New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable
from the so-why-are-we-pushing-forward-with-it? dept
One of the talking points we’ve been hearing about SOPA from the lobbyists pushing to get it approved is that the majority of Americans are in favor of the bill, because they want to “protect” intellectual property or jobs. This has never made much sense, since SOPA doesn’t protect jobs at all. It destroys them, by hindering one of the few parts of our economy that has been creating jobs — new and small businesses, particularly in the tech community. Now, the same folks who brought you that incredibly in-depth study on media piracy in emerging markets, have come out with a new report revealing some of their latest research on infringement among Americans. There are a ton of useful data revealed here, but none more timely and key than the following:
56% of people surveyed oppose government involvement in blocking access to infringing material. This number increases to 64% when the term censor is used.
Furthermore, when asked specifically if ISPs, social media sites and search engines should block access to infringing content if it also meant that some legal content would also get blocked (basically the definition of SOPA — where even the defenders of the bill admit it will block some legal content), only 36% say that’s an acceptable form of copyright enforcement.
In other words, a majority Americans are very opposed to the methods and impact of SOPA.
The study also found that, when compelling legal services are around, it can cause a massive decrease in the amount of content obtained through unauthorized means. This isn’t a surprise. We’ve been pointing this out for a while now. And it again shows why SOPA is the exact wrong approach. Instead of actually decreasing infringement, it will increase the burdens and costs for the new businesses who provide those compelling new services.
- Only a slim majority of Americans (52%) support penalties for downloading copyrighted music and movies — and limit this support to warnings and fines. Other penalties, such as bandwidth throttling and disconnection, receive much lower levels of support.
- Disconnection from the internet, in particular, is very unpopular, with only 16% in favor and 72% of Americans opposed.
- Among those who support fines, 75% support amounts under $100 per song or movie infringed — hugely undershooting the current statutory penalties.
- For a majority of Americans (54%), due process in such matters requires a court — not adjudication by private companies.
- Solid majorities of American internet users oppose copyright enforcement when it is perceived to intrude on personal rights and freedoms. 69% oppose monitoring of their internet activity for the purposes of enforcement. 57% oppose blocking or filtering by commercial intermediaries if those measures also block legal content or activity.
So what is there to make from all of this? It appears that our current laws (especially statutory damages) are way out of line with what the majority of Americans think would be appropriate. Furthermore, a ton of people infringe regularly, and especially think nothing’s wrong with sharing among family and friends. On top of that, they seem to agree that enforcement is way out of line with the “problem,” and certainly don’t approve of the types of changes that SOPA is seeking to put in place.
So why are so many in Congress so out of touch with the American public and so focused on passing a law that goes against the wishes of Americans? This is the question Congress should be answering at tomorrow’s hearings. The report’s author, Joe Karaganis, should be one of the witnesses testifying, rather than a bevy of industry representatives all trotting out unsubstantiated reasons for moving forward with SOPA.
Filed Under: copyright, joe karaganis, piracy, sopa, survey, us
Comments on “New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable”
Cool.
Threat level scarlet
SOPA is NOT censorship. Let me be clear – America does not Censor!
We all have to realize that we can only win the war on Infringerism by accepting that Enhanced Internet-Abrogation Techniques are a necessary and effective method to control those who hate us for our creativity.
Otherwise, the Infringerists will have won.
Re: Threat level scarlet
“Enhanced Internet-Abrogation Techniques” to censorship is what “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” to torture.
Re: Re: Threat level scarlet
#Don’tExplainTheJoke
Re: Threat level scarlet
Waterboard the internets!
Re: Threat level scarlet
SOPA and these other IP maximist bills are about censorship, just like government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies are/were also about censorship, contrary to FCC claims. The fact is that censorship is already a reality and the laws are responsible.
Re: Re: Threat level scarlet
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/00240216771/new-study-shows-majority-americans-against-sopa-believe-extreme-copyright-enforcement-is-unreasonable.shtml#c377
Re: Re: Re: Threat level scarlet
#whoosh
Re: Threat level scarlet
America does not censor! Not even when it censors! It also does not torture, or illegally invade countries, even while doing so!
And let everyone in the worl today know this. AMERICA will NOT tolerate you, or anything you do because America is FREEDOM or my ass isn’t white! If American companies say they need something, we’re gonna give it to them, reason and human rights be DAMNED. ?
Our Government is taking money and giving out favors instead of Representing this Country and its People.
They Censor and we will fight back.It will truly be the beginning of the End for these corrupt rich fatcats.
SOPA = CORRUPTION and gives it one of the worst examples seen as it strips us of Constitutional Rights we are guaranteed.Anyone who signs this is a traitor to our freedom.
Re: Re:
The constitution does not provide rights. It is designed to protect the rights that we are all born with. Those rights are unalienable.
un?al?ien?a?ble ( n- l y -n -b l, – l – -). adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away.
its time that our masters learn that we consent to be governed and that they do not have the right to abridge those rights.
Re: Re: Re:
These rights are NOT unalienable, because sometimes you need to use a sword to remind those in power of your rights.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, but that’s not a Beretta with “Dagger” etched on the side. Which would be more aporpos.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, the constitution does provide rights… for congress. Like the right to establish copyrights, for example. You would think that the explicit recognition that congressional rights are a concession by the people and that the people’s rights are unalienable would produce a far different political arena than the one we have today.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Like the right to establish copyrights”
Only to promote the progress and only for a limited time. Today (thanks to perpetual extensions), we have neither.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take the money out of politics and see what happens.
