We try to stay out of politics that aren't local and revolve around the arena issue here, but given today's web-wide focus on Congress' Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the fact that Sactown Royalty nor any SB Nation sites are going dark like Wikipedia and Reddit, I figured I'd share some info on the official position of SB Nation's parent company, Vox Media.
You can read that position in full at The Verge (Vox's excellent consumer electronics branch), as well as at SBNation.com. What it boils down to is this: SOPA looks at a legit crack in the foundation of the internet -- the piracy of paid content -- and elects to tear the entire building down. SOPA would force content providers who include community elements -- like Sactown Royalty, which has vibrant comment threads and robust FanPost and FanShot sections -- to become the enforcement arm of Hollywood, the music industry and the rights holders to sporting event broadcasts. The same would apply to virtually every website based in the United States, causing a completely destructive reworking of the internet as we know it.
We have long had a blanket policy on Sactown Royalty that you do not ask for or provide illicit streams of games in our threads. We have banned members for abuses of that practice, and feel that we have been a good partner of the NBA in this regard. We obviously don't tolerate links to any other pirated material such as movies or albums. But SOPA would force us to spend considerable time and money on compliance and all but castrates previous federal protections for sites who rely on user-generated content.
SOPA is like taking a sledgehammer to a thumbtack, and it's bad policy. As sports fans, consumers of web content and members of Sactown Royalty, you should be rightly concerned, and we urge you to contact your Congresspeople to express your displeasure with the bill and its Senate counterpart, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).
6 recs | 132 comments
There's a petition floating around the net against this ( I don't have a link).
To me, this certainly is one of those times where the American public has to take matters into their own hands because these policies do not have the general populas’ best interest in mind, IMO.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
There's a link to a petition on the front page of Canis Hoopus.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
Alternatively,
You can go on any Wikipedia, which is blacked out, enter your zip and get the phone numbers for your representatives. I actually spoke with a live person for one of my representatives.
Slam_Dunk - January 18, 2012
poor interns
today is going to suck for them
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
Probably, but it beats leaving a voice mail.
Slam_Dunk - January 18, 2012
well it's either answering the phone, leading tours, doing research across the street at the Library of Congress, or sneaking in homework.
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
Sounds like a pretty good job.
Might even be able to sneak in some comments on their favorite blog:)
Slam_Dunk - January 18, 2012
The interns on capital hill are working for free
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
No paid internships?
Still, not a bad job for an intern.
Slam_Dunk - January 18, 2012
Agreed
Off topic: Here´s a tip if you want an NBA stream: get NBA league pass for a lot of money if you like flawed software (literally no improvement over the last three years), and don´t particulary care if on opening night or All Star Weekend the whole thing breaks down because of too many clicks. It´s a crying shame that I totally depend on it if I want to watch the NBA (in my country not even pay tv could afford to buy the rights from the NBA, so there´s not a second of NBA ball on tv). They even make me pay more for 66 games than I had to pay for 82 last year, just because they can. Where amazing happens…
rubenho - January 18, 2012
Amen.
We get a few games in the UK, but you have to pay extra for it. Even then it’s the Heat… or the L*kers… or the Heat vs the L*akers…
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
Protect your right to post GIFs!
Aykis16 - January 18, 2012
section214 - January 18, 2012
agreed
Widowwolf - January 18, 2012
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
do it for the kittens
for the jet skis
for the love!
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
That's fantastic!
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
I don't care about the kittens,
so I did it for wally.
section214 - January 18, 2012
Hopefully if this passes the Obama administration will stick to their word and veto
But the intention is still to get some type of similar legislation passed in the future, so being loud about this at all times is a good idea.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
dangerously close to politics, but what the heck
Wow, I have zero faith in the president to act in the interests of the public, regardless of who wins the next election.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Actually, it kind of makes sense
This legislation is being driven by big corporate interests, and the public is pretty overwhelmingly against this legislation.
In an election year, you really think the administration is going to support this bill? A veto is a no-brainer.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
man I hope you're right
but I thought “indefinite detainment” was pretty much hated by the public too.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
this
SactoRyan - January 18, 2012
Not such a no-brainer
I can think of a certain topic that is huge in the California medical world where he supported those businesses that followed state laws, then went back on that recently due to the technical wording of his proclamation.
