Paramount Wants To Talk To Students About How They're All Thieves & Then Ask For Ideas On What To Do

from the still-not-getting-it dept

Fri, Feb 3rd 2012 6:34pm — Mike Masnick

As Hollywood struggles to come up for breath and understand the nature of what hit them last month in the SOPA/PIPA debate, it appears they're still thinking that part of this is an "education" issue -- and if they could just tell young people how evil file sharing is that everything would be good. A whole bunch of folks have been passing on variations on the news that Paramount Pictures (owned by Viacom -- one of the major backers of SOPA/PIPA) wants to go talk to college kids. A bunch of universities received:

"an overnight fedex letter from Paramount expressing the extent to which they are ‘humbled’ and ‘surprised’ by the extent of the public reaction to SOPA/PIPA and asking to come to campus to talk to faculty and students about “content theft, its challenges, and possible ways to address it."

Paramount specifically asks to give a "formal presentation followed by an open discussion period or to participate in a class session." First of all, actually having open discussions would be a good first step, because that's been lacking in this whole debate. But, I'm not sure starting off that conversation by referring to copyright infringement as "content theft" is the best way to kick things off. I know that the industry has chosen "content theft" as its moral panic phrase of the year, after they realized that the people they'd unfairly branded as "pirates" had taken back that phrase and turned it to their own advantage.

Why not hold a truly open discussion in which everyone can participate and talk about ideas as to the true nature of the problem? That discussion is happening every day out there on the "wild west" of the internet, if only the folk at the studios actually wanted to join in. Perhaps if they did so, they wouldn't be so terrified of the internet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: pipa, sopa, students
Companies: paramount, viacom

86 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

xenomancer (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 6:35pm

Hooray for Paramount!
My first thought was "wow Paramount finally broke down and decided to tap into the collective creativity of college students." I mean, now that they've given in to the dark side and admitted they're stealing, we can have a real conversation! My guess is that the first thing on the agenda will be a Q&A about how to use contracts to obfuscate unconscionable business practices... and maybe a followup on successfully lying to clients and courts. I imagine the finale will be the lecture on how to purchase a senator (there's to many representatives to merit their price).

Oh, shit, I completely forgot to read the article. Damn, it looks like they just took aim at their feet again. And I had such a wonderful moment of brief recognition of (who was that again... ah, yes) Parmanut's public integrity.

/sarc

Honestly, it would be hilarious if they were filmed getting booed off the campus...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AdamBv1 (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re: Hooray for Paramount!
  Honestly, it would be hilarious if they were filmed getting booed off the campus...
  
  You know, I just might pay to see that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta**, 3 Feb 2012 @ 6:41pm

Teaching horsecrap while students think brilliantly
The last time I was at a community college with my laptop, I sat down in the student lounge and connected to the school network. Another beacon popped up called the "Pirate network". Curious, I connected to it and found an entire social network of people sharing their hard drives full of movies, music, games, apps, etc. People could chat on an IRC server hosted through whatever router was running. It wasn't connected to the internet, as it basically was its own internet. All you needed to do to connect was put in an alias and download, chat, even use your camera.

Hollywood can "educate" all they want, but students will always find ways around the dubious propaganda and useless laws. Just plain pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: Teaching horsecrap while students think brilliantly
  A lot of uni's have something like that set up. At a couple schools near me they have DC++ hubs set up on the internal network. A few people with some technological know-how bypass the filtering and get the content for everyone else. Schools "ignore" it since it keeps people from getting content from outside the campus and getting on MPAA/RIAA's radar
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Anonymous, 3 Feb 2012 @ 6:46pm

Heh, they come to my campus and they'll get an earful. How long, exactly, does it usually take to recover the cost of creating content? Double that time to be generous and the copyright should then expire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:45pm
  
  Re:
  Just ask Darth Vader: the studios never "recoup" their costs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 6:58pm

Mike, why don't you offer an open letter to these universities to go and talk to students along with these corporate interests so as to provide a more balanced discussion. Tell the universities how academia requires both sides of the debate to be presented and how one sided brainwashing should take no part in this debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:03pm

If it's anything like most IP-based presentations made to schools it'll largely be an attempt to rack up sympathy while shutting down concerns such as actual costs and percentage of profits paid to artists. In short, a PR attempt to waste everyone's time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:20pm

I'm seriously trying to imagine this. A collection of Paramount/Viacom hacks in front of a collection of university students in a lecture theatre somewhere on campus trying to convince the students that file sharing is wrong, a theft of content and piracy and must, absolutely MUST be dealt with harshly.