Actually...
“Look at just the 18 to 29 year old demographic, and that number shoots up to 70%. These are the voters of tomorrow, politicians… “
Actually these are the voter of today, its just that they don’t bother 🙂
But I see your point, when they get older and start caring about the world around them then they will actually start voting, and in greater numbers.
Re: Actually...
They’re kind of like sand people then?
Re: Actually...
Were do I vote on these kinds of things?
I want to vote, but I can’t vote for people because I don’t trust any politician. Can I vote against people instead of voting for them?
Re: Re: Actually...
You can’t vote on these things. Representatives feel that they are too important to let people have a say.
Re: Actually...
Yup, and just like the hippies before them, they will wake up, realize they are now “the man” and realize how stupid their actions when younger were. Then they will vote republican, and they will shut your pirate site down.
The idealism of youth is usually replaced with the realism of life somewhere around 30.
Re: Re: Actually...
“they will shut your pirate site down.”
Is it actually possible for you to make an argument without attacking someone baselessly? I know it makes your argument easier to assume “if you’re not with me, you’re against me”, but that’s not the way to deal with real life.
“The idealism of youth is usually replaced with the realism of life somewhere around 30.”
I’m 36 and have gotten very tired of trying to convince you people to actually allow me to buy my entertainment without either trying to destroy my free speech or free market rights, so perhaps you’re correct. The fact that my level of purchasing has reduced over the last few years has nothing to do with piracy, though.
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
same here (47, and sell my music on itunes (and give it away for free))
Re: Re: Actually...
OK, that was true for the Boomers, but what cultural changes will impact how that change (turning 30) will manifest in whatever they call the current generation (not Pepsi)?
I remember my father wondering about our reaction to landing on the moon. My brothers and I were just not as excited about that event as he was. Then I reminded him that he grew up with Buck Rogers on the radio, and we grew up with Mercury on the TV, a ‘blinding flash of the obvious’ occurred.
So, we older folks grew up with the migration from vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CD, etc. The current young generation grew up with the Internet. Just how will that impact their view when they get to 30?
Re: Re: Actually...
and they will shut your pirate site down.
So wait… you think TechDirt should be legally shut down? A site that actually never hosts or links to infringing content, simply discusses it?
So you are FLAT OUT ADMITTING that you want to see SOPA used for censorship? You think it should be illegal not just to infringe copyright – but even to express an anti-copyright opinion?
How have self-respecting Americans not kicked you out of the country yet?
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Was he talking to Masnick about his blog?
No, you fucking idiot.
He was talking about whatever site, demonoid, etc, that is Another AC’s preferred pirate site for ripping off artists.
Re: Re: Re:2 Actually...
For the record, My ‘preferred pirate’ site is this one
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Marcus with due respect, I agree with the other coward. I wasn’t talking about Mike’s site. For someone who works in the wonderful world of copyrights and writing, you are a real loser when it comes to reading and comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:2 Actually...
Marcus with due respect … you are a real loser
I see you consider “due respect” to be none. Still, you ALMOST made it three whole sentences without an ad hom – so nice effort.
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Really? Because he sounds to me like one of the trolls who flips out at techdirt for being a “pirate blog” and such. The AC he was replying to makes no reference to any site or any type of site or anything to do with sites at all… So I’m not sure where you get the idea that he was talking about something else.
Re: Actually...
>>Actually these are the voter of today, its just that they don’t bother 🙂
Disrupt their favorite internet sites and see how long it takes them to become voters.
T_T so many numbers
Re: Re:
Agreed – it’s much easier to prove that SOPA is good for us, and we all want it, without showing numbers.
Because… you know… the numbers don’t really seem to support the position…
just me
I havent downloaded a single mp3 since I got pandora (free).
I havent downloaded a single movie since I got netflix streaming (not free, but meh).
The problem is, pandora is going to collapse because they cant afford the retarded licensing required by the MAFIAA. So in order to listen to music, I’ll just revert to pirating it.
Netflix is about to lose STARZ, which will strip the majority of its movies from it leaving only tv shows. Netflix is already being abused by the episodic studios by making netflix completely third rate at distribution parity. That appears to be getting worse over time.
So eventually, I will revert to piracy for my viewing needs as well.
But thats all extremely minor really.
The big picture here is that since the MAFIAAs went consumer-hostile, I have simply stopped ever giving them money. I dont buy cds from big labels, I dont buy dvds, bluray is nothing more than a running joke.
They aren’t getting any money from me again until they become customer friendly again.
Stop trying to rob me blind and rip me off at every turn.
Stop trying to stall the inevitable future of humanity.
Stop treating me like your enemy and I will stop treating you like you treat me.
Re: just me
“The big picture here is that since the MAFIAAs went consumer-hostile”
No, they didn’t. They didn’t move – you became distribution hostile, more than anything. Can you explain to me a change that the MPAA or RIAA made specifically from what they were doing before that is hostile? Shutting down pirate sites isn’t hostile.
Please, tell me EXACTLY what they did to become hostile.
Re: Re: just me
Sued customers in court.
