SOPA and PIPA bills affect RRS writers and readers

Sapient's picture

Rational Response Squad website and affiliate sites are in a black out on Jan 18 to draw attention to SOPA and PIPA which threatens our existence...

Have you noticed how some of our members like to cut and paste news articles for discussion on our forum?  Did you know that in many cases you're not supposed to do that?  Did you know that it's not always easy to tell if you can or can't because of tough to understand copyright rules and potential for fair use treatment since the post is being used for critique, parody, or criticism?  What do you think would happen if corporations and the government worked together to control the copyright problems on the internet?  

For the last few years some companies have been fighting for a bill that protects against online piracy.  They pushed for a bill to come along that they could support.  Many of those same people today are leading the charge against SOPA and PIPA which go too far, give the government too much control, put too much fear into the webmaster, and should put fear into everyone talking about anything on the internet. These rules would stifle internet development.  The next big thing will not happen, it'll cost too much in legal fees for the start up.  Only mega-corps will stand a chance at innovation.  

Maybe you kept quiet over the last 10 years as our Constitution has been trampled on by our government.  Maybe the Iraq War built on a lie didn't bother you because it was so far away.  Maybe you let the Patriot Act slide because you didn't think they'd torture you.  This time you should not be quiet.  This time you have to speak up... or you may not be able to later.  

The internet and the free exchange of information that we have been afforded has helped catapult our society into a much more knowledgeable one.  A more efficient society that is more informed about anything it chooses to be informed about.  SOPA and PIPA help put the control of our information in the hands of government officials and massive corporations.  It is an attack on the grass roots nature of the internet.  As an atheist site webmaster it is the biggest fear I have today.  

Let me run you through what would happen if a bill like these get passed...

There are probably thousands of instances of people posting trademarked or copyrighted information on our site.

When SOPA and PIPA are passed I will have a team of mods scour over 100,000 pages to censor, delete, or eliminate conversations that have any possible violation.

I will instruct my team that if it's borderline, delete it.  

We might find that the problem is too rampant, so we may choose to simply delete everything that has ever been written on any of our sites, and start over.  (you may know that maintaining our old information is about the most important task I have put on myself... this would be devastating to me personally)

During this process we may find that the laws are too restrictive or too scary, or too costly to fight.  We may at that point decide to close our doors for community posts. 

Internet dark ages... here we come... unless you speak up.

 

EXTERNAL LINKS 

http://my.americancensorship.org/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/

http://gizmodo.com/5870405/sign-this-sopa-petition-to-get-obamas-attention

http://americancensorship.org/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/13/wikipedia-mulls-sopa-blackout-as-other-sites-join-in/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/12/20/official-veto-sopa-petition-gets-25000-signature-in-two-days/

http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/how-sopa-pipa-can-affect-you/

 

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

 

Quote:

http://www.geekosystem.com/anti-sopa-petition-whitehouse/

So we’ve been covering SOPA a lot, specifically how horrible it is and how horribly it’s going. On the dim, but bright side, someone listed as Ji S has created a beautifully simple illustration of how utterly ridiculous SOPA really is. Under SOPA as it currently stands, this anti-SOPA petition on Whitehouse.gov would lead to a nationwide block of Whitehouse.gov on the whole. The irony is delicious, isn’t it?

One of the many issues with SOPA that is so offensive is that it allows any and all sites with links to copyrighted content to be summarily blocked. A recent amendment has made this even more egregious, allowing ISPs to block entire domains even when a court order specifies one certain link or page. The petition, which provides a link to this copyrighted image in its description, would, under SOPA, classify Whitehouse.gov as a rogue site and flag it for censorship. Need I say more?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sage_Override's picture

I consider SOPA a huge

I consider SOPA a huge issue, but I see it more as a whistle blowing exercise to alert internet users that their free reign will be shortened soon if they don't stop acting like everything is online for their amusement and need to pay for what they read, watch, listen to and quote. Pure propaganda and it's all stupid because the internet is all about free-flowing information, not putting a muzzle on the online community.  It's just as ludicrous as companies charging for software when it's all 0's and 1's.  

