Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

LOL! The jest of it is, companies like CNET (which is part of CBS) support SOPA because they complain that file sharing software such as early Napster, Limewire, Morpheus, and others cost these companies millions of dollars a year. However, these same companies who support SOPA made millions of dollars off of hosting and advertising for these same file sharing programs. So, in layman's terms, these SOPA supporting companies are hypocrites.

I don't think it was a deliberate as they make it sound but he does have a point. I just imagine the board of CBS meeting about CNET and having a very detailed conversation.

CEO1: Okay next order of business, CNET? Do we own that?

Employee: Yes sir.

CEO: Great hows it doing?

Employee: Um, they made us millions of dollars last year.

CEO: Excellent. Keep up the good work.

Okay maybe it wasn't that simple but I don't think that CBS had this plan to create all this piracy software so they could go to Congress, call it a problem, and get bills passed that gave them more control of the internet. Rather they were making money and that pleased the higher ups so they just kept up with business as usual.

I'm guessing most of the supporters of SOPA in the studios and RIAA are older guys that like to count every download as a lost sale and then freak out when they see the number.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Okay maybe it wasn't that simple but I don't think that CBS had this plan to create all this piracy software so they could go to Congress, call it a problem, and get bills passed that gave them more control of the internet. Rather they were making money and that pleased the higher ups so they just kept up with business as usual.

I'm guessing most of the supporters of SOPA in the studios and RIAA are older guys that like to count every download as a lost sale and then freak out when they see the number.

They didn't create the software. CNET just hosts it on their site for whatever fees they charge to the software companies. But as SCP stated from the video, CNET also had an MP3 search tool right on their page (I remember this search tool and used to use it) where you could do a right click and download the file right off the website. Again, I say, hypocrites.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

They didn't create the software. CNET just hosts it on their site for whatever fees they charge to the software companies. But as SCP stated from the video, CNET also had an MP3 search tool right on their page (I remember this search tool and used to use it) where you could do a right click and download the file right off the website. Again, I say, hypocrites.

Was the search tool, in the presented form in the video, was that tool still there after CBS actually bought CNET in 2008?

Anyway, while the vid had some interesting info, I really am not fond of video documentaries of any sort (whether I care about the agenda or not) since they hardly present enough info (and in a coherent manner) to see the whole picture. The are a stepping stone, but their thesis and logic to support said thesis, if that is their intent, is not to be taken without question.

Quite frankly, it's quite annoying to hear the guy say "hundreds of millions" without some sort of reference. He also seems to be using a colloquial form of vicarious liability to "expose" the hypocrisy of the top fat cats. While it indeed seems questionable that they twiddled their thumbs, they could have a legit they didn't know counterargument.

Besides, even without CNET, downloading p2p clients would still be possible since you could download from their official sites or mirrors/Bittorrent. That said, one could say that they could have used SOPA to shut down "enemy" sites to force users to go to CNET. It's one thing to have the law, it's another thing to go out and enforce it by filing for lawsuits.

But perhaps the fundemental flaw in his argument is that the software itself is quite legal and hence could not be taken down. You wonder why bittorent's creator hasn't had his hanging yet? Because one could say that he just made the software, but can't control users from doing legal or illegal acts.

Kazaa is an interesting and ironic case, since Kazaa LITE is an UNAUTHORIZED modification of Kazaa. Not only that,but Sherman Networks actually considered Kazaa Lite was a violation of copyright!!!

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Sharman Networks considers Kazaa Lite to be a copyright violation. On August 11, 2003, they sent a letter to Google requesting that all links to the Kazaa Lite application be removed from their database. During December 2003 Sharman emailed the owners of all sites hosting a copy of Kazaa Lite, threatening legal action if it was not removed. Because of this, the program was for a while difficult to find on the web, and development of it stopped. As of early 2007, the program is again widely available. It also remains available on the FastTrack network itself, where it can be downloaded with Kazaa or any other FastTrack client. There are rumours that new versions of KMD will prevent Kazaa Lite from connecting to the FastTrack network[who?]. In March 2005 Sharman Networks again sent a letter to Google requesting that all links to the Kazaa Lite application be removed from their database.

As owner of the Kazaa Intellectual property and copyright, Sharman eventually sued Kazaa Lite's developers and forced the shutdown of any mirror website containing the file.

Now, in the following hypothetical scenario, where:
1. SOPA is in effect
2. Kazaa Lite somehow gets hosted on CNET

Sharman could go through the SOPA process and then CNET will suffer the consequences of SOPA. For hosting a copyright infringing program, CNET could suffer a ton of collateral damage. And this scenario involves two pieces of software that irks SOPA supporters. Now even if you're in support of anti-piracy, does CNET deserve to be subjected to such collateral damage? It's tough to make such a case.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Was the search tool, in the presented form in the video, was that tool still there after CBS actually bought CNET in 2008?

Anyway, while the vid had some interesting info, I really am not fond of video documentaries of any sort (whether I care about the agenda or not) since they hardly present enough info (and in a coherent manner) to see the whole picture. The are a stepping stone, but their thesis and logic to support said thesis, if that is their intent, is not to be taken without question.

Quite frankly, it's quite annoying to hear the guy say "hundreds of millions" without some sort of reference. He also seems to be using a colloquial form of vicarious liability to "expose" the hypocrisy of the top fat cats. While it indeed seems questionable that they twiddled their thumbs, they could have a legit they didn't know counterargument.

