I just realized, we've been discussing this stuff with those copyright trolls for more than 6 years on this site.
(2005 is my earliest post), And we're getting absolutely nowhere.
Still they offer the same lame and false excuses (Copyright is a moral issue? Infringement is stealing? Bitch, please, you used those same excuses 6 years ago already, and it was false then and it is false now.), and still they offer nothing worth of any value to the discussion.
We've had OOTB's, and other copyright defending Anonymous Cowards since the beginning, I think. And look where that has brought us.
All we are getting are poorly worded, poorly envisioned, poorly researched, and Big Media sponsored laws that don't do anything, except harm our basic rights all so that the big media houses can preserve their idea of the golden age.
Desperately clinging on to that old way of doing things, because that used to rake in the money.
We should look at how we can change things, and ignore the trolls. Offer an alternative law, perhaps. Though given that it's always a game of compromise, I'd suggest we go for complete abolishment of copyright, and then get it negotiated to about 10 years of protection.
"but 90% of the internet is pro-piracy."
[citation needed]
Last night I sat down with the family to watch a BluRay disc, the amount of warnings and promos before the actual movie started, wasted almost a half hour of our time.
Your skewed idea on stealing is really bizarre.
In your worldview, stealing would mean that there'd be more of the same product after the fact.
Meanwhile in reality:
Stealing: I own a pig. You steal the pig, you have the pig, I don't have the pig anymore. There is still only 1 pig in total.
Copying: I own a pig. You copy the pig. You have the pig, and I have the pig. So now there are 2 pigs instead of 1.
That's just the state secrecy law in effect.
Just like John Boehner cutting CSPAN video and microphone feeds from the House of Representatives.
And no, you can't have those files through FOIA either. They'd just lie about its existence.
Not only did they wait too long, at first they were even taunting the bear by stating: "we're not really seeing an impact from this supposed boycott" (I'm paraphrasing here)
btw, I'm all for enforcement of copyright infringement, but not at the cost of freedom of speech. And YES, this law will harm freedom of speech. Just as much as the DMCA is being abused.
And what exactly is it that you think this law will accomplish?
Less piracy?
More security?
Better enforcement of copyright issues?
I'll bet you 5 bucks that when this law is passed, within 1 or 2 years, Big Media will be back saying "this sopa stuff, it doesn't stop the pirates, we need more power!" At what point do you think it's enough?
Your face infringed on my well being, which I have copyrighted. You pony up!
"Toys"? Don't you mean "Toy Story"?
If the music industry can't deal with the changing reality then they should just roll over and die already.
Show me on a ledger sheet the number for "lost sales".
Until then, you can shut the fuck up.
And yesteryear the DMCA was touted as the be all end all of piracy. Even though back then ALL techs were saying: "no it isn't."
Today, we hear (from the same people that loved the DMCA) that the DMCA is a leaky boat, and a stupid law because it created an opportunity to pirate stuff (btw, no it didn't), and we need a new law to plug the leaks in the DMCA-boat, with the PIPA and SOPA laws.
And every Tom, Dick and Harry and their dog is saying: "no it won't work."
SOPA is not going to deter any piracy, it's only going to destroy the internet as we know it. It's going to make it impossible for the small entrepreneur to get a foot in the door. All those podcasters and live-streamers who use justin.tv and the likes legally are suddenly threatened, because the Big Media Companies need that space for their own infantile programming.
Talk about unfair competition.
Even though Apple didn't use to have multitasking in the iOS? That's just ridiculous!
Who are these people at the patent office, and how much money do they receive from Apple?
"They don't realize that increasing liability, compliance costs and legal risks isn't just a nuisance -- it can force an entire business to shut down."
I think that's an intended consequence.
"Affording a hearing if site owner wishes". right, "Guilty until proven innocent".
The hearing should be the default, before any action is taken and the accused party given enough time to create a defense.
well I'm sure that Chanel would use this against perfume sites. You know, SmelliNet(tm) is the next future. And if a site infringed upon Chanel's scent, it's just cause to take the whole site down.
Strike 1) Mike didn't run this poll. Merely pointed to its results
Strike 2) Mike pointed out that the polls weren't representative, but were noteworthy.
Strike 3) Not objecting to != supporting. They haven't spoken up about it, because they haven't been told about it (because the news media is only just starting to run their stories). You drew a conclusion (that the silent majority doesn't object to the bill) based on no facts at all and accuse us of doing the same.
I think it's you who failed. 3 strikes and you're out.
It's bipartisan, sadly. Last debate there were only 4 senators opposed. So, don't make it a partisan issue.
Re: familiar writing style.
You mean, Ocean Marketting, n?e Ocean Stratagy?