Wikipedia, Google to protest Internet bills

Jan 17, 2012 by Chris Lefkow
The homepages of the Wikipedia website. Wikipedia went dark, Google blotted out its logo and other popular websites held protests on 18 January 2012 to voice concern over legislation in the US Congress intended to crack down on online piracy.

Wikipedia went dark, Google blotted out its logo and other popular websites planned protests on Wednesday to voice concern over legislation in the US Congress intended to crack down on online piracy.

Wikipedia shut down the English version of its online encyclopedia for 24 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate version, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

Google placed a black redaction box over the logo on its much-visited US home page to draw attention to the bills, while social news site reddit and the popular Cheezburger humor network planned to shut down later in the day.

The draft legislation has won the backing of Hollywood, the music industry, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce.

But it has come under fire from digital rights and free speech organizations for allegedly paving the way for US authorities to shut down websites accused of online piracy, including foreign sites, without due process.

"For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history," Wikipedia said in a message posted at midnight (0500 GMT) on its darkened website.

"Right now, the US Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia."

The founders of Google, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yahoo! and other Internet giants said in an open letter last month the legislation would give the US government censorship powers "similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran."

"We oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," a Google spokesman said Tuesday.

"So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our US home page," the spokesman for the Internet search giant said.

Fact file on the proposed US Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), including of list of major supporters, and detractors concerned about government censorship of the World Wide Web.

Reddit said it will shut down for 12 hours -- from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm (1300 GMT to 0100 GMT) -- to protest the legislation.

"We wouldn't do this if we didn't believe this legislation and the forces behind it were a serious threat to reddit and the Internet as we know it," reddit said.

"The freedom, innovation, and economic opportunity that the Internet enables is in jeopardy."

Ben Huh, the founder of Cheezburger network, said on his Twitter feed that his 58 sites, which include icanhascheezburger.com, FAIL Blog and The Daily What, will observe a blackout on Wednesday.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales announced the plans to shut down the site in a message on his Twitter feed.

"Student warning! Do your homework early. Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday!" Wales said.

"This is going to be wow. I hope Wikipedia will melt phone systems in Washington on Wednesday. Tell everyone you know!" he said.

Volunteer-staffed Wikipedia turned 11 years old on January 15 and boasts more than 20 million articles in 282 languages.

The White House expressed concern about the anti-online piracy bills in a statement over the weekend.

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," it said.

"Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small," the White House said.

News Corp. chief executive Rupert Murdoch, who backs the US legislation, accused the "blogosphere" of "terrorizing many senators and congressmen who previously committed" to supporting it.

"Nonsense argument about danger to Internet. How about Google, others blocking porn, hate speech, etc? Internet hurt?" he wrote on the popular micro-blogging website.

Explore further: Britain's UKIP issues online rules after gaffes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Internet pioneers oppose US online piracy bills

Dec 14, 2011

The founders of Craigslist, eBay, Google, Twitter, Yahoo! and other Internet giants expressed concern to the US Congress on Wednesday over legislation intended to crack down on online piracy.

Wikipedia to be blacked out over anti-piracy bill (Update)

Jan 16, 2012

Wikipedia will black out the English language version of its website Wednesday to protest anti-piracy legislation under consideration in Congress, the foundation behind the popular community-based online encyclopedia ...

White House concerned over online piracy bills

Jan 14, 2012

(AP) -- The Obama administration raised concerns Saturday about efforts in Congress that it said would undermine "the dynamic, innovative global Internet," urging lawmakers to approve measures this year that balance the ...

Recommended for you

Britain's UKIP issues online rules after gaffes

18 hours ago

UK Independence Party (UKIP), the British anti-European Union party, has ordered a crackdown on the use of social media by supporters and members following a series of controversies.

Sony saga blends foreign intrigue, star wattage

18 hours ago

The hackers who hit Sony Pictures Entertainment days before Thanksgiving crippled the network, stole gigabytes of data and spilled into public view unreleased films and reams of private and sometimes embarrassing ...

Digital dilemma: How will US respond to Sony hack?

Dec 18, 2014

The detective work blaming North Korea for the Sony hacker break-in appears so far to be largely circumstantial, The Associated Press has learned. The dramatic conclusion of a Korean role is based on subtle ...

User comments : 80

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (18) Jan 17, 2012
I smell Republican meddlers in this. Somehow, whenever they get a whiff of anything vibrant and free, they become sharks on the attack. Technology should be developed so that those industries who want to protect material from being reproduced and distributed without permission can do so. Let the internet evolve naturally, like life itself!
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (61) Jan 17, 2012
I smell Republican meddlers in this. Somehow, whenever they get a whiff of anything vibrant and free, they become sharks on the attack. Technology should be developed so that those industries who want to protect material from being reproduced and distributed without permission can do so. Let the internet evolve naturally, like life itself!


Your characterization of republicans is mindless non-sense, and factually incorrect. Both bills are bipartisan, one introduced by a republican while the other introduced by a democrat.

It is illegal to deal in stolen property. The store down the street can't just sell stolen merchandise; they are responsible. Why should the Internet be any different?

