info and video here.
Shit like this may cause Nostalgia Critic and RLM to shut down despite fair use. It's appalling.
Shit like this may cause Nostalgia Critic and RLM to shut down despite fair use. It's appalling.
Are you all worried about the Protect IP Act?
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
I trust corporate behemoths like Google to safeguard their interests with the usual verve of corporate behemoths everywhere. I see this basically as Big Business vs Big Business, one of which resides in Hollywood and the other a bit north in Silicon Valley.
In the ongoing battle of technology vs the law, technology tends to win, especially if there is money to be made. Who wins ultimately is determined by who has the better lobbyists.
And I don't think it'll matter in the long run. Let's say corporate-produced media (movies, TV, music) is suddenly off limits. That will just move the internet towards original content. It won't stop LOLcats or Annoying Orange. It will make corporate-produced media ever less relevant to popular culture.
There's no rule that says people need to pay attention to the products of corporate media. Hollywood may regard the good old days of piracy as a golden era, when people gave a shit about them at all.
Old Media (Hollywood) is freaking out because they are too hidebound to capitalize on the internet and correctly fear that their business will be stolen out from under them by newer and more flexible competitors.
The smart companies will the ones that realize that content is going to be free, anyway. They need to accept that and start building business that are piracy proof. Take TrekBBS as a small example. The value of this business is in the community, not in the content, and there's no way to pirate that. Even reproducing it would be difficult. I've visited a few sites that do more or less the same thing, but I've never found one that's better or even comparable.
What I mean is, being piracy proof is not a goal in and of itself, but rather, when you see a business that is piracy proof - free content, and their business is based on something else - that's a sign that that they are well adapted to prosper on the internet.
In the ongoing battle of technology vs the law, technology tends to win, especially if there is money to be made. Who wins ultimately is determined by who has the better lobbyists.
And I don't think it'll matter in the long run. Let's say corporate-produced media (movies, TV, music) is suddenly off limits. That will just move the internet towards original content. It won't stop LOLcats or Annoying Orange. It will make corporate-produced media ever less relevant to popular culture.
There's no rule that says people need to pay attention to the products of corporate media. Hollywood may regard the good old days of piracy as a golden era, when people gave a shit about them at all.
Old Media (Hollywood) is freaking out because they are too hidebound to capitalize on the internet and correctly fear that their business will be stolen out from under them by newer and more flexible competitors.
The smart companies will the ones that realize that content is going to be free, anyway. They need to accept that and start building business that are piracy proof. Take TrekBBS as a small example. The value of this business is in the community, not in the content, and there's no way to pirate that. Even reproducing it would be difficult. I've visited a few sites that do more or less the same thing, but I've never found one that's better or even comparable.
What I mean is, being piracy proof is not a goal in and of itself, but rather, when you see a business that is piracy proof - free content, and their business is based on something else - that's a sign that that they are well adapted to prosper on the internet.
Yeah but will drive people to take their video reviews and spoofs already on youtube down for fear of being fined/
It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
All that means is that YouTube will migrate to being a place where people upload and show off original content vs anything with copyright protected content.
And some corporations might not go after copyright infringement, such as LucasFilm (which has the advantage of not being a public company, so George can tell his legal department to follow his orders with no regards to what it does to the stock price). Those companies are the smart ones, that realize that parodies are free PR, and therefore should be encouraged, not squelched.
YouTube is simply a framework that is whatever people make of it. Is it so terrible that it should evolve to become largely a place for original content? Google certainly would object to that because it limits its business, but personally I don't care either way.
In theory, IF Hollywood wins this fight. I wouldn't discount the economic clout of Silicon Valley to counterpunch pretty effectively.
Look at the big picture here. Why do movies and TV shows exist in their current forms? Movies evolved from theater - Broadway moved west to Hollywood and used the new technology to make more money than they ever could have dreamed before, by greatly expanding their reach. The invention of radio allowed "movies" to be broadcast into people's homes, in serialized chunks (movies were commonly serialized at the time, so that wasn't a reach). Radio dramas evolved into TV dramas.
At every step, technology dictated the form. So now technology is changing immensely, and it will dictate new forms. The old forms may become extinct. The big movie blockbuster is adapted to a certain technology and a certain business model (movie theaters), but might not survive the transition where everything moves to the internet. Maybe piracy will kill the movie business as we know it now. So what, it lasted 100 years, it had a good run, and what replaces it will be entertaining and we'll all have fun anyway.
I'm pretty calm about all this because I see these changes as inevitable, so why worry? I'd be more worried if I made my living from the losing business (Hollywood) vs the one that is bound to win in the end, in some form, and is far more interesting and dynamic anyway.
