Censoring internet in America?

[Dobydog]

It sounds like they're trying to pass a couple of bills, Stop Internet Piracy Act, and the Protect IP Act, that could end up getting rid of a lot of websites, including MTS if EA wanted that. That's not why I'm worried about it really, just trying to make it more relevant here. I'm guessing I'm late on finding out about this because I don't watch the news, heard about it on youtube actually. Is anyone else worried?


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

[5M0K3]

Are you talking about censoring words?

Because they wouldn't do that if kids didn't feel the need to curse every 10 seconds. F*ck. :giggler:

[Oaktree]

I've been reading about it on Reddit. Apparently Reddit, Tumblr, and a few other sites have organized mass phone calls to representatives in Congress to protest the bill.

Ultimately, I think that SOPA is poorly thought-out. As it stands, the internet is an excellent place for free exchange of information, but many of the sites that function in this capacity would be greatly threatened by the bill. Youtube, for example, would be inoperable under this bill because they couldn't possibly police all videos posted for content that is in violation of copyright. Youtube would end up being blacklisted and then we would lose an important repository of video media. Additionally, as someone on Reddit pointed out, many of the congressmen in favor of this bill violate it themselves. Many of them have posted videos of their media appearances on their sites without gaining the permission of the media outlet. That is normally considered fair use, but, under SOPA, would be a copyright violation.

I hope that the congressmen supporting the bill come to their senses before this goes too far, because the bill would be extremely damaging to the usefulness of the internet. As in so many other anti-piracy measures, this would end up hurting non-pirates as much, or more than, pirates.

[minimogut]

Yes, I don't think this would be helpful. MTS could possibly be shut down, along with Facebook (I've seen quite a few fan-started groups on Facebook) and Youtube, to mention a few. I know that they're trying to stop bad things from happening, but I'm sure it will hurt more than it helps.

[fraroc]

This is complete garbage. I can't belive that the Government is STUPID enough to even THINK about passing this bill. It completley undermines an amendment! Which one was it? oh yes THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!!!! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!!

I swear, if SOPA becomes a law, I WILL Seek political asylum in Australia.

[miktiger]

I heard on tumblr that this law will NEVER pass, because Obama said if it got on his desk he'd veto it. But then 2/3 of congress would have to agree with him. I've called my states governors or more likely their assistants, and they told me thet they were already going to say no to it.

So hopefully it won't get passed.

[5M0K3]

Wait, wait, wait... They're planning on shutting us down?!
http://i42.tinypic.com/2vb4nb6.jpg

[AngryBunny.]

This law would include about 99% of websites! The whole point of the internet is about being able to share media and information. Youtube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, blog sites, even Google have the potential to be shut down under this law. What are they thinking?! The old codgers who wrote this obviously don't use the internet much, either that they're giving in to pressure from a specific organisation or source. I'm from Australia, but this still really angers me. Can't they just put a surveillance on some websites, instead of censoring them completely? I know Youtube removes a lot of copywrited audio from videos already, maybe something like that but in a larger scale? This is crazy.

[5M0K3]

And more than half the world is over 18. (I'm assuming.) If they are worried about kids seeing something... TOO BAD. That's like saying we should remove South Park from TV just because it's mindless and obscene, or saying we should cut out sex scenes from all movies because some kids might watch it? THAT'S UP TO THE PARENTS TO CENSOR THEIR CHILDREN.

AngryBunny, next thing y'know, they're gonna make us remove our avatars because The Sims belongs to EA. :lol:

[AngryBunny.]

And more than half the world is over 18. (I'm assuming.) If they are worried about kids seeing something... TOO BAD. That's like saying we should remove South Park from TV just because it's mindless and obscene, or saying we should cut out sex scenes from all movies because some kids might watch it? THAT'S UP TO THE PARENTS TO CENSOR THEIR CHILDREN.

