NY Times & LA Times Both Come Out Against SOPA & PIPA
from the good-for-them dept
We’ve written a few times about how columnists at various mainstream press outlets have been speaking out against SOPA and PIPA, showing that the story is catching on in the mainstream media. However, some of our critics have complained that since these are just writers for those publications, it’s unfair to suggest that the publication itself has come out. Okay… if that’s the way you want it. Let’s try this one on for size: the New York Times has officially come out against SOPA and PIPA. No, not a columnist, but an official editorial, meaning that it’s the official stance of the paper. After discussing how infringement is an issue, it notes that the definitions are way too broad, and says:
The purpose of the legislation is to stop business flowing to foreign rogue Web sites like the Pirate Bay in Sweden. But these provisions could affect domestic Web sites that are already covered by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That act has safe harbors protecting sites, like YouTube, that may unknowingly host pirated content, as long as they take it down when notified.
Another provision would allow the attorney general to sue foreign sites that “facilitate” piracy, and to demand that domestic search engines stop linking to them and that Internet service providers redirect traffic. Experts have said this measure could be easily overcome by users and warn that it could undermine an industrywide effort to reduce hacking. Legislators should also think hard about the message it would send to autocratic regimes like China?s, which routinely block political Web sites.
While most of the editorial focuses on SOPA, it also mentions that PROTECT IP “has serious problems that must be fixed.” The fixes that the NY Times suggests are as follows:
The bill should be made to stipulate clearly that all of its provisions are aimed only at rogue Web sites overseas. Foreign sites must be granted the same safe harbor immunity ? and the bill must not open the door to punishments for domestic sites that abide by the 1998 digital copyright law. And rather than encouraging credit card companies and advertising networks to pre-emptively cut off business to Web sites accused of wrongdoing, a court order should be required before they take action.
As noted above, earlier in the editorial, it also comes out against any kind of DNS blocking, and suggests, if anything, only financial services should be cut off. I have some issues with that approach as well, but it would be a hell of a lot better than the bills we have now.
If that’s not enough for you, how about an official editorial from the LA Times, again representing the official position of the editorial staff of the paper. This one may be even more surprising, given that the LA Times is the MPAA’s hometown paper. The LA Times editorial is quite similar to the NY Times one, noting that neither proposal appears likely to help, and actually neither proposal even appears to be getting towards the “right answer.”
Both bills go to risky extremes, however, in their efforts to stop these sites from attracting an audience. Of the two, the House bill goes further down the wrong path, weakening protections for companies ? including those based in the United States ? that enable users to store, publish or sell goods online. The change could force such companies to monitor everything their users do, turning them into a private security force for copyright and trademark owners.
At this point, I think it’s difficult to argue that the mainstream press is ignoring this issue, or that they’re simply “supporting pirates.”
Comments on “NY Times & LA Times Both Come Out Against SOPA & PIPA”
“only financial services should be cut off … but it would be a hell of a lot better than the bills we have now”
Agreed. However, removing the requirement for a court order is contrary to established law. In addition, since money is speech and all, this would be a violation of their constitutional rights.
JIC – IANAL
Re: Re:
In addition, since money is speech and all, this would be a violation of their constitutional rights.
Money is speech? Are you kidding me? Got a Supreme Court case you want to cite to back this nonsense up?
Re: Re: Re:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Son, you fell for the troll.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I would rather err on the side of caution. Some people might really not know about the citizens united case. Any additional attention given can only be a good thing.
Re: Re: Re:
… and your right, it is nonsense but some lobbyist somewhere got what they paid for.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*you’re
Re: Re: Re:
I guess money is speech to corporations in the way that words are speech to individuals. I.e. I write a letter to my representative, the corporation writes him a cheque.
I wonder which he listens to?
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions.
see wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Re: Re:
“since money is speech and all”
Big corporations can spend as much as they want on political adds yet we don’t have a way to deem those political adds as infringing, counterfeit, fraudulent, or harmful and to take them down before a trial because they constitute free speech.
Lets allow a method to do that.
It will be used frivolously you say.
But … but … but … the corporation can always challenge the takedown in court and reinstate the political add (nevermind the fact that the campaign will be over by then). But they will never do it because they know that when their political adds are taken down off the airwaves or off of television or the Internet it’s because they infringed (at least that’s what IP maximists argue with regards to SOPA).
Free speech only applies to big corporations and part of the point of SOPA is to undermine free speech for everyone else. When big corporations put up political adds on television, I can’t have them taken down before a trial based on my infringement (or otherwise) accusations. So why should big corporations have the privilege of having a potentially infringing website taken down before a trial? Why should they get the high court treatment? Why is their speech more important than everyone else’s speech?
Plus there is the hypocrisy factor for the Teapublicans forcing onerous regulation onto the internet. It would indicate they are against commerce or something.
Re: Re:
IT’s not just Republicans, though. There is almost literally no real choice when it comes to IP law: it’s either bought-off politicos or more bought-off politicos you might agree with.
The only way you might possibly win, at the moment, is not to play: and even then, that might not be good for the future of America.
Re: Re: Re:
The only way you might possibly win, at the moment, is not to play: and even then, that might not be good for the future of America.
I may be misremembering my college history, but I swear Lenin said something to this effect:
“If you not at the table you’re on the table”
For all of the complaints about how bought off the system is, and how our politicians are simply listening to moneyed interest and their lobbyists I think that people have to continue to be vocal about their opposition. Do not give the people who crafted and support this bill any reason to say that they never heard any objection to it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If you not at the table you’re on the table”
That is profound.
Re: Re:
I say is the Senate full of Teapublicans? No I thought not.
