February 2, 2012 - 4:13 pm
Stewart Baker writes at The Hollywood Reporter about Why the GOP Turned on Piracy. (via John Nolte)
Democrats are beholden to Hollywood, while Hollywood isn’t finished trying to make SOPA a reality. And if Nancy Pelosi really means it when she says that they are going to have to “get a compromise” on SOPA, you can be sure that what will be compromised will be Internet Freedom; and not Hollywood’s IP agenda.
For better or worse, if we want Internet Freedom, we must maintain a robust Republican presence on Capitol Hill. The SOPA war isn’t over. It’s just getting started.
Cross-posted at The Rhetorican.
Before 1965 or thereabouts, Americans got very little for nothing and now they are addicted to it.
Work 20 years in a Teamster Warehouse and gross 36 grand the rest of your life not working. This is small compared to many pensions. We got free music, books and movies on our computers, unemployment for months and months, food stamps and welfare, free photos and articles for bloggers who sell ad space by way of the internet.
But it isn’t free, it is a form of theft. Making it into a Constitutional issue is nonsense. Where does theft fit into the Constitution? The fact anti-SOPA proponents have rights and “rights” shows what this really is. I’d be on board if people said thievery is now a tidal wave on the net and something needs to be done but not this. Instead they leave out the first part and just say “not this.”
Saile,
In the small entertainment law practice that I have – and as a producer – I have to consider the impact of content theft almost daily. One of the reasons why I can do that is because there are already tough laws in place that forbid content theft. The Megaupload case couldn’t make that more evident. SOPA only seems to be about preventing content theft. What it really is about is control. Shutting websites summarily without due process is not a power our government should have. It probably wouldn’t even pass Supreme Court review if it ever came to that…
Then you must be well aware that there is little to no recourse for the average photographer to go after people who steal thousands of photos a year in using them for free. The expense and time considerations involved using dead-tree laws make this a free-use arena for thieves. No one is going to shut down the HuffPo or Daily Mail just cuz I say they used a photo and this ‘control’ issue amounts to little more than a conspiracy mentality as far as I am concerned.
If people are so against SOPA then find an alternate way for people to not be ripped off. The fact is that there is little regard being shown for this aspect because there is little interest in turning off the for-free faucet. Consumers of theft outnumber the victims by millions.
Between only one music downloader and youtube, you can build a music library of what amounts to live bootlegs and studio songs numbering in the thousands without paying a dime beyond a computer and internet connection. Cozen that without offering an alternative and yeah, you ARE going to be controlled.
The U.S. Copyright code provides that photos can be ‘Fair Used’ just like any other copyrighted work, Curt. Thus, not every instance of a photo being used by a website is necessarily theft – nor does the law grant you the right to be compensated for every use.
That doesn’t mean that copyrighted images aren’t being used without permission. They are – and I agree *that* is theft. In fact, meeting the legal requirements for fair using photos is often not easy. And suing foreigners who steal images isn’t easy either.
But SOPA isn’t tailored to bolster enforcement of your right to sue for compensation and damages for infringement of your intellectual property. It’s more designed to limit access to the web. And I believe that’s an overreach.
“Fair Use” in regards to photography is a false argument: people aren’t using a useless sliver or heavily watermarked version of a photo or a thumbnail version of the full photo which would be the proper analogy to showing bits of a song, story or movie. “Fair Use” is not what I am talking about as it rarely allows the FULL use of a photo.
They are lifting entire photos, sometimes directly from the innards of photo agencies and even sometimes re-posting photos to other agencies as their own. I am mostly talking about newspapers and websites using full blown photos and raking in ad revenue.
This control versus protection argument is similar to the anti-Zionist versus Jew-hater argument. If this is indeed about control then take away the smoke-screen of wholesale theft that SOPA is using to supposedly hide their “real” intentions. Artists need an efficient small-claims entity to swiftly deal with thieves. As is, merely presenting a photo anywhere on the net is an excuse for “fair use” which is in fact simply theft which is not punished. When it is punished it will stop.
Right now, musicians, filmmakers, photographers and writers are basically competing with free versions of their own work. Some people say give in to the reality of this new “business model.” Be clever and innovative and give enough away for free to sate thieves and be “cool” in their eyes and maybe they’ll then condescend to actually pay for something – hey, free stuff can now promote the non-free stuff.
I say stuff that. Ask yourself why the revenues of artists have plummeted? If I make a calendar and it is distributed in stores and then someone makes copies and sells it right next to mine for free but with ads they sold, that obviously won’t work for me and is obviously wrong.
The sole difference in that example is that it would be relatively easy to unmask the dead-tree thief while it is not easy to unmask and shut down the digital thief. Saying that a delivery system somehow alters the morality or copyright of a stolen work is silly – the real difference is that this delivery system as is enables easy and wholesale theft. If you’re worried about control offer an alternative that takes away a false excuse to invade Poland.
So…does this mean you support SOPA as it stands, or do you want enforcement of existing laws regarding intellectual property?
Beware the Trojan Horse.
If SOPA is in fact a furtive attempt to establish gov’t control for reasons other than rights then I am against it. Who would be in favor of that outside of a few ‘crats in gov’t?
People can bark about illegal downloads all they want, but the fact remains that people aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to pay for something they can get for free, especially if they can do so relatively risk-free.
It’s up to the entertainment industry to adapt and offer consumers services they ARE willing to pay for. For example, most people will gladly pay for streaming services that offer the content they want. It frees them from storing MP3s and video files on their hard drives or uploading them to cloud services.
