Slashdot Mirror
SOPA and PIPA So Far
Since their inception SOPA and PIPA have raised concerns about blacklisting from online freedom advocates, and tech industry giants. Law professors worry that they could stifle growth and innovation. Other's have warned that the legislation would hurt scientific debate and open discourse on the internet. SOPA and PIPA are not without support however. In fact a wide variety of companies have backed the proposed laws, bringing together an eclectic group. After months of debate, the removal of one of the more controversial provisions, and The White House expressing its own concerns over the law in its current form, Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced that he was shelving SOPA. PIPA however remains, and it is likely that a re-worked version of the House bill will be brought up soon.
Finally, slashdot chimes in on SOPA...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
as of yesterday SOPA was resurrected in the House
I am collecting screenshots of blacked-out sites today so we can have them all in one place. If you know of any other sites, please email them to me.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/117902136861919925087/albums/5698963233208682849
Why isn't Slashdot blacking out? It is one of those sites that could be greatly effected by this bill. Besides I need to be more productive today. And most of the sites I visit are blacked out too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's going to resume in February. http://judiciary.house.gov/news/01172012.html
I mean seriously. There is a real reason why congress is less popular than things like Paris Hilton and Nixon. These guys are so far into the pockets of big business that they don't even have a minor inkling of what is best for the majority of America.
I got here through a series of tubes
"Every 200 years there needs to be a revolution" - Thomas Jefferson
Came to mind when reading this...
If SOPA/PIPA dies in Congress, it is not because the people rose up to oppose the terrible legislation. It will die because enough corporations spoke up opposing it to outnumber the supporters.
The Hollywood studios behind these bills are some of Obama's biggest contributors. His "expression of concern" is just a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the fence. He would as soon deliver a State of the Union speech in the nude than to veto one of these bills (or anything similar).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You're joking right? There's been a SOPA story on Slashdot atleast twice a week for the last few months..
Yeah, and I believe all from the readers. Slashdot has editors, paid staffers who ultimately decide what's posted (regardless of what the firehose says is the topmost story); there's no good reason they can't write an actual editorial or stage a protest when situations call for it.
Slashdot didn't participate in the blackout, and after multiple comments and submissions, including mine, criticizing them for being spineless punks...we get a massive pile of links spelling out a bald summary of the story so far. No opinion, no support for a cause in which they have a vested constitutional interest, nothing.
Either users submit the content and run the site, or the editor's actually have a purpose and they should show some balls. This awkward middle-ground where they never have an opinion and almost never come up with content - yet still hold final control over what stories go up and reword or cut down the summaries as they see fit - sometimes looks pretty pathetic. This is one of those times.
There is a real reason why congress is less popular than things like Paris Hilton and Nixon.
Could've fooled me. I mean, with a 95% reelection rate, I would say they're a pretty popular bunch
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
That's because every other congressman sucks, but mine. It's those other assholes that are bringing it down. /sarcasm
This is the 2nd Amendment issue of our age, and like the NRA we need to be eternally vigilant against never-ending attempts to restrict our rights.
Personally, I support the EFF as the equivalent of my NRA.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I actually expected that, and warned of it in my own submission this morning. I think some people don't fully understand what 'tabled' means.
Eric Cantor is Speaker of the House, and he's the one who 'tabled' SOPA yesterday, according to the stories we've been reading. The Speaker controls the House by controlling the schedule. He decides what gets floor time, and if he refuses to schedule something for a vote it can't become law.
No bill is actually dead, however, until the legislative year is over. If a bill "died in committee", the committee could consider a new draft or change their minds outright; if it died because the Speaker wouldn't schedule it, he could come into work the very next day and say: "Hey, that thing I said we wouldn't vote on until my mother-in-law gave me a blowjob in the back seat of my Mercedes? Well, granny puckered up last night and it was reeaal nice, so everyone pick up your clickers and put in the old yay-or-nay on this bill!"
So when he supposedly shelved SOPA yesterday Cantor wasn't making some sort of vow or invoking a rule that destroyed the bill: congresspeople could still talk about it, continue to work on it, and continue rounding up votes for or against it. Apparently they did. He was still free to change his mind, and apparently he did. So at the moment it's been re-scheduled yet again for markup.
