tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3001434439078518468.post5777903275419202718..comments2024-01-08T13:43:58.220-05:00Comments on Brillig: Pirates!The Brillig Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07886394602447693115noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3001434439078518468.post-88592550549626262092012-01-26T12:39:03.958-05:002012-01-26T12:39:03.958-05:00The big issue with SOPA/PIPA isn't protecting ...The big issue with SOPA/PIPA isn't protecting copyrighted materials, the issue is how they would stop people from pirating such materials.<br /><br />SOPA was particularly dangerous because it contained a clause which allowed a website to be shut-down *without due process* because an allegation had been made regarding the content on that website.<br /><br />You have a blog. Imagine if someone linked to some sort of trademarked material. A picture, a clip, anything. Would a random person's action on your blog warrant all of blogger.com to be taken down just to prevent some fraction of piracy? <br /><br />Sure, piracy is illegal. But a government limiting its citizenry's access to the internet is downright evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3001434439078518468.post-21590955120298389882012-01-19T10:38:25.815-05:002012-01-19T10:38:25.815-05:00As someone whose work has been stolen repeatedly, ...As someone whose work has been stolen repeatedly, I'm sick of the conflict over SOPA being presented as "big corporations and the government" against the poor little individual internet user.<br /><br />Because theft is not free speech. Publishing copyrighted work illegally is not free speech. It is theft from every one of the thousands and thousands of individual writers and artists whose work is illegally posted and downloaded every day.<br /><br />Yeah, I know, some of you will say "But I first found your work in an illegal download." Maybe so. And maybe you could have found it by walking into a library or a bookstore or wandering around the vasty halls of Amazon.com. That's where most of my readership that actually contributes to my bread and butter finds stuff.<br /><br />The big corporations that oppose SOPA do so because they're involved in internet piracy. Profiting, if indirectly, from internet piracy. Google violated the copyrights of thousands of writers in its highly illegal digitization project: direct theft. Others, like eBay, are merely fences--quite happy to run a store in which stolen material is sold alongside legitimate, assisting the thieves. It's too big a burden to check that material uploaded is not infringing copyright? Cuts into the profit margin? Tough. Pawn stores have made the same argument about handling stolen hard merchandise...and lost.<br /><br />I don't like all the provisions of SOPA; some of them seem directed far beyond the control of piracy. But internet piracy has made it harder for individual artists and writers to make a living, even as it has offered a wider market that should have helped them. At the very least, all sites should provide a simple, one-step way for copyright owners to report and have taken down stolen material. (A large button that says "Report Copyright Violation" would be a start.) Copyright owners should be able to have all their works removed from a site with one request (rather than filing separate notices for each: torrent sites may have dozens of books by one author.) <br /><br />If internet users had not jumped so eagerly on the bandwagon of copyright violation, we wouldn't be facing anything as draconian as SOPA. So: freedom of speech, yes. Freedom to steal others' work, no.EMoonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3001434439078518468.post-36802254466795232092012-01-19T10:27:08.966-05:002012-01-19T10:27:08.966-05:00This may not be popular, or even possible -- it...This may not be popular, or even possible -- it's certainly near the pinnacle of idealism: if there is a demand, there will always be a supply. For every drug bust, thousands more sales go on; for every kingpin toppled, another rises, or the market load shifts to the guys that survived. As long as people want to buy cheap, pirated material, pirates will find a way to do it. What's the operative phrase there? As long as "people want to buy cheap, pirated material."<br /><br />This is my personal little crusade (also on my blog theitinerantd.blogspot.com): that we have gotten too used to having everything we want right now. If we can't afford it, we put it on credit or find it as cheap as we can. Take the extra week, save the extra $10, go to a brick-and-mortar store -- or get the items sold directly by Amazon or other online music retailer, and not third parties -- and buy the legit item. Add the 10 to 12 songs on the album to your library of 10,000 and you'll forget about it in a couple months. If that seems disagreeable, don't get it at all. You've lived without that particular album by that particular artist for how long now? All your life until it was released?<br /><br />There's no excuse to need to buy a book or an album for any cheaper than it already is. It's ridiculous. And that, too, will stop pirates -- and far better than any legislation the American government can come up with.<br /><br />Maybe that's just me.Daniel Dydekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04399918301512480077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3001434439078518468.post-79375589295521968722012-01-19T00:54:36.090-05:002012-01-19T00:54:36.090-05:00In theory, I agree with your reasoning behind your...In theory, I agree with your reasoning behind your support of it. In theory, it might be a good idea. In application, however, it may very well fail miserably.<br /><br />Because it won't take out those doing the pirating. They'll find ways around it. These people are cunning. I have been friends with a person who shall not be named who has spent a long time studying, researching, and coming up with ways to stop pirates. Pirates are flexible. They change every time a change is made to stop them.<br /><br />What this set of laws will do is remove Amazon out of the game. It _will_ remove ebay from the game. It will cut off sites that support creative writing, because some of their authors might write fanfiction. It will cut off writing critique workshops because the burden of proof will fall on the sites to ensure every user is uploading original content. <br /><br />Amazon has many users who upload copyrighted material and claim it as their own. And Amazon currently fails to catch it. It is noted by people who buy the books and have to report the infringement. Amazon would be firewalled due to these policies.<br /><br />Sites that link to amazon will then be hit with this, because amazon sells pirated content.<br /><br />B&N has had this happen as well.<br /><br />With so many sales of books digital, this is going to end up hurting everyone in publishing.<br /><br />The idea that copyright needs to be protect is a solid, sound one. It is _important_ to guard our creative rights. But how many people at Amazon and other companies will lose their jobs when these sites are effectively shut down because they've lost millions of customers due to an overzealous firewall?<br /><br /><b>IF</b> they could get away finding a way to implement a method that hit the pirating parties where it hurt (their wallets) it might not be so attractive to pirate books, movies, and music.<br /><br />But censorship due to an overzealous law isn't the way to combat piracy, in my opinion.<br /><br />If you want to stop piracy, start by fining the companies that have sales of pirated materials on their site, per instance of sale. Reward companies that have low or no pirated sales on their sites with rewards. Create jobs for people by giving companies a good reason to check content that is being sold. Turn something negative into something positive.<br /><br />Perhaps an ideal way of thinking, but I don't think firewalling will solve the problem. The pirates will just move to other, equally profitable markets with the same pirated goods.<br /><br />Just my 20 or so cents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com