Please defeat SOPA

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:57 pm

GIThruster wrote:That's crazy. The reason the remedy of blocking the site is not a case of censorship is that the materials blocked are supposedly STOLLEN and leaving them online allows and promotes others steal them as well. It is not "censorship" to guard personal property from theft.

Wow. You really need to change your business model. You business model worked when there was high cost of duplication, but now there is zero cost. You no longer live in a Vinyl and celluloid world. You have to rethink what it means to SELL content. You also have to rethink what IP actually SHOULD buy you, and how you should legitimately benefit from it.

I don't wan't your business model in my world. You also have to rethink just whom is doing the Stealing and Thieving. Personally I think rent seekers are the worst thieves of all.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:01 pm

I don't need to think about any of those things and we don't need a "business model". The market takes care of what you're talking about with no tinkering from us. Your observations are why e-books are cheaper than paper books, but that's not a reason to pretend we shouldn't pay for books, which seems to be what you're implying.

Again, another voice who seems to be saying they think stealing from an IP owner is justified but isn't saying this. If this is how you feel, you ought to say it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:06 pm

"Just to be clear: in a world were there are no copyright protections, there is no music, no movies, no games, no creation outside the sciences. If people cannot protect their intellectual property, they cannot earn a living creating it."

I'm not claiming there should be no copyright privileges, I'm saying that due process and the first amendment make SOPA invalid. If that means there are no functional remedies for IP holders and their business model, then it's still better we have due process and the 1st amendment.

That said, I think the existing remedies are at least sufficient, and in the fact of the RIAA--already unconstitutionally drastic.

None of which is an endorsement of IP theft.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:10 pm

"The market takes care of what you're talking about with no tinkering from us. Your observations are why e-books are cheaper than paper books, but that's not a reason to pretend we shouldn't pay for books, which seems to be what you're implying. "

I don't think anyone is saying that, we are saying that if it takes SOPA to protect IP, we'd rather not have IP. That you'd rather have SOPA than due process or the 1st amendment is very black mark against you--but you're choosing it.
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:27 pm

GIThruster wrote:I don't need to think about any of those things and we don't need a "business model". The market takes care of what you're talking about with no tinkering from us. Your observations are why e-books are cheaper than paper books, but that's not a reason to pretend we shouldn't pay for books, which seems to be what you're implying.

Again, another voice who seems to be saying they think stealing from an IP owner is justified but isn't saying this. If this is how you feel, you ought to say it.


No, Definitely if I pay for a book, I want my money to go to those that own the IP. If I buy a book, I want to own it, and I don't feel I should have the right to sell copies to the public.

What I'm saying is, We don't want to force change in business models that are compatible with current technology. What I'm saying is that the business models that need to change, are those that are *incompatible* with current technologies, even if this means we need to shift what we think IP means.

The Idea that IP holders should have a monopoly upon duplication of their own IP is now untenable. To pretend that IP agents can, and should, through legal remedy control media will only cast rent-seeking power to the largest Agents, such as BMI, but do nothing to protect and encourage the actual generators of the rich content that forms IP.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:46 pm

I don't think we need to change the definitions of "IP". With changing situations, we have a need periodically to change the law. The idea that IP holders have a monopoly on duplication went out with cassette tapes. Its most of our lives that the law has supported these duplications, What is doesn't support are sales of duplications.

Honestly, the murky area is all between these two. The whole idea of "file sharing" seems to me dubious. I'm shocked it's got along as well as it has. And what about companies who sell software that allows you to steal cable and sat TV service off the web? What right has a software developer to sell you a product designed to steal services from someone? That's just crazy.

Well, until someone developed that software, there didn't need to be a law about it. Now there does need to be such a law.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:49 pm

TDPerk wrote:That you'd rather have SOPA than due process or the 1st amendment is very black mark against you--but you're choosing it.

Maybe you ought to go back and read my posts, where I said precisely the opposite.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:31 pm

GIThruster wrote:I don't think we need to change the definitions of "IP".

Well, it 's far too late. The force toward ever more powerful and revenue enhancing definitions of IP to the detriment of the public domain is inexorable. There is just too much money in content, too much money in the public domain, and too many rent seekers with the financial wherewithal to pursue it.
The privilege of IP and exclusive use is in contention with the use allowed by the public domain, and is ever overpowering it; Rent seekers get their laws passed to the publics detriment. We see this in laws such as the Bayh-Dole act (1980) which is one example that screws the public, probably passed to the benefit of a single Rent Seeker.