Instead, the industry thinks it has a God-given right to make money the way it always has – in perpetuity, forever and ever, amen. In a free market, companies like that go out of business while other, more adaptable companies take their place. In our crony-capitalist system, on the other hand, they whine to the big government officials they bought and paid for to protect them from the big, bad market.
Another false argument that says that a new system that enables easy theft has some moral dimension in and of itself and is as natural as water simply because it is so easily available and that there is no solution. Then, when it is shown there is in fact a solution, the moral dimension is twisted to suit. If digital gives equals good then digital takes away is equally good. Tech is not a god-given right either.
Saying companies can either be robbed or go out of business is foolish; they can fight back which for some reason isn’t a “justified” alternative.”
Indeed.
I happened to be one of those people who do DL. I do try to find things available through local stores or online, but there are many things that are available that won’t be sold her in the U.S. for one reason or another (such as certain movies because some fool is jsut sitting on the liscencing rights for some reason).
I don’t have time for such idiocy. IF they want to market it and make a buck. I’ll buy it.
If not, I will use other means.
Modern movie and media need to get with the program. They are a dying model anyway
And if I catch you I’ll use legal means to pluck that money right back out of your pocket to the tune of 3 or 10 times the worth even if I have to create a new lock which is an idea you find indefensible. I’m sure a judge will mitigate the payout according to how hard you tried to find a bank that was open rather than closed.
If I want to sit on the rights of a work I own forever that is my business and not yours and you have no ethical or legal right to say a single thing about it. Create your own art and look at it as you please and give it to the world. Leave mine alone.
I certainly disagree with the rationale of “it’s ok to steal copyrighted content when stealing it is the only way to obtain it”. Such circular reasoning is a big copout. Studio and record label business models may be flawed, but that doesn’t justify theft. And not every author out there is part of such business models. Many musicians and photographers are hurt by copyright infringement in far more tangible ways than multi-million dollar studios, for example.
At the same, it’s true that the studios and labels have to deliver more value or price their product in relation to the value they offer. Redbox and Netflix wouldn’t be in business if people didn’t think movies are worth paying for. But if the studios want to stick with disc sales as a principal source of revenue, I think they might be fooling themselves.
Finally, non of the above has anything to do with shutting down access to websites because of their links or content as provided for by SOPA.
There is no such thing as a natural law copyright. It is a privilege which society extends to you and which it can ethically withdrawn simply by changing the law.
I am fully in agreement that if IP holders refuse to make their property available to the public, then before long the IP privileges should be extinguished and the IP enters the public domain.
You have no “right” to the IP, it is a privilege.
Nonsense. Natural law recognizes the right to property. And copyright is a collection of property rights of authors. If it is a privilege, it is one that is granted to authors so that they may derive a benefit from their creativity, which is only fair.
But copyright was never meant to be perpetual. And it is true that a lot of works which should be public domain right now are not so because of Congressional action.
“But it isn’t free, it is a form of theft.”
That is correct. The content providers are stealing the internet (actually WWW but most users are not aware of the difference) to use it to steal from the taxpayers.
The WWW only exists because tax payers paid for it. So anything on the WWW is public property.
‘Content Providers’ (yes, sneer quotes) are trying to cheat the tax payers out of yet more money. If ‘content providers’ want to sell their wares, let them pay for their own WWW.
Here is another clue. If the ‘content providers’ are upset, they should stop providing content. Then we will know if the content they claim to perovide is actually worth paying for. If it isn’t ( My guess) then ‘content providers’ need to go job hunting instead of trying to steal from the taxpayers.
Thieves are setting up sites and offering music for free and making money doing it. Meanwhile, the artist who made the music not only gets nothing but is competing against himself by way of a free product. In what world is that right? And your solution is that musicians should stop recording? How about sites that provide the content of other people’s work start creating content instead of just stealing it? Here’s another clue: every musician you listen to probably would hate you if they knew your stance. Enjoy that thought and the karma that goes with it with the headphones on.
The fact that John Fogerty was legally constrained from performing because he sounded too much like the lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival ought to be a pretty clear red flag that there is something seriously wrong with our intellectual property laws and possibly with the entire concept of intellectual property.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about: there’s nothing about it on Wiki unless you mean the “Run Through the Jungle” dust up which Fogerty won and which wasn’t about his voice. If Fogerty did the original under a kind of work-for-hire agreement or otherwise didn’t own the rights it was a legitimate lawsuit. It doesn’t matter who wrote the song if one signs away one’s rights. Nobody forced him to get involved in an industry where such things are normal and known.
Interestingly Wiki has it wrong about Fogerty performing CCR material: I was at Jazz Fest in New Orleans in, I think, ’97 and Fogerty did all the old CCR stuff and claimed he was using the original old amps for the first time. It was big time music. You have to see this guy live to understand what a straight-for-the-jugular simple yet unique artist he is. The vast majority of people in America never produce art where rights are an issue but instead consume art – why would they know or care about rights?
People have to go to live concerts and it doesn’t make them angry if a sound-alike, look-alike band is not right next door for 1/10 the price and it obviously shouldn’t be allowed. Why should people benefit from pure cloning or leeching? Produce if you want free material and listen to your own music, read books you wrote and watch films you made to your heart’s content. I will not complain.
Copyright is not diminished in relation to a work’s popularity but is necessary for that reason – people have this backwards because backwards is free – backwards is also theft. The more you want it the freer it should be – no, the more you want it the more reason to pay. Otherwise get out the paper and pencils.