Withholding participation pending review.
I haven't read the text from SOPA or PIPA yet.
I've got friends and family who make or have made their livings from selling their intellectual property. They make something up, publish it, and other people pay for it, and they eat. "Piracy" undermines that. Someone who wants their product, and should by rights pay for it, gets it without paying.
Think of your favorite musician, writer, or programmer, and ask yourself what their incentive is to publish their work, if no one pays them for that work. This interferes with the free market.
A problem, of course, is that the Internet is not a national market; it is a global one. We can't control the world just because we say so.
In general, I'm against extra legislation. And of course the test to see if Sky-Is-Falling legislation is really needed is to stop for a day or two and see if, in fact, the Sky really is Falling.
I have some reading to do before I jump on any bandwagons, though.
And so do y'all.
Labels: in the news, musing, writing
posted by Matt G @ 10:56 AM
13 Comments:
The problem isn't with the idea of stopping piracy, it's with the unbelievably bad language of the laws themselves. The way they're written is so vague that they're just begging for abuse.
As in your example, imagine your favorite musician or other artist. Someone who doesn't like them can send a takedown notice claiming copyright infringement, even if it's a completely baseless claim, and by law their host would have to shutter their site and any payment partners would have to cut them off (or risk legal action themselves). Even if the artist can prove that the claim is baseless and get reconnected, they've still lost eyeballs and revenue in the meantime.
SOPA, additionally, has provisions against sites that merely link to pirated material. So if you post a link to another site which has pirated stuff anywhere on it, even if you're unaware of it, your blog could be shut down.
xkcd has a bunch of links which explain the proposed laws in more detail: http://xkcd.com/
Thanks for the voice of reason, Matt. I took an opposite view, they're gonna have to come and shut me up.
BUT, on reading the legislation, it looks like much ado about nothing. They can get a court order to shut you down if they think you are violating copyrights and you can dispute that order. Unless I'm missing something that looks like that is about it.
Larry that doesn't sound like the opposite view from mine. I'm merely saying that there are certainly reasons to consider enacting legislation to restrict people from distributing stuff to which they have no rights.
Chip, I was really hoping that when I read your response referencing examples, that I would see one from the text. I still need to read that thing.
Oops, I guess I didn't make that clear...my view doesn't oppose yours, my view is generally contrary to the folks that are shutting down for the day.
But, I'm generally pretty contrary myself on the whole.
I respectfully submit that you read Larry Correia's take on it:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/sopa/
Heh. I did, Brick. Of course you'll note that Larry had commented twice here before you had. :)
I thought that was a different Larry. Larry in the comments has a profile that says he is in NC. Larry C is in Utah. I'm confused.
In any case, I still agree with a Larry: "As for SOPA, piracy sucks, but I’d much rather have some loser rip me off than give an already out of control government one more Orwellian power." My understanding is that SOPA gives too many powers that can be abused and that significant damage could be done before due process gets going.
Holy crap. Nope, I'm the guy who was confused. That's funny; I had just shared an exchange via email with Larry Correia, immediately after which Larry (NC) posted here. I naturally assumed that Correia (as we used to call him back in the day) had posted his thoughts here. Actually, the Larrys pretty much agree.
I'm honored...but unfortunately not that talented.
I did die horribly in one of Correia's books once though, so I have that going for me.
Chip is correct... The additional point is that folks like the Brady Bunch can use 'claims' to harass/limit access to firearms sites, gun organizations, etc. (including blogs).
Reid and Leathy are for this legislation. So on principle, I oppose it.
Les
Speaking as a someone who derives at least part of her income from content creation, I found this a bad, overly-broad bill.
If I found out that Roseholme Cottage had termites in the wall, I wouldn't try to get rid of them with a flamethrower.
Such a great article which the problem isn't with the idea of stopping piracy, it's with the unbelievably bad language of the laws themselves. The way they're written is so vague that they're just begging for abuse. Thanks for sharing this article this article
Post a Comment
<< Home