But the trick is that the end user can turn SafeSearch on and off. It's user initiated/controlled 'filtering' not censorship.
What the pro-SOPA/PIPA group wants is censorship. They feel that piracy is so 'evil' that it shouldn't be seen at all. The thing is, if there was some reasonable due process it might not be so bad to take down sites that are PROVEN to be illegal. But that's not what they want is it? They want the ability to censor any site immediately, to hell with collateral damage. If it doesn't directly affect them, who cares.
The point is if you had Billy Idol's White Wedding, and downloaded it legally. Then mixed it up with a 100 other copies of the same song obtained by other means, you would be hard pressed, just looking at the bits, to know which was the legally obtained copy.
That's the point of digital copies, they are perfect replicas, or the copy process would be flawed. I know I wouldn't want to copy a Word document only to open it and find half the words changed.
Re: You haven't explained what could replace copyright.
This isnt about throwing away copyright but rather attacking proposed laws that are written too broadly and being supported by hyperbolic rhetoric and biased studies. As Mike mentioned, some of the issues are legitimate, so focus on those issues and take care of them. They need a focused laser guided missile, not an nuke.
Let's pretend for a moment that the laws would be used to truly target real criminals, as they claim. There would still be collateral damage that could do tremendous harm to the tech industry, as well as those relying on it.
Now I'm not suggesting that tech jobs should be saved instead of entertainment jobs, but it could be VERY easily argued that some of the entertainment jobs are simply disappearing due to the natural evolution of any industry when technologies improve/change. Thus while there may be losses in the entertainment industry, there will be greater gains in tech. The loss of these entertainment jobs will continue regardless of piracy or the introduction of these laws. But the loss of tech jobs due to the introduction of these laws is something that none of the supporters want to talk about or claim that these jobs are only there because of piracy, which is ridiculous.
So again it seems that these laws either need to be refocused or it's supporters need to admit that it's true intention is to control the Internet (or at least a good portion of it) and hold the tech industry hostage.
Don't you see that THIS is the problem? Media piracy is simply a black market responding to customer demand. Just John wanted to do something reasonable with the media he legitimately paid for, but was unable, so he was able to get what he needed from the black market. If the media companies would just start listening to it's customers instead of assuming we are all immoral pirates, perhaps much of this piracy would die off naturally. Think of all the money that would be saved, not having to pay for lawyers and buy politicians.
But it's not about the money is it? It's not even about the law. It's about control. The Internet has given control of reproduction to the world, free and fast. The thing is, if you supply the goods at a reasonable price and in the ways that consumers want to consume the goods, they WILL pay for it.
Welfare for the labels more than the artists perhaps
Let's face it, with digital distribution labels are less relevant, unless your goal is to be the next big top 40 star. Even then I bet it is or will very soon be attainable without a major label backing the artist. The need for the resources to record and press CDs (previously tapes and LPs) is either no longer needed or attainable with reasonably priced software/hardware that anyone can use.
I'm not saying that a professional studio can't/won't sound better but for a true artist, is all of that truly needed to get your art out to those who can appreciate it? 15 years ago, short of maybe your local audience, you'd be unknown. Today, with digital content and delivery, the music is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, and thanks to Facebook and Twitter and other social media, self-promotion is easily done as well.
So, the real issue is that the traditional music empire is crumbling. Yes people will lose their jobs, it happens every time a new disruptive technology comes out. Music is becoming democratized, not destroyed. The music industry may be dying but the artists and music creation will continue without them just fine.
THAT is the reason SOPA/PIPA are being pushed so hard by the industry. They are dying and they know it and they are trying desperately to hold onto the few fragments they still retain control of, namely their music libraries. It's not about protecting the investments they have made into the latest American Idol winner, it's about protecting the income they are still making from music created (and paid for) years ago.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but it's not going to be sustainable in this new digital environment. More and more music will be created and kept by the artists and the labels will become more and more irrelevant and looked upon with further scorn as they hold on to their dead business model.
Or they can figure out a way to adjust and become relevant again. Even if these laws are passed, they will not prevent the demise of the old business models.
This is some pretty serious PR (BS) speak here. They want to paint the lawsuits that they took up against suspected file downloaders, rather than targeting 'real' pirates as a good thing when in reality it has pertinently tainted the name of the RIAA. I bet most consumers didn't even know who they were 5-10 years ago. Now they know them as the people who will try to sue the pants off you if you even install a P2P application, regardless of your intent or action. That doesnt mean they have stopped any piracy, it just means now they know who to look out for.
