Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
Louie Baur
20261 Followers
emfkJan 14, 2012
Cautiously optimistic. SOPA/PIPA need to die quickly!
anomaly100Jan 14, 2012
I'm skeptical. I think they should toss the whole Act in the paper shredder.
killersquirelJan 15, 2012
I agree. Hope it happens, but nothing is shocking anymore.
anomaly100Jan 15, 2012
I doubt it will happen. I think this is a charade.
killersquirelJan 15, 2012
Let me just be clear that I agree with you that the bills need to be shredded and not signed into law. I think I might have been a little unclear with my comment.
anomaly100Jan 15, 2012
Just to be clear about you being clear about being clear....ah f**k it. I got lost.
killersquirelJan 15, 2012
I have that effect on people. ;)
Closed AccountJan 15, 2012
if this bill is defeated i will print off a copy and then burn it....rock on....
muxmasterJan 15, 2012
And not be reborn
wilke2000Jan 15, 2012
The White House is being duplicitous. They negotiated ACTA in secret and if SOPA/PIPA could get through the Congress, I see no reason why they wouldn't ratify ACTA, given that we're already a signatory.
wjappeJan 15, 2012
Lies and deceit, that's a wonderful change and openness in government, our government
laurahoustonJan 14, 2012
ut. oh. stakeholder word.
"Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders,"
when they use the term 'stakeholders' that does NOT include everyone.
0ldb0yJan 14, 2012
way to go redditors. may the force be with youse!
breadfredJan 14, 2012
If only Reddit had a better user interface - it just hurts :(
timelessbwJan 15, 2012
Agreed :(
tehnoobifierJan 15, 2012
A nice user interface is what killed Digg...
breadfredJan 15, 2012
But I can use it. Reddit has a much much larger user base and their site is fast. But I just cannot get used to their layout. Time for Digg to sell out to Reddit and come up with some kind of nice medium
david_nivenJan 15, 2012
These bills are absolutely sickening. I can't believe that it's gotten to the point to where corporations have infiltrated our (or what used to be our) government and can throw out the first amendment at any given hint of a threat to profits without a warrant.
I'm, for one, disgusted and ashamed.
timelessbwJan 15, 2012
Dugg, couldn't agree more.
killersquirelJan 15, 2012
I absolutely agree with you here. You are right on with this one.
inajeepJan 15, 2012
That's the third time I had to digg niven. Mind you, it's over 3 years now.
killersquirelJan 15, 2012
Feels weird doesn't it?
0ldb0yJan 15, 2012
i dont get it, why would you be ashamed?
analogkid1Jan 15, 2012
Loved you in The Guns of Navarone....and you're 100% correct.
Corporations do indeed create enough influence through bribery (donations) and coercion of our politicians to create laws and steer the government in whatever direction they see fit to increase their already bloated bank accounts, reduce regulation and safety, pollute the environment unimpeded, etc. It's unbelievably pervasive....more than you can imagine.
wilke2000Jan 15, 2012
If you find SOPA/PIPA sickening, you should look into ACTA.
meccaydnaJan 14, 2012
She gave a very collected response but I'm weary of the recourse she's suggesting. She admits there are problems and not a consensus but later suggests that canning the whole thing isn't a solution compared to trying to develop a better piece of legislation. I feel this is bulls**t myself since anything besides SOPA/PIPA would be less effective against piracy due to their horribly broad inclusion of the net. Being able to kill any website like a french revolution accusatory guillotine is *the most* effective way to stop anything the creators want, and that's their goal. They don't want to make it more complicated and discerning, it would limits the Acts' power.
New solutions will only add time and time and more time, while reducing anti-piracy potency in the eyes of SOPA creators. They have no incentive to do that, except to dispel the cries of people like us that are pissed off for reasons unrelated.
In truth we already know what stops piracy while keeping the consumers happy - it's easy and balanced ways of of obtaining material legally, most of the time electronically. The same thing people have been chanting for YEARS. But to create systems like this, they require a beneficiary company to step up with the idea, spend their own time and money to develop it, and hope it succeeds (which it might not).