On the contrary, ...what will prevent the Internet from evolving properly into the future form of commerce and exchange of e-media, is that it is not taken seriously, nor is it respected, as is evidenced by everything being expected to be freely available. This is a symptom of lawlessness.
Telekinetic
3.9 / 5 (18) Jan 17, 2012
You're a reactionary that can't stand the idea of relinquishing control of a medium that now belongs to everyone. This is bigger than profit, which is what you hold most sacred. The internet is a means of communication that can free oppressed nations, to allow people to organize and outsmart their oppressors as we've witnessed in the Middle East. The forces at work here are way beyond the material, which is only as far as you can see. It will free the Chinese people one day, and others whose voices are stifled by fascistic governments and the liars of the Republican party, always crowing about lawlessness and permissiveness, who in private, wish they could control the populace the way the Red Chinese do. Freedom of expression is what this is about, and those who can't stand freedom at the core of their being are the ones who try to place artificial limits on this new found freedom. If you can't secure your product, then don't peddle it to the public.
Squirrel
4 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
The point about the Wikipedia blackout is that any legislation about the internet is readily subverted making it both toxic and stupid. Toxic because SOPA like legislation will hurt lots of perfectly legal activity including new start ups that will revolutionize its future use and our lives. Stupid--just install--if you have not already a security plugin such as NoScript and have it temporarily "forbid" wikipedia--by blocking JavaScript it brings the site back online--there are always around SOPA and even internet "blackouts".
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (59) Jan 18, 2012
@Telekinetic,
What are you talking about? I'm not against the Internet, nor freedom of expression. And again, this has zero to do with "fascistic governments and the liars of the Republican party". You're clueless about politics; the last thing rep's want is gov control. The role of gov is to protect property rights and do what it can to prevent theft, in order to protect freedom of the market.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (57) Jan 18, 2012
,... right now the Internet is over run by a bunch of know-nothing twenty year olds who think everything should be free and readily available to them. Any idiot can just go on-line and download music, movies and other content for free. This is lawlessness and will end with nothing left but sub-par public-domain quality products because no one will be willing to invest money into quality, when they know they can't get a return on investment due to theft.

And agiain both bills are bipartisan which means both democrats and republicans support it. Your idiotic statements about republicans come from ignorance and caricatures. Generally, conservatives want less gov, while liberals want more gov.

Freedom of expression is what this is about, and those who can't stand freedom at the core of their being are the ones who try to place artificial limits on this new found freedom.

"Freedom of expression" does not equate to "everything being free of cost".
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012

"Freedom of expression" does not equate to "everything being free of cost".


Freedom of information does, however.

Without freedom of information, there isn't really a freedom of the markets either, because the agents in the market can't behave rationally when information costs something.

When you make information cost something, you force the consumers to compromize between spending resources in trying to find out what is worth paying for, thus they will never have full knowledge of what they're getting into, and the producers can always rip them off to some degree.

Due to that effect, there never has been a freedom of the markets in the US. You buy a simple computer game, and you don't really know what you are buying until you hand over the money, go home and put it in your console. If you were slightly dissapointed, it's your problem, and the company knows it. They won't put full effort into it because they know you can't know they cheated until it's too late.
Eikka
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2012

It is illegal to deal in stolen property. The store down the street can't just sell stolen merchandise; they are responsible. Why should the Internet be any different?


Because it IS different. It doesn't deal in concrete property that can be stolen.

It deals in abstract bits and bytes that carry information that can be endlessly duplicated, unlike the pawn shop at the corner that has to sell physical merchandize that are removed from somewhere and someone.

Talking about stealing and pirating as if they were the same online as dealing with the tangible real deal is simply rhetorics - a false analogy.
Eikka
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2012
The problem here is, that we have two different worlds of commerce that are diametrically opposite to each other in their properties.

But the free market of physical goods and services depends on the freedom of information to work. If information costs money, then the consumers are no longer free to choose between different options because they don't know how to choose.

The sellers however would want this to happen, to make the non-physical goods - information - act the same as physical goods because it makes them money by selling it, and gives them power over the markets by basically keeping everyone else dumb.

This is what copyright is fundamentally about: legally mandated artifical scarcity of a product that is infinitely copyable once it's been made, in order to make money over something that fundamentally costs nothing. It's not merely about making the author some cash, it's about a whole industry based on doing something that would and should otherwise be free.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
There's an easy way around the Wiki block,....are these people even serious ?
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
From AWT follows, the poor economical situation (low energy density state of society) always induces totalitarian tendencies, bringing the society into state of boson condensate. It's analogy of boson condensate formation under cooling. It's the price for ignorance of cold fusion too, because the contemporary financial crisis has been initiated with growth of fossil fuel prices and energy in general.
are these people even serious?
Of course, the reason of strike is not to stop the work, but to demonstrate opinion. For most of layman users the blackout based on scripting represents serious obstacle in usage of Wiki site.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jan 18, 2012
This is what copyright is fundamentally about: legally mandated artifical scarcity of a product that is infinitely copyable once it's been made, in order to make money over something that fundamentally costs nothing. It's not merely about making the author some cash, it's about a whole industry based on doing something that would and should otherwise be free.


What! Absurd. The value of a product whether it be a physical entity or bits and bytes is in the idea itself. Intellectual property, copied out of thin air has value just as a gaget made out of plastic and sold in a box has value. You have NO right to other peoples work for free. What ever you do for a living, if it requires valuable knowledge, by you logic, you should be doing it for free,.. because afterall it's just "information" and "information" should be free, right?

Your ignorance of economics is rather amusing. Paper money is copied over and over and has no intrinsic value on its own.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jan 18, 2012
....If there is no profit to be made from intellectual property, then quality is going to tank, because if it's not worth paying for than its not worth having.

The fact that media can be copied over and over out of thin air has no relevancy to it's value. Value of a product is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it. In other words, demand determines this. If there are no laws and property is stolen at will, no one is going to bother producing anything of value.
kaasinees
0.7 / 5 (27) Jan 18, 2012
....If there is no profit to be made from intellectual property, then quality is going to tank, because if it's not worth paying for than its not worth having.

Nonsense. If freedom of informaton existed everyone would try harder to make better quality than others, those who provide better quality will get more money. its that simple.

When a company has a monopoly on IP there is no gaurentee for quality, there is no competition, they will slack to save money and it will be expensive to purchase. Thats how monopolies work.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (60) Jan 18, 2012
A media like a movie or software, or music, or an e-book is not "information",. they are products that are owned as private property by an individual or entity.

How are you defining "freedom of informaton"? What does that mean to you?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jan 18, 2012
...those who provide better quality will get more money. its that simple.