AngryBunny, next thing y'know, they're gonna make us remove our avatars because The Sims belongs to EA. :lol:

It has more to do with copyright infringement, not 'censorship' relating to explicit material. If you go and see a concert and take a video and put it on Youtube, that's essentially copyright infringement. I only skimmed the bill, but I couldn't see any guidelines as to what constitutes 'infringement' (if someone understood the specifics, please share). It's very vague. From what I understood there is no oversight or due process. Meaning that the copyright holder is given free reign to cry foul on any potential copyright infringements (even something as small as a concert video on youtube). EA is supposedly supporting the bill, so if it is passed there may not be an MTS to use avatars on anyway! But, personally, I don't see them passing the bill. Imagine what it will do to Obama's approval rating. But then again, the Lieberman bill was passed last year, which still gives the government some degree of control over the internet. This new bill is just Lieberman 2.0, the more concentrated version. If this turns out to be as bad as everyone says it will be, then we should all just start calling America 'The New China'.

[5M0K3]

It has more to do with copyright infringement, not 'censorship' relating to explicit material. If you go and see a concert and take a video and put it on Youtube, that's essentially copyright infringement. I only skimmed the bill, but I couldn't see any guidelines as to what constitutes 'infringement' (if someone understood the specifics, please share). It's very vague. From what I understood there is no oversight or due process. Meaning that the copyright holder is given free reign to cry foul on any potential copyright infringements (even something as small as a concert video on youtube). EA is supposedly supporting the bill, so if it is passed there may not be an MTS to use avatars on anyway! But, personally, I don't see them passing the bill. Imagine what it will do to Obama's approval rating. But then again, the Lieberman bill was passed last year, which still gives the government some degree of control over the internet. This new bill is just Lieberman 2.0, the more concentrated version. If this turns out to be as bad as everyone says it will be, then we should all just start calling America 'The New China'. Everything is copyright infringement nowadays. There's a very small percentage of things that don't infringe copyright. And what good will the Internet be? We will have no movies/TV to watch on it, no music to listen to, no pictures to look at, and no custom content to download for the Sims. Hopefully this law isn't passed, but if it is, EA seriously better not stand behind it. (or Maxis)

And frankly the Lieberman bill scares me. A lot. I don't want anybody taking over the Internet, I hold my breath when clicking links because I don't always know what they are going to lead to, I'd sh*t my pants if something just appeared on my screen, or the Internet just randomly stopped working.

But I can't even imagine them passing this, I mean, imagine how many people would be pissed over this! I am on MTS and YouTube almost ALL THE TIME, and if those websites got closed down, I would lose my mind. (not to mention sharing music and videos on YouTube - though doesn't completely prevent it - probably makes people illegally download it less, whereas if there was nowhere else to hear it)

[AngryBunny.]

Everything is copyright infringement nowadays. There's a very small percentage of things that don't infringe copyright. And what good will the Internet be? We will have no movies/TV to watch on it, no music to listen to, no pictures to look at, and no custom content to download for the Sims. Hopefully this law isn't passed, but if it is, EA seriously better not stand behind it. (or Maxis)

And frankly the Lieberman bill scares me. A lot. I don't want anybody taking over the Internet, I hold my breath when clicking links because I don't always know what they are going to lead to, I'd sh*t my pants if something just appeared on my screen, or the Internet just randomly stopped working.

But I can't even imagine them passing this, I mean, imagine how many people would be pissed over this! I am on MTS and YouTube almost ALL THE TIME, and if those websites got closed down, I would lose my mind. (not to mention sharing music and videos on YouTube - though doesn't completely prevent it - probably makes people illegally download it less, whereas if there was nowhere else to hear it)

Exactly. That's what they want. They don't want people watching or downloading movies/TV on the internet because American film companies lose out and therefore, so does the American economy. Don't worry, I visit those sites almost everyday too! Hundreds of millions of other people are too. It's my opinion that they made the bill so vague so that they can control as much as the internet as they need to. I really hope, for everyone's sake, that it's not passed. But who knows, maybe this is what causes the end of the world in 2012 ;)

Here's a good video that explains the purpose and potential consequences of the bill. (http://vimeo.com/31100268)

