SOPA / PIPA

[Menelvir]

So, any opinions on the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) (or PIPA) bill(s)?

While I don't necessarily have a problem with the aggressive pursuit of violators of copyright laws, I feel more strongly about potential violations of prior restraint that might be corollary to such actions.

These bills might also threaten: investment in new, primarily internet-based companies, and/or companies that act as intermediaries for digital content, and they might threaten fair use conventions under copyright law (including research/analysis, criticism, etc.), as well as other concerns yet to be determined.

Even if *you* don't believe that your private use of media that you have not personally paid for in some fashion constitutes piracy, the government and a good many corporate interests *do*. Moreover, it doesn't look like their opinion regarding this will change at any time in the near future.

So that said, where does the burden of at the least, dissuading, and at the most, prosecuting, digital media piracy, such as it is, lie?

It seems to me that the government does not want the responsibility of finding, apprehending, and prosecuting such pirates in the current system of digital media distribution. Why not? Is it simply because the problem is too big? Perhaps the reasoning is that if the digital content intermediaries (DCIs, aka content providers and/or distributors) are held liable for the activity of their users, they will police themselves and this will reduce the volume of piracy, thus making it easier for the justice system to prosecute the most heinous offenders, the big fish, if you will? It is noteworthy that cases involving such individual violators have a high burden of proof, and the cases can last many months or in some cases, years. Now if the numbers of violators are drastically reduced because the DCIs are policing themselves....

The law proposes (in part) that DCIs are to be held liable for the violations of their users, and would require the DCIs to filter their content based on potential violations of copyright.

The current law under DMCA requires that companies respond "expeditiously to remove or disable access to material that is claimed to be infringing or the subject of infringing activity" in order to receive "safe harbor" protections. Safe harbor protection entails protection from litigation if the DCI is unaware of the presence/distribution of infringing content (well, gee, I guess ignorance *is* an excuse) and if they make good faith efforts to remove said content.

Part of what makes all of this a notoriously difficult issue is the ambiguity in current copyright laws. One facet of this ambiguity involves the process of obtaining a licensing agreement in order to use copyrighted material, which can be a prohibitively expensive and lengthy process.

There is quite a bit of information to absorb for the various concepts at work here, not only regarding the nature of the bill, copyright law (which is a whole subject of study unto itself), digital rights, content ownership, and capital investment.

If you're interested in learning more, there's some interesting reading here in the form of a research paper, which served as my primary introduction to some of the concepts, and which I rather shamelessly paraphrased on several key points in this post. What's good for the goose, I suppose...

Is all of this just a bunch of sound and fury, or will it leave an indelible blemish on the future of the internet and capital investment in young companies, not to mention the way we consume digital media? Or is it somewhere in between the extremes?

Anyway, if anyone has any other links that might provide additional or especially opposed points of view, I'd be interested to take a gander at those as well.

[Spazz]

I think it will seriously fuck the internet up. Do we really want to have the internet like china ? I think these companies need to find a way to work with the internet instead of locking the whole thing down. I think a big part of the problem is that movies/games/ppvs etc prices are through the roof and a lot of people dont have money to spend on it. I think that companies lose a lot of money because of people bootlegging but if they werent trying to rip people off so badly in the first place it might not have come to this. If you combine sky high prices with the fact that things are so easily gotten for free you get a serious problem. What is the profit margin on a ufc ppv, a ps3 game or a dvd ? How much do cable companies charge for services ? Now compare that to the average wage of some one who is 20 something and discuss.

[Menelvir]

I'm not sure about the profit margins on a PPV program, a video game, or a DVD, but the paper I linked noted that recording artists:

"[...] typically receive 12 percent in royalties—out of which they must pay other costs, including promotions, packaging, and retailer returns. As a result, somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million CDs must be sold for an artist to break even. At least 90 percent of artists receive no royalties at all from their CD sales."