Well, I agree with you here, as I said above to which you said "nonsense",...-->, "If there is no profit to be made from intellectual property, then quality is going to tank".

Perhaps, I don't get what is meant by "freedom of informaton". Maybe you can clarify?
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (56) Jan 18, 2012
From AWT follows, the poor economical situation.....


I'm beginning to think AWT is some sort of god of yours. It seems to solve every problem.
kaasinees
0.4 / 5 (25) Jan 18, 2012
A media like a movie or software, or music, or an e-book is not "information",.

stop right there, do not continue.

Information in its most restricted technical sense is an ordered sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message.
- wikipedia

Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jan 18, 2012
A media like a movie or software, or music, or an e-book is not "information",.

stop right there, do not continue.

Information in its most restricted technical sense is an ordered sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message.
- wikipedia



Thanks for clarifying. I was correct then in interpreting that you commies, I mean guys, equate "information" and basically any digital media?

If so, you're twits. Copyrights and patents exist for a reason. Ideas have value. The soviets equated value of a manufactured product in its labour and costs of production. Everyone knows the soviets are morons wrt free market,.. as the value of a product is NOT in it's labour and cost of production,.. it is in what people are willing to pay for it.

No one wants a soviet car. That is the result of stupidity and lack of understanding value.
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2012
"it is in what people are willing to pay for it."

Hmm but the people are forced into paying whatever someone else dictates to pay it. People are forced to pay licenses 5 times fold for one song when this bill gets added...hmmm

You are a hypocrit at best. Stop suplying others with selfdefeating arguments.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012

What! Absurd. The value of a product whether it be a physical entity or bits and bytes is in the idea itself. Intellectual property, copied out of thin air has value just as a gaget made out of plastic and sold in a box has value.


So, if I have an MP3 file on my computer, and I make a duplicate of it by clicking with my mouse, I suddenly have twice the value?

How about making a thousand copies. I'd be rich, right?

You have NO right to other peoples work for free.


That's right. I have no right, but I may have the freedom to it, as long as nobody is trying to stop me by arguing that we should keep paying for the same work over and over again ad infinitum.

In intellectual property, the actual value of the product is in the making of it, not in the individual copy of it. Information itself is not scarce, therefore it cannot have a price, or the price must be arbitrarily close to zero. Supply and demand says that if supply is infinite, price must be zero.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Jan 18, 2012
So, if I have an MP3 file on my computer, and I make a duplicate of it by clicking with my mouse, I suddenly have twice the value?

How about making a thousand copies. I'd be rich, right?

No, you would still subsist on government cheese,... because you don't own the mp3 file. Even If you produced the song and made a thousand copies it has zero value until you can sell it. No one will buy it until they see value in it.

Never mind about how easy something is to reproduce or distribute. That is irrelevent. The "cost of production" of intellectual property is in the knowledge gained through study or talent, and countless hours becoming proficient at a subject. Obviously wrt movies, millions of dollars go into producing them.

I don't think the arguments you guys are making are the same as Wiki, google, physorg, and other Internet sites.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2012
The internet is a means...to allow people to organize and outsmart their oppressors as we've witnessed in the Middle East.
What youve witnessed in the ME is idle young hotheads being tricked into exposing themselves once again, and subsequently being shot or incarcerated or further duped into joining rebel armies where they can be killed en masse.

Siphoning hotheads by creating an ersatz cause which stirs their blood is a very good way of pacifying a population. The taliban did this in preparation for the afghan war. They enticed a million or so into an army, led them north and lined them up so the US could carpet-bomb them into mush. This is WHY the west CREATED the taliban.

What youre a witness to is simply another form of media applied in the effective Management of populations, including yourself, by the People who Invent, Construct, Configure, Operate, and Reap the Benefits of such Endeavors.

Meanwhile the taliban continues its vital work in pakistan using your internet.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012
In physical products as well, if you could make something with just the press of a button and no other costs, its price tends to zero because the cost of producing it is essentially zero, since anybody who needs one can just walk in and press the button.

The only way to have a non-zero price for the product would be to make a law that says only one person can press that button, to control how many of the product are made available, so that the people waiting outside would have no option but to compete with each other to get theirs out of a limited supply.

And that's copyright for you.

The only thing that really costs something is the machine that has the button, which is analogous to a work of an author. Once the work is done, it only takes a push of a button to make one more.

Logically, we should only pay for the thing that actually costs something. There's no need for an army of people to guard the "copy" button, as they produce nothing of value themselves.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Jan 18, 2012
That's right. I have no right, but I may have the freedom to it, as long as nobody is trying to stop me by arguing that we should keep paying for the same work over and over again ad infinitum.


You shouldn't have to pay for the same file over and over. Is this legistration saying this?
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (56) Jan 18, 2012
In intellectual property, the actual value of the product is in the making of it, not in the individual copy of it. Information itself is not scarce, therefore it cannot have a price, or the price must be arbitrarily close to zero. Supply and demand says that if supply is infinite, price must be zero.


No, the COST is in the making of it. The VALUE is what it is sold for. Basic economics. The number of copies is irrelevent as each copy is a transaction between the producer and the buyer. intellectual property is NOT simply "information". It is a product.

There are many manufacturing processes where once tooling is setup its just a matter of making copies over and over again millions of times. That is one cost of many,.. there's advertising, R&D, legal, engineering, QC, and on and on. Same for intellectual property, except the distribution IS the production. These are costs and have nothing to do with value. Value is price paid.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012

Never mind about how easy something is to reproduce or distribute. That is irrelevent. The "cost of production" of intellectual property is in the knowledge gained through study or talent, and countless hours becoming proficient at a subject. Obviously wrt movies, millions of dollars go into producing them.


And that's what we should be paying for. Not for each individual copy of a CD or a movie.

