This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
SOPA... Looks Like It May Be A Scandal.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
1) The US government cannot stop online piracy. It lacks the resources. Any power given to the US government to put limits to what can be done on the internet will not result in an end to piracy. Therefore, why give any sort of that power to the US government? No rewording of this bill will result in an effective anti-piracy law. It isn't as if I'm pro-piracy, I'm just pro-reality.
So, if you can't stop the Somalian pirates (let's be realistic), it's ok not to take action against them? Why not apply that to the Taliban?
2) The US government has been flippant in the case of SOPA. It has put something dangerous on the table without really weighing the consequences. In regards to future laws concerning the internet, I want some serious thought put into those bills. SOPA is the perfect opportunity to tar and feather a lousy job by the government and send it all the way back to the brainstorming process. Next time I want them to think before they leap.
I would have thought the best way to tar and feather a lousy job would be to force them to water it down and change it until it's completely unrecognisable from the original bill put forward. Here, you're just giving them another opportunity to screw up by making it about popularity, rather than stamp the actual issues in their face. As an example, GoDaddy aren't withdrawing their support because they've realised the folly of their ways, they're withdrawing their support because people are boycotting them. What have they learned from this, other than popularity = money?
3) The US government needs to focus on more important things right now than movie piracy.
There are a lot of things that all governments need to focus on. If you want to talk about what's more important, perhaps they should look at the nomination system and quit fluffing around with primaries and backstabbing, have the nation focus on actual issues.
That's just it, though. I would say the majority of people do disagree with the fundamental core purpose of the legislation. This legislation isn't about pirating, it's about censorship. If the bill was just treating pirating you wouldn't have so many powerful websites opposing it.
Last time I checked, the proposed legislation was called the 'Stop Online Piracy Act', not the 'Start Online Censorship Act'. If they have issues with the censorship, they should deal with the censorship parts of the bill, which is precisely what I'm advocating.
That being said, your committing an argument from authority - there are a lot of powerful companies opposing a lot of things. Like, you know, the movie industry opposing piracy. Just because they're a big website doesn't make them automatically right.
Arrest the thief for stealing, not shut down the market for having steal-able goods.
They're not shutting down the market for having steal-able goods. They're shutting down the market where the thief off-loads their goods, because the market-owners aren't ensuring that criminals don't set up shop.
Clearly, the media companies can get pirate web sites (even foreign ones) taken down when they really want to.
The reason it's not working is that Megaupload has lasted for years and years being a source of pirated material. It's only now that they've missed a deadline on this particular request that they can be shut down in accordance with existing laws, despite the fact that new pirated material is being uploaded every day. The burden of proof is on authorities to identify and issue cease and desist notices, as opposed to being on Megaupload to offer a non-pirated service. That's the issue.
Post by
MyTie
So, if you can't stop the Somalian pirates (let's be realistic), it's ok not to take action against them? Why not apply that to the Taliban?Somalian pirates are stoppable. You can shoot them in the head. Taliban is stoppable. You can shoot them in the head. You can't shoot internet pirates in the head anymore than you can shoot unicorns in the head.2) The US government has been flippant in the case of SOPA. It has put something dangerous on the table without really weighing the consequences. In regards to future laws concerning the internet, I want some serious thought put into those bills. SOPA is the perfect opportunity to tar and feather a lousy job by the government and send it all the way back to the brainstorming process. Next time I want them to think before they leap.
