PIPA SOPA

[D.o.S.]

Bee tee dubs, snipzy's totally on the money when it comes to liberties and entitlements.

[devnulljp]

It's a bait n switch the same way kiddie porn and terrorism are.
We're going to infringe on your freedom THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! OMG TERRORISTS!!!!
All that is is the marketing face of what they're doing.
"We're going after the pirates" is a lot harder to argue against than "We want to be able to shut down anything we don't like (like wikileaks, occupy, oh and while we're at it craigslist and other stuff that cuts into profits)" and that's why the dialogue is being framed in those terms.
It's convenient because it represents a convergence of powerful interests -- the media lobbies can use governmental jitters to their own ends and government can use media lobby tactics to et the control they want. It's not a conspiracy, but it is business as usual.
Your use of capital D Democratic shows just how small you're thinking here.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvXo4sGB7zM[/youtube]

[D.o.S.]

You heard it here first kids, Dev's a Kiddie porn peddling Canadian terrorist.

I don't doubt that any government would dig being able to control access to information on the internet. Governments love that shit. But, like kiddie porn and terrorism, piracy is a problem. To act like it's not is shortsighted.

Anyway, that's nowhere near what you originally said:

If you don't think governments and their corporate owners are interested in restraining the Internet in the wake of the Arab Spring and Occupy then you're just not paying attention...

COICA, the bill PIPA (and, to a lesser degree, SOPA) sprang from, predates both of those things. But, of course, you know that, because you're paying attention.

[snipelfritz]

It's a bait n switch the same way kiddie porn and terrorism are.
We're going to infringe on your freedom THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! OMG TERRORISTS!!!!
All that is is the marketing face of what they're doing.
"We're going after the pirates" is a lot harder to argue against than "We want to be able to shut down anything we don't like (like wikileaks, occupy, oh and while we're at it craigslist and other stuff that cuts into profits)" and that's why the dialogue is being framed in those terms.
It's convenient because it represents a convergence of powerful interests -- the media lobbies can use governmental jitters to their own ends and government can use media lobby tactics to et the control they want. It's not a conspiracy, but it is business as usual.
Your use of capital D Democratic shows just how small you're thinking here.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware of this. I don't see what's new that you're bringing to the table except a bunch of colorful, paranoid language. Politicians are being motivated to support big media's interests in order to continue to gain campaign funds. By rejecting it, Obama and other dems lost a lot of monetary support (http://www.inquisitr.com/184132/mpaas-c ... -drawdown/). Obviously, the bill doesn't just attack piracy in a well-defined, effective way, which is why there's been all of this uproar (if you haven't noticed) as well as why many politicians have refused to support it.

Bait and switch implies some sort of complete disparity of what is advertised and what it presented. PIPA/SOPA are means of combatting piracy, however it's the details of these means that are the problem, not that the bill is something entirely different.

Government isn't unified, ever. It is a group of individuals with their own interests. That primary interest is reelection. If voter support is so against something that it outweighs the votes that could be gained by supporters of the bill's funding, politicians won't support it. This is rare, certainly, but it's a lot simpler than people want to make it seem. Everyone has legitimate tangible interests that they will 99% of the time be completely candid about. "Power" is not a legitimate interest. It is a commonly used means to an end, but no one amasses power for power's sake unless you're the villain in a cartoon from the 80's. (waits for cavalcade of condescending cynicism)

[morange]

Unless you want to argue "entitlements" in the broadest sense, that is, you are entitled to have gov't NOT act in a way that would infringe upon your civil liberties. Now I'm just running around in semantic circles.

That is exactly how I'm arguing entitlements. It's the nature of government to infringe in personal freedoms. It takes effort for a government to respect certain liberties while restricting others. Rights are entitlements, from that perspective.

The short, snarky post by D.o.S. implies that the people arguing for American rights are spoiled children, by saying those rights are actually entitlements. I'm saying sometimes rights and entitlements are the same thing. But the semantics don't actually matter as long as we're not being persuaded by connotation.


Also, the parts of government that are responsible for protecting us would like more power, because it makes it easier for them to protect us. From their perspective, the desire for more power isn't wrong; from our perspective, it is. The people whose rights are being infringed upon are more concerned about it than the ones doing the infringing.

[D.o.S.]

If you think that post was snarky, you need to get out more.

However I'll clarify my original post:

SOPA and PIPA are massively flawed and definitely shouldn't make it to law, but I'm not sure I dig the fact that much of the kickback seems to be rooted in entitlement in the full negative sense that the word is used.

Walk with me:
The great granddady of all online filesharing/piracy (depending on who you talk to, of course), Napster, went live in 1999.

For our purposes, that's when the genie was out of the bottle.

So, if you're, say, a 19 year old kid right now, you were about 6 when Napster launched. That means you've grown up with the technology to get whatever music and movies you want (and you've definitely figured out how to get it for free). A lot of the SOPA backlash I've seen is this demographic freaking out because they might not be able to pirate movies and music anymore. The ethical dilemma and moral high ground comes long after that recognition.

I'm not for SOPA. I'm not for PIPA. I do not have a problem with file sharing. I do have a problem with individuals continuing to enjoy artist's art without compensating them.

[McSpunckle]

I really don't think most of the backlash of these bills stems from people wanting to protect their rights to steal music (which they don't have anyways). Whatever system the government put in place most likely could be circumvented so you can still access these foreign sites. And the resources required to keep up with the policing would probably be astronomical.