The issue is, that a movie may cost 50 million to make, and the studio will make that much over time by selling copies of it, and then they make a bit more, and a bit more... and a bit more until 75 years later the copyright runs out and we've collectively ended up paying hundreds of times the actual cost to the copyright holders.

The question is, do we really want to pay that much for a movie?
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jan 18, 2012

Never mind about how easy something is to reproduce or distribute. That is irrelevent. The "cost of production" of intellectual property is in the knowledge gained through study or talent, and countless hours becoming proficient at a subject. Obviously wrt movies, millions of dollars go into producing them.


And that's what we should be paying for. Not for each individual copy of a CD or a movie.

The issue is, that a movie may cost 50 million to make, and the studio will make that much over time by selling copies of it, and then they make a bit more, and a bit more... and a bit more until 75 years later the copyright runs out and we've collectively ended up paying hundreds of times the actual cost to the copyright holders.

The question is, do we really want to pay that much for a movie?


It's called PROFIT and in the west, seeking profit has created the greatest economy the world has ever known and the best technology. You don't understand basic economics.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2012
Some very simple truths:

- Few people want to work if it does not benefit them
- Few people want to take risk without the potential for reward
- The greater the potential for reward the harder someone will work and/or the greater risks they will take.

Given the above, which I don't think anyone will object to, it is clear that the potential to make a profit well above what you invest into a product (talking about Eikka's example here) is the very reason people decide to make that product in the first place.

You might think it is "not fair" for movie studios to make hundreds of times as much in profit as the movie costs to produce but if the movie is a 10 million dollar investment that takes 3 years to develop NO ONE in their right mind is going undertake that task if their potential profit is capped at some arbitrary multiple of their investment while their risk remains uncapped (maybe no one likes the movie and it tanks?).

Potential for reward has to be many times higher than risk
Deathclock
4 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2012
Take pharmaceutical companies for example. You may not think it's fair for these companies to sell life-saving medication for $20 a pill when it costs literally pennies to produce, but you aren't considering the fact that they spend billions on research that may not lead anywhere. This is a HUGE risk, these companies take these huge risks ONLY because there is the potential for a much greater reward. Without that potential they would be insane for taking such risks.

Also, the large profit they make helps to fund future research to develop even more life saving medications.

Do you really not understand why the United States is (or was anyway) the world leader in technological advancement? It's not because we are smarter than people in other countries (if anything we are dumber)... it's because our capitalist economy gives the proper incentive for people to be entrepreneurial and innovative and to take such huge risks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2012
Your internet is full of temptation isnt it? This is a long period of development where potentials for abuse must be explored and ways to counter them sought. And so people are tempted to misuse the medium in any number of ways.

Of course stealing intellectual property is wrong for it involves the expenditure of time, effort, and resources and people have the right to be compensated for it like any other product they may produce.

But the temptation to steal it produces great Benefits in fortifying the medium and weeding out those tempted to stray by such things. Just like the taliban is busy in pakistan, yemen, somalia and elsewhere weeding those destabilizing elements and sending them into the guns of the elements of Order and Stability.

In order to separate wheat from chaff you must have a stiff Breeze to toss the mixture into.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
Value is price paid.


And price paid depends on how many the producer wants to sell, since they can set an arbitrary price and make as many copies as there are people who can afford and are willing to buy at that price. Of course, there's a point where price paid and numbers sold are maximized, but that only defines the best possible return of interest to the seller.

Take for example, Apple computers. Few people value them at the price they are sold, and therefore do not buy them, but the company is selling them at exactly the price they do because it brings them the most money out of the few that do value them to be worth the price. Still, taken on the whole, the value for the sellers and the buyers are different.

Therefore your definition of value is meaningless. It depends on who you ask.

The real value of a product is whatever it costs to make it, and the utility of it.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2012
It doesn't matter what mechanism you come up with to stop piracy it will routinely be defeated in very short order. This has proven to be the case over and over again. Anti-piracy methods only hurt the legitimate customers, under most anti-piracy schemes the legitimate customers have to jump through the hoops, while the pirates simply remove those hoops. I have payed for PC games only to download the crack for the pirated versions in order to bypass the bullshit anti-piracy mechanisms.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012

It's called PROFIT and in the west, seeking profit has created the greatest economy the world has ever known and the best technology. You don't understand basic economics.


It is undeserved profit that we pay because it's hidden in the system. We end up paying more for the products as a society than how much we value them, and as a side effect we feed a whole group of people who produce nothing of their own and merely collect money from other people's work because the law enables them to.

A person who works is entitled to a profit. An author is free to ask anything he wants for the work he does, and we are free to pay it or refuse it. That's free market.

Copyright is not free market because it grants authors and copyright holders a right that does not belong to them - a monopoly to copying.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
You might think it is "not fair" for movie studios to make hundreds of times as much in profit as the movie costs to produce but if the movie is a 10 million dollar investment that takes 3 years to develop NO ONE in their right mind is going undertake that task if their potential profit is capped at some arbitrary multiple of their investment while their risk remains uncapped (maybe no one likes the movie and it tanks?).


That's exactly what we should ask of the people who end up paying the whole thing. Are they willing to pay that much for the movie? It's not just the people who watch the movie that are going to pay for it, but the whole society indirectly.

If not, then the movie should not be made.

But how can we avoid paying that much, if the people who make the movie rely on the fact that there will be people in the future who have no idea what it cost and how much it's worth paying $5 a view again and again?
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2012
That's exactly what we should ask of the people who end up paying the whole thing. Are they willing to pay that much for the movie? It's not just the people who watch the movie that are going to pay for it, but the whole society indirectly.

If not, then the movie should not be made.

But how can we avoid paying that much, if the people who make the movie rely on the fact that there will be people in the future who have no idea what it cost and how much it's worth paying $5 a view again and again?


If people pay it then they think it's worth it... so in a sense we already do ask that. I'm not sure what you are talking about... How can you ask people how much they think a movie is worth that hasn't been made yet?

