Can SOPA Save the Music Industry?

[Michael Jin]

Originally Posted by rack gear

[COLOR="Red"][I]All I ask, is that you actually read the bill for yourself and present the specific language from the bill that you find problematic for debate.

1 (7) the term ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infring-
2 ing activities’’ means an Internet site that—
3 (A) has no significant use other than en-
4 gaging in, enabling, or facilitating the—
5 (i) reproduction, distribution, or pub-
6 lic performance of copyrighted works, in
7 complete or substantially complete form, in
8 a manner that constitutes copyright in-
9 fringement under section 501 of title 17,
10 United States Code;
11 (ii) violation of section 1201 of title
12 17, United States Code; or
13 (iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of
14 goods, services, or materials bearing a
15 counterfeit mark, as that term is defined
16 in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
17 (B) is designed, operated, or marketed by
18 its operator or persons operating in concert
19 with the operator, and facts or circumstances
20 suggest is used, primarily as a means for en-
21 gaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities
22 described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of sub-
23 paragraph (A);
http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/do...OTECTIPAct.pdf

Let's start with this. How exactly do you determine if a site has "no significant purpose" other than infringement? This seems to be a very vague definition. Do you not think that it should probably be a little bit clearer? What would be a site that would fall into this category? YouTube? MegaUpload? MediaFire? ISOHunt? I'm curious as to who it is that would make this determination (I assume a court) and what would qualify them to make any such claim about a site.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by rack gear

Well worth reading, thoughts on piracy, the internet and SOPA from respected technological pioneer Jaron Lanier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/op...&smid=fb-share

Jaron Lanier is absolutely opposed to anonymous posting on the internet. You posting here anonymously and referring to him is hypocritical to say the least!

Alistair

[login]

I like this site, and I found these articles interesting for both sides:

Post-SOPA: the path forward for addressing piracy

SOPA, Internet regulation, and the economics of piracy

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by Michael Jin

Let's start with this. How exactly do you determine if a site has "no significant purpose" other than infringement?

You take the issue to court and argue your case in front of a judge and jury.

Originally Posted by Michael Jin

This seems to be a very vague definition. Do you not think that it should probably be a little bit clearer?

No, not really. I'm comfortable with that language and confident that services like Wikipedia would not be found to have "no significant use" beyond piracy if the issue were brought to court. If anything, I would say it's simply ineffective. A jury could easily be convinced that a site like megaupload has substantial non-infringing uses.

[Michael Jin]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

You take the issue to court and argue your case in front of a judge and jury.

So if I'm YouTube, I would have to send a representative to court to argue this every single time someone accused my site of infringing? This is the difference between going after users and going after services that have millions of users. Even if the law may not require me to police my users, it forces me to do so if I am going to potentially be held accountable for what every single one of them does. And if I'm forced to police my users (costs money, technically impossible) on that level, it makes no sense for me to offer my service.

No, not really. I'm comfortable with that language and confident that services like Wikipedia would not be found to have "no significant use" beyond piracy if the issue were brought to court. If anything, I would say it's simply ineffective. A jury could easily be convinced that a site like megaupload has substantial non-infringing uses.

But you haven't answered my question. What site (or service) would fit into this category to begin with? And if nothing fits into it, what's the point?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Jaron Lanier is absolutely opposed to anonymous posting on the internet. You posting here anonymously and referring to him is hypocritical to say the least!

Grasping at straws?
I support Lanier's view. I'm posting completely openly too.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Google doesn't encourage piracy.
Alistair

He said they 'profited from piracy', he didn't say they 'encouraged piracy'.
Do they profit from piracy or don't they?

[Michael Jin]

Originally Posted by chrisso

He said they 'profited from piracy', he didn't say they 'encouraged piracy'.
Do they profit from piracy or don't they?

So do the harddrive industry, broadband internet industry, and MP3 player industry.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Grasping at straws?
I support Lanier's view. I'm posting completely openly too.

Well here are Lanier's views on SOPA:

Originally Posted by Jaron Lanier

The legislation has indeed included draconian remedies in various drafts, so I join my colleagues in criticizing the bills.

Alistair

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by mikeg09

Yea, but if it hinders our freedom of speech and our only means to express ourselves, then that is a problem as well. I havent looked much into it all but im going to find out everything involved with SOPA.