[5M0K3]

Exactly. That's what they want. They don't want people watching or downloading movies/TV on the internet because American film companies lose out and therefore, so does the American economy. Don't worry, I visit those sites almost everyday too! Hundreds of millions of other people are too. It's my opinion that they made the bill so vague so that they can control as much as the internet as they need to. I really hope, for everyone's sake, that it's not passed. But who knows, maybe this is what causes the end of the world in 2012 ;)

Here's a good video that explains the purpose and potential consequences of the bill. (http://vimeo.com/31100268) This whole thing freaks me out - I'll die without CC and YouTube right at my fingertips.

[DrowningFishy]

First off let me start in saying if you pirate please do so for all the right damn reasons. You know like to preview a show or movie to see if you can like it, or you know amuse yourself as you save up the change for a insanely priced DVD. Or you know like the thing you want to watch is not avaliable in your region and never be. PLEASE do not pirate because your lazy.

Secondly anime fans, without pirating anime would never become popular. Even non anime fans would recognise Naruto. Naruto became popular LONG before it came out here due to pirating. Now that the DVDs are availiable please support the companies to shut them up. While on this topic, and reason for bringing it up, is that now that they are thinking about making laws against cosplay. Yes, cosplay is a big copyright infringement apparently. 0_o o_0 Oooo a bunch of people in cheaply made costumes are really going to hurt sales. :wtf: Gaming industry thank you for not being this stupid and actually supporting your cosplayers.

Pirating and copyright laws are out of date and in my opinion seems to be written by people with sticks up their ass who never look at the bigger picture. Some pirating is good - leads to sales in CDs (which are not bloody regional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code) ), and merchandising like toys, and posters. Streaming actually means less downloading, less downloading means less files out there.

Does mod the Sims effect EA sales? Well I think it would, hell bet you some of that crap that USED to be on the Sims 2 for sale wouldn't sell without recolors avaliable. Shoot same still applies for Sims3. It's not like this site is hosting stuff that is avaliable to buy on this site.

It's all about money money money, and if you buy a DVD from an imported show good bloody luck. Your on average paying 35 dollars for MAYBE five episodes. Recently I bought a series to support the companies and it was 4 DVDs. The 1st and the 4th were both under eight, the 3rd ran me about 35 dollars and for the 2nd they suddenly want 70 dollars. They all contain the same amount of episodes, same quality. Wish I was kidding when I say this. I admitt I did not buy the 2nd said crap to that and I kept the pirated videos (you know I still have all the pirated eps because their higher quality then on the DVDs :faceslap: )

In matter of fact if I say Twilight and refer to the movie I just commited copyright infridgement because they company didn't give me permission to use it.

PS: If they want to bring around some of those laws they better be prepared for a major uprising in the united states.

[whiterider]

I feel I should point out that EA can't shut us down because we've spent the past seven years carefully only infringing their property rights when they tell us it's ok. MATY, on the other hand...

And, also... this is not a freedom of speech issue. The vast majority of online content != personal opinions and beliefs.

[Birdhouse]

Yeah... no. Just no on the SOPA.

[5M0K3]

I feel I should point out that EA can't shut us down because we've spent the past seven years carefully only infringing their property rights when they tell us it's ok. MATY, on the other hand... Wait, why would MATY get shut down?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Exactly. That's what they want. They don't want people watching or downloading movies/TV on the internet because American film companies lose out and therefore, so does the American economy. Don't worry, I visit those sites almost everyday too! Hundreds of millions of other people are too. It's my opinion that they made the bill so vague so that they can control as much as the internet as they need to. I really hope, for everyone's sake, that it's not passed. But who knows, maybe this is what causes the end of the world in 2012 ;)

Here's a good video that explains the purpose and potential consequences of the bill. (http://vimeo.com/31100268)

without an internet that had content freely available to me, i would have a lot more idle time on my hands...

