E. Zachary Knight (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 10:30am
Re: The core problem
Math recognizes piracy just fine. The problem is that the RIAA/MPAA have failed math.
Piracy is just an expression used to describe a certain amount of risk. Just like a retail store must factor in a certain amount of shrink into its profit projections, a content creator must factor in a certain amount of piracy.
The truth in the end that just as a retail store can factor in shrink and still make a profit, so can a content creator.
I think you have completely missed the point on spam and malware. Either that or you feigning ignorance to protect your position.
The reason ISPs and mail servers install spam blocking software on email accounts is because of market pressures to do so. In the early days of email, spam was rife on everyone's account. So those providing email services responded to customer demand for less spam by creating and installing software that detects and blocks spam. They did this because of market pressure from email users.
You can continue to pretend that it was not a public demand all you want, but you will continue to be wrong in ever respect.
I will respect your copyright when you respect mine. Under SOPA, only the copyrights of those with large lobbying budgets and teams of lawyers will have their copyrights respected.
But we certainly aren't building websites and astroturfing fake support groups to make it happen.
Says the side that founded Creative America.
The vast majority of the public outcry appears to be mostly coming from a very few small areas, mostly lead by the EFF and friends. I don't see people picketing the street. I don't see independent groups popping up against SOPA. What I see is content grifters, middlemen, and other "user content" operators getting in a tizzy because they might actually have to pay for the content on their sites, or actually check to see if they have rights to it.
See, here you are belittling and dehumanizing the opposition. That is one of the more common tactics of those who wish to limit the rights of others. By making the opposition appear less human than allies, those seeking such limits can rally more support. After all no one wants to be seen as supporting drug cartels, child pornographers, terrorists and international copyright pirates.
But the reality is far different. Those opposed to this legislation are not "content grifters, middlemen, and other "user content" operators". They are everyday citizens who love to use the internet to share and spread information. Under SOPA that ability to easily share information will hindered and threatened. These are people who have used the internet to build careers in not only web design and internet applications but also in creative sectors such as film, music, writing and game development. These people have used the internet to create success for themselves that was not possible 10 years ago. These people realize that under SOPA, this avenue of creative expression and career building will be threatened.
Further, let's be fair here: nobody likes MORE regulation. However, most of us accept regulation as the better alternative to lawlessness and disorder. We prefer stop signs and speed limits over lawless roads. We don't like to get a speeding ticket, but generally we understand the concepts at work and approve them. Nobody is going to get excited about speeding fines being raised. Most of us understand that it may need to happen to create more of a deterrent.
What exactly is the eminent threat that SOPA is to be preventing with its regulation? What threat to creativity is looming over the heads of content creators? The answer is a resounding "nothing". Game developers, film producers, musicians, writers of all stripes are succeeding quite well in the current climate. The only industries that are threatened are those legacy gatekeepers that used to control all aspects of creation and distribution. Their position has been threatened by the proliferation of the internet and that is why they need SOPA. The individual creators don't need it.
Polls like this serve only to get in the way of reasoned debate. They don't add anything, and they certainly don't say anything about the public at large.
I completely disagree. Polls like this should act as a springboard into more scientific study and polling.
It makes for an interesting talking point that could lead to a more balanced debate as more people seek out more information.
No, dumbass. If the people haven't spoken, we should ASSUME NOTHING.
I completely agree with that. However, I have seen time and time again that those who are in favor of something that the general interested public is opposed to use that silence to their advantage.
Take for instance the issue of an R18 rating for video games in Australia. The government there held a public submission process to gauge public opinion on the matter. When the overall majority of submissions came from pro-R18 crowd, the government decided that because the "silent majority" hadn't entered into the discussion, they should hold off voting on the issue while they try to coerce the "silent majority" to speak.
The fact that so much public outcry over the issue of SOPA has come should be a good indicator of public opinion, not because the majority of people in a self selected sample oppose it, but that the majority after being educated on the issue oppose it.
That seems to be the story I read most often. The majority of the US citizenry do not know that SOPA even exists let alone what it will do. Yet, when those same people learn about it, they immediately write to their Congressmen over their opposition.
The fact that the same cannot be said of the Pro-SOPA crowd is quite telling.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 12:03pm
Re:
Are you really saying that censorship in response to copyright infringement is more noble an endeavor than censorship to protect the state's interests?
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am
Re:
First off, any online poll is polluted because for the most part, the only people participating are those who have an interest.
That is true and Mike indicated as such.
If anything, the 29% "support" number should be scary to those who oppose SOPA, because there is no grass roots campaign FOR SOPA going on... yet a third of people in the subset support it.
