sopa It's Baaaaaaaaack: Lamar Smith Says SOPA Markup To Resume In February

[srbeen]

If they pass this dumb bill, they should at least remove all the annoying copy protection schemes.

you'd think wouldn't you?

[Royalty]

Death to SOPA and PIPA!

[RichardK]

Tell me what's worse: People pirating media on the internet, or the government censoring any website without due process on the false claim of piracy?

Opposing this bill is NOT about advocating piracy, but advocating free speech. By passing this bill, it gives the US government similar power to countries like China and Iran to censor the web. If a politician or corporation has a grudge against a website on the internet, they can use piracy as an excuse to have that site censored.

Don't even try to bring "free speech" into this. "Free Speech" doesn't exist on the internet. You are always using someone else's private property and they have a right to to state how it can be used.

[srbeen]

I don't think the bill is the right way to go but I also think pirates are 100% to blame for the possibility of such things.

People need to stop being cheap and buy their music or use an ad supported medium such as spotify.

The problem is directly related to spotify style services.

Like when fox or hbo pulled shows from hulu US traffic on those shows torrents tripled...

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

Don't even try to bring "free speech" into this. "Free Speech" doesn't exist on the internet. You are always using someone else's private property and they have a right to to state how it can be used.

ehh... When I say "free speech", I'm not talking about piracy. I'm talking about not giving the government the power to censor the web, because I promise you they would abuse that power, much less corporations suing to have websites blocked.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

[123456789A]

[Stoffel]

I think there would be a lot less pirating if there would exist a worldwide service (not just in the US like so many other)

that would allow you to download tv series the day after they aired and movies a 3 months after they air

for a reasonable price. Something like $50/month for unlimited dl sounds fine to me.

As long as this doesn't exist people will keep pirating stuff

That's my 2 cents

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Told you, lol

They were just hoping the limelight would die down, and because majority of people now think its dead, they won't create a hubbub, and when told its alive they will go with the " no it's dead I read it myself " , but they don't know that it is zombie.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

O RLY?

Media reports != the law. Please try again.

Also see my aforementioned link to the FBI citing cases (one example, for instance, which cites cases in regards to intellectual property). A selection from one such case:

ok, after skimming over the judgement from the first case cited on that link, I concede that US law states that trade secrets can be stolen but I still contest that copyright infringement is theft. In particulardue to Dowling v. United States:

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

I don't know if you're trolling or if that's your actual stance, but if the latter you have a serious misunderstanding of the subject.

http://en.wikipedia....ectual_property

Pretty sure it's you who has the misunderstanding.

[Glassed Silver]

Don't even try to bring "free speech" into this. "Free Speech" doesn't exist on the internet. You are always using someone else's private property and they have a right to to state how it can be used.

Uhm, you mean like how I cannot own a server and distribute my material, opinions, run a discussion board etc?

Glassed Silver:mac

[Ayepecks]

Media reports != the law. Please try again.

ok, after skimming over the judgement from the first case cited on that link, I concede that US law states that trade secrets can be stolen but I still contest that copyright infringement is theft. In particulardue to Dowling v. United States:

Nice job selectively choosing which parts to argue. Kudos; I'm sure you have a future in politics.

Also, your cited source is irrelevant. It's a case that is of a different matter entirely. The intellectual property in question was not taken through a use of fraud. Fraudulently posing as a customer with no desire to modify or redistribute files and other forms of intellectual property is a matter that has yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court. The case you're listing is also in regards to a law that was specific in regards to physical property -- it was outlined as part of the law. So, no dice.

But, let's say you were right. Doesn't make intellectual property theft any less illegal. Why do you people not comprehend that fact?

[Pam14160]

Nice job selectively choosing which parts to argue. Kudos; I'm sure you have a future in politics.

Also, your cited source is irrelevant. It's a case that is of a different matter entirely. The intellectual property in question was not taken through a use of fraud. Fraudulently posing as a customer with no desire to modify or redistribute files and other forms of intellectual property is a matter that has yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court. The case you're listing is also in regards to a law that was specific in regards to physical property -- it was outlined as part of the law. So, no dice.

But, let's say you were right. Doesn't make intellectual property theft any less illegal. Why do you people not comprehend that fact?

Its not that they cannot comprehend the fact, it is they do not want too. It really is that simple.

[ThePitt]

the ppl who has the money make the rules, always and hollywood has enough money to buy its own country. How many senators are? 100? pff. They can buy even obama if they want.

[Quillz]

I think there would be a lot less pirating if there would exist a worldwide service (not just in the US like so many other)

that would allow you to download tv series the day after they aired and movies a 3 months after they air

for a reasonable price. Something like $50/month for unlimited dl sounds fine to me.

As long as this doesn't exist people will keep pirating stuff

That's my 2 cents

It doesn't matter if it exists or not, piracy will never go away. You could put this idea into place, yet reduce the price to a single penny, and people would still find a way to pirate. Sometimes, it's not about the price but the DRM. There's a lot of factors to consider.

[TEX4S]

I have never hated another Texan as much as that douchelord.

I happen to know a little something about intellectual property infringement, in relation to patents. My father's company was the complaintiff in one of the largest patent infringement cases in the history of the U.S.

