SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)
dignin
Posts: 9,338
What are your opinions about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) ?
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article ... w-cold-war
SOPA, theft and the new Cold War
By Peter Nowak | December 22, 2011
Much has been written about the highly controversial Stop Online Piracy Act currently being considered by U.S. Congress. The legislation would allow for the taking down or blocking of websites that aid in legally-grey file-sharing, such as The Pirate Bay. From the heads of major tech companies writing about how the Act would effectively break the Internet to commentators chiding politicians for their potentially harmful ignorance on technological issues, just about anyone who is concerned with the Internet’s future is frothing mad.
Most of the arguments against SOPA have been bang on, but not many have taken the historical or psychological context of piracy into account. When such aspects are considered, it becomes even clearer just how futile and bone-headed the legislation—if enacted—would be.
It’s handy if we start with defining “piracy.” Under Webster’s traditional meaning, piracy is an act of robbery on the high seas. The only difference between a pirate and a thief, therefore, is water.
Digital piracy obviously doesn’t take place at sea, yet “pirate” somehow emerged as the term of choice for someone who engages in file sharing, rather than “thief.” Why? It’s probably because the people who object to file-sharing—the entertainment industry—think it’s safer and less provocative to call customers “pirates” rather than “thieves.” It’s a small but important idiomatic distinction, so the industry has probably been correct in its approach.
Nevertheless, if we call a spade and spade and refer to digital piracy by what the industry really thinks it is—theft—then we get to the question that usually gets ignored in all of this: Why do people steal?
There are many reasons. Poverty is a major one—when people can’t afford to buy the necessities of life, such as food and clothes, they often resort to stealing them. Others steal because it’s a compulsion, or they get a thrill from breaking the law (i.e. Winona Ryder). Some also do it for commercial reasons—they steal something that’s of high value, then resell it to make money.
None of these factors really apply when it comes to digital goods such as music and movies, which means people steal them for other reasons. What is likely at the heart of the file-sharing issue is a conflict between the intrinsic and extrinsic values of the goods being stolen, or pirated if you will. Because music and movies are not necessities of life, they do not have solid value—their worth is determined either by what consumers are willing to assign to them (intrinsic) or what producers want to sell them for (extrinsic).
What the rise and continuance of file-sharing has proven is that intrinsic values are way out of whack with the industry’s extrinsic value. In other words, content producers are charging way too much for their stuff—and the people who share files are sick of it.
Some of this is understandable. While people have been wanting to get things that don’t belong to them ever since Adam and Eve cracked the DRM on the apple in the Garden of Eden, it’s only over the past few decades that the phenomenon has become widespread. Technology has enabled it, but the entertainment industry itself has unknowingly encouraged it.
Consider how much the average person has been bombarded over the past few decades with images of celebrities—many of whom are of dubious talent—flying around in private jets, driving different cars every day of the week and drinking $1,000 bottles of champagne. How does that not lower the intrinsic value of the products those celebrities produce? To put it another way, it’s really difficult for many people to look at the opulent lifestyles of celebrities and then feel bad for stealing their music or movie.
The same holds true for the industry executives behind the scenes. While their wealth is not continually thrust into the public eye, people instinctively know about it and perhaps feel it’s even less deserved.
The success of iTunes, at least in music, should be proof enough of this theory. Apple’s model happens to be priced much closer to peoples’ innate intrinsic values, so people buy from it rather than steal. Other media industries haven’t quite figured this out yet, or they’re still in a state of denial, but they will eventually. Not adjusting extrinsic values to the intrinsic clearly leads to more theft.
The reason why people steal digitally, therefore, is obviously because they want stuff for free, or at least cheaper. Content producers have made it very easy to rationalize file sharing: digital piracy has become justified theft from people who are seen to have too much to start with. SOPA, or any other law, will not change this. Justified theft—which in this context has also been called the moral disengagement theory—is part of human nature and it’s not going away.
A more effective counter to psychologically and morally justified theft might be a conscious cutback on the flaunting of wealth by celebrities and executives. Maybe if it wasn’t so in-your-face all the time, the public wouldn’t feel so much like Robin Hood. This sort of reverse move toward inconspicuous consumption, however, is probably as likely as pigs learning to fly. The analogy is almost perfect.
