The vast majority of the evening proceeded with the implicit assumption that everyone there was categorically opposed to SOPA... but towards the end two execs from Paramount Pictures made it known they were there, and they were very much on the other side. The temperature in the room must have dropped 20 degrees when that happened. To be honest, the panel itself might have had a few more fireworks (though likely wouldn't have been that productive) if there had been a SOPA supporter on the panel itself. Of course, the Paramount guys, in typical Hollywood fashion, made a bunch of false assumptions. Perhaps the best part was when one of them challenged venture capitalist Albert Wenger by claiming that the companies in his portfolio used intellectual property laws to protect their business: to which Wenger immediately shot back that they did not, and that they didn't support such things at all. Instead, he noted that the companies his firm (Union Square Ventures) invests in tend to win in the marketplace by competing and winning. He noted that even if they completely gave away the source code of Tumblr (one of USV's investments), it wouldn't matter. In fact, he pointed out that another company had copied Tumblr feature-for-feature... but they couldn't get users. The point is clear, and it's the same point we've made here for years: focusing on copyright to protect yourself is not a good business model, and not something they invest in. Instead, they focus on things that can succeed by executing even if someone copies them line for line.
Last edited by TheyCallMeBruce; 01-18-2012 at 02:13 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheyCallMeBruce For This Useful Post:
It still sounds like it needs to pass committee if they do decide to re-introduce that. With some of the voices in committee, they'll probably ask REAL tech experts to come in this time to explain DNS to them. I think (and hope. It is a major concern to me for the bill as it's ham fisted and ineffective) that part will never see the light of day again.
Actually from what the senator said, they're not shelving the DNS provision at all.
Quote:
As I prepare a managers' amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented.
Eyes will be on them until the dying breath of the bill or until everything passes. I think it'll be tough for them to pass it without massive revolt on the topic unless something shiny attracts the attention of the Internet. Granted...this is the Internet we're talking about...
Whichever way the ammendment goes (whether to make a later motion to scrap the DNS or to remove it now and vote on it later), if the pressure is on them, I don't think it'll favour the current standing. Granted, I'm one to believe it'll be an uphill fight to pass it DNS removed already.
That said, I remain a bit amazed that it's become an indisputable premise in Washington that there's an enormous piracy problem, that it's having a devastating impact on US content industries, and that some kind of aggressive new legislation is needed tout suite to stanch the bleeding. Despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office recently concluded that it is "difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the net effect of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy as a whole," our legislative class has somehow determined that—among all the dire challenges now facing the United States—this is an urgent priority.
If the likes of Google really wanted to play hardball, they could start blocking a range of IP addresses that serve up the various branches of the U.S. government. They could put in some vague wording in the EULA that gives them the right to block certain "resource intensive loads" for quality of service reasons.
No they would not be able to block them all, but could strategically make it really difficult for the government to access Google's web services. And honestly there is nothing the government could do about it, Google is not obligated to make available their services to everyone if they don't want to. What is the U.S. government going to do, try and shut down Google? If push came to shove, Google would just migrate everything somewhere else. Which is a key point, because the more legislation is put in place, the more it is going to stifle innovation, and that innovation will take place somewhere else instead of the United States.
First the question is do they need protection in the first place? Some people will ALWAYS steal what they want regardless, so that's not an issue of lost revenue because if the person couldn't steal the item they wouldn't have it anyway. The lost revenue argument is flawed IMO.
Second, the reason people have those things is simply ease. Companies punish their real customers, place obstacle after obstacle in their path, and set the price point higher because of "lost revenues". Path of least resistance, when it's 100x easier to pirate, that's what people will do. If I want to watch the same movie on a different device I have to purchase it again, or go through some convoluted process which gets me a file that is difficult to work with, can't be ported to non-supported devices, and has the chance of being completely unusable if a company decides to stop supporting their DRM (which has already happened).
Look at iTunes, they made it easier to buy than to pirate, and added features to make it even more compelling (automatically loading on all your iDevices, the match service etc), etc.
Look at Steam, people complain about steam sales because they buy so much that they can't possibly even play all the games they own. The music industry tries to sue people for stupid amounts due to them having something they didn't pay for, while Valve and the publishers are making money from people buying things they don't even play just because it's so easy and the perceived value is so high.