Simply saying "how can we make the Act better" does not address this, because nobody can write legislation to make new businesses innovate and succeed at their goals. It's like trying to legislate that a sports team should win their championship. No, that's not the answer, that's not a "high-road" solution, it's just pointless.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Well, to be fair I think they do have an incentive to think up of better solutions. Despite what you may think of them, they are not complete idiots. Most or all of them realize that the internet is vital to the economy and the society. They simply don't understand how a specific bill will affect the internet because they are not very technologically literate.
meccaydnaJan 15, 2012
I can entertain that, though I don't know if I want to give them the benefit of the doubt any longer. I don't necessarially believe them to be stupid per-se, but I do think their motives are malevolent. Well, money-driven might be a better term. I think their biggest incentive to change the Act is based in our disapproval and boycotts.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Agreed - it's a balance between their sanity, greed/lust for power, and realpolitik. And is a direct result of our lobbying and campaign finance system. The entire impetus for these two laws comes from the content industry which has very deep pockets.
barackalypseJan 14, 2012
There is only a single useful paragraph in the entire quoted response, and even that still doesn't tell me what the administration's position on the three bills mentioned is. Which, coupled with all the paragraphs about how much of a problem there is, tells me they'll sign whatever Congress passes.
duncan202Jan 14, 2012
This basically told me nothing about the White House's position.
peppermintpigJan 15, 2012
We have one that can read!!
dusanmalJan 14, 2012
Snake shows its colors:
"...To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law..."
What the Hell is difference between that statement and positions of Governments of Iran and China (just replace U.S. with Iran or China...)? That is EXACTLY the censorship of everything beyond US shores. That IS National Internet.
NO!
johnnysoftwareJan 15, 2012
"narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law"
LOL, see what she did there?
Parse that and even only half awake you can tell that she's saying they just want the power they don't have.
That's not self restraint.
That's pulling a fast one on the snoozy people.
Pyrrhic victory at worst and a temporary respite at best.
klipschfanJan 15, 2012
I like Leo Laporte's discussion about this a few weeks ago. There may be evidence that people who pirate content are the the very same people who are the best customers of the so-called victims here.
From the Napster era, I learned about many bands that I follow today. Most of the good music that I found from that time I have replaced with better quality legal copies.
There is almost no alternative to CD's on the Internet. There is HDtracks and maybe one or two others that have lossless audio. Although hosting a digital file on a server somewhere is very cheap, the music industry still insists on chopping bits out of the songs to increase their profits by reducing the bandwidth to serve your purchase. OR They want to pollute the earth with plastic discs and ship them in gas guzzling trucks to your local freedom of speech swallowing Wal-mart.
The movie industry has the best possible friend in Netflix, yet they still giveth and taketh away from the list of movies that we are allowed to stream to our media boxes or Blu-ray players etc. For example you can see Michael Keaton in Gung Ho from 1986. (by the way I tried that elephant joke on my wife) If I put it on my queue, in a week or two it will disappear. Make it all available all the time. It does not reduce the value of the product. Removing it from streaming just makes you movie executives look pathetic and foolish.
Lastly, one of Leo's guests pointed out on one of his shows that there is always going to be some losses to piracy. This is not unlike a grocery or department store. If that store did strip searches of all its patrons as they left the store, you probably wouldn't shop there.
These types of laws go way too far to fix a problem that doesn't even amount to a pebble in road to a steam roller.
laurahoustonJan 15, 2012
so the new for-profit cyber-police ... will arrest any american citizen on the internet buying or doing anything that is against american laws. ? .
""activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws"
like buying low-cost drugs from canada? or travel to cuba from canada and mexico? download some movie posted free somewhere by someone with CD drive (everyone)
melthornalJan 14, 2012
"Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders."
That has never been proven. It isn't being clear. It is an assumption. No matter how 'obvious' you think the assumption may be, it is entirely unproven. The only evidence given is circumstantial at best. Some companies claim they are losing money. Okay, why are they losing money? Is it piracy? Or is it a faulty business strategy? Are they losing money because of theft of their services? Or are they losing money because someone else is offering a better good or a better service?
It has never been proven. It isn't being clear to say this is a fact. It is disingenuous and lazy, at best.
It is reminiscent of early radio. It was stealing money, eh? Oh, it is stealing until you learn how to use it, then it is legitimate business, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rayvrJan 14, 2012
Blah, blah, blah blah blah.
melthornalJan 14, 2012
Herpa derp derp. Herpa deep derp.
I'm trying to speak on your level. Is it working?
rayvrJan 15, 2012
Herpa? As in herpes? Nah, that would be on YOUR level! Believe it or not, "blah" is a word. On the other hand, "herpa" and "derp" well, no they aren't words.
crashdvisJan 14, 2012
What? If, and your claim is wrong, early radio was stealing money, it was not in the way you claim. What was really happening was that revenue was shifting away from other media towards radio. Radio wasn't stealing anything. They produced their own content and then put it out.
What pirates do is steal the work of others without paying for it. You can see the difference can't you? I mean really. If you download a pirated movie and you didn't pay for it, how are you helping anyone but yourself?