If you don't like a bit of legislation, do not rest until the session is over. That's the only time you can be sure that particular bill won't go through.
And when I say that particular bill I mean it specifically: it happens frequently that the same proposed law, sometimes word-for-word, comes up year after year after year, in bill after bill, until it finally gets through. It happened when North Carolina effectively banned municipal broadband this year; that was the third try for that one. There could be a second, third, fourth and fifth try for SOPA until Hollywood gets what they want. Pay attention and be vigilant. Their lawyers don't sleep, and neither can you if you want a free internet.
I see Facebook and Google made a MASSIVE effort to change to their homepages and educate people - especially in non US locations. Talk about a half baked attempt at a protest. Props to Reddit, Wikipedia, Wired et al. who actually went through with it - worldwide!
And Fark, Reddit, and Wired are for digital neophytes who aren't well informed about the topic? Because they all participated to some degree, and if it's only a 'nuisance' for a place with informed readers to participate in a protest then the readers of those websites are either much stupider than ours or their editors much dumber than ours...
The point of the damn protests is to point out how inconvenient and destructive it would be for your favorite sites to disappear without notice thanks to the instant, warrantless takedowns that SOPA would enable. Leaving a major tech news site on-line, where all of their users can bitch and speculate about the protests rather than experience being cut off, actually kinda blunts the effectiveness.
Just because we get it in theory doesn't mean there's no value in solidarity or that it wouldn't be good for us to experience it firsthand for a frickin day as further impetus to prevent a future where we could experience it for a lifetime.
And ultimately, slashdot isn't that important.
Sent to Robert P. Casey, JR, Senator (D) from Pennsylvania:
"Big media may pay your bills, but your constituents elect you, sir. SOPA/PIPA does EVERYTHING for them and NOTHING for us. You should be ashamed of yourself for co-sponsoring PIPA. Please withdraw your support, immediately, and publicly."
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
Even if SOPA/PIPA is defeated in congress in its current iteration, the media industry and its lobbying arm likely aren't going to worry in the least. Why? Because they have an ace in the hole: H.R 1981 - The Protect Children from Internet Pornographers (PCIP) Act of 2011. While still in committee since being introduced last summer, and containing questionable provisions about IP logging, It carries with it the same crew of supporters that are pushing the media industries' SOPA agenda. Chances are quite high that they will simply copy/paste SOPA's text onto it, thus giving it the "protecting children" shield from public scrutiny. Any opposition to it will easily be re-framed to wanting to "protect child pornogrophers". This will likely be the next battle and won't be easily won with blackouts and internet stunts. In fact, I'm not sure the public could handle the level of nuance that would be needed to explain why such a bill is dangerous.
So you made $1000 and 50000 people went to some effort to play for free. You say "just 1 dollar", but in many, if not most, parts of the world, a dollar is still a lot of money. If SOPA were in effect and effective, I guess you would have made $1200 (and I'm not clear how SOPA would have helped you).
Imagine you priced your game at 10 cents, and there was an easy and frictionless way to pay. I suspect at least half the freeloaders would rather pay than pirate, and you would have made $2500.
The underlying problem is that most copyrighted products are overvalued. When every man and his dog can write a game, make a video or a music recording, then supply exceeds demand and prices should drop.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Nice way to skirt around the issue.
Slashdot readers overwhelmingly don't want to discuss this issue; they just want to protest and protect their own interests. And oh, posters here are ingenious at constructing defensive commentaries and expostulating semantic arguments in their favor.
How is that any different from the big baddies in the movie and music industry?
I highly doubt that 50,000 people would have even heard of your game, much less downloaded it if it weren't available for free. In fact, some people may have wandered over and paid for a "real" version after trying it, assuming they liked it. I could just as easily assert that piracy HELPED you as not; you have no way of knowing, and breaking the internet is overkill for the problem. And you answered your own problem. Instead of reporting links, why don't you work on a new game? It's a much better ROI than hoping you somehow force people to buy your game by reporting links... I'm guessing that has gotten you very little gains.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
In a somewhat serious answer to the OP rather than the snarky one that I gave. My two senators are Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk. While Durbin may be in bed with all of the special interests that plague Washington, he has actually done some good for someone that I know. His office help with some immigration issues that my friend was having with his fiancee. She was stopped at customs in O'Hare and was sent back to Poland immediately. My friend petitioned Durbin to help and he actually came through. His fiance was allowed into the country with his help.