Up to an including the loss of one or two constitutionally protected rights along the way as well as breaking the Internet and DNSSEC. Those who created the content must be paid!

Well, at least those who distributed the content must be paid even if no one else does.

All the while ignorning the snickers from the students as they send out live video from their phones who wait for the Q&A to ask why things like copyright and patents have terms that take them well beyond the anticipated end of our universes life.

It would be fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:25pm
  
  Re:
  That's a good idea: get them to post the video where the Internet can lay waste to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 9:27pm
  
  Re:
  The real problem is people framing copyrights as rights they are not rights, call it what it really is, a granted monopoly and see how Paramount can justify a granted monopoly with extreme powers people get confused about rights since it is supposed to grant good things everybody wants rights, now people need to understand what rights that amount to a granted monopoly entails, the loss of the public own rights, the loss of public space, the loss of the ability to use common resources to produce something, the loss of being able to work, the loss of job opportunities, the loss of a healthy economy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rekrul, 4 Feb 2012 @ 6:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    This web page might be of interest to you;
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:29pm

I know some people at American schools who don't file share. They stopped because they were afraid that their school would catch them and cut off their internet or worse. None of them are worried about whether "content theft" is wrong or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 7:44pm
  
  Re:
  Sounds like they need to find new schools to go to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LDoBe (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 8:20pm
  
  Re:
  When I was attending technical school, every first login of the quarter I was met with the "Academic Honesty and Network usage policy" boilerplate.
  
  The terms I saw in the student handbook said I would certainly lose credit for the quarter for copyright violation of any kind, and that I would be kicked out entirely if I repeated offended. They lumped all copyright infringement in with plagiarism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 8:17pm

The Pirates of the Disneyland can't do that, they can't possibly defend a monopoly and exclusionary laws as something good for everyone.

It is just not good for people, it brings censorship, legal uncertainty, increases legal costs, exclude everyone else from that market reducing experimentation, there is nothing good about that monopoly.

That is why they must frame it as theft, because that way they try to control the message not trying to discuss the real problem and that is the monopoly control expansion that is speeding up and causing friction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zoden, 3 Feb 2012 @ 8:25pm

That would be fun
I would LOVE for paramount to come to my campus, as an Engineering school whose tech savvy students understand internet. I would unfortionately be stuck with a trollface thinking of the fun to be had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 8:32pm

Pirate = bad?
There comes a point in every man's life that he wants to spit on his hands, hoist the Jolly Roger, and start slittin' throats. -- H.L.Mencken

Every kid since the first guy with a boat got his shat taken by a guy with another boat has grown up knowing that pirates are awesome. What's the down side to being called a pirate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 10:10pm
  
  Re: Pirate = bad?
  Pirates are hanged?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 4:13am
    
    Re: Re: Pirate = bad?
    Some fo them are even hanged twice for crimes they didn't commit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 3 Feb 2012 @ 9:05pm

Hey - Paramount,
Leave them kids alone!

All in all, yer just another dick with some gall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geoff, 3 Feb 2012 @ 9:57pm

I would love to talk to them, so long as they listened and we could have a debate about it. From what I have heard, My school is on their "Worst of the worst" schools list for some time now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 10:03pm

"formal presentation followed by an open discussion period or to participate in a class session."

Hello My name is Troll I work for Viacom.
Hello My name is Shill I work for Paramount Pictures.

We would like to hear what you think about our studios ...

Calm down, we haven't gotten to the open questions section yet.

Now watch this 4 hour video on how artists are being robbed by pirates.

Yeah, I wonder how well that is going to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 10:07pm

Okay I have a habit of posting annoyance ...
But this is so going to back fire. The instant their video gets online, or they try to stop someone from recording it, they are doomed. Barbara S kicks in ...

Oh, and when the take down of the online video happens ... oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 10:09pm

The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal" but copying the Bible is not a sin.