When considering whether SOPA or other similar laws will be effective, it’s also prudent to look at actual piracy—the kind that involves boats and the sea (and rum and squawking parrots). Many observers have said that SOPA is a guns-blazing effort to stop The Pirate Bay specifically, which is the Energizer Bunny of the Internet—it amazingly keeps going and going no matter what is thrown at it. Would the legislation succeed in finally bringing down this website? Maybe, maybe not, but so what? Just as piracy continued after the likes of Blackbeard and Jean Lafitte were killed, so too will digital theft, with or without The Pirate Bay.
Indeed, piracy is enjoying something of a renaissance, with the International Maritime Bureau reporting that incidents have been on the rise ever since the end of the Cold War. With fewer military boats patrolling waters and freer trade that has resulted in more shipping, it’s a lucrative time to be a pirate.
The parallel between real piracy and digital theft is obvious. Maritime piracy looks to be an unfortunate side effect of the world becoming freer in both the rights of people and in trade. Online file-sharing is a similar byproduct of the Internet, which has introduced more social and commercial freedom than any other invention in history.
The reverse parallel is equally as poignant—cracking down on the Internet with something like SOPA would be the digital equivalent of plunging the world into a digital Cold War. Is that really something that we as a society want to do?
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article ... w-cold-war
SOPA, theft and the new Cold War
By Peter Nowak | December 22, 2011
Much has been written about the highly controversial Stop Online Piracy Act currently being considered by U.S. Congress. The legislation would allow for the taking down or blocking of websites that aid in legally-grey file-sharing, such as The Pirate Bay. From the heads of major tech companies writing about how the Act would effectively break the Internet to commentators chiding politicians for their potentially harmful ignorance on technological issues, just about anyone who is concerned with the Internet’s future is frothing mad.
Most of the arguments against SOPA have been bang on, but not many have taken the historical or psychological context of piracy into account. When such aspects are considered, it becomes even clearer just how futile and bone-headed the legislation—if enacted—would be.
It’s handy if we start with defining “piracy.” Under Webster’s traditional meaning, piracy is an act of robbery on the high seas. The only difference between a pirate and a thief, therefore, is water.
Digital piracy obviously doesn’t take place at sea, yet “pirate” somehow emerged as the term of choice for someone who engages in file sharing, rather than “thief.” Why? It’s probably because the people who object to file-sharing—the entertainment industry—think it’s safer and less provocative to call customers “pirates” rather than “thieves.” It’s a small but important idiomatic distinction, so the industry has probably been correct in its approach.
Nevertheless, if we call a spade and spade and refer to digital piracy by what the industry really thinks it is—theft—then we get to the question that usually gets ignored in all of this: Why do people steal?
There are many reasons. Poverty is a major one—when people can’t afford to buy the necessities of life, such as food and clothes, they often resort to stealing them. Others steal because it’s a compulsion, or they get a thrill from breaking the law (i.e. Winona Ryder). Some also do it for commercial reasons—they steal something that’s of high value, then resell it to make money.
None of these factors really apply when it comes to digital goods such as music and movies, which means people steal them for other reasons. What is likely at the heart of the file-sharing issue is a conflict between the intrinsic and extrinsic values of the goods being stolen, or pirated if you will. Because music and movies are not necessities of life, they do not have solid value—their worth is determined either by what consumers are willing to assign to them (intrinsic) or what producers want to sell them for (extrinsic).
What the rise and continuance of file-sharing has proven is that intrinsic values are way out of whack with the industry’s extrinsic value. In other words, content producers are charging way too much for their stuff—and the people who share files are sick of it.
Some of this is understandable. While people have been wanting to get things that don’t belong to them ever since Adam and Eve cracked the DRM on the apple in the Garden of Eden, it’s only over the past few decades that the phenomenon has become widespread. Technology has enabled it, but the entertainment industry itself has unknowingly encouraged it.
Consider how much the average person has been bombarded over the past few decades with images of celebrities—many of whom are of dubious talent—flying around in private jets, driving different cars every day of the week and drinking $1,000 bottles of champagne. How does that not lower the intrinsic value of the products those celebrities produce? To put it another way, it’s really difficult for many people to look at the opulent lifestyles of celebrities and then feel bad for stealing their music or movie.