But transitions are always rife with conflict, so I expect there to be a lot of yelling, screaming, legal action, etc. This too shall pass.
And some corporations might not go after copyright infringement, such as LucasFilm (which has the advantage of not being a public company, so George can tell his legal department to follow his orders with no regards to what it does to the stock price). Those companies are the smart ones, that realize that parodies are free PR, and therefore should be encouraged, not squelched.
YouTube is simply a framework that is whatever people make of it. Is it so terrible that it should evolve to become largely a place for original content? Google certainly would object to that because it limits its business, but personally I don't care either way.
In theory, IF Hollywood wins this fight. I wouldn't discount the economic clout of Silicon Valley to counterpunch pretty effectively.
Look at the big picture here. Why do movies and TV shows exist in their current forms? Movies evolved from theater - Broadway moved west to Hollywood and used the new technology to make more money than they ever could have dreamed before, by greatly expanding their reach. The invention of radio allowed "movies" to be broadcast into people's homes, in serialized chunks (movies were commonly serialized at the time, so that wasn't a reach). Radio dramas evolved into TV dramas.
At every step, technology dictated the form. So now technology is changing immensely, and it will dictate new forms. The old forms may become extinct. The big movie blockbuster is adapted to a certain technology and a certain business model (movie theaters), but might not survive the transition where everything moves to the internet. Maybe piracy will kill the movie business as we know it now. So what, it lasted 100 years, it had a good run, and what replaces it will be entertaining and we'll all have fun anyway.
I'm pretty calm about all this because I see these changes as inevitable, so why worry? I'd be more worried if I made my living from the losing business (Hollywood) vs the one that is bound to win in the end, in some form, and is far more interesting and dynamic anyway.
But transitions are always rife with conflict, so I expect there to be a lot of yelling, screaming, legal action, etc. This too shall pass.
If everyone who contributed to YT actually made clips of quality, sure. But the majority of "original content" on YT tends to be stuff like people lighting their farts on fire and cute cat videos. Not that I have anything against cute cats, true.
Anyway, I don't see SOPA going anywhere. It's like the attempts to wipe porn off the net, and they've tried to shut down things like YouTube before. They're simply too powerful. Technically speaking if I understand the basics of the proposed law, virtually every website could be blocked. It just won't work.
Alex
The key to good internet content is that a) there needs to be an incredible amount of it (and there is) and b) it is searchable so you can get exactly what you want (this is the problem).
YouTube just doesn't seem to have a good searching mechanism, but that's a technology and design problem. I search for Star Wars parodies and performances of certain classical music, and that's what YouTube knows I like, but what about the things I've never thought of and don't know exist? The main way I find good stuff on YouTube is when someone emails me a link. There must be a better way.
YouTube needs a more powerful way of predicting what I'll like and showing me these things, ranked by probability of my interest, based on the fact that I like Star Wars parodies and performances of certain classical music and maybe a few other details that I might provide to its search engine. I'm not even sure what questions YouTube should be asking, but I'll bet they could hire some smart people to find out.
It's the same problem we've always seen in fanfic and fan art - too much crap, can't find the good stuff. But the amount of crap is not the problem - the lack of a good way to zero in on the good stuff is the problem. And remember, something you think of as crap could be exactly what another person is looking for.
YouTube just doesn't seem to have a good searching mechanism, but that's a technology and design problem. I search for Star Wars parodies and performances of certain classical music, and that's what YouTube knows I like, but what about the things I've never thought of and don't know exist? The main way I find good stuff on YouTube is when someone emails me a link. There must be a better way.
YouTube needs a more powerful way of predicting what I'll like and showing me these things, ranked by probability of my interest, based on the fact that I like Star Wars parodies and performances of certain classical music and maybe a few other details that I might provide to its search engine. I'm not even sure what questions YouTube should be asking, but I'll bet they could hire some smart people to find out.
It's the same problem we've always seen in fanfic and fan art - too much crap, can't find the good stuff. But the amount of crap is not the problem - the lack of a good way to zero in on the good stuff is the problem. And remember, something you think of as crap could be exactly what another person is looking for.
I was reading on Deadline a week back and Obama said that he planned to veto an impending bill that was threatening net neutrality because it would frakk with small business...
Different bill, same principle.
How odd that two such similar bills would be trying to sandwich the internet from both ends at the same time. It's almost like there's some one out there who is insulted and disgusted that I am watching the new episode of Sanctuary right now, maybe two years before my local network is considering running it after midnight on a Friday night.... Well that would be Saturday morning wouldn't it?
