Errr...
i fail to see your point? (was there one?)

That last bit was specifically targeted at the military contractors- who were knowingly using counterfeit parts in the products that they were hired to build for the military.
Chinese counterfeit parts found in U.S. weapons - The Washington Post

In your other "point", whistleblowers are protected under Federal Law...
Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you keep likening this act to the Patriot Act, i'll know you're just a shill for Big Tech...

Fuk the PA

If you feel so strongly about the Patriot Act, I cant see how this would be worthy of support.... and how can a "service" be pirated? seriously.....

my point should be very obvious- the language needed specifically doesnt exist- that is to protect commercial products, AND their owners. In the case of the Military subsection- the Owners would be subject to existing laws regarding fraud.

As to Whistleblower protections- maybe you should check out whats happening right now in the Fast and Furious case.... which was brought to light by ATF whistleblowers. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...whistleblower/
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/3...gun_sting_fast

yeah- those are the guys who are going to enforce something like this.....

go and check what the Electronic Frontier Foundation says about it-

So the stakes were high, and the hearing faced problems from the start. In spite of widespread opposition to the bill, the scheduled testimonies consisted mostly of known supporters, including many who had helped draft the legislation in the first place. Public interest groups, independent artists, technology companies and Internet engineers were largely shut out of the discussion. To compound the problem, the webcast of the event was extremely unstable, making it even more difficult for the public to observe and participate.



https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...wn-not-yet-out


I work in the film industry- my union supports the bill, I do not.

I have seen too much legislation go down that "appeared" as one thing, and ended up in reality something quite different than was advertised. This is one of those items-

and if you do choose to reply- first answer this question- why is the DMCA not enough?

The DMCA is a failure as it encourages infringement not the stopping of it. See Viacom V. Google/YouTube for proof.

Like what and how has it effected you personally?

and how will this be different?

I was meaning to bring the YouTube thing up as well-

What about people who rip YouTube videos for the song material? is that piracy, even when it is an ad driven video? I would think it is, yet it seems there is no protections in place for it.....

is that germaine?


Perhaps I would elect not to disclose such things but here are some off the top of my head...

The Patriot Act which allows warrantless wiretapping and other search without warrant.

but here is more...

Unconstitutional Federal Laws

My God man,
Tell me, in What way is stopping USA credit card payments to the Pirate Bay et al in any way shape or form nearly remotely in the same universe as the Patriot Act?

There's NO end-user survelience in the bill, it's all about stopping Credit payments to foreign sites, and to stop the domain from resolving at the ISP.
It's not like it isn't blatenly obvious which sites do nothing else but illegally distribute copyrighted works without a license...

This isn't meant to be a cure-all for piracy.. it's meant to keep the pirates from saturating the US market with illegal goods and profiting from it.
Sure, some will still pirate, but the VAST majority of todays' pirates aren't tech nerd hackers, they're just clicking the links from the first page of Google results...

BTW, you DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STEAL

"why is the DMCA not enough"
The DMCA was written PRE-Napster. It doesn't reflect reality. This (these) Bills are the course-correction.
10,000 DMCA Takedown Notices Later...

Noone said there was a constitutional right to steal- You might read the bill- if it consisted of what you just said- that Credit Card payments could be stopped, it would be great- too bad the law has whole lot more than that in it-

For anyone rational to support it breathlessly all that would be needed is to define WHAT is being protected....

that is a normal part of a law you know.....

here is the link- check out the "Definitions" section.....

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...2JITI38:e3532:

A well known band I know used to sell 5 million 7 years ago,now 500,000.
Itunes does not make up the difference and a lot of the cd sales occur on tour.

Something needs to be done,eveyone is working for free or less.
The same thing has happened in the movie business.
They need to start busting people but that would mean placing more of a burden on the court systems ,police etc. and every state,local and even the federal govt is too broke to do anything about it.It would require getting some of these sites overseas and extraditing the owners.

We need a gang of piracy vigilantes out there.

how about something like this-

if a band tours, fold in the price of a CD sale into the ticket price- make it a part of the concert experience-- maybe even a special disk which is different for each region- Personally, I just saw the The Cure "Reflection" Tour last week at the Pantages- I thought it was stunning- We paid $80 a ticket (and the ticket sales were limited to one night, 2 tickets) and enjoyed a 3 hour set of The Cure's first three albums- played in sequence, back to back.... It was sublime, especially the first album- They also sold out all three nights, and we didnt have the most expensive tickets either.... So some tours are doing well- and the staging for the set was relatively modest....