 

Because you and the mods would have to clean house, as well as anyone else running reputable websites across the globe, this SOPA horseshit will NOT pass and if it does, by some incredibly heinous act, mark my words:

 

THERE. WILL. BE. RETRIBUTION. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me

Vastet's picture

I'm so glad to be Canadian,

I'm so glad to be Canadian, and immune to this to a significant extent. But I fully support my American colleagues in their drive for freedom, and any actions they take to receive that freedom.

I would suggest, as a protest, should deletion of content be required, that all posts be preserved in any fashion possible. Even if it cannot be allowed to be accessed, it should not be destroyed. Perhaps someday it can be brought back in another country, where the US has no sway. I'd be willing to host it if I had the tools to do so. I'm sure there are others as well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

I would also like to help

I would also like to help from Canada.  This sounds pretty scary we have our CRTC blocking web content that US offers freely, so we have a precedent here.  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Sapient's picture

 One of the most stifling

 One of the most stifling parts of this bill is how the government will be able to force companies like google and amazon to exclude certain sites from participation in their marketing revenue.  Many of you know that RRS uses both.  You probably notice that many other independent bloggers use the same revenue streams.  Many of these people are able to justify the hours of spreading their message online because of advertising.  

I do wish the problems weren't so rampant, but I certainly would rather have freedom on the net with people stealing my content than have my content protected.  I am the victim of copyright abuse and I don't want this.  The RRS radio show was pirated, content from our site has been reposted in full without attribution many times.  There are sites that merely steal content and put ads on their sites.  Individuals deal in the civil lawsuits against such sites all the time.  We don't want the government to step in and decide what is what.  Atheists particularly are at risk with a government that is notorious for ignoring American ideals and inserting god belief. In this case they don't need to insert... they can just restrict.   

Do something about it before it becomes law.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

FurryCatHerder's picture

I agree with Sage Override

I agree with Sage Override -- this smells of a warning that the days of stealing intellectual property on the Internet are going to stop, or else.

I'm still on the fence about SOPA.  On the one hand, companies invest billions of dollars in producing information and they have a right to control how their property is used.  Sure, it is just 1's and 0's, but a book is just ink and paper, and a movie (these days ...) is just plastic and a thin layer of aluminum ... with 1's and 0's on it.  Someone still had to be paid to develop that content and without revenue from the sale of it, we wouldn't have it.  On the other hand, the massive amount of piracy points to something many people have been saying for years -- much of the pirated content is either grossly over-priced in the minds of consumers, or it wouldn't have been bought anyway, at any price.

Can Congress do better?  Sure.  But Congress can also do worse, either by doing nothing or by giving corporations a lot more power.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Beyond Saving's picture

 I'm with you 100%, I find

 I'm with you 100%, I find it extremely disturbing the number of elected officials who are so cavalier about exerting government control over the internet and the number of Americans who don't seem to give a shit about it. And it isn't a partisan divide in the traditional democrat/republican sense politicians who have come out publicly one way or the other are almost 50/50 on both sides. 

 

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

 

Is a good site to see if your representative publicly supports or opposes the bill. Fortunately we have an election coming up so we can throw some of these corrupt, power hungry slimeballs out, hopefully before they have enough support to pass it. I hope that Bama would veto it, but given his administrations aggressive efforts against pirate internet sites and online poker I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  

Prozac, check your PM settings.

Sapient's picture

Please see this important

Please see this important about SOPA:

This CNET article includes an analysis by internet forefather Vint Cerf who now works at Google.  

Quote:

Not only will SOPA fail to "be effective in preventing users' access to illegal, offshore Web sites," Cerf wrote, but it will also initiate "a worldwide arms race of unprecedented 'censorship' of the Web."