Really, the point is, it's not your business to tell producers how much to charge for their product. If you think the price is too high then you have the right to not pay for it, simple.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2012
It is undeserved profit that we pay because it's hidden in the system.


It is not undeserved and it is not hidden.

We end up paying more for the products as a society than how much we value them


No we don't we pay EXACTLY as much as the value we place on the product... because people have a CHOICE about whether to pay for that product or not.

I'm really tying to understand where you are coming from and what your thought process is when making these statements but I just don't understand your point of view... you do realize people can choose to not purchase a product right? When was the last time someone held a gun to your head and forced you to pay for a movie?
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2012
@Ferengi What are you talking about? I'm not against the Internet, nor freedom of expression.
Yes you are. Wherever there is liberty you want it quashed. Destroying the Internet because some multinationals have a failed business model is like closing the freeways because OJ Simpson used it for getaways.
It's called PROFIT and in the west, seeking profit has created the greatest economy the world has ever known and the best technology. You don't understand basic economics.
So you really are a Ferengi! Obviously inhuman.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
Although, Eikka, I can see a system that you may prefer... Suppose a company had an idea for a movie or a video game, suppose they pitched that idea to the general public in the form of a website with a description of the story and maybe some initial trailer-like footage, and suppose that they stated that they would make this movie if they received a commitment of "x" dollars from the community. Now you, as a consumer, might be interested in seeing this movie or video game developed, so you contribute "y" amount of dollars (however much you want), and if by whatever deadline the producers set they do not have the necessary contributions then they must refund everyone's money. If they do get enough contributions then they produce the movie/game/whatever and give digital copies away for free while selling physical copies with physical bonus material.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
Further, the contributors would be allowed to take back their contribution at any time during the development of the movie/game/whatever and it would be up to the producer to give regular status updates in order to keep the contributors satisfied so that they do not refund their contribution. The producer would, likewise, be able to cancel production and refund the remaining contributors if too many people take back their initial contribution during development.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2012
....If there is no profit to be made from intellectual property, then quality is going to tank, because if it's not worth paying for than its not worth having.
That's a powerfully ignorant statement. Right now I'm writing some software that I will publish on the Internet for free as open source software. I'm doing that because I want to set a standard and have it evolve, which is impossible to do personally. Nature does not hoard she shares her fruitful bounty so that all may thrive and evolve. Did you know that billions of people have pirated music playing in their heads? Why don't you condone having their brains squashed for making illegal copies, Ferengi?
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2012
....If there is no profit to be made from intellectual property, then quality is going to tank, because if it's not worth paying for than its not worth having.
That's a powerfully ignorant statement. Right now I'm writing some software that I will publish on the Internet for free as open source software. I'm doing that because I want to set a standard and have it evolve, which is impossible to do personally. Nature does not hoard she shares her fruitful bounty so that all may thrive and evolve. Did you know that billions of people have pirated music playing in their heads? Why don't you condone having their brains squashed for making illegal copies, Ferengi?


This is stupid.

Both quality and quantity of all types of media will drop precipitously if profit incentive disappears. Do you understand that it costs tens of millions of dollars to make modern movies and games? No one is going to spend that much and then give it away for free.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
If people pay it then they think it's worth it... so in a sense we already do ask that.


Yes, asking people who don't understand the question because they haven't been presented with the information of how much money exactly is being given to the few from the many. $5 doesn't sound much for a movie ticket.

If you asked the question "Would you see this movie if it meant that $100 million is given to Walt Disney from taxpayer money?", the answer might be different.


If people pay it then they think it's worth it... so in a sense we already do ask that. I'm not sure what you are talking about... How can you ask people how much they think a movie is worth that hasn't been made yet?


The question is not whether a specific movie is worth how much, but whether movies that cost N million should be made at all. They can be made, because the studio doesn't have to ask the public whether they want it. They just do it, and then cash in on the people bit by bit.
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012
If you asked the question "Would you see this movie if it meant that $100 million is given to Walt Disney from taxpayer money?", the answer might be different.


Wait a minute... what are you talking about? No taxpayer money is used on the production of movies...

The question is not whether a specific movie is worth how much, but whether movies that cost N million should be made at all. They can be made, because the studio doesn't have to ask the public whether they want it. They just do it, and then cash in on the people bit by bit.


You realize the studio pays for it right? It is a GAMBLE... the studio could lose everything, so who are you to tell them what to gamble on and what not to gamble on with their own money?

Again, this is NOT tax payer money, I have no idea why you thought that.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
Do you really not understand why the United States is (or was anyway) the world leader in technological advancement? It's not because we are smarter than people in other countries (if anything we are dumber)... it's because our capitalist economy gives the proper incentive for people to be entrepreneurial and innovative and to take such huge risks.


Or because half the world was a communist hellhole, and the other half, that wasn't the United States took decades to rebuild after the world wars, during which all the money flowed to the US. Not to mention the captured scientists.

And the US bullied a lot of countries into submission during the Cold War as well. How can you make business if the CIA comes knocking at your door and announcing that they will effectively destroy your business if you continue it.

See for example, Rauma-Repola Oceanics who sold the MIR-1 and MIR-2 submarines for the Russians.

It pays to be the only world superpower.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012

Wait a minute... what are you talking about? No taxpayer money is used on the production of movies...

Again, this is NOT tax payer money, I have no idea why you thought that.


I used it as an example, because the effect is the same. The whole society pays for the expenses of producing the movie. Not just those who watch it.

If I buy an ice-cream, then I have a dollar less, and I can't afford to put that dollar somewhere else where it might be of better use. If I didn't buy that cone, then less common resources like energy would be spent in freezing dairy products, making electricity that much cheaper for everyone else.

