For the first time, I've agreed with every word TC has said in a post.

Mostly, though i had to unmute him to see.

Still i ask the question, why should an entire industry - of internet service providers - profit from the transfer of copyrighted information, with nothing going to the fopyright holders?

I agree they shouldn't, but ISPs provide access, nothing more. The access they provide is useful for much more than just pirated material. If you refer to other services like filesharing services, they have more uses than pirated material as well. And SOPA and PIPA go to far in allowing the government to shutdown access to a service without trial or warrant for a court of law. Basically, they give the RIAA and MPAA carte blanche to use the government anytime they want to shut down any competitor, even legitimate ones, without recourse or penalty.

ISPs profit no more than copy machine providers profit when someone copies a book, photograph, etc. and passes it along to a friend. Should the government be able to shut down Kodak, Minolta, Fuji, Xerox or any other copier maker if someone copies a book, article etc. without copyright permission? Punish the person breaking the law and yes, corporations are people in the eyes of the law.

so a file-sharing site like mega-upload is just allowing people share their own files, and didn't do anything wrong?

@orath

Why should telecom companies profit from a transfer of copyrighted information over the phone?

Why should parcel services profit from a transfer of copyrighted information over land, air, and sea?

They are providing an infrastructure without which communication would be impossible.

Mega upload should walk away from this clean. They did nothing wrong. They do not condone copyright violation and provide a legitimate service. If others use that service for nefarious purposes, pursue the criminals. But punishing the service would be like suing handgun manufacturers because handgunsvare one of the leading weapons used in the commission of violent crimes in the US.

'Why should parcel services profit from a transfer of copyrighted information over land, air, and sea?'

why should they? They are providing a service of distribution, and it is this, not the copying, which is at issue - they do make a profit because the more use of their service they more they are paid. Thus it is in their interest to provide reasons for greater use (or growth)

The comparison is a bit messy, because traditional distribution does not work the way internet services do - when is the copying happening? well it happen on my own computer when it read a bit of data and places it in ram... but the complete object is not copied until it is received by another computer and placed on their hdd/disk and reassembled - with the distribution network here, inbetween, part of that copying process.

Then again, i suppose you can't sue whoever generated your electricity for how the user used that service.

@abge thats from the pirate bays press release on the issue not idealistic propaganda. the fact is there is no solution because there is no problem. this like many other bills are clearly unconstitutional and that is precisely why it is going through so many revisions to get pushed through. the solution is very simple keep things as they are. sure all the things that get pirated are going to take a loss for a bit, but eventually they will upgrade their own technology and become "unpirateable" again kind of like blockbuster had to upgrade to keep their movies from being copied. its just pure laziness and greed from the entertainment industry

What loss? are people not spending their money somewhere?

As far as i understand it, when you look* at the film&music industry, profits have been falling, however it has been inline with increase in spending on games. I think that this is probably a much bigger impact on the film&music industries.

*how do you look at this? i don't know where to get good figures.

The thing with movie and music piracy is that both formal and informal surveys show the real bulk of the piracy is done by folks who wouldn't have bought the product anyhow outside ofbthe Chinese blackmarket and that market isn't digital but is about counterfeit physical media.

Found this online.

To understand more clearly what SOPA does and the range of consequences, it's helpful to use an analogy from the physical world where we all have many years of experience.
Assume there's a corner store in your neighborhood that rents movies. But the movie industry believes that some or even all of the videos in that store are unauthorized copies, so that they're not being paid when people watch their movies. What should be done?

SOPA/PIPA don't aim at the people trying to get to the store. SOPA/ PIPA don't penalize or regulate the store itself. SOPA and PIPA penalize us if we don't block the people trying to get to the store. [Bold mine.]

The solution under the proposed bills is to make it as difficult as possible to find or interact with the store. Maps showing the location of the store must be changed to hide it. The road to the store must be blocked off so that it's difficult to physically get to there. Directory services must unlist the store's phone number and address. Credit card companies would have to cease providing services to the store. Local newspapers would no longer be allowed to place ads for the video store. And to make sure it all happens, any person or organization who doesn't do this is subject to penalties. Even publishing a newsletter that tells people where the store is would be prohibited by this legislation.

This is what SOPA and PIPA would impose in the online world. It's very different than targeting the owner of the video store directly. The obligations to make websites hard to find apply to all citizens and businesses. Each one of us is subject to punishment and fines if we don't follow these prohibitions.

Well, imo the media bosses don't know shit about the internet. They think censoring it will fix all their problems, when it won't.

Louis CK recently sold one of his stand-up routines that he spent his own money recording and producing on his website. He sold each copy for $5, had zero copy protection, and was not backed by any big companies. He released it as a simple movie file download fully knowing people could burn it to DVD’s, give copies to their friends, you name it. And you know what? He made a shit-ton of money, over a million dollars. I’m not sure if he pocketed more cash than he would have by selling it to a television company, but as Louis puts it:One million dollars. That’s a lot of money. Really too much money.

Gobbledydook, ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1,000,000,000,000.

You would be surprised who the executives are in the movie studios. I've met many and wouldn't hire some to be an office manager at my own company. How they reached positions of power and importance in the studios is a condemnation of the broken business model in Hollywood.

@TC

That was a very coherent analogy.


@orath

I still don't understand your point. Laying down cable costs money. Repairing cable costs money. Routing packets costs money. Why would anyone invest that type of money if they aren't going to make it back. I really don't understand what your problem with the ISPs is.

@Bite

Clearly there is a problem, because Congress is wasting their and our time on stupid bills like SOPA/PIPA. Maybe piracy isn't an issue, but the appearance of piracy certainly is and your (uncited) grandiose statements will do nothing to combat that.