Copying is not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kriilin Namek, 4 Feb 2012 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re:
  Um, that's because it was never copyrighted, and it's been in the public domain for centuries.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Someone should 'copyright' the original aramaic & greek sources and then sue every bible-maker and quoter for using 'unauthorised' derivative (i.e. translated) works.
    
    Besides, the public domain is for commie fascist liberal socialists!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 3 Feb 2012 @ 10:13pm

Ask me what you should do?
If they (Viacom) were to ask me what they should do about "piracy" on the Internet, I would simply tell them to put a loaded gun to their heads and pull the trigger! Doh! They have already done that, but their brains are so small that the bullet missed, I think! Either that, or they are so stupid (due to small brain capacity) that their body hasn't received the message that they are dead yet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 12:14am

Perhaps if they did so, they wouldn't be so terrified of the internet.
The very reason they a terrified of the internet is the same reason new laws are passed every day, they have no control over the internet, what they can;t control frightens them.
This is why the internet is so important.
On April 19 1776 when the tyrants came to Concord to destroy the weapons there and the first shot of the revolution rang out.
January 18 2012 was the first shot at the tyrants,
The first weapons cache was destroyed the next day by the forces of evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 12:45am

paramount go home!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 2:30am

what would be the point of this? they wouldn't take any notice of what they were told. they would use the whole time of every session to try to pump into people the studios opinions. as for the total bull and outright lies they tell, they would ignore any mention as much as possible and refuse to answer when questioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Connors, 4 Feb 2012 @ 5:38am

Learn from the music industry
Why doesn't the movie industry do what the music industry did and decide to cut their losses and offer their movies on the iTunes store for 4.99.. It worked out pretty well for Louis c.k. And it's a fair solid price compared to the ridiculous price of $20+ sure you don't make as much but you'd have a lot more happy customers and they wouldnt seem like a bunch of d-bags for ruining the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 4 Feb 2012 @ 6:04am

Just curious
Is Paramount going to talk to the students about how the legacy corps write legislation in secrecy so that it cannot fall under public scrutiny? Are they going to talk about how they've cooked the books and cheated artists out of profit & rightful ownership? Are they going to discuss how they're trying to regulate and censor the internet, squashing innovation, independent artists and freedom of information in the process? Are they going to discuss the merits of bribery, corruption and corporate fascism? Are they going to discuss how their parent company, Viacom, is trying to sue Google/YouTube for $1 billion, Cablevision for "unauthorized streaming" on iPads, etc.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 4 Feb 2012 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Just curious
  "Is Paramount going to talk to the students about how the legacy corps write legislation in secrecy so that it cannot fall under public scrutiny? Are they going to talk about how they've cooked the books and cheated artists out of profit & rightful ownership? Are they going to discuss how they're trying to regulate and censor the internet, squashing innovation, independent artists and freedom of information in the process? Are they going to discuss the merits of bribery, corruption and corporate fascism? Are they going to discuss how their parent company, Viacom, is trying to sue Google/YouTube for $1 billion, Cablevision for "unauthorized streaming" on iPads, etc."
  
  Certainly not !
  The students will be called thieves and pirates then they will be offered a chance to pay for their sins via check or credit card. Any proclamation of innocence will be met with pepper spray and tazer, because all students are lying hippie commies. By the grace of god, Paramount is doing them a favor.
  
  /s - jic
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 4 Feb 2012 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Just curious
    Wouldn't it be great if all of our elected representatives actually acted in the people's best interests instead of mega-billionaire corporations'? Then it would be a true democracy. Imagine that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:57am
    
    Re: Re: Just curious
    I'm marking this as 'insightful' because of the obvious "Out With Students" campaign...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DirtyDave777, 4 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am

Does anyone else see the Humor?
Hollywood the second deepest entrenchment of Communist and Socialist wannabes Is Whining about their loss of Profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynthia L Wood, 4 Feb 2012 @ 8:41am

SOPA/PIPA debate
Stealing is stealing. No matter how people try to justify it. Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing. If you don't want to pay the marked price for something then don't buy it. But don't steal it either. It is ridiculous how people feel that they can justify breaking the law just because they don't like it. For that matter why don't we just make it legal to take anything from anyone without repercussions. Maybe Hollywood should go around to all of these colleges and steal everything from these whiny college students. I'm sure they won't mind. Because after all aren't laws made to be broken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing
  
  Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
  Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
  Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
  Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
  
  Yes, I know that's tenuous, but if you're going to say stupid stuff then I get to as well.
  
