# a thank you letter to Canon Rumors



## kubelik (Jan 18, 2012)

Dear All,

I wanted to thank Craig and the webmasters for posting the video that was up earlier and the link to anti-SOPA/PIPA petitions. it's a bigger deal than a lot of people realize, and, if passed, will impact many more people than what most realize. I understand it's a U.S. issue and that many of the users here are from around the world, but it's an issue that could just as easily find its way to Canada, the EU, or anywhere else in the world (for that matter, it's an issue that is already a major problem in Asia). 

I also understand that this isn't a political site, but I don't believe the SOPA/PIPA issue is a political one either; if anything, it is indicative of politicians in general not having sufficient technical understanding to properly address what are dicey real-world issues that require significant technical knowledge to properly understand the myriad consequences that several lines of legislation can have. 

I hope plenty of others from this site will go out in protest of this over-reaching and poorly written piece of top-down legislation. I hope even more however, that we all realize that the world has become an incredibly complex and specialized place, and that it is through the continued sharing of knowledge that the global community as a whole can come to the right decisions. thank you to everyone who contributes their knowledge to these forums (and to those who contribute tasty info to Craig), and please remember to share your varied expertise elsewhere as well as here!

Sincerely,

John


----------



## bvukich (Jan 18, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Dear All,
> 
> I wanted to thank Craig and the webmasters for posting the video that was up earlier and the link to anti-SOPA/PIPA petitions. it's a bigger deal than a lot of people realize, and, if passed, will impact many more people than what most realize. I understand it's a U.S. issue and that many of the users here are from around the world, but it's an issue that could just as easily find its way to Canada, the EU, or anywhere else in the world (for that matter, it's an issue that is already a major problem in Asia).
> 
> ...



x1000

I didn't know it was coming, and I got a gigantic smile last night when I saw it.


----------



## dstppy (Jan 18, 2012)

bvukich said:


> I didn't know it was coming, and I got a gigantic smile last night when I saw it.



I sure as heck didn't. So many sites did this today I *actually got work done*.

Dagnabbit!


----------



## 92101media (Jan 18, 2012)

Well put, John.

For those who are wondering what SOPA is about, here is a brief summary:

If passed, SOPA would:
- stifle innovation
- undermine cybersecurity
- give the US government the right to unilaterally censor foreign websites (from US viewers)
- give copyright holders the right to issue economic takedowns and bring lawsuits against website owners and operators, if those websites have features that make it possible to post infringing content (note: a feature as simple as allowing an open comment box could be sufficient to qualify a website for a copyright infringement lawsuit) 
- make it a felony offense to post a copyrighted song or video
- still be ineffective at achieving its goal as it's easy to bypass using direct IP addresses instead of DNS

So, all in all, it would be largely ineffective at achieving its goal, while adding a whole host of troubling implications.

This article is a great read on some of the technical details of SOPA for those interested:

http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 18, 2012)

+1 John! considering the potential consequences, it is very concerning...


----------



## dld542004 (Jan 18, 2012)

Who cares!


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 18, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Dear All,
> 
> I wanted to thank Craig and the webmasters for posting the video that was up earlier and the link to anti-SOPA/PIPA petitions. it's a bigger deal than a lot of people realize, and, if passed, will impact many more people than what most realize. I understand it's a U.S. issue and that many of the users here are from around the world, but it's an issue that could just as easily find its way to Canada, the EU, or anywhere else in the world (for that matter, it's an issue that is already a major problem in Asia).
> 
> ...



Amen!


----------



## bvukich (Jan 18, 2012)

dld542004 said:


> Who cares!



Anyone that uses the internet should!


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 18, 2012)

For everybody that are using Flickr, there is an option to block all your photographs for the day, or any chosen photographs of anybody else... Spend few minutes there and do the right thing... 
z.


----------



## cezargalang (Jan 18, 2012)

bvukich said:


> dld542004 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares!
> ...



+1

It's a very important medium for ideas, mostly everything else too. ;D


----------



## bvukich (Jan 18, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> For everybody that are using Flickr, there is an option to block all your photographs for the day, or any chosen photographs of anybody else... Spend few minutes there and do the right thing...
> z.



I wish I had a Flickr account, just so I could block it out for the day


----------



## bvukich (Jan 18, 2012)

dstppy said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know it was coming, and I got a gigantic smile last night when I saw it.
> ...



I knew about the blackout as a whole, but I was pleasantly surprised to find CR participating.


----------



## sanyasi (Jan 18, 2012)

Much of what is written about SOPA speaks in platitudes about free speech and an open Internet. We all face a serious problem, particularly people who create content for a living. 

This problem has recently been well documented by Robert Levine in his book _Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business_. The title is provocative, but Levine systematically documents how piracy has damaged the music, movie, television, newspaper, and now the book businesses. In my own research, I have come across stories from countless photographers about how their works have been pirated.

Levine looks at cost structures, employment trends, and usage to make his case. He shows how both the transmission and hardware companies have used piracy to build their businesses, knowing that much of what they are transmitting and putting in the hands of information consumers is pirated. They then use the leverage they have obtained by gathering eyeballs to negotiate what have often proved to be unfavorable arrangements with content providers.

