This is exactly what I've been saying for a while now... SOPA and ACTA and the likes have never really been about stopping copyright infringement, but about trying to control the internet.
They (labels, movie studios, book publishers) were the gatekeepers, they could say what was shown to the people and what wasn't.
And those independent artists barely got a chance. Maybe they'd get famous locally, but not internationally.
But now with the Internet, they suddenly found out that their role as gatekeeper is over. Suddenly the independents have equal access. No longer can the labels and the publishers and the film studios dictate what goes and what doesn't. And they are scared, that's what this was all about.
They don't understand this new tech, and they are scared that they are fast becoming obsolete. And with the lack of power also comes the less funds for them. More people buying from other sources, supporting artists directly instead of going through many middlemen.
Re: Re: Re: Big corporations always exercise monopoly powers.
He is still saying the same thing in the article you linked. No dishonesty there, quote:
That is very much the way I feel about the legacy music and movie businesses. I'm a huge fan of movies, music and books. I would love for all those industries to continue to be as successful as possible, but that requires adapting, and, like Barry, I just don't see many of those legacy players doing a very good job adapting. But that doesn't mean I want them to fail, or even dislike them. I just wish they'd stop trying to muck up the rest of the world while they attempt to figure all of this out.
This is why I say that SOPA is about control. The labels could control radio (payola, and just how many independent artists have you heard over the years on radio and tv?), but they can't control the Internet.
The labels are deathly afraid that you're going to buy from independent artists instead of the artists that the labels approve off.
Ah yes, the collect-for-the-indies-in-case-they-might-want-a-part-of-the-royalty-pie-scam.
Because if they want their piece of that pie, they'd have to pay ludicrous membership fees, so it's not really worth their while to make claim to that money.
addendum:
People only have so much disposable income to spend on media.
(if they have any at all)
And now you have a market where store-bought video games cost about 50 bucks a game, that's a lot of records you could buy. Though even that is a bit of a stretch, as the prices of most cds haven't gone down much since the introduction of the pressed cd.
Or they are buying from people not alligned with your precious RIAA and MPAA. There are now a lot of indie artists that aren't signed up with labels, and they are making money.
Most 'pirates' are savvy enough to understand that buying a record or online download from a label-sponsored artist, almost nothing goes to the pocket of said artist. Most 'pirates' have enough grudges against the labels, that they don't want to be seen supporting those companies financially.
So, those 'pirates' then go to indies and buy from them.
Or wait till they can get a second-hand cd from somewhere. Because no money from that sale goes to the label.
No, I think that Jay has a point.
You do expect people to recognize you from all the other anonymous cowards on this site. You dismiss his points flat out by saying that you're not interested in a debate on the issues, because of your past experiences with him.
But he was right about your comment on power outages.
There is no law against nor for power outages.
Those are freak accidents. And it has no basis in a discussion on SOPA, unless you mean to use it to distract us from the real issues.
Sure, a power outage could prevent someone from speaking his mind. But that doesn't mean that power outages are designed to suppress free speech.
Whereas the design of the SOPA bill is solely based on suppression of freedom of speech, in order to gain control over the internet, and as an added bonus to rid the world from piracy (which will never happen btw, as piracy existed since the beginning of copyright laws)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "That is how you use this bill to censor"
You got it backwards. Your industry created the piracy.
By trying to lock a genie in a bottle with drm and region locking and general stupidity, your industry created a huge black market.
Consumers feel under-served, they want certain content, but they can't get that content legally, have to jump to weird hoops to get to the content that they want.
So what do you get, a black market that enabled consumers access to content they couldn't get previously, in formats that are easier to deal with. And it's cheaper too.
Meaning that they can spend their dollars on other things, such as food, going to a concert, buying loooooooooooots of t-shirts, etc.
So, you also agree that while old 'ownership laws'/copyright laws could (and sadly sometimes does) result in the removal of protected speech, SOPA is designed for the removal of protected speech?
My main problem with SOPA has nothing to do with stopping infringement
And you'd be right with that statement too. Stopping infringement is just a nice bonus. The law is about gaining control back. By being able to deny distributors access to credit card payments, the media industry (and any other industry) can hamper competition, and therefor gain back control over what the general public gets to watch.
No, copyright law is not to suppress speech. It never was. Copyright law grants you the copyright holder a temporary monopoly on content that you hold the copyright over.
In that (short) amount of time, you get all rights to it.
