Stupid Ways the Government is Trying to Screw the Internet

[Mr Green]

I second that.

[Ross Scott]

Ross, can you really blame them? I mean, sure, those are outlandish claims they're making (e.g. they're claiming that stealing Michael Jackson's music is worse than killing him--I thought that was hilarious), but you have to look at it from their perspective. We live in a society where the status quo is simply to steal music that you want. It surprises me, that I'll be out with people--one will mention a song they like and then they'll say "I'll send it to you." Itunes has made it so easy to obtain music--for the most part, it's even DRM-free. The pirates are stealing for the sake of stealing.

 

I think the RIAA don't care so much about the money as they do setting an example. They want to show that people stealing their songs will not be accepted by them. That's why the claims are so large; so people pay attention. You can argue that it's not really that effective, but I'm thinking that that's their motive.

Yes, I can blame them. Partially for reasons you wouldn't agree with, but some I think you might. They're not just making outlandish claims, but taking outlandish action with bills like these. Paying congress millions to make a bill that will give censoring power over the internet is overstepping authority. If this had passed, I could have users (or worse yet, coordinated spambots) posting illegal software links, then my site automatically gets cut off and I don't have the kind of resources to fight it legally in court. This may sound implausible, but given the RIAA's history, I don't think it is. I think they would automate many takedowns based on crawlers looking for specific terminology and shut down sites en masse. Again, this is the same organization that has filed charges against a grandmother with no computer for downloading gangsta rap, and against a 12 year old girl for downloading "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands."

 

I think they're trying to fight reality. I've seen many record and video stores go out of business in the town I grew up in. Some of them I liked and wish were still around, but at the same time, I don't think Congress should pass laws banning digital distribution of media so they can stay in business. Just like how using email now will result in SOME spam, putting out any sort of popular digital content inevitably results in SOME piracy. It's an unfortunately reality of digital distribution and legislation like this certainly won't curtail it much at all.

 

You've mentioned before that you're a big believer in personal freedom and are against force. Why should the freedom of everyone who is running a legitimate site be put at risk or taken away by force because of an attempt to curtail piracy? Furthermore, what would your attitude be if this bill magically worked, but came at the cost of many legitimate sites suffering collateral damage? I'm wondering where the dividing line is for you, since I think attempts like this may create conflicting values for you. If someone steals my bike, I don't have the right to search everyone's house on my block looking for it, or evict them from my neighborhood on suspicion. So where is the dividing line for you between protecting intellectual property v. infringing individual privacy and/or carrying a risk of suppressing legitimate sites?

[thebeelzebub]

The problem with piracy is also patents. Any company can claim ownership to patent that has been invented hundreds or thousands of years ago. And if it goes through in court, any company that wants to use that patent has to pay ridicilous amounts of money to the patent owner. This could very well stop our technical development, or atleast slow it down.

[BTGBullseye]

This could very well stop our technical development, or atleast slow it down.

It already has...

 

https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

[Razor235]

Are you fucking shitting me? They renamed SOPA to CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act)

[Pinkie Pie]

Do-

 

Do I have to rename this CISPA now?

[BTGBullseye]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/watch-out-washington-cispa-replaces-sopa-as-internets-enemy-no-1/

 

I think you should add it to the title.

[Pinkie Pie]

Too long to fit the full names but added.

[BTGBullseye]

If you could fit ACTA in there to, that might be a good idea.

[Pinkie Pie]

Goddamn. If the government makes any more of these we're gonna need a whole new thread. XD

[BTGBullseye]

Don't worry... The government will do it slowly over a few years.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I have a good common name for all of these legislations: FUCKING BULLSHIT

[BTGBullseye]

I have a good common name for all of these legislations: FUCKING BULLSHIT

I support this. ^^^

[Chuckthe2nd]

I have a good common name for all of these legislations: FUCKING BULLSHIT

/thread.

[BTGBullseye]

Looks like there's another one coming out...

 

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica

[Pinkie Pie]

wtf

 

Okay, changed title to something that doesn't involve names because this is ridiculous.

