Details On SOPA/PIPA Alternative Released… With Open Requests For Feedback

from the check-it-out dept

As expected, the effort by Senator Wyden and Rep. Issa to put together an alternative to SOPA/PIPA has now been released. And while we can dig into the specifics in a bit, what may be most interesting is how they’ve released the text. Unlike the standard “here’s a pdf if you can find it,” they’ve put up an entire website, called, which is designed to encourage participation and feedback. Compare that to the backroom dealings behind PIPA and SOPA, where the industry folks helped craft the bill with no input whatsoever from those it would impact most. If only all bills were released this way…

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Details On SOPA/PIPA Alternative Released… With Open Requests For Feedback”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Nick Taylor says:

Something to beware of is thinking we need any new laws at all.

I’ve seen used car salesmen try this technique… they offer to buy at an outrageously bad price, and shock the seller into accepting something far worse than they needed to.

I don’t see any evidence that we need “intellectual property” at all. I don’t see any evidence that it benefits anyone other than corporations who want to extract monopoly rents, and a tiny, tiny handful of “artists” who are agrandised to the point of dysfunction, and who are then held up as being some kind of norm that we should all expire to…

… but really, “IP” isn’t for our benefit, it’s for corporations – and as it is an logical and physical impossibility, it’s going to wind up hurting us.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Copyright law, when properly implemented, is a boon to content creators. What we have now is an abomination. It needs to be greatly scaled back

Imagine if Jonathan Coulton had no protection and a Sony backed artist used his music. He would quickly be pushed to the side in favor of someone who had a huge pocketbook and deals in place with iTunes, radio stations (including satellite radio), music blogs, etc. A reasonable copyright law would protect him, and other independent musicians, from that.

Only huge corporations (not artists) benefit from no IP law, just like they benefit from the monstrosity that they have today. Reasonable copyright law would protect corporations and indies equally.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Copyright law only can be applied in a country with sane people, unfortunately there is no such country in the world.

Corporations benefit by copyright more than they do without it, if they are so powerful why are they afraid of free distribution? It is completely done by faceless people, no names, no money people who make it or brake it the market you are in, that vision of yours may have been true when distribution channels where few and far in between the internet is not like that, it is a billion strong channel of distribution. Try to plagiarize something on the internet and someone will point you to the original and if you are found to be dishonest they will turn on you very quickly specially if you are trying to scam the minor guy, which a system much more preferable than to have the government decide what is or not that people can do.

Besides Jonathan Coulton should be copied and emulated by others he should have to compete in that market with other musicians who make derivatives of his work, he also should get some credit but that is all, if others are the ones singing and creating a market and attracting fans and making that music heard they deserve all the glory and money, nobody is going to pay $300 dollars to hear Obama sing Jonathan Coulton’s music they may pay Madonna for it and she will have to do all the work so why should she pay Jonathan Coulton when he did nothing?

Is like bubble gum you do yours I do my and we try to sell it, the one who deserve it more will sell it more the other will go out of business. Heck if you are a nice guy I could even hire you because you know how to make good bubble gum but you don’t know the rest of the business.

I don’t care if people make millions, I do care when they make millions and try to say only them can make millions and nobody else is allowed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I submit that corporations are not afraid of free distribution by those who create their own, original works, and not those who try and ride the coat tails of those works in which copyright is held by another.

People and companies make investments of time and money to create digital products (content and utilitarian) in the hope that the products will find favor in the marketplace. They do not make these investments on behalf of others, and for those others to simply ignore the law and do as they please to compete using the works of investors is the heighth or arrogance and pure laziness.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I agree that current copyright law is an abomination compared to what it was originally intended for (as is current patent law).
Ironically part of the reason copyright came into existence was top protect publishers from themselves as all too often they found they were publishing the same title by the same author at the same time. And maybe one of them had actually paid the author.
So in part the Statue of Anne provided for copyright for the author so that only one copy was printed in return for the author getting paid for the work. Well kinda, after signing off the copyright to the publisher and the subsequent invention of creative accounting. The other purpose was the promotion of education to ensure that works were available to the public. Not locked behind a walled garden.
And the terms of the granted copyright monopoly were much shorter than they are now as they reach unto the generations yet to be born.
Reasonable length copyright might, in a perfect, world actually lead to more publishers, recording companies and studios to produce creative works, too. (I know, I’m dreaming. But I can do that for a minute or two, can’t I? :))

anonymous says:

Switzerland has the right idea when they say that there is virtually no harm done to the entertainment industries by downloading, as the money is most likely spent on the real items anyway. the entertainment industries need to concentrate more on adapting to the internet age, rather than how to continue to monetize off the back of an outdated business model. if IP laws are needed, which i dont think they are, doing more harm than good except to a few certain individuals, at least make the laws fair and reasonable, with sensible processes to follow. trying to shut down the whole internet, jam up the courts with law suits, banning people from using the ‘net’ for the slightest indiscretion (decided by an over-zealous, self-interested party) and throwing countless numbers of people into prison for perhaps committing minor crimes is not the way to go! jeez! the banking crisis caused more problems than ‘file sharing’ ever could. look at the punishments dished out to those concerned in comparison!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...