My sweet tooth has wider impact than just my wallet. The whole society eventually ends up paying for the fact that I like ice-cream.
Burnerjack
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012
Web servers complaining about having to compensate content creators is like bank robbers complaining security companies are denying them a living. There is absolutely NO LEGITIMATE reason to profit from web content and not provide compensation to the originator. If you sculpt an absolutely fantastic, inspiring statue, is it fair that some entity begins selling copies, while you, the sculptor go hungry? In a word? NO!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Jan 18, 2012
@Eikka,

I don't know what country you are from, but in a free country it is none of your business how much someone makes off a copyright, and further most free citizens don't care. You're really off base and show you don't understand economics in a free market, or are simply anti-capitalistic as a wanta-be "radical".

Again, Value is in the hands of the public, not in the hands of the creator, apart from creating. IOW, Value is what others see in a product and are willing to pay.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Jan 18, 2012
You buy a simple computer game, and you don't really know what you are buying until you hand over the money, go home and put it in your console - Eikka


You ever hear of game reviews and return policies? No matter what product one buys, this is the case, if the buyer does not compare and evaluate before hand.
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2012
PHYSorg.com is against SOPA and other laws that may give the power to censor the internet. Read more and take action here.
(At the top of this page)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2012
It doesn't matter what mechanism you come up with to stop piracy it will routinely be defeated in very short order. This has proven to be the case over and over again.
And each time something new is learned, some new countermeasure is devised, and the system becomes that much harder to breach. Some day soon trains, planes, trucks, and busses will be controlled via the internet. Entire factories will be run automatically.

The shift from human-controlled to machine-controlled infrastructure is inevitable and the Only Way to ensure that this can be done free of meddling, is to expose the system to attack and then learn from it.

We saw how easy it is to screw up iranian centrifuges. Defense can only ever be depended upon if it has been proven under repeated attack by a determined foe. Obviously, the more valuable the prise the more determined the foe will be.
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2012
We saw how easy it is to screw up iranian centrifuges. Defense can only ever be depended upon if it has been proven under repeated attack by a determined foe. Obviously, the more valuable the prise the more determined the foe will be.

Yes because USB sticks are part of the internet...
The security was just hella crappy, and it ran a crappy OS.
Some day soon trains, planes, trucks, and busses will be controlled via the internet. Entire factories will be run automatically.

Do you know what the internet is?
You ever hear of game reviews and return policies? No matter what product one buys, this is the case, if the buyer does not compare and evaluate before hand.

Damn dude are you getting paid for this shit posting?
I geuss you arent very familiar with the gaming review scene.
And what return policy? Most games come with serials or some other goodies, once you open the plastic there is usually no return. But you can sell it a little bit cheaper to other people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2012
We saw how easy it is to screw up iranian centrifuges. Defense can only ever be depended upon if it has been proven under repeated attack by a determined foe. Obviously, the more valuable the prise the more determined the foe will be.
Yes because USB sticks are part of the internet...
The security was just hella crappy, and it ran a crappy OS.
Some day soon trains, planes, trucks, and busses will be controlled via the internet. Entire factories will be run automatically.
Do you know what the internet is?
Do you?? It is the BEGINNING of a digital infrastructure wherein every object of value will be monitored and tracked via embedded chips. Every person will have embedded electronics sending realtime telemetry on physiological and emotional status. Crime will be impossible.

You think this is about stealing movies? The internet is just the start of what will grow into a massive singularity of interconnectedness. And what you see is how it is being developed.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
It doesn't matter what mechanism you come up with to stop piracy it will routinely be defeated in very short order. This has proven to be the case over and over again.
And each time something new is learned, some new countermeasure is devised, and the system becomes that much harder to breach. Some day soon trains, planes, trucks, and busses will be controlled via the internet. Entire factories will be run automatically.

The shift from human-controlled to machine-controlled infrastructure is inevitable and the Only Way to ensure that this can be done free of meddling, is to expose the system to attack and then learn from it.


I'm not sure how this addresses my point, your desire for perfect security or perfect anti-piracy measures doesn't mean it will ever happen, or is even possible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2012
I'm not sure how this addresses my point
Well I was addressing MY point wasnt I?
doesn't mean it will ever happen, or is even possible.
It will happen again. And with every significant technological advance it MUST happen again.

Assault is inevitable. No matter what you do you cant anticipate and counter every possible attack a clever and committed enemy will think of. So the best way to accomodate it is to Plan and Initiate it yourself, by invitation or otherwise. In this way attack becomes a benefit rather than a danger.

The internet is going to become the nervous system of civilization. It will be as vital as our own backbone is. It must be evolved in exactly the same manner - through all possible punishment and insult until it becomes as reliable as it possibly can be.

Switzerland was continuously attacked by all of its neighbors in turn during the 100 yrs war. As europes strongbox its borders had to be proven defensible; and attacking it was the only way to do this.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
I don't think you are actually listening to me. I agree with you that security is important, but I am telling you that there is no fool proof security and with sufficient motivation any system you devise will be systematically defeated. It doesn't matter if you continue this cycle ad infinitum, there will never be a security system that cannot be defeated, there will never be a mechanism to prevent piracy that will not be defeated.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2012
I don't think you are actually listening to me. I agree with you that security is important, but I am telling you that there is no fool proof security and with sufficient motivation any system you devise will be systematically defeated. It doesn't matter if you continue this cycle ad infinitum, there will never be a security system that cannot be defeated, there will never be a mechanism to prevent piracy that will not be defeated.
And repeated assaults against a system which continues to improve itself as a result, will become harder and harder to breech. The most formidable defensive structure ever built - the cheops pyramid - was sacked in less than 100 years. No way to upgrade.

The egyptians however learned and switched to secrecy and deception in the valley of the kings. Tutankhamun (jesus?) - and perhaps nefertiti - survived intact. Until the present anyway. Which was probably good enough.

