Boycott SOPA, PIPA & ACTA

[dosxuk]

SOPA is not dead, and will not be dead until our entire attitude to piracy is aligned with that of the content creators. While this particularly bad iteration of the act looks dead in the water, it's only a matter of time before the next iteration is suggested.

 

The only way we can all be happy though is through constructive communication, not back room lobbying and pulling sites off the internet in protest.

[andygardener]

Thanks for the replys guys. It does look like a badly framed piece of legislation in light of the way the web works. But a few tweaks to ensure it targets those dealing in copyrighted material rather than sites who have unknowingly had it foisted on them the basic principle of targetting copyright theft is sound surely?

[fruitisbad]

So why would a copyright holder make an accusation of copyright infringement against a site which was not infringing their copyright? There are loads of bootlegging sites out there, surely they would go after them not random websites for a laugh?

 

 

a lot of sites have user generated content. eg YouTube. now despite them deleting copywritten material when alerted this would be too late under slow.

 

most people aren't against this because they are desperate to break the law they just realise that this is a terrible way to try and solve the problem.

[quisquose]

Thanks for the replys guys. It does look like a badly framed piece of legislation in light of the way the web works. But a few tweaks to ensure it targets those dealing in copyrighted material rather than sites who have unknowingly had it foisted on them the basic principle of targetting copyright theft is sound surely?

 

But you’re under the misapprehension that laws are written by by nice government people, thinking only about what's best for us. Most are written by lobbyists and their sponsors these days, particularly in the US.

 

Besides, as I said, copyright theft is already illegal. The current laws can already be used, it's just that it's too difficult/expensive it seems.

[Speed Demon]

Well one of the first big file sharing sites Megaupload.com has just been shutdown and 4 people including the founding member have been arrested in the last hour here in NZ, all are gona probably be extradited to the US and prosecuted under US law.

 

Have a read here...

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/Kiwis-arrested-in-internet-piracy-bust

[andygardener]

But you’re under the misapprehension that laws are written by by nice government people, thinking only about what's best for us. Most are written by lobbyists and their sponsors these days, particularly in the US.

 

Besides, as I said, copyright theft is already illegal. The current laws can already be used, it's just that it's too difficult/expensive it seems.

 

Obviously on this issue those who create content are the agrieved parties so you'd expect them to have a major input. I'm principally in the service industry but the physical products I sell are protected by the law from theft so if someone tries to steal my logs or my plants I can call the police and have them arrested. It's not unreasonable for someone who creates content to have similar swift and cost free protection for their products surely?

[quisquose]

Obviously on this issue those who create content are the agrieved parties so you'd expect them to have a major input. I'm principally in the service industry but the physical products I sell are protected by the law from theft so if someone tries to steal my logs or my plants I can call the police and have them arrested. It's not unreasonable for someone who creates content to have similar swift and cost free protection for their products surely?

 

But they can already do that. They just want to shift the burden of proof to make it easier to protect their business model, but nobody seems to be asking if it right to protect the business model.

 

Why do we have to protect an industry that was profitable in the past against a loss in future profits, simply because it was profitable in the past? Plenty of other businesses have been swallowed by technology, adapt or die, so why is this different? Because we like it?

 

Considering how the internet is the major competitor with the film and TV business for providing entertainment to consumers, should we not be concerned over whether the negative side effects of protecting copyright aren’t actually intentional?

[andygardener]

But they can already do that. They just want to shift the burden of proof to make it easier to protect their business model, but nobody seems to be asking if it right to protect the business model.

 

Why do we have to protect an industry that was profitable in the past against a loss in future profits, simply because it was profitable in the past? Plenty of other businesses have been swallowed by technology, adapt or die, so why is this different? Because we like it?

 

Considering how the internet is the major competitor with the film and TV business for providing entertainment to consumers, should we not be concerned over whether the negative side effects of protecting copyright aren’t actually intentional?

 

We should protect any industry against theft regardless of how the theft has been enabled. If we say the creative industry is fair game for theft then the creative industry will indeed die, you don't record songs or make movies for free and at the moment they are geting nicked en masse before they are even officially released by criminal companies like the one in Jasons link above who are making a fortune out of the theft. I by and large agree the way this particular proposed legisation was framed was wrong but the basic principle that people should be able to sell their own goods be they physical or creative with the law protecting them from those goods being stolen is sound. If you disagree with that, good luck downloading the resulting nothingness for free.

[quisquose]

We should protect any industry against theft regardless of how the theft has been enabled. If we say the creative industry is fair game for theft then the creative industry will indeed die, you don't record songs or make movies for free and at the moment they are geting nicked en masse before they are even officially released by criminal companies like the one in Jasons link above who are making a fortune out of the theft. I by and large agree the way this particular proposed legisation was framed was wrong but the basic principle that people should be able to sell their own goods be they physical or creative with the law protecting them from those goods being stolen is sound. If you disagree with that, good luck downloading the resulting nothingness for free.

 

But nobody is sensibly saying that the creative industry is "fair game", merely that unfairly protecting it is, well, unfair.

 

It seems that in many cases the copyright holders want their cake and eat it. Let's say you have created a successful business based on the film industry where you have an Internet site that reviews films, using the film clips that are issued by the distributors. Would it be fair if some unhappy distributor had the power to shut you down just because they didn't like your reviews?

[Speed Demon]

Does this also mean that websites like Amazon or ebay could get taken down, because you can buy things that are linked to other people, and who is saying that all the sellers on these sites have legally purchased what ever they are selling, this could be a very interesting chain reaction if it fully takes hold.