Re: Re: just me
Umm… DRM, FBI warnings and anti-piracy messages on the DVDs I PURCHASED (and cannot skip over) and generally changing the way they look at consumers – sheeple that will acquiesce to anything as long as it is in a pretty package.
If I pay for something I want to be able to use it as I want, and all of the anti-piracy measures that the IAA’s have com up with go against the basic tenet of “Innocent until Proven Guilty”. They assume I am going to pirate things and make it harder and harder to consume their product without having to consume their crap.
Treat me like a bad person long enough, I may just live up to their expectations. Treat me like a valuable person and give me an incentive to buy and I will do so.
Their choice, their loss, and there is nothing they can do but postpone the inevitable demise of their distribution monopolies.
Re: Re: Re: just me
DRM, FBI warnings and anti-piracy messages on the DVDs I PURCHASED
So what? Those have always existed in some manner. Don’t be such a whiny little bitch.
I seriously doubt you purchase anything, btw lol.
Re: Re: Re:2 just me
At least I can keep the discussion on an intellectual level, rather than resorting to unfounded insults.
Re: Re: Re: just me
“Umm… DRM, FBI warnings and anti-piracy messages on the DVDs I PURCHASED (and cannot skip over) and generally changing the way they look at consumers – sheeple that will acquiesce to anything as long as it is in a pretty package.”
See, there is your problem right off. The messages are there for a reason, and that includes making sure that legally, nobody can make the mistake of the content being free to distribute or some sort of creative commons idea. Without it, you can be sure that pirates would be arguing in court that there were not entirely sure. Blame the people who try to stretch the law.
The content industries don’t look at anyone as “sheeple”. That’s just bullshit, end to end. They make the products people want, why would they have to trick them into buying it?
“If I pay for something I want to be able to use it as I want, and all of the anti-piracy measures that the IAA’s have com up with go against the basic tenet of “Innocent until Proven Guilty”. “
You pay for certain rights, and you can use them – and those include all the fair use rights. DMCA makes it illegal to hack a DRM, so sorry there. We can always strike DMCA, but then we would have to close all those “safe harbour” sites you like so much.
“Treat me like a bad person long enough, I may just live up to their expectations”
Act like a bad person long enough, support the illegal actions of many, and blaming the wrong people when things get tough results in what we have today. It’s an adversarial relationship because you guys changed, you want more, you want it now, and you are willing to (steal, take, borrow, pilfer, procure, replicate, duplicate, pirate… pick your word) to get it.
You can see where your actions, your change in attitude, is what causes the problems.
Re: Re: Re:2 just me
“It’s an adversarial relationship because you guys changed, you want more, you want it now, and you are willing to (steal, take, borrow, pilfer, procure, replicate, duplicate, pirate… pick your word) to get it.”
I’m sorry we don’t fit into your “customer” mold Mr. Big Media. We have changed, this is true, but it’s not our fault you can’t figure out how to change with us. Unfortunately, your not going to be able to un-change us by making us criminals, or limiting the value of your content by putting easily circumvented restrictions on them… it’s a tough world buddy…. I do feel sorry for you… here’s a tissue….
Now when your done crying, and scolding your customer for allowing technology to change their consumption habits, I would like to point out that you have a wonderful opertunity in front of you. You have a door into the vast majority of your customer base called the “Internet”. You have two choices with this door. You can exploit this opening into your customers house by servicing his media desires in such a way as to make yourself invaluable. Or you can continue down your current path of douchebaggary and self pity while your customers build a culture around hating your fucking guts. Either way, I think change is on the horizon for both of us. Exciting time isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:2 just me
Without it, you can be sure that pirates would be arguing in court that there were not entirely sure.
Oh yeah, it’s for when they sue their fans. You’re right, nothing hostile about that.
Re: Re: just me
“They didn’t move – you became distribution hostile, more than anything.”
Citation needed, or is “I use Pandora and Netflix” now a sign of piracy as well? At least he has the choice, something you idiots try to prevent happening in the rest of the world.
“Can you explain to me a change that the MPAA or RIAA made specifically from what they were doing before that is hostile?”
I don’t remember them suing children/dead people or shutting down free speech access without trial before they got paranoid and started attacking the internet, do you? Granted, they did attempt to be idiots and try to shut down Betamax, etc. before they realised they had to work with people and made a lot of money by doing so. Why not this time?
“Shutting down pirate sites isn’t hostile.”
If you took your head of your ass for 5 seconds, you might realise that this isn’t what’s being criticised.
Re: Re: just me
Lobbied for continued copy protection extensions.
Re: Re: just me
He just did, you ass-hat.
Re: Re: just me
No, they didn’t. They didn’t move
You know, I’ll actually give you that statement without argument.
They’ve been consumer hostile since before the phonograph.
Re: Re: just me
Wasn’t there a lawsuit awhile back about record companies teaming up to keep the price of CD’s artificialy high? I would say that was hostile. Not to mention a good reason not to trust them.
Re: Re: just me
Can you say Root-Kit?
Re: Re: just me
No, they didn’t. They didn’t move – you became distribution hostile, more than anything. Can you explain to me a change that the MPAA or RIAA made specifically from what they were doing before that is hostile?
When the whole world is moving and you are standing still, it’s not the world who is at fault.
Re: Re: Re: just me
Which why it’s important to pass legislation that stops the world from moving.
Re: just me
While I agree with you on most points, Blu Ray is no joke to me.