  "Ownership" is a tenuous enough fabrication of society anyway and not some universal truth. Trying to apply it to an entirely imaginary concept and call it the same makes no sense.
  
  Try taking a breath from foaming at the mouth, think about what it is you think you "own", then have a reasoned debate about it why don't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - B, 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
    see, your stuck up on entitlement. I would expect as much from someone who can not CREATE or TAKE what they need. nothing belongs to anyone and your damn lucky you wake up every morning, be happy with that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
    Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
    Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
    Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
    Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
    
    Who invested their money and time to produce those? No one asks you pay to view a sunset or an eclipse. Watch those instead of taking the creative output of another without compensating the rightful owner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 10:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
      I don't care if you invested a million dollars digging a hole at the beach. That doesn't automatically give you a right to it exclusively. Investing your money and time into running around in circles or doing whatever does not automatically give you a right to control the behavior of others and require others and governments to invest their time and effort into following your every demand with respect to that which you did spent your time on. If you don't like it, find something else to invest your time into, I don't care, but stop telling me what to do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        And we have ANOTHER bad example. You can't dig on someone else's land; YOU HAVE TO OWN IT FIRST. So yeah, if I bought land and dug a hole in it, I could very well choose to have the exclusive right to it. If you are going to try justify getting out of paying for things illegally, at least use a good analogy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        Typically, beaches are public property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        Well then, I guess this imaginary person in the other AC's argument must have gotten written permission from the president then!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        Wut?
        
        Put the pipe down and soak your head in a toilet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
        
        Someone needs to lighten up a bit. You are an idiot if you can't see I was trolling your sorry ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        That claim could easily be applied to yourself
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 10:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        NO U
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 10:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
      "Watch those instead of taking the creative output of another without compensating the rightful owner."
      
      The terms "rightful" "owner" are social constructs that we define. Just because you spent the time and effort into digging a hole at the beach does not make you the 'rightful owner' of that hole. All laws need justification and the justification should be that society as a whole is better off with them than without. We don't assign 'rightful owners' to property because we think that it makes society worse off. Copy protection laws are no different. They shouldn't be designed to ensure that the 'rightful owners' are compensated, they should be designed to serve a social benefit in light of the social costs, just like with physical property laws or any law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        and the public interest can also depend on what society values as well. I don't value IP laws very much (though I'm not that sure, I do think they can possibly be a good thing if used correctly and very lightly for reasonable lengths of time), and I don't care much if their abolition does somehow result in fewer works being created (though I doubt they will), and if society doesn't value these laws very much then a representative government should reflect that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing
  
  Like.... that breath you just took of air that doesn't belong to you?
  Or that pebble you picked up off a beach on holiday?
  Or all that water that evaporated from the local reservior and fell as rain on YOUR house?
  Or that bird that got stuck in the grill of your car?
  
  Yes, I know that's tenuous, but if you're going to say stupid stuff then I get to as well.
  
  "Ownership" is a tenuous enough fabrication of society anyway and not some universal truth. Trying to apply it to an entirely imaginary concept and call it the same makes no sense.
  
  Try taking a breath from foaming at the mouth, think about what it is you think you "own", then have a reasoned debate about it why don't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  look at a dictionary; sharing is not stealing. Equating the two would be uber Orwellian.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  Are you trying to say Hollywood dosen't "steal"??? The people are being told not to "steal" by the very corporate monopolies that steal all the time, and then get away with it, only because they have the money to buy the laws that let them do so. Applying the "Do as I say, not as I do" rule always fails when people get smart to the wool being pulled over their eyes and the manure shoveled into their ears.
  
  People are getting wise to the copyright "snake oil salesmen" of this era, and those same "snake oil salesmen" are now finding that out the hard way. If history has taught us anything, it's that the more corporations and governments stomp on the rights of the people, the quicker those in power will lose all legitimate justification of control.
  
  START_COPYRIGHT_MAXIMALIST_TRUTH_CONVERSION_FTFY...
  