There are ways to spice up the model-

that being said, what seriously can any of us do-

When I see folks like Radiohead doing a "donationware album" and Franz Ferdinand, in essence endorsing sharing- we have to step back and really try to critically look at the factors that are in play- I am not a sociologist, but I have sense that the serious fans are wanting to support the acts- but I will venture that as somewhat wishful thinking- but if that is the case- that the fans dont care enough about an act to actually buy the music, I think we have to really question the viability of the artform on its commercial foundations.

lets talk about that- I think most of us agree that Piracy is truly shameful, and that something should be done about it- but the other side of the coin might be worth discussing as well-

IE- would the Beatles have suffered this if they were current artists- or Michael Jackson Et-Al.....

Err... have you read the Bill?
That's in the VERY FIRST SECTION
Section 102
Read The Bill: H.R. 3261 - GovTrack.us

IT SPECIFICALLY says if the 'foreign' site is breaking the listed IP laws, they are the subjects of the Bills action..

IE, if you tried this $hiz while located in the US, we'd lock you up.. but since you're in a country that doesn't respect our (and most the rest of the worlds'..) law, and we can't extridite, we'll do the next best thing and stop you from leeching off our society.

Very limited at WHO it goes after, it's not "spying" on US citizens, it doesn't "Break the Internet", it does have Due Process, it Doesn't violate Free Speech. What are your objections?

We did not even throw in youtube yet.The model has changed.The question to me is now that we have a generation that is used to getting it for free,how can we make them understand that the industry is hurting and the root cause is greed.This kind of stealing will spill over into their adult lives as well and manifest itself in ways we have not even imagined.Their hearts are hardened to it.The generation of greed created by the adults that have embraced materialism as a religion.

There I said it,and I am just as guilty as the next.

But where do we go from here?

That's a totally wrong concept.
The fans want the music, but the music is available everywhere, unlocked, unpriced.
There is a commercial viability selling bread, or milk. But if someone on the same street is giving away the same product, albeit illegally, the financial viability collapses.
The goal is to vastly reduce the availability of illegally free music. then we will see the true monetary value of the product.
And as i said to you yesterday, you can't tour an FX library, or a virtual grand piano, so even if we agreed some bands can tour, it still doesn't address the major issue.

And it's effected you specifically how? I'm just curious as to how these things are actually effecting the actual people opposed to them.

Nice Hyperbole.... I dont agree with the "Breaking the Internet notion, and its frankly a distraction to the bigger issue of nearly anything falling under this umbrella of "protection". There is simply no definition of the things that protection is sought for in the act-
"Listed IP laws"? which ones? there is no definition of what copyright violations the act even covers-
in a proper law all of this would be carefully defined so the scope of the law would be clear- it is not here.

I get the foreign IP issue

However were you aware of the language which specifically defines Computer Programs, Film, TV and Music that are "Expected to be Commercially Released" are mentioned specifically, yet Products already in the Commercial Domain are not mentioned anywhere in the act?

Perhaps you should re-read it- the Thomas version is not easy to navigate actually....

so are there people giving milk and food away for free, thus jeopardizing the industries? Please cite some examples of that- though my church does support aid organizations that do exactly that- is it to the end of attacking those industries?, no- it is not- the food is paid for by those who wish to feed those who cannot afford such things.

as to touring bands and how they exploit their efforts, you might look at my comments on that....

Does your church support organizations that steal milk and food?

not at all, nor do I. We purchase it, then give it away- I dont think anyone in the chain of commerce sees a copyright infringement in play there....


the issue is one that pits the interests of far bigger and more powerful concerns against artists in general.

When Google and Microsoft, who have the Oval Offices' private phone number go against artists, I know who I would bet on to prevail.

and of course now, both the ********* AND **********s are souring on the bill itself is pointing in a direction which will not end well for the entertainment industry.

Hi, Charles!

Surprise, surprise! (Gomer Pyle, USMC)

The tech companies are circling their wagons. Microsoft succumbs to peer pressure. AT&T, which rakes in the dough selling high bandwidth connections to pirates withdraws support.

Why is none of this surprising to me?

Microsoft does not and never has made the bulk of its income from the consumer market. They make their money from huge corporate contracts. They really don't care all that much about their consumer software market; the fact is that the bulk of pirated MS software isn't actually cracked at all, it's leaked corporate packages that have the protection disabled by the company.

Hey John, I am not sure how that works in their universe, but when we consider how many computers ship with Windows installed, even if MS is making 10 dollars per machine, we are talking about millions in revenue....

Site blocking.

No, it's not 100% effective. So what?

It's enough to discourage a large percentage of casual pirates from pirating because they don't want to memorize IP numbers and aren't interested in anything remotely resembling hacking or tech.

And that's the whole point.

