Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To Inform a Non-Techie About Proposed Copyright Laws
First time accepted submitter skywiseguy writes "I know someone who continues to argue that the takedown of MegaUpload shows that the existing laws are not adequate and that we *need* SOPA/PIPA to protect the movie/music industries from offshore (non-US) piracy. I keep trying to inform him of the history the *AA's have brought to bear on the copyright laws and how these bills are something that will continue the abuse of copyright instead of ending piracy as they are claiming. He has no grasp on how DNS works, much less the internet in general. What can I do to show him how destructive these bills actually are, preferably with something that is as unbiased as possible?"
... SOPA/PIPA to protect the movie/music industries from offshore (non-US) piracy.
SOPA/PIPA were US legislation and would have had only been able to be used to prosecute inside the United States. I think what you and your friend are looking to debate in that respect is ACTA and even that's looking limited.
My work here is dung.
Find a Good Car Analogy
You don't need to explain copyright. You just need to use logic.
If existing laws are inadequate, the FBI would not have been able to take down MegaUpload. MegaUpload has been taken down, thus existing laws must be adequate. QED.
...for their analogies.
Take his hard disk drive full of his downloaded music, movies, porn, etc, and say, "This is all of the stuff provided through the Internet". Take a hammer, say, "This is the new laws that they're planning on passing". Then say, "This is the result of those new laws" and smash the hard disk drive to bits.
Granted, you'll lose a friend, but you might gain an ally...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Easy.
Take their lunch.
Then steal their wallet.
And tell them it's because you THINK they pirated a movie or music CD and they "owe" you.
Smashing their laptop or other portable computing device is optional.
That's SOPA, ACTA, and a host of others in action: no due process.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Wouldn't the takedown of MegaUpload show that existing laws are already adequate? After all, the site was taken down...
As in other articles, people have pointed out that the general public doesn't care.
I know I've done what I can to let people know about the issues, but they seem to just shrug it off like it is no big deal to them. Some people are too blind to see the tree they're driving into, until it's too late to swerve out of the way.
Don't forget to point out that SOPA andACTA are not about combatting piracy.
They are about decreasing the cost and risk for the copyright holders. Using this legislation they can issue orders without any oversight or liability, and without any costs to them.
Find an analogy to that (you peddle X, but want to put the cost of peddling X on the general public via a 3rd party (ISP))
DNS is a lot like a phone book, which is something many people understand. If we blacklist someone from DNS it's like removing them from the phone book. Their phone number still works and anyone can call them. Removing an illicit phone number from the phone book will not prevent people from dialing the number. A phone number would still be passed around in forums, between friends, etc.
Regularly removing phone numbers from the phone book may create many alternative phone books which is likely to create a big headache for all users in figuring out which phone book they need to use to find a particular website and in figuring out which phone books contain legitimate information and which ones will give you the real phone number for your bank and which ones will give you fake books. This is particularly concerning because the legislation proposed doesn't apply due process to removing a phone number from the phone book, but instead allows for arbitrary removals.
I prefer the amputation analogy. Stealing is bad. Chopping off the thief's hand is even worse. Chopping off the thief's hand and the hand of anyone who bought stolen goods from the thief is even worse than that. Chopping off the thief's hand, the hand of anyone who bought stolen goods, and anyone who might or might not have bought stolen goods is SOPA.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
So people should have to pay to sing Christmas Carols, or join in campfire songs? Or kids going outside and playing "tag" should pay who? That's entertainment. Those dirty thieves should have to pay, huh? How dare people entertain themselves without compensation. How dare someone stop and look at a public performance, or piece of art without paying the original artist (dead for over a century).
And to what end does your perpetual view of copyright end? Disney has been dead for far longer than original copyright was, with renewal. IMHO businesses should not be able to own copyright, or patents.. and if they are permitted, it should be considered the after death portion of copyright, since it would be owned by a non-living entity.
Here is a fact for you... Nobody is owed anything. I can write a song that nobody ever hears, that doesn't mean I am owed anything. If someone hums the melody on a public bus does *NOT* mean they should have to pay me (or ascap, or bmi) a performance fee. When I'm dead, I won't be making any more, so copyright protection does not incentivise my corpse to create crap. The only thing that extending copyright past death + 5 years (max) does is protect an industry that actually creates produces nothing. Especially with distribution channels with nearly zero cost.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info