It has superior video quality and far superior sound quality and I have the home theater to handle it.
I just wish they wouldn’t try to charge me $30-40 for a movie.
Sad
8% don’t understand that blocking a website is censorship.
Re: Sad
Considering the level of politics in some areas of the US, that seems low, sadly.
Resorting to push-polls now, eh?
The “number increases to 64% when the term censor is used” identifies this as a push-poll having bias in the questions. Let’s try: “Do you oppose file-sharing, or are you a terrorist?”
By the way, what’s the source? All I can see is links to your own self.
Remember the halcyon days of the 20th century when rights were a gift from god and not subject to majority rule? Well, that’s all changed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/church-going-americans-mo_n_194476.html
“The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.”
When a clear majority of Republicans poll in favor of /torture/, one can only hope that the pollsters phrased the question to get the wanted answer.
Re: Resorting to push-polls now, eh?
Ignore my question on source: you updated it at: “come out with a new report”.
Re: Resorting to push-polls now, eh?
The “number increases to 64% when the term censor is used” identifies this as a push-poll having bias in the questions
Really? Because if I wanted to do a biased push-poll, I probably wouldn’t include questions and stats that directly call attention to the language bias and show both sides of it…
Re: Re: Resorting to push-polls now, eh?
Waaay too logical for him marcus.
A whole bunch of numbers, and yet none of them directly address SOPA! What an amazing deal.
Even then, you look at the numbers – take away the percentage who think it is okay to give a copy to a family member, and you quickly sink down to less than 20%.
Also, none of the questions are put straight up: If the risk for getting fined or charges as a result of piracy went up, or if the availability of pirated goods online shrank, what would you do?
There is no indication of support or opposition for SOPA, only a clear indication of what people do when they feel there is no risk, and the material is widely available.
Congrats for drawing a conclusion about SOPA where this is none of draw.
Re: Re:
Congrats on finding out you can’t read. Now you can go back to school and (eventually) get a job so we don’t have to deal with you all day.
Re: Re: Re:
Umm, I read it. As soon as they use the loaded word “censor”, the answers shift (which is why Mike and his friends use this term over and over again). But when asked straight up if the “user submitted content” sites should block out piracy, 60% are for it. Hmm! Basically, if you misrepresent things, you can get more people on your side.
Basically, the survey says what could have already been deduced from reading Techdirt. If you try to scare people into thinking that the internet is going to be massively censored, they say “no”. But as soon as you drop the censorship word and ask them direct questions, they support ISPs, “service providers” and such being held to block piracy.
It explains Mike’s scare mongering completely.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except the part I posted had nothing to do with their use of the word censor. So once again you failed at basic reading skills.
They evidently don’t when there’s a chance of false positives, regardless of whether you use the word censor:
Care to try again?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yup, I would care to try again.
The question you point to invokes “the government”, which immediately tilts the answers.
http://piracy.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Blocking-.png
Look at the three questions before it: User content screening, ISP blocking, and Search engine blocking are all majority answers yes – as soon as they use the word government, the number drops. That is a question of who they trust, not really a question of should it be done. Clearly, a majority support blocking.
Play it as censorship (which is what most people would think the government is doing) and the results are there.
I think this is more telling:
http://piracy.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Search-Engine-Should-Block.png
Except for the under 30 crowd, everyone else thinks it’s a good idea.
“Here, we tested softer language that asked whether such sites should ?try to screen all material and try to reject pirated music and video?? 61% said yes; 32% no.”
So basically, unless you use the word censor, or reference “government”, the public is generally supportive of blocking pirate sites.
It’s hard to conclude that the public is against SOPA from this, unless you raise the spectre of censorship. It really does explain why Mike keeps hammering on it, he probably got the talking points from the EFF on the matter.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And? This is news because? Nice work by the way, defying your own assertions that this has no relevance to SOPA. Like you said, people don’t want the government involved in blocking or filtering content.
Ignoring of course that they don’t when there’s a chance of legitimate content being blocked.
Evidently not:
tl;dr – People only support blocking if they’re kept ignorant of what blocking involves.
So nice work there. You undermined your own argument by saying people don’t want the government blocking or filtering content, showed how you rely on ignorance to convince people things like SOPA are a good idea and generally misrepresented data as saying what it doesn’t.
Also, I should add the 30-49 group you love so much emphatically do not want their internet activity monitored. As noted, you can’t reconcile that with active searching and blocking of material. One entails the other.
Fourth time’s the charm?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Ignoring of course that they don’t when there’s a chance of legitimate content being blocked.”
You tried hard, but failed. That only happens when you use the word censorship. So sorry, you fail.
“I should add the 30-49 group you love so much emphatically do not want their internet activity monitored.”
I cannot picture anyone saying “oh yes please, monitor me”, especially when you raise the spectre of the government doing it. Yet they are willing to have these sites blocked out, which should tell you something.
In the end, Mike (and the original author, who has quickly become a Masnick fave) make the assertion that the US public is against SOPA, but they never asked the question – and when they did ask a question to get the response they wanted, they used the “censorship” word to get it.
So hey, no fourth time required – the numbers speak very clearly, people do not have a problem with pirate sites getting blocked, they have no problem with pirate files getting blocked, and they think that youtube and ISPs should work harder to take care of it.