and im not known for being a people person.
i imagine it is the same for many people. entertain the monster, and it may refrain from releasing all its pent-up frustration at being unable to properly support itself (something that NONE of the asses that want this bill passed, have a problem with doing for themselves, even WITH piracy around) all over the next person to ask it for money.

kings and queens of medieval times, understood this. its why they gave out free bread to the masses, and set up free entertainment. as long as the peasants werent starving and/or bored, they wouldnt figure out that, hey...they actually outnumber these pricks and their loved ones by quite a lot.
it wasnt about entitlement. it was about preserving a level of stable relations. i imagine that level of stability would go flying out the window for many people who still dont have jobs, still dont have hope, still dont have money, if they learned that the same people who were living a cushy life as it is, shut off their one source of viable entertainment in the name of getting even more money.

...but quite frankly, im not terribly worried about it. nobody in their right mind would pass that sort of bill. its too vague and grants too much power to the people who wrote it. we've become a money-worshiping society, but hey, money doesnt serve you very well if angry mobs are burning down your big expensive house.

[GigaRevival]

Wait, why would MATY get shut down?

http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/More_Awesome_Than_You <---It's all in the wiki. Last sentence of the middle paragraph; just in case you don't want to read the whole 2 paragraphs that are there.

I honestly don't think SOPA will pass (or at least I sincerely hope not), but I do believe that a more detailed, albeit less strict, law based on SOPA might. Still as bad IMO. Although, it seems it is generating some big name support from companies, so... shi$.

[Rinalin]

Uh, so guys, I've never actually posted on here before, but have you all been signing things? Because if you haven't.. you should be.

Please?

http://stopcensorship.org/

[whiterider]

I would be very interested to hear of an example of an online petition to a government ever being successful. You're better off threatening individual representatives (in the general sense) with voting for the other guy if they don't try to block the bill.

And in case anyone is wondering following the MATY allusions, discussing piracy is ok in the abstract; just don't admit you've done it, encourage others to do it, or give specific info and links of the "This is how to pirate stuff!" variety.

I have to say: I think the bill is somewhat naive. In terms of principal, it's a Bad Idea. But in practise? Content creators (game devs, movie companies etc) already have the power to shut down sites providing illegal content, and to prosecute individuals accessing such content. They rarely do, largely because of the ridiculous costs and low chance of success. Blocking things at the ISP level would be slightly more effective and easier for them, but it's never gonna be quick, and if that did become common practise - which the passing of the bill (if it passes) doesn't guarantee - all that would happen is lots of alias domains and proxies. It'd be a pain in the ass for US users, of course, and as I've said, is a bad precedent to take. But it wouldn't have all that much practical effect, imho.

And don't doubt for a minute that Google would do absolutely anything, and pay any amount of money, to keep content providers from blocking Youtube.

[5M0K3]

So if the law is passed, I'm assuming they'll be shutting down PMBD? (paysites must be destroyed)

And Rinalin, that link is rather shady. I'm anti-SOPA, but seriously... It's an online petition - from no group of people in particular - that asks for your name, e-mail, HOME ADDRESS, and zip code. Even if an online petition could do much, things like that just aren't safe. I suggest you look at this. (http://thegreengeeks.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/the-danger-of-online-activism/)

[Rinalin]

.. You've never signed an online petition before, have you?

[Birdhouse]

I have. In fact, I signed a petition to not pass the SOPA.

[Oaktree]

Petitions aren't much use if they can't identify you. That's why online petitions, particularly those that don't ask for much personal information, are generally meaningless.

[Saturnfly]

Scare tactics... Imagine the outrage if Facebook got shut down... No one would want that amount of bad press on their agenda.

[kristie91]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
some info if you are interested!
http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html
some more info. However you won't be able to view it if you have comcast. They filtered this site.

[Birdhouse]

The SOPA has no chance of passing. The Protect IP Act, on the other hand, well... eh.

[kristie91]

I don't even really know what the protect ip act is.. I guess I shall have to look it up.