Non Sequitur
Re: Re:
Yes, we all know that Hollywood and the record industry are controlled by “Teapublicans”. Jeez…
Re: Re:
Plus there is the hypocrisy factor for the Teapublicans
Well, since copyrights by definition have the intent of forcing onerous regulation onto the internet, I would expect “tea party” Republicans to be against it.
Then again, perhaps I think too much of the Tea Party.
I am so sick of this SOPA/PIPA Shit.And as far as Newspapers go they should of been covering what will be one of the most important events in our Broken Government.And it will effect all of us in bad ways.If I was the owner of a Newspaper I would of been printing regular News Stories on this and I would also demand an investigation into the amount of money that these Politicians who came up with this shit got from RIAA & MPAA & Others.They need to be investigated.This should be on the TV News and Everywhere but it is not.
WHY ? The papers must be in cahoots with the Government.
Re: Re:
Watch the tinfoil hat. Not everyone is that interested in copyright until it’s about to go wrong (more wrong)? Newspapers have higher costs so they cater to a broad audience.
Re: Re: Re:
Newspapers have higher costs so they cater to a broad audience.
Yet, every newspaper who has come out officially for or against PROTECT IP/SOPA, has come out against it.
Rather telling, I think.
Re: Re:
The papers must be in cahoots with the Government.
Or the papers are in “cahoots” with RIAA or MPAA
Re: Re:
How much money does the EFF, bloggers and sites such as Techdirt get from Google / Yahoo / etal to lobby on their behalf against the bill? This is entirely about Google keeping the ad cash flowing from pirate sites.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know, maybe you coul investigate for us? Maybe start with proving that such lobbying actually exists?
Re: Re: Re:
This absolutely nothing to do with Google’s wallet
Of course! Now that they realize these laws would make safe harbors a thing of the past, exposing every site with user content to liability and potential censorship.
And as you know how it goes with liability: if you choose to sue someone, who would you pick? That poor guy that actually uploaded the song, but who doesn’t have the cash to pay the fine even if found guilty? Or the platform (Youtube, Facebook, whatever) he used who didn’t have anything to do with the upload, but does have the money?
Hell, if they’re “liable”, they’re going to get sued. A lot!
in my opinion, the reason there wasn’t much more coverage over SOPA/PROTECTIP was simply because, as is the usual case, the papers and reporters didn’t think it would affect them. it seems as if the attitude was ‘i’ll be ok, so why worry about anyone else? now the situation has become much clearer, shit is hitting fan! people are now starting to realise the possible impact on them! until the government actually realises that they have to stop wrapping a particular industry in the equivalent to ‘baby cotton wool’ and force them grow up!
I know that nothing was meant by saying that they’re “coming out” against SOPA & PIPA but it’s appropriate term because it’s almost like coming out of the closet. In both cases, our society has dictated that there is a certain norm and it is assumed that everyone falls into that norm, whether that norm makes sense or not. When someone reveals that they’re not part of that norm, it’s a big deal, when there’s no reason why it should be. And those that do “come out” are attacked by a large portion of the population based on flawed data and made-up fairy tales, led by a group of hierarchical organizations that want to control everything, regardless of whether their control stomps on our rights or not.
Of course, not all religions are against homosexuality and the ones that aren’t, especially the ones that are violently opposed, are increasingly being shoved aside into fringe groups. Hopefully if more people come out of the closet against SOPA et al., governments will realize that the people want their entertainment to be “secularized” away from massive overreaching control of the media conglomerates.
It Gets Better…
Amirite guys?
Now I know where all of that pirate ad-money has been flowing. It’s buying media stooges that are willing to believe the FUD that these sensible laws will be abused. Laws that regardless of all the whining and pleading about free expression will actually protect our artists and their ability to make a living with their creations.
Who says that the freetards and pirates out there don’t know how to play this game?
Re: Amirite guys?
That was a joke, right?
Re: Re: Amirite guys?
*Taps Nose*
It was pretty easy to imagine it as a pro-SOPA/PIPA response. If they’re willing to imagine that all of this money is floating around in the hands of the pirates and file-sharers is it that far to construct a conspiracy where the papers are now brought in as help.
I actually think I could have sold it even better if I said that the pirates are using their money to pay off the EFF.
Re: Re: Re: Amirite guys?
The pirates own the EFF.
Re: Amirite guys?
You know you really manage to shoot yourself in the foot quite nicely. You really saying that pirates giving things away for FREE are making enough money doing this to buy off multiple large papers? I thought you could not possibly make enough money to survive giving things away. Yet these guys are able to run their sites, support themselves and buy off major papers? So if the pirates are really just rolling in the money as you seem to think then how can you argue that artists cant do the same thing for themselves?
Re: Amirite guys?
“these sensible laws”
Inigo Montoya might like a word… You might also want to look back at how many times less draconian and less damaging laws have been abused to “protect” profits and consider why people are worried about these overreaching laws, with loopholes wide open to abuse.
Re: Amirite guys?
I think it’s missing a /s
Re: Re: Amirite guys?
It’s all SUBJECTive.
Re: Amirite guys?
“Now I know where all of that pirate ad-money has been flowing. It’s buying media stooges that are willing to believe the FUD that these sensible laws will be abused.”
So, according to you, “pirates” have MORE money than media corporations, who buy advertising in the newspapers?
(And I have yet to see s single ad anywhere on the NY Times site or print edition for any “pirate” site!
Please point at least one out to me…
Well duh, the NY Times is a socialist newspaper. Colbert said so.
Of course they’ll favor the pirate communist broadbrush freetardians. That newspaper just wants everything for free!