Levine also documents how the transmission and hardware companies have funded nonprofit organizations to promote the notion that information should be free and the Internet open. These companies have manufactured populace sentiment to further their own profit-making agendas. They have a right to do that, but there is another side to the story--the rights of creative people to earn a living.

If Levine's predictions are correct, we are on the cusp of learning what "Information Must Be Free" leads to: Less quality information. In one of many examples, Levine points to Spain as providing creative people with the fewest protections. He demonstrates the devastating impact that a failure to regulate the Internet has had on the Spanish music industry. Just yesterday, world--renowed Spanish author Lucia Etxebarria announced that she would cease writing novels because illegal downloading of e-books made it impossible for her to earn a living. 

Creative people have a right to be paid fairly for and control the distribution of their work. That is true regardless of whether the creative person is a lone photographer or a large media company. The Internet is now well-established. It is time to end the lawlessness and strike an appropriate balance between free speech and property rights.

As much as I would like all my music, books, newspapers, and movies to be free, I am willing to pay the creators for their work. I am unwilling to hide behind free speech platitudes to serve my own selfish interests.

I continue to be puzzled why many creative people and people who like the fruits of creative people are so quick to lobby on behalf of large corporations at the expense of creative people and their efforts.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> Much of what is written about SOPA speaks in platitudes about free speech and an open Internet. We all face a serious problem, particularly people who create content for a living.
> 
> This problem has recently been well documented by Robert Levine in his book _Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business_. The title is provocative, but Levine systematically documents how piracy has damaged the music, movie, television, newspaper, and now the book businesses. In my own research, I have come across stories from countless photographers about how their works have been pirated.
> 
> ...



There is nothing wrong with wanting to get compensated for your hard work. I believe in it strongly, but...

Perpetual copyright, ensuring no content will ever enter the public domain; is wrong.

Suing your customers into oblivion (and financial ruin), using laws meant to go after commercial offenders; is wrong.

Making civil offences, like copyright infringement, criminal; is wrong.

Hamfisted censoring of the internet, based on the (often) tenuous claims of media conglomerates; is wrong.


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 18, 2012)

bvukich said:


> sanyasi said:
> 
> 
> > Much of what is written about SOPA speaks in platitudes about free speech and an open Internet. We all face a serious problem, particularly people who create content for a living.
> ...



+1 
Opposing SOPA and PIPA does not mean supporting piracy. The way the bills currently are, their range seems "a little" overdone considering the purpose


----------



## kubelik (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi, I believe nearly everyone who is on this website is interested in photography and thus vested in the protection of intellectual property rights.

the problem with SOPA & PIPA is not that these bills prevent piracy. stopping piracy is great. I don't pirate DVD's or MP3's, and I try to convince my friends and family not to as well. 

the problem is the fact that _SOPA & PIPA in fact do NOT prevent piracy_ (please watch the videos where it is explained how use of an IP address instead of a website allows pirates to continue accessing sites for illegal downloading), thus failing to fulfill their stated goal, meanwhile endangering legitimate companies and start-ups due to its loosely written clauses.

these are bills that do almost nothing to protect your rights (and those of content creators and businesses), but allow for dozens of scenarios in which those rights can be violated.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 18, 2012)

There is a difference between piracy and fair use. If you read SOPA and PIPA you see that to the extent it is taken, if you REFERENCE SOMETHING, you are in violation of copyright, and can be prosecuted. Going so far as mentioning on your blog that you listed to a specific song, technically violates SOPA, because the song title is copyrighted and used without permission and the artists may not want association with the person or the web site.

There also is no real due process. The blocking and shutting down is an arbitrary one with little or no controls, notification, or recourse. In fact, the burden of proof is not on the other person that their copyright has been violated, it is up to you to prove that it is fair use. 

Ever link to an article? A web site? Guess what, under SOPA and PIPA that makes YOU A PIRATE if they determine that site has a violation. Example. You have a link to Flickr on your blog, or say a link to a thread on CanonRumors. Someone posts an image that someone does not like on either of those sites, and YOUR SITE can be taken down as well. Guilt by association! 

SOPA and PIPA are a lot less about piracy, as they are extending corporatism and a control structure. It is poorly written legislation that is EXTREMELY dangerous. Are they that ignorant, or do their veiled attempts portend to something else?

To extend it further, under SOPA and PIPA, if Canon did not like a post or comment on this website, they could claim copyright violation over quoted text, capabilities, product names and the like, and not only could this site be blocked, but any sites that LINK TO IT.

Is that Piracy? Nope. Not really. There is more to SOPA and PIPA that are freedom of speech and fair use issues than there is about pirated music, movies and the like


----------



## bvukich (Jan 18, 2012)

I oppose SOPA and PIPA for more than the obvious content of the bills themselves. I also oppose them for a more fundamental reason, and the same reason I opposed net neutrality legislation (which I do support the concept of, but not actual legislation).

I oppose the idea of the US government thinking it has any right or obligation to monitor, censor, regulate, or otherwise tamper with the internet. Keep your damn luddite hands off the internet!


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 18, 2012)

Ya know, I'm not a fan of SOPA and PIPA either, but the haste with which we are propelling ourselves towards our own doom amazes me. I'm not that terribly old, and I still remember that life actually could go on without the internet at all.