Disney originally had a 14 year patent on Mickey, 100 years later, you still can't work his likeness.

Do you really think Michael Jackson's descendants holding exclusive use and making pittances on "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" help secure a world that is richer in content? The laws are designed to tap into what clearly belongs in the public domain.

So the definition of IP *has* been changing, and clearly to the detriment of the Public Domain.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:32 pm

"Maybe you ought to go back and read my posts, where I said precisely the opposite."

I have read all of your posts, every one. Supporting SOPA is incompatible with supporting the 1st amendment, they are diametrically opposite without mechanisms in SOPA to preserve proportionality, due process, and to disincentivize punishment by process. There are no such mechanisms in SOPA, and you are not in the position of supporting some of SOPA, either your disavow it, or you support it.

Pick one.
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:55 am

We're obviously talking past one another now. I don't agree with your synopsis of the situation and I don't agree with what you call freedom of speech. I think it's obviously and stupidly wrong to call theft a speech issue. But I have already said that it appears a bad law because of its violation of the forth, not the first amendment and due process.

Back before your silly post saying that blocking access to thwart theft is like the Crown seizing all copies of Common Sense, I had already agreed that the ex parte provision does indeed violate due process which would make this a bad law. I really don't need some adolescent nonsense from you arguing "if you're not with us you're against us. I think you need to grow up, Perky.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:53 am

Like the Crown seizing all copies of "Common Sense", and burning them, this is about applying a penalty without due process. If SOPA becomes law, expect a rash of innocent websites being shut down, whether voicing an opposing political opinion or selling a competing product.

Whatever the intent of various supporters, such abuses are possible under SOPA. And history and human nature leave no doubt that if a law can be misused to advantage, it will be.

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Postby kcdodd » Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:15 pm

As to Helius' point, although not directly a consequence of SOPA, I think problems of IP "control" are themselves in infancy. There is a move to open source production of material objects as well in the form of 3D printing. If the technology becomes mature enough one could imagine everything being easily shared and copied by individuals, not just digital media. Are we going to arrest people who start copying and printing out their own cars? The battle over IP is only just being realized, probably all started by the original culprit that is often cited as the start of the enlightened era: the printing press.
Carter

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:21 am

Cars and everything else. Designer fashion and furniture of all kinds - that kind of stuff especially.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:19 am

GIThruster wrote:We're obviously talking past one another now. I don't agree with your synopsis of the situation and I don't agree with what you call freedom of speech. I think it's obviously and stupidly wrong to call theft a speech issue. But I have already said that it appears a bad law because of its violation of the forth, not the first amendment and due process.

Back before your silly post saying that blocking access to thwart theft is like the Crown seizing all copies of Common Sense, I had already agreed that the ex parte provision does indeed violate due process which would make this a bad law. I really don't need some adolescent nonsense from you arguing "if you're not with us you're against us. I think you need to grow up, Perky.


I think you need to grow up and realize the only people who can support "some" of a law are the representatives who can offer amendments to it. Everyone else either supports it as it is or doesn't.

And this has nothing to do with blocking access to thwart theft, because the provisions to protect proportionality and due process, and to prevent process from being used a punishment by means of mere allegation--these are not in the bill.

Either you support SOPA as it is or you don't, which is it?
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

bennmann
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Southeast US

Postby bennmann » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:02 am

The real problem with IP theft is that it is a MORAL problem and not a LEGAL problem (or more accurately, a problem that CAN BE regulated).

You cannot regulate bytes like you can materials. Ever. The only exception to this is when the information system is built to have absolutely unique addresses per point of value (like bitcoin - but even bitcoin is weak to a person who can own half or more of the transaction block generation). Patents may be a weak example of regulated information systems too, too bad they are not very cross-nationally friendly.

For this reason, I oppose downloading every piece of music I like for free for myself, and will tell people I don't endorse them doing it. Buy the product if it's worth buying!

But if they download music for free, there is no direct victim. It is the penultimate victimless crime. If they could download a car which was an exact replica and leave the original at the push of a button, they would do that too.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests