Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on SOPA?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thoughts on SOPA?

    Bill Document: Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    SOPA seeks to provide enhanced enforcement against online piracy, protecting music and other media industries from potential revenue losses. Others say this is the beginning of a government effort to begin internet censorship. Economic protection or breach of 1st Amendment rights?
    "Draft beer, not people."

  • #2
    Isn't this the same as http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ame...congress.html?

    If so, can't they be merged?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #3
      It will be used for censorship of course. It will also pretty much wreck sites that depend on user generated content.
      Bit by bit government and companies are strangling the open web.
      I have always believed it is the content generators and consumers who need protection from these companies rather than the other way around.
      Once other countries see this law succeed expect several international variants to pass.
      For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        Isn't this the same as http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ame...congress.html?

        If so, can't they be merged?
        Ah yeah it's the same law in question, didn't see it before thanks for the link. So as to merging threads we need an admin?
        "Draft beer, not people."

        Comment


        • #5
          Surprised there are no opinions here on the NDAA.
          "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
            Surprised there are no opinions here on the NDAA.
            Mainly because, like the Great Internet Wall of China, I expect the kids would already have technologically bypassed the legislation even before the POTUS signs it into law.

            Comment


            • #7
              Which will create even more ''criminals''.The kids,their parents and those who take advantage of what the kids discover,that is all of us.

              Either way,the law is crap.
              Those who know don't speak
              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

              Comment


              • #8
                One of the excuses entertaining and software industries had for their hilarious prices was the piracy is draining their profits.

                Will this lower their prices
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Notes from class 3 weeks ago:


                  7) There are 4 categories of file sharers:
                  a. Go to file sharing clients after hearing that an artist released a new album. They download the entire album and don't pay a cent.
                  b. Use file sharing clients before going to buy an album
                  c. Use file sharing clients to find songs that aren't sold and can't be found elsewhere.
                  d. Use file sharing clients to find songs that aren't protected by copyright law

                  So, what's the difference? As far as the law is concerned, D is perfectly fine, A is highly illegal. B is illegal, but the record companies shouldn't be bitching because they will still spend money to buy the album. C is also illegal, but how much does it harm the record companies? Felix Obelholtzer-Guy and Coleman Strumpf managed to acquire the raw data from file sharing servers over 17 weeks and 1,750,000 downloads. In a particular week there is a spike in 8-Mile downloads. They find that sales of the album haven't been harmed at all. ***The correlation IS CLOSE TO 0***. Radiohead released an album online and told people that they can pay whatever they want to pay for the album. November 2006 CommsCo said that only 40% of downloaders paid and the average was less than $4. Radiohead called bullshit.

                  In 2010 the same two researchers asked if file sharing helps or harms the culture? The record companies will say that of course it harms, but the researchers claim that while copyright law is harmed, file sharing promotes and increases the culture. The question should not be how much more money is being made, but rather if weaker copyright laws are harming the creative potential? They empirically check how much copyrighted material was created in the first decade of the 21st century.

                  Results:
                  • Between 2002-2007 new books jumped by 66%
                  • Between 2000-2009 annual new music doubled
                  • Between 2003-2009 new movies rose by 30%

                  It would seem that even if the record companies are suffering, weaker copyright laws promote more creativity. One of the important things to notice here is that their conclusion is that file sharing is responsible for up to 20% of record company losses. The other 80% is because of the proliferation of alternative entertainment options. If at first one could only listen to music or watch movies, now one can listen to music, watch a movie, watch TV, cable, Xbox, PS3, etc… If the soundtrack of a film costs $14 and the DVD itself costs $16, people will usually buy the DVD and not the soundtrack.

                  Another thing is that with the advent of CDs there was a boom of people upgrading their music collections from vinyl and cassette to CD. Once music collections were upgraded to CD, people stopped buying CDs. The record companies make plenty more money from performances than they do from albums. This is great for respected performers, not so much for newbies.
                  Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                  Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sir, I was referring to the National Defense Authorization Act, one section which would grant the President the power to detain anyone suspected of terrorism indefinitely and without trial, incl. American citizens.

                    Three myths about the detention bill - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

                    Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges
                    "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X