  Stealing is stealing. No matter how Hollywood tries to justify it. Taking something by force of a law that you paid (bribed) to get passed in congress is stealing. If you don't want to pay the marked price for something then don't buy it (P.S. We will still accuse you of stealing it anyway and offer not to sue you for a settlement amount, because that IS our new business method [Pay Us Now & Pay Us Later]- why pay money to get laws passed if your not going to make a profit off of them). But don't steal it either because that is our patented business method and we'll sue you for that too. It is ridiculous how Hollywood feels that they can justify writing new laws that violate the peoples constitutional rights, just because they don't like that you have rights just like a corporation with mega-millions of dollars does. For that matter why don't we just make it legal to take anything from anyone without repercussions (like we already do in Hollywood). Maybe college students should go around to all of these Hollywood studios with "congress members in their back pockets" and "laws they paid for", and steal everything from these whiny Hollywood moguls who feel they didn't get what they paid for in congress. I'm sure they WILL mind. Because after all, as Chris Dodd says, aren't laws made to be bought?
  
  STOP_COPYRIGHT_MAXIMALIST_TRUTH_CONVERSION_FTFY...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 4 Feb 2012 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  I believe that it is wrong to steal. That said, where do we draw a line between copying (i.e. what computers naturally do) and stealing? Moreover, who gets to determine where that line is drawn? What constitutes 'property'?
  
  Is every idea or concept under the sun utilized by the creative minds in the entertainment industries exclusively their ideas?
  
  How come mega-billionaire corps are allowed to draft legislation in the absence of public scrutiny? If what they're doing is morally just, why do everything in secrecy on one hand and then demand transparency from everybody else?
  
  How come they're entitled to dictate what a consumer is allowed to do with the things they own, let alone dictate the terms on which internet sites and users must function?
  
  How come they get to write laws in the first place?
  
  Is it a reasonable assessment that they're propping up copyright/IP infringement as if sacred entities which must be protected at all costs from being copied to the extent that they regulate, censor and take control of the entire internet?
  
  If I decide to lend my brother a copy of a movie and he likes it and wants for me to make him a copy, who are you to tell me that I can't?
  
  Why are the legacy players snooping around and trying to monitor what everyone else is doing? What justifies their intrusive behavior?
  
  There are just laws and unjust laws. If the legacy players are knowingly bribing our congressmen and senators in order to pass legislation which furthers their own corporate agenda at the expense of the common good, shouldn't such laws be considered inherently unjust?
  
  Why are they suing children and dead grandmothers for thousands of dollars? Isn't that an unreasonably harsh penalty considering the menial nature of the accusations?
  
  Think about how absurd this sounds: Somebody downloads ten songs, the music label finds out (via unwarranted snooping), tracks the person down and sues him/her for an absurd amount in questionable "damages," usually to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Is this really the moral thing to do? Are their songs really worth tens of thousands of dollars or in actuality just a few cents?
  
  Answer these questions and we'll talk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  There is no such thing as "content theft" when it comes to downloads the original article still remains in the hands of the original owner, Therefore there was no theft, at best it is unauthorized reprodution. Get your dictionary out and look up theft.FOOL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 4 Feb 2012 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  Well then, since the ends justify the means ..... we had better get crackin and install tracking, video and sound recording devices in all your vehicles, living quarters and work locations - because, you know, there might be someone, somewhere who might do something which might be illegal.
  
  Sounds like a plan, lets get this implemented immediately
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- skrea, 4 Feb 2012 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate:Stealing is stealing...
  Cynthia, you say:
  "Maybe Hollywood should go around to all of these colleges and steal everything from these whiny college students. I'm sure they won't mind."
  
  If by "stealing everything" you instead mean "copying everything without authorization" then they probably really won't mind. You can create a copy of anything I own, take it and use it as you see fit, and I won't mind a bit. Since I still have my stuff, I experience no loss. Since I wasn't planning on selling it to you, then I don't even see it as a 'lost sale' (plus, I still have it should I later decide to try and sell it). So... if you feel so inclined, and have the technological means to do it, please, "steal" my stuff whenever you like... no harm, no foul...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 4 Feb 2012 @ 4:14pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate:Stealing is stealing...
    The internet serves to illustrate that there exist many, many people who embody the spirit of giving, almost none of them asking for anything in return other than a mere thanks. The big corps, on the other hand, illustrate that there are many people who want to take (money and control) and only give on a conditional, restrictive basis.
    