1 million CD sales -- just to break even. Granted, considering the consumer base, a million isn't all that much, but if you're a new or unknown artist, that's a pretty imposing figure. My guess would be that since the overhead on something like a video game is considerably higher, the sales would have be even more pronounced just to meet the costs of developing and producing it in the first place, which is maybe not so bad if you're a Rockstar, a Bethesda Softworks, or an Infinity Ward. But if you're a lesser-known developer, it seems to me to be a more risky proposition, and angel investors and venture capitalists would probably find more attractive uses of their investment dollar elsewhere.

As far as the consumer goes, how much is a given consumer willing to spend on their entertainment if they can't get it, in essence, for free?

My understanding is that movie sales at the box office have been in fairly steady decline, which is hardly surprising considering the steady rise in prices for movie tickets. But if this trend continues, we might eventually not even have movie theatres anymore. Maybe we won't care. Maybe we're finding better uses of our entertainment dollars.

[Tossica]

I think everyone is making a HUGE deal over nothing and reading a bunch of shit in to the bill that isn't there.

[Reynaldo]

My understanding is that movie sales at the box office have been in fairly steady decline, which is hardly surprising considering the steady rise in prices for movie tickets. But if this trend continues, we might eventually not even have movie theatres anymore. Maybe we won't care. Maybe we're finding better uses of our entertainment dollars.

I can see that. Look at arcades. As the home console kept getting better, the need to go out to play the best games with the best graphics went the way of the dodo. Theaters are soon facing the same thing as the cost of home projectors /huge TVs / audio equipment keep dropping, the cost of a movie experience just isn't really worth it anymore.

[Zanchief]

The movie industry will continue to blame waning profits on piracy as it's a windmill that can't be conquered rather than look at the evolving market or, heaven forbid, the product they are producing.

[Tossica]

The movie industry will continue to blame waning profits on piracy as it's a windmill that can't be conquered rather than look at the evolving market or, heaven forbid, the product they are producing.

But they are changing their business model to adapt. People just want shit for free. The music industry responded and now you can buy millions of songs for .99 each. People still steal them. Movies are available on streaming services for $5-$20. People still steal them.

[ClakarEQ]

The movie industry will continue to blame waning profits on piracy as it's a windmill that can't be conquered rather than look at the evolving market or, heaven forbid, the product they are producing.

But they are changing their business model to adapt. People just want shit for free. The music industry responded and now you can buy millions of songs for .99 each. People still steal them. Movies are available on streaming services for $5-$20. People still steal them.

No matter what is done, theft will not go away though.

I think most folks, myself included, don't steal. I do not personaly pirate any content, I do not torrent, etc etc however I'll admit I'm more than happy to except "gifts" from friends on DVD (yeah I'm no better than the guy doing the stealing, but it makes me feel better LOL).

This legislation for me is less to do with the theft issues because this won't fix it, it has more to do with a trend. While this may not seem that big a deal to some folks it implements a new standard and level of acceptance. If this were to pass, I fully expect future bills that are more intrusive will be more easily passed.

I could see the future of all multimedia content being driven off a lease, you never own it, you pay your money but it's not yours. You can't back it up to multiple systems or mediums for your own purposes, the content will never be yours. Just pay the industry every month based off how many times you listen, view, read, content. That is pretty fucked up if you ask me :\. That trend is already taking root and in a some ways, already implemented (DRM and similiar "services"). If you stop paying, the content is removed from your systems, they will reach in and delete it.

Yeah, I know that this isn't "this" legislation, but I don't think it would be a big jump to implement "lease" based services once something like this is "law".

One more tool in the mind control toolbox, we've got too many in there already.

[Tossica]

More stuff that isn't in the bill. I don't support the bill but all the panic over it killing the internet just isn't true. Read the bill. There's some questionable content about streaming music and movies that I'm not quite sure on but that was the only part of it that made me scratch my head. The entire bill has been shelved until sometime in Feb and the most controversial parts of it have already been edited out. The outrage is pretty ridiculous, IMO. No one wants to shut down the internet.

[Zanchief]

The movie industry will continue to blame waning profits on piracy as it's a windmill that can't be conquered rather than look at the evolving market or, heaven forbid, the product they are producing.

