It's really unfortunate this battle is being fought under the flag of copyright protection. I don't think the opposition to this new digital world order (if I may) has played their cards very well. There's a red herring here alright, and that's the claim that Intellectual Property has any real relevance to the debate around SOPA and the rest of this control.

The argument that should be being made more forcefully is that SOPA is censorship, it sets a terrible precedent, and if all it takes is something as insignificant as piracy to get people to throw away their rights, then I don't want to see what happens when they really start pounding the security drum to get the Internet under control.

Doctorow, in his recent speech/article "the coming war on general purpose computing", hinted, or I overread, that this fight is being fought as an intellectual property fight because it is such an obscure little backwater of human society. Very few people give a damn about copyright, as you can see by the amount of money and effort the content producers have put into getting people to equate piracy with stealing. The problem is, if censoring the internet to protect IP rights becomes acceptable, it will certainly be acceptable in order to protect financial and security interests.

In other words, it's too much to go after politically volatile material directly, so this is the fight we're having instead. I don't know how intentional that is, it may just be the natural progression of things, but those are the stakes anyway.

Copyright is a privilege granted under the assumption it will do more good than harm to society. It's starting to look like the opposite is true, if SOPA is what is needed to protect copyright holders.

LulzSec posted this on their FB page, via Exarimus Salutem apparently, hold onto your shirts.

Money Received from Pipa Sponsors:

Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $864,265
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $665,420
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $556,525
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $544,424
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $416,250 (head sponsor of pipa)
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $347,406
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO] $341,700
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $337,525
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] $275,950
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $272,750

Money Received from Sopa Sponsors:

Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $3,502,624
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $2,648,770
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $2,080,651
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $1,431,843
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA] $1,364,872
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $1,363,009
Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA] $1,291,744
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $1,019,172
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL] $911,296
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $905,310

@quantumushroom you missed the point as usual, this vid is about the acknowledgement that corporations want to oversee what the Govt. does - see above for specimen 1A.

>> ^VoodooV:

online piracy is not stealing. Both are a crime, but a does not equal b.
different crimes, different punishments, different types of enforcement.

TWO SEPARATE THINGS!


http://i56.tinypic.com/2z6ts9e.jpg

>> ^qfan:

My point was that his condescending nature of religion makes him look like a hypocrite when he refers to a moral code, making him as "preachy" as those he slanders on a regular basis. It's not consistent.
Then he needs to define where this morality comes from. But that's another topic altogether.
>> ^Asmo:
>> ^qfan:
"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...
As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.
He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...



I "think" he has addressed that, but I can't remember specifically where. I think more of his criticism of religion is centered on believing in magical entities despite a lack of evidence and how that opens people up to manipulation by others.

I wouldn't say it makes him a hypocrite on the subject of morality, but he certainly does have his own unsupported beliefs (such as his anti-vaccine stance... not sure if he changed it).

He also seems to be supporting SOPA with the mindset of "it's aimed at a real problem that affects me, so it sounds like something worth supporting". Again, he's believing in something despite not really understanding it, so you can make somewhat of a case for hypocrisy on those grounds.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

My point was that his condescending nature of religion makes him look like a hypocrite when he refers to a moral code, making him as "preachy" as those he slanders on a regular basis. It's not consistent.

Then he needs to define where this morality comes from. But that's another topic altogether.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^qfan:
"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.

Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...
As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.
He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.
I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...

>> ^qfan:

"You know what? Somebody has to bring up that there is a moral dimension to this." BM
What do you know? Someone who just plugged their staunchly anti-religious documentary, preaching about morals.


Morality does not require religion... Paedo priests are a classic example...

As for Bill, he even says outloud why PIPA/SOPA are useless... "Every time we took one of them down, another would pop up". So basically they can't stop them popping up but they (not Maher) were willing to take the risk of impinging on legitimate sites on an impossible mission.

He may be playing the devil's adovcate but he sort undermines any position he had there. He doesn't have figures on piracy vs purchase, he doesn't have figures on how many pirated and then purchased, he doesn't know if his movie was promoted to greater success due to personal piracy.

I wholeheartedly agree with shutting down piracy for profit, but personal privay is kinda like taping the radio, government's can't stop it and they shouldn't bother because it'll cost them more in the long run, and the media companies aren't picking up the tab...

>> ^heropsycho:

So media today isn't as high quality as it once was?

It isn't the quality of the product so much as the quality of the alternative.

Orchestras are having a much harder time these days, in part because the sound quality of recordings is so much higher now that it was in the past. I'm not really sure why people go to movie theaters... that's never been a pleasant experience for me, but I suppose it's an experience that's difficult to replace.