Besides, even without CNET, downloading p2p clients would still be possible since you could download from their official sites or mirrors/Bittorrent. That said, one could say that they could have used SOPA to shut down "enemy" sites to force users to go to CNET. It's one thing to have the law, it's another thing to go out and enforce it by filing for lawsuits.

But perhaps the fundemental flaw in his argument is that the software itself is quite legal and hence could not be taken down. You wonder why bittorent's creator hasn't had his hanging yet? Because one could say that he just made the software, but can't control users from doing legal or illegal acts.

Kazaa is an interesting and ironic case, since Kazaa LITE is an UNAUTHORIZED modification of Kazaa. Not only that,but Sherman Networks actually considered Kazaa Lite was a violation of copyright!!!



Now, in the following hypothetical scenario, where:
1. SOPA is in effect
2. Kazaa Lite somehow gets hosted on CNET

Sharman could go through the SOPA process and then CNET will suffer the consequences of SOPA. For hosting a copyright infringing program, CNET could suffer a ton of collateral damage. And this scenario involves two pieces of software that irks SOPA supporters. Now even if you're in support of anti-piracy, does CNET deserve to be subjected to such collateral damage? It's tough to make such a case.

I don't know if the MP3 search was there in 2008, I'm probably going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't. Yeah, the guy in the video kind of reminded me of somebody who had a little too much coffee in the morning, and I'm sure some of his points in the video are probably a bit suspect, but he does raise some interesting points I thought. Just like you said, the software itself is not illegal. It's just like those politicians trying to ban the use of firearms - those guns aren't illegal in themselves (well unless you own fully automatic weapons) it's the purpose in which you use them. Same for the software. From what I remember, it seemed like some of those file sharing programs were only hosted on CNET. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember going to that software's website and going to the download page, and often times the download page was actually CNET's download page.

But I think the main point I'm trying to drive home is simply that, one, CNET obviously looked like a very profitable investment for CBS to purchase, two, CNET was profitable because they made money off of hosting/advertising all types of software, peer to peer software included. And finally, it just looks bad to me when you're getting money from these companies and then want to turn them over to the authorities for piracy. Even when the piracy issue first came up with Napster, CNET still kept hosting other file sharing programs that did the same thing that Napster did (Morpheus, Kaaza, Winmx, etc..) You would just assume if they were really against piracy (which again is head scratcher considering they had their own MP3 search and download tool on their site) they would have removed all of those file sharing programs at once. But no, obviously there was some sort of profit to be made by keeping them on their servers and they did so for awhile.

Speaking of, I just went to CNET and they still have file sharing software that can be downloaded from their site, so again, I just find them to be big hypocrites. Check it out for yourselves:

CNET File Sharing Software

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I don't know if the MP3 search was there in 2008, I'm probably going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't. Yeah, the guy in the video kind of reminded me of somebody who had a little too much coffee in the morning, and I'm sure some of his points in the video are probably a bit suspect, but he does raise some interesting points I thought. Just like you said, the software itself is not illegal. It's just like those politicians trying to ban the use of firearms - those guns aren't illegal in themselves (well unless you own fully automatic weapons) it's the purpose in which you use them. Same for the software. From what I remember, it seemed like some of those file sharing programs were only hosted on CNET. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember going to that software's website and going to the download page, and often times the download page was actually CNET's download page.

But I think the main point I'm trying to drive home is simply that, one, CNET obviously looked like a very profitable investment for CBS to purchase, two, CNET was profitable because they made money off of hosting/advertising all types of software, peer to peer software included. And finally, it just looks bad to me when you're getting money from these companies and then want to turn them over to the authorities for piracy. Even when the piracy issue first came up with Napster, CNET still kept hosting other file sharing programs that did the same thing that Napster did (Morpheus, Kaaza, Winmx, etc..) You would just assume if they were really against piracy (which again is head scratcher considering they had their own MP3 search and download tool on their site) they would have removed all of those file sharing programs at once. But no, obviously there was some sort of profit to be made by keeping them on their servers and they did so for awhile.

Speaking of, I just went to CNET and they still have file sharing software that can be downloaded from their site, so again, I just find them to be big hypocrites. Check it out for yourselves:

CNET File Sharing Software

They are now doing external linking for at least some of the "naughty" programs on the list and putting a big Editor's Note at the top of the list. They're catching on.

And they actually were sued by some artists for promoting LimeWire

In 2011, CNET and CBS Interactive were sued by a coalition of artists (led by FilmOn founder Alki David) for copyright infringement by promoting the download of LimeWire, a popular peer to peer downloading software. [26] [27] Although the original suit was voluntarily dropped by Alki David he vowed to sue at a later date to bring "expanded"[28] action against CBS Interactive. In November 2011, another lawsuit against CBS Interactive was introduced, claiming that CNet and CBS Interactive knowingly distributed LimeWire, the file sharing software. [29]

# ^ Gustin, Sam, paidcontent.org (2011-11-16). "Alki David Drops CNET Lawsuit; Vows to Bring 'Expanded' Action". PaidContent.org.
# ^ Ernesto, torrentfreak.com (2011-11-15). "Artists Sue CBS, CNET, for Promoting and Profiting from Piracy". TorrentFreak.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.