Google to join Wednesday's anti-SOPA protest Google will join Wednesday's anti-SOPA and anti–PROTECT IP Act (aka PIPA) protest by noting its opposition to the bills on its home page. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to …
This kind of legislation will criminalise huge numbers of law abiding people and open them to legal abuse from a minority self-interest group.
What was civil law will become criminal offences.
Everyone who uses the web will be at risk of prosecution, children doing homework, grandparents surfing the web, workers in offices.
You, me and them over the road all at risk of being prosecuted in a foreign court for doing something that is not illegal in the UK.
Google has to take steps or MegaVideo will eat them!
More seriously, the distribution channel -or indeed the "property" at stake- is unimportant. The rules should be consistent. I can't get my neighbour thrown in jail just by sending a nasty letter suggesting that he might have stolen my lunch. In all modern judiciary systems (excluding the US, apparently) the burden of proof is for the accuser to deal with. I'm all for intellectual property protection (I make a living exclusively from my intellectual process; that should count as intellectuall property. Although for some reason involving me no having billions to spend on lobbying, it apparently doesn't). This SOPA thing is just ridiculous.
Google also operates the Android Market. The Android Market, the Kindle/Amazon market and iTunes in the long run are something which will make most of the piracy go away.
1. They allow the individual developer a distribution channel including all the financials associated with it.
2. They lock paid apps and app-wrapped content to a _UNIQUE_ user identity maintaining naturally both user rights (move from device to device, etc) as well as user contractual obligations (where and how you can access stuff).
3. They handle revocation, app and content killing as required by contract and do that once again as per "UNIQUE user"-supplier relationship.
They are exactly what RIAA/MPAA do not want to do. They do not want to sell to _YOU_ because this entails all of the responsibilities by contract law and other laws and regulations. They want to get money without going through all of that rigmarole and give nothing in return.
Unprecedented action. Let's hope those technically-incompetent ignoramuses that masquerade as representatives of the people (yes - I'm looking at you, Mr. Smith) take note that in future, they do NOT follow their own misguided agenda or any one else's, such as the entertainment industry
is the MPAA/RIAA membership. Nobody else. if this pass in any shape of form it will the the definitive proof that hollywood OWN the USA justice system.
The rest of the world should protest by declaring the MPAA/RIAA a terrorist group and issue international warrrants for the arrest of any of it's members.
This is so serious that it should result in a country wide revolt in the USA where everything that represent the MPAA/RIAA or it's members is DESTROYED.
This protest against the rights of creators simply serves as proof that website operators are fully aware of the importance of piracy and content-theft to the economy of the web.
I am sure that Jim Wales would *love* to be able to enrich his website by putting entire books of copyright-protected material on-line. And considering that of all the huge number of people who either are directly employed by, or contribute to, Wikipedia, he is the only one who gets paid, it is understandable that he feels so much solidarity with a movement to insure that content-creators get nothing for their work.
Really, it's easy to see why website operators are on one side, and the AFL-CIO is on the other.
Oh, and who remembers http://news.softpedia.com/news/Wikipedia-5000-Scandal-80372.shtml?
Really?????
So you believe creators have a right to have sanctions taken against another, who will be assumed _guilty_ without them even having to prove they _own_ the copyright?
You may well be right about Jim Wales, I'm sure he probably would love to put entire books on WikiPedia. It's not entirely relevant to the argument about whether SOPA/PIPA are good or bad though is it? I mean I personally would love to be rich, doesn't have much bearing on whether laws relating to theft are stringent enough though does it?
I make money from two main sources - bloody hard work and creativity. I maintain a day job and also take/sell photos. Yes I want to see my rights protected, I don't want people ripping off my work, but you know what? I'm not so arrogant as to think that my rights are any more than this - if people want to use my work, I should get paid. That does _NOT_ include most of the provisions made by SOPA. It certainly doesn't include the right to block DNS (albeit now dropped).
It really is this simple - if you can't make enough money to live on from a job, you need to find another (whether as a replacement job or a second job). That's as true for 'creative' people as it is for everyone else, whinging about creators 'rights' and trying to back them with draconian legislation just doesn't cut it.
Anyway;
Personally if I was google, I'd also tweak the search results page so every search was headed by "Did you mean 'why SOPA is dangerous'".
If I was a Government wanting to make some cash, I'd wait until SOPA passes and start offering good tax rates to 'Internet companies' (their term not mine) as the end result of SOPA may well be that for the US the WWW becomes a sort of national intranet when everyone else decides to route around them (especially as SOPA/PIPA aren't the only www related legislation that have been of concern in the US).
