Websites like Google and Wikipedia going black in protest of SOPA

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by kirant

Interesting. Reading her post right now and am trying to correlate it with the bill's text. I'm having a hard time finding the exact provision for this in the article under the text of section 103. Do you know what exact points she is refering to?

103.d, Para 1.A – Actions which can be taken by a Qualifying Plaintiff

A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued under subsection (c) on similarly situated entities described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by kirant

This bill fails to work that way. It states that primarily distributors (sites which have the primary purpose of distributing illegally used wares) will be targetted. Torrent sites for example (and before it is asked, YouTube is not viewed or used as a primary distributor)

Rupert Murdoch on YouTube:

"Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

103.d, Para 1.A – Actions which can be taken by a Qualifying Plaintiff

That certainly reads a bit unusual to me. It does take a step away towards "guilty until proven innocent" by closing the site away unless the defendant decides to file for litigation. And I could imagine there being issues with crushing innocent bit projects from steamroller sized companies as a side effect of the law.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Rupert Murdoch on YouTube:

This is also Murdoch we're talking about. He's gone out of his way to attack several things with unusual reasons.

[LGA]

It just simply amazes me that so many of these companies spend so much money trying to stop piracy, when there are business models who have had success based on embracing the easy distribution of the internet. Steam and iTunes have had plenty of success by being easy to use and very accessible, this encourages both the tech savvy as well as the computer illiterate to use their services. It's unfortunate that the biggest opposers to the use of internet for the distribution of digital goods (such as the movie industry) are as uncreative outside their own industry as they are inside of it. It's like they stopped evolving after a certain point, and instead of moving with the times and changing, they just steadfastly stick with what they know.

[LGA]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Rupert Murdoch on YouTube:

[I]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...7/b122948.html

Murdoch's just trying to eliminate competition.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by kirant

That certainly reads a bit unusual to me. It does take a step away towards "guilty until proven innocent" by closing the site away unless the defendant decides to file for litigation. And I could imagine there being issues with crushing bit projects from steamroller sized companies as a side effect of the law.

One thing we know from the DMCA takedown procedure, big companies have no qualms about attacking any perceived slight.

Could smaller websites caught in the crossfire afford to fight these claims? How much effort would be required for them to reverse the erroneous claims?

It isn't just the direct pirate sites being pegged.

Any "Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code" (Sec 102(a)(2)) is liable.

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by LGA

It just simply amazes me that so many of these companies spend so much money trying to stop piracy, when there are business models who have had success based on embracing the easy distribution of the internet. Steam and iTunes have had plenty of success by being easy to use and very accessible, this encourages both the tech savvy as well as the computer illiterate to use their services. It's unfortunate that the biggest opposers to the use of internet for the distribution of digital goods (such as the movie industry) are as uncreative outside their own industry as they are inside of it. It's like they stopped evolving after a certain point, and instead of moving with the times and changing, they just steadfastly stick with what they know.

Hey it worked for Blockbuster.........the difference is the music and movie industry has enough money to do things like this instead of trying to change and move forward.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by LGA

It just simply amazes me that so many of these companies spend so much money trying to stop piracy, when there are business models who have had success based on embracing the easy distribution of the internet. Steam and iTunes have had plenty of success by being easy to use and very accessible, this encourages both the tech savvy as well as the computer illiterate to use their services. It's unfortunate that the biggest opposers to the use of internet for the distribution of digital goods (such as the movie industry) are as uncreative outside their own industry as they are inside of it. It's like they stopped evolving after a certain point, and instead of moving with the times and changing, they just steadfastly stick with what they know.

Traditional media companies really dropped the ball with their knee jerk reaction in the wake of Napster.

Instead of looking at it as "hey, our customers are moving towards digital distribution, and it's where the market seems to be going" they opted to put their resources into trying to close the flood gates and put the genie back in the bottle.

There's no reason something like Rdio/iTunes couldn't have been made available immediately after Napster was shut down, but instead they choose to bury their heads in the sand and protect the old "go into the store and buy physical media" model for far too long.

True story, a few years ago I went to the Gemini awards and I had a chance to speak with a few people from one of the big picture companies and I mentioned that as a consumer it didn't make sense to me that that an HD film on iTunes cost the same as the hardcopy on Blu Ray. Their response was "a lot of the new blu rays come with the digital copy for your iPhone".