Seems pretty clear cut… unless you want to play the “censorship” card.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Umm, I read it. As soon as they use the loaded word “censor”…”
Oh, so it’s reading comprehension that is your problem. I can help there.
You see, from the text it is obvious that they asked two questions, one with the word “censor” and one with the phrase “government involvement in blocking access to infringing material”.
The results were 64% and 56% against, respectively.
There, hope that helps you avoid future embarrasing posts!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Basically, if you misrepresent things, you can get more people on your side.”
This strategy works great for the MPAA/RIAA. It is the cornerstone of everything they do in regards to new technology.
It explains the industry associations’ scare mongering completely.
Re: Re:
Find/create a better work around
Re: Re:
Also, none of the questions are put straight up: If the risk for getting fined or charges as a result of piracy went up, or if the availability of pirated goods online shrank, what would you do?
Hypothetical question cause SOPA won’t achieve either as you and your ilk will find out soon enough.
Representative democracy
I think that the grand experiment of a representative democracy has failed once again.
The US is a hollow shell of what the founding fathers wanted it to become and now it’s just zombie marching along until a new American revolution occurs.
Re: Representative democracy
Isn’t that what the Occupy people are trying to do? Let’s see how well that do at this. My guess is nothing will be accomplished.
If you do succeed and piracy becomes legal, who will spend money to make movies that they can’t make money from? Artists? People are not interested in artsy movies – look at the top grossing movies of all time and tell me people want art.
Re: Re: Representative democracy
While I do think the OWS people need to have a specific objective, instead of their overly general complaints, and that they probably won’t accomplish anything without having a specific agenda, I do support their right to protest the governmental-industrial complex. Unfortunately, the police have been ordered to shut down the protests and they have been doing so.
It’s sad that we can no longer legally protest and we no longer have the right to peaceably assemble, at least not in a meaningful manner that could cause meaningful change.
They’re making peaceful revolution impossible which (as JFK said) makes violent revolution inevitable.
Re: Re: Re: Representative democracy
What you’re seeing is a very large reaction to 30 years of stagnant wages and the law used to suppress businesses.
The militarizationof the police is the wrong idea for this, but it’s been coming to a head for quite some time. Now that the idea is exposed in how the police don’t represent the communities they are supposed to protect, I’m sure people will be even more leery of governmental involvement in things such as copyright.
I’d like to think that the overall OWS movement will have ripple effects in copyright. You really can’t differentiate the two. It’s a human rights issue where the government is trying to censor expression. Think about how copyright has been used since the DMCA has been enforced. Large companies using the law have certainly abused it by trying to enforce high statutory damages against people. In the OWS movement, I’m sure the three strikes laws along with other measures to reign in the Occupiers will be put to the test. I don’t see too many ways you can really differentiate the two movements building up without finding comparisons (or ad hom attacks in the case of trolls)
Re: Re: Representative democracy
I think you answered your own question. Even with all the ‘piracy’ the industry continues to grow, and profit, and pay their executives exorbitant sums. They are getting their money.
Could all this be grousing because they want more? Or is it just a power play, because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Re: Re: Representative democracy
Really this all make me wonder why don’t we just drop all these regulations? You brought up a very valid point.
“If you do succeed and piracy becomes legal, who will spend money to make movies that they can’t make money from? Artists? People are not interested in artsy movies – look at the top grossing movies of all time and tell me people want art.”
Well lets think on this. You are claiming most people do not want art movies, yet they are what will survive? Why would they make it when the others don’t? It would be due to the support they get from the people who do want them. If people do not want these “blockbusters” enough to help pay their production then are they really worth being made? If everyone truly wants these big movies then they will support the production of them on their own without regulations. If you treat people like they have a brain you might realize that most of us actually realize that we have to pay some money for a movie if we want more movies. If you bother to take the time to look you will even realize most of the big “Pirates” encourage you to buy a copy of the product to support development.
What’s all this ‘extreme copyright enforcement’ I keep hearing about? Gosh, I wish the MPAA would keep the sordid details of its sex life a little quieter.
The Headline should have read, “New study shows the majority of Americans have pirated music, movies, or television programming”. It is telling that 70% of the Entitlement Generation have pirated content.
Re: Re:
However you want to spin it. 10 years of attacking your own customers certainly haven’t made them willing to buy more from you. Maybe you should try letting an actual market form instead of trying to kill competitors when your attempt to restrict them fail?
Re: Re:
No, what’s telling is that IP maximists feel entitled to monopoly privileges that they have no rightful entitlement to.
Re: Re: Re:
(to free monopoly privileges *)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don’t get free monopoly privileges. They make their payments to our congress critters, probably regularly.
Re: Re: Re:
What do you do for a living AC?
Re: Re:
Oh my Lord it seems like the AA industry is looking for ways to make criminals of the consumers.
Cheer me up, show me one viable way that the Gate Keepers are trying to entice me to buy and enjoy some media?
I can easily cite several examples of where an entertainment industry is making it’s self look like the Gestapo of the world. Draconian laws, Draconian usage rights, Horrific fines for single infringement occurrences, outright hostility at the consumer before any wrong was found to have happened. Real and sadly successful, attempts to stifle innovation and technological creativity. (The tape recorder boosted sales! The VCR Boosted sales! The MP3 player Boosted sales! The Internet Boosted sales!) And yet, each and every one of those technologies were defamed as killing the entertainment industry. And some of you wonder why you are not taken seriously? Crying wolf so much and so loudly has you resorting to paying off Congress and other political bodies world wide. Yes, I am keeping track of who votes for what and I will personally ensure my friends and family know who to vote out of office.
