SOPA (WARNING: Experimental thread; highly moderated)

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Broken down like that, and with out all the double speak and gobbledygook of the bill, I think it could be a bad idea. To many shut downs over "I don't like what he is saying" events could happen.

Matt

It could be used for the intended purpose too, like when a certain company steals pictures and whole web pages for its financial gain.

Matt

You mean like Skyride and its associated names?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Broken down like that, and with out all the double speak and gobbledygook of the bill, I think it could be a bad idea. To many shut downs over "I don't like what he is saying" events could happen.

Matt

It could be used for the intended purpose too, like when a certain company steals pictures and whole web pages for its financial gain.

Matt

You mean like Skyride and its associated names?

In regards to the stolen content, sure.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[GeorgiaDon 340]

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. I have not bought a physical CD in a long time, I buy the music I want online. I also almost entirely buy from artists I hear on NPR (Eddie's Attic, Women in Music, Thistle & Shamrock, Just off the radar, etc) and from artists I encounter on YouTube (great guitarists such as Andy McKee, Don Ross, and Andrew White [all associated with Candyrat Records], Tommy Emmanuel, etc). One thing all these artists have in common is that they use the internet to put at least some of their music out to the public, as well as to sell their music, which allows them to ditch the big record houses and survive as independent artists who aren't forced into producing top 40 type dance music. I think this is great, as it allows more people to make a living making the music they want to make, without the ham-fisted "direction" of the big labels, and allows people like me a much greater choice of music.

Where I have a problem is with the idea that the consumer is entitled to take what they want if the price doesn't suit them. I don't think $15-$20 for a CD is reasonable, so I don't buy at that price, but that means I don't get the CD. In a functioning marketplace, if enough people feel that way the producer will have to lower the price. However, if the consumer's idea of a fair price is so low the producer can't make a profit the CD will not be made in the first place. So the marketplace also puts pressure on the consumer to accept a price that covers expenses and allows for some profit. If the consumer has a ready option of obtaining what they want without paying anything (more about this is a minute), the market is distorted because the pressure is entirely on the artist/producer and the consumer never has to decide to forgo the product or pay the market price.

Bill, you said that "There are no "free" methods of theft. Every method takes effort and time, and that translates into cost. A business model that provides a product at a lower effective cost will win in the end over theft even without anything like SOPA." In principle that is of course true. However I can't really think of what the difference in "effort and time" is between downloading from a file sharing site and a for-pay site, or how that difference would translate into money. I admit ignorance, as I don't download things I haven't paid for. It seems to me you need access to a computer and internet to do either one, so there isn't a cost differential there. Isn't it just a few mouse clicks to get to a file sharing site, and a few more for the pay site (to enter credit card number, billing address, etc)? If so, what cost is incurred to obtain music/movies without paying that is over and above what one would also have to incur to access a pay site? It seems to me you are saying a reasonable cost to buy a product should be less than the cost to steal it, but where/what are those costs?

Even if musicians can trim costs by cutting out middlemen and using the internet to advertize, sell, and deliver the music, they still have to buy instruments, pay for studio time (or equipment to build their own studio), pay rent, buy food, etc. Not all of those costs can be reduced to nothing, so there will always be some point at which it is a losing proposition to make and distribute music. If the market value is set by factors (cost to steal) that have absolutely nothing to do with the cost to produce the product, it won't take long before there is no, or only a very limited choice, of product available at all.

Fast, you said "Also, fwiw, I said steal with quotes because there is a difference in taking something that is tangible vs intangible. Neither is right, but there is a difference. " I agree there is a difference, but I actually put more emphasis on the intangible. Creative works don't appear out of the blue, they are the product of years of training, practice, and whatever magic happens in someone's head to allow them to make something distinct from anything else anyone has ever done before (however slightly). Consider someone who steals a painting that an artist has worked on for hundreds of hours, after spending years or decades learning technique and perfecting a distinctive style. Can you really say the painting is worth only the value of the canvas and paint? Is there no value to the time spent on the work, or on the time invested to acquire the skill to produce the work in the first place? Prices paid at auction for a Monet or a van Gogh suggest the "intangibles" are worth vastly more than the "tangible" canvas and paint.

