Today, sites across the Internet are going on strike to protest SOPA and PIPA. Their aim is certainly noble, and it may stop these particular bills, but it's a delaying action at best; there is too much money being lost by people and companies for them not to keep fighting for some form of substantial copyright protection.
The Internet community as a whole seems to regard this as anathema, but WHY? Most people support some form of protection to prevent artists from being pirated into oblivion, and we have other laws in place restricting access to certain content (child pornography is the most obvious). So why do people insist that the Internet should be a lawless place, where pirates can steal freely with the 'promise' that if they like some content, they'll go back and pay for it later, but where government-sponsored (SOPA and PIPA) or company-sponsored (DRM) restrictions are the worst possible creations?
I ask you, Escapists: Should the Internet have laws and some form of control? How should people and companies be allowed to protect their intellectual property?
EDIT: Wow, lot of responses. Lets see if I can take care of a few, and put a couple of the most common ones up here for everyone to see.
First things first, I am not a troll, a corporate shill or someone doing this to get a built-up thread. Everyone seems to agree that SOPA/PIPA is bad, harmful to small businesses and people, gives WAY too much power to companies and is ineffective against piracy (which I completely agree with), but my original point still stands: until corporations feel they have adequate protection, they will keep proposing laws like this and DMCA, and enacting policies like DRM, until they feel safe (which, as some people have pointed out, is not likely to happen).
AND FINALLY A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE:
Yes, it is unlikely that there will ever be a permanent solution to piracy, or at least one that pleases both content-creators and content-users. But this is an argument that we CANNOT use as the basis for our defense, because corporations like the RIAA and MPAA WILL NOT accept it, and they WILL continue to fight for their own interests at any cost (which is kinda the point of corporations). If we do not come up with new, creative and EFFECTIVE ways to fight piracy, and KEEP coming up with them, the people who want to censor the internet will gain traction. This is a social issue like poverty and war, and like those we must continually fight the battle for our principles.
The Internet community as a whole seems to regard this as anathema, but WHY? Most people support some form of protection to prevent artists from being pirated into oblivion, and we have other laws in place restricting access to certain content (child pornography is the most obvious). So why do people insist that the Internet should be a lawless place, where pirates can steal freely with the 'promise' that if they like some content, they'll go back and pay for it later, but where government-sponsored (SOPA and PIPA) or company-sponsored (DRM) restrictions are the worst possible creations?
I ask you, Escapists: Should the Internet have laws and some form of control? How should people and companies be allowed to protect their intellectual property?
EDIT: Wow, lot of responses. Lets see if I can take care of a few, and put a couple of the most common ones up here for everyone to see.
First things first, I am not a troll, a corporate shill or someone doing this to get a built-up thread. Everyone seems to agree that SOPA/PIPA is bad, harmful to small businesses and people, gives WAY too much power to companies and is ineffective against piracy (which I completely agree with), but my original point still stands: until corporations feel they have adequate protection, they will keep proposing laws like this and DMCA, and enacting policies like DRM, until they feel safe (which, as some people have pointed out, is not likely to happen).
Lord Jeff gets +5 internets. He found a more palatable law than SOPA/PIPA which is still trying to help both sides. And yet, there is the inherent problem that laws are going to be an uneven patchwork while nation-states enact their own laws because there is no overriding power that can dictate standards (for instance, an international body like Interpol which enforces laws made by the international community at the UN)lord.jeff said:http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=e881b316-5218-4bcd-80a1-9112347fe2f4Buretsu said:Frankly, I haven't heard ANYBODY in the anti-SOPA movement bring up any alternatives to the issue. And, really, until there is a viable alternative path, legislation is the go-to, quick-and-dirty 'solution' to the problem that will be presented.
I only heard of this recently. I agree to many people are just bashing at SOPA and it's making everyone look like fear mongers, supporting bills like this would be far more effective then this how dare you touch my precious internet attitude that's going around.
The biggest problem with making laws to govern the internet is that they need a way to effect things over seas as it's all to easy to just move a server out of the States and make it untouchable.
Point 1 (My 'Straw Man Argument'): I draw your attention to the following post. It's not perfect, but it comes directly from this thread and it illustrates the basic point of many pro-pirating threads I have seen on this website and elsewhere, namely, that it is OK to pirate because you might become a fan and spend money on them later. I've always believed that wrong actions are wrong, regardless of justification, and that the possibility of future re-compensation does not make the act right. (Note: Before people bring it up, yes I know Notch supports this view, but not everyone agrees with him)Zachary Amaranth said:It seems like this is going to be a trend now....
Hate to interrupt you mid-sentence, but there's multiple issues at hand. Who, exactly, is insisting this? It sounds like a strawman argument.Thunderous Cacophony said:So why do people insist that the Internet should be a lawless place, where pirates can steal freely with the 'promise' that if they like some content, they'll go back and pay for it later,
SOPA and PIPA are just about the worst possible way to handle things. Laws already exist and enforcement is possible. This kind of regulation is poorly conceived and worthless.but where government-sponsored (SOPA and PIPA) or company-sponsored (DRM) restrictions are the worst possible creations?
It already does.I ask you, Escapists: Should the Internet have laws and some form of control?
Points 2 and 3 (SOPA/PIPA is worthless, legislation already exists): Indeed, SOPA/PIPA is the wrong way to go about it, but people are looking for ways to fight the underlying cause. Saying that legislation already exists, so the problem is fixed, is like the story of the boy who plugged a leak in a dike by sticking his finger in it (note: for the filthy-minded internet: Dike as in levee); it may be of some use, but it doesn't fix the problem, and eventually he's gonna get tired and the water will come pouring in.chadachada123 said:Much of the piracy problem can be solved by simply offering real prices. The majority of Americans can't afford more than a couple of games and a few albums per year. Were they able to afford more, they would pay for more, but holding them to maybe 50 new songs a year...it's unrealistic. They aren't lost sales, because they would have never gotten the money to begin with.
On the other hand, many new artists become known because of file-sharing. My friend pirated Enter Shikari's first two albums, and it's because of him that I became a fan and saw them live. Without that exposure, Enter Shikari would have lost some $60+ from me alone (ticket + shirt, subtracting some presumed costs).
AND FINALLY A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE:
Yes, it is unlikely that there will ever be a permanent solution to piracy, or at least one that pleases both content-creators and content-users. But this is an argument that we CANNOT use as the basis for our defense, because corporations like the RIAA and MPAA WILL NOT accept it, and they WILL continue to fight for their own interests at any cost (which is kinda the point of corporations). If we do not come up with new, creative and EFFECTIVE ways to fight piracy, and KEEP coming up with them, the people who want to censor the internet will gain traction. This is a social issue like poverty and war, and like those we must continually fight the battle for our principles.