That law is not about piracy, it's about you being able to own creative works. That the outcome of this could mean that the work is pirated is the other side of the coin.
But no copyright law is about suppressing speech.
However, SOPA is. It deliberately gives the US government the power to block websites based on allegations and accusations. There is no court of law that checks these allegations and accusations, meanwhile the website that someone is complaining about is dead in the water. No credit card transactions, no DNS-records, nothing. THAT is what we call suppression of speech.
Sure, the intent of the law is to stop the "Pirate bay" and sites of that ilk (disregarding the legal uses those sites have), but do you know the term "mission creep"?
Where were you, when we were discussing the "rogue websites" list put out by one of the RIAA labels? That list contained a lot of websites that didn't distribute even files, but discussed music, and promoted artists.
And that's what we are afraid of (and about 100% sure will happen) when SOPA becomes law. The collateral damage. as someone said before, it's not a guided missile, it's a clusterbomb. And it goes to the heart of the internet. It is designed to deliberately destroy that what makes the internet, sharing of information.
No, we don't agree with those pirates, most of us don't even infringe on copyright. (granted, some of us do, and some of us have good reasons to defend that.) But on the whole, most of us NAY-sayers do so for solid and fair and sound reasons, which we have displayed over and over again.
And you can say: "it's not the intent". But the wording should reflect that intent, and as it stands right now, it too broad. It could be used as a nuke to the internet.
Repeat after me:
Copyright infringement is not theft.
One is a civil matter, the other is a criminal matter.
Don't conflate the two.
And there are no sites that solely exist to profit from other's creations. (nope, not even the Pirate Bay, as there is also loads of stuff on there, that's legal, such as albums uploaded by bands themselves, and Linux torrents, and archive.org files)
Besides, as long as a website offers the general public to upload their own works, chances are illegally acquired copyrighted material could show up there. Youtube could be taken off the net with SOPA, that's a clear violation of freedom of speech, as a lot of people use the Youtube platform to showcase their own works. To vent their own opinions.
Also, how do you distinguish the illegally uploaded copyrighted material from the legally uploaded copyrighted material? Anyone can call themselves "Universal_Music", who is to say that they are the real one?
These are all issues and hooks hanging on this badly written law, that have severe real world implications and problems.
On the post: SOPA Is Not About Copyright, It's About Regulating The Internet
They (labels, movie studios, book publishers) were the gatekeepers, they could say what was shown to the people and what wasn't.
And those independent artists barely got a chance. Maybe they'd get famous locally, but not internationally.
But now with the Internet, they suddenly found out that their role as gatekeeper is over. Suddenly the independents have equal access. No longer can the labels and the publishers and the film studios dictate what goes and what doesn't. And they are scared, that's what this was all about.
They don't understand this new tech, and they are scared that they are fast becoming obsolete. And with the lack of power also comes the less funds for them. More people buying from other sources, supporting artists directly instead of going through many middlemen.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android
Re: Re: Re: Big corporations always exercise monopoly powers.
(emphasis mine)
On the post: Kellogg Settles Toucan Trademark Dispute With Mayan Archaeology Group
"Fine" breakfast product
Kellog's Special K product is slightly magnetic. Their idea of iron additives, is actual metal iron and not the mineral iron.
You could try this: put a flake of Special K in a bowl of water, and get your trusty handy magnet, and try to attract the flake.
Disclaimer, this won't work in Denmark, where Special K is sold without additives.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android
Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish Study Shows File Sharing And Music Buying Go Hand-In-Hand
Re:
The labels are deathly afraid that you're going to buy from independent artists instead of the artists that the labels approve off.
On the post: Swedish Study Shows File Sharing And Music Buying Go Hand-In-Hand
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because if they want their piece of that pie, they'd have to pay ludicrous membership fees, so it's not really worth their while to make claim to that money.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Swedish Study Shows File Sharing And Music Buying Go Hand-In-Hand
Re: Re: Re:
People only have so much disposable income to spend on media.
(if they have any at all)
And now you have a market where store-bought video games cost about 50 bucks a game, that's a lot of records you could buy. Though even that is a bit of a stretch, as the prices of most cds haven't gone down much since the introduction of the pressed cd.
On the post: Swedish Study Shows File Sharing And Music Buying Go Hand-In-Hand
Re: Re:
Most 'pirates' are savvy enough to understand that buying a record or online download from a label-sponsored artist, almost nothing goes to the pocket of said artist. Most 'pirates' have enough grudges against the labels, that they don't want to be seen supporting those companies financially.