As I said before I think SOPA is badly conceived, and I have emailed my congressman to urge him to vote against it. However I would be interested in some realistic examples of how to establish a reasonable balance to the market so artists don't have to compete with "essentially free". And before anyone suggests it, I don't think expecting musicians to give away their music and live off of T-shirt sales is "reasonable".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Perhaps this is beating a dead horse, but I'd really appreciate it if people could give me a constructive reply to the following question.

I assume we can all agree with Bill's comment that SOPA would be unnecessary if the cost to purchase music/movies was less than the cost (in time/effort/money) to download it from various file sharing/torrent/whatever sites. My question is, what is that cost? Even just a ballpark estimate would help me understand the situation. Assume the pay sites had a deal where you could download a song or a movie for free (a "loss leader"). How much more expensive would it be to download from a "non-paying" site than it would be from a for-profit site, assuming the for-profit site is in this one instance giving away the product?

Thanks,
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Fast 0]

Quote

...
Fast, you said "Also, fwiw, I said steal with quotes because there is a difference in taking something that is tangible vs intangible. Neither is right, but there is a difference. " I agree there is a difference, but I actually put more emphasis on the intangible. Creative works don't appear out of the blue, they are the product of years of training, practice, and whatever magic happens in someone's head to allow them to make something distinct from anything else anyone has ever done before (however slightly). Consider someone who steals a painting that an artist has worked on for hundreds of hours, after spending years or decades learning technique and perfecting a distinctive style. Can you really say the painting is worth only the value of the canvas and paint? Is there no value to the time spent on the work, or on the time invested to acquire the skill to produce the work in the first place? Prices paid at auction for a Monet or a van Gogh suggest the "intangibles" are worth vastly more than the "tangible" canvas and paint.
...
Don

nah man, I don't think that at all. You're still talking about stealing something that actually exists, a specific hand made painting. If I go into an art museum and take a picture of a Monet with my digital camera, that's stealing too, but it's different than if I take the picture off the wall and bring it home. That's really the only point I was making.

I think artists deserve the right to be fairly compensated and I think most of them are, at least the ones who are the big backers of the RIAA and SOPA and all that. Mostly what hacks me off is that the cost of a product that you used to actually get a piece of something physical is the same as what you pay now for no CD, no jacket, nothing but a digital copy. I suppose you can make the argument that you're paying for convenience, but meh dunno, I just feel cheated.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Fast 0]

Quote

Perhaps this is beating a dead horse, but I'd really appreciate it if people could give me a constructive reply to the following question.

I assume we can all agree with Bill's comment that SOPA would be unnecessary if the cost to purchase music/movies was less than the cost (in time/effort/money) to download it from various file sharing/torrent/whatever sites. My question is, what is that cost? Even just a ballpark estimate would help me understand the situation. Assume the pay sites had a deal where you could download a song or a movie for free (a "loss leader"). How much more expensive would it be to download from a "non-paying" site than it would be from a for-profit site, assuming the for-profit site is in this one instance giving away the product?

Thanks,
Don

The cost is in the perceived risk of what would happen if you get caught. I think the big point here is lets not go and destroy half the internet over it.

It's an inherently messy subject because the internet (as it should) extends past the borders of our country and it's laws. Politicians and the legal system in general just aren't set up to deal with this kind of stuff. Technology has outpaced societies ability to keep it's people from doing things they shouldn't and modern society has been desensitized to right/wrong.

There are more examples than I care to enumerate where things just don't make sense because technology has outpaced society.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[billvon 2,400]

>My question is, what is that cost?

For me the cost would be the additional time and effort (approx 10 minutes to find a given torrent, download a selection and find whether any of them are really valid) some delay (an hour or so while the files download) and some cost (an AC Ryan, an extra PC with a big disk - call it $400 additional that I had to spend.)

This is compared to the Time-Warner on demand system I have which takes approx 30 seconds to find something and start streaming it.