You say that it's just a matter of time before people figure out how to use the internet and then it's a business? Well when it comes to movies and other pirated content, they have. You can actually pay for the stuff you are stealing. That is what a business is. I make something, you buy it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
melthornalJan 14, 2012
A: Early radio played tracks of off albums. Which was said to be stealing, since the person listening to the radio could hear the music without paying for it. They didn't care if the radio station paid for it, they only cared if the end user did. Times have changed.
B: All of the research conducted has proven that the vast majority of people would rather pay money for a service than steal it. But they also would rather steal the service if they feel the distribution method being used isn't convenient for them. Which tells you one thing, and one thing only. IT IS A DISTRIBUTION PROBLEM, NOT A PIRACY PROBLEM.
This is a fact with music.
It is a fact with movies.
It is a fact with television.
It is a fact with video games.
It is a cold, hard, simple fact. Piracy is not, has not, and never will be a problem. Distribution is a problem. And the company that figures out how to distribute goods and services in a way that consumers enjoy and are willing to use will succeed. Everyone else will fail. Fact.
No amount of lying, lobbying, or legislating will change that.
rayvrJan 15, 2012
Wrong as usual. Early radio was GIVEN tracks to play for free to PROMOTE THE MUSIC. As for B, well, wrong again. People would rather steal music than pay for it. Many sites that were built for that very purpose are no longer with us because they were illegally promoting the theft of music with BILLIONS of downloads! Did you get up on the wrong side of bed this morning?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
melthornalJan 15, 2012
"People would rather steal music than pay for it."
Demonstrably FALSE. Sorry, but you are so wrong that you should just be ashamed of yourself.
You also don't seem to understand the concept of "distribution problem." Look into some time.
rayvrJan 15, 2012
Factually true. You should look into it sometime! I know facts don't matter to you but consider this:
-In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion.
-From 2004 through 2009 alone, approximately 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks.
-NPD reports that only 37 percent of music acquired by U.S. consumers in 2009 was paid for.
-Frontier Economics recently estimated that U.S. Internet users annually consume between $7 and $20 billion worth of digitally pirated recorded music.
I think you should take another look at who should feel ashamed!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
melthornalJan 15, 2012
I ask you one last time: Do you understand what distribution problem means? Because every single thing you have said up until this point has showed that you have no clue what the concept is, what it means, or how to apply it in the real world.
melthornalJan 15, 2012
Also, early music radio wasn't given anything. They just played whatever they felt like, until people started complaining about it.
You should also look into pirate radio sometime. It is exactly, 100% analogous to internet piracy. You have a group of people who want a service. You have 'legitimate' companies who are unwilling to provide the service. So what do you expect to happen? 'Illegitimate" companies pop up to provide the service.
As long as you have a group of people who are asking for one thing, and every company refuses to provide it (or worse,the country legislates against it as is the case for pirate radio and the internet 'piracy' you see today), you will have a third party that supplies that service. 100% of the time. It is totally unstoppable. No number of lies will stop it. No number of laws will stop it. No matter of threats will stop it. It is inevitable.
And, it is a distribution problem.
Had the UK allowed radio stations to become licensed and play whatever music they would like in the 1950s, they wouldn't have had the pirate radio they saw in the 60s, 70s, and 90s. But what did they do? They tried to close things down. They passed laws stating nobody could create radio stations on the land. So what do you think happened? They moved into boats. So they made laws stating you could make radio on boats. What happened? People moved into tall buildings, hid radio transmitters in tall trees, et cetera.
It is unstoppable. When the people want something, they get it.
And do you want to know another fact? When the people, as a society, decide a certain behavior or act is acceptable, it is acceptable. Any law that goes against the will of the people is illegitimate, because it goes against the social contract of the people.
And that is precisely why the people choose to do the things they deem acceptable. People listen to pirate radio. Why? Because they want to hear the music they want to hear. Not the music they are told to hear. If the 'legitimate' radio stations aren't willing to play the music they want to hear, they will look elsewhere.
When the people decide they want to watch a DVD without a list of required ads each time they pop the disc into their DVD player, they will find a way to get their favorite movies without these ads. If the 'legitimate' DVD publishers require these ads, they will look elsewhere.
When the people decide they want to download any song they want to their computer, mp3 player, et cetera, they will look to the internet to find their favorite music. If the 'legitimate' sellers of music do not allow their songs to be purchased in this manner, or they charge too much money per song, they will look elsewhere.