Now while I am not in particular fond of congress in general, especially in regards to things like SOPA and PIPA, they do actually help the people they represent. In the case I illustrated above is a case where I don't mind them. Heck, stuff like that should be their primary goal.
Back to the intent of my original post, I was just commenting on why incumbency is so high. People always think that their representation is fine, but it's everyone else that sucks. But I am with you. In general I try to vote out incumbents. Otherwise they get too comfortable, and if they are there too long, they stop representing the people that elected them in because of this incumbency effect.
Hey, I am willing to discuss the issue -- the real issue, which is whether or not the benefit to the American public is being maximized by our current system. If we need to adopt the Chinese approach to the Internet just to keep the current system afloat then I think the answer is, "No, not even close."
We already have absurdly long copyright terms, the censorship of software that can be used to subvert DRM (and court-ordered censorship of magazines that dare to publish links to copies of that software), and a department of "homeland security" that hijacks DNS entries in the name of protecting copyrights and trademarks. All of that is not enough? If all that is not enough, then the system needs to be fundamentally redesigned. Copyrights/trademarks/patents/trade secrets are of much lower priority than the protection of American rights and freedoms.
Palm trees and 8
You should accept the following as true:
1. Piracy is bad.
2. Attempts to stop piracy will be mostly useless.
3. These attempts will cause more harm than the piracy that is prevented.
Look, I am sorry for someone whose work has been ripped off, but the hard reality is that the old paradigms no longer obtain.
See http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/18/0452238/cloud-computing-democratizes-digital-animation for a good example.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Better business model may eventually equate to a different way of making money may eventually equate to people just giving up and not producing.
I doubt that anyone will give up. At one time there were no copyrights on music, yet people still sang songs and created music instruments. At one time there were no copyrights on written works, but people still wrote books, to the point where huge libraries could be filled. Immensely complex and useful software is released under the terms of the GPL and other free software licenses, which encourage people to make copies with or without payment.
It is not a question of whether or not people will do creative work, it is a question of whether or not we have a system that ensures the public has access to creative works (which means more than simply ensuring that creative work is done -- what use is a painting that remains locked in a cellar somewhere?).
And yet look at how many utilities or applications come from tiny little companies
Look at how many software utilities are being given away at no cost, and look at how this company has made its way to the S&P 500 list by monetizing GPL'd software:
http://www.redhat.com/
People here will never get it,
No, we "get it" just fine -- people like you want to make money by forbidding other people from using their computers / tape recorders / etc. in certain ways. At one time, that was nothing more than a regulation on industry, because nobody could make good copies of creative works without industrial equipment. Now everyone has the necessary equipment in their homes, but there is no way that an average American is going to take the time to ask whether or not they are violating a copyright or engaging in fair use, and it is absurd to think that a typical American will have the resources needed to dispute such things in court.
The point of SOPA is to attack, head-on, one of the greatest steps forward in communication in the history of the human race. Computers and the Internet are as important as writing and the printing press were. The Internet threatens the current distribution model and regulations, much in the same way that the printing press and the ability to write did, and just as happened then, people whose incomes depended on the previous distribution model found themselves facing the loss of their jobs.
At one time, laws, entertainment, and history were not written down, but passed down orally. Communities would have people whose job was to remember things and pass that knowledge on to future generations. One day, a new technology emerged: writing. Suddenly, instead of relying on people to remember laws and stories, societies were wage to record things. The old profession died, and new professions emerged: scribes and scholars. Had you been around back then, you would have been pushing for a law that restricted writing in order to protect your job as a storyteller, and you would have insisted that all the people who said that writing should not be restricted did not "get it."
Centuries after scribes established themselves as one of the most important classes in society, a new technology emerged that threatened their profession: printing presses. The same pattern emerged: scribes lost their jobs, and new professions developed. Had you lived back then, you would have demanded a law that restricted printing presses so that you could keep your job as a scribe.