It's not that I'm stealing content, or that I'm not paying for a 80 dollar dvd boxset, but that I'm circumnavigating 20 minutes of advertising I would never, never never be persuaded by to capitulate to.
Advertising is brainwashing and should be criminalized.
Weak minds deceived into throwing their money away on shitty products they do not need.
Amnesty International has to be called in to save all the little children tied to their TV sets forced to buy next generation Voltron toys by superliminal influence.
Different bill, same principle.
How odd that two such similar bills would be trying to sandwich the internet from both ends at the same time. It's almost like there's some one out there who is insulted and disgusted that I am watching the new episode of Sanctuary right now, maybe two years before my local network is considering running it after midnight on a Friday night.... Well that would be Saturday morning wouldn't it?
It's not that I'm stealing content, or that I'm not paying for a 80 dollar dvd boxset, but that I'm circumnavigating 20 minutes of advertising I would never, never never be persuaded by to capitulate to.
Advertising is brainwashing and should be criminalized.
Weak minds deceived into throwing their money away on shitty products they do not need.
Amnesty International has to be called in to save all the little children tied to their TV sets forced to buy next generation Voltron toys by superliminal influence.
Last edited:
As much as the US congress might like to thing any act it passes can only apply to he US. So in theory a company can move it's HQ to a location that doesn't fall under US jurisdiction.
Any issues relating to conduct would have to be pursed under Internatoional laws, no doubt using courts in which ever country the company is based in.
Any issues relating to conduct would have to be pursed under Internatoional laws, no doubt using courts in which ever country the company is based in.
You don't thin the 70 year old senators fussing over this don't think that the internet pages pages appearing on American computers in America is not tantamount to invasion?
The state interest in a mechanism that limits access to information means that there will be teeth in any intellectual property laws. In practice, there will be considerably more freedom for those with the financial means for lawsuits and political influence. But superior rights for rich people is what this country is about. What this is decidedly not about is any nonsense about consumer sovereignty, technology versus the law or the superiority of internet company business models.
The government has never made a serious effort to ban pornogrphy on the internet. But the strictures against pornography have been quite, quite useful in limiting student access to the internet. The supposed need to protect people's "property" will provide the same kind of legal club against the internet.
The government has never made a serious effort to ban pornogrphy on the internet. But the strictures against pornography have been quite, quite useful in limiting student access to the internet. The supposed need to protect people's "property" will provide the same kind of legal club against the internet.
According to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.):
- “I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor,” Issa said. “I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.”
From that article, it sounds like both Republicans and Democrats see the bill as going too far into censorship. Hell, when both Nancy Pelosi and Ron Paul agree something's extreme, you know it's extreme.
I'm not worried about the current bills.
But eventually stuff like them will get passed. It is just too much of a money making opportunity for lawyers and corporations. They already know how to manipulate and buy off politicians, and they know how to write laws. And there is a huge financial incentive for them to do it on this issue.
It will happen, it is only a matter of time.
Liberals and conservatives will both whine about free speech and expression being infringed upon, but the almighty dollar trumps political ideals and has already corrupted both parties.
Eventually you'll pay a fee each time you want to listen to a song. Every time you mention a movie or TV show on a message board, you'll pay a fee. Better not bad mouth an actor online, you'll get sued for slander.
The monetization of the internet is only just beginning. And the lawyers shall lead the way.
But eventually stuff like them will get passed. It is just too much of a money making opportunity for lawyers and corporations. They already know how to manipulate and buy off politicians, and they know how to write laws. And there is a huge financial incentive for them to do it on this issue.
It will happen, it is only a matter of time.
Liberals and conservatives will both whine about free speech and expression being infringed upon, but the almighty dollar trumps political ideals and has already corrupted both parties.
Eventually you'll pay a fee each time you want to listen to a song. Every time you mention a movie or TV show on a message board, you'll pay a fee. Better not bad mouth an actor online, you'll get sued for slander.
The monetization of the internet is only just beginning. And the lawyers shall lead the way.
That's pretty much where I'm at on the bill as well. (what Darrell Essa said)
According to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.):
From that article, it sounds like both Republicans and Democrats see the bill as going too far into censorship. Hell, when both Nancy Pelosi and Ron Paul agree something's extreme, you know it's extreme.
- “I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor,” Issa said. “I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.”
Some of it is ok in terms of the whole copyright parts and such. But it's still way over the top and needs to be worked on. For example, the part of the bill where it talks about sites that deal with US property theft. Where do they draw the line on it?
It's one thing to go after sites that allow for the streaming of pirated movies and music, but it's another issue all together to go after fan made sites or other social networking type sites. They need to make that more clear.