The internet must absolutely be good ENOUGH. Just like the military.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2012
Never mind about how easy something is to reproduce or distribute. That is irrelevent. The "cost of production" of intellectual property is in the knowledge gained through study or talent, and countless hours becoming proficient at a subject. Obviously wrt movies, millions of dollars go into producing them.
It is hilarious to read a conservative writing this! The value of labor is the essence of Karl Marx and communism. Noumenon the ferengi is advocating Marxism! Wasn't he advocating pure profit and free markets on page one? Which is it, ferengi?
You think this is about stealing movies? The internet is just the start of what will grow into a massive singularity of interconnectedness.
If everyone is a Borg drone then there will be no individual ownership. Piracy will be moot.
kochevnik
4 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2012
@Deathclock This is stupid. Both quality and quantity of all types of media will drop precipitously if profit incentive disappears. Do you understand that it costs tens of millions of dollars to make modern movies and games? No one is going to spend that much and then give it away for free.
You apparently know little about open source projects like FreeBSD and linux. There are hundreds of games alone in open source. Sourceforge.net hosts 324,000 open source programs. Virtualbox and Openoffice and KDE and Apache are top quality programs collaboratively written. The more eyeballs that review code, the higher the quality. That's almost impossible to replicate with paid employees, even for the scale of Micosoft. You really don't know what you're writing about.

Fame and connectivity are more powerful human motivators than profit.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Jan 19, 2012
@kochevnik

Where did you get that I advocate Marxism?! This is why I avoid discussions with you, you come up with utter non-sense like that, with no rational sense. I stated clearly in my posts above the difference between COSTS of production and VALUE of a product, and even referenced how the soviets thought value was in the labour which I said was wrong. You're either a troll, a liar, or can't read English .
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Jan 19, 2012
I smell Republican meddlers in this. Somehow, whenever they get a whiff of anything vibrant and free, they become sharks on the attack.... voices are stifled by fascistic governments and the liars of the Republican party, always crowing about lawlessness and permissiveness, who in private, wish they could control the populace the way the Red Chinese do - Telekinetic.


More proof that Telekinetic, like many of the "far let" that post on this site, don't know anything about what a republican or conservative IS apart from their made up caricatures; Many republicans are now bailing on the proposed bills (SOPA) seeing that it could lead to unintended consequences,.. while many dems including the DNC chair are still adamantly for the bill.

http://thehill.co...cy-bills

That last thing, I or any conservative republicans want is for the government controlling anything. Copyrights need protection, though.
Telekinetic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2012
The real reason these prostitutes are bailing on SOPA is because it's now clear to the PEOPLE that Congress can be bought when the entertainment industry waves 94 million dollars under its nose.
Keep your grimy 'Mitts' off of the Internet!
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2012
You apparently know little about open source projects like FreeBSD and linux. There are hundreds of games alone in open source. Sourceforge.net hosts 324,000 open source programs. Virtualbox and Openoffice and KDE and Apache are top quality programs collaboratively written. The more eyeballs that review code, the higher the quality. That's almost impossible to replicate with paid employees, even for the scale of Micosoft. You really don't know what you're writing about.

Fame and connectivity are more powerful human motivators than profit.


First, I am a software engineer. Second, I have applications hosted on sourceforge.

I will reiterate. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make modern video games and movies. Without the possibility for profit NO ONE will make them anymore. Quality and quantity will drop like a stone through air if producers cannot profit from their productions.
kaasinees
1.1 / 5 (29) Jan 19, 2012
First, I am a software engineer. Second, I have applications hosted on sourceforge.

SF sucks.

I will reiterate. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make modern video games and movies. Without the possibility for profit NO ONE will make them anymore. Quality and quantity will drop like a stone through air if producers cannot profit from their productions.

Lies.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2012
Oh look, a bunch of Linux fanboys who have no idea what modern video games are... have fun playing tux racer or whatever garbage you have.
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2012
Deathclock ad Noumenon seem to be up rating themselves and down rating others.. Pathetic.

Oh look, a bunch of Linux fanboys who have no idea what modern video games are... have fun playing tux racer or whatever garbage you have.

http://www.linuxgames.com/
I myself like playing xonotic now and then.
http://www.xonotic.org/
Not to forgot games like minecraft written in java run on linux.
And if you think its hard to port a game from windows to linux think again.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2012
Deathclock ad Noumenon seem to be up rating themselves and down rating others.. Pathetic.


I don't know what you are talking about but I haven't rated anyone here...

Oh look, a bunch of Linux fanboys who have no idea what modern video games are... have fun playing tux racer or whatever garbage you have.

http://www.linuxgames.com/
Not to forgot games like minecraft written in java run on linux.
And if you think its hard to port a game from windows to linux think again.


Skyrim, Battlefield 3, etc... do you even know what a modern video game is? Considering modern games use the Microsoft DirectX libraries almost exclusively then yes it is difficult to port a relevant modern game to Linux.
kaasinees
0.2 / 5 (23) Jan 19, 2012
I don't know what you are talking about but I haven't rated anyone here...

On your sockpuppets.
Skyrim, Battlefield 3, etc... do you even know what a modern video game is? Considering modern games use the Microsoft DirectX libraries almost exclusively then yes it is difficult to port a relevant modern game to Linux.

You can play skyrim on linux check out the link i gave you ;)
And no that is not the definition of a "modern videogame".
You are a troll, maybe a payed troll. But a "software engineer" that doesnt apreciate linux is no "software engineer", enjoy.
youtu.be/242CHuMMegc
youtu.be/A5lKcJYCKwo

Do i need to go on?

Oh and battlefield, cod etc all suck.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2012
"Can't play them on linux so they suck".

I assume "sock puppet" means AE? I have no other accounts on this website...

Regardless, you are missing the point entirely. Games like Skyrim and BF3 and any modern cross platform games costs MILLIONS, if not tens or even hundreds of millions, to produce. NO ONE will spend that much money making something without the ability to make an even greater profit from it.