Re: Anti-Pirate Fist Bump
Totally!
Re: Re: Anti-Pirate Fist Bump
Which is why the NY Times implemented a (not well-functioning) paywall, because they want everything to be for free…
Re: Re: Re: Anti-Pirate Fist Bump
Totally!
I am curious why in such editorials Section 2 of SOPA, which is directed to savings clauses, is never mentioned. Each of the editorials appear to suggest that SOPA would amend the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, and yet the noted section directs courts to eschew any such interpretation. Thus, in my view the DMCA would remain in full force and effect, having the same scope as it does today.
Re: Re:
IF you genuinely believe that that won’t be quietly “amended” afterwards, then I have a few States to sell you…
Re: Re:
I am curious why in such editorials Section 2 of SOPA, which is directed to savings clauses, is never mentioned. Each of the editorials appear to suggest that SOPA would amend the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, and yet the noted section directs courts to eschew any such interpretation. Thus, in my view the DMCA would remain in full force and effect, having the same scope as it does today.
Because like anyone who’s actually read the bill, they know that section 103 completely undermines that promise that it doesn’t change the DMCA safe harbors. Basically, what SOPA does is technically not “change” the safe harbors, but create a MASSIVE new umbrella that swallows the DMCA. Who’s even going to use the DMCA process, when they can just claim a site is “dedicated to theft of US property” and force the whole site to lose all sources of money?
If you can’t see how that wipes out the DMCA you’re a really bad reader.
Re: Re:
The Swinging Fist Act of 2011
1. Cock arm back
2. Make fist
3. Move fist and arm forward at high speed toward opponent’s face
4. Continue at constant speed until opponent’s face and head move backward at equal speed
5. Savings clause. Nothing done pursuant to this act shall be construed as a punch.
SOPA’s savings clause doesn’t work either.
Was it FUD when the few people who were against the Patriot Act were proven to be correct that the act would infringe of our rights?
Was it FUD when the people who were against the DMCA were proven correct?
So now we are to believe that it’s FUD with regard to SOPA and PIPA.
History teaches us that the larger industries look to congress to protect their business models. This is especially true for the “entertainment industries” player piano scrolls, VCR’s, mickey mouse, mp3 players and many other devices and services. More people are making a living in the entertainment industries than any time since the old vaudeville days. The biggest change is that the old industry gatekeepers have less control, that is what these laws are all about.
Serious knowledgeable people have examined these laws and find troubling problems with them.
Remember it’s how the laws are written that gets interpreted not the so called intent. Courts no longer even look at intent, only precedent and the laws wording.
So we have to make sure the laws are written to be understood. These laws do not meet that.
Re: Re:
Was it FUD when the few people who were against the Patriot Act were proven to be correct that the act would infringe of our rights?
Is that your opinion of the Supreme Court”s?
Re: Re: Re:
If it walks and talks like a duck, I don’t have to wait for 9 people to agree.
I’ve got no problem with that editorial.
Bringing the problem of piracy to the editorial pages of the NYT is fine by me.
I agree with them, tweak the bill…
and then pass it.
Re: Re:
If by “tweaking” you mean “shoot twice in the head” I am totally with you on this one!
Re: Re: Re:
isn’t tweaking what they call people high on meth?
That could explain how anyone could think this was a great idea in the first place.
We are loosing trillions! But the methods to show this are all faulty.
They are making millions from our hard work! But a majority of file sharing is done for free, where did this magic money come from?
No politician wants to look at these groups and say “You have failed AGAIN to adapt to a changing marketplace. We are tired of your chicken little impression, that every technological step forward is the death of your industry. You manage to survive despite all of your dire forecasts. Stop running to the Government to fix your inability to see market trends and meet consumer demand.” Because well the “donations” are so lucrative. Our economy is in the crapper, our government on every level is just about broke, we have people protesting on the streets and the most important issue these people are working on is protecting a business model. News flash, as the 99% falls below the poverty line seeing your movie, buying that album really do take a backseat to I need to buy food and keep a roof over my head. Someone might want to point out that these bills become pointless when no one can afford the internet access anymore.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn’t tweaking what they call people high on meth?
No, it’s what they call Congresscritters high on “donations”.
Re: Re:
“the problem of piracy”
That has nothing to do with the objections to the bill nor NYT’s editorial. But, I suspect, you know that…
“tweak the bill”
If by “tweak” you mean “rewrite from scratch with actual consultation with and involvement from people not paid for directly by one set of corporations, in a doomed and misguided attempt to save their failing business model” then I agree wholeheartedly.
Re: Re: Re:
Nah.
They’ll tweak it to leave out any language that affects domestic sites and pass it.
Good for them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is that good? Also, how would you enforce a law that only affects sites hosted outside of your jurisdiction?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Would have to invade, of course.
The fix is definitely in, so contrary "political" positions can be taken...
Oh, yeah, people. As if the THE northeastern liberal and west coast liberals can now suddenly be trusted.
This is just propping up credibility with readers once the bills are actually certain to pass — as is. Politicians do this frequently: they count heads to be sure are enough, then some in difficult elections can peel off with a contrary position to patch up PR.
Bet your last euro and “dollar” that SOPA is right on track. It’s too big to fail.
Re: The fix is definitely in, so contrary "political" positions can be taken...
Why are you spending $100 million on a movie?
Re: Re: The fix is definitely in, so contrary "political" positions can be taken...
Legal fees and licencing costs.
Re: The fix is definitely in, so contrary "political" positions can be taken...
What the fuck are you talking about, you fucking retard
Re: The fix is definitely in, so contrary "political" positions can be taken...