So here we are, in the 21st century, and we see the same pattern once again. Centuries after the press became fundamental to society and we built laws and businesses around it, a new technology has emerged: computer networks. Now people do not need to wait for industrial printers to produce copies of books, they can just have a copy sent to them over a computer network. You do, in fact, live in this age, and you are pushing for la
Palm trees and 8
Why should we feel sympathy for people whose business models failed to keep up to date with the modern world? Do you feel sympathy for stage coach drivers who lost their jobs thanks to railroads and automobiles? Do you feel sympathy for vacuum tube manufacturers?
People need to update their business models to cope with new technologies, plain and simple. It is absurd to expect a typical person to know or care about copyright law, and it is insane to introduce a censorship apparatus in America just to protect an old business model. If your business depends on people not using their own computers to do certain things then your business is basically doomed.
I guess I am expected to feel bad for the guy who spent late nights debugging his software only to see people download it without paying. Unfortunately for him, he made a risky business decision (basing his business on people not downloading software when software piracy has been a reality since the beginning of the PC age) which was practically guaranteed to backfire. Sometimes businesses just do not work -- why should we feel more sympathy for some classes of business than for others?
Palm trees and 8
The outrage over these bills would not be nearly so great had the previous copyright extensions had not utterly eliminated works entering the public domain, and had the DMCA not been systematically abused against fair use. What we lack in the U.S. today is balance in how we treat intellectual property, especially copyrightable works. Restore the public domain and strengthen the rules governing fair use, and you can have fair IP protection. But I strongly believe that the need for PIPA and SOPA would disappear if we restored the public domain and fair use.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
The problem with this argument is that the examples you give are of technologies that were superceded by improved and new technologies. That's not the case here; the problem is business models that are failing because it's too easy to break the law.
I do feel sympathy for people whose role becomes an anachronism, but that's human empathy, and at a broader level I don't maintain that we should halt all progress. A more accurate analogy would be to ask if I feel sympathy for stage coach drivers who lost their jobs (or their life) because of highway robbery.
Too bad you didn't provide links directly to those websites, because then if SOPA/PIPA were enacted and the domains were declared by the DoJ to be dedicated to infringing copyrights, Slashdot itself could be censored until your post was removed.
What's really upsetting about SOPA is not the content of the legislation (there has been even nastier stuff proposed in the past, and expect worse in the future). It's the naked and unapologetic way in which the RIAA and MPAA have declared that they own the US House of Representatives. It's not new that our politicians are corrupt, spineless and clueless (indeed, the US is actually far less corrupt than most nations), but the corruption that we do have can cause so much damage. Even China can't slam the world as hard as the US, in this arena (that may eventually change).
Frankly, it's embarrassing as hell.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
"SOPA is about sites like......"
In the UK, counter-terrorism legislation introduced after the London tube bombings has been used by local councils to spy on householders recycling behaviour or usage of school catchment areas ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922427/Councils-warned-over-unlawful-spying-using-anti-terror-legislation.html ).
Just cos it is introduced for one purpose does not mean it wont be used for another.
"That's Slashdot's moderated democracy."
Then adjust your viewing threshold. Its your choice to view them all if you want, no-one's stopping you.
It is unfortunate how outright irrational people get when the topic of child protection comes up. It is like the intelligent thinking part of their brain just completely shuts down, and they lose the ability to think anything through.
Protecting children is good, we all agree. Blocking adult access to cartoon or digitally-created images of children does nothing to protect them. In fact, it harms them worse on two counts: 1) They are forced to grow up in a liberty-stricken police state, 2) It deprives deviants of other outlets, meaning the *only* stimulation they can get is from actual children.
The evidence at hand is that pedophilia stems from brain malformation, meaning it doesn't heal up over time. Stoic self-denial doesn't make the desires go away. Therefore, making the images go away doesn't make the pedophiles go away. It just leaves YOUR kids as their *only* outlet. You think that makes your kids safer?
Want to protect the children? Allow adults easy access to cartoon images (no real children harmed in producing them) and also dolls like the ones you can get in Japan. Give them a harmless outlet, and continue to punish anyone who harms actual children.
Now watch as people call ME a pedophile for failing to demand permanent taxpayer-funded incarceration for anyone who has an inappropriate desire whether they channel it harmlessly or not.
People are so stupid.