The only way SOPA could work is if it is an international agreement AND it is run by a cross border funded not for profit "internet police" which is regularly reviewed and voted upon. Not easy, not cheap and not in the interests of the darn privatised cash profit governments the western world "benefits (ahem)" from.....

Freedom of speech? That's the least of your worries. The current internet is becoming even MORE the playground of the uber rich and criminally minded but borderline legal business entrepreneur..... so SOPA isn't it - but some cross border legislation AND control is needed. The "free internet" is failing us as much as it benefits us..... what about "free information" but protection of digital products? We must recognise the internet as a separate mechanism than physical goods or broadcast.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by chrisso

He said they 'profited from piracy', he didn't say they 'encouraged piracy'.
Do they profit from piracy or don't they?

The article used the term encourage. Pay attention.

Alistair

[Batchainpuller78]

Originally Posted by narcoman

Freedom of speech? That's the least of your worries. The current internet is becoming even MORE the playground of the uber rich and criminally minded but borderline legal business entrepreneur.....

weren't some of the earliest adopters of the internet the criminally minded?
They saw the benefit of doing their business or get together through this technology before your local policeman or politician knew how to sign up for an E-mail account.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Michael Jin

So do the harddrive industry, broadband internet industry, and MP3 player industry.

Even the power companies that provide the electricity to charge your iPod or spin your harddrive profit from you playing an illegally obtained MP3. Everyone profits from it directly or indirectly sooner or later which makes that whole line of reasoning mute.

Alistair

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

That is a completely misleading article. Google doesn't encourage piracy. They sell adds. They don't control the content or links on the pages where the adds reside nor is it their responsibility to police those sites.



Again that is totally misleading. Those are numbers for the whole of Google. Not profits from ads on pirate sites (which I doubt anyone can provide or are even significant compared to the rest of their profits).

Alistair

True - but I do wish they'd take responsibility for their actions.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Batchainpuller78

weren't some of the earliest adopters of the internet the criminally minded?
They saw the benefit of doing their business or get together through this technology before your local policeman or politician knew how to sign up for an E-mail account.

indeed so. Doesn't make it a good thing!

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Michael Jin

So do the harddrive industry, broadband internet industry, and MP3 player industry.

That is a very interesting point.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by narcoman

That is a very interesting point.

In what sense? If I use a train to go to another city to murder someone, the train company is technically profiting from my crime. That doesn't in any way whatsoever make them in any way responsible for my crimes or for policing me.

The whole "they are profiting from it" line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Alistair

[Adrian Warren]

In case it hasn't been posted before. Protect IP Act Breaks the Internet - YouTube

[Torea]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

First up, I hope it is just a glitch at ABC but the article I linked has now gone. If it isn't a glitch... Well it makes you wonder who called the editor in chief...

Anyway, here is the text of the statement: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...ative-internet

...

You call the exact same number than if your friend tells you they bought a new sports car and test drove it on the high-way by going 100 MPH: No one. Leave the policing to the authorities unless lives are directly at risk.

And if that is how you treat your friends...



If they have no money sot spend, no sales were lost. Why would you want to report them?

Alistair

Thanks for posting the statement. Guess I got a "news edited" version. Don't you just love the internet? And us youngins, never checking our sources...


I didn't say I'd turn in my friends, I'm just wondering what you do in that situation. If something is illegal, there's usually some phoneline or email thing you can contact. Just because lives aren't directly at risk doesn't mean it's not illegal and/or shouldn't be reported. That doesn't mean I would report it, but technically it's also illegal to not report a person committing crimes, isn't it?

And it's not the same as "test driving" your car over the speed limit. I think piracy is a bit closer to taking a candy bar because you want something sweet to eat, but don't feel like shelling out a buck for it. Still wrong, still a mild crime, but it'll piss off the shopkeeper who loses out.

If the idea is to stop people from pirating, why not make it easier to stop people from pirating? Instead of suing the thread out of the pants of a teenager with no money (a technique that makes no sense), make it so all the stuff they stole is removed from their possession. If they keep stealing, slap them with fines, and take all the stolen stuff again. It's not like the old days when you could charge the person for the consumed goods (i.e. candy bar) or take the goods back (because this stuff is digital).
My point before was: wouldn't this ^ be easier if there was a way of reporting such a thing?