I do wonder how high-budget video games are going to fare as the quality of $1-%5 games increases.

And of course people are going to be less likely to buy something when they can get it for free. The real question is will they buy it once they can't pirate it, knowing there's plenty of other stuff they can get for free.

So media today isn't as high quality as it once was? Look, people still go to the movies, so it's no surprise that there are still high quality movies being made. But music? Recorded music simply isn't profitable. The only way some professional musicians make any money at all is off live performances *somtimes*, or focusing on things that aren't directly writing music, such as self-publishing/producing, etc. Less time is spent on actually writing music as a consequence.

Despite all the technology we have to help find and distribute music, it is harder today to find what I consider quality music compared to 20 years ago. I don't think it's because I'm an old foggy who romanticizes what music was when I was a teenager. But it's hard to argue that the Justin Beibers of the world are the only ones making money these days for the most part, and bands the bands that are truly innovating nobody's heard of.

It's a real problem.

Why aren't people buying what's for sale? It's pretty unrealistic to believe a major culprit is not the notion of why buy what you can get for free. Console video game sales are still doing very well, and the only reason that makes any sense is it's a hell of a lot harder to pirate video games than music for numerous reasons, such as the sheer amount of data that comprises a video game vs music, etc.

I know that piracy isn't the only reason the music or entertainment industries have struggled in the last decade. The music industry has made more than their fair share of blunders. But piracy is a significant problem, Maher is absolutely right about that. But again, SOPA is not the answer, and I don't pretend I'm smart enough to know what is a solution.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.
If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.
The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.
Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

>> ^heropsycho:

Honestly, both are problems. I'm sorry, but they are. When I was a kid, we pretty much bought our music. Kids now? There's a very large percentage who don't buy music whatsoever, and download it illegally.
I'm not saying SOPA is a good idea, because it's a terrible law, but feigning ignorance to the problem of piracy whether it's selling the content or just spreading it around for free without personal gain costs content producers significant money. I don't even know what the solution is if there is one, but I agree with Maher it's a problem.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^heropsycho:
Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.
True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.
Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.




The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.

If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.

The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.

Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

It has nothing to do with "efficiency". It has to do with the fact that people are generally immoral and feel entitled to things that don't belong to them. Whatever justification you want to give it, it is theft and anyone who pirates is a thief and a criminal.

As far as SOPA, it's a terrible bill and it deserved to die, but clearly something further needs to be done. Software and music/media piracy is pretty much socially acceptable at this point. I also agree with the assertion made by some that content provides may be driving (immoral) people towards piracy, and they need to listen to their fans and implement a smarter business strategy.

>> ^rottenseed:
Humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, are energy efficient. That is to say we are perpetually seeking the most effective way of obtaining what we want/need. This subconscious cost analysis which factors in time, labor, and value will ALWAYS result in getting free stuff without leaving the comfort of one's own home. Even to the degree that we can justify "stealing" in myriad ways.
What companies that produce what we call "intellectual property" need to realize is that the business model has to be changed in order to take that justification away from us. If their products are offered at a reasonable price, are easy to obtain, and are advertised as such, it gives the consumer less leverage. In most cases we'll do the right thing.
Unfortunately I don't see blockbuster movie titles going straight to internet for sale anytime soon, even though it would be good for business. We just have a problem of old business running up against new technology, and old business is trying to strong-arm the people into helping keep itself alive. The best thing that comes out of this is the rise of the independent films/music. We'll go back to what making movies/music was all about.

Honestly, both are problems. I'm sorry, but they are. When I was a kid, we pretty much bought our music. Kids now? There's a very large percentage who don't buy music whatsoever, and download it illegally.

I'm not saying SOPA is a good idea, because it's a terrible law, but feigning ignorance to the problem of piracy whether it's selling the content or just spreading it around for free without personal gain costs content producers significant money. I don't even know what the solution is if there is one, but I agree with Maher it's a problem.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^heropsycho:
Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.
True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.
Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.

Maher should be told that the pictures and video he shows on his show, while used properly, under SOPA and PIPA, could be cause for shutting him down. Without probable cause OR warning.

His New Rules segments are especially vulnerable. All those copyrighted pictures.

>> ^heropsycho:

Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.

True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.

Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.

Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.

I don't have a problem with what he's saying in that regard. He never said SOPA was a good law, he said he hadn't read the bill. I think once the panelists spoke, I think he understood that while piracy is a serious problem, that's the wrong way to fight it.