The same holds true for the industry executives behind the scenes. While their wealth is not continually thrust into the public eye, people instinctively know about it and perhaps feel it’s even less deserved.
The success of iTunes, at least in music, should be proof enough of this theory. Apple’s model happens to be priced much closer to peoples’ innate intrinsic values, so people buy from it rather than steal. Other media industries haven’t quite figured this out yet, or they’re still in a state of denial, but they will eventually. Not adjusting extrinsic values to the intrinsic clearly leads to more theft.
The reason why people steal digitally, therefore, is obviously because they want stuff for free, or at least cheaper. Content producers have made it very easy to rationalize file sharing: digital piracy has become justified theft from people who are seen to have too much to start with. SOPA, or any other law, will not change this. Justified theft—which in this context has also been called the moral disengagement theory—is part of human nature and it’s not going away.
A more effective counter to psychologically and morally justified theft might be a conscious cutback on the flaunting of wealth by celebrities and executives. Maybe if it wasn’t so in-your-face all the time, the public wouldn’t feel so much like Robin Hood. This sort of reverse move toward inconspicuous consumption, however, is probably as likely as pigs learning to fly. The analogy is almost perfect.
When considering whether SOPA or other similar laws will be effective, it’s also prudent to look at actual piracy—the kind that involves boats and the sea (and rum and squawking parrots). Many observers have said that SOPA is a guns-blazing effort to stop The Pirate Bay specifically, which is the Energizer Bunny of the Internet—it amazingly keeps going and going no matter what is thrown at it. Would the legislation succeed in finally bringing down this website? Maybe, maybe not, but so what? Just as piracy continued after the likes of Blackbeard and Jean Lafitte were killed, so too will digital theft, with or without The Pirate Bay.
Indeed, piracy is enjoying something of a renaissance, with the International Maritime Bureau reporting that incidents have been on the rise ever since the end of the Cold War. With fewer military boats patrolling waters and freer trade that has resulted in more shipping, it’s a lucrative time to be a pirate.
The parallel between real piracy and digital theft is obvious. Maritime piracy looks to be an unfortunate side effect of the world becoming freer in both the rights of people and in trade. Online file-sharing is a similar byproduct of the Internet, which has introduced more social and commercial freedom than any other invention in history.
The reverse parallel is equally as poignant—cracking down on the Internet with something like SOPA would be the digital equivalent of plunging the world into a digital Cold War. Is that really something that we as a society want to do?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/22/louis ... 1-million/
Louis CK’s digital distribution experiment clears $1M in 12 days
December 22, 2011 | Tom Cheredar
Comedian Louis CK’s recent digital distribution experiment to sell his latest standup performance independently has generated over $1 million, he announced in a statement on his website yesterday. Revenue from the special topped $500,000 after its first four days on sale.
CK made his latest performance Live at the Beacon Theater available as a non-copy-protected download for purchase on his website for a meager $5. Purchasing the special allows you to stream it twice in your browser, or download it twice as an unprotected MPEG 4 video file. Unlike his previous standup appearances, CK cut out the distributor (which was previously Comedy Central and HBO), opting to handle all transactions on his own site. The results were lower prices for his fans and much more revenue than the comedian expected.
“So it’s been about 12 days since the thing started and yesterday we hit the crazy number. One million dollars. That’s a lot of money. Really too much money. I’ve never had a million dollars all of a sudden,” CK wrote. “I want to set an example of what you can do if you all of a sudden have a million dollars that people just gave to you directly because you told jokes.”
If the $1 million in revenue didn’t catch people’s attention, the way CK intends to use the money definitely will.
Rather than hoard the vast new profit from the digital download sales, CK said he plans to split it up among various people and organizations. The comedian explained that $250,000 would pay for the standup special and $250,000 would be disbursed as bonuses to people who work for him. Also, CK plans to donate $280,000 to five different charities, including the Fistula Foundation, Green Chimneys, Charity:Water, the Pablove Foundation and micro-loan non-profit Kiva. That leaves CK with $220,000 for himself.
“Some of that ($220K) will pay my rent and will care for my children. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million,” CK said, adding that he’s always viewed money as a resource rather than something you keep for yourself.
