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quantumplacet writes with word that the Business Software Alliance (probably for reasons other than this video) has withdrawn its support for SOPA, claiming that "Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill."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!
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
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
I'm a producer. I don't like SOPA. I'm afraid larger companies will use it to bully me out of the market.
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.
Sure. Collapse the industry megaliths. They've become entitled behemoth leeches sucking the lifeblood of the world. Content will still be produced, and it might actually improve the general quality of the product to not have huge productions aimed at mass-appeal just to make the largest possible profit margins. The problem isn't piracy. The problem is corporate expectations. When those expectations aren't met, they start crying like children. Guess what? Life isn't fair or certain. It's a zero-sum game. You start with nothing, you end with nothing. Expectations to the contrary are doomed to disappointment. The sooner one accepts that, the better off they'll be.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
They aired this on TV.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
I am sorry, but that does not help the small guy who is struggling to make ends meet while watching others steal his work. I am not saying this bill will help either, but I would like to hear what all the consumers suggest he do?
If this is true, you need to find others like yourself and form a coalition, make your own ads. People need to know that it's not the entire industry crying out on this, that there are opposing voices on the inside.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Does anyone actually have an alternative or better solution?
Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.
Ignoring the problem is not going to feed my family.
Either hold on tight or bail. Trying to mold the world to fit your needs doesn't work. You have to adapt or die. That goes for the little guy too. In fact, the little guy has the better chance because they're usually better equipped to adapt to change. That's really what this boils down to, the giants aren't fighting piracy, they're fighting evolution, and they're ultimately doomed. The metaphorical asteroid is on its way.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
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
If I was a farmer struggling with people stealing from my fields, what would you suggest I do? Hold on tight or bail? Or just stop worrying so much about the potential loss? Surely not?
Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.
Ignoring the problem is not going to feed my family.
Doggedly continuing to do something that doesn't make any money isn't going to feed your family either, nomatter how much you would like to make a living doing what you love. I sympathise, it sucks, but like steam-engine maintenance some types of work just don't have the remunerative power they might have once had.
If I was a farmer struggling with people stealing from my fields, what would you suggest I do? Hold on tight or bail? Or just stop worrying so much about the potential loss? Surely not?
Farm produce is physical, and you can protect your field physically from stealing in ways that do not affect the legal end-user of your product.
If you're creating something that can quite frankly be duplicated and up to every person in the world be given a copy, at the cost of duplication less than pennies, then what you're doing isn't worth much. Even if it's creative. Even if it's otherwise unique.
I have to disagree on the details with you there. The limitless duplication makes it difficult if not impossible to rely on scarcity once the original has been created, but it may well be so that no-one else could produce the original if you didn't. In that sense the good is still scarce - if the potential creator decides not to make it, then the good will never be available, even if there is in fact serious demand for the product.
Therefore there are potential business models for such goods where you get a (group of) consumers to advance the cost of creating the good.
And introducing laws like this, even if they fed your family (highly doubt it), is not a good solution, in my opinion.
I was just stating that I do not believe that introducing draconian legislation is a good solution.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Farm produce is physical, and you can protect your field physically from stealing in ways that do not affect the legal end-user of your product.
Not really. If the thieves have enough fire power you won't be able to stop them. The only reason we don't have anarchy, where everyone just take everything that they want, is because we have government, police, and the law. Why should the government protect the farmer but not the artists?
Farm produce is physical, and you can protect your field physically from stealing in ways that do not affect the legal end-user of your product.
Not really. If the thieves have enough fire power you won't be able to stop them. The only reason we don't have anarchy, where everyone just take everything that they want, is because we have government, police, and the law. Why should the government protect the farmer but not the artists?
If the thieves have enough firepower, the government won't be able to stop them either. That's actually the root cause of the whole discussion: powerful corporations or groups of corporations (RIAA, Monsanto, the banks, the defense industry, the energy industry, take your pick) forcing their will on the government. Giving those thieves MORE power is probably not the answer to the woes of the little guy.