That said, I usually like my basketball to be politics free, although thats been hard with all the arena/relocation drama and now politicians may impact my sports/internet reading.
SharkKings49 - January 18, 2012
what that really shows
it wasn’t so much a policy reversal as the president has a LOT less power over the day to day operations of federal agencies than most people think.
Viliphied - January 18, 2012
Similar to the National Defense Act,
except not nearly as bad.
caseycheesecake - January 18, 2012
This is all true
But don’t lose sight of the problem: intellectual property is being stolen, and the Internet is not only perpetuating it, but spreading it.
I completely agree that this is not the way it should be dealt with, but it must be dealt with.
In short: condemn the proposed solution, not the need for a solution.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
Does elvis's music need to still be under copyright today?
He’s been dead for 20 years – he got the full value of his intellectual property. Why isn’t that public domain/benefit now?
I’m not saying piracy is right, but I’m also not going to simply agree that the current copyright system is ok either.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Why should music be different?
Should Coca Cola be free now, as it’s been around for 125 years? Is the founder of Ford still alive?
Not sure about the US laws, but here, musical compositions remain under copyright for 70 years after the death of the last contributor. For recordings I believe it is 50 years after release. I’d say that is reasonable.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
That's kind of a straw man there
Coca-cola is a product, so since it involves resource collection, processing, and delivery, it’s never going to be free regardless of intellectual property laws.
Tell me why 70 years (an entire lifetime) after death of the creator is a ‘reasonable’ copyright. Copyright laws are supposed to protect and encourage innovation, not stymie it. Once the creator has passed on, he/she doesn’t need those protections anymore, so a short span of 5-10 years to protect their business partners seems reasonable, but 70?.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
I was a music/audio major and studied some music business...
and from what I’ve seen, the music business isn’t exactly ethical or run with much, if any, integrity.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
This opinion
Is a hangover from days when it was true. There is far too much legislation and potential repercussion for music businesses to continue a lot of these practices.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
My experiences are fairly recent (finished my studies in '05)
and I found many practices that I feel actually hurt music as a whole. We can agree that piracy is a problem—is it killing music—no. The music industry has always had trouble keeping up with the times and it is butting them in the behind.
We are likely to respectfully disagree here, so I’ll spare this blog the details. While I feel there is some validity to these claims, they just aren’t telling the whole story.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
biting* them. Auto-correct strikes again.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
I worked at a label
until October last year and I now work at a publisher. The structuring of deals these days are very fair and are a million times better for artists/composers than they used to be. Furthermore, labels and publishers are renegotiating the worst of the historic deals, so that they are more in line with modern, fairer deals.
Having said that:
So true.
The times, they are a changing…
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
While I respect your opinion...
and you obviously know more than I about the inner-workings of the music business, where we likely disagree is what we consider “fair.” Perhaps deals work a bit differently across the pond.
With that said: I’m glad someone like yourself, who appears to have integrity, is working on the business side of music. Music certainly appears to be better off in Britain (I read somewhere today that you reside in the U.K., correct me if I’m wrong); a lot of great stuff is making its way to the states.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
Thank you
I take this kind of thing seriously because it isn’t the big wigs that get laid off when things go south for the industry. It’s us lowly ones. I have seen friends fall victim to this and it sucks.
There is some good music out there, but there is also some shite. Sadly, the money is going into the shite, because it can make a quick buck from teenagers. There’s nobody investing in the next U2…
Having said that, Adele (though it’s not my thing) shows that people will buy good music if it is good enough. The trick? Finding something good enough…
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
This is a major reason music is such poor shape out here in the states. Companies are investing in “stars” instead of searching for new and refreshing music. I’m still amazed that these karaoke contests on TV are so popular and are considered as great ways to search for “talent.”
My wife loves Adele (and Florence and the Machine, come to think of it), by the way.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
Florence is fantastic
But the X Factor/Pop Idol thing is a tragedy… Albeit a prosperous one.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
If you were to somehow perfectly replicate Coca-Cola and distribute it, would you see that as fair because it is old? Pepsi doesn’t count because it isn’t identical. It’s a competitor.