That's first order - savings of 10 minutes per item (which comes to $4-$20 of my time depending on how you account for it) and $400 spread out over all of them.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Thanks Bill. That helps clarify things.

My son doesn't dedicate a PC to this kind of thing, but then I suppose he's risking the time/effort/cost to clean up his machine should it get infected.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

The cost is in the perceived risk of what would happen if you get caught. I think the big point here is lets not go and destroy half the internet over it.

It's an inherently messy subject because the internet (as it should) extends past the borders of our country and it's laws. Politicians and the legal system in general just aren't set up to deal with this kind of stuff. Technology has outpaced societies ability to keep it's people from doing things they shouldn't and modern society has been desensitized to right/wrong.

There are more examples than I care to enumerate where things just don't make sense because technology has outpaced society.

Thanks Fast. I agree with all of what you say here.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

I assume we can all agree with Bill's comment that SOPA would be unnecessary if the cost to purchase music/movies was less than the cost (in time/effort/money) to download it from various file sharing/torrent/whatever sites. My question is, what is that cost? Even just a ballpark estimate would help me understand the situation. Assume the pay sites had a deal where you could download a song or a movie for free (a "loss leader"). How much more expensive would it be to download from a "non-paying" site than it would be from a for-profit site, assuming the for-profit site is in this one instance giving away the product?

Hard question to answer with a single price point. In the end it is all by perceived price point and value.

I stopped using file sharing sites, with its inherent risk of viruses, wrong files, bad quality sound etc when ITunes started offering 99c songs. I still believe that to be on the high side, but I am willing to pay that for now, when I really want a song.

I have now also signed up for a streaming music company, where I pay a monthly amount and I get to listen to whatever I want, but own nothing. So far, I am happy with what I am getting for the money paid.

In the end, tecnology is going faster than the(outdated) models for many entertainment companies can deal with. There are newer models available, but maybe they are not as profitable as the previous models. Personally I think that is much more the case. They are trying to protect old models that are extremely profitable.

The artists and companies behind the most pirated material are extremely wealthy. I simply do not buy the pirating or free electronic content = starving artist concept.

Take a kid like Justin Bieber for example. He provided his "art" for free on the streets and on the internet. His target group is incredibly immersed in technology and would be prime candidates for acquiring free versions of his music. Yet, he seems to be doing alright. Pretty sure he isn't a starving artist.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>My question is, what is that cost?

For me the cost would be the additional time and effort (approx 10 minutes to find a given torrent, download a selection and find whether any of them are really valid) some delay (an hour or so while the files download) and some cost (an AC Ryan, an extra PC with a big disk - call it $400 additional that I had to spend.)

This is compared to the Time-Warner on demand system I have which takes approx 30 seconds to find something and start streaming it.

That's first order - savings of 10 minutes per item (which comes to $4-$20 of my time depending on how you account for it) and $400 spread out over all of them.

Have to also make a mental calculation oft the gain. The streaming movie is the most convenient, at least provided you've already committed to the cost of high speed broadband of 6mbs/s or faster for HD. However, in addition to paying for it, you don't retain a copy at the end. On my directv dvr, you do keep a recording for 24 hours, but that's it.

A non infected torrent results in a file you can play repeatedly, and can probably play on multiple devices in the household, not just the cable receiver. That is worth something, depending on the nature of the recording. For material that you would watch again, the pirated torrent, or the blu-ray for that matter, has more value.

And let's not forget about the rootkit that Sony put on their audio cds for a bit. Big addition to the cost side of the column.

[Southern_Man 0]

I briefly referred upthread to musicians I listen to who give away tons of their music for free and encourage its distribution. I bring it up again because we are talking about alternative models of distribution and the costs/risks associated with them.

I listen mostly to jam bands, who allow people to record and trade their music for free as long as they adhere to whatever policies the band has developed (examples: if a particular concert is released commercially then you must stop distributing that concert, some bands allow soundboard patches, others only audience recordings to circulate).