You call it "theft" - it is a form of stealing whether they stole an idea, a process, a trade secret, a product, even stole permission to do something with said property. If they dont have permission - they stole the right to do it legally/properly.

Now, that is different than actually being tried for "theft" - its called intellectual property infringement.

In my family's case it was the process design of making a plastic bottle (round cylindrical container w/ a concave bottom).

[tsupersonic]

blackout on wiki...not a cool interwebz

[Stoffel]

It doesn't matter if it exists or not, piracy will never go away. You could put this idea into place, yet reduce the price to a single penny, and people would still find a way to pirate. Sometimes, it's not about the price but the DRM. There's a lot of factors to consider.

You are absolutely right, but there are people who download stuff because there is no other way of seeing that movie or show.

People in Europe don't want to wait a year or more to see a tv series that airs in the US.

Where I live, you can only buy copied DVD's, there is no legal way to purchase a DVD or CD.

[TEX4S]

M2Ys4U -

Are you simply saying this doesnt fall into your personal definition of "theft" ? Arguing the semantics of the word ?

If its not theft, what do you call it when someone obtains an item (tangible or not) for which they do not have permission ? (In this case, the permission to distribute is stolen) - The infringement is not the possession of intellectual property, is the distribution of said property that is illegal.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

The problem is directly related to spotify style services.

No. The bill won't even affect Spotify style services as they're completely legal. Pretty sure Spotify would have to have entered an agreement with the music companies to even distribute the music, so how can it be anything to do with them?

Think please.

Pretty sure it's you who has the misunderstanding.

It's not actually theft by definition of the law, as you have to permanently deprive somebody of something for it to be classed as theft, but it is very closely related and still falls under the area of "dishonest offences."

[Blackhood]

Here we go, because google, ebay etc didn't blackout completly, msnbc is saying this:

Internet blackout against US law fails to enlist big sites

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46032361/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/#.TxZ_uvnAM5s

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Nice job selectively choosing which parts to argue. Kudos; I'm sure you have a future in politics.

Well, I'm coming at this from a British position where the High Court has stated that information per se cannot be stolen. I had been informed by a reliable lawyer in the US that the law was similar. I admit I'm wrong (something politicians should do more often to be honest...) in regard to trade secrets.

Also, your cited source is irrelevant. It's a case that is of a different matter entirely. The intellectual property in question was not taken through a use of fraud. Fraudulently posing as a customer with no desire to modify or redistribute files and other forms of intellectual property is a matter that has yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court. The case you're listing is also in regards to a law that was specific in regards to physical property -- it was outlined as part of the law. So, no dice.

File sharing is fraud now?

But, let's say you were right. Doesn't make intellectual property theft any less illegal. Why do you people not comprehend that fact?

I've never said that infringement wasn't unlawful, that much is obvious. I merely contest that it is not theft, and for good reason. The word theft is very emotive and presents completely the wrong image: that the original is no longer with the monopoly rights holder. Theft is a term that does not work in a world of abundance (as opposed to the scarcity of the physical, tangible world).

M2Ys4U -

Are you simply saying this doesnt fall into your personal definition of "theft" ? Arguing the semantics of the word ?

If its not theft, what do you call it when someone obtains an item (tangible or not) for which they do not have permission? (In this case, the permission to distribute is stolen) - The infringement is not the possession of intellectual property, is the distribution of said property that is illegal.

It's infringement. The violation of the monopoly right holders' exclusive right to (authorise the creation of a) copy.

It's not actually theft by definition of the law, as you have to permanently deprive somebody of something for it to be classed as theft, but it is very closely related and still falls under the area of "dishonest offences."

Quite; I do not contest this. (well, I do not know if the legal system in the US is similar to the UK's with regard to the difference between "offence" and "actionable" c.f. criminal and civil law).

Semantics, legal definitions and the intentional conflation of emotive topics aside, even though copyright infringement is unlawful this does not mean that the Internet needs to be broken and censored to remedy. Infringement is, by and large, a market and business model failure rather than an inforcement failure.

[Ayepecks]

We already addressed the argument you're now attempting to utilize. Please read the entire thread. And you're still selectively choosing what to reply to by taking statements out of context and ignoring the actual citations.

[Growled Member]

There is too much money before the bills. They will eventually pass.

[TEX4S]

There is too much money before the bills. They will eventually pass.

Thats what Im afraid of. We might get 10,000,000 people to submit a ballet, or sign a petition. Any halfway decent polition would look at that and think "Wow, this is a really unpopular topic, If I want to get re-elected, I better pay attention"

But Lamar Smith and his cronies are thinking, "let em sign all the petitions they want - I dont care if Im re-elected ! the MPAA just put $200,000,000 in an account in the Caymans with my dummy corp as the payee."

[KomaWei]

Thats what Im afraid of. We might get 10,000,000 people to submit a ballet, or sign a petition. Any halfway decent polition would look at that and think "Wow, this is a really unpopular topic, If I want to get re-elected, I better pay attention"

But Lamar Smith and his cronies are thinking, "let em sign all the petitions they want - I dont care if Im re-elected ! the MPAA just put $200,000,000 in an account in the Caymans with my dummy corp as the payee."

So true. There isn't crap we can do about it either. =\