SOPA is against websites whose primary purpose is to enable the selling of pirated and counterfeit goods. As for the screed against creators rights go back and crawl back under your stone. wikipedia would be nothing if it wasn't for creators, neither would youtube, and neither would any of the search engins. All of it is pre-requisited on the work of creators, remove them and you have no more web.
I write to your boss*, saying:
"Turtle has infringed my copyright. Yours, Richard 12"
Your boss fires you. (Stops paying you, blocks you from the building)
He has no requirement to check that either I do actually own the copyright involved, or that you have actually infringed it.
The only possible way of getting your job back is for you to go to court and prove that you didn't infringe my copyright.
This may be rather difficult, given that proving a negative is damn near impossible, and of course you have no money on account of having no job.
Story ends.
SOPA and PIPA are designed to do exactly this to any online business.
Still like SOPA and PIPA?
That is why it is a piece of **** legislation that could only be drafted by somebody more corrupt then anybody you could possibly think of.
Protecting the rights of content creators is important, but SOPA and PIPA do not do this.
- It's important to remember that the RIAA and MPAA have no interest whatsoever in creators' rights - their interest is exclusively in record and film distribution company profits. Look at the lists of members, that's who they are lobbying on behalf of.
*Technically this would really be your bank and your office building management companies, but that's probably stretching the metaphor a bit far.
worship and adulate "intellectual property" so much, I expect you to, for the next 120 years:
1. Pay the plumber who installed your toilet every time you use it;
2. Pay the electrician who installed the light switches in you home every time you turn them on;
3. Pay the manufacturer of your car every time you drive it;
4. Pay the architect of your house every time you cross the front door.
I could go on, but I think your 2-cell brain should get the picture. FOADIAF.
... I should spend a year writing a piece of software and sell it for fifty grand to one person. Or I suppose I could sell it for £50 to one person, and eat sawdust and live in a cardboard box.
Which pricing model would you like the author of your favourite train sim to choose? Would you pay him fifty grand for it? Perhaps he should have written it for free in between plumbing gigs ...
What's your brain cell count these days?
The key problem of the MAFIAA is that it continuously refuses to _SELL_ _TO_ _CUSTOMERS_.
Coming back to your example. If I want, I can (and there is more than enough technical means out there) to:
1. Sell my software for 50 quid (or even for 5) and uniquely identify this clone of the software as sold to user A.
2. Identify any "shared" or "leaked" software from user A and sue user A as per current legislation. There is _MORE_ _THAN_ _ENOUGH_ laws and treaties out there to do that. No need to invent any new legislation.
3. I would not even bother with anti-copying provisions. Identifying who leaked it enough to sustain most forms of business model.
4. In a connected world you can make 99% of that fully automated and transparent and there is nothing wrong with that.
That is the problem of the MAFIAA and their BSA bretheren. They do not want to sell to an individually identified customer because this entails the responsibility to that person as a customer instead of treating him the way a racket mob treats someone being shaken for money. They do not wan the customer to have rights (as customary and as specified by law). They want them to have only obligations and those obligations enforced by the state without giving anything in return.
Its a matter of moments to anonymize tagged software. I recall doing that on several bits of software back in the 1980s just as an experiment.
But even if the software isn't anonymized and you can tell who bought the leaked copy, that doesn't help if the leaker is in Russia, China, or some other gawd forsaken hell hole. Or indeed if you've sold a copy to some school where a freetarding thief as got their hands on the install disc.
"The key problem of the MAFIAA"
This is in reply to two posts that don't mention the "MAFIAA" ...
"Identify any 'shared' or 'leaked' software from user A"
Which sounds like some sort of intellectual property to me. If I don't own something, how can someone be said to have illegitimately shared or leaked it? You seem to have assumed that because I'm vaguely in favour of authors (of any sort) being paid per copy of created work, not per act of creation, that I'm some sort of "MAFIAA" goon. Perhaps yourself, or any of the eleven cluetards who upvoted your little speech, can riddle me why.
"sue user A as per current legislation. There is _MORE_ _THAN_ _ENOUGH_ laws and treaties out there to do that. No need to invent any new legislation."
Let's please not continue with this stupid fucking idea that regulation by lawsuit is the basis of a happy (or even barely functioning) society. And who said anything about inventing new legislation? Who the fuck are you shouting at? Myself or Steven Roper?
"Identifying who leaked it enough to sustain most forms of business model."
It sustains the lawyers' business model.
It's just another example of increased control over the Internet and a claw back of power over the Internet by the US. This is deeply unfair and nobody wants to have to fly over to the USA to defend themselves of wrong doing.
You can say there's nothing wrong with this act, but the DMCA has been abused and this law would get abused and used for purposes other than its intended use. One company would claim copyright infringement or patent infringement on a competitor shutting down their business until they could defend their case.