Yes that is scary. However, It could be that the majority of those people didn't "google" it as directed and based it off the name of the bill. After all who wouldn't want to stop piracy. Of course I am projecting onto those people.
Further, the second sentence is great. Your implication is that because the average American hasn't pronounced in a poll, it's somehow clear that there isn't any support.
Of course. If the people haven't spoken up about SOPA, we should just assume that they support the bill. I see no problems with that line of thinking. /sarcasm
It is hard to gauge public opinion on the matter through a poll like this, but it is a good indicator of public opinion and if it is not enough to sway Congress's opinion, it should be enough to warrant further more scientific survey methods into public support for SOPA.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 10:25am
Re:
I think election campaigns are a bit out of Kickstarter's scope. However, a site dedicated to political campaigns for those who support internet freedom and the US Constitution might be a sweet idea.
However, you might end up going against some obscure election law on either the Federal or state level or possibly both. So the overall legality of it could be questionable.
However, running such a fund raiser yourself might not be such a bad idea.
I agree with your sentiment. These kinds of statements add no value whatsoever to the overall discussion here.
However, I do take issue with your characterization of the intent behind our opposition. We no more want to block SOPA so that we can "get something of value for free" than we want to execute supporters of SOPA.
Rather, we want to protect the integrity of the internet and our Constitutional rights to free speech. SOPA is one of the Biggest threats to that in the last 50 years.
I think the frustration is that the problems you describe as arising from hacking the OtherOS function is that those problems could have been fixed while leaving the OtherOS function in place.
Sony had a very compelling reason to do what they did, and the courts agreed.
Not exactly. The Judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not provide a compelling case that Sony's action was illegal. That is different than siding with Sony.
Further, let's take it the other way - are you pissed off when your smart phone gets a firmware upgrade and adds new features? Do you think that companies should also be blocked from improving functionality? Should your purchased device remain the same, never fixed? Think about it next to you apply a software patch.
That is an interesting scenario you place there. I personally have no problem with adding functionality. What I have a problem with is removing functionality for undisclosed "security reasons" especially when such security reasons could be addressed while leaving said functionality in place.
Re: Why don't restaurants allow you to bring your own food and eat at their tables?
They would have to cover up the ISBN as well. Oh and the title. Can't have people doing a title search. The book description would also allow people to google the book.
The best way to win customers is to make shopping as inconvenient as possible.
Sounds more like he is trying to pull all sound recording copyrights under the Federal umbrella. Sound recording from prior to 1972 are governed by individual state copyright laws. Not Federal. Bringing them under Federal copyright law would actually make them more reasonable in some cases.
On the post: Reuters Media Columnist Explains That SOPA/PIPA Are A 'Cure Worse Than The Disease'
Re: The core problem
Piracy is just an expression used to describe a certain amount of risk. Just like a retail store must factor in a certain amount of shrink into its profit projections, a content creator must factor in a certain amount of piracy.
The truth in the end that just as a retail store can factor in shrink and still make a profit, so can a content creator.
On the post: Reuters Media Columnist Explains That SOPA/PIPA Are A 'Cure Worse Than The Disease'
Re:
On the post: New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason ISPs and mail servers install spam blocking software on email accounts is because of market pressures to do so. In the early days of email, spam was rife on everyone's account. So those providing email services responded to customer demand for less spam by creating and installing software that detects and blocks spam. They did this because of market pressure from email users.
You can continue to pretend that it was not a public demand all you want, but you will continue to be wrong in ever respect.
On the post: New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the side that founded Creative America.
The vast majority of the public outcry appears to be mostly coming from a very few small areas, mostly lead by the EFF and friends. I don't see people picketing the street. I don't see independent groups popping up against SOPA. What I see is content grifters, middlemen, and other "user content" operators getting in a tizzy because they might actually have to pay for the content on their sites, or actually check to see if they have rights to it.
See, here you are belittling and dehumanizing the opposition. That is one of the more common tactics of those who wish to limit the rights of others. By making the opposition appear less human than allies, those seeking such limits can rally more support. After all no one wants to be seen as supporting drug cartels, child pornographers, terrorists and international copyright pirates.
But the reality is far different. Those opposed to this legislation are not "content grifters, middlemen, and other "user content" operators". They are everyday citizens who love to use the internet to share and spread information. Under SOPA that ability to easily share information will hindered and threatened. These are people who have used the internet to build careers in not only web design and internet applications but also in creative sectors such as film, music, writing and game development. These people have used the internet to create success for themselves that was not possible 10 years ago. These people realize that under SOPA, this avenue of creative expression and career building will be threatened.