70 years is reasonable. i don’t see why it should expire at all. Royalties for dead musicians/composers are paid to their estate, or their inheritors. Why should this stop? If your father has millions in the bank ad then dies, should those millions be distributed to the public 5-10 years after he dies? No, so why should it be different for any other asset?
And how does this stymie innovation? Music companies don’t invest in new talent without money from established talent. Cutting that short would stymie new music development – something we’ve seen increasingly over the last few years since the advent of illegal file sharing.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
Music is thriving, in my opinion; the music business however...
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
at least in the Techno genres
it’s going batshit because of the dubstep revolution, “despite” the ease of availability.
I hate dubstep! maybe we should limit accessibility again.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
there's some great independent stuff though
Granted you have to do a lot of homework but it’s there
Here’s a good intro for you with a bunch of great references to great sites. There really is a ton of stuff out there.
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
Exactly, there is more music than I can keep up with, which is fantastic.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
which flies in the face
of the assertion that shorter copyrights will stymie innovation, since music companies won’t invites in new talent. This talent is coming of age on its own without that investment, a function of the cheaper access to good audio equipment available these days.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
So 70 years for a copyright is ok when it’s a gene sequence that’s copyrighted? or seeds used to grow food? at some point the claiming of ideas that the public would benefit from general use of for profit is in direct opposition to the public good.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
I’m no expert in DNA or agriculture, but I’m pretty sure you can’t copyright a discovery of something natural.
Besides, it’s not like music isn’t widely available legally. It just isn’t free.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
Don't be so sure:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
Patent is different from Copyright, but patenting obvious natural phenomena is real, and a problem.
rpmonkey - January 18, 2012
I remember reading
about a lawsuit apple filed against Samsung claiming that a square tablet was under their copyright.
Square is not and should not be copyrightable.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
honestly
that stuff doesn’t concern me near as much as the pharmaeuticals.
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
it's all branches of the same problem to me
Monsanto, Apple, whoever – part of the current paradigm of operations by big business in the US is warfare through copyright and lawsuit. it’s not really an environment that incentivises start ups.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
One can also argue
that without some of the copyright and patents you run into issues where people will be less likely to invest plus you run into issues of consumer confidence. Emphasis on “some” though.
To be honest though, it’s not a field that excites me very much either way outside of big time pharmaeuticals and issues like antiretrovial medications in such places like South Africa.
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
much music nowadays -is- free
just wander around on www.soundcloud.com for a while. I suspect some of it is violating a copyright, but I’m also sure much of it isn’t.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Doesn’t help when the RIAA/MPAA one of the biggest proponents of this bill,used music for an ad that was not theirs, and did not ask permission to use..They are currently getting sued for it too..
Widowwolf - January 18, 2012
Why should music be different is a good question.
To me for music or any other IP-related asset, the question is at what point does it cease to be property of the artist/producer/company and begin to become the property of the consumer.
The analogy of the Coke doesn’t make sense to me because once Coke has sold that case to a wholesaler or a retailer they are now out of the picture. They no longer get a cut of any future sales and they are not involved in how that Coke case moves throughout the world whether to a Little League park or to be sold off the back of a donkey in the middle of nowhere.
What music, movies and some other areas have been able to do is a fashion a structure where they never have to give up the property. To me as long as the model is used you will never be able to solve that problem. Once I’ve paid for the product, whether it is a physical cd or an electronic file, I feel like I should have ownership of that property. If you do not want me to have ownership of that property then you have the right to not create a cd, not create a digital file, and not make those available to the public. But to create a product, sell it to me, then complain about how I use the product – that’s ridiculous.
I complete agree that the artist/company should retain rights to the song and how future distribution should be done – but once you’ve made the decision on how you distribute a product then you should no longer own that product once it is sold.
Madzillagd - January 18, 2012
The product is yours
Like the Coke. You can use it as you wish, like the Coke.
You cannot make unauthorised copies and distribute them for free or for money.