OOTB’s mind:
http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xbxgu?start=1274
2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
arch-evil NYT and LATimes come out against to force the R’s to buck up and be FOR it.
That’s not inconsistent with the fix being in, just extra margin.
Re: 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Why are you spending $100 million on a movie?
Re: Re: 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Why are you pretending to know what the fixed costs of making a movie should be?
Re: Re: Re: 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Why are you?
Re: Re: Re:2 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Because I understand that things like movies don’t magically appear out of thin air.
There is an immense amount of work involved with making them.
I have a friend that just made a movie. A real one. It cost 50k to make. It also took over 3 years because he decided to do everything himself to save money. He almost lost his mind.
Cheap, fast, good.
Pick two.
Re: Re: Re:3 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
You’re just a pirate apologist, you and your freetard ‘friend’ are idiots.
Re: Re: Re:3 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
There’s a pretty big gap between 50k and 100m.
Re: Re: Re:4 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Lol…are you SERIOUSLY comparing an indie one man production to a studio production which uses a team of 300+ people that they need to pay? Please use your brain for a second to see how utterly stupid comparing the two is.
Re: Re: Re:5 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
If the studio production can’t pay those 300 people, maybe they should be looking to see if 300 people are necessary for their production. The cost of a movie has little bearing on whether or not I want to see it nor how much I will pay to see it, and to be frank I’d rather watch a Primer or Monsters than 100 Transformers 3s. The fact that Michael Bay likes masturbating with onscreen explosions for 3 hours isn’t my problem if he overspends while doing so.
Re: Re: Re:6 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Movies have VERY strict deadlines in production, so yes. Large teams of people are needed in order to release the movie when you want it and not a year from now. To give you an idea of how tight their schedules usually are, the music in a major movie is usually composed, recorded and put into the movie about a week or two before the movie heads to theaters.
These people don’t work no 9 to 5 job…more like a 24/7 job since a studio needs all those people to work around the clock to have the movie ready in the few months they need it be. So I hope you do agree that they deserve to get paid more than people with “normal” jobs since they don’t work anywhere near normal hours.
Re: Re: Re:7 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“Large teams of people are needed in order to release the movie when you want it and not a year from now”
Once upon a time, it was normal to actually finish the movie before setting a release schedule. Now, they set the release date before they’ve even finalised a script. The fact that people work their assess off to meet this artificial deadline because of this is not my concern. Not to mention that if you’re making a film that’s 2 1/2 hours long and the biggest complaint about its predecessor was that it was far too long, maybe some of that work can be saved?
Once again, this is a flaw with the industry in the way it’s currently set up, not some natural occurrence that cannot be changed. Change the industry, don’t try to destroy the market to “save” it because it’s inefficient.
Re: Re: Re:8 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“Once upon a time, it was normal to actually finish the movie before setting a release schedule. Now, they set the release date before they’ve even finalised a script.”
That my friend, was before technology made people too damn impatient to wait for things. You can’t seriously say that if a popular movie series like Transformers could set a “reasonable” deadline like 2 years instead of 1, and NOT have pissed off consumers and fans over the longer wait. But that’s how the entire entertainment industry works…you wouldn’t get your content in a timely manner if your favorite actors, musicians or game devs only worked from 9 to 5.
“Once again, this is a flaw with the industry in the way it’s currently set up, not some natural occurrence that cannot be changed. Change the industry, don’t try to destroy the market to “save” it because it’s inefficient.”
How do you propose we content creators go about our jobs then? If we all just worked from 9 to 5 like you guys, things like video games would take MUCH longer to complete, and you wouldn’t have things like nightly shows in theaters anymore due to not having actors or musicians around to play in them.
Re: Re: Re:9 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Are you trying to say you are entitled money for your work? The cost of making a digital copy is nothing to you, therefore you are NOT entitled any money. Talk to me when you guys respect consumers.
Re: Re: Re:10 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
You get paid for your work. So why shouldn’t people like musicians and game devs get paid? And you aren’t paying for a “digital copy.” You are paying for the experience of an awesome game or whatever else you are consuming. I’m guessing you wouldn’t put endless hours of work in for no pay, so it’s bullshit to expect content creators to. But your response didn’t even answer the question I was asking…lol!
And don’t you even throw me in with those RIAA tards and the like. I agree they need to get with the fucking times already, but we all know that probably won’t happen…so we might as well get over it. As for “respecting consumers,” I sure as fuck won’t be treating mine like the labels do. Unlike them, I realize people actually buy your stuff when you don’t treat them like garbage. So don’t assume that every single content creator is a douchebag like the big labels and the like. Because if you look around, you might notice that most of us actually give a shit about our fans (read: CONSUMERS) and try our best to give them what they want. But hey. To hell with us. Clearly we can just pull “digital copies” out of our ass and not have to put hours and hours of work to produce the actual content. So we should all just work for free and hope our bills pay themselves!
Re: Re: Re:11 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
>But your response didn’t even answer the question I was asking…lol!
Sure it didn’t… Regardless, specify your question in proper and understandable English.
>And don’t you even throw me in with those RIAA tards and the like. I agree they need to get with the fucking times already, but we all know that probably won’t happen…so we might as well get over it.
They’re the owns pushing this bill, and have poured money into it. Don’t even try to disassociate yourself with them.
People are most definitely paying for simply a digital copy. They pay for round disks of dirt cheap aluminum and plastic, probably 1000% the cost of production, only for the digital copy on them. If a user uses their handy P2P client, so be it. The cost is nothing to you.
>You are paying for the experience of an awesome game or whatever else you are consuming.