Anyhow, most of these come to me via the live music archive at archive.org. The free trading of music has introduced me to all sorts of bands, some of whom I have seen in concert, bought merchandise from, bought commercial recordings of, and introduced friends to their music. The bands that allow it obviously see it as a win. One side benefit is that I believe piracy of commercial recordings is vastly reduced due to community pressure. I've just never come across people reproducing, uploading, downloading, etc. the commercial material of, for example, Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. The positive peer pressure not to do so would be overwhelming.

Anyway, just something to think about.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[mnealtx 0]

Some good news - looks like the DNS blocking is being pulled from the bill, at least temporarily:

Quote

“It is also through this process that I and the bill’s cosponsors have continued to hear concerns about the Domain Name provision from engineers, human rights groups, and others. I have also heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue. I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DSE 3]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

[remibond 0]

Bit of a development, Wikipedia is going ahead with a 24h blackout in protest of SOPA and PIPA tomorrow.

Quote

A major target of the protest, SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), has already been effectively halted by opposition from the White House, but Jimmy Wales, the cofounder of Wikipedia, said the blackout would go ahead anyway.

The English version the website will be inaccessible from 5AM GMT on Wednesday until 5AM GMT on Thursday, he wrote on Twitter. Instead of a database of more than 3.8 million articles, visitors will be greeted by an open letter encouraging them to contact Congress in protest.

clicky

For the sake of adding my own opinion, I personally disagree with the act. I can see the reasons for producers wanting to pass it but people will always find ways to access copyrighted material on the internet.

[DSE 3]

Quote

For the sake of adding my own opinion, I personally disagree with the act. I can see the reasons for producers wanting to pass it but people will always find ways to access copyrighted material on the internet.

As a producer, I've already voiced my opposition to SOPA/PIPA.

That having been said;
People will always find ways to access your house, car, and pocket. Does this mean we shouldn't have laws that allow society to prosecute and prevent those that would illegally access your house, car, and pocket?

Curious that we have laws that allow for swift and severe punishment for those that would access an online bank account and steal funds via electronic transfer, yet the society that steals content from producers are perfectly fine with theft as long as it is intellectual property vs $$ from a bank account.

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

Curious that we have laws that allow for swift and severe punishment for those that would access an online bank account

The penalties are not that bad in most cases that have had convictions. Worst case is a couple of years in prison and a few years probation after the case gets plead down several times. This is due to the juries not understanding the crimes. Same thing for IP theft. If you compare that to a bank robber that walks in and pulls a gun there are worlds of difference in the sentencing process and end results even though the hacker might have got away with a lot more money in the end.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Curious that we have laws that allow for swift and severe punishment for those that would access an online bank account

The penalties are not that bad in most cases that have had convictions. Worst case is a couple of years in prison and a few years probation after the case gets plead down several times. This is due to the juries not understanding the crimes. Same thing for IP theft. If you compare that to a bank robber that walks in and pulls a gun there are worlds of difference in the sentencing process and end results even though the hacker might have got away with a lot more money in the end.

Hence my point about laws that "allow for."
People aren't in an uproar about how laws related to online banking are written, they're only up in arms because someone might make it more difficult to download their illegal torrents.

[billvon 2,400]

>Does this mean we shouldn't have laws that allow society to prosecute and
>prevent those that would illegally access your house, car, and pocket?

We should. But to prevent someone from stealing out of your pocket we should have one law that says "it is illegal to steal things out of someone's pocket." We don't need a new law every five years, nor do we need laws that list all the things you can't steal out of someone's pocket, or laws that require every pants to have zippered pockets, or laws that require people carry proof that their property was not once in someone else's pocket.

[DSE 3]

that's entirely besides the point (as you know).
Arguing that people are going to steal anyway, so laws don't need to be made, is a ridiculous argument.

More to the point, as types of media shift, as society moves into new directions heretofore unseen, and as monetizing access becomes a question of convenience, of course the laws are going to shift and change.
Once upon a time we had a national speed limit of 55mph to conserve fuel. As society shifted, as fuel access shifted, and as the economy shifted, many states changed their laws to be different from the initial nation-wide agreements. Some states ended up changing their laws recently while others waited.

