Whether or not an application of the law would constitute a chilling effect on the First Amendment would be up to the courts. This is just a statutory interpretation issue. If the court finds a use of SOPA does create a chilling effect, then SOPA cannot be applied.
Re: You guys say all DRM is easily cracked. Now it's an absolute lock?
This story is not about the crackability of DRM. As the story shows, breaking the DRM in this case is quite easy. Companies like Rhapsody need to make up their mind. They DRM files and then encourage all their users to break the DRM (which most smart people would have already done). It would have been better had they not placed the DRM on the file at all, since the DRM was easily broken, only those who were willing to play by the rules were hurt.
Why do I buy digital music instead of CDs? So I don't have to pay for all the crap tracks that I don't like. I can buy (for cheaper) song ala carte. It was "nice" of Rhapsody to warn their customers. Basically, they are saying, "unless you move it quick, we're going to crap in your cereal bowl."
First of all, if you are going to criticize Mike for poor writing skills, you should probably write well.
Second of all, it is a bigger deal than you let on. It is a cautionary tale of not relying on sources that sell you a product requiring constant DRM. You might find the process trivial, but the fact that you even have to go through those steps is a joke.
I guess I am not familiar with an occasion US copyright protection was given to works already in the public domain. Though, I am willing to go read about it if you can point me in the right direction.
While their might be a property right, that is not the right we are talking about. The expressive party has the right to make their expression on any work that is in the public domain; when the public domain is shrunk, that expressive right is being taken away.
"Reliance party" is an just a way to obfuscate what is really going on, IMHO. Party that is getting the copyright on what was in the public domain is really the "Usurpation Party." The usurpation party should have not expectation of a property right in what is in the public domain. Their misplaced desire to make a metaphorical land grab does not trump the public's constitutional right to expression of what is the public communal property.
By the same logic, copyright should not be extended after a work has already been created. The contract is "completed" when the work is created. You should get the deal on the table when the work is created.
While it is a difference, it is a difference without a distinction. If a published work is not covered by copyright, then it is in the public domain. It isn't important how it got into the public domain. In the US, a work has been traditionally put under copyright when it is "fixed." Granting a copyright 50 years (as an example) after fixation, after it has been in the public domain, is a change in the traditional contours of copyright.
We are not talking about the right to make another person's speech. That is one of the biggest logical fallacies of the Supreme Court's Eldred decision. Golan talks about the work that the orchestra puts into the work. When they perform the work, they are performing an act of original expression (which can get a copyright). That is the speech that is being prevented. They could freely add their expression to works in the public domain. Now they either can't do what they could before or they are at least constrained.
Re: Who says THEFT can't be POPULAR? Computers make it easy.
Your reasoning does not flow. These are the complaints that have been processed so far. We don't know how many people already have a 2nd warning in the queue or how many of these people have not be caught in the net yet. We don't know how many of those 650,000 are false positives; people who were caught in the net but never actually infringed.
So, 3.12 million people at, say an average of $60 a month. That is $187 million a month. That comes out to $2.25 billion dollars are year that the ISPs will be losing under this scenario. We'll see how long a "voluntary" agreement will last under those conditions.
First of all, it is not theft because by taking it, it does not deprive you of it. It might deprive you of some income, but that is speculative at best and is not related to that actual property you are accusing these people form taking.
Now, just sit back and think about what you are advocating. You are going to piss off a lot of people. Because Intellectual Property is a legal fiction (could be called part of a societal contract), if you piss off enough people, society can take it away from you. 650,000 people who have been accused , some based on faulty data, and not convicted, can start to cause a stink.
Long story short, if you want to keep your precious intellectual property "rights," you better not piss too many people off. In fact, the fact that 650,000 people are not respecting those rights might be a sign that they are already slipping through your fingers.