I would have thought the best way to tar and feather a lousy job would be to force them to water it down and change it until it's completely unrecognisable from the original bill put forward.We disagree on this. Then again, it is subjective. If the US Congress came up with a Stop Violent Unicorns law, and made a nationwide cerfew of 6PM, then I wouldn't want them to take away the 6pm cerfew part. I'd want them to scrap the whole thing, then vote them out of office for being ignorant of the issues they are attempting to make laws about. That's the situation here. The US Congress is attempting to pass a sweeping law to stop something they stand NO chance of stopping, and are instead risking reshaping the entire internet from
this
to
this
. Sorry, but they can GTFO. I don't want to compromise with a bunch of reckless idiots. This isn't about holding hands, getting along, and hunting unicorns. This is about them coming a few inches of sending a wrecking ball through the greatest invention of mankind in the name of something utterly and completely moronic and benign. And, what, I am being unreasonable? They have no business doing what they are doing. They have no jurisdiction where they are attempting to preside. They have no ability to do what they are attempting. They are stupid. This law is stupid. It stands no chance of doing anything but harm. Burn it, seal its ashes in cement, dump the cement block into the deepest chasm of the ocean, take a blood oath to never do anything that dumb again, and don't look back.
3) The US government needs to focus on more important things right now than movie piracy.
There are a lot of things that all governments need to focus on. If you want to talk about what's more important, perhaps they should look at the nomination system and quit fluffing around with primaries and backstabbing, have the nation focus on actual issues.What is this? Are you agreeing? Are you trying to distract from SOPA? This is the second time in a week you've attempted to put out an argument by setting fire to something else. I've been in enough debates to not fall for it. Stick to SOPA.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
The reason it's not working is that Megaupload has lasted for years and years being a source of pirated material. It's only now that they've missed a deadline on this particular request that they can be shut down in accordance with existing laws, despite the fact that new pirated material is being uploaded every day. The burden of proof is on authorities to identify and issue cease and desist notices, as opposed to being on Megaupload to offer a non-pirated service. That's the issue.
That's not an issue, that's
due process of law
. You know, that whole
innocent until proven guilty
thing.
If the authorities are slow to execute that due process, that is an entirely separate issue that SOPA does not even attempt to address. SOPA just bypasses it entirely by making the content owners judge, jury, and executioner.
Post by
Squishalot
Somalian pirates are stoppable. You can shoot them in the head. Taliban is stoppable. You can shoot them in the head. You can't shoot internet pirates in the head anymore than you can shoot unicorns in the head.
So you're trying to say that internet pirates don't exist? Or are you really trying to say that it's not morally acceptable to shoot internet pirates in the head? Because either way, I'm pretty sure that an internet pirate is equally mortal as a Somalian pirate.
What is this? Are you agreeing? Are you trying to distract from SOPA? This is the second time in a week you've attempted to put out an argument by setting fire to something else. I've been in enough debates to not fall for it. Stick to SOPA.
No, I'm not trying to distract. I'm saying that SOPA is more important than other crap that they're concerning themselves with, so your argument that it's a low priority is fairly meaningless, because it's still higher priority than other issues that you're not objecting against.
Post by
MyTie
So you're trying to say that internet pirates don't exist? Or are you really trying to say that it's not morally acceptable to shoot internet pirates in the head? Because either way, I'm pretty sure that an internet pirate is equally mortal as a Somalian pirate.I'm saying the US government lacks the ability to find and stop online piracy. They may hamper it temporarily, but there are easy ways around every tool they have, unless they clamp down ala communism on the internet. The only REAL targets that the government will have if it passes SOPA has is legitimate US based websites, like google and wikipedia. If the US does attempt something this idiotic, I would advocate the transfer of all web databases to Sweden. Would that rip a huge chunk out of the US economy? Yep. Would it allow pirates to keep downloading/uploading copyrighted material? Yep. Would it teach the US a lesson concerning over regulation by the government? Yep. If you have brain tumor, you don't cut your head off to get rid of your cancer.
No, I'm not trying to distract. I'm saying that SOPA is more important than other crap that they're concerning themselves with, so your argument that it's a low priority is fairly meaningless, because it's still higher priority than other issues that you're not objecting against.
So you think the republican presidential primary debates are not as important as stopping piracy? You think that the presidential nomination process is less important than making sure people don't download Avatar for free?
