The end of Internet as we know it? SOPA/PROTECT-IP.

[saturation]

Some important groups opposed to net censorship:

UK: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

Oz: http://www.efa.org.au/

[ndictu]

For people who want really in-depth overview of SOPA/PIPA and it's consequences with proper citations: http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

[Uncle Vernon]

I'm pretty sure that's how it works here too.
Nothing stopping you from uploading this "refused classification" content onto an Oz server and getting away with it indefinitely. It would be next to impossible for the government or anyone else to automatically detect such stuff. So it would have to rely on someone complaining.

Dave.

There is an important distinction here here between morality and ineffectiveness. Our current communications minister has a definite mission to place internet communications under government control. The fact he is a buffoon and crackpot, does not detract from the evil within the intent.  While current efforts are laughable and ineffective, "national internet filter", and "restricted NBN points of concentration", this remains an area of real concern.

The rights of content providers and the rights of consumers are equally important and both need to be preserved. What we do not need across the globe is any imbalance of interest or influence. The distribution medium is not the place where issues of content or copyright should be played out. We need to resist any efforts to restrict communications no matter how clueless and ineffective these efforts are.

[PeteInTexas]

Just watched the news.  And guess who I just saw being interviewed in support of SOPA? Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Chris Dodd.  That's right!  You use to know him as US Senator Chris Dodd just last year.  He represented the "well to-dos" of Connecticut (bankers, financial types) and now hes whoring for the big money movie studios.

I can't wait to see which recently retired US Senator will be whoring for the cause of internet freedom.

[Armin_Balija]

I called my senators (Debbie Stabanow and Carl Levin) my representative (Candice S. Miller) of Michigan and Senate leader Harry Reid urging them to vote NO on S.968 SOPA and PIPA. I got a few letters sent back today regarding my calls and letters. I figure I'd keep calling until they get sick of me .

[PeteInTexas]

I called my senators (Debbie Stabanow and Carl Levin) my representative (Candice S. Miller) of Michigan and Senate leader Harry Reid urging them to vote NO on S.968 SOPA and PIPA. I got a few letters sent back today regarding my calls and letters. I figure I'd keep calling until they get sick of me .

My rep is Lamar Smith, SOPA midwife and mother.  I don't think he's changing his mind much.

[Armin_Balija]

I called my senators (Debbie Stabanow and Carl Levin) my representative (Candice S. Miller) of Michigan and Senate leader Harry Reid urging them to vote NO on S.968 SOPA and PIPA. I got a few letters sent back today regarding my calls and letters. I figure I'd keep calling until they get sick of me .

My rep is Lamar Smith, SOPA midwife and mother.  I don't think he's changing his mind much.

Yikes. Hopefully people will rally and vote for the other guy next time. I'd personally like to see every senator and representative AND Obama be disbarred from the political process permanently if they vote YES for the bill and sign it.

[ndictu]

Some good representatives you have there...

[8086]

Bye bye SOPA/PIPA (probably)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-wins-sopa-and-pipa-both-shelved.ars

[EEVblog]

I figure I'd keep calling until they get sick of me .

Oh no, that's when you start upping the pace and become really effective!

Dave.

[saturation]

Making big news in the US current are worldwide raids on the file hoster megaupload.com initiated by the US.  It includes arrests in NZ, I recall.

FWIW, at least, it means that the US gov't has the ability to prosecute copyright and IP theft without a new law.

Details of raid and arrests can be found on google.

[Simon]

I was thinking of starting a new topic when I heard the news. To be honest I don't see why all the fuss, If you really sit down and admit it to yourself you will come to realize that there is a tremendous amount of copyright material being ripped off. Look at all the warez download sites, and don't tell me you have never used one. And the owners charge for access to material that is not there's !!!! I mean cmon guys face it, it was good while it latest and many people went beyond being reasonable and helpful, they made a living off other peoples work and that is not fair !