Anywhos, I'm not trying to heat anything up (except lunch)

[UnderTow]

If I post someone a copy of a CD I bought, I am breaking copyright laws. That doesn't mean the post companies are responsible for the crime nor are they responsible for policing the content of the packages they transport. Not only is it illegal for them to open my post, no one in their right mind would expect them to have to check and police the content of the packages they transport.

With the internet that same crime can be done much faster and much more efficiently but the philosophical principles of responsibility have not changed.

ISPs or search engines etc should not be made responsible for the content they transport or responsible for policing that content. That is inherently wrong.

Alistair

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

In what sense? If I use a train to go to another city to murder someone, the train company is technically profiting from my crime. That doesn't in any way whatsoever make them in any way responsible for my crimes or for policing me.

The whole "they are profiting from it" line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Alistair

you need to re-read what i wrote, who i answered and what that might mean.....

[analogexplosions]

To answer this thread's original question directly:

No. SOPA will not save the music industry.

It is just another example of big business in bed with our federal government, our federal government trying to be "the world police", and an extremely dangerous precedent to be set.

To save the music industry, several other steps could be taken.

1) Forcible (or peaceful) takedown of Clear Channel to regain FM radio stations so every single radio station wouldn't be playing the same RIAA endorsed nonsense on loop. Replace them with independent radio stations who's playlists are created by actual DJ's who play music that people should hear. This will give people a method to find new music easily without resorting to blogs with illegal free download links.

2) MTV. Less 16 and pregnant, more music programming. Adjust this ratio by about 100%.

3) Embrace new avenues for album production financing. Kickstarter is probably the best thing to happen to the music industry this past decade.

4) iTunes. Pay artists a higher percentage for their work. Offer higher quality files than 256whatever m4a's and offer FLAC or at least ALAC, and for less. Or make it easier to deliver more content a la iTunes LP and other interactive products. I personally have been buying more from artists on Bandcamp so I can get higher quality files.

5) Labels. Specifically the major 4 (or is it 3 now?). Sign better, more diverse music. It seems so elementary to make a statement to them like "make better business decisions", but seriously! Sure, there will always be 14 year old Katy Perry fans, and that's fine. I support that. But for everything else, it seems the A&R department has just been replaced by bar graphs and pie charts.

Those are just 5 off the top of my head. I could keep going for hours.

Now, back to SOPA...

Its a terrible bill with terrible consequences that takes OUR freedom of internet and puts it in the hands of corporate interest. That will never have a good outcome. Ever.

Piracy won't stop. Its always existed in my lifetime. From Mixtapes, to VHS tapes with movies from HBO taped on them, to live bootlegs, and photo's of other people's art. Motivation to supports the arts is what needs to change. Better music, better product (quality of the physical release, or digital), and better methods of finding new music, are all what will save the Industry.

Not another bill that strips us from our liberties.

[Michael Jin]

Originally Posted by Torea

And it's not the same as "test driving" your car over the speed limit. I think piracy is a bit closer to taking a candy bar because you want something sweet to eat, but don't feel like shelling out a buck for it. Still wrong, still a mild crime, but it'll piss off the shopkeeper who loses out.

No it's not and that's what people in this industry will never understand. A candy bar is a physical object. A CD in Best Buy is a physical object. By being physical, there's scarcity. There's no scarcity when digital media is concerned so it's not even close to an analogous situation. If you click on a file and press CTRL+C and CTRL+V, you can convert a few 1's into 0's and reproduce the product. That's the nature of digital media.

The problem of theft at a candy store is different. 1 candy bar stolen is always 1 candy bar lost. Similarly, 1 dollar stolen is always 1 dollar lost. By contrast you can't accurately make the same claim about digital media and it's pretty widely accepted that while a percentage of digital piracy does reflect lost revenue, it's not on the same level as physical theft where it's a 1:1 ratio. Really, the problem is more akin to counterfeiting currency than robbery. On a small scale, nobody is significantly hurt if you could make a perfect copy of a $100 bill, but when you have enough of it happening and if the $100 bills are indistinguishable (perfect copies), then you end up destroying the economy despite no entity having directly taken from another.