The law itself could be exploited in the form that it's in now. And that's one of the main reasons why I'm against it. If they worked on making some stuff clearer and closed up any of the loopholes in it that can be exploited, then maybe I might be more open to a law like it.
As for the third party ad thing, I can see that part of the bill being viable. As for internet security, it's good that they're working on it. And piracy is one thing that does need to be curbed some more.
*On a side note, it would be nice if Congress did bills in plain English. I found a version of it on LJ that was that way and it made a lot more sense. I can see what they're trying to do and I don't really mind it. Heck I try to get a hold of any person who owns the copyright on something if I want to use it... and ask them politely if I can. Most of the time it works, so in the end it's all good
. But again, I'd be ok with this bill if certain parts were cleared up and made more transparent and understandable, along with closing any loopholes that government could exploit... (ie: block sites that go against what others believe in, block fan based sites, etc., for example)...That is just rediculous. It's one thing to pay money to listen to a song, but not every time. That would be silly. As for mentioning tv shows and movies on message boards, you shouldn't be made to pay a fee for that, that's going too far.
It's one thing if you want to get a high quality print (as in a promo picture or something similar), that they'll charge you for it, but it's a whole other animal when they charge you for using the name of said show or movie.
As for the monetization of the internet, you're right on that one
. And no one will win. *except for the corporations, lawyers, etc.
The only way anything of substance - other than all the stuff people cheerfully do for free - will survive on the internet is through monetizing it. However, that is not at all the same as saying Hollywood is going to win. There are Silicon Valley corporations on the opposite side of this fight that also know how to manipulate and buy off politicians, and their financial incentive is also significant.
Both sides are fighting for the survival of their businesses in a form that is profitable, and in the case of Hollywood, comfortably familiar. Hollywood could survive in another form, but it would be hugely disruptive and I'm sure unpleasant to have to go through.
But people really don't need to worry overly about stuff like this:
If consumers are being turned off by a burdensome system, then it's not in the corporations' interests to perpetuate that system.
"Having to pay money to listen to a song" in a way that annoys the potential customer just means they find other things to amuse themselves with. The corporation that owns that song doesn't win; they lose a potential sale by being overly burdensome. They're not going to want to do that (assuming they're not entirely stupid) anymore than consumers are going to want to experience that burden.
There are ways to get people to pay money for songs that they are happy with. iTunes' 99 cent price for instance. If they made that system too pricey or obnoxious, they simply would lose sales. Consumers can control how annoying the corporations become in the usual way: by not buying stuff.
That is a good point and reminds of the recent issues related to exploitation, or potential exploitation, of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:
- Imagine that President Obama could order the arrest of anyone who broke a promise on the Internet. So you could be jailed for lying about your age or weight on an Internet dating site. Or you could be sent to federal prison if your boss told you to work but you used the company's computer to check sports scores online. Imagine that Eric Holder's Justice Department urged Congress to raise penalties for violations, making them felonies allowing three years in jail for each broken promise. Fanciful, right?
Think again. Congress is now poised to grant the Obama administration's wishes in the name of "cybersecurity."
The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.
The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed "authorized access." Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include "terms of use" violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies....
Justice has charged a defendant with violating workplace policies that limited use to legitimate company business. Prosecutors claimed that using the company's computers for other reasons exceeded authorized access. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed.
While skimming through the bill, the following phrase keeps popping up:
[...]the domain name is used within the United States to access such Internet site; and[...]
So, just use a non-US proxy and you'll be fine?
[...]the domain name is used within the United States to access such Internet site; and[...]
So, just use a non-US proxy and you'll be fine?
Parody is protected free speech.
Free speech? Remember the content being talked about is their property and practically everyone agrees they can do what they want with it! Personally I don't think intellectucal property is like your toothbrush, nor do I think that property rights include the power to set your own prices or forbid usage. But then, by most people's standards I'm far left.
However, parody is PROTECTED speech. if I did a parody of Star Wars, Lucas can't demand I take it down. Well, he can demand, but, I'm legally protected. He cannot stop me from making a parody.
Weird Al doesn't ACTUALLY need permission to do the parodies he does. (He does ask because he's a gentleman.)
Read up on on Parody as protected speech.
Edited to add: Parody and satire are different. Parody is protected, satire is not.
Yes he does. He got in trouble with Coolio back when he did a parody of his song, 'Gangsta's paradise' without his permission.
now it's all right though...
Which is good. But it doesn't hurt to ask for permission before doing something like that, just to be on the safe side.
Wow that's just insane. It's one thing to go after hackers, but it's another thing to go after people stuff like you listed above. That's crossing a line there.
Last edited:
Similar threads
