SOPA is at it again

[Caffienated_Caramel]

Hey guys, Raps sent me over here to post this. I think this belongs best to politics. If not then I hope this is moved to it's proper place.

I first heard from someone I watch on deviantart which sent me to this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fTt4K4Cae4

The video had the link to the petition, which is getting signatures by the minute. I thought I put it up so it could get more.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...-2013/LMzMVrQF

Government doesn't know when to quit do they? How many times did they send versions of this out? It's getting annoying.

EDIT: Sorry, I was in a rush typing this that I didn't think to put a summary.

Kamn is right, a portion of the bill is trying to go through where if you stream anything with copyrighted material so vague. Ex: If I were to upload a song of myself singing a Beyonce song, I will be convicted and possibly fined. Or if I were to upload a Let's Play video, bam, convicted.

From watching the video, the person stated the people from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the Politics will be the ones that will benefit from the bill. RIAA gets more money while the politics get more control over the people. *sigh* Like they really need more money.

[Nekojin]

Can you give a summary of what's being discussed here, please? Not everyone can afford to follow every link put forth on the forums.

[kamn]

From what little I can gather, SOPA 2013 is a small portion of the original SOPA bill, where you can be convicted a felon, if you stream any copyrighted material.

Why is the government of the USA trying to fix the problem of copyright with a sledgehammer?

[Hyena Dandy]

Does anyone have a copy of the bill on hand, or is it still in committee or something?

[crashhelmet]

Lobbyists doing what they do best.

The MPAA, RIAA, and the porn lobby are continually dumping money into politicians to get them to write these bills and try to pass them.

Former Senator turned Lobbyist Chris Dodd is now the CEO of the MPAA and is using all of his friendships, power plays, and other forms of "juice" to get this bill passed.

[Rageaholic]

I'm not too worried. It failed last time and it should fail this time. As long as the public doesn't stand for this BS, we should be fine.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The problem with this issue for me is that while I don't like the vagueness, I don't get the impression anyone on the anti side really wants to control piracy. I never see any counterproposals. I certainly don't see any attempt self regulation.

I get people don't necessarily like the MPAA or the recording industry, but I still tend to view it as casual law breaking. I find silly that it's this hard to get actual enforcement.

[Greenday]

I'm not too worried. It failed last time and it should fail this time. As long as the public doesn't stand for this BS, we should be fine.

The American public certainly doesn't let BS happen. Wait, no, we let Congress do whatever and then when we REALLY don't like something, we bitch a little then do nothing.

[kamn]

The problem with this issue for me is that while I don't like the vagueness, I don't get the impression anyone on the anti side really wants to control piracy. I never see any counterproposals. I certainly don't see any attempt self regulation.

I get people don't necessarily like the MPAA or the recording industry, but I still tend to view it as casual law breaking. I find silly that it's this hard to get actual enforcement.

This actually crossed my mind when I noted this thread. Would something like "pay the license or permission for the article/property taken at full comercial price, plus a 50% additional fee, as well as court costs (if appropriate)" work? You'd get problems if something is not for sale, but otherwise, wouldn't this work in a sufficient manner? Since many who have pirated copies, have a LOT of them, and getting busted for it hurts, while avoiding the absurdity of thousands of dollars in fees for a single background music track.

Lets MAKE a counter proposal...

[HYHYBT]

The problem with this issue for me is that while I don't like the vagueness, I don't get the impression anyone on the anti side really wants to control piracy. I never see any counterproposals. I certainly don't see any attempt self regulation.

I get people don't necessarily like the MPAA or the recording industry, but I still tend to view it as casual law breaking. I find silly that it's this hard to get actual enforcement.

How about this: current law is *plenty* strict enough already, and both fair use and presumption of innocence must be protected in any proposed change, no exceptions whatsoever.

[wolfie]

How about this: current law is *plenty* strict enough already, and both fair use and presumption of innocence must be protected in any proposed change, no exceptions whatsoever.