But they are changing their business model to adapt. People just want shit for free. The music industry responded and now you can buy millions of songs for .99 each. People still steal them. Movies are available on streaming services for $5-$20. People still steal them.

One, it’s not stealing. Please update your vocabulary.

Two, streamed movies are only now getting the point where they are realistic. Charging $20 for a digital movie is outlandish. No one would pay that. Most people are willing to pay for something if it’s affordable. I think Netflix has been doing well here. Their price point is competitive. Others, like PSN, are completely out of touch.

Three, no adequate correlation has been made between piracy and dwindling BO. If anything, all this piracy should be effecting DVD/Blu-Ray sales, as these are the things that are most downloaded, but those numbers have been fairly steady, and in some cases have increased. Piracy can’t, realistically, be blamed for theatre BO. No one in good standing pirates cams. The movie industry needs to look inward if they want to tackle that problem.

[Tossica]

If a movie costs $50M to make (conservative), 10M people need to pay $5 for it in order just to break even. That's an unrealistic expectation. I think $20 for a movie I and my friends may watch 3-4x isn't an unrealistic amount to pay. I don't do it often but if I REALLY like the movie, I will. $5 for a rental is reasonable as well. Your idea of what's reasonable obviously differs. People keep bitching about SHIT movies being all that available and then justify your unwillingness to support the good ones by paying $20 a pop for them.

[Zanchief]

I do pay $20 for the good ones. Actually I pay $15 for the theatre ticket, then $20 for the Blu-Ray. Pss hint, I'm not the one you need to worry about. I spend a lot on movies each year, I bet far more then you. $20 for a digital copy of a movie that can only played on a single platform is not good. Not good at all. Your math is terrible as it implies that the only revenue from a movie comes from digital distribution, when this represents a very small fraction of it.

Of course you completely ignore my point about Theatre BO being the biggest loser as far as perceived revenue loss, when almost all piracy is for dvds, where the impact isn't as large. Doesn't this kind of end that whole debate? Obviously people are just prefering to stay at home and watch movies on their big screens.

[Tossica]

My point is, they need to recoup their costs and hopefully make a profit. It's their content. They can charge whatever they need to charge to make their money back. If someone doesn't want to pay what they are asking, that does not give them the right to steal it. If the copyright holder does not want you to watch or listen to their material without paying for it and you do anyway, you are stealing.

[ClakarEQ]

Toss, how with this law fix that problem?

Who will pay for the systems to make this automation take place?

Who will pay for the failure of the system when it acts on content by mistake?

You're an IT guy, how the hell would a system like this even work, there are ZERO details of it from my brief searches. They all talk about what the law will do, the potential, but absolutely nothing on its implementation. Are they going to open every torrent and see what's inside? what about zip / compressed files? how will they now that VOB file I'm throwing around isn't my home videos without "doing something" to it? Is this not an open door to privacy invasion? This law would require logging and action based on content that is "perceived" as infringement, how would this not equate to killing all torrents, disabling the ability to share files, etc?

This is one of those, in concept it makes perfect sense, in implementation, it will be found impossible to complete.

Sometimes I think the hand in a face disables the ability to see where you're headed

There is absolutely ZERO benefit to this and in every way shape and form it will, in the end, hurt the consumer, both, financially and privacy.

[Tossica]

I'm not in support of the bill. I'm anti-piracy. The bill is pretty ridiculous and has very little chance of passing in any form. I just think all the Chicken Little "death of free speech" shit is a little overboard.

Read the bill.

It gives the Attorney General some power to dry up revenue streams of foreign websites that host copyrighted materials, ie Pirate Bay etc. It can stop US companies from advertising on these sites and stop Paypal, etc from paying the site owners any revenue generated.

Pretty much ANYTHING that happens needs to come from the Attorney General. They AG is not going after you for sharing home movies. If you are a site dedicated to sharing warez, movies, music, etc and are hosted in Czech, you might have something to worry about. Pretty much anything else talked about in the bill regarding the US is already illegal.