 

_________

I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A POST LIKE THE ABOVE IF SOPA HAD PASSED. (copyright violation fear)

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient's picture

I didn't notice the post

I didn't notice the post from Pineapple who was thinking right along the lines in my previous post.  

I certainly would never link to http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/how-sopa-pipa-can-affect-you/ if SOPA passed.  

Honestly, if SOPA passes I probably would have to create a policy of no outbound linking.  It would just stop us right in our tracks here.  I would have to eliminate my project to promote all atheist websites in the world in the Atheism United list of atheist sites.  Everything would change for us.  There would be excessive moderation on the website.  I would have to urge my moderators to "when in doubt, delete it."  Moderating here has always been "when in doubt, leave it."

Free exchange of ideas here and on any online forum that tries to stay within the law would get cut off.  Strangled.  

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient's picture

I asked our server admin

I asked our server admin what he thought about having a blackout on January 18th.  He said he was going to ask me the same thing.

 

Someone tell me they called and wrote a politician. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Brian37's picture

Beyond Saving wrote: I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'm with you 100%, I find it extremely disturbing the number of elected officials who are so cavalier about exerting government control over the internet and the number of Americans who don't seem to give a shit about it. And it isn't a partisan divide in the traditional democrat/republican sense politicians who have come out publicly one way or the other are almost 50/50 on both sides. 

 

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

 

Is a good site to see if your representative publicly supports or opposes the bill. Fortunately we have an election coming up so we can throw some of these corrupt, power hungry slimeballs out, hopefully before they have enough support to pass it. I hope that Bama would veto it, but given his administrations aggressive efforts against pirate internet sites and online poker I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  

If you can rightfully call those rich buddies slime balls, then you should understand what I have been telling you all along in other threads. If you continue to undermine the value of the worker and make the cost of living harder for them it makes it harder for the worker to fight things like this. Money equals power and unless you are willing to face that, you do not know that eventually that money will affect you too.

The corruption exists because money is polluting politics. A healthy middle class and poor class that can pay it's bills will be much more affective at fighting these things than simply supporting a government that creates more poverty by only protecting the rich. THIS is an example of abuse created by wealth and monopolies.

The free market is needed, but it cannot left alone to create a monopoly on politics. MONOPOLIES have been my problem and the only voice our government listens to are the corporations who want a monopoly on information. Congrats, this is what you have unwittingly supported by siding with the rich blindly all the time.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'm with you 100%, I find it extremely disturbing the number of elected officials who are so cavalier about exerting government control over the internet and the number of Americans who don't seem to give a shit about it. And it isn't a partisan divide in the traditional democrat/republican sense politicians who have come out publicly one way or the other are almost 50/50 on both sides. 

 

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

 

Is a good site to see if your representative publicly supports or opposes the bill. Fortunately we have an election coming up so we can throw some of these corrupt, power hungry slimeballs out, hopefully before they have enough support to pass it. I hope that Bama would veto it, but given his administrations aggressive efforts against pirate internet sites and online poker I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  

If you can rightfully call those rich buddies slime balls, then you should understand what I have been telling you all along in other threads. If you continue to undermine the value of the worker and make the cost of living harder for them it makes it harder for the worker to fight things like this. Money equals power and unless you are willing to face that, you do not know that eventually that money will affect you too.

The corruption exists because money is polluting politics. A healthy middle class and poor class that can pay it's bills will be much more affective at fighting these things than simply supporting a government that creates more poverty by only protecting the rich. THIS is an example of abuse created by wealth and monopolies.

The free market is needed, but it cannot left alone to create a monopoly on politics. MONOPOLIES have been my problem and the only voice our government listens to are the corporations who want a monopoly on information. Congrats, this is what you have unwittingly supported by siding with the rich blindly all the time.

 

Where have I referred to politicians as anything other than slimeballs? The wealth and monopoly is actually on our side in this issue. It doesn't get much richer or more monopoly oriented than Google......

