

Remain Diligent: SOPA and PIPA Must Be Squashed, Not Changed - nextparadigms
http://www.fastcompany.com/1808216/remain-diligent-sopa-and-pipa-must-be-squashed-not-changed

======
luigi
The author never bothers to explain why SOPA and PIPA are still bad without
the DNS provision. Instead, he takes an unyielding position and uses
propagandist language to make his point.

It's good to see the EFF explain why the bills are still bad here (last
paragraph):

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/signs-progress-
interne...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/signs-progress-internet-
blacklist-bills-fight-continues)

~~~
throwaway64
The DNS provision has not even been removed, only delayed in implementation
until "more study is done on its effects", its a farce, we study the effects
of bills before they are passed, not after the fact, where they can implement
whatever they want with no recourse.

------
ck2
Stop calling it SOPA and PIPA and just call it what it's going to be really
abused for

The Great Firewall of America

It's not an exaggeration if it has mission creep like every other tool law
enforcement is given.

~~~
tobylane
True, but that would seem an overreaction to people who are only finding out
about it on the blackout day.

------
rmassie
The White House today responded to the two petitions related to SOPA and PIPA.

[https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/combating-o...](https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/combating-
online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet)

"the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound
legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal
tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders"

New legal tools aren't needed in the US. If you're going to stop international
piracy, you need to encourage other countries to pass DMCA style laws, not
anything more draconian like 3-strikes laws. The DMCA has allowed innovation
in technology to happen while still providing a method for take-down that
results in a judge seeing it if it is contested.

I understand they're trying to find middle ground, but there really is no
middle ground to be had. I also contest the idea that it's actually harming
jobs. During the economic downturn the media industries have been doing just
fine, much better than the rest of the economy. Combating piracy with SOPA and
PIPA style laws will not result in an increase in revenue and will almost
certainly result in a decrease. It shows a lack of understanding on the part
of the White House.

~~~
slurgfest
The US cannot force other countries to pass DMCA-style laws. This is not a
solution.

You have elided the parts of the White House response where they say not to
touch DNS, to use the law with foreign criminal activity rather than domestic
activity already covered under US law, and to have strong due process for
interventions with ad networks and payment processors.

With those restrictions we are talking about a very different kind of
legislation and the issue becomes not the means of enforcement but some kind
of principle that piracy should be allowed.

~~~
ThaddeusQuay2
"The US cannot force other countries to pass DMCA-style laws."

False.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/05/us-
pressure...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/05/us-pressured-
spain-online-piracy) (US pressured Spain to implement online piracy law,
leaked files show.)(US ambassador threatened Spain with 'retaliation actions'
if the country did not pass tough new SOPA-style Internet piracy
laws.)(2012-JAN-05)

------
city41
Why must they be squashed? I'm all for an open internet, freedom of speech and
our rights in general. But it still remains that piracy is absolutely rampant
on the internet. The other side is not going to back down and they will keep
fighting this, indefinitely, and with a very large budget to boot.

It seems to me finding a compromise we can live with is a more realistic
solution.

~~~
dillona
> But it still remains that piracy is absolutely rampant on the internet.

I don't understand why that is inherently a bad thing. It seems to me that it
just indicates the current business model is not working.

I pirate a fair amount of content, and to be honest I think I'm justified in
doing so. There is currently no legal way to watch television shows in high
quality without commercials on the night they come out. If everything was on
Netflix or Amazon Instant Video, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat, and I do pay
for a lot of shows.

But as it stands the studios want to cling on to their antiquated broadcast
model, and I don't think it is the government's job to protect that.

~~~
slurgfest
Suppose (for hypothetical example) that Warner contracts with its distributors
not to stream a "Batman" movie until it's been in theaters for a month.

That contract is not unlawful, nor is it immoral. It is not the government's
job to block such contracts by declaring it lawful for you to pirate new stuff
just because otherwise you would have to pay the theater or wait to see it.

Warner has rights to call the shots on how the "Batman" movie is distributed -
in that limited sense they "own" it.

This is the polar opposite of ridiculous "download a car" arguments. I
certainly think that public domain should kick in far earlier, that the media
industry isn't in real trouble, that RIAA's tactics have made it a sort of
copyright secret police against downloaders, etc. but you do not have a
special right to pirate the latest thing just because it isn't going to be
released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.

~~~
dillona
> you do not have a special right to pirate the latest thing just because it
> isn't going to be released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.

I am completely willing to pay a premium. There is currently no amount of
money I can pay to watch (for example) the new Mission Impossible at home
legally.