Don't get me wrong, the internet is a handy tool, but there's a whole lot of "all your eggs in one basket" these days. WHEN (not if) the internet comes crashing down (no, I'm not looking for a technical discussion on the redundancies and failsafes) we will be in the dark ages because you can neither buy anything with a credit card nor get cash from your bank because they can't validate your balance. You won't be able to buy a book because there's no local amazon, and no one will have any idea how to get anywhere because Google maps and their GPS's don't work.

That's the reason I still prefer to own DVDs and games and not just stream them. I like having a physical photo album and not just a website or flickr account. So if SOPA or PIPA or their long lost cousin eventually sucks the life out of the internet, life can still go on.

<<donning flame-proof suit>>


----------



## Mark1 (Jan 18, 2012)

I thought the site had been hacked and If I clicked the video link it would download some horrible virus onto my PC :


----------



## sanyasi (Jan 18, 2012)

I have read the broad outlines of SOPA and have heard the discussions over the concerns. Some may be warranted, but those concerns are being used as a basis to torpedo any legislative response to piracy. In terms of the over breadth argument, the courts can address interpretative issues. Nothing unique about SOPA when it comes to the need to interpret words in legislation. It is worth noting that the First Amendment protections have been grafted onto the copyright, trademark and state right of publicity acts to prevent those laws from curtailing free speech. There is no reason to suspect that the courts won't provide similar protections against impeding legitimate speech.

As for concerns about blogs being taken down because they link to a newspaper article or are critical of a product, just not an issue. Fair use protects will protect those sort of references. Law ultimately reflects social norms and courts take those norms into account when interpreting words in legislation. Fair use is not going any place.

The comment about perpetual copyright is emblematic of the over reaction. Is there a provision in SOPA that makes copyrights of unlimited duration? Not that I know of. I agree, I would like to see a return to a shorter period, but that doesn't seem to be the issue with SOPA.

For all of those of you who oppose SOPA, what's your solution to piracy? Some of the European countries have considered an ASCAP/BMI type regime. Everything would be "free,"but your ISP monthly fee would be raised and the money would be divided among creators according to some formula. Does that work for you?

Why do so many people want to defend Google and other distributors of information? So additional monitoring would cost them money. A pharmaceutical company or meat packer has all sorts of monitoring costs to assure that consumers get safe drugs and food. That's a cost of doing business. Why should Google be able to produce a product (albeit intangible) without some quality control? Right now they have no problem blocking child porn sites, so the technology seems to be in place to block pirate sites.

There is a simple fact: The Internet has been the Wild West for almost 20 years. It has been left unregulated to permit it to evolve, which undoubtedly has been a good thing. But it is time to bring some balance to the Internet. Just saying you are against piracy is rather hollow and not enough given the realities of what is happening. 

By the way, if you don't like SOPA, you really aren't going to like what it coming in the sales tax arena. Within the next two years, there is a strong likelihood that so-called tax-free online shopping is coming to an end. In actuality, tax-free shopping never existed. Consumers were supposed to pay use tax, but ignored the law. Congress is about to step in and reverse the decision in _Quill_. And Congress has every reason to do that, because it helps keep cash strapped states from asking for federal funds. There is also an equity argument. Why should bricks and mortar stores be put at a competitive disadvantage? Another example of lawlessness coming to an end.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi, don't be so quick to presume that people who are anti-SOPA are looking for freebies/the kind of people who enjoy piracy. I will have no problem paying sales taxes on items purchased online; I'm surprised that it hasn't been implemented sooner. frankly, I wouldn't have a problem paying slightly more for internet service if that money could demonstrably be dedicated toward fighting piracy. I don't have an issue with companies writing reasonable DRM on their software that I purchase (although I do have a problem with companies like EA which seek to arbitrarily control access to products you have purchased based on things like forum bannings).

I don't understand how SOPA/PIPA would reduce the amount of "lawnessness" on the internet. it instead promotes lawnessness, where anyone really has the authority to issue a ban on a website for having links to questionable material posted. that, to me, seems more lawless than ever. imagine a forum where any user can issue bans on any other user. that ... seems like a great idea.

I also disagree with the mindset that everything should be resolved over litigation. how about writing laws better in the first place so we can save money (and dozens of small companies that will be sued out of existence before litigation can correct the legislation) on lawyers? why should our first recourse to sorting out laws properly be to take things to the courts? if everything at my job had to be given to someone else to do before it could be done right, I'm pretty sure I'd be fired. well, Congress' job is to write good laws for America and the American people. if we're expecting concerned citizens to sue and the Supreme Court to rule before a good law can be put in place ... what exactly is Congress doing over there?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> But it is time to bring some balance to the Internet.



Recall the Jedi prophecy that a Chosen One would come and bring balance to the Force. Of course, the foolish Jedi Council didn't think that one through to it's logical conclusion - since _they_ were in ascendance, 'balance' could only come with a gain in power by the Dark Side at the expense of a loss of power (and ultimately, lives) of the Jedi Council. They asked for Balance, they got Darth Vader and the destruction of the Council. Be careful what you ask for... 

Wikipedia may be blacked out for the day, but Wookieepedia is up and running.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> By the way, if you don't like SOPA, you really aren't going to like what it coming in the sales tax arena. Within the next two years, there is a strong likelihood that so-called tax-free online shopping is coming to an end.