Again, like the Coke.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
it's a copy
not the original. if i choose to make a copy because my 3 yr old will inevitably scratch the cd i bought i don’t see that as an infringement on the artists rights. the artist was paid for that product at the point of purchase and what i do with it is my business. if i choose to sell copies – that’s bootlegging and that is illegal. But if I choose to freely give away my original or my copy that’s my choice.
artists are being paid on the initial distribution of their music. many get paid before they record a note. they get paid again when their cds get sold. they get paid a % based on online saies, they get paid a % from streaming sites. there are a wide variety of avenues that the artist is getting paid on the initial distribution of the product.
what they are complaining about is they aren’t getting paid on the secondary distribution of music – some would argue this secondary market is bigger than the primary distribution. But, the answer isn’t to force a shut down of the secondary market because that won’t work – the cat’s out of the bag and even SOPA won’t put it back in. The only way for the industry to truly solve the problem is for them to improve their primary distribution methods. the more the primary distribution improves with itunes, pandora, spotify etc. the less there will be a need for a secondary market.
Madzillagd - January 18, 2012
I don't anyone cares if you burn a CD,
In fact, some newer CDs alot two copies from the original; the issue is when people give away there CDs and still keep a copy for themselves. Outside of digital retail this isn’t possible. If I give away, say, a guitar, I don’t get to play guitar unless I buy a new one, or get my old one back. What some of the more reasonable music business enthusiasts are asking for, is for the digital purchases to be treated similarly to physical purchases. Whether this is right or not is up to each individual.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
Sorry your guitar theory doesn’t compute, because to make a 2nd one requires manual labor, parts, money and craftsmanship..To make a copy of the song, you need about 15 seconds and a computer..Hell you could make millions of copies for nothing
Widowwolf - January 18, 2012
That's besides my poorly constructed point.
It’s not about manufacturing costs, it’s about making sure the artist gets paid for each piece of music that is “owned” (you don’t actually own the music) by someone. If you burn 20 copies of an album and give it out to your friends, that’s 20 copies that the artist didn’t get paid for. This can (and does) really add up to a big problem for small artists.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 19, 2012
This
Rickyflip - January 19, 2012
I do understand this and I agree, The only time i get music from friends, is when i am looking for new artist..They burn me a copy of a CD to listen to, And if i enjoy it then 100% of the time i will go buy their album..Usually I like to do it from concerts (The musician makes more money from CD sales at concerts then from stores/itunes)
Widowwolf - January 19, 2012
completely disagree with the small artist comment
small artists don’t make $$ of their music sales – that’s why they are small artists. the majority of $$ made by artists comes through touring and playing live shows. nobody is getting rich off of selling 20,000 cds. the recording costs, manufacturing costs, distribution costs, and marketing costs are too high for smaller artists to make a profit off of their music with the current industry structure.
the bands that understand this are smart enough to embrace the technology and open up their content to the masses because they know the more people that listen to their music for free, eventually their legit sales will rise (or remain steady over time) and their live shows will bring in more people.
Sacramento’s Deftones is a great example of that. I’ve got 50+ live concerts downloaded that they put out on their own website for fans to download for free which were eventually pulled off when Maverick figured out they were doing it. But supporting their fan base they’ve been able to maintain a steady following and make $$ on live shows despite relatively minor cd sales over the last decade.
Madzillagd - January 19, 2012
It's not about getting rich, it's about getting by.
Small artists need every penny they can muster, whether that be from music sales, t-shirts, or concert tickets. I’m well aware that touring is the main revenue source for artists, big and small, and that giving samples of their music away can be used for promotional purposes. However, how often do see artists giving away an entire album? It happens, but it’s the exception, not the rule.
As for the Deftones, I wouldn’t consider them a small artist. They’ve achieved some mainstream success, which makes giving away their music much easier, as they can afford it. Anyway, I don’t see them giving away a full length studio album. It’s easy to give away live recordings, they’ve already been paid from the tickets sold.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 19, 2012
Mad -
I think the biggest difference is that the consumer (or hell, the wholesaler or retailer) of a Coke product can’t make a bazillion physical copies of that can of coke and put them up for grabs free of charge to whomever wants them.
It’s completely apples and oranges.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
of course they can't,
because they don’t have a bottling factory. This coke comparison is as relevant as that guy with the stolen car analogy.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
So by your logic
If tomorrow there was a way to copy and distribute Coke to the masses with little or no effort, it would suddenly be okay?