[Zanchief]

My point is, they need to recoup their costs and hopefully make a profit. It's their content. They can charge whatever they need to charge to make their money back. If someone doesn't want to pay what they are asking, that does not give them the right to steal it. If the copyright holder does not want you to watch or listen to their material without paying for it and you do anyway, you are stealing.

And having that attitude is likely going to result in reduced sales, as people are also willing to tell you to shove it. You’re assuming just because people aren’t going to the theatre, they must be pirating. Maybe they just aren’t going because they don’t want to pay.

In order for something to be stolen, something has to be lost. There are plenty of venues to listen or watch, or see art without paying for it or without having consent from the artist.

Are you against Libraries?

Are you against sharing CDs / DVDs?

These things aren’t theft. Piracy isn’t theft. It is a copyright infringement at worst, and the law still isn’t clear who the culprit is.

[ClakarEQ]

How will they know it’s illegal without looking first, even if it's a Czech file sharing web site that some person wants to use. If I call my home video, The Hangover part 2, I'm entitled to do that, how would they know that is NOT the actual movie without looking?

I don't think you're understand the verbage in the law, it gives the AG power over web traffic with the expect outcome to "dry up revenue streams", that is the side effect of the law, not the law itself (we're talk top level DNS tweaks and shit, don't make lite of the power it will provide)

I have the choice to break the law, I have this choice across all forms of my life, this would limit my choices, and again, this will do zero to fix it the actual problem. The bad guys are always ahead of the good ones.

I know you don't support it, but it seems to me you're also being blinded by what this catalyst is capable of (and I suspect it comes from being the DJ creative type I know you are ).

I mean, heaven forbid we pay actors less /gasp

[Tossica]

How will they know it’s illegal without looking first, even if it's a Czech file sharing web site that some person wants to use. If I call my home video, The Hangover part 2, I'm entitled to do that, how would they know that is NOT the actual movie without looking?

I don't think you're understand the verbage in the law, it gives the AG power over web traffic with the expect outcome to "dry up revenue streams", that is the side effect of the law, not the law itself (we're talk top level DNS tweaks and shit, don't make lite of the power it will provide)

I have the choice to break the law, I have this choice across all forms of my life, this would limit my choices, and again, this will do zero to fix it the actual problem. The bad guys are always ahead of the good ones.

I know you don't support it, but it seems to me you're also being blinded by what this catalyst is capable of (and I suspect it comes from being the DJ creative type I know you are ).

I mean, heaven forbid we pay actors less /gasp

The DNS stuff was removed from the bill even before yesterday's mass public outrage.

[Tossica]

My point is, they need to recoup their costs and hopefully make a profit. It's their content. They can charge whatever they need to charge to make their money back. If someone doesn't want to pay what they are asking, that does not give them the right to steal it. If the copyright holder does not want you to watch or listen to their material without paying for it and you do anyway, you are stealing.

And having that attitude is likely going to result in reduced sales, as people are also willing to tell you to shove it. You’re assuming just because people aren’t going to the theatre, they must be pirating. Maybe they just aren’t going because they don’t want to pay.

In order for something to be stolen, something has to be lost. There are plenty of venues to listen or watch, or see art without paying for it or without having consent from the artist.

Are you against Libraries?

Are you against sharing CDs / DVDs?

These things aren’t theft. Piracy isn’t theft. It is a copyright infringement at worst, and the law still isn’t clear who the culprit is.

I'm not addressing BO sales, I'm talking about having the option to pay .99 for a song but choosing to steal it instead. If it's not even worth .99 to you, why even have it in the first place? I don't understand the whole piracy thing. I am quite sure the film industry is "hip" to the fact that people aren't going to the theater as much so they are concentrating more on the home market. You say $20 for a movie is outrageous, I say it's fair. If I don't think the film is worth $20, I ignore it, wait for it to get cheaper or just wait for it to show up on Netflix if it's something I want to see. Downloading it from some pirate site just isn't an option. If more people thought like me, we wouldn't need "big brother" to try to police our internet.

No, I'm not against libraries or lending someone a CD or DVD. Making a copy of it for them is a different story. Now 2 exist where there was one. One is paid for, the other is stolen.