Really, I have no problem with internet sales being taxed. I welcome it, it would make bookkeeping for the business so much simpler. To claim we are against SOPA because we want everything free is missing the point of the protest entirely. It's not about a support of piracy, it's about due process of law. We've already seen corporations abuse the process of take down notices for works they do not hold the rights to, expanding that to entire sites without going through the process of determining that (1) The people requesting the take down are actually the right holders, and (2) That the sites failed to take down said content when requested to do so. The way SOPA/PIPA is written, it's the equivalent of me having you thrown in prison because I wrote to the police that you "broke the law"... then telling you that if you want to get out of prison that you have to prove that you didn't break the law. You get no trial, no jury, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. In the mean time we get to have all the payment networks block any financial transactions with you, or they could be in violation by aiding your "criminal" undertakings. 

So yes, I do have a problem with corporations being able to take down entire websites with a simple "good faith" claim of infringement. If a site is infringing then let them send a take down notice for the offending material, if the site refuses to take down the material then let it be fought out in court. If the complaint is valid, then let a court order be issued to have the site taken down, and hey, guess what, we already have laws to do that, it's just that companies, and governments, don't want to have to bother with the legal process, they want the power to terminate sites on their word alone.


----------



## 92101media (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> Much of what is written about SOPA speaks in platitudes about free speech and an open Internet. We all face a serious problem, particularly people who create content for a living.
> 
> This problem has recently been well documented by Robert Levine in his book _Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business_. The title is provocative, but Levine systematically documents how piracy has damaged the music, movie, television, newspaper, and now the book businesses. In my own research, I have come across stories from countless photographers about how their works have been pirated.
> 
> ...



Sanyasi,

I understand the points you are making, and believe most people on this site, as creators of original works themselves, believe in copyright protection & fair compensation for the artist. However SOPA (at least in its current form) is not the answer. As has been mentioned SOPA can easily be bypassed by simply using the IP address of a site hosting pirated works, rather than using a DNS server. In addition, the proposed legislation is overreaching & much of it is left to arbitrary subjective interpretation as to whether a site is infringing or not, with very few qualifying guidelines. Such legislation is open to abuse. In its current form, if for instance you run a photo blog, and have an open comment box, and a random user posts a copyrighted work in the comment box on your photo blog, your site can be taken down & YOU can be sued for damages for copyright infringement, with you also paying attorney fees for both parties if you lose!!

As I stated before, if passed, SOPA would:
- stifle innovation
- undermine cybersecurity
- give the US government the right to unilaterally censor foreign websites
- give copyright holders the right to issue economic takedowns and bring lawsuits against website owners and operators, if those websites have features that make it possible to post infringing content (note: a feature as simple as allowing an open comment box could be sufficient to qualify a website for a copyright infringement lawsuit) 
- make it a felony offense to post a copyrighted song or video
- still be ineffective at achieving its goal as it's easy to bypass using direct IP addresses instead of DNS

More technical details, analysis & legal implications on why SOPA has the potential to be extremely dangerous can be read here:
http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/

So, SOPA comes with a whole host of negative civil liberties implications, while doing nothing to address the real problem, and also severely undermines the security of the internet.

I am a strong supporter of net neutrality, and believe high speed bandwidth open & easily accessible to everyone is a key to tech innovation in the foreseeable future. Without it, the US will be at a severe disadvantage to other countries which do not impose such restrictions.


----------



## sanyasi (Jan 18, 2012)

The result of rules is litigation. It begins when you are a small child and your parents say no. Kids are great at making counter arguments and finding loopholes. I've been involved with law for 35 years in a variety of capacities. It is impossible to write laws that don't end up raising issues that require someone to provide answers. Wish it weren't true, but it is. The very fact that people are arguing about SOPA using examples demonstrates how people use language to package policy arguments. As long as we have words, we will need to resolve their meaning as interpretative issues arise.

As for keeping luddite hands off the Internet: Lots of irony packed in that statement. It was U.S. Defense Department funding that created the internet back in the late 60s (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET)). As a counterfactual, imagine the freedom we would have with regard to the Internet had it been IBM or another commercial entity instead of the U.S. government. As someone of a libertarian bent, I agree Ron Paul is great in theory, but not very practical in the real world.

Sorry folks: It is easy to come out against SOPA, but I still haven't seen an alternative solution proposed in this thread. And I don't doubt anyone who says they don't steal content, but there are lot of regular folks who know exactly what they are doing when they go these pirate sites and download music and movies.

By the way, the market is responding in part to the pirates. That is what apps are all about. Media companies are going to create their own closed communities using apps.


----------



## dstppy (Jan 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanyasi said:
> 
> 
> > But it is time to bring some balance to the Internet.
> ...



The force is strong with this one. I agree - didn't make sense to balance things when you're winning.

Taking that lesson back to the original topic, idealistically Craig is right --- but we've got legislation in the US that makes it illegal to make a digital copy for something that you paid for . . . it's not about balance, it's about maintaining a monopoly.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanyasi said:
> 
> 
> > But it is time to bring some balance to the Internet.
> ...