As for megauploads, yes I can tell you that they did have copyrighted material I mean cmon what else are these services used for. For such a massive service to exist where did the material come from. I'll give you another example of rip off and making money. see www.westernclips.net (be warn before you click this IS a porn site). This guy runs a free porn site, you can download very high quality long video that he hosts on file hosting websites, these websites pay him for people downloading his stolen content because if you want to download a sensible amount of stuff you need a paid subscription to the service as they only allow one connection at a time and on DSL systems you usually have a shared IP address so you can only use it by paying, so megaluploads (and others) make money on the content from you paying subscriptions to get copyright material someone else put up there and they give him a cut, he even embeds his own website name on the videos, yes he has a statement on his site about copyright and to let him know if you think something is copyrighted and he'll look into it but really - who will do that when they are downloading free content or content for 7 bucks a month. And the file sharing sites promote this idea of you using them to make money on "your" content. Now I know we don't really consider porn to be copyright but legally it is and it still costs money to make like films and programs do.

I have a collegue at work that rarely buys films, he downloads them. I am sorry but while I'm not paranoid over copyright I think the mark has been overstepped and we have seen an utter abuse of any loopholes in the law or benevolence on the part of the law or copyright holders.

The only sad thing in all this would be the loss of old television material on YouTube, I know legally it is copyright but I have found out about old britist TV programs on youtube and after bought the DVD or am contemplating it. The quality is also so poor and the fact that programs are broken into small chunks makes you want to buy the DVD having appreciated it's existence.

[HLA-27b]

Simon, the only thing valuable in the entertainment media industry is the moment itself in which the content is produced - i.e. the live performance itself. This is the only unique thing in the whole entertainment industry, the rest is just gadgetry. I would gladly pay to see live performance any time, however the idea that a performance can be perpetuated ad infinitum artificially in order to generate profit is laughable. It looks stunningly similar to a ponzi scheme which could not be maintained if it wasn't for legal bigotry.

Here is my standing, a live Led Zeppelin performance is unique and has some monetary value, then and there. There are a lot of people involved in a live performance but all except the band are merely providing utility service and are therefore not worth a cent more than their hourly fee. A record of a live Led Zeppelin on the other hand is not unique and can not be perpetuated infinitely. One year is plenty of time to allow any entertainment to maintain copyrights and hence recover invested money. After one year any copyrighted media should become public value, free to distribute and copy/modify.

Wanna get rich as an artist? -  Preform live.
Not a good live performer? -  Get a day job. We can see that you are crap regardless of autotune.

Same goes for the movies. Invested a lot of money in a movie? One year, then GTFO. It makes no difference if they legislate it or not, the natural process of piracy will take care of it pretty well anyway.

[Simon]

if someone is going to charge for an illegal download you might as well pay the content originator. I have to admit that while it is nice to have a free for all culture and all for free perpetuated by the internet and paid for by advertising I am seeing a decline in the quality of what is on the net (too much duff content that acts as an excuse for selling ad space) and an increase in dodgy practices. Of course i have pirated software and the odd pirated film, but i would not pay for it nor would i expect to sell it and if i made money from it I'd be happy to pay for it.

a prime example being photoshop, why should i pay a pirater to download it ?

Like i said i am pleased to see so much old TV on youtube, I agree that it is time that old films be free to see and if i want a better quality copy i shall buy it.

Let me tell you a real life story. Have you ever seen Cleopatra ? That film cost millions, now granted that a lot of money was wasted in making it because they got a few things wrong, but to bring the public that film at the time it cost millions. They even cut the film down to be able to get two screenings in one night as they were having trouble recovering costs, and it was only when it was released on VHS that the full cost was recovered years later.

On the whole i prefer to buy a DVD than go see the film in a cinema, who the hell wants to go to the cinema ? to pay a lot of money to sit in a big room full of possibly noisy people with horrible acoustics because some asshole thinks that all we should here is loud bass and that physically hurts my ears (I probably have a perforated ear drum I am told due to having grommets as a kid) I have to sit through 30 minutes of adverts before the film, drive to the damn place, drive back and get back very late. If that is called a live performance of that film then stuff it, I prefer to buy the DVD at a reasonable price and watch it whenever I want in the comfort of my home with the same friends I'd have gone to the cinema with.