Don’t give me that BS. The game is just plot/artwork on top of a game engine. Both art, and software need to be accessible to the public, and free to modify or redistribute.
>content creator
I don’t use the word content in describing the arts or software, as it is too vague, and implies that the art and software are the same as say food and clothing, and ought to be treated that way.
When I say respecting users, I mean the right to freely modify, distribute, and share with their neighbors and within the community. I do consider you douchebag for denying this freedom.
>Because if you look around, you might notice that most of us actually give a shit about our fans
Thanks for making me laugh, I appreciate it!
>So we should all just work for free and hope our bills pay themselves!
Allowing users freedom does not mean going broke. I’ll refute claims against that argument later, when you try to debunk it, since I made no argument for it.
Re: Re: Re:12 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“Sure it didn’t… Regardless, specify your question in proper and understandable English.”
How do you propose we content creators go about our jobs then? If you had read my entire comment, you would have seen this question…in “proper, understandable English.”
“They’re the owns pushing this bill, and have poured money into it. Don’t even try to disassociate yourself with them.”
I never said I support SOPA. I agree something needs to be done about piracy so content creators can get paid for their work, but SOPA definitely goes way too far. Just because I’m a musician doesn’t mean I support some bullshit bill that won’t even combat piracy.
“People are most definitely paying for simply a digital copy. They pay for round disks of dirt cheap aluminum and plastic, probably 1000% the cost of production, only for the digital copy on them. If a user uses their handy P2P client, so be it. The cost is nothing to you.”
*facepalm* No, you aren’t paying for a “round disk.” You are paying for whatever content is ON the disk, not to mention the experience of consuming that content. (or whatever other medium it is) The actual disks may be cheap to produce, but you can bet your ass that the video game/music/whatever on the disc is NOT cheap to make. In the case of video games, just look up the budget of any popular game…even mid sized indie studios must have a budget of at LEAST $100k since these studios usually have regularly employed programmers and whatnot. If the studio doesn’t make money off their game because everyone pirates it, how are they supposed to pay their workers?
“Don’t give me that BS. The game is just plot/artwork on top of a game engine. Both art, and software need to be accessible to the public, and free to modify or redistribute”
A game may just be plot/artwork on a game engine, but a team of people still poured HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of hours worth of work to make it. Which is why they should make a fair amount of money for their work. If it was freely available like you want it to be, people would have no reason to pay for it. All my friends who dl stuff instead of buying do so for that very reason; they see no need to pay if they can get it free, even if the content is worth paying for.
“When I say respecting users, I mean the right to freely modify, distribute, and share with their neighbors and within the community. I do consider you douchebag for denying this freedom.”
Modify, yes. Distribute and share the original work, no. Again, people have no reason to pay someone for their work if they can get it for free. Now if someone would like to share their modified version, then that is fine as long as credit is given to everyone who made the original content. It’s interesting what remixes fans can come up with, but credit should be given so A) people can know who the original artist(s) are and B) so people can find the original source work to make their own modification.
“Thanks for making me laugh, I appreciate it!”
Again with the assumptions. Your statement is definitely true for big content, but I find it insulting you think that I, and every other content creator, treat our fans the same way.
“Allowing users freedom does not mean going broke. I’ll refute claims against that argument later, when you try to debunk it, since I made no argument for it.”
Allowing freedom might not directly cause someone to go broke…but if people are allowed to distribute someone else’s work for free, what reason do people have to support the creator of that work? Because they have NO reason to do so if they can get a product for free. Yeah there’s things like donations and crowdfunding, but most people won’t pay for something they can get for no cost.
Re: Re: Re:13 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“How do you propose we content creators go about our jobs then? If you had read my entire comment, you would have seen this question…in “proper, understandable English.””
Yes, “content creators” need jobs, but this is not the issue. As for the part about proper English, that was me just being a dick.
“I never said I support SOPA. I agree something needs to be done about piracy so content creators can get paid for their work, but SOPA definitely goes way too far. Just because I’m a musician doesn’t mean I support some bullshit bill that won’t even combat piracy.”
Then by all means, show that you do NOT support this bill. Call your representatives and say “I make content. This bill is awful.”
“*facepalm* No, you aren’t paying for a “round disk.””
You’re right, I’m not paying for one. I download my digital copy that I have control of, instead.
“You are paying for whatever content is ON the disk, not to mention the experience of consuming that content. (or whatever other medium it is) The actual disks may be cheap to produce, but you can bet your ass that the video game/music/whatever on the disc is NOT cheap to make. In the case of video games, just look up the budget of any popular game…even mid sized indie studios must have a budget of at LEAST $100k since these studios usually have regularly employed programmers and whatnot. If the studio doesn’t make money off their game because everyone pirates it, how are they supposed to pay their workers?”
1, I refuse to compare people who share to the moral equivalent of people who sail around, attacking ships.
2, Once again, for games, all there really is are plot and artwork over a game engine software. Both need to be freely adaptable, and sharable. Granted, you CAN sell round disks with a copy of the data on them, as long as the user knows his rights, and is at least able to distribute the work of art, and adapted copies for non-comercial benifet. This would apply to movies, music, etc. Oh, and Digital Restrictions Management is a no-no.
“A game may just be plot/artwork on a game engine, but a team of people still poured HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of hours worth of work to make it.”
Funny how, for example, in the free software community, people write software like GNOME, Firefox, VLC, operating systems, kernels, etc., for free, and still put food on the table, and what they do is far better than say the latest game. And without Digital Restrictions Management.
