Wikipedia Blackout

yeah, websites blacking out over a protest involving google, wikipedia. what is going on?

Didn't Wonko explain this in the other thread?

SOPA!!!!!!!!

Yea if the sopa bill is passed then every site is gonna be blacked out. And we can say goodbye to the internet as we know it. Youtube will be the first to die

Even if this bill passes (which I don't think it will now that tons of dropped support of it,) YouTube would totally stay. It'd just be for the big corps though.

"I made an awesome new vidya that'll probably go viral! I'LL POST IT ON YOUTUBE!"

"Your content is our content now >:S"

Check it out, the guy who wrote SOPA broke his own rules:
http://www.vice.com/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops

Wow. What a fail.

Yeah, that shit isn't passing.

A lot of politicians dropped their support of it now that it's clear how many registered voters oppose these bills, but never underestimate the power of money exchanging hands. Based on the movie industry's official reaction to the protests you can bet that they're going to throw a lot more money at the politicians who switched sides to get them back on their side. The big concern now is that minor amendments will be added to the bills that make them slightly less abusive and then they'll be passed. And don't forget about similar bills that are being considered in other countries in Europe. As a great picnic basket thief once said: It ain't over 'till it's over.


The movie industry's reaction to the internet blackouts:

http://www.mpaa.org/resources/c4c3712a-7b9f-4be8-bd70-25527d5dfad8.pdf

“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major
concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some
technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their
corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to
agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use
their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the
marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as
gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their
corporate interests.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected
and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign
criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to
stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to
combat piracy.”

Well, let's not forget the power of the 'Bama--Obama, that is. People will all like this: ...if he supports it. Honestly, I haven't been keeping up on this nonsense too much, so I don't know his position on the matter, but democracy will prevail in the end (but we all know it often doesn't).

But, then again, money talks. It's a democracy, so it isn't as if we're really free.

Wonko the Sane wrote:A lot of politicians dropped their support of it now that it's clear how many registered voters oppose these bills, but never underestimate the power of money exchanging hands. Based on the movie industry's official reaction to the protests you can bet that they're going to throw a lot more money at the politicians who switched sides to get them back on their side. The big concern now is that minor amendments will be added to the bills that make them slightly less abusive and then they'll be passed. And don't forget about similar bills that are being considered in other countries in Europe. As a great picnic basket thief once said: It ain't over 'till it's over.


The movie industry's reaction to the internet blackouts:

http://www.mpaa.org/resources/c4c3712a-7b9f-4be8-bd70-25527d5dfad8.pdf

“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major
concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some
technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their
corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to
agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use
their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the
marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as
gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their
corporate interests.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected
and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign
criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to
stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to
combat piracy.”

Interesting. I saw the pirate bay's press release and thought they were paranoid, blame-shifting idiots. Their grammar is still shitty, but knowing what the MPAA has officially said makes their rant a little more justified. I gotta say, I'm really torn on the issue of piracy. I do a lot of torrenting, so I'd be inconvenienced pretty bad if SOPA/PIPA got through. However, I'm OK with being inconvenienced. I don't lie to myself when I torrent: I know what I'm doing is stealing, and the douchebaggery of the MPAA does nothing to shift the blame there. While I'll make an effort to buy torrented albums I enjoy on vinyl or shell money out on band merch, I don't pretend this is an OK tradeoff. The problem of piracy is real, and I think it's commendable that legislation would seek to address it. I do hope that critics of SOPA and PIPA stick around when it (inevitably) fails and play a role in crafting a better alternative. I think we're ready for that.

That's just it, Kai. You've been thinking that torrenting itself is stealing. Stealing has a literal definition of "Take without permission or legal right and
without intending to return it." When you download a film or music or whatever, you didn't steal it.

Not only that, but the torrenting itself isn't and shouldn't be made illegal. (I'll admit it's hard to find solid evidence of this fact because of the previous paragraph. Torrents = piracy in most peoples minds.)
I know of a lot of game devs that distribute their games through torrents to prevent their servers and bandwidth getting too stressed.