That's the ONLY reason? Wow, your view of humanity is even lower than mine.
To answer your question, artists don't produce anything necessary for continued survival. Art is not only subjective, it's luxury.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
A great deal of economic value of anything is related to how scarce it is. With the world now capable of digitally replicating so many things, those things capable of replication simply aren't scarce anymore.
Intellectual property does have value, and there is a great demand for it. If that was not so, then there would be no people stealing it. But piracy is like a positive feedback loop. It causes more and more creative people to just give up and exit the market, making content even more scarce, expensive and restrictive - just increasing piracy further. In the end there will be no more quality content, because there is no-one left willing to work for free.
Without piracy there would be a lot more content producers, more competition amongst them, better and cheaper content with less restrictions. And people with jobs instead of being pirates.
Without piracy there would be a lot more content producers, more competition amongst them, better and cheaper content with less restrictions. And people with jobs instead of being pirates.
The sad part is I think you actually believe that.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
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.
That's the ONLY reason? Wow, your view of humanity is even lower than mine.
Well, I was hoping that most people would be able to tell right from wrong, but after reading some of the posts in this story, I am not so sure anymore.
Without piracy there would be a lot more content producers, more competition amongst them, better and cheaper content with less restrictions. And people with jobs instead of being pirates.
The sad part is I think you actually believe that.
I know, it is not your problem. And you don't see how it could possibly ever affect you.
When did "intellectual property" become become a commodity rather than something inherent to a creator of a work? When did copyright become a club for corporations to beat consumers over the head rather than a privilege granted to a creator? When did patents become weapons of corporate warfare rather than protections for inventors? The original intent of these things is good and honorable, but the modern meaning has been perverted and twisted by amoral corporate entities bent on controlling and profiting off of anything they can get their tentacles on, in perpetuity. Something that intellectual property laws were supposed to prevent.
And no, software has no inherent value because it's just applied mathematics. It may perform valuable functions, but in and of itself has no value.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
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.
It is clear to me that you are desperately trying to justify to yourself that your piracy is only aimed at hurting those "large evil faceless corporations." It makes you feel less bad about it. Worse, you probably convinced yourself that you are the good guy. The truth is that you are just a common criminal, stealing from real people trying to make an honest living.
Yes, mod me down again. It will make you feel better.
Not to agree with Barnett, but saying "software...in and of itself has no value", relies on a contrived and extremely narrow definition of value, and is clearly highly debatable (cough cough *spurious crap*).
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!
It's clear to me that you have no response to my actual argument and instead can only attack me personally, a sign of a weak position. You have your opinion, I have mine, truth probably eludes both of us. Robin Hood was a criminal and a folk hero depending on who you ask. And none of it matters. I have no "feelings" on internet piracy one way or the other. All the talk of "lost sales" is complete bunk, these people aren't going to buy the product either way. I don't see anybody as being the "good guy" here, but you have obviously convinced yourself that you are the victim. Which is fine. Be victimized. Be angry. Flail around impotently as the system you choose to be a part of crumbles around you for not adapting to changing times and technologies. Or you could, you know, come up with a new idea or two yourself, try to innovate a way to advance the system and solve some of the problems, but I get the feeling that would be too much trouble for you. It's so much easier to just go on blaming those damn pirates for your misfortune for the rest of your life.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
You must be a programmer ;)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
To answer your question, artists don't produce anything necessary for continued survival. Art is not only subjective, it's luxury.
WRONG. If art was a luxury, why do even the most impoverished primitive cultures[1] have music, dance, and possibly other art forms? We have been creating art since we lived in caves. It is an innate need as much as food and shelter. In modern times, however, this need has been monetized to the point of ridiculous, and hence the perception that mass consumer art (TV, movies, multi-million dollar paintings, etc) is available only to the (relatively) wealthy
[1] For extra credit, look up the definition and origin of the word culture