The standup special is still available for purchase on his website. CK said if the special makes another million he’ll give more away to charities.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I have railed against online piracy for years since it harms my industry and the whole entertainment industry, and people laughed at me saying that you can't stop it.
Sure, us porn makers are easily dismissed with "you make porn."
If you think the billionaires who own Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Warner Bros, Paramount and EMI are going to just walk away from that, you're wrong.
Yes, they decided to stop the pirate ship with a nuclear bomb. That's what happens when only one side works on a law. It should be a very good lesson in why both sides need to come together to negotiate and find a way to compromise.
So we can all breathe easy for now.
Don't think this issue is done... This issue is going to have to be addressed.
You should keep reading:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
I didn't catch if you were serious or not, either way, could you explain?
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html
I'm will admit I'm going to miss reddit tomorrow.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
That is why I love Louis C.K.
Eddie Vedder- 7/16/11
Brad- 4/21/12 (RSD Performance), 4/27/12, 8/10/12
Flight To Mars- 5/23/12
RNDM- 11/27/12
PEARL JAM- 12/6/13 I have finally seen Pearl Jam live!
Wikipedia's down - just when I wanted to look something up too.
Can you imagine if Google went black though? I think that would get a lot of attention. I bet there are people out there who don't even know how to use the internet without Google.
Wiki is user supported so they can risk going offline for 24 hours with little consequence.
^great link. ha ha, I loved it.
I'm disappointed that google didn't take it a step farther and black out their whole site, disallowing the search function and that other search engines didn't partake.
This country would probably storm the capital if google, facebook, and twitter shut themselves down for a week.
That is one of the few powers actually authorized to Congress by the constitution. I only posted it to show this issue isn't exactly cut and dry. Though I'd probably side with the amendment on this one, it still is an interesting issue.
I agree, it's too bad that google didn't take it a step further, to spread real awareness to the public on the issue.
You can check out if your senator supports or opposes SOPA and PIPA here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/pipa-whiplist
http://www.reddit.com/
well yep thats the one i use.
i am all for protecting the intellectual property rights of folks but i dont think this bill is the right way to go about it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i do not understand how any republican, the kind who will cling to the constitution and drone on and on about loving freedom and getting government out of their lives at every chance they get, can have an ounce of support for these bills. these bills are censorship of the internet.
you can not be for freedom AND support censorship. it does not work that way. not even in a vacuum...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
hmmm so youre all for anyone taking your intellectual property without compensating you for it? :think:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i had a blog once, and i don't see anyone beating down the door to steal any ideas in that piece of crap.
the book i was writing is nowhere on line...
the poems i had written are in books, not online..
i believe that if you start censoring the internet you stifle the flow of information. and with the united states' declining level of understanding of most important issues, i think limiting information in this country could be one of the final nails in the proverbial coffin. then again, most people are too lazy to look up the information that is available online now so....
and if according to citizens united corporations are people and money is speech, why can't we censor that? if you are going to censor anything that supreme court ruling is the beast that needs to be killed...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
always gotta be so literal. :roll: :P
i meant generally and metaphorically(least in your case
i know people can justify illegal downloading and file sharing all they want... in fact i was listening to triple j yesterday when peeps were doing just that....i download but then i spend up big at live gigs... i only download those bands who are filthy rich... i dont do it with small indie bands....people tape/burn discs for friends so whats the difference.
the problem i have with SOPA is its too broad. you cant hold search engines responsible for where it takes people if they are unaware of what takes place on that site.. least i dont think. however once theyre made aware of an illegal download/file sharing site i do think they have a responsibility to wipe that link. and this has nothing to do with stifling the sharing of information. imo
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What SOPA is essentially about is control Cate. The govt uses piracy to be able to get their hands on the broad internet and say that it's for "safety" reasons. They don't put this in the writing, it's not really just about intellectual property, they just say it is to get their legislation passed. It's about internet censorship, something everyone should care about.
republicans actually LOVE "big" government. as long as it legistlates Jesus laws, fetuses, coroporations and gives us a huge Kick Ass Military. Fuck yeah.
just don't help the poor or actual people. lazy fuckers.
so i cant trust the US government??? those bastards!
actually now that i think about it if this is US legislation how will it effect the rest of the worlds access???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say