+1. Excellent in both analogy and reference material! ;D


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> Sorry folks: It is easy to come out against SOPA, but I still haven't seen an alternative solution proposed in this thread.


So... Either the masses whose liberties will be impeded need to come up with a better solution right this moment, or we just accept the weak, non-effectual proposed plan that our *elected* and pretty *well-paid* officials have come up with? I don't understand what's so hard about "the idea and principle is sound, but the regulation and enforcement need to be refined."

I also find it hard to believe that the MPAA, the RIAA, et al. make up the majority of voters in this country versus the amount of people who are against against these bills. If we're a democratic society, how come the minority with all the dollars have the most leverage?



neuroanatomist said:


> sanyasi said:
> 
> 
> > But it is time to bring some balance to the Internet.
> ...


By the way, a huge plus to neuroanatomist for proving that not only is he brilliant when it comes to technical aspects of cameras, photography and technology, but really good at pop culture, too!

I bet you're a whizz at You Don't Know Jack!


----------



## dstppy (Jan 18, 2012)

Ryusui said:


> sanyasi said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks: It is easy to come out against SOPA, but I still haven't seen an alternative solution proposed in this thread.
> ...



I'll add: this person has no clue how Congress works at all. Everyone that got their seat in the last election got it for saying they "won't let X do Y" and every reasonable compromise has gotten blocked by a resounding 'nuh-uh!'.

Hell, I'll vote for a change that says "you have to come up with a better solution" on every topic you say no to. ;D Problem solved!


----------



## 92101media (Jan 18, 2012)

From http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/:

"This means that YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Gmail, Dropbox and millions of other sites would be “Internet sites…dedicated to theft of U.S. property,” under SOPA’s definition. Simply providing a feature that would make it possible for someone to commit copyright infringement or circumvention (see: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) is enough to get your entire site branded as an infringing site." 

I am sure Canon Rumors fits that definition too.

Something to ponder for those not strongly opposed to SOPA.


----------



## sanyasi (Jan 18, 2012)

The U.S. will be at a huge competitive disadvantage because of SOPA? No. We already are at a huge competitive disadvantage without it. We produce the content that others want to steal. I don't visit pirate sites, but I suspect that there are few sites in the U.S. that are serving up Romanian movies and music.

The RIAA and MPAA rule the majority? No. We have private property rights in this country. Because the majority wants something doesn't mean they can just take it. The RIAA and the MPAA have every right to lobby. If you don't think Google and Comcast are putting big bucks into furthering their interests, you are wrong.

One of the articles sited for support says that copyright infringement is ridiculously easy to prove. Fair use may not always be clear, but much of the commentary in blogs and elsewhere online is clearly fair use. All of you who worry about stifling free speech forget the many Supreme Court decisions that give the First Amendment priority over the interests of copyright and trademark holders. The language in SOPA is not going to be interpreted in a vacuum. 

What I see here is a bunch of talking points that have been circulated by people funded by large corporations who have an indirect stake in piracy. Tell me how SOPA is going to stifle _your_ expression, innovation, and speech, not Google's. The big boys and girls are more than capable of protecting themselves.

Finally, it really doesn't matter if SOPA fails this time. The cat is out of the bag and regulation is coming to the Internet. The people with the content are finally speaking up and saying we've had enough.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 18, 2012)

This is quite pathetic for what is supposed to be a government running a "FREE" country. Most other western countries wont be far behind I am sure.
I have lived and worked all over the world and increasingly in recent times I find that while China as well as other developing nations are embracing a free market, the western nations / developed nations are moving into a system I like to call the Fascist Beaurocracy that is it doesnt matter which person or party you vote for with your token democratic right stupid rules laws and a desire to inflict control over the population is pushed down from an excess of public servants that are trying to justify their existance. China censors their internet very heavily and political control is still very strong however they are moving rapidly. I have never felt more free, more safe and more respected as a human being in my life than when i was living in China. The west could learn alot from this culture.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 18, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> The RIAA and MPAA rule the majority? No. We have private property rights in this country. Because the majority wants something doesn't mean they can just take it.


You continually equate people who oppose SOPA to people who want free digital media. What is it about "we are *happy* to support the cessation of piracy but oppose *the way* it's being proposed" that's hard for you to understand?
No one here wants to just take something. We don't want something taken *from* us.



> What I see here is a bunch of talking points that have been circulated by people funded by large corporations who have an indirect stake in piracy. Tell me how SOPA is going to stifle _your_ expression, innovation, and speech, not Google's. The big boys and girls are more than capable of protecting themselves.


I have seen several "non-big boys/girls" examples in this thread. If you choose to ignore them, not much else can be done, can it?


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 19, 2012)

Even though SOPA and PIPA are bad and I'm really against them. I'm not concerned, there is so much support for not passing it that they just can't do it, not to mention the massive infringement on constitutional rights. Scary thing though, image the internet if SOPA and PIPA were to pass.


----------



## elflord (Jan 19, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> All of you who worry about stifling free speech forget the many Supreme Court decisions that give the First Amendment priority over the interests of copyright and trademark holders. The language in SOPA is not going to be interpreted in a vacuum.



Are you arguing that it's OK to pass laws that violate our constitutional rights, because the supreme court will strike them down ? It's true that the supreme court has some authority to defend our rights, but that is not a justification for the legislative branch infringing on them. 