 

I have supported this? Where do you get that bullshit. I am constantly bitching about one government regulation or another and people laugh at me. "It isn't that bad, you have to have some regulations, what do you want no seat belts..." etc. This type of thing is what happens when people blindly accept that the federal government should be regulating. I find it ironic that many of the people most upset about this bill also are the same ones who vociferously call for more regulation in other areas. Government is fine and dandy until it affects you. This is precisely the type of thing I have been screaming from the rooftops about on a daily basis on these forums. 

 

I didn't vote for any of those fuckers that support the bill. In fact, the people who support the bill is pretty much a whos who hit list of politicians the tea party has been trying to remove and to the extent they want to remove the incumbents I have been supportive even though I'm not always crazy about the replacements. Note tea partiers out there... your darling Rubio is on the wrong side. Only idiots trust professional politicians.

Prozac, check your PM settings.

Philosophicus's picture

...

Regulations should be judged on a case by case basis.  If you can read an article for free, you should be able to copy it for free.  It should be legal to critique the articles too -- democracies are for debating!  We're supposed to analyze and evaluate information in democracy. 

Look at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart; he goes beyond critiquing material and makes fun of it -- satire.  It's no big deal.  What are the comedians going to do?  Maybe this won't extend to all satire.

 

Sapient's picture

Philosophicus wrote:What are

Philosophicus wrote:

What are the comedians going to do?  Maybe this won't extend to all satire.

Fair use laws would still exist meaning it won't extend to any satire, however that decision might rest in the hands of someone not equipped to make that distinction fairly.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

FurryCatHerder's picture

Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

Regulations should be judged on a case by case basis.  If you can read an article for free, you should be able to copy it for free.  It should be legal to critique the articles too -- democracies are for debating!  We're supposed to analyze and evaluate information in democracy.

I disagree with "if you can read it for free, you should be able to copy it for free".  Many websites these days, including this one, receive large amounts of ad revenue.  "Free" material is a way to get you to go to that website and view the ads, no matter how much you hate them, and earn some money for the website owner.

These types of bills have been a long time coming.  There are countless websites around the internet that would likely not exist if they didn't violate copyright laws.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Vastet's picture

Copyrights should be

Copyrights should be illegal. You can't own an idea or a fundamental property of the universe.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Philosophicus's picture

...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Many websites these days, including this one, receive large amounts of ad revenue.  "Free" material is a way to get you to go to that website and view the ads, no matter how much you hate them, and earn some money for the website owner.

I don't mind the ads.  It's a fair deal.  Even when I watch a clip at Colbert Nation I don't mind watching the 30 second commercial.  Or at South Park Studios when I watch a whole episode, I don't mind watching the three commercials.  They even tell you when they're going to pop up -- you can see the lines on the bar.

P.S.  Now they're going to read this and double the commercials.

FurryCatHerder's picture

Vastet wrote:Copyrights

Vastet wrote:
Copyrights should be illegal. You can't own an idea or a fundamental property of the universe.

A copyright doesn't cover an =idea=.  It covers a =work=, which is a specific instance of an "idea".  Not sure where you came up with the "fundamental property of the Universe", but very few "natural" things can be protected by any form of intellectual property law.  There are some weird things going on with genetics and patent law, but patent law is weird to start with.

For example, consider the Star Wars franchise.  You could go make your own movie series about some kid who discovers that his father is the source of all evil in the Galaxy and has to kill him (or be killed trying) in order to restore harmony.

Movie critics would likely compare it -- favorably or not -- to Star Wars, but there is nothing in copyright law that prevents you from doing just that.

The problem with abolishing copyright law is that it is what provides the incentive for "original works" to be produced in the first place.  For example, if someone spends a million dollars to produce a video game, how else would you propose that million dollars be recouped, if not by sale of the software?  And if the software can be freely copied, how is the person who spent that million dollars going to get the money back?