Post by
OverZealous
You're smashing in one good post after another, MyTie - I applaud you for everything you've said that I would like to say but quite lack the ability to put it in text. Whole-heartedly agree with your points. And, for once, the majority of Off-topic seems to do the same. This really is opposites day
^^
Post by
MyTie
Whole-heartedly agree with your points. And, for once, the majority of Off-topic seems to do the same.
I know. It's kind of crazy. Most of the time, Off-topic enjoys being wrong. I enjoy the reprieve from being the only one who is correct. =)
On the other hand, this is one topic that the ACLU, Moveon, and the Tea Party Patriots all agree on. I think it's a pretty cut and dry topic. It's not even really that controversial, because not many people are arguing for SOPA. The only ones who are willing to take a nice steamy dump on the internet are those who stand to gain money (hollywood), the politicians in their pocket (Sen Dodd), and the few and far between people who don't really get it (Squishy). Nearly everyone else is in agreement.
My only hope is that no law on the books in any jurisdiction will be powerful enough to stop or permanently wound the internet. The possibilities of the technology are still beyond our imagination, and I think the web is still in its infancy. I predict that a system of government will arise from it that will be more effective than any form of government we have ever had, and will unify the world in peace. I think we can cure any disease, feed every mouth, solve every problem, with enough technology. It may not happen for a few centuries, but the internet is the first baby-step toward utopia. I just can't imagine that getting flushed down the kamode because of movie downloads... such a shame. This would be the biggest waste of potential since the crucifixion of Jesus.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm saying the US government lacks the ability to find and stop online piracy. They may hamper it temporarily, but there are easy ways around every tool they have, unless they clamp down ala communism on the internet.
Just like they lack the ability to find and stop the Taliban, but that went straight over your head.
The only REAL targets that the government will have if it passes SOPA has is legitimate US based websites, like google and wikipedia.
Did you forget my goal in this conversation? As soon as you talk about 'passing SOPA' in the context of 'SOPA unchanged', you're strawmanning your entire argument.
So you think the republican presidential primary debates are not as important as stopping piracy? You think that the presidential nomination process is less important than making sure people don't download Avatar for free?
I think the question of how much tax Romney pays is less important than making sure people don't download illegally, yes.
and the few and far between people who don't really get it (Squishy).
I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. Please clarify where I supported SOPA in its current form.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It is US law that affects something global (If I understand this correctly and based on Megaupload incident).
Not quite. The servers in question were based in Virginia, which falls under US law, fair and square.
The impact on the Hong Kong company is not really very different to Kodak's international subsidiaries after it filed for bankruptcy protection.
Post by
Asylu
I really feel awkward asking this....But Squish, do you work for a major entertainment company? You seem rather biased in your arguments for SOPA.
I understand that media pirating is "bad", but it has been going on longer than normal people having access to the Internet. I grew up during the lovely transition from cassettes to CDs, so I remember making mix tapes from the radio. Every person I know over the age of 25 should know what I am talking about.
And for those who don't I shall explain.
A mix tape is created by taking a boom box ( a portable radio with two tape decks ) and waiting for your favorite songs to come on the radio, then quickly pressing record.
This is piracy. And so was using your VCR like TiVo to record TV shows while you were out, but who's parents didn't do it?
My friends and I traded mix tapes all the time. Heck, one friend made some great pocket change making and selling them because he had the luck to catch the whole song and it didn't sound muffled or anything. He was a media pirate, like every other kid in America at the time. From the early 70's til mid to late 90's chances were good that your parents couldn't afford to buy you every single album you wanted. So, you hijacked them off the radio and never thought twice about it.
We still have radio stations, we still have cassette recorders/CD burners, and we have ways to capture the sound waves coming out of speakers that doesn't involve the Internet. Add that together and you have media pirating. Untraceable, unless they take down radio stations.