It's a new electronic frontier. Laws are going to be difficult to create for a while, let alone enforce. SOPA was written out of worthy intent, it just went over the reasonable edge.

[billvon 2,400]

>Arguing that people are going to steal anyway, so laws don't need to be
>made, is a ridiculous argument.

I did not make that argument. I made the argument that the law already exists.

>Once upon a time we had a national speed limit of 55mph to conserve
>fuel. As society shifted, as fuel access shifted, and as the economy
>shifted, many states changed their laws to be different from the initial
>nation-wide agreements. Some states ended up changing their laws
>recently while others waited.

Good example. That's a single law (a speed limit.)

Now let's say you had an organization that profited from people obeying the speed limit. And instead of a single speed limit, they decided to push for other laws to prevent people from enabling speeders. They passed a law that required gas stations to monitor the speed of local drivers and not sell gas to speeders. They required local toll roads to impound cars that got from point A to point B faster than the speed limit. They allowed parking lots to confiscate your car if they saw you speeding - and protected those parking lots from prosecution if they took your car erroneously.

Would you support that?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now let's say you had an organization that profited from people obeying the speed limit. And instead of a single speed limit, they decided to push for other laws to prevent people from enabling speeders. They passed a law that required gas stations to monitor the speed of local drivers and not sell gas to speeders. They required local toll roads to impound cars that got from point A to point B faster than the speed limit. They allowed parking lots to confiscate your car if they saw you speeding - and protected those parking lots from prosecution if they took your car erroneously.

they don't impound, but there are toll roads that can and do ticket for speeding if the time differentials are too short.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

For the sake of adding my own opinion, I personally disagree with the act. I can see the reasons for producers wanting to pass it but people will always find ways to access copyrighted material on the internet.

As a producer, I've already voiced my opposition to SOPA/PIPA.

That having been said;
People will always find ways to access your house, car, and pocket. Does this mean we shouldn't have laws that allow society to prosecute and prevent those that would illegally access your house, car, and pocket?

Curious that we have laws that allow for swift and severe punishment for those that would access an online bank account and steal funds via electronic transfer, yet the society that steals content from producers are perfectly fine with theft as long as it is intellectual property vs $$ from a bank account.

That's true and I wonder why that is?

Maybe because it 'seems' like a victim-less (to everyone except the victim that is) crime as the victim is not readily tangible ... has no face.

or maybe just that you pretty much know that you're not going to get caught..... like speeding there's probably a feeling that everyone does it and we're gonna get away with it .... again.

Interesting psychology

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[remibond 0]

Quote

People will always find ways to access your house, car, and pocket. Does this mean we shouldn't have laws that allow society to prosecute and prevent those that would illegally access your house, car, and pocket?

Of course not. One can not accidentally forcibly find their way into your house, car or pocket. One can, however, accidentally host copyrighted material on ones website. The act has just as much potential to damage legitimate websites on which users post copyrighted material as it does the Pirate Bays and other illegal to borderline illegal websites in the world.

Quote

Curious that we have laws that allow for swift and severe punishment for those that would access an online bank account and steal funds via electronic transfer, yet the society that steals content from producers are perfectly fine with theft as long as it is intellectual property vs $$ from a bank account.

Well that's just a case of laws reflecting the majority of people. Most people don't produce great intellectual works but most people do have bank accounts.

[Jumpdude 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Broken down like that, and with out all the double speak and gobbledygook of the bill, I think it could be a bad idea. To many shut downs over "I don't like what he is saying" events could happen.

Matt

It could be used for the intended purpose too, like when a certain company steals pictures and whole web pages for its financial gain.

Matt

You mean like Skyride and its associated names?

In regards to the stolen content, sure.

Matt

I guess I'm late for the party, but After reading through this thread and a little research, it appears to me that this legislation might give the teeth we need to finally shut down the bogus, fraudulent websites that Skyride and their aliases run. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org