Further, let's be fair here: nobody likes MORE regulation. However, most of us accept regulation as the better alternative to lawlessness and disorder. We prefer stop signs and speed limits over lawless roads. We don't like to get a speeding ticket, but generally we understand the concepts at work and approve them. Nobody is going to get excited about speeding fines being raised. Most of us understand that it may need to happen to create more of a deterrent.
What exactly is the eminent threat that SOPA is to be preventing with its regulation? What threat to creativity is looming over the heads of content creators? The answer is a resounding "nothing". Game developers, film producers, musicians, writers of all stripes are succeeding quite well in the current climate. The only industries that are threatened are those legacy gatekeepers that used to control all aspects of creation and distribution. Their position has been threatened by the proliferation of the internet and that is why they need SOPA. The individual creators don't need it.
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
I completely disagree. Polls like this should act as a springboard into more scientific study and polling.
It makes for an interesting talking point that could lead to a more balanced debate as more people seek out more information.
No, dumbass. If the people haven't spoken, we should ASSUME NOTHING.
I completely agree with that. However, I have seen time and time again that those who are in favor of something that the general interested public is opposed to use that silence to their advantage.
Take for instance the issue of an R18 rating for video games in Australia. The government there held a public submission process to gauge public opinion on the matter. When the overall majority of submissions came from pro-R18 crowd, the government decided that because the "silent majority" hadn't entered into the discussion, they should hold off voting on the issue while they try to coerce the "silent majority" to speak.
The fact that so much public outcry over the issue of SOPA has come should be a good indicator of public opinion, not because the majority of people in a self selected sample oppose it, but that the majority after being educated on the issue oppose it.
That seems to be the story I read most often. The majority of the US citizenry do not know that SOPA even exists let alone what it will do. Yet, when those same people learn about it, they immediately write to their Congressmen over their opposition.
The fact that the same cannot be said of the Pro-SOPA crowd is quite telling.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re:
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re:
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re:
That is true and Mike indicated as such.
If anything, the 29% "support" number should be scary to those who oppose SOPA, because there is no grass roots campaign FOR SOPA going on... yet a third of people in the subset support it.
Yes that is scary. However, It could be that the majority of those people didn't "google" it as directed and based it off the name of the bill. After all who wouldn't want to stop piracy. Of course I am projecting onto those people.
Further, the second sentence is great. Your implication is that because the average American hasn't pronounced in a poll, it's somehow clear that there isn't any support.
Of course. If the people haven't spoken up about SOPA, we should just assume that they support the bill. I see no problems with that line of thinking. /sarcasm
It is hard to gauge public opinion on the matter through a poll like this, but it is a good indicator of public opinion and if it is not enough to sway Congress's opinion, it should be enough to warrant further more scientific survey methods into public support for SOPA.
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: letter to Reps
On the post: EU Council Quietly Adopts ACTA, By Hiding It In An Agriculture And Fisheries Meeting
Re: Re: Consent of the governed?
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re:
However, you might end up going against some obscure election law on either the Federal or state level or possibly both. So the overall legality of it could be questionable.
However, running such a fund raiser yourself might not be such a bad idea.
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: ...
On the Senate Side we have Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Felony Streaming Bill.
On the House Side we have the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which is a bastardization of the two bills in the Senate.
While all three bills are bad in their own rights, SOPA is the worst of them all.
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: letter to Reps
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Et tu, senators?
However, I do take issue with your characterization of the intent behind our opposition. We no more want to block SOPA so that we can "get something of value for free" than we want to execute supporters of SOPA.
Rather, we want to protect the integrity of the internet and our Constitutional rights to free speech. SOPA is one of the Biggest threats to that in the last 50 years.
On the post: Judge Says OtherOS Removal Was A Bad Business Decision But Not Illegal
Re: Re: Re: I don't get the outrage...
Sony had a very compelling reason to do what they did, and the courts agreed.
Not exactly. The Judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not provide a compelling case that Sony's action was illegal. That is different than siding with Sony.
Further, let's take it the other way - are you pissed off when your smart phone gets a firmware upgrade and adds new features? Do you think that companies should also be blocked from improving functionality? Should your purchased device remain the same, never fixed? Think about it next to you apply a software patch.
That is an interesting scenario you place there. I personally have no problem with adding functionality. What I have a problem with is removing functionality for undisclosed "security reasons" especially when such security reasons could be addressed while leaving said functionality in place.
On the post: Local Bookstores Call For Boycott Of Amazon For Advertising Their Prices
Re: Why don't restaurants allow you to bring your own food and eat at their tables?
The best way to win customers is to make shopping as inconvenient as possible.
On the post: Tons Of Amendments Proposed For SOPA
Re: Missed one thing
Next >>