“Which is why they should make a fair amount of money for their work. If it was freely available like you want it to be, people would have no reason to pay for it. All my friends who dl stuff instead of buying do so for that very reason; they see no need to pay if they can get it free, even if the content is worth paying for.”
Yes, you ought to get your fair share. If I feel your work is exceptional, expect money or donations. This is how a free community works, just look at the free software community. I’ve donated to software projects when I’ve felt necessary, but not everyone thinks the software is exceptional, or can AFFORD to. I want a free world.
“Modify, yes. Distribute and share the original work, no. Again, people have no reason to pay someone for their work if they can get it for free.”
I know, but they can, and many will. Stop denying freedoms. Say, aren’t a few famous bands doing what I suggest, and still making money? And don’t bands get most money from people come and see them perform live?
“Now if someone would like to share their modified version, then that is fine as long as credit is given to everyone who made the original content. It’s interesting what remixes fans can come up with, but credit should be given so A) people can know who the original artist(s) are and B) so people can find the original source work to make their own modification.”
You’re on the right track, I hope eventually you’ll realize people ought to be able to share.
“Again with the assumptions. Your statement is definitely true for big content, but I find it insulting you think that I, and every other content creator, treat our fans the same way.”
I forget what I said that about. Probably something about the fact you deny the same sort of freedoms.
“Allowing freedom might not directly cause someone to go broke…but if people are allowed to distribute someone else’s work for free, what reason do people have to support the creator of that work? Because they have NO reason to do so if they can get a product for free. Yeah there’s things like donations and crowdfunding, but most people won’t pay for something they can get for no cost.”
You can make money. I won’t sketch out a business model, but you can make money for charging tickets to live performances, have people pay to make a documentary or music or whatever for them, etc. Look at plays, concerts, etc., people make money off those, and it’s much less lazy then making content in the studio for a month or two, and then charging for decades, and even having your descendants profit of one January in the studio one year, after you die.
Hey, I used to agree with you, and then I changed my mind.
Re: Re: Re:9 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Wow, you really can’t concede a point. Your answer to my explanation of the inefficiencies and expense inherent in setting a release date before having a finished product is “well YOU made us do it, it’s not our fault!!!!”? Pathetic.
“How do you propose we content creators go about our jobs then? “
Stop pretending that physical barriers still exist in the online world. Stop trying to dictate to customers when, where and how they can consume content that they legally purchased, and where they can make their purchase. Stop placing restrictions on legal content that can easily be overcome by those using pirated content. Offer at least the same service and quality as the pirates, and offer additional value that addresses the customer’s needs.
None of this is rocket science, it’s a shame that you’re so mired in the mid 90s that you can’t see the wealth of opportunity available for content creators who are living in this century, if only your industry would allow them to.
“If we all just worked from 9 to 5 like you guys, things like video games would take MUCH longer to complete”
You may notice that this is nothing to do with the points I raised, and that you’re attacking one of your traditional strawmen rather than anything I said. Bravo. When you’re ready to address my actual points for once, feel free to do so.
Re: Re: Re:10 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“Your answer to my explanation of the inefficiencies and expense inherent in setting a release date before having a finished product is “well YOU made us do it, it’s not our fault!!!!”? Pathetic.”
Umm, no it isn’t. I was just trying to point out that some people would get annoyed if they had to wait longer for their favorite movie or whatever to come out. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s silly to set a deadline before work is even started on a project. The companies set release dates early probably because they want the movie out on a certain day for better profit…but not like it makes any sense. But let them do what they want and learn the hard way. Maybe then us indie people can finally get investors and whatnot for OUR stuff for once. lol.
“Stop pretending that physical barriers still exist in the online world. Stop trying to dictate to customers when, where and how they can consume content that they legally purchased, and where they can make their purchase. Stop placing restrictions on legal content that can easily be overcome by those using pirated content. Offer at least the same service and quality as the pirates, and offer additional value that addresses the customer’s needs.”
Lol. I don’t do any of those things…because I know it’s stupid TO do so. (and really? how can I force someone to buy my stuff from store A over store B? LOL.) Even if the same service and quality were offered with additional value like you say, it’s hard to compete with free. Most of the people I know dl because they get out of paying for something with no consequence, not to stick it to big entertainment like some of you do. I know none of this is rocket science, but I sure wish someone would wake “the man” the fuck up so they don’t continue screwing over us artists. Because the only reason we have to compete with free is because of their stupidity and ignorance to adapt.
“You may notice that this is nothing to do with the points I raised, and that you’re attacking one of your traditional strawmen rather than anything I said.”
I was just pointing out that things would take longer to produce if “normal” deadlines and work hours were in place. Wasn’t intending to start a straw man argument. That’s what I meant by my question…if you don’t like deadlines being set before work starts, then how should us content creators go about our jobs then? Because as ridiculous as they may seem to you, it IS how stuff is released in a timely manner.
Re: Re: Re:11 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“some people would get annoyed if they had to wait longer for their favorite movie or whatever to come out”
That happens even now. Do you think that there aren’t people wishing Dark Knight Rises would hurry up or that Harry Potter fans weren’t abusing studio execs when they decided there would be a 6 month wait between parts 7a and 7b? Your excuses are hollow at best.
“The companies set release dates early probably because they want the movie out on a certain day for better profit..”
This is a problem, and endemic of a system more obsessed with opening weekend grosses than 2, 5 or 10 year performance. Not my problem, though. It’s stupid and counterproductive, but not my problem.
“Even if the same service and quality were offered with additional value like you say, it’s hard to compete with free. “:
It’s hard so I won’t even try. You’re a frigging idiot who won’t even listen to the actual demands of paying customers, so I’m not surprised.