[SimsLover50]

I'm actually somewhat okay with some level of penalty for piracy and a degree of regulation. There are authors/musicians/artists who depend on their work for a livlihood and stealing from them is not cool and this happens with too much regularity. No one's life is going to end if they do not download that latest mp3, so stealing really can't be justified and it is rampant in certain countries.

I work at an organization regularly targetted by RIAA and we send out their letters to copyright violators. It is up to them to settle with the motion picture industry for what they steal.

I'm not sure the law is the answer, however, but I do think some attention needs to be paid to this issue.

[Oaktree]

Actually, most signed musicians make almost nothing from music sales. They get pennies on the dollar. Most of their income is from concerts and merchandise.

And Hollywood really needs to get its act together and stop screwing people over if they want to slow piracy. About 75% of the expense of a movie theater ticket goes to paying Hollywood for the right to show the movie. Those elevated ticket prices that everyone is complaining about (and which are making fewer people go to the theater) are because of Hollywood. If they want more legitimate viewers, they should consider making it cheaper. Then let's look at DVD and Bluray costs. List price for a single DVD is $20. List price for a Bluray is about $30. It's cheaper than bringing a family of 4 to the theater, but it's still quite expensive for a couple hours' diversion, particularly if you don't know if the movie will be any good. I'm not saying that it's okay for people to go pirate something just because it's more expensive than they want to pay for, but, if you want customers, you have to adjust your prices to what they are willing to pay. A lot of people aren't willing to pay these prices. If it is a matter of the cost of movie-making being too high, the best way to deal with that is to stop making movies like Avatar and look for scripts that are less visually driven and have a bit more depth to them. A lot of people are tired of seeing the same old schlock; it might improve sales if movies started getting a little more depth to them.

[SimsLover50]

Even if the musicians make nothing- it is still not right to steal what doesn't belong to you.

Many authors depend on the income they get from book sales and when the books are pirated they recieve nothing.

[Oaktree]

As I said in the middle of my long rant about Hollywood, I'm not saying that it's right to pirate simply because you don't want to pay for something. But it is a reality that these businesses will have to deal with the existence of piracy by being more accommodating to their customers. No amount of legal intervention can possibly stop piracy altogether. There are far to many ways to get around anti-piracy measures, and a number of the people who pirate are usually quite computer-savvy. Many of the measures they take to stop piracy end up hurting paying customers more than pirates. EA provides a great example of this. SecuRom has been found to be damaging to computers, but they use it to prevent piracy of their sims games. Pirates don't have to deal with the damaging effects - paying customers do. It would be more ethical for them to either write off any sales they think they may have lost to piracy, or lower their prices to provide greater incentive for people to buy.

And I think that the music industry is headed in a direction where the middle man - the record company - will be cut out. The internet is making it much easier for artists to get their music out there without the aid of a record company, and fewer people are buying physical music disks. I can't remember the last time I bought a CD and, no, I don't pirate music. Some unsigned artists are catching on to the idea of putting their music out there for free and then charging for performances and merchandise. Even some signed artists are doing this. I think it's the way the industry should, and probably will, go.

I'm not aware of book piracy being a major problem, but, if it is, all I can say is that authors should focus on appealing to the part of their audience that likes to collect books. I'm one of those. I vastly prefer physical books over e-books. It would probably help, though, if they made sure the company that turns their books into e-books is doing a good job. I've heard a lot of complaints about e-books where the pictures were in black and white, or the formatting was screwed up, or some other problem that made it not worth it. Further, e-books should probably be cheaper than real books. Not only are the printing costs no longer an issue, but people are generally not willing to pay as much for digital content. Take that into account, and the piracy problem will probably lessen.

[SimsLover50]

Heh. . I think you are right about getting rid of the middle man. In the digital age, there the need for that will be less. That should help those with genuine talent.

I was discussing piracy with an older science fiction writer who says if people pirate her books- digitally, then she doesn't get a cent and she really does needs the money. I feel bad for her.

I only seem to run into formatting issues with self pubbed or low budge published writers. I agree the cost should be lower, however if people find the cost high, they are now check-outable digitally at some online libraries and there are always the regular library.