At the end of the day, it is a distribution problem. The people want what they want, when and how they want it. If they cannot find this from a 'legitimate' source, they will look elsewhere.
If the people decide they want to try out software before they buy it, in order to see if they like it, or if it has the tools they need, but the 'legitimate' sources do not allow them to do this. You got it, they will look elsewhere.
There is a common theme, if you haven't noticed. And the theme is not theft. The theme is distribution. The customer is always right. Remember that little phrase? It is the law. The customer is always right. And if you aren't willing to bend over to make your customer happy, guess what? They will look elsewhere.
rayvrJan 15, 2012
You are beyond help.
melthornalJan 15, 2012
Guess what? Things change. The old ways of doing things become meaningless and irrelevant and new ways take over. Each era comes with new technologies fundamentally change the very meaning of just about everything. You are living in the boundary between two eras. The old way of thinking is over and done with. The new way of thinking is taking over.
Reality tells us that entertainment is a service, not a good. And observation shows us that people will use the service that is most convenient for them. That is what is real, what is observed, and what successful business strategies are built around.
Resisting this fact is resisting the will of nature. You can try as hard as you may, but you will fail. The only way to build a successful business in the current reality of international, instantaneous, digital distribution is to build the best possible service for your customers. Anything short will lead to failure.
No amount of lying, lobbying, or legislating will ever change this fact.
Which brings me back to my original point:
Are these companies losing money because they have a distribution problem, OR are they losing money to theft?
Are they offering their services in a way the people want, when the people want, for the price the people want it?
Or are they losing customers due to another company, legitimate or not, providing a better service?
And, if they are losing money to an illegitimate, albeit higher quality service, can they make a legitimate service that is equal to or superior to that service?
These are the important questions.
If the company isn't offering the service their customers want, then the market has decided the company deserves to fail.
If the company is offering an inferior service, then the market has decided the company deserves to fail.
If the company is offering the service the people want, and offering a fairly valued service, and they are still losing due to unfair business practices, then they have a legitimate reason to complain.
The days of entertainment being a good are over. The days of entertainment being a service are back, and here to stay.
elimgarakJan 15, 2012
Read this:
http://io9.com/5874655/10-technologies-that-congress-tried-to-kill-or-maim
It's a list of technologies that people tried to kill through legislative means. The recording industry tried to outlaw VCRs, the phonograph, and the DAT recorders. All for the same reasons.
drorezJan 15, 2012
F the GOP
patrickhenryiiJan 15, 2012
SOPA/PIPA and ACTA are plain unconstitutional and should die. At the very least vetoed.
jenniferbaileyJan 15, 2012
Occupy SOPA
r0g3rJan 15, 2012
This is how it works, even if SOPA doesn't pass, now everyone in power seems to agree that we need more copyright laws. The over-reaching DMCA isn't enough....the endless extending of the copyright time limits etc. It's never enough, we need more laws. This is how laws become too complex and convoluted and government oversteps it's role. It doesn't matter if SOPA passes, now there is bipartisan agreement that more laws are needed to protect against piracy, so the SOPA advocates, have in effect already won.
dralezeroJan 15, 2012
"we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet." the problem is they don't think it does and dont understand that it does.
margaretschautJan 15, 2012
It was a non-response. They don't know what they're doing and they will WANT CONTROL just the same as it never occurred to them what the people would think of the atrocious NDAA.
Closed AccountJan 14, 2012
i'm sure obama will also sign it w/ some letter that is meaningless.....
ka5p3rJan 14, 2012
i like how the obama Administration use the title "Czar or tsar" as in the Tsardom of Russia.soon the obama Emperor will end.
theswashbucklerJan 14, 2012
Use of czar as an informal title for a U.S. government official goes back to the administration of FDR. George Bush had 33 of them.
Why conservatives so ignorant of history?
letherialJan 14, 2012
selective acknowledgement...keeps masses in line.
crashdvisJan 14, 2012
Me don't know kemosabe. Why anyone so ignorant history?
GentlemanGhost542Jan 14, 2012
good question. because facts and reality of have liberal bias. lol
stubearJan 14, 2012
I kno why people like you don't simply post the comment "Hi, I'm an ignorant f**king moron, please ignore me", and be done with it. It's a lot shorter then what you wrote and we'll get the message either way.
crashdvisJan 14, 2012
When insulting someone's intelligence, it hurts your argument when you have typo's and bad grammar.
spectecjrJan 14, 2012
It's "typos", not "typo's". HANDHTH.
anomaly100Jan 14, 2012
LOL! Ah teh ironing!
CrashingDownJan 15, 2012
You crack me up Rick