SB Nation Officially Opposes SOPA - From Our Editors - SBNation.com

And baths...

"Bath tubs are like life boats, they're for women and children." -jbox

Comments

I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet...

But…aren’t these boycotters/opposers being a bit paranoid? I’ve read through some of the bill, and it seems to focus on these foreign sites. What’s the fear that it will spread to all sites, including the US?

Not advocating one side or the other…just trying to get my head around this complex issue.

by SDFriarFan on Jan 18, 2012 4:13 PM PST reply actions

This video helps to outline the concerns with the bills

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet

"The only thing I hate more than Raiders fans is Chargers fans." - A Chargers fan

Gaslamp Ball Wiki - All you need to know about Gaslamp Ball, its members, and all the inside jokes
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Jan 18, 2012 4:54 PM PST up reply actions

this video

is obnoxious….but explains the SOPA scam

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

by Hormel on Jan 18, 2012 5:31 PM PST up reply actions

Yep.

When I first saw that video, I thought I was going to hate it, but I got through all 10 minutes. The hypocrisy is absolutely laughable.

"The only thing I hate more than Raiders fans is Chargers fans." - A Chargers fan

Gaslamp Ball Wiki - All you need to know about Gaslamp Ball, its members, and all the inside jokes
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Jan 18, 2012 6:26 PM PST up reply actions

I agree that there is a lot of fear-mongering going on

There are a number of concerns I have with these two bills though.

They removed the DNS-blocking parts of both bills. That was really the only meaningful thing they could do to foreign sites. The only other power they have over foreign sites is going after US advertisers that are advertising on foreign sites. In my mind this really doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t hurt piracy much at all.

The bills would put websites responsible for user generated content though. For example, sbnation could get shutdown or sued if a commenter posted copyrighted material. The scary parts are that the copyright owner can shutdown websites without much due process. Frankly, I don’t trust the RIAA or MPAA to be considerate or merciful to websites like youtube.

by kevintheoman on Jan 18, 2012 5:01 PM PST up reply actions

There are several issues I have with the bill, some technical, some philosophical

The lack of due process, and the fact that all sites would be culpable for what their users post. There are no provisions that give an infringing site the ability to respond to a complaint. A company can go to a judge and say, “I don’t like this site, they’re stealing our stuff” and the judge could agree and order the site be SOPA’d without giving the site owner a chance to respond.

Piracy is rampant because people want easy access to the content they already own, or wish to consume. Look what happens when you make things easier for users to consume, they become successful! Look at iTunes, Netflix streaming, Spotify, Rdio, Mog, Hulu. Then there’s this ridiculously true gem. This is just another power-grab by the entertainment industry trying to preserve the status quo instead of adapting.

I subscribe to Rdio. I pay a flat fee each month and artists get paid for the music I listen to. I have a large catalog of music at my disposal and it’s absolutely wonderful. I couldn’t tell you the last time I pirated music. When something is made easy and convenient for me, the consumer, I’m perfectly willing to pay for that product.

As pointed out in the video I posted earlier, the entertainment industry does everything they can to squeeze every last dollar out of consumers. Remember when they tried to get MP3 players to be made illegal? Same thing with VHS cassettes. Anyone remember when they were considering charging royalties to people who had songs as ringtones for how many times the song was played? Don’t even get me started on the price differences between SD and HD videos, or DRM, or the fact that if you want to make a ringtone from a song you already own, IT’LL COST YOU ANOTHER $1.

All those issues aside, the bills themselves will do little to stop piracy, and who gets to suffer? Everyone.

"The only thing I hate more than Raiders fans is Chargers fans." - A Chargers fan

Gaslamp Ball Wiki - All you need to know about Gaslamp Ball, its members, and all the inside jokes
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Jan 18, 2012 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs

ding ding ding we have a winner

The US government is trying to save dying business models with this bill. This is not a surprise because those dying companies have a lot of money still and they can lobby the government to try and save their business.

I am a NY Giants fan, yet I live in San Diego. I would much rather watch the Giants on Sunday afternoon then the Chargers. I cannot afford expensive Direct TV or Cable packages that would allow me to watch the Giants. I can however, watch those games on the internet via Europe usually. I don’t necessarily support those sites, and I often feel sort of wrong for watching the games on them and wonder if I am passing the right ideas on to my sons.

BUT the NFL and the TV channels are living in the past. They feel they can make you watch what you want and only that. The best way to handle it in my mind would be for Fox/NBC or whoever to allow you to watch their programing on their websites. They can have the same commercials on the web broadcast that they have on the normal TV broadcast really. To some degree ESPN has started to do with already with ESPN3. I watched a ton of bowl games through ESPN’s website and didn’t need a pirated third party broadcast.

by Ualtar on Jan 19, 2012 10:52 AM PST up reply actions

Stealing is Stealing

You can spin any way you like, but the creators of content and intellectual property have property rights. It is there decision how how their content is accessed. If it is a bad business model, they will fail. Regardless pirating their content is stealing.

by field39 on Jan 19, 2012 10:18 PM PST up reply actions

Piracy is much less than stealing, the idea that it’s actual stealing is an intentional misnomer. Piracy is really unlicensed duplication, but that’s not as catchy a buzzword. Actual stealing would be removing something with the end result being that the rightful owner is deprived of it. That’s a big difference.

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play

by Axion on Jan 20, 2012 12:48 PM PST up reply actions

I just don't buy it.

When you duplicate and use / dispense what you have no rights to, you are stealing. It is not thin gray line it is a clear wide stripe. I understand that it is nice to have free stuff, but it crosses the line.

by field39 on Jan 20, 2012 2:10 PM PST up reply actions

If it's clear, how do you know when you're crossing it?

www.FriarsOnCardboard.blogspot.com
"jbox does not drink coffee, as it makes him clean house big time." ~Kev

by TheThinGwynn on Jan 20, 2012 2:21 PM PST up reply actions

If someone is selling software

and you make an unauthorized copy of it and use it: You stole it. If you download a movie from a pirate site: You purchased stolen goods. The ease and convince of stealing does not change the act.

I know that people don’t like to use the word steal in association with piracy, but it does not change anything. Personally, I do not like the idea of softening the concept.

by field39 on Jan 20, 2012 3:30 PM PST up reply actions

whooooosh

www.FriarsOnCardboard.blogspot.com
"jbox does not drink coffee, as it makes him clean house big time." ~Kev

by TheThinGwynn on Jan 20, 2012 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

It was actually a double whoosh

I had to read it two more times.

by field39 on Jan 20, 2012 3:45 PM PST up reply actions

Not selling anything.

There is a difference between physically depriving the rightful owner of their property and making an exact duplicate of their property. It’s a fact and doesn’t require your purchase to be true.

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play

by Axion on Jan 20, 2012 3:07 PM PST up reply actions

By making a duplicate

(other than for what the copyright holder has authorized) are you not depriving the copyright holder opportunity to sell their work to another? Taking money from their pockets sure sounds like stealing to me.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 20, 2012 7:41 PM PST up reply actions

You're not depriving them of the opportunity to make a sale, because they can freely copy and sell it as much as they like.

If I pirate Transformers 3, their only loss is the potential sale to me (valued at $0, because I would never pay for that piece of crap).

by Darklighter on Jan 20, 2012 10:56 PM PST up reply actions

you wouldn't pay for it

but you watched it for free, illegally. sounds like stealing to me., cut it however you need to.

Yes they can copy it and sell what they like, but if enough people are doing that, then it wont be sold.

Maybe more people will watch then would ever do so if they had to pay, so in that sense, we don’t know the whole value of what is lost. but value is lost. But we can never know how much is…stolen.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 21, 2012 3:32 PM PST up reply actions

Arguing the semantics of piracy isn't really going to get anywhere

What legislation like this helps to highlight is the fact that Hollywood (and the music industry) is dying, and they’re not able to adapt and grow the business like they’re accustomed to. How many different sequels, prequels, spinoffs, remakes and reboots do we need?

The Spiderman franchise is barely 10 years old and it’s being rebooted already! Is there not an original idea in Hollywood anymore? Hell, it seems like a review stating “it didn’t suck as much as I thought it would” is taken as high praise anymore.

8 of the top 10 highest-grossing films of 2011 were sequels. One was a prequel and the other was a comic book adaptation (which Hollywood is pumping out like crazy anymore). Okay fine, how about the top 20 movies? Well, the next group of movies: another comic book movie, two more sequels, a prequel, a spinoff, a book adaptation, and a cartoon adaptation.

So in the top 20 movies of 2011, you can point to 3 … THREE … original movies. And you have to go all the way down to number 14 before you get to the first original screenplay.

It all boils down to the product, stupid. Keep pumping out slop, it’s eventually going to catch up to you. Ask GM, Chrystler, et al about how well they survived pumping out nothing but crap products for 20+ years. Add the fact that both entertainment industries want to do everything they can to restrict your access to their crap products, and it’s no wonder they’re dying.

Y Combinator – a venture capital firm – is looking to fund entertainment startups to accelerate Hollywood’s decline. As they’ve observed:

The main reason we want to fund such startups is not to protect the world from more SOPAs, but because SOPA brought it to our attention that Hollywood is dying. They must be dying if they’re resorting to such tactics. If movies and TV were growing rapidly, that growth would take up all their attention. When a striker is fouled in the penalty area, he doesn’t stop as long as he still has control of the ball; it’s only when he’s beaten that he turns to appeal to the ref. SOPA shows Hollywood is beaten. And yet the audiences to be captured from movies and TV are still huge. There is a lot of potential energy to be liberated there.

It’s not that people don’t want to pay for their entertainment, it’s that they don’t want to pay for the entertainment that Hollywood is pumping out. Hollywood – and the music industry – know they’re on the downward slope, and they’re doing everything in their power to bring us along for the ride, with our civil liberties and due process in tow.