The MPAA 's CEO (who is a former US Senator - quelle surprise!) has condemned people choosing to black out their web sites as "an abuse of power"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57360499-52/mpaa-blasts-dangerous-anti-sopa-blackouts-as-stunts/
This coming from one of the biggest abusers of power on the planet; an organisation that believes making films gives them the right to extradite under terrorism agreements, create and impose laws world-wide regardless of legal jurisdiction, and sanction / punish based on accusation alone. If ever there was an abuser of power, it is them.
How did the MPAA (and RIAA) get to the point where swathes of people and companies across the World have to take action just in order to keep these two organisations in check? Are films and music really THAT important that any course of action (no matter how draconian or destructive) is justified in order to preserve their business models?
And who does the MPAA think it is to tell people that they cannot choose to blackout their own web sites? What the fuck has it got to do with the MPAA? It's up to the individual web site owner (and possibly also the users of the web site) but as far as the MPAA goes, they should STFU because it's none of their damned business!
Here is a list of sites currently abusing power ... er, I mean taking part in the blackout.
http://www.sopastrike.com/
Cnet is in an interesting position to be commenting on SOPA. Their parent company CBS support the bill (as you would expect for a media giant). At the same time, Cnet has distributed over 150 million copies of torrent and other file sharing software, they have a whole section for it in the Downloads tab.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
" there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the internet"
How about by enacting a law that forces ad brokers to block advertising (and therefore revenue streams) on sites that have been PROVED in a US court of law to host illegal content? Maybe even giving infringing sites a leeway of X strikes before they're out to account for the massive volumes of pirated stuff?
The reality is that Google will be against ANY form of action against sites hosting illegal content because (a) searches for such sites drive a lot of traffic to Google's search engine and (b) these sites display a LOT of ads that are brokered by Google. The big G is making bucketloads of money from other people's piracy.
And Hey! Copyright holder Lobbyists! Quit acting the victims here, because some of this mess is of your own creation. You want to block piracy? Cool, I'll support that, if in return you (a) put in place a licensing mechanism where if I buy a film / album etc I have FULL rights to copy that as many times I want onto and convert that between any format I want and to play on any device I own so long as it's for reasonable personal / family / friends use. Stop treating your legitimate customers as criminals. and (b) stop lobbying to extend copyright again and again ad infinitum. You get 20 years, 25 years tops, after that it's public domain. That's plenty of time to monetise your creativity, and you can't rest on your laurels and live forever off the rent of one big hit.
"You want to block piracy? Cool, I'll support that, if in return you (a) put in place a licensing mechanism where if I buy a film / album etc I have FULL rights to copy that as many times I want onto and convert that between any format I want and to play on any device I own so long as it's for reasonable personal / family / friends use."
One word: Ultraviolet. OK, doesn't apply to music, but it may answer some of your gripes.
Yes I know about Ultraviolet. If implemented as specified will be great, I alrady commented to that effect on the Reg article on UV.
But will copyright holders be willing to reduce copyright terms from the current.... what.... 70 years?? in exchange for laws that properly work against online piracy?
the only problem with many adverts, is that lazy webdevs, whatever, only use one server, that other dubious websites also use!!
If you use Fanboys adblock on FF, you will know they have an 'ad preference' thing, where **good** ads can be let through... :) :)
- the definition is NO flashing, moving, or sound... at least in my book! :P
Strikes me as being a bit lazy on the technical side. I checked it this morning and it seems to provide your article as normal and then slap the blackout notice over it a split second later.
I can't be arsed checking but I imagine an extension like AdBlock or NoScript could stop the notice from displaying and reveal the article in full after a little tinkering. In fact there could be users who haven't even noticed that there's a blackout on the go.
Correct - one new AdBlock rule to restore normal Wikipedia service:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BannerLoader&banner=blackout&campaign=English+Wikipedia+Blackout*
But then the blackout itself isn't really the point, it's the drawing people's attention to it that counts. If you're seeking out AdBlock rules then you already know the score.
thedailywtf, on the other hand, are in full shutdown mode :(
The only proper way to stop piracy is to price software at a *worthwhile* price, or even a shareware model.. :)
and selling hopeless software at an inflated price does not help!!! I have seen once good software(I mean graphics & sound, NOT 'net.. ) taken over by another company, and basically ruined by leaving out the best features!!!
(to say nothing about turning it into a slow memory hog...)
If you can successively **undercut** the pirates price for full quality stuff, you will drive them out of business!!
"If you can successively **undercut** the pirates price for full quality stuff, you will drive them out of business!!"
While I would agree that pirates who steal material for the sole purpose of selling it themselves are pretty much scumbags, how do you expect honest creators to undercut such pirates? Almost by definition pirates have at the very least significantly lower (if not zero) costs because they didn't pay to create the content they are selling.