“I was just pointing out that things would take longer to produce if “normal” deadlines and work hours were in place.”
Deadlines and work hours are different things. If you spread working hours over a longer amount of time, mistakes would be easier to pick up and the end product would be of a higher quality. Not that quality actually matters to morons who obsess over opening weekend grosses, but that’s their problem.
Re: Re: Re:3 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
It cost 50k to make.
You phrased that wrong, should read “My friend risked 50k to make it.”
Although I wish your friend all the best in his endeavor, there is no guarantee, in any business, that you will ever recoup your investment just because you created or produced something. The market determines that.
Re: Re: Re:4 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
You seem to be responding to a statement nobody made.
My comment was on the fact that people that know nothing about creation shouldn’t be opining on it, and that there are fixed costs in producing a movie.
My friend made a full-length movie, with unpaid actors, no sets, and a variety of other spartan situations.
It still cost him 50k and 3 years of his life.
Re: Re: Re:5 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
You seem to be responding to a statement nobody made.
Fair enough. Perhaps I did. Your tone and lack of identifying moniker made me think you are one of the usual AC’s who hang here who feel entitled simply because they have created. My apologies.
Re: Re: Re:5 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
I spent 50K on the stock market, I want all my money back
WTF? when did ANYONE get a guarantee on a return for ANYTHING. Seriously are you THAT stupid?
No one said I couldn’t die before I get paid. or that no onbe wopuld buy my Money, I used to live in Michigan, and I made car parts, so why am I not getting residual checks from the car owners that are still driving the cars I Built??
for every IP law that goes into effect, 6 items (from all media producers) should go to public domain, sounds fair
You work you get paid for the work you did, ONE Time, not forever dumbass………
Re: Re: Re:6 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
I get it, you’re a bot, right?
Let’s try this again:
You seem to be responding to a statement nobody made.
My comment was on the fact that people that know nothing about creation shouldn’t be opining on it, and that there are fixed costs in producing a movie.
My friend made a full-length movie, with unpaid actors, no sets, and a variety of other spartan situations.
It still cost him 50k and 3 years of his life.
Re: Re: Re:7 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
So, people who don’t practice law are not allowed to opine on it? Then we have no democratic rights and responsibilities.
So, people who weren’t involved in the Holocaust are not allowed to opine on its consequences? That marks out a period in history where humanity learned lots about destruction and medicine.
Not that I don’t applaud your friend who dedicated a lot of time to crate something, but your argument is ridiculous, as I have shown above.
Re: Re: Re:7 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“that there are fixed costs in producing a movie.”
Has anyone suggested there’s not? People are simply questioning ootb’s mantra that an extortionate amount of money is required. He rejects any business model that doesn’t somehow guarantee a return on that is irrelevant (as if any business model ever guarantees anything) and refuses to entertain the idea that the figure is extortionate to begin with. Of course there’s fixed costs, they just don’t have to be 9 figure sums every time, as your friend has proven.
Your friend’s done this the right way, for what it’s worth. He put extra work in to save costs, didn’t try throwing money at the screen in order to “improve” it, and appears to be making the film for the art rather than as a profit grab. I wish him well, perhaps when he has distribution sorted out you could post a link so that people know what the film is? Generally speaking, most people here will happily help out new artists, especially if the work’s any good. I wish him luck either way.
Re: Re: Re:7 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
>My comment was on the fact that people that know nothing about creation shouldn’t be opining on it
Please do us a favour and tell that to OOTB.
Re: Re: Re:6 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“You work you get paid for the work you did, ONE Time, not forever dumbass………”
You say that assuming content creators work the same 9 to 5 job with benefits that you did…most content creators are considered independent contractors, so they don’t get those same 2 paychecks a month you do. The only “benefits” I can think of are DISCOUNTS on things like health insurance for musicians that are a member of a PRO. So they don’t get freebies from their work like you guys do. They usually only get paid a small fee (this is assuming it’s your average person, not some millionaire A-lister) for their work, which is why people like actors and musicians get things like royalties. To give you an idea, let’s just say an indie dev is making an iphone app and needs around 10-15 mins of music. That composer will probably get paid around $100-150 for about 5-6 hours of work, and some devs might let them sell the soundtrack on their website if they split the profit.
So if you demand that income stream be taken away, then suggest what it should be replaced with. Because I sure as hell wouldn’t come take an income stream away from YOU just because I “don’t agree” with how you get paid for your work.
Re: Re: Re:5 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
My comment was on the fact that people that know nothing about creation shouldn’t be opining on it,
Then shut the middlemen up. Or better yet, don’t spout your opinion, either. That work for ya, skippy?
Re: Re: Re:5 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
“My comment was on the fact that people that know nothing about creation shouldn’t be opining on it, and that there are fixed costs in producing a movie.”
Sorry, but the argument that if you aren’t directly involved in something you can’t offer an opinion on it is completely and utterly wrong. Always has been, always will be.
Everybody here knows there are fixed costs in producing a movie, but those costs, whether $50k or $100M, are no more than a curiosity to most people. Those sunk costs have no effect whatsoever on how much people value a movie, and hence how much or how little they’re prepared to pay to see it.
Re: Re: Re:3 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Geez. I wish that manufacturing was allowed to only pick 2 of the 3 options. Imagine if you were forced to conform to all 3 or go under.
Think of that next time you ride in an airplane.
Re: Re: Re:4 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
Actually I do think about that rule every time I get in airplane…
Re: Re: Re: 2nd possibility: "Republicans" were wavering, so...