And it's there that we reach a logical impasse, because people will always find a way to pirate the media unless they can't access it and you can't make a profit if people can't hear/see it. All SOPA will allow is for corporate entities to bypass our First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth rights granted to us by the Bill of Rights at will.
TL;DR
SOPA is a clear violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People have pirated media for as long as they have been able to record it at home and always will.
Post by
Squishalot
No need to feel awkward. No, I don't - I've made it fairly clear in the past that I work in the banking and finance industry and have been all my working life - I've got no political agendas to hide. (Note - this has made discussions in the Occupy thread quite difficult at times.)
That being said, I'd like to clarify (again!) that I'm not 'for SOPA'. I'm anti-piracy. I don't think that SOPA as it stands should be enacted, but I think that the appropriate course of action is to debate and adjust it until it is suitable for fighting piracy, not to scrap it entirely.
The issue with your argument about mix tapes and VCRs is that they're for private use. If you recorded a show, then played it as entertainment at a restaurant, you'd be in trouble. Keeping copies of free-to-air broadcasts for private use is protected by legislation (at least, it is in Australia, I believe).
I remember trading copies of CDs and games at school, or being overseas and buying cheap copies of games. I also remember acknowledging that it was it was illegal and wrong - I've never tried to convince myself that it wasn't piracy. People might try to accuse me of being hypocritical about my stance, but I'll be the first to admit that we haven't always been smart about doing things when we were younger.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Asylu
That being said, I'd like to clarify (again!) that I'm not 'for SOPA'. I'm anti-piracy. I don't think that SOPA as it stands should be enacted, but I think that the appropriate course of action is to debate and adjust it until it is suitable for fighting piracy, not to scrap it entirely.
The issue with your argument about mix tapes and VCRs is that they're for private use. If you recorded a show, then played it as entertainment at a restaurant, you'd be in trouble. Keeping copies of free-to-air broadcasts for private use is protected by legislation (at least, it is in Australia, I believe).
I remember trading copies of CDs and games at school, or being overseas and buying cheap copies of games. I also remember acknowledging that it was it was illegal and wrong - I've never tried to convince myself that it wasn't piracy. People might try to accuse me of being hypocritical about my stance, but I'll be the first to admit that we haven't always been smart about doing things when we were younger.
And the 98% of people who pirate music and movies off line are doing it for private use. I don't go to a restaurant and hook my laptop up to some speakers to play music, I burn it to some CDs for in the car or load it up on my mp3 player.
Yes, stopping the people who are making a serious amount of money off of true piracy acts, like embedding virus code and hacking various accounts for different things is a good idea, but as it is right now SOPA is pure censorship that will backlash horrifyingly on the international economy. It is allowing private institutions the right to infringe on American civil liberties without any due process.
I will own up and say that yes I have pirated music and movies, but in just about every instance it has allowed me to find out if I was willing to invest in the purchase of what ever it was I downloaded. Take My Chemical Romance's latest album, I downloaded a few songs to see if I really wanted that album and was willing to shell out the $20 for it. I did so happily, because I sampled and found it worth owning. The same for just about every movie I own.
If I hadn't done so, I would have never bought any of them, just because the risk of not liking it was too great.
I am all for shutting down true piracy, people making a profit from the downloads. But most people aren't. And SOPA won't stop them.
Post by
MyTie
I'm saying the US government lacks the ability to find and stop online piracy. They may hamper it temporarily, but there are easy ways around every tool they have, unless they clamp down ala communism on the internet.
Just like they lack the ability to find and stop the Taliban, but that went straight over your head.It didn't go over my head. It went into my head, then promptly hit my reality filter, and set off my BS alarms. The Taliban identify themselves, and make threats. They have a structure of leadership that they make publicly known. They administer law to the people they rule. They have money going into and out of their organization through banks that are traceable. Some 16 year old downloading avatar through a proxy server in Sweden isn't "touchable" by the US government.