You anti-profit anti-capitalism nutjobs need professional psychiatric help because you are living in a fairy tale world of your own creation where people are willing to spend vast quantities of their own money for no reward.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2012
As far as linux goes, you get what you pay for. I am an embedded firmware engineer, I write real time operating systems for embedded microprocessors such as the TI TMS320F2812 DSP.
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2012
"Can't play them on linux so they suck".

Oh but you can play battlefield and cod etc. on linux, use google dude you are hella annoying and stupid. And yes they still suck.
Regardless, you are missing the point entirely. Games like Skyrim and BF3 and any modern cross platform games

They arent cross platform they are programmed for windows/console. Yet they run on linux oh the magic ;). I dont buy it you are not a "software engineer".
costs MILLIONS

millions of particles of poop? Who really cares? Games are about fun.
NO ONE will spend that much money making something without the ability to make an even greater profit from it.

Yeah because everybody in the world will just copy the game right?
You anti-profit anti-capitalism nutjobs need professional psychiatric help ... where people are willing to spend vast quantities of their own money for no reward.

http://gamenacho....-profit/
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2012
Oh but you can play battlefield and cod etc. on linux, use google


I did, you have to jump through hoops and it runs like shit.

They arent cross platform


You're an idiot... PC, PS3, 360... that's what cross platform means.

I dont buy it you are not a "software engineer".


Here's a screenshot of my desktop right now asshole, want more?
http://img803.ima...orkr.png

costs MILLIONS

millions of particles of poop? Who really cares? Games are about fun.

Modern games that cost a fortune to make are very fun... the visuals, physics, voice acting, etc ARE important to the fun factor.

http://gamenacho.com/free-game-profit/


That's not free... that's "free"... a game that is crippled unless you pay for micro-transactions is not free.
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2012
I did, you have to jump through hoops and it runs like shit.

Because they have shitty computers? I run my windows games fine on linux, and i can always boot to windows if i have to.
PC, PS3, 360... that's what cross platform means.

The games arent programmed to be cross platform, they are ported which is a entirely different process.
Here's a screenshot of my desktop right now

Ah wow, assembly and c thats hard. and what the hell kind of 90's program are you using? I cant believe you talk about "modern games"
the visuals, physics, voice acting, etc

Physics doesnt require a fortune, visuals dont, voices dont. They choose to make it cost that much. You can pick up strangers on the street to do voice acting for free. Visuals are easy to program, and so is physics.
That's not free... that's "free"... a game that is crippled unless you pay for micro-transactions is not free.

Fair enough.

Dont have enough space to explain this all to your thick old head.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2012
Ah wow, assembly and c thats hard. and what the hell kind of 90's program are you using? I cant believe you talk about "modern games"


Do you have any idea what writing firmware for embedded processors is? The software I am using is a modern proprietary IDE by texas instruments for their line of microprocessors and microcontrollers. I write for the TMS320F2812 which is a digital signal processor. C and assembly are at the heart of EVERYTHING. Every piece of shit you write in visual basic gets compiled by a C-based compiler.

Physics doesnt require a fortune, visuals dont, voices dont. They choose to make it cost that much. You can pick up strangers on the street to do voice acting for free. Visuals are easy to program, and so is physics.


Now you're being stupid. Have you ever done 3D modelling or texture creation for a project as large as Skyrim? You aren't worth the time if you are going to be so ridiculous.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2012
But hey, if you prefer VB I do that too, but it is 100x easier...

http://img19.imag...ork2.png
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jan 19, 2012
Ah wow, assembly and c thats hard. and what the hell kind of 90's program are you using? I cant believe you talk about "modern games"


And this is why I keep a mental list of screen names that I try to avoid discussing anything with, because they will just say anything. Kaasinees made the list along with kochevnik and some others.

@Deathclock, welcome to physorg. The site is infested with far left anti-capitalistic, and even anti-American, trolls, so watch your step.
btb101
not rated yet Jan 19, 2012
america has become the new china with sopa. what gives them the right to police the internet? nothing. just as they have no right to hold americans without trial, access to lawyers or even to know why they were held in the first place. THAT act was signed by obama on new years eve.
i am so glad i am not an american.
my personal constitutional freedoms would have been sold from under me for a 1.2 trillion increase in allowable debt and a 20 billion reduction in government spending.
that is the true price of freedom.
land of the free should be called land of the slaves.
if the companies behind the act actually produced good work not the rubbish they put out. people would be less inclined to pirate.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (54) Jan 19, 2012
just as they have no right to hold americans without trial, access to lawyers or even to know why they were held in the first place. THAT act was signed by obama on new years eve.


I agree. It's fascinating how after the left tore Bush up for the pariot act, they are silent about this.

america has become the new china with sopa. what gives them the right to police the internet? nothing.

It's not like the Internet is located in the middle of the ocean. It's located on servers. If those servers are dealing in stolen property, they have every right to police them, given the entire point of police.
Deathclock
not rated yet Jan 19, 2012
Ah wow, assembly and c thats hard. and what the hell kind of 90's program are you using? I cant believe you talk about "modern games"


And this is why I keep a mental list of screen names that I try to avoid discussing anything with, because they will just say anything. Kaasinees made the list along with kochevnik and some others.

@Deathclock, welcome to physorg. The site is infested with far left anti-capitalistic, and even anti-American, trolls, so watch your step.


Heh, thanks!
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
The problem of these bills is not that they aim to fight against piracy, its how they do it.

Is there an US-based server that is dealing copyrighted material and does not respond to court demands? Fine, shut it down.

Is the server abroad? Too bad, ISP censorship is unnacceptable. Is the server just a service where other people upload copyrighted materials? Too bad, the server is not responsible for them. Do you want the servers or ISPs to have responsibility to filter uploaded copyrighted material? Too bad, nor ISP nor the server has no obligation to filter any material unless it is actually demanded by a court order, and the ISP cannot filter anything due to censorship being unacceptable.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.