Slashdot Mirror
Viacom's SOPA/PIPA Pitch Video, Annotated
Lauren Weinstein writes "Viacom has just released a video calling for support of global Internet censorship via SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). A truth annotated version of this approximately seven-minute video is now available."
Reader quantumplacet writes with word that the Business Software Alliance (probably for reasons other than this video) has withdrawn its support for SOPA, claiming that "Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill." Writes quantumplacet: "While the BSA has a long history of focusing on the worst offenders and mostly ignoring casual piracy, this still represents a dramatic turnaround as the organization has been a SOPA supporter since the act's inception. BSA President Robert Hollyman posted on the company blog that 'Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights that cannot be compromised. ....Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas.'"
How many times now have similar bills died, only to be reintroduced under more and more bizarrely inaccurate names? Next time I suspect they'll call it the "Stop Online Pedophiles Act" and use the argument that it can be used to combat child predators. After all, you don't want to support pedophiles *DO YOU*?
I propose a law that mandates that laws introduced in the future can only be called by their official Congressional letter-number designation. I'm calling it the "Super-Patriot I-Love-America Act."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This is probably going to get rammed through one way or another. After all, these guys all spend billions of dollars every year buying off our representatives, they're not going to let a pesky thing like the outrage of us plebeians get in the way of clamping down on their Intellectual Property and any other IP they can make an even unreasonable claim to.
I would hope SOPA would get challenged in court and rejected on First Amendment grounds (online censorship of web sites seems an awful lot like an attack on Freedom of Speech, to me, but IANAL or judge) but given some of the other rulings we've seen out of the SCOTUS I'm not so sure it would even get overturned, there. Our court, as it sits, seems to be a lot less concerned about the rights of people and a lot more concerned about the rights of "people", i.e., corporations.
So how long until the corporate masters send a take down notice to youtube for that "obviously" infringing video.
So for those who haven't watched the "annotated" version, allow me to summarize. The production presents a series of film industry professionals talking about how they think things "should" be, why piracy is "not right", and dropping some of the classic inflated statistics that we all know and love. Each annotation is overlayed on top its respective scene to act in shallow rebuttal. The annotations present very few (if any) actual facts in rebuttal, rather relying on the same appeal to emotion and common sense that the original production pursued.
I hope I'm not the only one who was gravely disappointed with these "nuh-uh!"-style counterpoints. Rather than "and yet the film industry made record profits", let's drop some actual numbers. If our premise - that these guys have failed to make their case to support SOPA - is correct, then all of the world's facts should back us up.
If you're going to rebut a video, have something more inspiring and concrete than "and yet you want to censor the Internet."
....just how they. don't. get. it.
And Viacom, you allow to watch me Colbert Report for free on your own damn website. With ads.
For the rest...industry going down and shareholders crying cramping their coffers "Nooooo, not ooooour moooooneeeeey! Where is infinite profits!?". Just put them out of misery.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
http://www.viacom.com/news/Pages/anti-piracy.html
Farnsworth (Youtube) Obligatory.
This is gross. They draw conclusions which are tenuous at best, and completely ignore the actual issues. Are these people ignorant, and were just told to say something for a video, or are they knowingly misinforming the public? Either way, I'm disgusted.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
As a native Spanish slashdotter, I'm amused by the funny names your lawmakers assign to your acts. For reference:
SOPA -> soup
PIPA -> sunflower pipe
ACTA -> proceedings (at least this one is about a formalized document written on paper)
Or is it because any combination of two consonants with two vowels is a valid word in Spanish?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Anyone else find all that South Park stuff being on there is somewhat ironic? Maybe they just need to pitch more that all the episodes save some of the more recent ones (after the first week and then they pop back on) and two taken down for censorship are online for free?
I say Ironic was Trey and Matt stated they pushed for all the episodes being online for free because they were tired of having to pirate their own series whenever they easily wanted to rewatch an episode easily?
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
I hope SOPA passes. We'll just fix our geek software even better. Encrypted everything, out of band non-deterministic port hopping.. the only hope they'll have is million dollar stat boxes that make lots of wrong guesses and snip VIP VPNs. Our skin will grow over their bandaid.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
How many people here are producers of content, as opposed to consumers of content? All I see is lots of people with a not-my-problem attitude. Does anyone actually have an alternative or better solution?