I'm quoting your entire post because it is so well said. STEAM for example has made it so easy for me to access my games, that I don't even think about pirating anything anymore, it's simply not worth it to me. With pirated content you have to deal with dubious crack, outdated versions, unable to update properly, can't play online etc etc. This is exactly the kind of service that makes piracy much less desirable, yes some people will still do it, you can never stop a certain % of this, in any industry in fact.
Now take movies, there are several torrent sites that make is far, far more convenient than any pay service I know of. The sheer number of movies and available formats is simply not available any other way. Not to mention access to old cuts/versions of films, content no longer available for sale, the list goes on and on. And of course no DRM of any kind. This a big opportunity missed by the movie industry, make the same type of service (well hopefully better, it should be given the torrent sites operate on a very small budget) and I will be happy to pay for it.
By Wednesday afternoon, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah and one of the Senate bill’s original co-sponsors, called it “simply not ready for prime time” and withdrew his support.
It says to me that our 'Brave New World' hasnt made us sufficiently indifferent to permit this type of legislation to pass. Yet.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
“This has been a real learning experience for the content world,” Mr. Feehery added.
John P. Feehery, a former Republican leadership aide and executive at the motion picture lobby.
So up to today the Motion Picture lobby STILL doesn't get it.
Here is their latest attempt to make movies easier on multiple computers: UltraViolet
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
What would be appropriate protection for copyright holders? Right now it seems to be a free-for-all.
You want to beat piracy? Take away the incentive. The video game industry seems to have figured this out somewhat... things like Steam (digital distribution platform with excellent sales) and the Humble Bundles (pay what you want, DRM free) have been had big successes by lowering their prices but dramatically increasing volume.
Instead of selling 100 songs for 100 dollars to one person, you can sell 100 songs for a dollar to 100 people. You make the same money (just about) but consumers won't feel so ripped off.
As someone who may or may not have pirated copyrighted material before, I support changes that would make actual piracy more difficult/illegal.
As much as I like me some free music, I have no issue in paying for it either- you can still discover new music through youtube, or via the bands website. That is, in fact, how I discover the majority of new content- via legitimate sources.
I am disappointed with a lot of the false information going around about this bill. BUT, trying to be realistic- I know that the age of piracy won't last forever, and I am okay with that.
As someone who may or may not have pirated copyrighted material before, I support changes that would make actual piracy more difficult/illegal.
As much as I like me some free music, I have no issue in paying for it either- you can still discover new music through youtube, or via the bands website. That is, in fact, how I discover the majority of new content- via legitimate sources.
I am disappointed with a lot of the false information going around about this bill. BUT, trying to be realistic- I know that the age of piracy won't last forever, and I am okay with that.
As someone who may or may not have pirated for a while, I think there's a disconnect between the bill and reality. I agree, what can be done to slow down piracy would be great. An issue I'm seeing though is that this does little to nothing. It'll end up as a game of virtual whack-a-mole with the government...pirates are extremely crafty and resourceful...not to mention there's virtually no way to prevent another site from going up.
Granted, I'm also a little different in thinking about this than the norm...I think this will be a 0 impact bill in most regards.
Chris Dodd, 3-decade senator who vowed not to lobby, is now the top paid advocate for an Internet censorship bill
Chris Dodd’s emphatic 2010 pledge not to lobby once he finally left the Senate was prompted by widespread speculation that he spent the last two years in office blatantly shilling for corporate interests in order to ensure a prosperous post-Congress career. Particularly during the 2010 financial reform debate — when it became increasingly apparent that allegations of improper benefits from Countrywide Financial#would make his re-election close to impossible#— Dodd served on multiple occasions as#chief spokesman for, and#defender of, the#interests of Wall Street#and#corporate America. Though sleazy and grotesque, it was therefore entirely unsurprising when it was announced last March that Dodd would “be Hollywood’s leading man in Washington, taking the most prestigious job on K Street”: Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), “whose perks include a $1.2 million-a-year salary and getting to attend the Academy Awards ceremony.”
Dodd's rant is hilarious.
“It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.”
I could swear this quote applies to companies that sue people for copying things (that they would have never bought anyways) and who have been given legally-enforceable monopolies.