    Ok, if some movie distributor releases a new movie on Blu-ray, they expect to make a profit in return and don't want everyone to torrent it -- that's fully understandable. But when it comes to stuff a decade, two decades, three decades older and longer, even if that stuff is obsolete and no longer in print, they still want to restrict the general public from sharing it in any way, shape or form. That, to me, is just absurd. It would be no less absurd than if I made a copy of X music CD for my friend and an RIAA rep walked into my house and took away my CD and computer.
    
    Nobody likes being pushed around or force-fed corporate-drafted rules and restrictions, particularly for things which really aren't anyone else's business but yours. Just because they produce something doesn't guarantee them the right to dictate what you can do with it, who you share it with, et al.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Daria, 5 Feb 2012 @ 1:59am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  Dear Cynthia,
  when the law is abusive, breaking it is the right response. It's not ridiculous, it's common sense. I suppose that if there was a law saying that you can only eat steamed pink vegetables, you'd be saying that people who want to enjoy steak are ridiculous and whiny. Let them eat pink vegetables, damn it! And they better like it, too! Otherwise we'll put an amendment to the law, saying that enjoyment of pink vegetables is mandatory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:16am
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
    Dear Cynthia,
    when the law is abusive, breaking it is the right response. It's not ridiculous, it's common sense. I suppose that if there was a law saying that you can only eat steamed pink vegetables, you'd be saying that people who want to enjoy steak are ridiculous and whiny. Let them eat pink vegetables, damn it! And they better like it, too! Otherwise we'll put an amendment to the law, saying that enjoyment of pink vegetables is mandatory.
    
    That is a poor example. There's is plenty of legal free content available to you on tv or at the library. You're not entitled to take whatever you want whenever you want it without compensating the creator/right's holder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
      "There's is plenty of legal free content available to you on tv or at the library. You're not entitled to take whatever you want whenever you want it without compensating the creator/right's holder."
      
      I can't speak on Cynthia's behalf but I can say that just because a corporation holds the copyright to certain products does not entitle them to lock down and control the entire internet. They use every scheming tactic in the book, not only to try and strangulate the internet but also to pocket as much money as possible at the expense of their stable of creative talents. These same people go around pretending to be the moral authority. The last people I'll go to for high morals would be the multi-billionaire mega-conglomerates that go around suing dead people and elderly women w/o computers for insane amounts of money.
      
      So if I create something and copyright it, does that mean that I get to rewrite the laws in order to favor myself and force everyone else to comply?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2012 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        "You're not entitled to take whatever you want whenever you want it without compensating the creator/right's holder."
        
        IP holders are not entitled to a free monopoly privilege and while I'm not entitled to copy anything (I'm not entitled to the air I breathe either), I do have a natural right to. Maybe not a legal right, but the justification for our laws is what's in dispute here. Laws need justification and I see little justification for IP laws. Maybe some, but surely not for our current set of laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Daria, 5 Feb 2012 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        Michael, if you meant speaking on my behalf (Daria, not Cynthia), by all means, feel free - because what you said was my point exactly. Laws that are written with the interest of corporations in mind should be fought every step of the way. We shouldn't allow Big Anything to rule over everybody else and destroy the only source of unbiased information that we have - the Internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 6 Feb 2012 @ 6:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
        My mistake, I got you both mixed up. You're right Daria: We, the People, shouldn't allow big media to dictate internet law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Daria, 5 Feb 2012 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
      Dear Anonymous Coward,
      
      I never said I took whatever I wanted without compensating the creator, I don't know where you got that in my message. I said the copyright law is abusive and I stand by that. I'm more than willing to pay for the content I enjoy and I have spent a lot of hard earned money on movies that weren't worth it. Because of that, I decided that I'd like to see what I'm buying beforehand. And make no mistake about it, I am buying. Stuff I wouldn't otherwise buy, because I'm sick and tired of paying for crappy movies or paying for the damn DVD only to find that I can't watch it on my tablet. And if you say buy it from Apple, I've tried that - they don't have any of the stuff that I like available in my country (also part of the effort to destroy piracy). I'm buying books by the truckload - pretty soon they're going to need a room of their own, but if I want them on my tablet, I have to pay the same content again - for almost the same price as the printed book. You don't call that abusive? The printed book costs money to produce - the digital version should be 10 times cheaper as it doesn't really cost anything by comparison. And by the way, I already paid the author (and the literary agent AND the publishing house AND the bookstore) by buying the damn book in the first place. So give me a break - when I'm trying my best to PAY for what I enjoy and I'm denied the chance to do that, I don't think there's something wrong with me, I think there's something wrong with the rights-holders - they seem to only want to make money on their terms. That may have worked in the past, when there was no alternative, but today, if you deny your customer the right to pay for what he likes, you're just actively encouraging piracy, probably so you can have a bogey-man that you can blame for your failures. By the way, copying was around long before the internet, it was just done locally and not on a global scale. One last point, the "plenty of legal free content" may be true for the States, it's not always true for the rest of the world.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Moondoggie, 5 Feb 2012 @ 4:08pm
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  @Cynthia
  