Yes very true.
But when you are passionate about something do you roll over and play dead, or kick and scream as loud as you can?
That's all musicians are doing, pointing out the crazy situation we are in.
I don't believe in the passive approach, or the resistance is futile approach you were putting forward yesterday.
Who knows what will be the status quo in five years time, but the one thing you can be sure on, if you let people walk all over you, you can bet they will.

I understand. I've toured for much of my life.
I asked you how you could replace the income from pirated music software, surely not by touring BFD, Cubase, or Waves L1?
You didn't answer, which I note is becoming a bit of a pattern.

The only way to hinder pirated software is to use copy protection. That is now encompassing software which phones home periodically, which sometimes can be troublesome if your computer is not online.

as to solutions, Outside of a global initiative, there are few. How is the problem being addressed in the EU?

The gaming industry is suffering in the same manner as far as piracy is concerned, perhaps looking at how a current multi million dollar industry is confronting it might be helpful- They have eclipsed both the Music and film industries in their profitability for the last few years-

In the film industry, the response has been to focus on the launch and first 4 weeks of revenue generation as the point of profitability, and looking at the long term exploitation of their products as gravy.

In the case of Chris, who has toured with name acts more than most who post here, I would say that the bands and labels look at the product as just that- one that requires advertisement (selling the soul to Clear Channel and other major media) as a guide to how records are sold.

We do know we will seriously be in trouble when the Lady Gaga and Foo Fighters of the world are selling tens of thousands of copies of their releases vs millions in the first weeks of their releases....

We should also look at how something like iTunes, which gives artists pennies on the dollar for the conveince of their channel usage.

It ALL revolves around money, and that hasnt changed a whole lot since the 1960's.

that being said, with the existing laws on the books there is still plenty of legal remedy for the artist to go after the pirate sites via legal action, and to that degree, even RICO statues might be brought to bear in the most egregious cases of piracy.

The path I see as being sensible, is dragging the major ISPs into lawsuits which make their servicing of the sites in question a more costly consequence than the money they are receiving from the pirate sites.

at present, with the SOPA act, those ISP's can be exempted from prosecution with relatively superficial responses.

If it were a matter of blocking sites, who is responsible for the tracking of such? With no funding being forwarded for the government to such- at least to the degree of the entertainment industry, I would say it is a hollow threat that may have a certain "feel good" quality to those being ripped off, but no lasting existential threat to the real criminals in the equation.

the basis for prosecution that is used now by business to act against IP theft are substantial, The problem is, in order to pursue those prosecutions requires serious money for the legal, investigative and punitive parts of the equation.

WOuld it be good if a new tax was proposed on those selling IP via the Internet to shoulder? would say, a 2% levy be acceptable to those demanding the relief? And what would be the case for those unwilling to pay such an injunctive capability?

would a levy on Internet access be appropriate? There are already many in place, totalling millions of dollars of revenue for the Federal government.

this interestingly seems similar to the current (poor) thoughts on requiring people to pay for health insurance at the threat of being thrown in prison or being fined excessively.

Maybe the model AVID is pursuing is ultimately the way we will go with updates costing $1000, or how Waves has developed their WUP program....

I guess I am looking at this in a wider scope than most- I see people speeding on the roads here in LA all the time- If they knew they were going to get a $400 ticket each and everytime they exceeded the speed limit, the behavior would change- That would probably be good-

the problem is that once everyone stopped speeding, how is the infrastructure to give those now non-existing fines out sustained.

That's just it, and i'll say it one more time. IT DOES POINT TO EXACTLY what definitions. That it doesn't list every IP law in full isn't a concern of mine, it points to the actual law.
There's NO NEW DEFINITIONS, this bill is just protecting **** already on the books.
This part specifically states "What" laws the bills encompase: >> section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code

^Those are the IP laws that the Bill covers. That's the "What does it Protect" question you keep asking, and i'll keep posting it until you get your 'a-ha' moment.

Good, because THAT's WHAT THE ENTIRE BILL covERS! NOTHING ELSE!
*pulls out hair*

I'm trying to point out that you are arguing about NON-Existant issues...

so do you read these links?.... because I do- I would say it is extremely vague in nature.


here is the link you posted.... If these laws do not provide adequite protection, how is bundling them into SOPA going to make them better?