I hate to defend the MAFIAA, but they really should post a link to the original video in the summary. We should watch what they put out before biasing ourselves with a (probably very accurate) edited version of the video. I'm a believe that more information is better than less. We can't form good opinions of ignorance.
That being said, the original video is crap. You can watch it here.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
And all those people were already paid long before a copy was uploaded to the internet. Try again, dipshit.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Disney's market cap is ~ $60 billion. Either Apple or Google could buy half of that with their cash on hand.
Once they had control, they could make one major media player start acting in everyone's best interest.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
They aired this on TV.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
While the BSA has a long history of focusing on the worst offenders and mostly ignoring casual piracy . . .
That is not the way I understand it. Having been to their web-site, it seems to me the BSA gloats, non-stop, about collecting $60K - $90K fines from people who are not "pirates" at all. For example, people who think the COA is proff of ownership.
I quite frankly don't understand the annotations in the video.
Opponents of SOPA seem to frame it as destroying the internet and free speech in order to save an industry, jobs, and to protect people's property rights. Not only does no one want to destroy the internet, or censor free speech, but In a capitalist society, people's property rights are pretty important.
I understand that many think SOPA is over-the-top, and that may be the case, but at the same time, the safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA are over-the-top as well — they remove all forms of tortious liability, and are currently far broader than they were intended to be. They were intended to protect physical network level service providers, not websites running above the application layer which wrap content in their own branding and sell advertising against it.
If the industry is simply unwilling to police itself, or get on board with a more reasonable interpretation of the DMCA, you're going to see conflict and opposition, and ultimately, regulation. This is how it's worked for every industry throughout time.
Other comments — like that US law does not apply overseas doesn't make any sense — if the infringing data is being sent from a server overseas to a computer in the United States, than part of the traffic flow is subject to US law. It's like they're making intentionally stupid and irrelevant arguments.
These annotations ring hollow — the first few minutes don't actually make any substantive claim against the proponents of SOPA. Its irrelevant that these media conglomerates want to squeeze more money out of The Daily Show, or Spongebob — they are entitled to a share of all revenue generated by these properties, and they are entitled to negotiate the terms for licensing its use — a site like MegaVideo, VideoBB, and even yes, YouTube, and Facebook, have no right to generate revenue off of these properties, and even by some interpretations off of a derivative work. Its fair use to make a parody of Spongebob, but it may not necessarily always fair use for YouTube to put their logo on it and sell ad space against it without sharing some of that revenue with the original rights holder. Simultaneously, traditional broadcasters are asked to compete with internet broadcasters, yet be liable for copyright infringement, and having to vet their content. This double standard is laughable.
If you keep up this polarizing fight, the only outcome is either the destruction of the content industry, or the destruction of the internet as we know it. Why don't we come up with a rational implementation of law which creates a fair playing field for both sides.
Yeah, right. Like the corporate drafters of SOPA didn't consider how it would make virtually anything done beyond passively viewing their content a felony. They'll deny it , of course, but they know full well that a prosecutor would be able twist the provisions of SOPA to fit anything they want to nail someone.
Think that won't happen?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
As a business owner and potential employer, I'd sure like to know who they are so that I know NOT to employ them in the future.
Sure...thanks for the Daily show and Colbert Report, but the rest of your catalog isn't worth jack shit. You are your own anti-piracy solution.
The people who did download stupid shit like the MTV whatever awards are likely one of two kinds of people.
A) The hoarder type. downloads anything, never watches it. would never have bought your product or watched it. just grabbed it because it was free. probably a script of some sort. no one will ever open that file. not really theft.
B) People who are legitimately interested in that file. Your TMZ, inquirer, gossip rags that need the footage to pull screenshots or clips in order to generate buzz for your products. How else are you supposed to get a DRMless copy onto a computer for editing purposes? Should they just wait for viacom to release a dvd?
Kind of Funny putting all those artists talking about their creative work and then an executive calling their work a commodity, indistinguishable from one another from the consumers point of view.
Don't buy a ticket to or rent a view of any movie released through Viacom. It's time for us all to cut their revenue stream. Also we all should be thinking about building an underground internet.
I tried to watch the video you linked, and I couldn't because:
"Sorry Canada
Videos Not Available
We are working hard to resolve our pre-existing
contractual obligations and bring you South
Park clips and full episodes as soon as possible."