Whoosh, here I am as a customer saying "I prefer the digital distribution over physical, but the pricing doesn't make sense" and their solution is to tack a low resolution digital copy with the physical copy. This was before Netflix mind you, but it just shows how much they missed the boat with online content.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by LGA

It just simply amazes me that so many of these companies spend so much money trying to stop piracy, when there are business models who have had success based on embracing the easy distribution of the internet. Steam and iTunes have had plenty of success by being easy to use and very accessible, this encourages both the tech savvy as well as the computer illiterate to use their services. It's unfortunate that the biggest opposers to the use of internet for the distribution of digital goods (such as the movie industry) are as uncreative outside their own industry as they are inside of it. It's like they stopped evolving after a certain point, and instead of moving with the times and changing, they just steadfastly stick with what they know.

I think it's pretty much because they don't control the distribution of media in an easy distribution setting and since companies like NBC Universal do not employ people of the technical savy of Google or other silicon valley companies they are massively behind in being able to create new business models before their dinosaur business models collapse. Those who control the distribution, essentially control the price of the content. If the world evolves past Network and Cable TV in favor of an 'apple TV' like web based model where content providers have to compete for the attention of the public on an equal playing field, it will lower a barrier of entry into their business and their importance and profit margins will be eroded.

[photon]

Wiki being down has already affected me today, was on a meeting trying to pull down ISO country codes, black page, "oh yeah..."

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Whoosh, here I am as a customer saying "I prefer the digital distribution over physical, but the pricing doesn't make sense" and their solution is to tack a low resolution digital copy with the physical copy. This was before Netflix mind you, but it just shows how much they missed the boat with online content.

Yeah, as a customer I want pretty much everything available to me in and easy to use fashion in my home in high definition and I'm also not willing to spend $20 a night everytime I want to watch TV/movies for a couple of hours. Charge too much, make me have to go to a physical store, make any of my devices harder to use with your product or make me have to buy a new device just to view your product and I'm out as a customer either pursing your competition or just plain finding different things to do to entertain myself. I do not understand how hard that is for them to understand.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Could smaller websites caught in the crossfire afford to fight these claims? How much effort would be required for them to reverse the erroneous claims?

I think that's a major concern here. The target is foreign websites and the courts will be in America. Getting over alone will be an issue.

Of course, it doesn't help I keep flip-flopping on what the interpretation is...the clause begins with "with the prior approval of the court". This still seems to imply that there is a prior screening process, and that after the court order is given, the plaintiff must give 5 days notice to the funding organizations before filing the suit...doesn't affect the fact that if the court agrees there is reasonable claism, small projects will get killed, but it looks like at least arbitrary and petty things might not get through and may mitigate the "guity until proven innocent attitude" taken.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

It isn't just the direct pirate sites being pegged.

Any "Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code" (Sec 102(a)(2)) is liable.

That is also an issue. A huge concern for me is where the court order is placed. If you can pull funding from a site before a judge gets the chance to even look and see if it's worth filing suit over, it's a complete mess and open season. The more I'm re-reading her comments on it though, the more it sounds like a more complicated process of acquiring a court order to be able to pull, giving companies notice, then filing suit.

[psicodude]

10 awesome SOPA blackouts:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...348/story.html

[Drake]

Here's a petition to sign. If you like the internet the way it is, go and sign it.

http://americancensorship.org/

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by psicodude

10 awesome SOPA blackouts:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...348/story.html

Fark's main page is pretty epic. So too was Drew's trolling last night.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Drake

Here's a petition to sign. If you like the internet the way it is, go and sign it.

http://americancensorship.org/

If you aren't an American voter it doesn't mean anything. This is being forwarded based on ZIP code.

In fact, it may make it worse if they need to sort through a multitude of non-voters. You may make the diminish the magnitude of the real voters.

I'd be willing to bet the electoral district for 90210 will be inundated.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by psicodude

10 awesome SOPA blackouts:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...348/story.html

I want Internet with Blackjack and hookers!

[FlameOn]

The Verge has an interesting piece on how the SOPA vote will turn out predicting it'll probably pass regardless of how much online/popular protest there is.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/18/27...e-fate-of-sopa

[Resolute 14]

Senators starting to drop support of PIPA following protests: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/te...urse.html?_r=1

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'd be willing to bet the electoral district for 90210 will be inundated.

20500 is a better one to use.