[Saturnfly]

Even if the musicians make nothing- it is still not right to steal what doesn't belong to you.

Many authors depend on the income they get from book sales and when the books are pirated they recieve nothing.

I agree with you, however at the current state of the economy, I think the last thing most people are thinking about is giving well off authors and musicians more money.

Making an album these days costs virtually nothing, and distributing it is far easier than what it was like 20 years ago.

I'm definitely not saying that piracy is okay, I'm against it myself, but if I were a musician, especially a new one, I would just be happy for the exposure and that people are listening to my stuff and sharing it if it's good since live concerts and merchandise are actually the way muso's make their cash. You can't download yourself into a live concert...

[DrowningFishy]

I agree with you, however at the current state of the economy, I think the last thing most people are thinking about is giving well off authors and musicians more money.

Making an album these days costs virtually nothing, and distributing it is far easier than what it was like 20 years ago.

I'm definitely not saying that piracy is okay, I'm against it myself, but if I were a musician, especially a new one, I would just be happy for the exposure and that people are listening to my stuff and sharing it if it's good since live concerts and merchandise are actually the way muso's make their cash. You can't download yourself into a live concert...

That's why I say if you must feel liek you have to pirate something do so while your saving up the money to support the company in some way. Of course eventually buying the DVD and CD is a perfect way of doing so. It's so easy to say go out and buy it when sadly the price of living makes it hard to do so.

For the love of god don't be like some people I know owning over 100 DVDs and most of them is pirated with no excuse other then "he doesn't want to waste money".

A company being so anti-piracy can also back fire. If a company is to active in anti-piracy it might actually make them look like greedy bastards. Vevo (sp) on youtube is one, though personally don't find vevo to much of an issue.

Some companies are begining to find compramises, like Vevo, there are places liek Hulu, and Dramafever which offers legal streaming. Which means YAY! for us, but there still remains some flaw to their plan. don't just offer up a subscription, offer up an easy way to buy it if we like it.

Another good compramize which is happening more is youtube now instead of pulling down fan vids offer mentioning the song, and then having the buy it on Itunes right there.

What we don't need is to censor the internet, what we need is for people to catch up with technology and find compramises.

[BlakeS5678]

What we don't need is to censor the internet, what we need is for people to catch up with technology and find compramises.

Ah, atlas, maybe in a perfect world. :(

But, on the bright side I kind of doubt they will pass the bill. I shutter at the thought of the whole hell of protesters and turmoil state our country will be in if they do pass the bill though.

[SimsLover50]

They pirated even when the economy wasn't sucky, though. They did it because... They could, and because most people do not value digital items quite the same way as physical ones and it is just so easy to click and download anything they want.

The same people who would not steal a paperback from barnes and noble, can easily rationalize stealing a copy from napster.

Problem is, there isn't as much shame involved in stealing digital media. Most people would not like it if their buddy lifted dvd's from the local drug store or music cd's. But have no issue with him ripping off songs online by computer.

[Elyasis]

Only because physical copies stolen is a real amount of loss for the company in question (plus the particular store) where as downloading is perceived as not gaining the sale.

Stolen book/cd off shelf= cost to print+cost of R&D not getting repaid with that particular item
Stolen off the interwebs=cost of R&D not getting repaid with that particular "item"

It's quite simple to see why one is worse than the other.

[Robodl95]

It's stealing no matter how you justify it.

[Mistermook]

It's copyright infringement no matter how you justify it. If it were stealing then it would be a completely different thing.