"The only thing I hate more than Raiders fans is Chargers fans." - A Chargers fan

Gaslamp Ball Wiki - All you need to know about Gaslamp Ball, its members, and all the inside jokes
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Jan 21, 2012 8:42 PM PST up reply actions

The product sucks therefore it is ok to steal it....

Pop culture has always been 99% pure crap, the glory is in 1%. Terantino and The Cohen brothers have put out enough glory for an entire generation. When they fade there will be others.

I am not arguing in favor of any law. I am arguing in favor of intellectual honesty. People continually use tortured logic to claim the high moral ground while stealing. I say bunk. Stealing is stealing and claiming that is not does not make act any less immoral.

by field39 on Jan 21, 2012 9:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I'm not arguing the merits of piracy whatsoever; nor have I defended piracy once.

You’re missing my point. The point is that Hollywood sees they’re losing money. Instead of looking at themselves, they’re saying, “it must be piracy! We better get the legislators that we have at our disposal to rush a bill through that gives us the power to take control of the Internet!”

Think I’m exaggerating the last point? Chris Dodd – a former Senator and current head of the MPAA – said in the NY Times that the only reason SOPA and PIPA failed was because they took too long to pass and it gave “”http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/20/2720660/mpaa-chairman-former-senator-chris-dodd-sopa-strategy-compromise" target="new">opposition time to mobilize." He’s basically saying it failed because citizens had a chance to review it and see that it sucked and they were trying to pull a fast one on us.

Content creators and owners have plenty of tools at their disposal in the US. Plenty of sites have already been seized by the government. ATDHE.net? MegaUpload? How long does an unauthorized copyrighted video last on YouTube anymore?

In the eyes of the entertainment industry, if you rip a CD, or a DVD for playing on your iPod/phone, you’re stealing. They feel entitled to being paid for the movie you’ve already bought, just because you want to play it on another one of your devices. Do you agree that making a copy of a CD for consumption on your own iPod is stealing? Why should we trust them to be able to lobby for “fair” legislation?

The entertainment industry has already shown they’re more than willing to abuse the power granted to them by the DMCA or similar laws that have come since then. What makes anyone thing they’ll not try to abuse their power under SOPA/PIPA?

Not once did I argue in favor of piracy. I’m arguing in favor of rethinking the content and the way it’s distributed. Put out a better product that people are willing to pay money for, make it easier for people to legally get (especially worldwide, without regional restrictions), and let them do with it as they reasonably please. That’s how you combat piracy.

Think I’m wrong? Ask Louis C.K. how it’s working out for him.

"The only thing I hate more than Raiders fans is Chargers fans." - A Chargers fan

Gaslamp Ball Wiki - All you need to know about Gaslamp Ball, its members, and all the inside jokes
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Jan 21, 2012 10:58 PM PST up reply actions

I am arguing in favor of intellectual honesty.

You can then be honest with the fact that copyright infringement isn’t stealing, right?

There is no tortured logic. It’s plain and simple. There are many resources you can use to familiarize yourself with these concepts, but I can tell you’re not interested in discovering that you have been brainwashed to forget the definition of stealing.

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play

by Axion on Jan 23, 2012 1:20 PM PST up reply actions

you wouldn’t pay for it
but you watched it for free, illegally. sounds like stealing to me

Do you then say that the people who drive without a license have stolen a license from the DMV? Because that doesn’t make any sense.

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ◔ヮ◔
Uncommon Sportsman :: Absurdity in play

by Axion on Jan 23, 2012 1:26 PM PST up reply actions

That's fine

But at the same time, not every pirated copy of something is a an unsold item. In many instances, a pirate never would have paid to consume the product. So you can’t point to a $20 movie and say, “3.6 million copies were illegally downloaded” and say that you lost out on 72 million worth of revenue.

So let’s take that $20 movie, and we find a pirate that only had a passing interest in it. They wouldn’t have rented it, let alone bought it. So either they pirate the movie, or never rent/buy it. Either way, the content creator doesn’t get paid.

I’m not trying to defend piracy here. I’m just poking holes in the arguments the MPAA/RIAA like to use about piracy (like the one you used above).

All in all though, SOPA/PIPA brought a sledgehammer to the internet. It was so broad and gave all the power to the MPAA/RIAA that the unintended consequences could be huge.

"The only thing I hate more than Raiders fans is Chargers fans." - A Chargers fan

Gaslamp Ball Wiki - All you need to know about Gaslamp Ball, its members, and all the inside jokes
Bolts from the Blue

by creanium on Jan 20, 2012 4:10 PM PST up reply actions

it does away with due process

so how long do you think its going to be before they come after US sites?

by iheartyourfart on Jan 18, 2012 9:06 PM PST up reply actions

well put

People will pay reasonable prices (ie netflix, rdio, rhapsody, mlb.com) or even pay directly to the artist. These bills will not stop piracy – just give regulators the ability to close your business (website) without due process. Disney can have your site shut down for good if a user has posted links to pirated material

Old media needs to fix its broken business model.
Instead they would rather “fix” the internet.

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

by Hormel on Jan 18, 2012 5:47 PM PST reply actions 2 recs