To get this back on topic, I think many people who produce "original works" would agree that something needs to be done to protect their ownership rights.  The issue with SOPA / PIPA seem to have gone horribly wrong, somewhere along the way.  DMCA doesn't seem to have stopped the problem, and my guess is that's why the enforcement aspects of SOPA / PIPA are so nasty.  At the same time, there are entire websites dedicated to violating intellectual property rights, so it's not like there's not a problem in need of a solution.  What I would like to see happen is clarification of "Fair Use" with a more gradual enforcement mechanism.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Sapient's picture

 Obama Administration joins

 Obama Administration joins the ranks of SOPA skeptics.  

Quote:

 In an online statement released Saturday, three senior White House officials wrote that the administration "will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

 

Also check this guy out who shows how companies that are trying to get SOPA passed were actually perpetuating file sharing software.

 

YET ANOTHER POST THAT WOULDN'T EXIST IF SOPA PASSES

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Jeffrick's picture

IMNSHO

                         They should copywrite that New England shallacking of Denver and pass a law that no one can shallack  like St.Thomas, ever again.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?

Vastet's picture

FurryCatHerder wrote:A

This comment has been moved here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Sapient's picture

 More information on

SOPA has been shelved (probably so they can try to pass something like SOPA in some other bill when nobody is looking).  Wikipedia has decided to participate in the blackout.  We will also take part in the blackout.  Now we must speak up against PIPA.  Spread the word, post about it everywhere, talk about it, get informed.  

Here is an easy page to write and call your Senators about PIPA right now.

 

 More information on PIPA

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

ex-minister's picture

 So RRS is shutting down at

 So RRS is shutting down at midnight tonight, assuming EST and come back online 24 hours later.

Will there be a banner page during the outage?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/

EXC's picture

ex-minister wrote: So RRS

ex-minister wrote:

 So RRS is shutting down at midnight tonight, assuming EST and come back online 24 hours later.

Will there be a banner page during the outage?

How about a picture of self immolation?

I haven't formed an opinion about SOPA. I just have a question for those of you opposed.

How do should the people that write, make music, movies and software be protected so they can get paid for their work?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Sapient's picture

ex-minister wrote: So RRS

ex-minister wrote:

 So RRS is shutting down at midnight tonight, assuming EST and come back online 24 hours later.

 

Actually it'll be more like midnight PST- midnight PST.  

The site will have a nice and simplistic design.  A link will lead users to http://americancensorship.org/

Please spend RRS time writing and calling your politicians.  Sign some petitions.  Also agree that you will vote on this issue: http://voteforthenet.com/

Tell someone about it.  Speak up.  The noise on this must be loud and clear or we're only months away from this being lumped into another bill.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

FurryCatHerder's picture

EXC wrote:ex-minister

EXC wrote:
ex-minister wrote:
 So RRS is shutting down at midnight tonight, assuming EST and come back online 24 hours later.

Will there be a banner page during the outage?

How about a picture of self immolation?

I haven't formed an opinion about SOPA. I just have a question for those of you opposed.

How do should the people that write, make music, movies and software be protected so they can get paid for their work?

Existing copyright laws need to be enforceable, and judgements against infringers need to be easier to collect.  Right now there is no way someone in the U.S. can collect against an infringing site in another country, even if all the money originates in the U.S. and is processed by payment processors located in the U.S.

At the same time, companies that are claiming damages need to show that they have =actual= damages and the damages need to reflect =actual= losses, with a reasonable multiplier that discourages infringement.  Right now a college kid who downloads 100 songs from an illegal website can wind up being sued for tens of millions of dollars, for what amounts to hundreds of dollars of lost revenue, at best.