I just don’t understand you guys. You have something the whole world wants. You have technology that puts in to peoples hands faster than ever, AND you are richer than ever, the Gate Keepers are anyway. Why the content creators are not richer is a tiny bit mystifying.
If I owned a record label, I’d make damn sure my recording artists were known world wide and were rolling in cash. Every little girl and boy in the poorest of countries would be singing their songs and wanting more.
I’d also be keeping the price point really low, so every little boy and girl could blow their last dime on the music I sell. Also, the older the music got, the cheaper I’d make it.
Ahh, but hell, I know you guys are well educated and understand the market to an infinite degree. Surely you know that both the content creators and the consumers are unhappy and are thinking or ways to fulfill our every desire.
I await that wonderful day….
Still…
Now, will the government established mainstream media cartels inform us about any of this? Or will they continue to abuse their government established monopoly power to censor this information from the public to the best of their ability while feeding us one sided, pro – IP, propaganda.
Censorship is already a reality and bad laws are responsible. SOPA is no different.
In my day we woke up one hour before we got to bed, ate gravel for breakfast, worked 25 hours in a day, and our parents killed us every night.
You brats feel so entitled. If you get 20 painful years out of your life, 19 of them working in a coal mine, that should be enough.
This here wanting stuff, like fresh food or iPods, is just plain unnatural. Real adults dont need stuff.
You cubs just need to grow up.
Re: Re:
This was a reply to
“The Headline should have read, “New study shows the majority of Americans have pirated music, movies, or television programming”. It is telling that 70% of the Entitlement Generation have pirated content.”
Not sure why id did not thread properly.
They will shut down competition
There is so much music online that isn’t owned by the big studios — e.g. BandCamp, Jamendo, Free Music Archive, Magnatune — whose content is free for streaming and often better than the majors’ offerings.
I’m sure if this bill is passed they will abuse it to shut down these sites as well.
What’s called anti-piracy is really anti-competition.
Re: They will shut down competition
Why would you think that these sites would get shut down?
Are the infringing?
Are they pirating stuff?
Are the operating as an enterprise dedicated to piracy?
Nope. So what makes you think they would shut down?
Re: Re: They will shut down competition
We think they would be shut down because this law makes it easy to point fingers at sites like those even if you don’t have proof.
So do you really think if you go and hand a loaded gun to an angry 5 year old he is only going to shoot “guilty” people?
That is about what this law is like. These companies have shown in the past that they attack innocent sites and ask questions later. This law gives them even more power and takes away the chance at a fair trial. Once site is accused it is taken down, sure they can appeal but most of these sites cant afford to be shut down like that.
Can you picture a similar law being passed for a physical places? Say you gave Wal-mart the power to shut down other stores on a whim? All they have to do is point and say that store is selling counterfeit jeans. Then without warning or notice, no court case or chance to defend, the cops just show up and lock down the store placing huge sign out front “CLOSED FOR COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS” and tell the store owner “sorry you can dispute charges but until the dispute is finished your store stays locked”
Even if you challenge it, you have lost revenue from time down, you have the fees involved from challenging it, and your reputation is pertinently damaged. In other words, even if you did nothing wrong your store was just destroyed and will likely never fully recover.
Re: Re: Re: They will shut down competition
“So do you really think if you go and hand a loaded gun to an angry 5 year old he is only going to shoot ‘guilty’ people?”
LOL! Sounds about right. Seriously, I’ve met more than a fair share of self-righteous artist, and a few execs, who rant about their “rights” while having absolutely no clue what their rights even are. When pushed about their demands on increasing enforcement, their circular agreement usually comes down to saying the law supports their right for “X”, so we need to change the law to give them “X”.
Sorry, I shouldn’t put down five year olds–I’ve meet some with a better grasp of logic that that!
56% of Americans may oppose SOPA but they will lose by just a few votes.
Re: Re:
And this is why we need a “Shameful” button.
Or a SAD button?
After the House Judiciary Committee hearing what are the next steps to make this bill the law? I was under the impression it was a long process. And if a hold is put on the bill how long would that delay it?
After the House Judiciary Committee hearing what are the next steps to make this bill the law? I was under the impression it was a long process. And if a hold is put on the bill how long would that delay it?
i suppose the things to ask are what will the people do to even up the representation? what will be done when this Bill is actually passed? what will the people do when the first web site is censored, regardless of what country is involved? what excuse will Congress and any other government body come out with in support of the blocks? what will happen in retaliation from other countries? and most importantly, will it be effective in stopping what they say it will stop or will it just give the entertainment industries what they want, ie, control of the net as it is atm?
Re:
And if it wasn’t obvious already, we now know for sure that you’re an outright liar. It happens when you get the government involved, it happens when you use the word censorship, and it happens when you tell them there’s a chance of legitimate content being blocked. That you deliberately ignore and even outright lie about this clear finding, quoted already about 3 times, is quite funny.
Censorship was not part of the question bringing up that possibility. You even referenced the chart that clearly shows this – censorship was it’s own question, separate from bringing up government involvement and separate from mentioning that legal content may be blocked.