The Taliban is
. Your Taliban example is horrible. If they did seriously go after pirates, they might have temporary and limited success, until people found jurisdictional havens, and ways to mask their identity.
The only REAL targets that the government will have if it passes SOPA has is legitimate US based websites, like google and wikipedia.
Did you forget my goal in this conversation? As soon as you talk about 'passing SOPA' in the context of 'SOPA unchanged', you're strawmanning your entire argument.I assumed you understood the transitive property. Allow me to reword:
If legitimate websites are not your target, then SOPA has no effective target, no matter how it is worded. Rewording and passing SOPA is pointless.
So you think the republican presidential primary debates are not as important as stopping piracy? You think that the presidential nomination process is less important than making sure people don't download Avatar for free?
I think the question of how much tax Romney pays is less important than making sure people don't download illegally, yes.Subjective. For the record, I disagree. I want to know if who I am voting for cheats on his taxes. I don't care that Avatar only made 760M instead of 770M. Unfortunate? Yes. Is it going to change the face of the country as much as who is elected president? No, no, no, hell no.and the few and far between people who don't really get it (Squishy).
I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. Please clarify where I supported SOPA in its current form.First of all, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm sure you think you've got a great grasp on this issue. Second, if you support SOPA in any form, then
you don't get it
. You don't get that passing a law that gives government more power over our freedoms, to help them stop an unstoppable group of people, makes no sense. It seems no matter how I word it, you just don't get it.
Post by
Squishalot
And the 98% of people who pirate music and movies off line are doing it for private use. I don't go to a restaurant and hook my laptop up to some speakers to play music, I burn it to some CDs for in the car or load it up on my mp3 player.
Free-to-air broadcast - key point. Was that music / movie copied off a CD or DVD? Or a camcorder in a cinema?
If I hadn't done so, I would have never bought any of them, just because the risk of not liking it was too great.
I know, that's what a lot of people use for justification. I don't think it's fair, any more than eating an apple in the supermarket is, and only then deciding whether to buy it or not.
I've been slammed for this view in the past, but I do honestly think that when we buy something, part of the cost is a risk that we're not going to like it. We do this in our every day life all the time - everything physical we buy, there's a chance we're not going to like it. We mitigate that risk by buying things that we've experienced in the past, that we've been recommended by friends, or by researching in advance. There are enough free avenues around to test a CD before buying without needing to add further demand to an illegal distribution method.
It didn't go over my head. It went into my head, then promptly hit my reality filter, and set off my BS alarms. The Taliban identify themselves, and make threats. They have a structure of leadership that they make publicly known. They administer law to the people they rule. They have money going into and out of their organization through banks that are traceable. Some 16 year old downloading avatar through a proxy server in Sweden isn't "touchable" by the US government. The Taliban is. Your Taliban example is horrible. If they did seriously go after pirates, they might have temporary and limited success, until people found jurisdictional havens, and ways to mask their identity.
It's only not 'touchable' because the US Government doesn't want to invade Sweden. If I set up a terrorist group in Sweden, I'll similarly won't be "touchable". Anonymous is equally "touchable" as the Taliban, and equally hard to find, just for different reasons.
If legitimate websites are not your target, then SOPA has no effective target, no matter how it is worded. Rewording and passing SOPA is pointless.
What you're implying is that: "If legitimate websites are not your target, then <i>any legislation</i> has no effective target, no matter how it is worded. Passing <any legislation> is pointless."
To suggest that SOPA cannot be rejigged and passed to fight piracy is to say that no legislation will be able to.
Subjective. For the record, I disagree. I want to know if who I am voting for cheats on his taxes.
From what I understand, it's to determine if he's part of the 1% or not. It's a popularist stunt to show he's only paying 20% effective tax or something because he derives most of his money from investments, not income. I would, in fact, argue that he deserves a right to privacy on the issue, because it's his affairs, and that the rest of the US should be satisfied that the IRS aren't on his back.