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
Man, you're unnecessarily agressive
but whatever.
“Cola” is not copyrighted – the result, we have many cola choices.
“Coke” is copyrighted – the result, we have whatever choices they decide we have for it.
If someone’s going to patent DNA, it’s less choices, less research, and a higher cost for the public to benefit from that science for the benefit of a few collecting the money. I’m not OK with that situation, but apparently you are. whatever.
You believe people should be able to make unlimited profit off of something indefinitely, and I think that at some point there’s a time say that’s enough profit, time for the entire population to benefit from the discovery.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
he's not unnecessarily aggresive at all
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
As I said before
I know little about how this applies to DNA etc, but with music, it’s out there for all to enjoy. You can buy the CD, download a legal copy, stream it on a Spotify equivalent or even listen to the radio. You can watch the video on YouTube or Vevo, you can watch MTV…
At what point does this restrict the general public from benefiting from the discovery, or in this case, composition?
Rickyflip - January 19, 2012
Hey, I asked somewhere else: what are the "The damage it does"
Based on your past position in the industry, I’m still really interested in hearing this perspective rather than arguing straw men with you.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Don't know about the States
But over here, music sales have declined so rapidly, we have gone from having several major retail outlets for CDs (Woolworths, Virgin, HMV most prominent among them) to having one – HMV. They have been slowly giving up music shop space to gaming, books and film in a bid to stay afloat, but they are making losses and may not last the year.
Add to that the number of people in the record industry that have lost their jobs in cost saving exercises – something I know isn’t exclusive to music, but telling that to a recently laid off colleague is little comfort.
Finally, the spreading of the notion that music is free and unlimited will do the most damage. Joe Bloggs in the street will be reluctant to buy music when he discovers he can download it for nothing. Why spend £10 on a CD, when he can have the music for free after a few clicks?
The more people that have that attitude, the worse off the people in the music industry will be.
Rickyflip - January 19, 2012
Sorry I dont believe its because music sales are declining rapidly, i believe more people get their music digitally and on the go. Also the loss of jobs is because the music industry has failed to properly keep up with technology, and they are paying for that. The sheer profit of a cd vs digital download is truly outstanding, and the bigwigs of these companies are A: Raking the profit in and B: Using it to pay more towards lobbying and lawyer fees.
Widowwolf - January 19, 2012
This is fine if it is done legally. Although legal downloads are on the up, it mostly isn’t done legally.
I couldn’t agree more. The download thing really hit the industry hard, and the response was slow and inadequate. The heavy handed approach of these 2 bills is just another example of that. That being said, unauthorised downloads are still illegal and should therefore be stopped.
With regard to profits, the overheads on digital distribution are almost nothing. CDs are cheap for sure, but you have to keep making them to keep selling them. A lot needs to change in the industry before it can function on solely download income.
Lobbyists etc are paid for by trade bodies like the BPI here (RIAA there I think), which function on a membership fee. It has always been thus. Perhaps these bodies should invest in technology research instead, but they are so focused on the income lost to illegal downloading that this R & D is left to (and probably duplicated by) the individual labels and publishers.
Rickyflip - January 19, 2012
But also a lot of their income is lost because music now a days is mostly crap..and people are usually buying singles rather then albums . Also the ability to preview all the tracks of an album are making consumers a lot more picky on what they buy. If 1/2 the CD’s i owned were available as singles, i would have a lot more money in my pocket.
Regarding Lobbying, yes it has always been there, but they are having to put more into nowadays as the politicians have more and more expensive campaigns.
Not only do you have to make them over and over, but you must have huge factories for all the different components
Funny enough there were some reports released on EFF website talking about Piracy is down, as more musicians are making their older music available free on the websites and such..Most pirates i know download 100gbs of music for maybe 1gb worth of music they listen to, and most of that music is overseas releases, live concerts, and albums out of print and not available for download.