In fact, here’s the full image taken from the PDF – they even highlight the questions that imply blocking is easy and the ones that imply blocking is messy, the entire reason for colouring the graph green and blue:
http://i.imgur.com/b6J0Q.png
Which evidently no one did outside of that one question.
Fifth time?
just me
“They make the products people want, why would they have to trick them into buying it?”
Not so much trick as force… like trying to force people to. Trying to make consumers buy the same album/movie/etc. over and over again on different formats for example.
“It’s an adversarial relationship because you guys changed, you want more, you want it now, and you are willing to (steal, take, borrow, pilfer, procure, replicate, duplicate, pirate… pick your word) to get it.”
I think this point really undermines your argument. Consumers have changed, their habits have changed, their expectations have changed, and all thanks to new technologies like the Internet! The fact that people are willing to seek unauthorized sources underscores the failing of the *IAA’s to adapt to that, don’t you think?
I ask you, what other companies in the world complains when their customers change? The truth is, only the ones that are failing. The rest adapt and thrive.
The report’s author, Joe Karaganis, should be one of the witnesses testifying, rather than a bevy of industry representatives all trotting out unsubstantiated reasons for moving forward with SOPA.
Google was invited. They can probably handle the testimony.
The report’s author, Joe Karaganis, should be one of the witnesses testifying, rather than a bevy of industry representatives all trotting out unsubstantiated reasons for moving forward with SOPA.
Google was invited. They can probably handle the testimony.
just me
“Act like a bad person long enough, support the illegal actions of many, and blaming the wrong people when things get tough results in what we have today. It’s an adversarial relationship because you guys changed, you want more, you want it now, and you are willing to (steal, take, borrow, pilfer, procure, replicate, duplicate, pirate… pick your word) to get it.”
“So what? Those have always existed in some manner. Don’t be such a whiny little bitch.”
Contradict yourselves much?
Re:
C’mon, you can DO EET!
Re:
Entitlement Generation
“the group born between 1979 and 1994 who believe they are owed certain rights and benefits without further justification”
Wow, that sounds really similar to artists that insist that they have a right to our money even if they fail to sell anything to us.
Actually...
The simple solution is to always vote the incumbent out of office, election enforced term limits…
Actually...
“The idealism of youth is usually replaced with the realism of life somewhere around 30.”
I’m 36 and have gotten very tired of trying to convince you people to actually allow me to buy my entertainment without either trying to destroy my free speech or free market rights, so perhaps you’re correct. The fact that my level of purchasing has reduced over the last few years has nothing to do with piracy, though.
37 and a die-hard conservative capitalist. This isn’t a republican or a capitalist issue — it is socialism, pure and simple. Someone is asking for the government to allow them to protect their state given monopoly from competition (legal or otherwise.) A true capitalist would look at this and cry. There are no state mandated monopoly rents in a capitalistic society. I am not that mean…authors and inventors should get 17 years to get their money back and potentially make money — however there shall be no permanent assignments to corporations (the author/inventor may temporarily allow assignment of a copyright to a company to allow for that company to distribute, but that must be made through contract and the author/inventor can nullify that contract if the company doesn’t provide the effort or another company comes along that provides a better deal.) How do companies make money — by providing a better deal or by providing a deal good enough to begin with.
“Among those who support fines, 75% support amounts under $100 per song or movie infringed — hugely undershooting the current statutory penalties. “
While I agree that the current statutory penalties are way too high, I do think that we need to generally be cautious with these studies and consider how they were conducted. For example, if the survey asked survey takers what they think would be a reasonable punishment for infringement and the possible answers were as follows
A: Under $20
B: Between $20 and $50
C: Between $50 and $100
D: Over $100
It should come as little surprise that most respondents choose a middle of the ground answer and choose either B or C. Likewise, I would expect different answers if the possible answers given were
A: Under $50
B: Between $50 and $150
C: Between $150 and $300
D: Over $300
Now I’m not saying that this survey doesn’t represent the respondents opinions, or public opinion, I myself agree that our current statutory damages are way too high. I’m just noting that how the survey was worded is something we should take into consideration. Of course this also applies to surveys conducted by supporters of this bill as well.
Re:
Yes, but the dividends on this regulatory capture are upwards to 22,000% return in tax savings. It must be tempting NOT to do this and learn how to compete.
Re:
The bill could be implemented as quickly as next year. If it’s passed, it would have a six month window before implementation IIRC.
just me
And the tide from going out!
Re:
‘You tried hard, but failed. That only happens when you use the word censorship. So sorry, you fail.”
Your entire presence here is a major fail. You are a perfect representation of the industry’s contempt towards anyone and everyone who doesn’t see things “your” way.
Get a life and move on. You’re never going to convince anyone you’re right about anything.
Actually...
Explain me, then.
Re:
As was a rep from MasterCard….
Re:
Have you ever boiled a frog?
The first wave of websites to be censored by Big Media will be sites most of the public has never heard of, or sites that are honest-to-goodness professional pirates. People will hear a bit about it, and not care.
The next wave will be sites that have large amounts of real pirated content mixed in with their free-as-in-speech content. People will hear about it and figure it’s for the best.
About half the time, they’ll make deals that are nearly reasonable, or demand only that the site clean up it’s act. The result will be crap, the sites will go under, and people will figure that’s just how the chips fall. Occasionally they will stomp on something totally legitimate, and if the public gets wind of it it will be a ‘Big Misunderstanding’.