I’m constantly asking Ootb this because every time he brings up his opposition to what Mike et al writes, he says that Mike must come up with a plan to recoup the $100 million that Ootb wants to spend on making a movie…to which I and others respond with that you don’t HAVE to spend $100 million to make a movie: that Ootb is fixated on that number and doesn’t want to lower his costs. Hopefully (but not very likely) Ootb will respond with a reasonable and logical answer as to why he must spend that amount.
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. – Simon Cameron
Re: Re:
Didn’t you get the memo? After working with the **AA and Imaginary Property for so long, politicians can no longer be bought.
They can only be ‘licensed’ to vote in a specified manner for a larger than normal campaign contribution….
Those in the back room footing the bill are still dreading the day they took the time to explain the difference between ‘buying’ something and ‘licensing’ something to the politicians, who immediately claimed, “We are changing our licensing terms for this upcoming campaign.”
If governments decides it’s ok to seize domain names to protect corporate interests, well then it’s time we setup alternative DNS root servers. http://bit.ly/snOreg
consider bills' health consequences too
The New York Times and the LA Times deserve a thank you for coming out against SOPA and PIPA. Both bills have issues that need to be addressed it’s great to see major news outlets taking notice.
We continue to urge the media and Congress to consider the dire consequences that these bills would have on the health of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
While no one would disagree that shutting down rogue websites selling illegal items is a worthy cause, SOPA and PIPA go too far. The bills lump good and bad websites together. Specifically, they inappropriately group real pharmacies ? licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor?s prescription and sell brand-name medications ? with the rogues who sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.
Because of this broad definition of rogue sites, legitimate online pharmacies could be shut down, cutting off access to safe and affordable medicine.
RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is asking consumers to take action now by sending letters to Capitol Hill and the White House encouraging them to oppose this legislation. For more information or to voice your concern, visit http://www.RxRights.org.
Re: consider bills' health consequences too
While no one would disagree that shutting down rogue websites selling illegal items is a worthy cause, SOPA and PIPA go too far.
I do disagree. I believe the DMCA is more than enough. This entire idea of a rogue website is the same as the vague notion of fighting terrorism. It’s a boogeyman meant to conjure up an image of the worst imaginable fear and enforce it on a person as the ultimate in FUD.
Ask the Senators what rogue websites are being fought and I can guarantee the answer back would be something akin to The Pirate Bay. Ask again and you get a Canadian website that is selling cheaper drugs. The boogeymen are endless in the name of halting knowledge and learning.
I know that you’re an advocate and have to say you want to shut down rogue websites, but enough is enough. Ask someone to define a rogue website and why it’s bad. I’ve seen nothing that is entirely convincing about rogue websites needing to be shut down. It’s why I believe the answer will never be in legislation.
Please, Rx, understand that the definitions do go to far. This legislation and this path goes too far. There should not be legislation to determine who can use rent seeking by lobbying to Congress for their bills. You can’t shut down rogue websites without scooping up legal websites and both bills should be scrapped. We should repeal the Patriot Act as well as the DMCA and allow the entitlement industries to work in the free market system instead of the copyright welfare system. Just my opinion that what you would like matches strongly with what people would enjoy: cheaper medicines, more choices, less governmental control over product to ensure longer lives of your constituents.
Re: consider bills' health consequences too
he bills lump good and bad websites together.
I know you’re trolling, but actually you have a good point.
The bill does not, in fact, differentiate between (say) Canadian companies distributing legitimate drugs to people in the U.S. who have legit prescriptions, and “rogue sites” who sell fake drugs to anyone under the sun.
Naturally, the bill couldn’t – because it is focused on intellectual property (e.g. patents), and not on any sort of harm to the general populace.
It’s been brought up before, but it’s worth repeating. If this law had been in effect for twenty years, it would not have stopped any of the activity that is talked about it those dumbass pro-SOPA ads that talk about “counterfeit” drugs. That’s because most bad drugs are not “counterfeit,” but simply bad; and the drugs that are considered “counterfeit” are the ones that are re-imported to Americans, by absolutely legitimate pharmacies across a rather narrow border.
So, not only will this bill harm the global economy, the pro-free-speech stance America’s taken globally, or even sites devoted to “copyright infringement.” It will cut of drugs that are “intellectual property” from Americans, resulting in lesser health and greater deaths. And do so against the direct approval of our President.
Not exactly a good thing, I think.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is against it.
Ron Paul 2012
i hope these bills fail
iam glad la times and ny came out against sopa and pipa more needs to come out and oppose this as well its alot of people not taking this serious untill its to late again i hope pipa and sopa fail and great thanks to senator ron wyden for fighting these bills every step of the way thank you
I don't even support copyright
Yes, these bills go to disgusting lengths, and are very awfull, but I take it further. I am against copyright, and patents. Patents are a whole other discussion, and copyright law is ridiculous. I watched that hearing, and the witness from the Making Piracy Anti-American (MPAA) made copyright seem like something that the US has had since the 1700s, and has been improved upon when needed. Well, that’s partyl true, but he says it to be very deceptive. These congressmen don’t understand copyright law’s history, and how this concept from the age of the printing press evolved to it’s current, anti-sharing state. I cannot begin to explain copyright, but If you watch ‘Richard Stallman at UofC’ (seacrh that, and click the first link), you should understand why I am against copyright and patents.
Also, ‘pirate’ is a propaganda term, used to make sharing the moral equivalent to sailing around, attacking ships.
And finally, ‘Intellectual Property” is a propaganda term, used to mash together several different unrelated things (ie patents, copyright, trademarks, etc.) to confuse people into thinking they’re just variations on a common theme. They most definately are NOT.