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?"
Find a Good Car Analogy
"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..."
Sounds like he's beyond hope, but probably has a bright future in politics.
..and randomly "blacklist" Google, FB, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. on it with some notice of copyright infringement.
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...
A good infographic that explains dollars and sense! http://matadornetwork.com/change/infographic-why-the-movie-industry-is-so-wrong-about-sopa/
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so- Zaphod beeblebrox
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.
SOPA/PIPA were US legislation that were sold largely on their utility in fighting foreign-origin piracy by (among other things) requiring ISPs in the US to block access to foreign sites that were (accused of) providing pirated materials.
Or better yet, find where he stores his private photos and videos and send a DMCA takedown notice. Make it look legit and have something like - in your picture you have X that is there without permission.
Or just block that site completely.... In essence just demonstrate how his life would be affected by the laws.
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.
The simplest solution is usually the best.
Just shoot him.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
SOPA/PIPA were US legislation and would have had only been able to be used to prosecute inside the United States.
Absolutely backwards.
SOPA, specifically -
" Rep. Goodlatte, "Intellectual property is one of America's chief job creators and competitive advantages in the global marketplace, yet American inventors, authors, and entrepreneurs have been forced to stand by and watch as their works are stolen by foreign infringers beyond the reach of current U.S. laws."
"They say it protects the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites"
Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign owned and operated sites, and citing examples of "active promotion of rogue websites" by U.S. search engines, proponents say stronger enforcement tools are needed.
SOPA is designed to American citizens from accessing foreign sites that are deemed (implied) to be infringing.
Even with all of the useful suggestions posted here, you may not succeed.
Back in the day, when SCO started their ill fated lawsuit against IBM (but actually against Linux), I had a co worker who I discussed this with. He didn't know much about what was going on, but read the various industry rags and loudmouths, and thus believed that (his words) "SCO has a strong case".
Rewind about three years. I was talking to him about open source and Linux. His reaction about a free high quality OS always came back to "but how do they make their money?". After explaining about open source more, he finally understood it was not about money. I'll never forget his reaction. His words caused my jaw to drop to the floor: "They can't be allowed to do that!"
From that point on, we always were at odds over a lot of fundamental viewpoints. He tended to take the view that anything big business did that was profitable was therefore morally right. Yes, I kid you not.
My point? You may not be able to convince your non techie friend.
Oh, and when you say "unbiased" I think you might have meant "reasonable". There's nothing wrong with being biased because you have a particular viewpoint that you advocate.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The *AA and related music publishers are government sponsored pirates.
They raid the public domain, the prevent their own work from being in the public domain.
They sell music to which they do not have the rights.
They rob their own artists with dodgy accounting.
They falsely inflate damages by infringers in order to punish them way beyond worse offenders
They use other peoples materials without rights because they (like everyone else) can't be bothered to follow the laws they sponsor
They issue false take-down notices to material that they do not own (some of which they or their artists use illegally).
They interfere with the politics of other nations in order to further their own interest.
They attempt to make a criminal out of every man woman and child in the world in order to increase revenue.
These are all behaviours observed over the last few years.
Will other slashdot readers please provide citations for each type of behaviour or add new behaviours.
We then ask why elected officials pay more attention to this group of pirates than individuals who have the democratic right to vote.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
No need to get into that. Tell him/her that:
Facts:
1. Information flows freely between people. There is no way around that. It's been like that since humans were first able to communicate.
2. This didn't mean much back in the days since information was tied to physical media (books, tapes...), so it was essentially not free except what you could say/listen to, which was naturally limited by our brains.
3. Information is now infinite and fast and without borders (for all intents and purposes pertaining to copyrights)
4. You can encrypt and obfuscate communications with the help of computers, beyond the reach of anyone, including the law enforcement. Hence, with little overhead, nobody can tell what you transmit over the internet, except the guy at the other end with the key/password.
Conclusion:
0. Anyone can communicate freely with everyone else, MEANS:
1. Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet.
2. Any law trying to prevent this will just harm lawful activities on the web by making it more and more cumbersome and risky to operate a legitimate website.
3. Piracy will not be reduced or stopped by anything else that global extinction of the internet. It is detectable for some part right now because people don't bother hiding themselves. This will change quickly and without pain from the pirates.
Ah... One last thing: It doesn't mean the end of music/films/books artists, but it surely means the end of movie/films/books distributors.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
It's a good rule of thumb that any that uses the words 'job creators' is full of shit. That's enough reason for me to be against SOPA.
...that entertainment is not "information,"...
you are simply wrong...at it's base level it is all information, and what and how it communicates is different to different observers. As a composer I listen to a lot of music as research, that is damn important information. Even if I am simply being entertained, I am only able to be entertained by being communicated to, it is all information, it is all data.
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
Yep. Goes beyond merely throwing the baby out with the bathwater; they want to set fire to the bathroom.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
I find this whole SOPA/PIPA/ACTA thing amusing in that the United States were major copyright violators in the 18th and 19th centuries, rampantly stealing European copyrighted works. Gilbert & Sullivan premiered Pirates of Penzance in New York City largely to establish American copyright to prevent piracy and were only partially successful. I believe Charles Dickens also had major issues with not getting royalties from American publishers, and in the 20th century French filmmaker Georges Mileas also had problems with American piracy.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
It is simple really.
When your country is growing copyright, patents, etc are often ignored by governement because there is always new ideas.
However once you start going down you keep extending and expanding your "Intellectual property" rights because you don't want people to do you want you do to others.
Therefore if you want to grow you need to cut copyright and patents back to short terms. I suggest the life of the author for copyright, and 10 years for patents without products and 15 years for patents with shipping products.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.