I don't get why they're only fussing about this now. Pirating has been going on for long before my father was born and later, when he'd listen to his vinyl, it would have a label about how piracy is bad. In all those years, the music industry is still going fairly strong (I would say great, but the music itself is crap imho but people still want it.)


Here's a question though. I have my SNES and Super Mario All-Stars through in my living room. Say the SNES didn't work and I decide to use a emulator and rom to play (which I'd have to download.) Is that considered legal?

Answer: Yes.


EDIT: After browsing through my daily bookmarks of comics, I found this. While obviously a joke, it still gives everyone on the internet a bad rep.

I have to agree with Kai. I also try to make an effort to support to stuff I "obtain," and that is why I almost always torrent music from bands from whom I already have music. In terms of software, I don't do much software torrenting, but, if I do, I do the same thing--try to support the developer somehow.

Still, regulation should be limited to piracy and not websites like Wikipedia and whatnot (or even copyright infringement--that isn't going away). I have to disagree with your definition of piracy, though, Loki--I think torrenting is considered piracy.

Plus, you have to remember that although some developers distribute their stuff through torrents, others do not. It's just a hasty generalization to say that all developers want to/should distribute their stuff with torrents.

This isn't something that's going to go away overnight. The politicians shouldn't think that. No amount of money given by SOPA-supporting companies will make this shit disappear.

I think what Loki was trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but torrents themselves aren't directly associated with piracy due to the many legitimate uses of torrents.

The broader issue here is whether or not it's okay to download something that isn't free without paying for it. I think anyone who tries to argue that this is okay is lying to themselves and it's pretty easy to see when you simplify a use-case scenario.

For example, some indie musician makes a song and decides to sell it on iTunes. He has no record label or anything, and all the sales from that go to iTunes (distributor) and him, and he needs that money to live. But you go torrent/download it instead because you don't want to pay for it. I'm pretty sure everyone here would smack this person upside the head and tell them to support the starving artist. But why does this seem to change when the artist in question is no longer a starving artist or there are record labels and the music industry execs with their hands in the pot? We start thinking they don't deserve our money and other issues start clouding our judgement and even though the situation is exactly the same.... downloading a song without paying for it, we somehow find ways to justify it.

Now on the other side of the coin, there is a real tangible value to goods that are given away for free, like free samples. Since the whole sopa/pipa stuff has been going on I've seen numbers floating around the internet where people have calculated how much money the movie industry rakes in as a direct result of people downloading a movie illegally, and they're really big numbers. It's just like someone giving out free samples of a food at a supermarket... if you like it, chances are you're either going to buy it or the sequel or tell someone you know that you liked it and they'll buy it or tell a friend or whatever. But in one way or another, the movie industry makes money that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten. If piracy was completely eliminated tomorrow, they'd actually lose money because there'd be no more free samples out there.

And Loki's right about piracy not being a new thing. All the things they're saying now about digital piracy they've said before about every other technology that has come out from 8-tracks to DVD-R's. HD-DVD disappeared because of the movie industry supporting Blu-ray instead with its copy protection stuff that turns out is easily cracked. Point is, they've made all these arguments before and if you look at the history of each particular thing they whined and moaned about, it never did any harm. If anything, it only ever helped them out. It's not like if they eliminated piracy tomorrow that all those people would suddenly start shoveling money at them and buying everything they were getting for free before. I honestly don't know what they're thinking.

The only reason it's become such a big deal now is because they saw an opportunity to influence some politicians to get some legislation passed and they took it. That's all. Other than that, there's nothing special or new about their whining.

The results of the strike:

http://sopastrike.com/numbers

Yeah, I have heard of Indie developers and B-movie filmmakers being very supportive of SOPA. They don't all necessarily have teams of lawyers to sue individuals and make a shitload of money out of it. That's what the main problem is--how to account for the losses those types of people get.

I mean, if they distribute their stuff freely, it's one thing. If not, it's just self-rationalization on the part of the people who torrent that what they're doing is right.

It's hard to live by the rule that one (an artist, for instance) should firstly give stuff out freely and then make money once they are recognized (by the big-name companies). One might say that torrenting just helps to get their stuff out there, but so what if it does? There are thousands of other artists like them trying to get noticed by the big-name companies.