[ClakarEQ]

It's only stolen if both are viewed at the same time, I think that was around the point Zan was making. I have the right to back up any content I have and if you say no to this then the industry would be required to supply me replacement media as I upgrade my systems.

I should have every right to take my VHS tape and convert it to a DVD, then to BluRay, then to stream, or however I'd like to do it.

I suppose you charge each friend in your car .99 when they listen to the song you just purchased off itunes and donate that income to the industry and if they refuse to pay you boot them from your car? (j/k of course). This would be no different then me giving a friend a copy of the DVD I bought so he could see the movie, so long as we both don't watch it at the same time, no law is broken and no fuck was given (sorry I just wanted to squeeze that in there :p)

EDIT
I hate my touch-pad on my laptop, fucking things jumps my cursor around mid scentence.

[Tossica]

Copies for your own personal use are legal. Copies for your friends are not. I don't buy music in digital format. I buy records. If it's not on vinyl, I don't own it.

[Zanchief]

My point is, they need to recoup their costs and hopefully make a profit. It's their content. They can charge whatever they need to charge to make their money back. If someone doesn't want to pay what they are asking, that does not give them the right to steal it. If the copyright holder does not want you to watch or listen to their material without paying for it and you do anyway, you are stealing.

And having that attitude is likely going to result in reduced sales, as people are also willing to tell you to shove it. You’re assuming just because people aren’t going to the theatre, they must be pirating. Maybe they just aren’t going because they don’t want to pay.

In order for something to be stolen, something has to be lost. There are plenty of venues to listen or watch, or see art without paying for it or without having consent from the artist.

Are you against Libraries?

Are you against sharing CDs / DVDs?

These things aren’t theft. Piracy isn’t theft. It is a copyright infringement at worst, and the law still isn’t clear who the culprit is.

I'm not addressing BO sales, I'm talking about having the option to pay .99 for a song but choosing to steal it instead. If it's not even worth .99 to you, why even have it in the first place? I don't understand the whole piracy thing. I am quite sure the film industry is "hip" to the fact that people aren't going to the theater as much so they are concentrating more on the home market. You say $20 for a movie is outrageous, I say it's fair. If I don't think the film is worth $20, I ignore it, wait for it to get cheaper or just wait for it to show up on Netflix if it's something I want to see. Downloading it from some pirate site just isn't an option. If more people thought like me, we wouldn't need "big brother" to try to police our internet.

No, I'm not against libraries or lending someone a CD or DVD. Making a copy of it for them is a different story. Now 2 exist where there was one. One is paid for, the other is stolen.

So if I make a copy of my own purchased DVD for myself and lend the original to a friend it’s ok, but if I lend them a legal copy then it’s stealing? The same is achieved by lending a store bought copy. Nothing has changed in the economics. A movie was viewed without purchase. That, by your definition, is theft. Your definition is wrong.

[Zanchief]

Copies for your own personal use are legal. Copies for your friends are not.

You say legal like you are equiped to answer this question factually, when all you are doing is providing an opinion. Neither is legally stealing.

[Tossica]

Copies for your own personal use are legal. Copies for your friends are not.

You say legal like you are equiped to answer this question factually, when all you are doing is providing an opinion. Neither is legally stealing.

In Canada it's legal to download copyrighted music and movies. In the US, it is NOT legal.

You guys can argue semantics all you want. If you are honest with yourselves, you KNOW that sharing music, movies, etc that the copyright holder does not want you to, is wrong. You KNOW that piracy and counterfeiting hurt the industries. Whether you care is another story.

[ClakarEQ]

So if I copy the dvd for myself and let my friend borrow the original, we're operating legally, I get it .

I guess I'm not a fan of being held hostage to the pay grades of the movie stars, recording artists, and industrial multimedia machine.

Vinyl /gasp I never took you as an analog kind of guy. How do you mix / dj only using vinyl /ducks :p

EDIT
Yes I know it's not right, and that is why I don't do it personally /tongue-n-check. However I feel that every US citizien has the right to chose, and if they chose to break the law, then so be it.

A law to stop the unstoppable just doesn't make sense.