Throw in "cracking DRM for purposes of fair use is allowed" (current setup is "if it's got DRM, cracking it is a criminal offense even if what you're doing would have been considered fair use if there had been no DRM") and you've got yourself a deal.

[Nekojin]

The problem with this issue for me is that while I don't like the vagueness, I don't get the impression anyone on the anti side really wants to control piracy. I never see any counterproposals. I certainly don't see any attempt self regulation.

I get people don't necessarily like the MPAA or the recording industry, but I still tend to view it as casual law breaking. I find silly that it's this hard to get actual enforcement.

You've got one inherent problem here. Copyright infringement was (until DMCA) entirely a civil offense. There's no such thing as "enforcement" for civil offenses - you don't get TRON-cops pulling over downloaders for infringment. Even today, after DMCA made some forms of "petty" copyright infringement an actual crime (criminal offense, that is), you still won't get your local police station to get up and try to go arrest people who downloaded the latest My Little Pony episode.

So, from that standpoint, "enforcement" is largely on the shoulders of the copyright holder (and, IMO, this is the way it should be).

Now, if you want to talk about grand infringement (bootlegging, actual piracy), well, there's an FBI division entirely devoted to that. But even they don't really give much consideration to Tina Teen downloading things for her own personal consumption. It's simply not worth the effort to go after it. Not when there are people making literally millions selling bootlegged DVDs and BRs copied directly from the studio master...

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well the thing is, the too costly to enforce thing is really easy to get around. Just make it a financial penalty and make it too much to make people want to pirate casually but not so much that getting a lawyer involved is a good idea. I tend to view it as speeding. Everyone does it, so nip the people that are being ridiculous. Because yea, there's no amount of saying "I buy more things because..." excuses for people that have libraries four times the size of Netflix on their computer.

Not really buying how strict it is either. I can make the law "Sneezing is a criminal offense" but it means nothing if it's not enforced. You lose the ability to call a law draconian when less then one percent get prosecuted for violating it.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would think it was a *good* idea for a private company or entity to have to constantly enforce it's property. That sounds really great until you realize that companies that trade in intellectual property have... well stolen inventory. There's a reason we don't force Walgreens to hire a police force and prosecutors for shoplifters. Besides being ridiculous, it puts an onerous burden on some people/companies/organizations.

[Andara Bledin]

I can make the law "Sneezing is a criminal offense" but it means nothing if it's not enforced. You lose the ability to call a law draconian when less then one percent get prosecuted for violating it.

The latter has nothing to do with the former. Whether it's enforced or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it's draconian or not.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would think it was a *good* idea for a private company or entity to have to constantly enforce it's property.

Because that's how civil law works.

There's a reason we don't force Walgreens to hire a police force and prosecutors for shoplifters.

Shoplifting is a crime. Of course we don't expect private individuals to catch and prosecute the perpetrators.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The latter has nothing to do with the former. Whether it's enforced or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it's draconian or not.

Well since technically for something to be harsh it has to be enforced, I disagree.

Because that's how civil law works.

Mmhmm... which is why the law was amended to be in the criminal code in certain cases. It's also why they keep trying to pass SOPA. Big shock that a lot of people who like the option to bypass purchase or territorial restrictions would rather NOT let the criminal legal system get involved. I don't mind the position, I just sort of enjoy the righteous indignation that occurs on this topic.

Shoplifting is a crime. Of course we don't expect private individuals to catch and prosecute the perpetrators.

And yet we want the RIAA to be forced to sue people to protect intellectual property rather than letting law enforcement do it. People are being more honest when they simply say they do not believe in the concept of intellectual property than they are to rag on attempts to regulate piracy. At least I can respect that viewpoint for being intellectually honest. The whole respecting the concept of intellectual property AND finding a substantial difference between stealing physical and intellectual goods always seems a bit... odd.