And to those who say that digitization costs money, and that those costs must be recouped in some way, consider this: holding books in a library, and making them available to the public, costs money too, but that did not prevent the great libraries of the past from providing access to their holdings for free
While I agree with this, I suspect this is the reason, at least the public reason. There may be greed behind the scenes too perhaps.
What is troubling is the use of copyright to control these works. These digital items should be used for the further education of all, not just those who pay. Why should someone be restricted due to their method of access or location?
We lost untold amounts of knowledge and history when the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. Some of our largest libraries today are not so different. The distribution of those one of a kind, priceless historical artifacts safely distributed on the Internet is a way to safe guard their loss, which is inevitable.
I'm not suggesting that minority groups shouldn't have laws narrowly focused on them, but I wonder just how many people this bill would actually affect and how many of them are actually for it?
As some one who used to dabble in the arts I can't help but understand this bill to a degree. If I'm just starting out and one of my early pieces sells for a few hundred dollars and then a couple years later I'm a big shot and my original piece is being resold for a much larger sum, sure I'd want a cut of that!
But is that fair/reasonable? I sold that piece of art. It's no longer mine. Sure I created it, but I don't 'own' it any more. Why do I deserve a cut? The person who bought it, made a good investment. Of course the art could have just as easily not appreciated in value. At the time of original sale I didn't care about that. I was making a sale.
So, someone out there breaks an embargo and releases a trailer (which are used for marketing purposes solely.) early.
FANS of the movie find it, get excited and start sharing it. So you feel the FANS are the ones who should be punished with jail time? For being excited about a movie that they'll likely go see in the theater, perhaps multiple times, and later buy the DVD or BR? They are driving excitement for the movie. They should be punished because it's not on schedule? Go after the person or company that leaked it early. But even then do THEY deserve jail time?
This is the ridiculousness of SOPA that Mike is trying to point out.
I couldnt help but picture Fox as Gollum yelling, "It's MINE!! MY PRECIOUS!! AHHHHHHH!!!" I'm sure there is a clip out there of that, but I don't want to be aiding and abetting criminal infringers (/s) so you'll just have to use your imagination. While that's still legal.
If you have a bad product or poor customer service, fix it, don't try to silence those with complaints by trying to block their speech.
Hey I get it, someone searches for information about your product and a complaint site comes up. It's not unreasonable to be mad about that. The thing is, search engines are not a marketing platform, though SEO people will tell you otherwise. It's a way for people to find information. Thankfully the judge, in this case, understood that: "because the complaints about Ascentive’s products are just what the average consumer might want to see when searching online for information"
So again, why further taint your image with consumers by trying to silence one of their outlets for criticism, rather than trying to actually fix your business?
While we all may be using social media to get the message out, why aren't all the tech companies that are against SOPA getting the word out. They can even be as impartial as possible, if they so choose.
Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, etc. should/could be putting data out there for people to read.
While at recess the tech savvy should be getting the word out to others who use the Internet but might not know this is happening. The tech industry could take a major hit if this passes so why aren't they lobbying their users? They should be taking advantage of their strengths.
The more people who know the more the issue will be discussed. Regardless of which side you are on this should be a good thing unless the goal is to simply sneak it in under the radar.
You'd think with all the Occupy movements lately that they'd try to hide their corruption a bit more, but probably most of them are the ones legitimately asking, "What do they want?" while at the same time sticking fingers in their ears.
And this committee meeting has had MANY examples of people sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, "lalalala I can't hear you. You are wrong. I am right. lalalalala"