> What I see here is a bunch of talking points that have been circulated by people funded by large corporations who have an indirect stake in piracy. Tell me how SOPA is going to stifle _your_ expression, innovation, and speech, not Google's. The big boys and girls are more than capable of protecting themselves.



At best, it makes life very inconvenient, because it could potentially take down websites that I find useful (flickr, linux distributors, google) At least in the case of flickr, it quite clearly would be stifling my activity.


----------



## elflord (Jan 19, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> Sorry folks: It is easy to come out against SOPA, but I still haven't seen an alternative solution proposed in this thread. And I don't doubt anyone who says they don't steal content, but there are lot of regular folks who know exactly what they are doing when they go these pirate sites and download music and movies.



Not mine or anyone else's responsibility to find a "solution" to the problem of extracting compensation in return for distributing creative works. This is a business problem, and the industry lobby are hoping to use censorship to make it go away instead of developing solutions.

Rights are trumps, and in particular, my right to free speech trumps your desire to make money using a particular business model. There is no such thing as the right to profit from a particular business model, and neither the government, nor other parties have any obligation to intervene on your behalf for the purpose of making your business plan profitable.


----------



## VerbalAlchemy (Jan 19, 2012)

Ryusui said:


> sanyasi said:
> 
> 
> > The RIAA and MPAA rule the majority? No. We have private property rights in this country. Because the majority wants something doesn't mean they can just take it.
> ...



I concur. There seems to be a lot of binary thinking: Support SOPA vs. Support Piracy. 

I think most people who oppose SOPA opposed the implementation, not the stated goal. It is undeniable that content creators should see their work protected, just as someone who manufacturers a physical product (like a Canon 1DX) shouldn't be expected to just give that product away (unless Canon ones to give one to me). The problem with SOPA is that it establishes vague legal language that make little effort to protect individual freedoms or the Internet's generally unregulated dynamic. Rather, the imprecise scope seems to instead encourage the legal system to settle all scores. This would mean that some questionable legal action might extend for a while before matters are settled. It also means that some bizarre and creative legal precedents can be conjured out of the bill's more obtuse language. In this case, any questionable use of the law might not be something a court could easily overturn; the court might conclude that the action was within the vague confines of the law and that the questionable use can therefore only be overturned by a subsequent revision to the law. This would require mass action by Congress, which is easier said than done, and... This legal web can get pretty convoluted and contributes to a number of issues that are currently hotly contested, from the scope of Executive Power to the ramifications of Citizens United decision. 

Because of this complexity, I think many of us want legislation that clearly articulates the intent and scope of the law. Even if no one in Congress intends to abuse a law's more extreme powers, we have to question whether those powers should be pre-emptively extended just to combat a potential worst case scenario. In some cases, the answer might be "yes," as getting caught unprepared in the midst of a disaster could threaten continuity of government, the stability of the market, etc. In other cases, however, it makes more sense to be cautious about the execution of legislation. President Obama has recently negotiated with Congress on sanctions related to Iran. While some have argued that his behavior betrays a soft attitude toward international affairs, others - including the President himself - have argued that he is being justly strategic, that his decision is not a matter of the target but of the optimal approach. I think this reasoning - whatever you think of U.S. international policy, which is a separate issue that I invoke only for its parallel logic - applies to SOPA as well. 

Piracy in many forms needs to be eradicated. If media producers are unable to protect their products, the situation will not only be unfair, but also, given how much work the media industry feeds tangential industries, economically significant. That piracy needs to be addressed is not in serious dispute. Nevertheless, we mustn't rush into a solution just for the sake of action. We can't tie up debate in committees forever either-- but we need to pass a law that makes sense, not one that "sort o"f addresses the problem while causing ancillary damage that either erodes individual rights or must be slowly repaired in an endless bureaucratic process. SOPA opposition isn't necessarily an ideological extreme; it can also represent a shared goal coupled to a disagreement over tactics.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 19, 2012)

sanyasi said:


> As for concerns about blogs being taken down because they link to a newspaper article or are critical of a product, just not an issue. Fair use protects will protect those sort of references. Law ultimately reflects social norms and courts take those norms into account when interpreting words in legislation. Fair use is not going any place.


I suggest you do your homework. There is a very well known company that already aggressively sues the hell out of website owners, bloggers, and the like for linking to their newspapers or owned properties. I suggest you research Righthaven LLC 

Also know that many companies engage in hostile legal practices. They may lose, they may know from the beginning that they have no case, but they have deep pockets, team of lawyers, and especially when a corporation takes on a small website, etc. it often comes down to pay up and settle, or can you afford to spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to finally prevail. A website I used to frequent was one of Fairhaven's victims.

As far as "the courts" deciding... That is the sign of POOR LEGISLATION. Abuse is rampant with bad legislation. The Patriot Act for example, has been used to side step the law to go after Pizza joints, strip clubs, etc. 99% of "Patriot Act" usage is actually used in domestic non-terrorist cases.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 19, 2012)

VerbalAlchemy said:


> SOPA opposition isn't necessarily an ideological extreme; it can also represent a shared goal coupled to a disagreement over tactics.