Wonko the Sane wrote:For example, some
indie musician makes a song and decides to sell it on iTunes. He has no
record label or anything, and all the sales from that go to iTunes
(distributor) and him, and he needs that money to live. But you go
torrent/download it instead because you don't want to pay for it. I'm
pretty sure everyone here would smack this person upside the head and
tell them to support the starving artist. But why does this seem to
change when the artist in question is no longer a starving artist or
there are record labels and the music industry execs with their hands in
the pot? We start thinking they don't deserve our money and other
issues start clouding our judgement and even though the situation is
exactly the same.... downloading a song without paying for it, we
somehow find ways to justify it.

There's a producer on youtube by the name of Lapfox that releases a ton of free stuff as well as a pay what you want with a minimum and it seems to working out for him. Another guy by the name of Binaerpilot openly asks you to pirate it since it means more publicity for him.

If you're a fan of chiptune, I suggest you listen to binaerpilot!

So the movie industry has resorted to threatening the politicians who switched sides now. Threatening to pull their campaign funding and other stuff...

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,”

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/16246156406/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who

Just heard that it didn't pass. Which is good news.

Hearing about it never passing, that's great news.

I thought it was just one of them, doesn't the other version of it, pipa, still have to be voted on?

And who said it'll never pass? Couldn't they just make some little revisions and try again?

There's also the psychological impact. I heard something somewhere (either from the Wikipedia website or the Google one) about how SOPA was a "dirty word" or something along those lines. They'd have to start anew, I do believe.

A new name at least.

Wonko the Sane wrote:And who said it'll never pass? Couldn't they just make some little revisions and try again?

It was more in the lines of wishful thinking. What you said is true and I really should've said it in my own post

A real problem I foresee occurring is that if they keep tweeking it down the constantly and the internet keeps this up, we'll eventually lose the inpact that we give the first time.

Think of it as 'The boy who cried wolf'. Everytime it will happen, people will start doubting it more and more and when it will actually happens, they won't care.

EDIT: I should really add that while my crudely put analogy is indeed a cry of false alarm, the threat of this bill eventually passing certainly isn't. Hopefully this will prevent people junping down my neck to twist any further words that come out of it

Yeah I worry that the movie industry will make good on their threats and cut all campaign funding from the politicians who don't support their goals. And they're a major source of funding for those guys, so that'd basically mean that any politician who didn't support things like sopa wouldn't have the money to run for election.

That would result in the politicians making so many little revisions to the bills to try to make both sides happy, when that is clearly not possible, that eventually after the 100'th revision it'll just slip through the cracks and end up passing.

I just hate the system for elections. Politicians spend too much time on that shit and not enough time on what really matters--doing their job. The whole process starts way before the actual election. It's ridiculous.

In terms of money, well, let's just say that it's a very objective financial means of campaigning. *sarcasm*

It's like the elementary school child daring the new kid in class to do something for him in return for a quarter or candy or whatever. It all revolves around money.

It's like I tell people. It's a democracy: we don't have a say in anything.

I don't like the whole 'running for election' thing anyway. It's so suprising how the higher ups in the US can't figure out where their money is being wasted. Try uhh... the election?

Maybe vote for the one that doesn't throw away tons of dollars on a fancy show and then tax you hard to recoupe.

Noooo don't be silly, we can't do that! That would make too much sense! We have to vote for the one with all the shiny pretties and fancies and wow shabaaangs!! 'cause he's obviously the most suited to represent me and my interests. You and your reasonable logic need to get out of this thread.



...

One of the opinions I found quite refreshing in this SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/KJEWNKHBARGJKLERH acronym argument is this video..

http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-piracy-episode-1-copyright-220166.phtml

I think he's spot on with the idea that copyright law needs to be revised in some way and that it should be based around the idea of the "temporary licence" he suggested.

I also thought the Pirate Bays recent press release was quite a humorous reflection on history ^^

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/12273017472/pirate-bay-press-release-sopa-we-are-new-hollywood.shtml