I really like how there is basically one united front against SOPA/PIPA on the internet. No doubt this is a ripple effect of Wikipedia staging the blackout and putting this legislation on everybody's minds, but today I've read posts on Anime News Network, Punknews, Several hockey blogs, webcomics and whatnot, all in opposition to that law. It makes me very happy to see that.
Essentially nobody with even the slightest understanding of what SOPA/PIPA will do to the internet supports it in any way. Let's just hope this is enough to overcome the money of Hollywood.
Hell, it's not even an internet thing. My grandpa's not an internet entrepreneur, but even he sees the slippery slope of things like SOPA/PIPA, hence his special poem he wrote about it.
I still think that copyright infringement is a sort of theft in most cases, but that most "solutions" that enforce laws about it are creating more net damage than protection. While I think that torrenting someones game or novel is a bad thing, I think that the most effective weapon for combating it is to change your business model.
It has some glaring issues, but I think effective solutions for this can be seen in their infancy in free-to-play games and their various approaches. Or on the paid-for support for open-source projects/software... there are a lot of ways to still run businesses in the developing environment.
And these particular laws include widely damaging archaic ideas of how to effect change...
It's not necessarily true that there is never a potential sale lost. Piracy can lower the opportunity cost to obtaining media, often encouraging those who were going to be getting it regardless to obtain it illegally. While there is merit in the argument that people who pirate are not going to purchase it in the first place, it's not always the case.
Data piracy =! theft. No potential sale is lost, and no irreplaceable item is taken.
This may hinge on a possibly out-dated definition of theft. As such I'm willing to concede that it's possible that piracy is not theft by definition. I still feel that there may be something harmful about it. I also wonder about the reprecussions of ephemeralizing everything.
For example, I agree with the premise that execution is everything: ideas are cheap.
But some "ideas" are more than just "ideas". A piece of software is a complex collection of ideas that possibly takes milllions of man-hours of work to piece together. The emergent product is different than the sum of the parts, at least it seems that way to me.
I think most of us here agree that patent and copyright law are viewing things with an outdated perspective. But I think that further, the language we use to describe these things needs to be updated as well. Instead of 200 words for snow, we are a culture that might need 200 words for information.
I don't have reps, but I sent off a few emails - First, to some senators who oppose SOPA/PIPA, thanking them, and telling them why some foreigner was thanking them. Second, to a few more who seemed switched on and generally alright people, telling them that while I don't have a vote, being from another nation, that I really hope they could vote to represent me too, since SOPA and PIPA will affect me and my nation much like it will the American people, but unlike the American people, we don't get a say in it.
I also sent a message to our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, asking them to question to US about this, and to speak out against this, since it will affect their Nation and people, and they have no say or power in regards to the issue if they don't speak up now. I doubt they'll do so, though - this is the same Political party that introduced the Great Firewall of Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if they support PIPA/SOPA.
Apparently at least four co-sponsors of PIPA have withdrawn their support for the bill, at least for now: Roy Blunt, Orrin Hatch, Marc Rubio and John Boozman.
Also Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has withdrawn her support as a co-sponsor today.
Before this whole SOPA debacle, I was very apathetic to politics. A large part of who I voted for was based on who had the best policy on Net Neutrality or one of the few other things I was concerned about. But I couldn't have told you who my current senators or representative was, or anything about the Congressional process.
At least SOPA was instrumental in forcing me to educate and get myself involved in state politics.
Also Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has withdrawn her support as a co-sponsor today.
Before this whole SOPA debacle, I was very apathetic to politics. A large part of who I voted for was based on who had the best policy on Net Neutrality or one of the few other things I was concerned about. But I couldn't have told you who my current senators or representative was, or anything about the Congressional process.
At least SOPA was instrumental in forcing me to educate and get myself involved in state politics.
Am I mixed up about what Net Neutrality is? The back-online wikipedia tells me that it's "a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the Internet." Isn't that the same goal as what the SOPA protests are trying to do?
As I understand it, opposing SOPA and supporting Net Neutrality is being in favor of leaving the internet alone. But please tell me if I'm mistaken; like I said, I am new to all of this.
As I understand it, Net Neutrality is the principal that government agencies and service providers are not allowed to restrict consumer access to the internet or websites based on content. Since SOPA essentially does just that, opposing SOPA seems to be consistent with advocacy of Net Neutrality.
As I understand it, Net Neutrality is the principal that government agencies and service providers are not allowed to restrict consumer access to the internet or websites based on content. Since SOPA essentially does just that, opposing SOPA seems to be consistent with advocacy of Net Neutrality.
SOPA says that the government and copyright holders CAN force service providers to restrict the accessibility of websites. Net Neutrality says that the government and service providers CAN NOT restrict the accessibility of websites.
They are complete opposites of each other. There will always be some regulation of the internet. The difference is what they are being regulated for.
As I understand it, Net Neutrality is the principal that government agencies and service providers are not allowed to restrict consumer access to the internet or websites based on content. Since SOPA essentially does just that, opposing SOPA seems to be consistent with advocacy of Net Neutrality.
Both give the government control of the internet.
You're confusing that Net Neutrality bill with the concept of net neutrality. We're talking about the concept.
Uhhh, apparently the government just shut down Megaupload.
Um, whoa.
And so it begins.
Well, I think they were charged under existing laws - it's not like they can use SOPA. This isn't the first time a filesharing site has been taken down.
This began a long time ago.
EDIT: I just realized that you and Sail were probably both like 8 when Napster was at its peak.
Comments
Essentially nobody with even the slightest understanding of what SOPA/PIPA will do to the internet supports it in any way. Let's just hope this is enough to overcome the money of Hollywood.
It has some glaring issues, but I think effective solutions for this can be seen in their infancy in free-to-play games and their various approaches. Or on the paid-for support for open-source projects/software... there are a lot of ways to still run businesses in the developing environment.
And these particular laws include widely damaging archaic ideas of how to effect change...
For example, I agree with the premise that execution is everything: ideas are cheap.
But some "ideas" are more than just "ideas". A piece of software is a complex collection of ideas that possibly takes milllions of man-hours of work to piece together. The emergent product is different than the sum of the parts, at least it seems that way to me.
I think most of us here agree that patent and copyright law are viewing things with an outdated perspective. But I think that further, the language we use to describe these things needs to be updated as well. Instead of 200 words for snow, we are a culture that might need 200 words for information.
The pic of kitty was my favorite part.
I also sent a message to our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, asking them to question to US about this, and to speak out against this, since it will affect their Nation and people, and they have no say or power in regards to the issue if they don't speak up now. I doubt they'll do so, though - this is the same Political party that introduced the Great Firewall of Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if they support PIPA/SOPA.
Before this whole SOPA debacle, I was very apathetic to politics. A large part of who I voted for was based on who had the best policy on Net Neutrality or one of the few other things I was concerned about. But I couldn't have told you who my current senators or representative was, or anything about the Congressional process.
At least SOPA was instrumental in forcing me to educate and get myself involved in state politics.
As I understand it, opposing SOPA and supporting Net Neutrality is being in favor of leaving the internet alone. But please tell me if I'm mistaken; like I said, I am new to all of this.
They are complete opposites of each other. There will always be some regulation of the internet. The difference is what they are being regulated for.
Cement in penises. Good times.
This began a long time ago.
EDIT: I just realized that you and Sail were probably both like 8 when Napster was at its peak.