There. That's it, completely.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 19, 2012)

Minnesota Nice said:


> Even though SOPA and PIPA are bad and I'm really against them. I'm not concerned, there is so much support for not passing it that they just can't do it, not to mention the massive infringement on constitutional rights. Scary thing though, image the internet if SOPA and PIPA were to pass.



Do not fool yourself into thinking that the Constitution will protect free speech and the right to privacy from the ability of Corporate America to buy legislation. If that were the case, then we wouldn't already have the DMCA, PATRIOT, retroactive telecom immunity from warrantless wiretapping lawsuits, etc etc etc.

Public momentum against this will have to be an order of magnitude stronger than it is now in order for your vision to become reality. At the moment the best we can hope for is a Presidential veto.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm sure I'm not the only "computer guy" on this web site, but wanted to chime in with my professional opinion. I've done a variety of computer-related work, from programming to network security, all of which goes into this.

First, I will leave to others the description of exactly what offenses SOPA would permit.


http://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/One-Page-SOPA_0.pdf
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/SOPA%20House%20letter%20with%20PROTECT%20IP%20letter%20FINAL.pdf
http://technorati.com/business/article/the-sopa-effect/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/how-sopa-affects-students-and-educators

My opinion: Laws such as SOPA won't achieve their desired effect. Furthermore, their "collateral damage" will cause people to feel angry with copyright holders and will diminish their regard for intellectual property. Large-scale copyright violators will have the means and the incentive to find a way around constraints using, for example, encryption or obfuscation schemes. My grandfather was fond of the saying "locks are to keep honest people honest." We need to encourage honest people to remain honest by not treating them, a priori, as criminals. There will always be some copyright violators, and we will never stamp them out short of creating a police state. There is no simple solution to this problem, and legislation such as this will not solve it, it will only give the criminals strong and immediate incentive to build better methods of evasion, while trampling on the freedoms of ordinary people.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 19, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only "computer guy" on this web site, but wanted to chime in with my professional opinion. I've done a variety of computer-related work, from programming to network security, all of which goes into this.
> 
> First, I will leave to others the description of exactly what offenses SOPA would permit.
> 
> ...



I like your opinion, a lot.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 19, 2012)

Fundamentally Piracy in the digital domain was born because of the price fixing and price gouging the media companies have monopolised for decades.

the cost of production and distribution has fallen significantly yet they still price new movies and music at a certain level. This level is high enough to provide an incentive for people to look for ways around it.

There will always be a degree of copyright infringment everyone has to accept this as fact.
how much is determined by the price.

There is a threshold where if the content is priced low enough it provides a natual disincentive for people to bother with copyright infringement and you could draw a direct correlation between price vs copyright infringement. If providers priced their products more competatively then it would provide several distinct benefits to them and the government and global economy as a whole

1) They would increase sales volume - as price decreases the number of people that were trying to get it for free would no longer bother due to the lower costs, as they can just pop down to their local store and buy it on disc or download it from a purchased online source.

2) They would not need to spend the insane amount of resources on lawyers and chasing individuals for copyright infringement. I am sure just cutting the lawyers from this epic gravy train would fund some significant RRP cost cuts.

3) the governement could spend more time on real issues and probably get rid of some excess public servants saving the tax payers money.

4) Money and resources would no longer need to be wasted on DRM (digital right managment) because lets face it hackers take all of 5 seconds to get around this stuff.

5) people would be happier and more productive because the government would be meddeling and trying to micro-manage their individual lives to a lesser degree.

So in summary 1 simple action can cut piracy down to such small levels it would be hardly worth being worried about. Set the right price and let the free market run!

I will use the Apple app store as an example
while this gets a lot of flak for monopolistic behaviour and the walled garden approach it is successful because of the pricing. If you wanted to say purchase a computer game for your PC you have to pay say $50 - $100 of course people are going to look for ways of not paying this. however on the app store to buy a game for you phone costs say $1, $2 maybe $5 at these prices why would you even bother wasting your time trying to get it for free just buy it and enjoy it. This difference is orders of magnitude.

If media of games, albums and movies were priced the same (and they got rid of this DRM rubbish) 95% or more of people would just buy it.

Big media need to have a look at the business model they have run with for too long in the face of a rapidly changing world. It is such a simple concept these greed driven corporations dont see the wood for the trees


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 19, 2012)

dld542004 said:


> Who cares!


2 posts, one of which is the above, and you have (at the time of this post) -25 karma. Apparently people do care.


That said... I missed it. =(
I'm guessing something along the lines of CR blacking out as well, which could have been done longer if anything.

I'm considering blacking out my own tumblr account for a bit - anyone know how I can link to the link all the blackouts are using?


----------



## kubelik (Jan 19, 2012)

It's great to see the amount of support from users of this site willing to speak out against SOPA/PIPA. Even though Google and Wikipedia are back to normal, please continue to speak to others you know about this issue and to write/email/facebook your congress-people about this. Nobody (photographers most of all) wants to see digital piracy, but there's a right way to do things and a wrong way, and SOPA/PIPA is a very wrong way indeed.

Thanks all!


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Fundamentally Piracy in the digital domain was born because of the price fixing and price gouging the media companies have monopolised for decades.
> 
> the cost of production and distribution has fallen significantly yet they still price new movies and music at a certain level. This level is high enough to provide an incentive for people to look for ways around it.
> 
> ...