As for live performances yes I am not too fussed about it, I'm not into that sort of thing but if i was I'd not pay too much for a copy of it, but then the main purpose of the live performance is to make money there and then, although i may pay a couple of quid for a good quality recording of it.

[saturation]

Many of the pirate sites have pirate of pirates of pirates of pirates of pirates etc., eventually the material can be found for truly free even for files of gargantuan size.  You need to know technology to find them and avoid the malware in there, so it favors the techsavvy.  There are also hacks of the filehosters allowing users to get it through cracks of their password schemes or their backdoors.

[Simon]

Many of the pirate sites have pirate of pirates of pirates of pirates of pirates etc., eventually the material can be found for truly free even for files of gargantuan size.  You need to know technology to find them and avoid the malware in there, so it favors the techsavvy.  There are also hacks of the filehosters allowing users to get it through cracks of their password schemes or their backdoors.

you merely confirm what I say: there is a hoard of people making quite a bit of money on someone elses content. if you spent hours writing a program to sell I am sure you would not appreciate it being spread all over the net and people actually making money from your work. If I was such a person I'd prefer people to have my software for free rather than think they owe a pirater money for it. I mean we even have cases of people charging for freeware software (and i don't mean charging to put it on a CD i mean charging for the privelage of downloading it). how people can just defy the law on the internet elludes me. I think this legislation comes too late as will any other legis;ation that combats illegal acts on the net like child pornography. if the polices forces had acted years ago to deal with the real criminals there might have been more leanient and balanced actions taken then that the heavy handidness we will see now.

Why wikipedia shut down for a day also illudes me, they are in a totally different game of providing information put up by people for the benefit of others knowing that was it's purpose. if wikipedia is siding with piraters then that is sad

[HLA-27b]

if someone is going to charge for an illegal download you might as well pay the content originator.

Content originator - yes, copyright holder - no. Everything in a piece of entertainment content which is not "artistic input" in the literary sense, is basically commodity services. Once the artists get their share the remaining is commodity. It does not matter who provides the commodity, pirate or apple store, they are not different in the service they provide. Certain amount of bytes, that's all. If I can obtain the same amount of bytes for free I don't need the services of the byte provider.

I have to admit that while it is nice to have a free for all culture and all for free perpetuated by the internet and paid for by advertising I am seeing a decline in the quality of what is on the net (too much duff content that acts as an excuse for selling ad space) and an increase in dodgy practices. Of course i have pirated software and the odd pirated film, but i would not pay for it nor would i expect to sell it and if i made money from it I'd be happy to pay for it.

a prime example being photoshop, why should i pay a pirater to download it ?

photoshop is one of the best pieces of computer code ever written, no doubt. Adobe, the producer, is well aware that they can not sell the "old faithful" infinitely, that's why we see new versions now and then. I am happy with my old PS6 and wold have been happier if Adobe didn't cooperate with MS to make it unworkable on new OS'es. 

Like i said i am pleased to see so much old TV on youtube, I agree that it is time that old films be free to see and if i want a better quality copy i shall buy it.

Let me tell you a real life story. Have you ever seen Cleopatra ? That film cost millions, now granted that a lot of money was wasted in making it because they got a few things wrong, but to bring the public that film at the time it cost millions. They even cut the film down to be able to get two screenings in one night as they were having trouble recovering costs, and it was only when it was released on VHS that the full cost was recovered years later.

Bad product design? The art is there but the cost to make it work is too much. Did they foresee at the time that VHS will come and amortize the investment? Doubtful.

On the whole i prefer to buy a DVD than go see the film in a cinema, who the hell wants to go to the cinema ? to pay a lot of money to sit in a big room full of possibly noisy people with horrible acoustics because some asshole thinks that all we should here is loud bass and that physically hurts my ears (I probably have a perforated ear drum I am told due to having grommets as a kid) I have to sit through 30 minutes of adverts before the film, drive to the damn place, drive back and get back very late. If that is called a live performance of that film then stuff it, I prefer to buy the DVD at a reasonable price and watch it whenever I want in the comfort of my home with the same friends I'd have gone to the cinema with.