Now one thing that concert promoters could do to get more people there are to sell digital copies of the concert you just went to for say for 5 bucks. Wouldn’t cost them a thing, you buy a code at the concert, go to a website and download it as a 1 time thing, and have it available for whenever you want to watch..I would do this every time for concerts
Widowwolf - January 19, 2012
I think Itunes is quite possibly as responsible for the decline in record industry jobs as piracy
When I spend money on healthcare, I want it to go doctors/labs/nurses, not insurance companies.
When I spend money on music, I want it to go to musicians, not middlemen.
TheFifthMookie - January 19, 2012
makes me think of....
i used to be able to walk into Brew It Up, tell the brewmaster a beer I liked and he could hand me a recipe that would produce a beer that tasted exactly like the beer I had requested. I very much doubt they had ‘the recipe’ of the company that produces that beer, but they have the skill to be able to duplicate it. Not sure the legality of that since they are assumingly not using ‘the recipe’ of that company.
Madzillagd - January 18, 2012
tweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
false delimma. 10 yards from the spot of the foul, automatic FIRST DOWN
Viliphied - January 18, 2012
sooooo, you have never ever watched or listened to a burned copy of some intellectual property? or, how about a nice mix tape? nor ever (back in the day) recorded an album onto a cassette tape from a friend? no, never?
gaindeyouth - January 18, 2012
As a kid
Who didn’t make mix tapes or tape stuff off the radio? 2 points though…
1. The scale is entirely different. A song dubbed onto a tape isn’t nearly as damaging as millions of people downloading an illegal music file.
2. Once I learned the law and the damage it does, I stopped. I never download music/film illegally. I never buy from the dodgy guy with the bag of DVDs in the pub.
Rickyflip - January 18, 2012
Since you're in the industry
could you elaborate on “the damage it does” – I’d like to hear the insider’s perspective.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
I'm interested as well.
“The damage it does” certainly contains many variables that, some believe, are open to interpretation.
I will say, like Rickyflip, I don’t download anything illegally—not because of a fear of getting caught, but because I want to make sure the artist gets compensated for their work. That’s also why when I listen to the radio, its Pandora; they appear to give money where it is due.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
I stopped pirating music years and years ago
mostly because the online legal streaming avenues, like grooveshark and pandora, and finding websites where I can buy music I want at a reasonable cost.
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
honestly, I don't do it either anymore
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
granted I will find free audio clips to listen to online
but yeah if I like it I will pay for it
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
Yep, that's where I am as well
otis29 - January 18, 2012
its the same slippery slope. and hypocrisy lives and breathes.
gaindeyouth - January 18, 2012
Piracy isn't theft.
If you park your car at the curb, and I then drive it off into the sunset….but your car is still parked at the curb where you left it, did I “steal” from you?
Also, if the money you spend at the box office is used to circumvent democracy and impose draconian legislation, doesn’t the pirate have the moral high-ground?
secretplans - January 18, 2012
There is no moral high-ground in this scenario, in my opinion.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
Wow, talk about apples and oranges
otis29 - January 18, 2012
How so?
secretplans - January 18, 2012
Well - it's a ridiculous analogy that has no value here in the real world
And quite frankly, I don’t think this is the place to argue this kind of issue. Or probably any place, for that matter – it’s hard to convince a thief he’s a thief when he’s convinced he’s “sticking it to the man”.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
My point is simply that piracy is, by definition, not theft. My post was in reply to an assertion to the contrary. My post was also in the comments section of an article about piracy. If you don’t think this is the appropriate place for the debate, than you can either A. Shhhh or B. Take it up with Tom Ziller.
secretplans - January 18, 2012
Thanks much
I really had no clue how the site operates (or the internet for that matter).
Keep parsing away, Robin Hood.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
Right, but I didn't want to say it.
On the bright side, there may be a spot in congress for you.
Will do. ;)
secretplans - January 18, 2012
As a side note
I’d like to point out the fact that you have copied the intellectual property of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant and distributed it on the internet 18,243 times.
Thief?
secretplans - January 18, 2012
If I may butt in here...
As humorous as your claim is, it is silly. I don’t see how otis29’s sig takes away any revenue from The Office and its creators, in fact, he gives them credit by displaying the character Michael Scott’s name.
It was a humorous way to make your point though.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
We are all entitled to our opinion
But the MPAA and RIAA disagree with you.
