Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Daseal]

Exactly my problem with video. If it has already been on TV, offer it to me. I don't mind watching commercials, I don't mind paying an online streaming fee (for all content, not 1 off's). Don't make it difficult for me when I miss one show in a series and want to catch it before next week.

[skinsguy]

I thought this guy really hit the nail on the head with his video. Was pretty interesting:

THE TRUTH ABOUT SOPA 2012 - YouTube

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I thought this guy really hit the nail on the head with his video. Was pretty interesting:

THE TRUTH ABOUT SOPA 2012 - YouTube

My brain hurts after watching that.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Exactly my problem with video. If it has already been on TV, offer it to me. I don't mind watching commercials, I don't mind paying an online streaming fee (for all content, not 1 off's). Don't make it difficult for me when I miss one show in a series and want to catch it before next week.

Exactly. One of the easiest ways to loose interest in a show is to not understand whats going on in the newest episodes.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

My brain hurts after watching that.

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.

[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.

[SirClintonPortis]

One small thing, download sites like CNET do not actively teach people anything. If you're stupid enough to not use a program after downloading it, you have big issues.

Also, in order to promote, CNET itself have say 'COME USE ****ING KAZAA".

That said, it's funny they never took down the files and search.com helped people find mp3s.

Bittorrent is a godsend even for non-pirates. If you have a ****ton of seeds, you get superior speeds to downloading from the server and the hosters benefit from reduced server bandwidth usage. For sites that host huge, LEGAL files like isos for Debian or Ubuntu, Bittorrent helps them.


On a completely unrelatednote I wonder why regular theft for less than 100 dollars is not a felony.

[NC_Skins]

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 wasn't referring to the guy in the video, but the information itself. It's mind boggling how politicians can continue to support this shit. So much "for the people". I've said it over and over again, welcome to the United States of Corporate America.

[SirClintonPortis]

Also, CNET wasn't purchased by CBS Networks until 2008.

[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.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I wasn't referring to the guy in the video, but the information itself. It's mind boggling how politicians can continue to support this shit. So much "for the people". I've said it over and over again, welcome to the United States of Corporate America.

The problem is these politicians are not tech savvy enough to come up with proper government of the internet. For one thing, our government does not own the internet, so you can't govern something you don't own. Why the US thinks they have this ability is beyond me. Whatever route they go will wind up being some type of infringement on the US citizens' rights in my opinion. If they want answers to policing and "governing" the internet, why not look to the tech community. Those of us in the tech community are more in tune to the ways of the internet and technology than what these politicians are.

[Dirtbag59]

wizardgynoid Wizard Gynoid
Chris Dodd investigation petition to the White House has passed the 25,000 signature goal. Closes on Feb 20. Bury him. wh.gov/KiE
18 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

PatrickRuffini Patrick Ruffini
White House petition to investigate Dodd for bribery hits 25K signatures; will receive official response. bit.ly/xBa96D
47 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[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.

[SirClintonPortis]

SOPA and PIPA: What Went Wrong? | PCWorld Business Center

How SOPA would affect you: FAQ | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

[NC_Skins]

If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA - Forbes


Got a even darker cloud on the horizon.