As for live performances yes I am not too fussed about it, I'm not into that sort of thing but if i was I'd not pay too much for a copy of it, but then the main purpose of the live performance is to make money there and then, although i may pay a couple of quid for a good quality recording of it.

 
Being there as it happens - worth money. Watching a recording of what happened - worth the dvd its printed on, or maybe a buck, tops.

[saturation]

Yes, someone in the pipeline could ask for money and someone with less skills would actually resort to paying for it.

I agree with you content owners should have copyrights and be allowed to protect it.

Alas, SOPA/PIPA is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so its claim to protect one strangles the other.  That's why the megaupload, and prior to that the hotfile suit, is important because protection can be done, without more laws.

Wikipedia shut down to draw attention to the issue since they are in the top 10 websites on the net for hits, its content is free.

I personally feel the solution is for the content owners to make access to their material easier, highest quality, and more convenient than warez.

The problem with users accessing warez is malware and quality, and increasingly bandwidth caps by ISPs.

If you fix that, storage, access and indexing becomes the main issue.  Each pirate is often tech savvy to maintain their own servers for data and backup, plus creating their own tags for indexing and finding the media.  Not everyone is going to or wants to do this, so the goal would be to make it so easy that it isn't worth storing a movie locally nor the time to download from warez sites and engage malware risk and eat their data quota.


When the cost to serve legitimate data undercuts the warez hosters, warez is out of business.

The problem is the model used by content creators is obsolete, making warez attractive.  iTunes current has a working model, but its not applicable to all; I do not think it fair for example.  We should not pay per view, but pay to own for the same price, except we no longer have to have physical media in our homes. 

There are many avenues to cut costs and make new alliances.

Hosting is not free, there is finite charge for data, whether its legitimate data or warez.  Since large companies can always work in volume, they can always undercut small operators so long as their overhead is properly managed.

For example, all ISP now meter data but don't claim to charge per GB, just charge more once you exceed your cap.  They can opt to not meter data served by say a media streamer they have a license with.  The ISP gets a fee from the media streamer to allow users unmetered access to its media, which is part of the fee a user pays to access the media.  This simple model would still meet net neutrality by allowing access to everything, but would not penalize folks who use streaming and consumes their bandwidth cap.  This one task now adds one barrier to the warez folks.

Many of the pirate sites have pirate of pirates of pirates of pirates of pirates etc., eventually the material can be found for truly free even for files of gargantuan size.  You need to know technology to find them and avoid the malware in there, so it favors the techsavvy.  There are also hacks of the filehosters allowing users to get it through cracks of their password schemes or their backdoors.

you merely confirm what I say: there is a hoard of people making quite a bit of money on someone elses content. if you spent hours writing a program to sell I am sure you would not appreciate it being spread all over the net and people actually making money from your work. If I was such a person I'd prefer people to have my software for free rather than think they owe a pirater money for it. I mean we even have cases of people charging for freeware software (and i don't mean charging to put it on a CD i mean charging for the privelage of downloading it). how people can just defy the law on the internet elludes me. I think this legislation comes too late as will any other legis;ation that combats illegal acts on the net like child pornography. if the polices forces had acted years ago to deal with the real criminals there might have been more leanient and balanced actions taken then that the heavy handidness we will see now.

Why wikipedia shut down for a day also illudes me, they are in a totally different game of providing information put up by people for the benefit of others knowing that was it's purpose. if wikipedia is siding with piraters then that is sad

[PeteInTexas]

This is interested for the numbers oriented. http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/sopapipa-blackout-by-the-numbers.php?ref=skyboxes

[Rufus]

if someone is going to charge for an illegal download you might as well pay the content originator.

True but the file hosting site wants like 5 cents for hosting and bandwidth and the content originator wants 15 bucks. The majority are not given the option to pay the content originator what they are prepared to pay so they pay someone else probably less.

If they manage to shut down all the avenues for copyright infringement the vast majority who were infringing (at 5 cents a pop) will just do without and not pay anyone anything. The only winners in this story are the politicians the media industry is buying.