Why hasn't Facebook joined the blackout. I know SOPA only targets foreign sites - but that's for now, once entrenched and mission creep gets going, they will be found culpable of allowing users to share links to infringing copyright (ie youtube - assuming youtube hasn't been shut down).
Or is Facebook going to start disallowing links. Point of fact, the post SOPA internet will have to work without links, since that link you innocently put to show lolcat #26413 might have a link that links to a link with infringing copyright, making all those websites guilty of encouraging infringement.
Then Hollywood wins and the consumer loses (and those who create will be no better off thanks to Hollywood's well known creative accounting that shows nothing makes a profit ever).
SOPA and PIPA aren't anti piracy, they're pro control.
well it seems the 'blackout' only works in firefox!!!!!!! :) :)
- nah, I'm not using crappy exploder, or even the new, 'old-addon incapable' version higher than FF4... I can give you a list of my addons, if you want to tell me if they ALL work in FF10... only then will I be confident enough!
I am mostly using opera, due to its ease of use - EVERY single element of this can be customized, using only a text editor, and paintshop.. :)
when FF does ALL it does, I may switch totally.. meanwhile I only use FF for the problems opera has.. like hating being criticized(banning forum users for it!), behaving a bit like Steve Jobs(without the money!), removing well-loved features, and not doing fancy scripts like FF has always done... >:(
thats why its at the bottom... :p
Obama now says that he will not support the SOPA law. But the us government has forced minor governments across the globe to create similar laws.
For example the leaked cables clearly show that the spanish SINDE law is a clone of SOPA.. Its goes against our constitution, but just recently went "online".
These laws will put a brake to piracy, they will work. But the damage they are creating is much greater than the good they will do. The lawmakers and proponents know this, and the goal of these laws has nothing to do with piracy, they are about censorship and interest group control of information and news.
Why? Because the first or second time they get used they'll get so much publicity that the politicians will end up leaping over each other to condemn the censorship laws and repeal them.
Also, they are in clear conflict with ECHR rules, so EU countries enacting them will end up in Brussels getting yet more fines.
- The DEA in the UK (also known as Mandybill as he's the one that was given the fun cruise then sponsored it and ensured it got put through in washup) is already being slowly dismantled, though I'm still pissed off at the Tories for not opposing it in the first place.
I used to think the USA was a democracy... now i realize its just a corporation headed by the MPAA, RIAA & Big OIL, first they will block, then they will extradite, how long until they start to invade countries to protect their interests.. oh wait they already do for OIL... guess its not long then!
If Google did block advertising (and therefore revenue streams) on sites that had been shown to host illegal content then their share price and revenues would fall dramatically. Hell, they'd be forced to shutdown Youtube which must be made up of 99+% illegally hosted copyrighted material.
This is very definitely a case of pot-kettle-black.
don't these people read the news about what happens to people that try and fuck with the internet... The internet is a harsh world with it's own bitter brand of brutal justice.
If the good clean people of the web are unable to deter these fools from this course they've set then it will be up to the grays and the blacks to punish their stupidity.
It is not us who should fear them switching out internet off... it is them who should fear us turning theirs off.
IDEAS ARE BULLETPROOF
"Other sites that have announced plans to go dark in protest include the Internet Archive, the Tor Project, openSUSE, XDA Developers, the Center for Democracy & Technology, Greenpeace International, and many more."
Do any of those NOT receive funding from Google?
Just wonderin' :-)
If you only use FF, download 'yesscript' -
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/yesscript
its a very simple addon, that will stop scripts only on sites you tell it..
NOW, if these 'so-called' experts will do it **properly** and **close down or lock** the sites as a protest, that would be MUCH more effective!!!
Not to actually fully shut down.
An error code won't explain to the masses why you're going offline - it will just bounce people away without informing them and they will be annoyed with the website itself for not working.
A big banner saying "If X, then we're gone. Please pressure your representatives against X.", will let everybody who visits know what you are protesting against and how they can help if they want to.
A link to the normal site content is perfectly fine and sensible - once informed, people can continue on with whatever they wanted to use the site for, and they'll be annoyed at the "X".
Only thing is, this SOPA/PIPA won't be going away permanently, so we'll have to expect a repeat of this blackout later once the RIAA and MPAA have paid off another few congresscritters.
- That said, they'll be a bit more wary now. Some of them are going to lose their seats over this fiasco.
SOPA makes me sick...I buy my music on Amazon... cant watch DVDs on my Chinese laptop for the last 3 years... SO I DONT... the MPAA and the RIAA can eat their stuff... if USA congress is dumb enough to mess up the interweb- I will simply move my web activities Offshore where the URL converter isnt corrupted... WHAT A COMPLETE AND UTTER WASTE OF RESOURCES...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
