Much of the internet fought against SOPA and PIPA yesterday in their own unique way. Although we are also against these bills, Fstoppers didn't participate yesterday. It wasn't until I saw this fantastic TED talk that I truly understood what these bills really meant for the internet. Even if you think you totally understand it, this video will open your eyes to copyright issues in the USA.
Related Articles
The same companies that gave you the software to share files are the same companies paying for SOPA. Why? to control the internet, see the video below for explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc&feature=endscreen&NR=1
I posted a "devil's advocate" article on SLR Lounge just now, and I agree with you Lee, this video is BY FAR the best explanation of the true (potential) effects. It definitely helps me realize why I might choose to oppose such a bill.
The problem is that I do think piracy is extremely out of hand, and people are getting WAY too casual about minor copyright infringements. Youtube, Tumblr, and Twitter are the best examples, but ALSO even websites like this one and SLR lounge- Sites like Youtube turn a profit by being relatively lax about hosting copyrighted material. You can make a living just by casually "re-posting" (stealing) other people's hard work, because social media is powered by "buzz" and "clickthroughs"...
I know it's unfair to ask everyone to police EVERY COMMENT etc. they receive on their site. However, oppositely, it's ALSO UNFAIR to expect a "creative" to police THE ENTIRE DAMN INTERNET in search of copyright violation.
Bottom line: Pirates should NOT be able to get away with their crime just because the ocean is too damn big for the victim to ever find them and bring forth an accusation. If society goes down that road, I'm going to have to start watermarking the crap out of every image I ever post online, and I think that's kind of a sad situation.
So there MUST be some sot of compromise, where law enforcement can go after pirates, but let innocent people continue to post funny videos of cats and karaoke on their friends' Facebook walls. Or do I just have too much faith in law enforcement to be reasonable and logical?
=Matt=
The problem comes from greed for every single dollar. Good artist will make their money anyway, but if some "criminals" will make some extra money on that, so what. If one movie will make 6mil instead of 7mil so what?
Calculation of losses is wrong anyway. People who watch Cam recorded version of movie, with terrible loss of quality are unable to watch original anyway.
It is not like loosing the copyright or original material... Nobody stills the real property.
I am not defending piracy but come on... don't be so greedy.
Roman, I agree that in general the media industry MUST find new ways to turn a profit, things just aren't the same as they were 20 years ago. Internet media and social networking sites are here to stay, I don't think they should be shut down or anything.
But on the other hand, I almost can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic when you say that it's okay for someone to milk profits from other people's work, that it's no biggie if a million dollars in profits just evaporates due to piracy. Just because it's an unimaginable sum of money, doesn't make it okay.
Again, I'm NOT in favor of hunting down every last innocent consumer or small business that might fall under this vague new restriction. But I'm all in favor of specifically targeting the online businesses that thrive on "sharing" media that is copyrighted. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to see many of my favorite Youtube clips get erased. But just because I'm so accustomed to having free access to all that media, doesn't make it legal.
=Matt=
You got me wrong.
The way the Big Company, Inc calculate its losses through piracy is just stupid.
Let's say they see that their movie leaked to p2p network and 100 people downloaded it. They assume that they lost ~$1000 plus less people will see targeted advertisement etc.
I have access to p2p, like everyone with internet access but I go to the theater to enjoy the movie on big screen with great audio.
These 100 people most likely don't have an access to the theater or can't afford to spend this money and if they didn't download poor quality online version, they would simply never see this movie.
What I mean nobody get poorer by their action. They just made less money than they possibly could...
Like you said, the times have changed and they have to adjust to new situation.
I wish I was so good photographer so somebody would want to steal my image :D That would work as promotion, gives publicity and if someone made a profit I could take him to court ;)
Okay that I totally understand. Just like how veteran wedding photographers whine that their business is getting sucked up by uncle bobs shooting for $200. It's just just a different market, and it will always be there, in fact it's growing rapidly but that doesn't mean professional wedding photography is ending. ;-)
This was also tried when a surtax was going to be added to the cost of blank audio cassettes. The assumption being that all blank cassettes were intended to reproduce copyrighted works.
I was surprised that You guys didn't participate...
Here is another good explanation by khan academy: http://youtu.be/tzqMoOk9NWc
David Koechner + Tom Hanks = that guy in the video
I can't see this being passed. It will put 10,000's of people out of jobs. Just what the US economy (and the rest of us) needs at the moment.
Piracy is a crime so solve it through the criminal justice system. Who's behind SOPA/PIPA? Murdoch?