It's no wonder the news is more like watching Entertainment Tonight, there is too much conflict of interest. But what can be done?
We Internet savvy may find our news other ways, but lets face it there is a large percentage of the population who take cable/network news as gospel and if they haven't heard about it, then it's a non-issue (re: trying to explain something like SOPA to them).
On the post: MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Justified or not removing websites from the Internet because they are "ACCUSED" of piracy is censorship. Period.
On the post: MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Re: Re:
What the pro-SOPA/PIPA group wants is censorship. They feel that piracy is so 'evil' that it shouldn't be seen at all. The thing is, if there was some reasonable due process it might not be so bad to take down sites that are PROVEN to be illegal. But that's not what they want is it? They want the ability to censor any site immediately, to hell with collateral damage. If it doesn't directly affect them, who cares.
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Relish Irony Of SOPA's Great Firewall Of America
Re:
On the post: Spotting Counterfeit Chips Is Hard; Spotting Digital Piracy Is Even Harder
Re:
That's the point of digital copies, they are perfect replicas, or the copy process would be flawed. I know I wouldn't want to copy a Word document only to open it and find half the words changed.
On the post: MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet
Re: You haven't explained what could replace copyright.
Let's pretend for a moment that the laws would be used to truly target real criminals, as they claim. There would still be collateral damage that could do tremendous harm to the tech industry, as well as those relying on it.
Now I'm not suggesting that tech jobs should be saved instead of entertainment jobs, but it could be VERY easily argued that some of the entertainment jobs are simply disappearing due to the natural evolution of any industry when technologies improve/change. Thus while there may be losses in the entertainment industry, there will be greater gains in tech. The loss of these entertainment jobs will continue regardless of piracy or the introduction of these laws. But the loss of tech jobs due to the introduction of these laws is something that none of the supporters want to talk about or claim that these jobs are only there because of piracy, which is ridiculous.
So again it seems that these laws either need to be refocused or it's supporters need to admit that it's true intention is to control the Internet (or at least a good portion of it) and hold the tech industry hostage.
On the post: Supporters Of SOPA/PIPA Make Arguments That Make No Sense
Re: Re: Re: I have a question?
But it's not about the money is it? It's not even about the law. It's about control. The Internet has given control of reproduction to the world, free and fast. The thing is, if you supply the goods at a reasonable price and in the ways that consumers want to consume the goods, they WILL pay for it.
On the post: Supporters Of SOPA/PIPA Make Arguments That Make No Sense
Welfare for the labels more than the artists perhaps
I'm not saying that a professional studio can't/won't sound better but for a true artist, is all of that truly needed to get your art out to those who can appreciate it? 15 years ago, short of maybe your local audience, you'd be unknown. Today, with digital content and delivery, the music is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, and thanks to Facebook and Twitter and other social media, self-promotion is easily done as well.
So, the real issue is that the traditional music empire is crumbling. Yes people will lose their jobs, it happens every time a new disruptive technology comes out. Music is becoming democratized, not destroyed. The music industry may be dying but the artists and music creation will continue without them just fine.
THAT is the reason SOPA/PIPA are being pushed so hard by the industry. They are dying and they know it and they are trying desperately to hold onto the few fragments they still retain control of, namely their music libraries. It's not about protecting the investments they have made into the latest American Idol winner, it's about protecting the income they are still making from music created (and paid for) years ago.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but it's not going to be sustainable in this new digital environment. More and more music will be created and kept by the artists and the labels will become more and more irrelevant and looked upon with further scorn as they hold on to their dead business model.
Or they can figure out a way to adjust and become relevant again. Even if these laws are passed, they will not prevent the demise of the old business models.
(oh and i do not support or advocate 'piracy')
On the post: RIAA Claims It Succeeded In Getting Piracy Under Control Years Ago
Correlation does not imply causation
On the post: Keith Olbermann, No Longer Afraid Of Corporate Parent Interference, Willing To Talk On Air About PIPA/SOPA
Conflict of Interest
We Internet savvy may find our news other ways, but lets face it there is a large percentage of the population who take cable/network news as gospel and if they haven't heard about it, then it's a non-issue (re: trying to explain something like SOPA to them).
Next >>