  Stealing is stealing, I agree.
  
  But in the internet, there is no stealing. Anything that reaches the internet is public property. Everyone can access it. Everyone can share it. There is no limitation and there shouldn't be.
  
  They want to stop getting their movies shared? Then they should stop releasing CDs, DVDs and BluRays. Once they sold copies of their movies, a person has every right to do what he wants with it. There should be no strings attached. This is what is wrong with the whole concept of Copyright. It makes the sharing of information(of every form) illegal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 10:28pm
    
    Re: Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
    "Anything that reaches the internet is public property."
    
    Lol. Whatever you're on, I want some. Someone trying to sell their art on their website doesn't make that art public property, and certainly doesn't give you any right to just take it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 5:02am
  
  Re: SOPA/PIPA debate
  Stealing may be stealing, but infringement is infringement, not stealing. You might as well argue that because one company bottles water and sells it, by drinking out of your tap you are 'stealing' from them. There is also the difference between a crime (stealing) and a civil misdemeanour (infringement). So Hollywould should commit crimes to make up for misdemeanours against them? (if they aren't already...)
  
  If you can't even get the terms in your cruddy laws for imaginary property right, then why should anyone take them, or you, seriously?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
B, 4 Feb 2012 @ 9:45am

idiots. should just stop calling it piracy.. its sharing, and its the way of the world now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fb39ca4, 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:08am

B...But...But sharing is caring!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 10:51am

I too would pay to see that. A couple of misguided representatives walking into a room outnumbered by a pissed off opposition of informed intelligent individuals with their finger on the pulse of every aspect of the issue. They would get eaten alive during the Q&A. That would HAVE to be posted online!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 11:10am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 4th, 2012 @ 10:51am
  Now that I think about it, they should hold it in the football stadium just so it enhances the gladiatorial spectacle that it would turn out to be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- s. keeling (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 4:46pm
  
  Re: Paramount wants to talk ...
  I'd like to see them walk into the auditorium and find every kid in the room wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, a la that block in the Polish parliament the other day protesting ACTA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 4:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Paramount wants to talk ...
    Thought of that just before I read your comment. I agree that would be awesome.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 4 Feb 2012 @ 11:14am

"Content theft"
You've kick-started my memory. A long time ago, we needed a little gate thingy to contain the kids. There was one, but the company that made them had a restricted supply (later I heard that a marketing guy was trying to create an artificial shortage to justify higher prices; I don't know if that was true or not, but they were not freely available).
Anyway, I finally built my own, using their ideas. I was undoubtedly (using today's logic) guilty of patent infringement or , though at that time it just caused the salesman to look unhappy about the lost sale.
I think there is a parallel here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 1:17pm

Good Idea
Imagine what publicity hack would take the job of facing the college students for them! But you know someone will because the MAFIAA can afford to pay their shills well. Seriously, this is a step in the right direction, and don't underestimate what they can achieve here; true it will be a donnybrook, but if they get even a few really useful suggestions (at how to crackdown I mean) or convert just a few student leaders then it's a win for them. Remember they are well funded and in it for the long game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 4 Feb 2012 @ 1:57pm

Screwed
Hollywood is taking a screwing for all the people they have screwed over the years. Don't think for a second these people "take care of their own". Not by a long shot they don't. For every actor/agent there are at least two lawyers foaming at the mouth to sue the shit out of someone! Hollywood is now on the bottom and the big dog is wailing on their a$$. In the words of the immortal Earl, "My Name is Earl,: "Karma's a bitch!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2012 @ 3:03pm