Then, and only then, based on all that precedent and public apathy, if the You-Tube and friends haven’t *already* changed their operating procedures entirely, will you see anybody go after a site the public really adores.
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and Marketing. These are the professionals at all of the above. I just kinda hope they’re not that smart. It would be entirely awesome to see them try – or even succeed – at shutting down You-Tube right out of the gate. The backlash would flatten them.
Re:
The numbers speak very clearly when you lie through your teeth and leave out the important information regarding censorship and criminality. You fight so hard against that word, even though that is exactly what this is.
Actually...
The idealism of youth is usually replaced with the realism of life somewhere around 30.
I’m 42 myself, and oppose both these bills vehemently.
I guess that’s what happens when you become aware of the realism of life.
Yeah, SOPA is ridiculous. Also those numbers would be WAY more skewed if the more elderly demographics had VHS and Casset tapes included in their copying.
But yeah, down with SOPA, and I’ll vote against any politician who I catch voting for it.
Also, if you make a good product, and you give people a reason to be proud to own it, they will. The big problem here, is people come out with garbage movies, garbage music, awful/buggy/glitchy/improperly-tested games and software, and then charge far out the ass for them. This is the response. Or they offer horrible customer service, have issues with double-charging customers, or use their corporations money to support political causes.
If people don’t trust your product, and can get it for free, they will. If people don’t trust you, and can get what they want by going around you, they will. If people believe you are spending the money they give you to fight for a cause they don’t believe in, and they can keep that money from you, they will. Or if you simply have a hard enough time affording the cost of living and can’t afford $60 out of your budget to buy a new Video Game.
Many factors curb piracy, and many cause it. But the internet is the most pure expression of freedom we currently have on earth right now. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some people I’ve never met who don’t know me telling me what I can learn, what I can read, what I can think, what I can see, what I can say, and what I can know. When you give people freedom, they will not give it up quietly. Even if the internet gets censored, which by selectively deciding which content we can and cannot view/access IS, people will find a way to circumvent it. The internet has provided people with knowledge, and people will use that knowledge to invent something new. When you aren’t satisfied with what you have, it forces you to think of ways to improve or modify it.
Charts
Charts with gradients of the same color do not communicate, they confuse. Can’t read or bother to read this story when most of the charts are confusing. Charts are supposed to make assimilating the info easier.
Re:
And so what if we have? What can really be done about it? It’s the way things are now. The paradigm has shifted. There is no going back.
Oppose SOPA
Copyright has its place in guaranteeing that the author of a work gets to derive profit from it. But it has been perverted obscenely beyond that, allowing the author’s great, great, great grandchildren to keep a work out of the public domain and to continue to profit from it.
If the content publishing industry gets its way, there won’t even be a public domain or fair use in the future.
If you want to see what the future would be like under SOPA, just google Performing Rights Society and read about the havoc they’ve wreaked in England!
Re:
The Senate version of the bill (SOPA) would have to pass, then it would have to be signed into law by the President.
Actually...
I’m over 50, and a free market capitalist democrat software engineer.
I think these bills are shit. If the “creative class” wants more money, go create more. Stop being such a dumbass by licensing your all rights distributors.
There’s your realism.
Let’s also point out more dishonesty in this survey.
By lumping together self copying and piracy, they make the numbers of people who have “pirated” look bigger.
Example, the “has copies from a DVD or CD, or download online for free” groups together two very different behaviors into one group. If I own a CD and I copy it to my MP3 player, I would fall in this group, but I would not be a pirate. Yet they attempt to make it look like there is widespread support for piracy and pirate activity.
As soon as it becomes a question of piracy, the actually numbers drop back to where they normally are, about 20%.
it is akin to asking “number people have tried smoking, know someone who smokes, or smoke 3 packs a day” and claiming them all as smokers. It’s pretty dishonest.
Re:
Thanks
Re:
Example, the “has copies from a DVD or CD, or download online for free” groups together two very different behaviors into one group. If I own a CD and I copy it to my MP3 player, I would fall in this group, but I would not be a pirate.
I’ve downloaded video and music files for free and not been a pirate, too.
Re:
So when you completely misrepresent the bill as “gosh golly shouldn’t websites have to try not to infringe” then you find less objection? That’s your best counter argument?
This bill is about government censorship of websites and the direction (and for the profit) of private companies. There’s no weaseling out of that. Its just what it is.
You can argue that this censorship isvjustified for one reason or another, but an honest person cannot try to claim it is not censorship.
Re:
So when you completely misrepresent the bill as “gosh golly shouldn’t websites have to try not to infringe” then you find less objection? That’s your best counter argument?
This bill is about government censorship of websites and the direction (and for the profit) of private companies. There’s no weaseling out of that. Its just what it is.
You can argue that this censorship isvjustified for one reason or another, but an honest person cannot try to claim it is not censorship.
Re:
So when you completely misrepresent the bill as “gosh golly shouldn’t websites have to try not to infringe” then you find less objection? That’s your best counter argument?
This bill is about government censorship of websites and the direction (and for the profit) of private companies. There’s no weaseling out of that. Its just what it is.
You can argue that this censorship isvjustified for one reason or another, but an honest person cannot try to claim it is not censorship.
just me
About the day they went into business.
It just takes some people longer to realise than others.