I suppose the big difference is, you overemphasise who the President is. But that's an entirely different topic.
You don't get that passing a law that gives government more power over our freedoms, to help them stop an unstoppable group of people, makes no sense.
No, I simply have different assumptions to you. I'm not as anti-big-government as you are. I don't think that they're an unstoppable group of people. It's like saying marijuana smokers are an unstoppable group of people. If you really wanted, there are ways to stop piracy from happening, just the vast majority of it would be politically untenable, because of the number of pirate voters. That's not to say that the pirates are unstoppable.
Post by
gamerunknown
I would, in fact, argue that he deserves a right to privacy on the issue, because it's his affairs, and that the rest of the US should be satisfied that the IRS aren't on his back.
This is a politician that's advocated the closing of
tax loopholes
that is going to be at the head of government in the country with the biggest GDP in the world. I'm fairly sure rank hypocrisy is a pretty big indicator that someone is not fit to lead.
Anyway, I'm merely advocating the principles purportedly espoused by free market activists. Efficiency in distribution, the principle of currency and opposition to protectionism (also, voluntarism). We shouldn't have to pledge fealty to unaccountable institutions because they threaten that reduced profits will ruin their industry - and that any person that isn't a prospective customer is depriving them of profits. There are still excellent radio shows and books.
Post by
MyTie
That's not to say that the pirates are unstoppable.
I agree. One way we could stop the pirates is to detonate massive EMPs hourly in every major city in the United States. That would severely hamper, if not completely stop all transmission of copyright material to outside the US.
Would you be in favor of the EMP approach?
Post by
Squishalot
This is a politician that's advocated the closing of tax loopholes that is going to be at the head of government in the country with the biggest GDP in the world. I'm fairly sure rank hypocrisy is a pretty big indicator that someone is not fit to lead.
How does his flip-flopping on tax issues have anything to do with his personal tax position?
Anyway, I'm merely advocating the principles purportedly espoused by free market activists. Efficiency in distribution, the principle of currency and opposition to protectionism (also, voluntarism). We shouldn't have to pledge fealty to unaccountable institutions because they threaten that reduced profits will ruin their industry - and that any person that isn't a prospective customer is depriving them of profits. There are still excellent radio shows and books.
The free market solution would suggest that if people are making supernormal profits (which the studios and game companies are being accused of, along with the rest of Corporate America), people should set up their own competition and undercut them, until the price falls to a competitive, fair price.
A classic economics market pricing example is the tiered pricing used by cinemas - the people with more money are charged more (adult full price) than the people with less money (students, kids, concession). I'd be interested to see which economics lecturer recommends that the market's approach to high cinema prices is to sneak into movies without paying.
In the case of unique products like games and movies, the answer is to innovate and create better games. That's what they did prior to the invention of the internet. Now, if companies start losing sales, they just produce another sequel.
I agree. One way we could stop the pirates is to detonate massive EMPs hourly in every major city in the United States. That would severely hamper, if not completely stop all transmission of copyright material to outside the US.
Would you be in favor of the EMP approach?
Strawman. It's obvious that you're not interested in finding a practical solution to piracy, irrespective of your stated stance on the issue. I'm done discussing this with you.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
I agree. One way we could stop the pirates is to detonate massive EMPs hourly in every major city in the United States. That would severely hamper, if not completely stop all transmission of copyright material to outside the US.
Would you be in favor of the EMP approach?
Strawman. It's obvious that you're not interested in finding a practical solution to piracy, irrespective of your stated stance on the issue. I'm done discussing this with you.
A "strawman" is where someone's position is being misrepresented, and that misrepresentation is argued against. I'm not misrepresenting your position. The EMP idea wasn't placed into your mouth. It came solely from me. I've asked for specific ways that internet piracy could be fought, with acceptable risk to internet freedom. You have failed to offer anything. I figured I'd start throwing out ideas. If you don't like my ideas, fine. Why not present some of your own?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.