We also need an education campaign so that people don't view information as this thing that should be "free", just because they can click the "Save" button on a web browser, or the "Start" button on a file sharing application.  There are real people, with real expenses, being paid real salaries, producing that information.  I think there is so much contempt for people who produce "information" that we'll keep seeing these legislative proposals until the general public realizes that the only difference between buying a CD or DVD, or downloading it from the Internet, is the pennies worth of manufacturing to actually press the physical media.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Contempt against content produces

To reduce contempt against content produces, how about reasonable periods of "exclusive rights" (a.k.a. a monopoly).  Copyright was intended to encourage production of content to benefit the public domain.  We started with a reasonable time frame, and extended it to what amounts to corporate welfare.  How can anyone have anything but contempt against this perpetual monopoly, especially when laws are passed that protect these unnatural rights at the detriment of our natural rights such as due process and responsible damages?  How does perpetual "periods" of exclusive rights encourage the creation of new works and is it worth our giving up our natural rights?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson

FurryCatHerder's picture

Mr. XC wrote:To reduce

Mr. XC wrote:

To reduce contempt against content produces, how about reasonable periods of "exclusive rights" (a.k.a. a monopoly).  Copyright was intended to encourage production of content to benefit the public domain.  We started with a reasonable time frame, and extended it to what amounts to corporate welfare.  How can anyone have anything but contempt against this perpetual monopoly, especially when laws are passed that protect these unnatural rights at the detriment of our natural rights such as due process and responsible damages?  How does perpetual "periods" of exclusive rights encourage the creation of new works and is it worth our giving up our natural rights?

This sounds much more like a misunderstanding of what copyright actually =does=.

The only thing protected by copyright is a specific "expression" or "work", not a class of ideas.

In a free market system, the solution to exclusive ownership of a protected "work" is the creation of new "works" which then freely compete for consumers.  That is, if Bob (or Bob Music, Inc. or Bob Filmworks, Inc) owns a work, or his heirs and assigns owns the right to that work after his death, and Bob doesn't agree to reasonable terms, Bill (or Bill Music, Inc. or Bill Filmworks, Inc) is perfectly free to produce a competing "work" and price that competing "work" more favorably.

What is being objected to really is, in a moderately indirect manner, the =failure= to produce new works.  When someone cuts and pastes entire articles, whether from a website run by Brian Sapient, or CNN or the New York Time, they are =failing= to do exactly what they are supposed to do within a Free Market economy -- produce new works which then compete, and through competition, reduce prices.  In essence, consumers are demanding to pay less, without doing what Free Markets have as the natural mechanism for producing lower prices.

Here's a section from the Copyright office on Fair Use --

Quote:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

It is NOT the case that quoting a brief passage of a news article about SOPA can be stopped by the company producing that news article.  For example, there is no indication that this quote from a CNN article would be banned --

Quote:
"In the past, the media industry has often gone after particular infringers -- people who have downloaded stuff off the Internet and sharing it. And now they're going after websites that link to these things," Rob Beschizza, Boing Boing's managing editor, said Wednesday. "The bill is supposed to let copyright holders get court orders against them, and there's all sorts of various measures for getting sites blacklisted or blocked.

In particular, what the media industry has gone after has NOT be quotes of the size and scope as provided above.  Media companies have sued individuals and organizations which provide "free" downloads of entire works, not limited segments -- a few lines, a few seconds, a few frames -- of a work.

What's needed (IMHO) for a "successful" SOPA-without-the-bugs is more clarity in the relevant "Fair Use" sections of existing Copyright law, as well as better enforcement tools so that infringers can be forced to cease infringing on what is not "Fair Use".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Gauche's picture

I think you did the socially

I think you did the socially responsible thing. The discussion about copyright is limited almost exclusively to the harm that's done to copyright holders by infringement, which may often be exaggerated. There's little discussion about the harm that can be caused by copyright law to freedom of expression or the public domain. When sites like Google start to be threatened it becomes "serious" and gets attention but people with smaller websites should get involved too and it made a lot people aware of the issue.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

ex-minister's picture

sopa/pipa - history lesson

I found this a great presentation. Funny too.


Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/

Brian37's picture

FurryCatHerder wrote:Mr. XC

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Mr. XC wrote:

To reduce contempt against content produces, how about reasonable periods of "exclusive rights" (a.k.a. a monopoly).  Copyright was intended to encourage production of content to benefit the public domain.  We started with a reasonable time frame, and extended it to what amounts to corporate welfare.  How can anyone have anything but contempt against this perpetual monopoly, especially when laws are passed that protect these unnatural rights at the detriment of our natural rights such as due process and responsible damages?  How does perpetual "periods" of exclusive rights encourage the creation of new works and is it worth our giving up our natural rights?

This sounds much more like a misunderstanding of what copyright actually =does=.

The only thing protected by copyright is a specific "expression" or "work", not a class of ideas.

In a free market system, the solution to exclusive ownership of a protected "work" is the creation of new "works" which then freely compete for consumers.  That is, if Bob (or Bob Music, Inc. or Bob Filmworks, Inc) owns a work, or his heirs and assigns owns the right to that work after his death, and Bob doesn't agree to reasonable terms, Bill (or Bill Music, Inc. or Bill Filmworks, Inc) is perfectly free to produce a competing "work" and price that competing "work" more favorably.

What is being objected to really is, in a moderately indirect manner, the =failure= to produce new works.  When someone cuts and pastes entire articles, whether from a website run by Brian Sapient, or CNN or the New York Time, they are =failing= to do exactly what they are supposed to do within a Free Market economy -- produce new works which then compete, and through competition, reduce prices.  In essence, consumers are demanding to pay less, without doing what Free Markets have as the natural mechanism for producing lower prices.

Here's a section from the Copyright office on Fair Use --

Quote:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
    2. The nature of the copyrighted work
    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

It is NOT the case that quoting a brief passage of a news article about SOPA can be stopped by the company producing that news article.  For example, there is no indication that this quote from a CNN article would be banned --

Quote:
"In the past, the media industry has often gone after particular infringers -- people who have downloaded stuff off the Internet and sharing it. And now they're going after websites that link to these things," Rob Beschizza, Boing Boing's managing editor, said Wednesday. "The bill is supposed to let copyright holders get court orders against them, and there's all sorts of various measures for getting sites blacklisted or blocked.

In particular, what the media industry has gone after has NOT be quotes of the size and scope as provided above.  Media companies have sued individuals and organizations which provide "free" downloads of entire works, not limited segments -- a few lines, a few seconds, a few frames -- of a work.

What's needed (IMHO) for a "successful" SOPA-without-the-bugs is more clarity in the relevant "Fair Use" sections of existing Copyright law, as well as better enforcement tools so that infringers can be forced to cease infringing on what is not "Fair Use".

To what cost to society as a whole? I own a house. I also have been writing poetry for the past 20 years. I consider BOTH of those my property. Property rights ARE NOT LOST on the people who object to these proposed laws. It is the extent of power that government could have that would over reach any normal expected and reasonable protection.

It was always illegal even with a blank tape to record an LP. But if no one was mass producing that tape to make money off of it, simply making a copy of the LP to give to your neighbor, no one cared.

There are far to many innocent people who merely want to share something with someone else, who are not out to make any money by steeling something, that will get hurt because these laws will turn them into criminals in the interest of protecting big business profits.

We are NOT talking about theft by organized criminals who ARE out to make money. We are talking about the ambiguity of the law that will get the individual lumped in with the criminals.

And as others have pointed out, I don't want one person, or one agency having that much power. Who polices the police?

We post links to everything here from videos to news articles  and talk about famous people and sports all the time. These laws could make that simple non profit link sharing intent the same as mass production for profits that the real criminals do.

I think the idea of our Constitution and the precedence is it is better to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent. This smacks of Orwell and presumes guilt.. And it gives government too much power over speech, and the only "property rights" it would protect would be those of the corporate mentality.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

digitalbeachbum's picture

 DANGER DANGER WILL

 DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!

SPAM BOT ALERT!

SPAM BOT ALERT!