I won’t pretend to know your understanding of copyright law, but it’s been my observation that a good portion of people currently debating SOPA/PIPA operate under the assumption that copyright law is, more or less, the same as it was twenty years ago. This is false.
Bird Law on the other hand…
Ooops.
secretplans - January 18, 2012
So...
Blackbeard. Not a thief.
Gotcha.
LeaguePassAddict - January 18, 2012
lol, really?
When Blackbeard was using violence to rape and pillage his victims of tangible goods, Blackbeard was a thief. But when Blackbeard nestled in for the night to download a COPY of “The Curse Of The Black Pearl”, Blackbeard was, quite obviously, not a thief.
As we’re in that time period, it’s important to remember that if it were not for colonial publishers COPYing works of European literature for distribution in the Americas, our revolution very well may not have happened.
secretplans - January 18, 2012
*Sigh*
Piracy is a type of theft. You are equating it with stealing physical property, which is misleading.
When you buy a CD, it is yours, but the music on it (and the sound recording itself, but let’s not over-complicate this) remains the intellectual property of the creator(s). If you distribute copies of this, by physically burning it or by file sharing, then you are giving away someone else’s property without remunerating them.
It is the same with film. What gives you the right to download a film for free? Just because you can doesn’t mean you have the right to.
Rickyflip - January 19, 2012
Okay but if you park my car at the curb and you then drive it off into the sunset….but my car is still parked at the curb where I left it, you didn’t “pirate” it you at best committed unlawful use of a motor vehicle (a misdemeanor) or at worst possibly committed larceny depending on the facts (but unlikely given what you wrote).
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
No
To commit unlawful use I would have to have stolen it. But I didn’t, because it’s still parked at the curb.
And of course not larceny because I carried nothing away.
secretplans - January 18, 2012
*nothing of yours
secretplans - January 18, 2012
that's not true actually
don’t have to steal can just be unauthorized or outside the scope of authorization
wallywagon11 - January 20, 2012
From what I've heard Obama is going to shoot it down if it makes it through congress
The problem I see is further down the road when some politician sneaks it into a much larger bill.
However, with Google being all over it. They’ll likely being able to shoot it down then too since by that time Google will likely have taken over the world
HeuristicLineup - January 18, 2012
How long before this planet is really called "Google Earth?"
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
He said he would shoot down the NDAA too
Then when everyone was distracted with NYE he signed it quietly while vacationing in Hawaii. Don’t believe anything Obama says. He’s full of sh*t.
FYI I’m not a right winger or republican. Nor am I a left winger. I judge a politician not by his party but by his actions. To me Obama was basically a 3rd Bush term. Mitt Romney will carry on the same policies I guaranty it.
Allbenji - January 18, 2012 via mobile
They'll be playing the same tired game as long as people keep eating it up every national election.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
It's extra bad this year
I voted Obama because I hated the Bush W. years so much.
In return for my vote, I got a 3rd Bush W. term, but with different cronies.
barf
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Exactly my thoughts
When the “NDAA” came afloat I remember Obama saying he would veto it. For some reason I thought that was “unconstitutional” and agreed with Obama and thought, man Obama is making the right decision to automatically veto this crazy bill. And then…. What the CRAP! Obama!! This is a big deal and he completely lost me on him as president after that.
Chent - January 18, 2012 via mobile
you do realize it passed with a veto-proof (and it wasn't close) majority, right?
Viliphied - January 18, 2012
which brings up a good question
if Congress can’t compromise in the slightest to pass a budget, how do they get so unified on something like this?
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Then why say he would veto?
Lying just to lie? Hoping no one notices what you just pointed out? That’s much better.
Allbenji - January 18, 2012 via mobile
Yeah, that was boneheaded
But sadly, the NDAA really didn’t ping on the radars of most Americans.
This issue, on the other hand, is taylor made for him. With all the “occupy” stuff still happening, and American’s general discontent with big business – this idea of entertainment conglomerates shutting down websites without due process would seem to resonate.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
Methinks you misunderestimate the apathy of the average American
Even if it passes and he changes his mind ala NDAA and signs it anyway, I think you see an uproar from the tech community, but until sites actually start shutting down most Americans won’t give a fig. Even then, Hollywood and the RIAA have been very good at convincing people that it’s for their own good.
rpmonkey - January 18, 2012
Disagree
Look who he’s going to be running against: Mr. Capitalism himself.