I thought of this meeting before Paramount did. I'm suing for content theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthony, 4 Feb 2012 @ 4:32pm

Easy solution
Easy solution - 720p or 1080p video that is DRM free - that is what I will pay for. Will never pay for anything with DRM. Never have, never will. And no need to install special stupid software like iTunes to purchase it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 5 Feb 2012 @ 3:40am

Did anyone else read content theft and think, content as in contentment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:22am

Social engineering 101
"Ok people, we're here condition you to a new age of corporate fascism -- a wonderful corporate-controlled internet wherein we call the shots. That means no more freedom of information and widespread censorship. Once we seize control of all content and knowledge, we'll have absolute dominion over all. Please think of us as the thought police. Be sure to purchase all of our new movies at amazing rip-off prices through 100% legal means. But because we consider you all to be potential criminals, we'll incorporate DRM protection and include threatening federal warnings dictating the terms which you must comply with in order to use our products. Remember, even if you purchase our products, you own nothing -- we own it all."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Goldman (profile), 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:47am

I am a bit skeptical that any event organized along these lines would actually advance audience understanding very much. When I've organized or attended panels that featured both Hollywood insiders and vigorous opponents, my experience has been that the conversation tends to gravitate towards one or two irresolute debates:

1) High-level philosophical debates, like "Speaker 1: Piracy is theft! Speaker 2: No, piracy is a form of marketing!"
2) Bogus statistics debates, like "Speaker 1: File sharing reduces music album sales. Speaker 2: No, album sales declined due to unbundling."

I haven't found these so-called discourses very illuminating. My observation is that usually this back-and-forth results only in reinforcing the audiences' pre-existing beliefs as the audience gives in to their confirmation biases.

I think more productive discussions could be had by developing a clear and concise statement of "the problem." In my opinion, the SOPA/PIPA advocates never gave us clean statements of "the problem" because they figured they could slam home their overzealous proposals without much defense of their merits. Advocates vaguely alluded to problems like "foreign rogue websites" (although not much empirical proof that foreign rogue websites were costing rightsowners money, combined with the statutory drafting defect that it's difficult to separate the foreign website goats from the domestic website sheep) or "piracy costs American jobs" (which at best really means that only certain industries are losing jobs, and even that's debatable). Perhaps there is value to digging into these problems in more abstract terms--if we're concerned about American jobs, under what circumstances does copyright or trademark infringement cost net jobs, and how best to remediate that; or if we're concerned about the difficulty reaching offshore actors, should we instantiate geographic borders into a borderless electronic network, and if so, what tools are best to do so. When the problems are reframed that way, the proffered speakers from Paramount may not have the requisite expertise; or at best their perspective would be only one of several that would be valuable to the discussion.

More generally, one recurring problem I see with lunchtime events in law schools--especially with student-organized events--is when in-house counsel give a talk and there's no counterbalance. By definition, in-house counsel will espouse the corporate line (and indeed, they usually have professional responsibility duties against public statements against their client's interests), so these speakers are almost never "neutral" or "balanced." As a result, it doesn't matter if the in-house counsel are IP maximalists or minimalists; if they are presented on a standalone basis, then the audience is almost certainly getting only one side of the story, unrebutted--usually to the audience's detriment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gdm40 (profile), 5 Feb 2012 @ 1:21pm

Half the so called New motion picture releases are rehashed stories. Yet Paramount nor any other studio pays for the rights they call it a original blockbuster and end of story.

You think for a split second New Line payed Jules Verne's or Jonathan Swifts descendants. Even though Journey 2: The mysterious island is an obvious crappy adaptation of their original stories.

According to their hippocracy anything they make should be off limits indefinitely. While they can steal and adapt anything they damn well wish. And to ultimately slap us in the face, by buying politicians to strip away our rights in order to meet their agenda.

The only thing these clowns understand is $$. If there was a movement to put a moratorium on visiting the box office renting movies, pay per view etc. If even for a single weekend. I think it would send them and incredibly strong message not to bite the goddamn hands that feed you.

At the very least it would be 9 figure message (U.S. alone) they would never forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radical Militant Librarian, 6 Feb 2012 @ 7:40am

At least they�ve realized that it�s not just Google they need to be talking to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
innerg2012 (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:40pm

I absolutely believe that this is an education issue, although its paramount that needs educating...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]