I don't support SOPA in its present form. They are using BS data. However, the opposition to SOPA/PIPA types are also waving personal liberty rights fear mongering because some of them have vested interest. Neither side are unbiased.