The heart of the problem, then isn't actually the sharing. It's the ability to copy, which is exactly why that was the first thing the media industry attacked and tried to prevent. But what can you do about it at this point?

If the idea is to stop people from pirating, why not make it easier to stop people from pirating? Instead of suing the thread out of the pants of a teenager with no money (a technique that makes no sense), make it so all the stuff they stole is removed from their possession. If they keep stealing, slap them with fines, and take all the stolen stuff again. It's not like the old days when you could charge the person for the consumed goods (i.e. candy bar) or take the goods back (because this stuff is digital).
My point before was: wouldn't this ^ be easier if there was a way of reporting such a thing?

Because going after the method in this scenario is simply the wrong answer to the problem. What needs to be done is better methods for identifying offending parties, locating them, and charging them appropriately needs to be developed. This bill does none of that.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by narcoman

you need to re-read what i wrote, who i answered and what that might mean.....

Well your comment was ambiguous and although you usually make sense and I usually agree with you, on this controversial topic you never know. :-D

Alistair

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

ISPs or search engines etc should not be made responsible for the content they transport or responsible for policing that content. That is inherently wrong.

Alistair

It isn't that black and white though is it? You have to take every one of these examples on their individual merit.

Of course a train company is not responsible for you killing someone.

But somebody giving you detailed instructions on the movements of the person and giving you the gun IS a co-conspirator. A woman on the street pointing the way to your victims street isn't an accomplice. But someone giving you the house keys whilst eyeballing your gun filled hand IS.

One cannot make a blanket catch all statement. THAT is the folly.

What the hell else is a Google pointer towards a pirate site FOR other than downloading pirate content. Evaluate every option on it's own merits - not comparing examples which have no relation at all.

Google is not ONLY to blame for piracy support. They are also to be credited for showing easy access to more truthful news. They need to learn to handle their information. Google provide a brilliantly valuable service slightly tarnished by their inability/unwillingness to keep tabs on the "bad guys".

If I punch a violent person in the face as he's attacking someone - I'm a hero. If, three seconds later I punch the attending police officer in the face - I'm a nutter. You can't have it all ways, all the time. Google has let us down by NOT policing it's own pointing. They have also given us amazing enlightening information. Its the Pontius Pilate reasoning that Google employ that is irritating "I wash my hands of it"..... not good enough.

Same with Wiki - some brilliant learning device on one hand. A loathe some "soon to make billions" bunch of arse on the back of everyone else's hard work with NO self policing of information.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Well your comment was ambiguous and although you usually make sense and I usually agree with you, on this controversial topic you never know. :-D

Alistair

.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by analogexplosions

To answer this thread's original question directly:

No. SOPA will not save the music industry.

It is just another example of big business in bed with our federal government, our federal government trying to be "the world police", and an extremely dangerous precedent to be set.

Just for the record, the white house is against this bill and have released a statement as such. (See previous posts)

Alistair

[Liquid360]

Its a terrible bill with terrible consequences that takes OUR freedom of internet and puts it in the hands of corporate interest.

Can you please define "corporate interest"? I own a corporation, it's just another word for a business. Business is what drives the economy, and feeds my family.

You are terribly misguided if you think just because it has the word "corporation" attached to it, that it's inherently evil.

The only bad corporate interest I see in this debate is Google making money off copyrighted material.

[analogexplosions]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Just for the record, the white house is against this bill and have released a statement as such. (See previous posts)

Alistair

Yes, I know the White House has officially taken a stance. Congress is still the problem.

Who in Congress Supports SOPA and PIPA/PROTECT-IP? | SOPA Opera | ProPublica

^ This site allows you to check in with your local state Congress(wo)men and see what their current stance is on SOPA and also how much contribution from people like the RIAA and the MPAA they have received.

Luckily, due to the huge blowback by the American public, support for SOPA and PIPA is shrinking.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by analogexplosions

To answer this thread's original question directly:

No. SOPA will not save the music industry.

It is just another example of big business in bed with our federal government,

Yes, you are right. Yesterday was a prime example of big business in bed with government.
If you look on Forbes rich list the top 50 billionaires are peppered with entries from Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
The first entertainment billionaire comes in at #80.
Who do you think sways the most power in Washington.
The popular with the public billionaires in Forbes top 50, or the lone entertainment billionaire at #80?
The World's Billionaires - Forbes.com