You think Obama’s going to leave this one on the table???
otis29 - January 18, 2012
wouldn't Mr Capitalism be against SOPA?
since an arbitrarily censored internet would be the opposite of a free market?
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
Using the assumption that politicians stand on their own principles rather than the ones of those who paid them the most
then you would be correct. Unfortunately, I fear that that is a false assumption for most politicians.
rpmonkey - January 18, 2012
100% agree
I lost my very last bit of that naivete during the Obama presidency
TheFifthMookie - January 18, 2012
I highly doubt it
An arbitrarily censored internet is pretty vague and ephemeral. Big movie, television and record companies are considerably more tangible.
I have a feeling we’ll find out soon enough though.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
SAVE INTERNET PORN!!!
DTG13 - January 18, 2012 via Android app
...but not on your hard drive
section214 - January 18, 2012
Link
SOPA and PIPA are on the ropes, but it’s time to throw a knockout punch.
As the web prepares for the biggest protest in its history, we’re launching a new campaign at VoteForTheNet.com.
Will you sign our pledge to work against candidates who support Internet censorship?
http://voteforthenet.com/
VoteForTheNet.com will serve as a hub for electoral activism against SOPA and PIPA, and in support of a free Internet.
Politicians need to understand that they’ll feel heat from the voters if they stand against a free Internet and freedom of expression.
Word_Jockey - January 18, 2012
Damn it I knew I should have posted that "The Day the LOL Cats Died" song in the fanshots
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
Something important that you don't mention here
In the original SOPA bill, at least (not sure if they’ve stripped it out already or not), there was a mechanism where sites would be completely shut down (temporarily) if there is a complaint against them that they are supporting copyright infringement. In other words, there is the potential that TNT or whoever decided that there are too many links to illicit sports streams floating around on SBN sites (despite the best attempts of site mods to squash them) and, BOOM, StR goes dark. I don’t think that supporters of the bills necessarily want to see something like that happen, but that’s the point- these bills open up a lot of scary doors that support a “shoot first, ask questions later” dynamic and seem to place the rights of the few above the rights of the many.
AnotherStupidSN - January 18, 2012
I think that's exactly what scares most people about this legislation
Funny, in a way I’m almost hoping something like this passes. You want to get young people fired up and involved? Fuck with their internet.
otis29 - January 18, 2012
That certainly could be one way to remove the ever-present apathy.
The Crown Royal Gentleman - January 18, 2012
I contacted my representatives.
Orrin Hatch said, “I don’t know about SOPA, but I really like PIPA. She’s a far sight prettier than her sister, in my opinion.”
LeaguePassAddict - January 18, 2012
LOL
well played (crap this is where I usually say “sir.” I am a sexist pig)
wallywagon11 - January 18, 2012
Oh this is so green
LPA nails it again…
On a more serious note, there are 2 main problems with the legislation as written: #1 is well documented just above by ASSN), and #2 is the fact that restricting the DNS will actually not stop the traffic (redirectors are already rampant, and this would just make their spread go more mainstream).
The trick is to shut down the illegal files/goods themselves and the users which are mainly responsible for the violations without targeting the website operators (the recent PirateBay case proved going after the operators is futile and generally a waste of time) — the problem is keeping up with the speed of the internet and tracking/controlling the p2p/torrent/filesharing communities. Ultimately, they will need to police themselves — threatening DNS removal is not a useful tool to encourage more responsible respect of copyright; actively placing download holds on the files/goods in question (and ultimately removing them) would be a better solution, but who has the time for this level of oversight, and who should be authorized to serve as the internet police?
We’re slowly coming to the end of the wild west days on the information superhighways, but fascism is hardly a better alternative.
sj60615 - January 18, 2012
interesting story
http://gizmodo.com/5877612/feds-kill-megaupload feds shut down major piracy site whose CEO happens to be a rap producer and alicia keys husband
Madzillagd - January 19, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Sactown Royalty to post a comment.