Most of the backlash was from companies like Google that saw the effect these laws could have on their business, and they did what they could to tell people about it. If Youtube was blocked, they'd probably have lots of legal issues getting around it... unlike, say, a Swedish site that the US government can't do much about it other than keep trying to block them.

The general consensus seems to be that it would do little to stop piracy, and mostly just harm legitimate companies.

[devnulljp]

If you think that post was snarky, you need to get out more.

However I'll clarify my original post:

SOPA and PIPA are massively flawed and definitely shouldn't make it to law, but I'm not sure I dig the fact that much of the kickback seems to be rooted in entitlement in the full negative sense that the word is used.

Walk with me:
The great granddady of all online filesharing/piracy (depending on who you talk to, of course), Napster, went live in 1999.

For our purposes, that's when the genie was out of the bottle.

So, if you're, say, a 19 year old kid right now, you were about 6 when Napster launched. That means you've grown up with the technology to get whatever music and movies you want (and you've definitely figured out how to get it for free). A lot of the SOPA backlash I've seen is this demographic freaking out because they might not be able to pirate movies and music anymore. The ethical dilemma and moral high ground comes long after that recognition.

I'm not for SOPA. I'm not for PIPA. I do not have a problem with file sharing. I do have a problem with individuals continuing to enjoy artist's art without compensating them.

Are you always like this? Or do you just not speak English very well?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]

[D.o.S.]

Solid point, dev, I stand corrected.

[SPACERITUAL]

I keep thinking the title of this thread is PIPA SODA. Then im mmmmmmmm. But there is no pipa soda. so </3

[Caesar]

Both bills are shit.

But... how many people have Photoshop installed, and how many people paid for Photoshop.

What's the solution.

[devnulljp]

Both bills are shit.
But... how many people have Photoshop installed, and how many people paid for Photoshop.
What's the solution.

Gimp.
But seriously, this isn't about stopping people torrenting photoshop or justin beiber's greatest hits.

[Caesar]

Both bills are shit.
But... how many people have Photoshop installed, and how many people paid for Photoshop.
What's the solution.

Gimp.
But seriously, this isn't about stopping people torrenting photoshop or justin beiber's greatest hits.

I agree... Partially.
In the world of reality, we know that bills such as this do nothing to curb piracy, just as product keys and product activation doesn't stop piracy. All these powerful government types are being paid by industries,and they are doing what they are told by these industries is right. Honestly, I don't think most of these politicians are looking to "control the internet" for their own governmental control. I think most of them are just dumb and have not clue as to how all this stuff works.

[McSpunckle]

Both bills are shit.
But... how many people have Photoshop installed, and how many people paid for Photoshop.
What's the solution.

Gimp.
But seriously, this isn't about stopping people torrenting photoshop or justin beiber's greatest hits.

I agree... Partially.
In the world of reality, we know that bills such as this do nothing to curb piracy, just as product keys and product activation doesn't stop piracy. All these powerful government types are being paid by industries,and they are doing what they are told by these industries is right. Honestly, I don't think most of these politicians are looking to "control the internet" for their own governmental control. I think most of them are just dumb and have not clue as to how all this stuff works.

Yup.

And it's being backed by the recording and movie industries, so part of it definitely has to do with stopping piracy.

But, let's be fair about piracy. Just because you pirate something doesn't mean you would have bought it, and pirating an album may have resulted in you buying some merch or going to a concert. I'm not saying piracy doesn't take money out of artists hands-- I'd imagine if there were any real, concrete numbers available we'd find that it did-- but it's not resulting in the billions of albums the record companies like to claim. They were never selling billions of albums, and never would have.

And the movie industry makes their money up right up front, quite often, and still rake in a ton of money. Sure they could be making more, but there's no shortage of high-budget movies.

How is this relevant to SOPA and PIPA? Because the bills' main backers are those industries that are acting like it's impossible for them to make money, and tricking our politicians into supporting something that can have very far-reaching negative effects, in the hopes they can get a bit of extra revenue from people buying movies. Nevermind the fact there are some pretty effective ways to get this content legally at a price people will pay-- Netflix, anyone? Spotify seems to be working out pretty well, too. I've read a couple of stories about Spotify taking a dent out of piracy.

I would absolutely agree that it's important to support artists/companies you like. I'm not saying piracy is right (though I'll freely admit to it), but it's reality, and trying to change that reality instead of finding a way to work with it is what spawned these shit bills in the first place.

[D.o.S.]

McSpunky pants,

You're totally wrong about the film industry making money up front. That's just not true, films make money in distribution. High budget is an industry-relative concept, but movies do not make cash before they hit theaters/win an Oscar to make them high rentals. All those shitty 3D movies? That's because of piracy (and Avatar). The ridiculous number of sequels, spiritual and literal? Because blockbuster films get judged on how much money they'll bring in, and making a sequel to a successful film is "safer" than an original film.

The general model is that one film out of ten makes money, and that film subsidizes all the ones that don't. Terrible business model? Definitely, but it's how the Hollywood studio system works. The more movies that make money, the more "good" films can be made, because the blockbusters have covered that cost. In a world where no movies make money, it's going to be the good films that suffer.


That said, you're 100% on the rest of it. I happen to think that just because the source of your income is unaffected by media piracy doesn't mean that there's no merit to anti-piracy laws.