§ 2323. FORFEITURE, DESTRUCTION, AND RESTITUTION

(a) Civil Forfeiture.—
(1) Property subject to forfeiture.— The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17http://trac.syr.edu/laws/17/17USC00506.html, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title.
(B) Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A).
(C) Any property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A).
(2) Procedures.— The provisions of chapter 46 relating to civil forfeitures shall extend to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this section. For seizures made under this section, the court shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery and use of any records or information that has been seized. The protective order shall provide for appropriate procedures to ensure that confidential, private, proprietary, or privileged information contained in such records is not improperly disclosed or used. At the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, unless otherwise requested by an agency of the United States, the court shall order that any property forfeited under paragraph (1) be destroyed, or otherwise disposed of according to law.
(b) Criminal Forfeiture.—
(1) Property subject to forfeiture.— The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed, that the person forfeit to the United States Government any property subject to forfeiture under subsection (a) for that offense.
(2) Procedures.—
(A) In general.— The forfeiture of property under paragraph (1), including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that section.
(B) Destruction.— At the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, the court, unless otherwise requested by an agency of the United States shall order that any—
(i) forfeited article or component of an article bearing or consisting of a counterfeit mark be destroyed or otherwise disposed of according to law; and
(ii) infringing items or other property described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and forfeited under paragraph (1) of this subsection be destroyed or otherwise disposed of according to law.
(c) Restitution.— When a person is convicted of an offense under section 506 of title 17 or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title, the court, pursuant to sections 3556, 3663A, and 3664 of this title, shall order the person to pay restitution to any victim of the offense as an offense against property referred to in section 3663A (c)(1)(A)(ii) of this title.
Prev | Next

information week took a look at the 5 key provisions of the act- and I think we see where this can get very interesting very fast....

SOPA: 5 Key Provisions Of Anti-Piracy Bill - Government - Policy & Regulation - Informationweek

1. Many of SOPA's provisions are aimed at foreign websites that stream or otherwise make available copyrighted content, such as movies and music, to U.S. audiences. SOPA allows the U.S. attorney general to seek a court order against such sites to block them, using technical means such as DNS filtering.

2. Online service providers, like ISPs, search engines, ad networks, and payment providers, are required to withhold services to websites that are deemed by a court to be infringing copyrights held by U.S. content producers. Further, ISPs must block U.S. Web users' access to such sites.

3. The bill grants civil claims immunity to Web services providers for any actions they take in order to comply with the terms of the act. In other words, a website that's been blocked by an ISP after being found to be infringing can't turn around and sue the ISP for denial of service or breach of contract.
[App developers say Google isn't doing enough to prevent unauthorized app copying. See Android Survey Highlights Piracy Problem.]

4. SOPA takes specific aim at purveyors of online pharmaceuticals that sell drugs to individuals without a prescription. It authorizes ISPs and other Web services providers to withhold services to such sites, many of which operate from India and Canada.

5. SOPA requires the secretary of state and secretary of commerce to appoint intellectual property attaches to all embassies in foreign countries. Part of the attaches' remit would be to work with local authorities to establish programs to cut down on intellectual property theft.


and of course the most obvious omission.... who pays for it?

my bet will be those least willing to afford it- the Music Industry.

I guess you could get stock in Pfizer or Merck....

another insight into the vagueness of the act...
Bill Boushka: SOPA text vague (at best) about downstream liability issue; observers note issues with amateur mashups (like "variations" in classical music)

DOnt get me wrong- if the act was specific to online content I would be all for it- It is not.

If I want it, I'll work just hard enough to find it. I don't need a memory(*). I just need friends who twitter or email links, or people who maintain lists of links on blogs.

(*) If you have half a mind to infringe copyright, that's all you need.

Those two comments are absolutely key to the anti piracy position.
Right now, you can pirate millions of products in your sleep with absolutely no consequence.
Neighbors of mine, who frankly struggle to program their set top box to record a tv programme, have downloaded hundreds of albums illegally.
If you make people work for it you will undoubtedly end up with a smaller minority who have a 'mind to infringe'. Those people have always been there, and very likely almost anything you could do to stop them would fail.
So the absolute goal is to greatly reduce or eradicate the casual piracy, leaving you with a small percentage of infringing, which has always been more or less manageable.

Besides the point, but
Do you know how many kids/adults have died in recent years because of fake drugs and controlled narcotics that come from fake pharmacies online? Do you know that Google made a shedload of money knowingly facilitating this? Seven FBI stings of Google found that it was company policy to encourage and even had 'advisors' tell how to skirt US law to setup illegal online drug pharmacies.
Of course, in the case of Google... they'll just bilk their stockholders of $500-Million to keep thier CEO's out of prison... what a joke.
A Fire in the House of Google: What is the Congress prepared to do?


I'm still not sure what the complaint is of the Bill. You seem to have a moving target of what's wrong.
If you break the law, the internet isn't a safe haven to not have consequences. Again, this Bill just deals with what to do when the lawbreaker is operating from foriegn soil. If you don't like the US policy on drug imports... that's a completely seperate issue...

Laws don't end when you log onto the internet... just as they don't when you use the phone, use the mail service, ect.

As to who pays? if it does 1/4 of what it intends to to, it will be a net profit.