Rights holders have enormous powers under SOPA. The mere accusation is enough to bring down a web site and all those who link to it. But let's look at how this kind of power has been abused under current law - which is too soft for rights holder lobbyists. They send out take-down notices with little or no regard for fair use. Satire, criticism, research, teaching, comment are all accepted for fair-use, Rights holders have no incentive to pay attention to these uses. So they don't. A politician is criticized and quoted as part of that criticism can force the takedown of that criticism. Other examples exist where rights holders took a shot-gun approach forced the take-down of things that were covered by copyrights owned by others -- despite no knowledge if those things were authorized by the real rights holders or not.
Now SOPA adds fuel to the fire and holders can force web sites off the net even referring to things improperly suspected of copyright violation. They can do this without due process. Think of the chilling effects on free speech when even linking to an academic research site can put you out of business.
In the Viacom one, different people from different entertainment companies go on about how important ideas are and how much they need to protect their ideas and creativity. OK, let's start with the Grimm brothers' tales and wipe out most of Disney's works. Next up, classical music and everything since, and hey, why not before! Last on my short list, books. Shakespeare, Dickens, Wilde, Joyce, Dumont, etc. all gone.
There's a reason why things become public domain.
There's a reason why people won't pay outlandish prices for goods which are not of that value.
There's a reason why people download games, music, films even though they've already paid for the hard copies in another format.
There are many reasons why SOPA and its like should be treated with disdain and never be permitted to exist.
Back in 1999 a congressional staffer sneaked four words into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 that made all the work of their recording artists subject to work for hire rules, meaning the labels would get the copyright. The bill passed and was signed into law.
After the ensuing uproar by the artists when this was discovered, the head of the RIAA tried to play "Oh my, how did this happen? We'll work to fix this."
They of course hired that staffer as their senior VP of lobbying, and he's still there today, and is probably behind SOPA. This guy had been behind the DMCA, the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, and many others. But this move, sneaking it in without notice or comment, was so bad the RIAA had to pull its mole out.
The Viacom video used the following shows and products as examples of "piracy":
The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, SpongeBob Squarepants, Dora the Explorer, and South Park.
What do you notice about all of these shows that are being "pirated"? They are all legitimately available for free viewing on their respective websites, on Hulu, etc!
The annotated version failed to challenge the framing of the video and should be ashamed. Here are a few examples:
-"Piracy" involves kidnapping and murder, not copyright infringement.
-"Stealing" deprives an owner of their property. This is also not equivalent to copyright infringement.
-"Intellectual Property" is not protected by U.S. law. U.S. law defines patents, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets (IANAL).
-Copyrights and Patents are defined in the U.S. constitution to encourage continued innovation and creativity. They have already been extended to ridiculous lengths by acts such as the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extention Act." An obvious example is royalties collected from anyone who uses the "Happy Birthday" song publicly.
-DMCA restrictions are already being used to trample "Fair Use". You may not back up your own media.
-Music purchases may not be sold under the "First Sale" doctrine.
-Recording artists have successfully sued record companies for withholding royalties when selling "Best Hits" compilations.
-Artists often do not benefit from their own work (the basis for copyright law). For instance, Michael Jackson was greatly enriched by music written and performed by The Beatles.
If the "content"-industry would finally give us what we want, i would gladly pay for it, but instead its bogged down with DRM, and locked to a single player or something else silly. Final product gives no advantage, but rather the opposite. I want to be able to play the content I have paid for on linux, on my mobile phone, on my tv, or wherever I can access it easiest when I want it. Right now, only piracy seems to give me that ability. I have stopped buying DVDs and music all together. That only takes up space. Spotify seems like it was on the right track, but lately it seems to have gone more in the wrong direction again. Stop whining; Use brain!
IMO people should react. If a thief tries to robs you, put him in jail; if corporation tries to stop freedom of speech (calling this bill in other term would be heinous and irresponsible) you fight it. Bills are just word written in a piece of paper. Is people who gives it power. I believe that citizens must stalk every congressman that supports this bill. Obviously they are willingly ignoring the consequence of their actions, but we don’t.
This is corpo-polical violence (white collar bullies) and should be addressed with civic violence, from the people to those how era trying to steal our right. The next thing will be your right to dissent, and then your right to think, and then your right to be free, and then your right to live. That is the recipe of a totalitarian fascist regime, but this one will be global.
The other solution would be a massive exodus of internet related business from USA to other countries were freedom of speech and civil rights still being protected by the lawmakers. That will not happen. Violence IS the only option. The will keep trying as long as we let them.