You know, one of the things I always challenge when I hear the MPAA or RIAA state how much they have "lost" to "piracy", I will ask them to "prove" it as well as justify their numbers. 

Most of their numbers are "guesstimates" based upon falling sales versus projected sales, when in fact there are many LEGITIMATE reasons for a drop in sales. 

I grew up in the 80s where there were record stores on every corner and if you wanted to buy something used, the vinyl and cassettes were at garage sales or from your buddies. People still borrowed records or tapes, etc.

Today... How much of it is "Piracy" versus how much of it is eBay, Amazon, CDNow or other sites which allow people to buy used movies, DVDs, Blu-Rays and the like? I only buy a couple CDs or Blu-Rays NEW a year, but buy a TON used. So the fact that I can buy a used CD for $2 that they try to sell for $17.99... Is that because of Piracy, or is that because of alternative distribution channels of used materials.

I also grew up in a time where you could buy a SINGLE with an A and B side for .99 cents. One of the reasons why Itunes took off is from this model, and the fact that today, most of that the "Record Industry" pushes out are CONTRACT produced albums jammed with fillers where an artist has to produce X number of albums in Y number of years. 

The other part that any of the "piracy" or "downloading" arguments never like to address, is how much of this is the Tchotcke mentality. A person may download an songs or an album and may listen to it, but does that mean that they would have actually PURCHASED the item? Yes. There are definitely some sales lost, but I am also a firm believer that a huge amount of the number that you hear are convenience numbers where a person will take something off a table if it is just sitting there, but if they actually had to purchase it, they would pass. 

Conversely, a lot of the new music or movies I have purchased are often influenced by discovering new artists who use these channels to their advantage.

My last album purchase / download was The Joy Formidable - "Big Roar" Awesome band out of North Wales, and I discovered them from being the opening act at the Foo Fighters concert in Boston in November. 

One of my next movie purchases will be Eric Schaeffer's "After Fall - Winter" which is a film festival movie which is a follow up to his movie "Fall" which will be available as VOD, Download, PPV, Itunes, etc channels., because frankly it is a character based movie with no big stars, and the Studios would rather throw a Big Screen version of Gilligan's Island down our throats. 

Part of what I see from the MPAA and RIAA and bills like SOPA and PIPA have a lot less to do with Piracy, and a lot more to do with the fact that these big corporations are finding out that film makers, artists, musicians and the like can go out and be successful without them. It is a hard road, few succeed, but more and more I am finding I prefer these bands and movies to the over-priced, over-hyped products of the big studios... Especially when it comes to albums. To me records from the 60s, 70s and 80s were just more consistent. There would always be songs you didn't like or would skip over, but I find that number is inverse today and mostly there are only a couple songs produced on an album that I like, hence I tend to by more songs versus albums these days. 

As well. The majority of my purchases are OOP, tracking down CDs and albums that are no longer published or available.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Fundamentally Piracy in the digital domain was born because of the price fixing and price gouging the media companies have monopolised for decades.



The problem I have with this is
[list type=decimal]
[*]It's still stealing.
[*]We're talking about entertainment, not life necessities.
[/list]

Any justifcation to steal something that is not food or medicine isn't going to sway me. If the price is too high, then gee, you're just outta luck. 

I'd like a boat, but the price is too high--does that mean I should steal one and justify it because of price fixing and price gouging? I know what it cost to build a boat, and those prices are highway robbery!


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 20, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Any justifcation to steal something that is not food or medicine isn't going to sway me. If the price is too high, then gee, you're just outta luck.



Agree 100%



> I'd like a boat, but the price is too high--does that mean I should steal one and justify it because of price fixing and price gouging? I know what it cost to build a boat, and those prices are highway robbery!



Slight disagreement here: the "entertainment industry" has become a bit of a cartel, creating unnatural "barriers" to competition. Even though entertainment is not "essential" for life, it is legitimate to criticize this aspect of the industry. However, action on such things should go through legislative and legal channels rather than piracy.


----------



## Weggy (Jan 20, 2012)

I know this is a little off topic - certainly not about Canon or photography, but can someone please explain this to me. 

The US use the term "foreign" websites, and I know they use similar terms for "foregin" Financial Institutions in the USA PATRIOT Act, but why is this? Is it because they already have robust legislation against domestic websites? Is it that American's don't commit crimes? Or is it (as I suspect) that they are so arrogant that they just want to blame other countries and don't recognise any home grown issues? 

Not slating any individuals here, just making a sweeping generalisation about US law making and the way they position things, would welcome any insight!!

PS - thanks for supporting the anti SOPA movement CR Guy, even from the other side of the pond this concerns me greatly! A little like the government suggestions here that they could shut down Twitter and Facebook during riots to stop criminals communicating (and also stop people helping and protecting each other) Yeesh!


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 20, 2012)

Weggy said:


> The US use the term "foreign"



I believe the primary reason for this is that our Constitution limits the powers of the government (Federal and State). Certain acts of legislation would be unconstitutional if applied to operations within the U.S., but are not limited when dealing with "foreign" entities. The easiest way to avoid an extended legal debate is to start by making it apply to foreign entities then try to extend, as much as possible, to domestic entities.


----------