So, those 'pirates' then go to indies and buy from them.
Or wait till they can get a second-hand cd from somewhere. Because no money from that sale goes to the label.
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "That is how you use this bill to censor"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/02101616810/swedish-study-shows-file-shari ng-music-buying-go-hand-in-hand.shtml#c569
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do expect people to recognize you from all the other anonymous cowards on this site. You dismiss his points flat out by saying that you're not interested in a debate on the issues, because of your past experiences with him.
But he was right about your comment on power outages.
There is no law against nor for power outages.
Those are freak accidents. And it has no basis in a discussion on SOPA, unless you mean to use it to distract us from the real issues.
Sure, a power outage could prevent someone from speaking his mind. But that doesn't mean that power outages are designed to suppress free speech.
Whereas the design of the SOPA bill is solely based on suppression of freedom of speech, in order to gain control over the internet, and as an added bonus to rid the world from piracy (which will never happen btw, as piracy existed since the beginning of copyright laws)
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "That is how you use this bill to censor"
By trying to lock a genie in a bottle with drm and region locking and general stupidity, your industry created a huge black market.
Consumers feel under-served, they want certain content, but they can't get that content legally, have to jump to weird hoops to get to the content that they want.
So what do you get, a black market that enabled consumers access to content they couldn't get previously, in formats that are easier to deal with. And it's cheaper too.
Meaning that they can spend their dollars on other things, such as food, going to a concert, buying loooooooooooots of t-shirts, etc.
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Be interesting to know how much "Internet companies like Google"
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re:
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you'd be right with that statement too. Stopping infringement is just a nice bonus. The law is about gaining control back. By being able to deny distributors access to credit card payments, the media industry (and any other industry) can hamper competition, and therefor gain back control over what the general public gets to watch.
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In that (short) amount of time, you get all rights to it.
That law is not about piracy, it's about you being able to own creative works. That the outcome of this could mean that the work is pirated is the other side of the coin.
But no copyright law is about suppressing speech.
However, SOPA is. It deliberately gives the US government the power to block websites based on allegations and accusations. There is no court of law that checks these allegations and accusations, meanwhile the website that someone is complaining about is dead in the water. No credit card transactions, no DNS-records, nothing. THAT is what we call suppression of speech.
Sure, the intent of the law is to stop the "Pirate bay" and sites of that ilk (disregarding the legal uses those sites have), but do you know the term "mission creep"?
Where were you, when we were discussing the "rogue websites" list put out by one of the RIAA labels? That list contained a lot of websites that didn't distribute even files, but discussed music, and promoted artists.
And that's what we are afraid of (and about 100% sure will happen) when SOPA becomes law. The collateral damage. as someone said before, it's not a guided missile, it's a clusterbomb. And it goes to the heart of the internet. It is designed to deliberately destroy that what makes the internet, sharing of information.
No, we don't agree with those pirates, most of us don't even infringe on copyright. (granted, some of us do, and some of us have good reasons to defend that.) But on the whole, most of us NAY-sayers do so for solid and fair and sound reasons, which we have displayed over and over again.
And you can say: "it's not the intent". But the wording should reflect that intent, and as it stands right now, it too broad. It could be used as a nuke to the internet.
On the post: RIAA Thinking Of Backing Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: !!!
FTFY
On the post: SOPA Sponsors: Pass SOPA To Protect The Troops; Everyone Else: WTF?
Re: Re:
apparently it's #BF7253;
On the post: EU Parliament Warns The US To Stop Censoring The Internet
Re:
Copyright infringement is not theft.
One is a civil matter, the other is a criminal matter.
Don't conflate the two.
And there are no sites that solely exist to profit from other's creations. (nope, not even the Pirate Bay, as there is also loads of stuff on there, that's legal, such as albums uploaded by bands themselves, and Linux torrents, and archive.org files)
Besides, as long as a website offers the general public to upload their own works, chances are illegally acquired copyrighted material could show up there. Youtube could be taken off the net with SOPA, that's a clear violation of freedom of speech, as a lot of people use the Youtube platform to showcase their own works. To vent their own opinions.
Also, how do you distinguish the illegally uploaded copyrighted material from the legally uploaded copyrighted material? Anyone can call themselves "Universal_Music", who is to say that they are the real one?
These are all issues and hooks hanging on this badly written law, that have severe real world implications and problems.
Next >>