[Mr Green]

How many times do we, the internet, have to kick there asses for them to understand!?

[Doom Shepherd]

How many times do we, the internet, have to kick there asses for them to understand!?

 

They won't understand until we cost a few of them their jobs.

[BTGBullseye]

Actually, they won't understand until it costs them some lives.

[Michael Archer]

We are not really stealing since we do not deprive someone of their rightful possession.

 

I guess if you think that an individual has the right to his own mind, and the product of his work, don't believe in intellectual property rights, and don't believe someone possesses his mind by right--rather, its purpose is to be used by other people, then I guess you're right.

 

We make a copy, then pass it around for no cost.

 

If you don't consider intellectual property theft a cost.

 

That has no negative effects on anyone except those that think they have a right to be paid for it, even if everyone else thinks that they shouldn't.

 

I'd say that's a negative effect. Just because you think that you're entitled to someone else's work doesn't make you entitled. If you don't think they deserve to be paid, don't buy their property. In any case, they have a right to their own work and property and nothing anyone says, even if they're the majority, will change that.

 

Real Pirates will torrent something as a way to test it, then buy/donate if they like the program/video/music/etc.

 

Bullseyeshit.

 

I know of no true pirate that doesn't look down on people that just take it in order to never have to buy something they would buy anyways.

 

I know some.

 

How are we devaluing the product? The value is there, it doesn't change because of someone sharing it with someone else.

 

By declaring that the author has no right to decide how his property is distributed and that you're entitled to his work, you've morally devalued the property. You don't believe the owner should be paid for it, therefore, it's not valuable.

 

Not just anyone, anyone intelligent enough to figure out how to get, get it working, and not get a virus in the process. That is a surprisingly small amount of people if you really look at it. The people that crack it make it a bit difficult to make it work for that reason there.

 

"If I know how to steal something without being caught, that makes it ok!"

 

Paying congress millions to make a bill that will give censoring power over the internet is overstepping authority.

 

I actually don't believe that's their intent. Personally, I don't believe that the RIAA is thinking "we're supporting SOPA, because we want to take over the Internet, and thus, THE WORLD!" I think that they're just fed up that Congress isn't taking harsher action against pirates. Now, whether Congress responded appropriately, that's what this thread is about.

 

Again, this is the same organization that has filed charges against a grandmother with no computer for downloading gangsta rap, and against a 12 year old girl for downloading "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands."

 

Well, when you put it like that, it sounds stupid. When you put it as, "they sued a person who made an illegal copy of copyrighted material without the owner's express permission," it sounds better.

 

I think they're trying to fight reality. I've seen many record and video stores go out of business in the town I grew up in. Some of them I liked and wish were still around, but at the same time, I don't think Congress should pass laws banning digital distribution of media so they can stay in business.

 

I'm sure you loved those stores, and I'm not trying to offend you, but if you ask me, those stores went out of business ever since music became electronic.

 

You've mentioned before that you're a big believer in personal freedom and are against force. Why should the freedom of everyone who is running a legitimate site be put at risk or taken away by force because of an attempt to curtail piracy?

 

I don't support SOPA. I think the DMCA is a great document and I applaud efforts made by the government to protect intellectual property owners, as property owners have been getting the middle finger from a lot of society. I've been thinking about this and I haven't got an answer yet: is it really unreasonable to shut down a site while it's under investigation? On one hand, it may be necessary for the investigation; on the other hand, it might violate the "innocent until proven guilty" legal maxim.

 

I'm wondering where the dividing line is for you, since I think attempts like this may create conflicting values for you. If someone steals my bike, I don't have the right to search everyone's house on my block looking for it, or evict them from my neighborhood on suspicion. So where is the dividing line for you between protecting intellectual property v. infringing individual privacy and/or carrying a risk of suppressing legitimate sites?

 

No, but you do have the right that if, you find probable cause, to obtain a search warrant, and for the government to raid the house, and for the person to stand trial for what they've done.

 

It's true that there's a risk to damaging reputable sites, but I don't want to go there, since I feel this is kind of like asking, "We shouldn't outlaw X, because legitimate people may go to jail."