Honestly? A lot of "piracy" is the "infringement of ideas", and that's been a problem since before copyright was invented, was the reason copyright was invented, and will continue to be a problem forever and forever. For a long while we did a fairly good job of caging ideas with copyright and trademarks, but we're just heading to a time in our history and technology where I don't see how the old rules can or should apply like they used to. What are we going to do when real, powerful 3D printers hit the market and everyone and their brother can "infringe" on "intellectual property" by printing out, I dunno, knicknacks? How do you police "I know what a vase looks like, and I think I've seen a vase like this before, therefore I can make an easy copy?" What happens when personal surveillance allows us to record everything we do in our lives in perpetuity, including things like going to the theater or listening to music? If you're following yourself around interacting with ideas and intellectual property, with the proper equipment you're recording (and therefore infringing) on all kinds of stuff. Advance the idea of personal industrial spaces, progressions in computing, and more? You're looking at the complete destruction of the owned idea, because your computing space eventually gets smart enough to "learn what you like" and simply create ideas ad hoc and make them reality. That will probably put the premium on the "real experience" just like people are starting to suggest already, but very much of our lives will be dominated by things indistinguishable by proclamations of reality. What's the difference between a "real" book and a book generated in your utility closet to the same standards as the other book?

I can see how people can shoot the technology in the foot for a while and try to keep the genie in the bottle, but we're already to the point where some products are beginning to be developed more by computers being handled by technicians herding them around. That's only going to get more and more extreme, and then one day it's going to be trivial. Intellectual property is a relatively new invention of humanity, for it to be sustained it has to serve a purpose and at some point "keeping outdated jobs and employment" and "artificial barriers to trade and innovation" aren't going to cut it as excuses any longer.

...And that's why we have freedom of speech in the US I think in the first place. The Founding Fathers saw just how hard, how desperately hopeless it is to destroy an idea. Censorship is wasted effort, whether it's to keep Chinese artists in line or folks throwing millions of dollars at "piracy prevention" in aid against keeping people from sharing something intangible like electrons flipping on the internet. You can succeed for a little while, but eventually information, as quaint as it sounds, wants to be free and finds a way to find daylight. Right now it's still worth throwing that money at piracy because you get a bump that promotes a little more profit, or peace of mind in investors, or whatever, but I don't think the future is in favor of that. I think the future nails that, tears the whole process apart. It's all as doomed as the horse drawn carriage.

[Robodl95]

You're talking about the future with more abstract ideas like a vase but I'm talking about today with the current laws and concrete things like The Sims 3. Downloading a movie or game or song from a website that did not have permission from the properties owners is illegal and yes it is stealing. I understand your argument against trade marking of very simple things such "face" (*cough* facebook) but music, movies and games are different.

[Tempscire]

Downloading a movie or game or song from a website that did not have permission from the properties owners is illegal and yes it is stealing.
"Stealing" in that sense is still an abstracted use of the word. If you were to be prosecuted for it, you'd be in civil court for copyright infringement, not criminal court for theft.

[kristie91]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8915245/Criminals-and-cyber-bullies-to-be-banned-from-the-web.html

Here's an interesting article what do you guys think?

[5M0K3]

I work at a record store, and I'm sure we make more money off of the records/CDs than the musicians that composed it.

And if someone pirates a really popular, well-off musician's music, do you think they are even going to notice not getting 10 dollars? Out of the millions of unneeded money that they already have? If they really care about something so petty, then they are just as greedy as whoever is downloading the CD. I have friends that are musicians - none of them very known at all - and someone downloading THEIR music is a much different thing than someone downloading whoever is popular today's music.

[kustirider2]

The word "stealing" is applied to a broad spectrum. 'Stealing' a MP3 is hardly comparable to actually stealing a car. It's like those stupid piracy videos "You wouldn't steal a handbag, so why steal an online movie?". Anyway, personally I think it won't pass. I also have nothing against piracy, because otherwise everyone would be broke... especially in today's economy.

[Robodl95]

And if someone pirates a really popular, well-off musician's music, do you think they are even going to notice not getting 10 dollars? Out of the millions of unneeded money that they already have?
10 dollars will turn into several million quickly when downloaded by thousands of people. Musicians don't make much money from their CD sales, it's divided between the record company and the band and the composers and the mixers, etc. It's their money just as much as the singer's.

If they really care about something so petty, then they are just as greedy as whoever is downloading the CD.
Would you be okay if I took 10% (can't find actual data, seems close though) of your annual income? Why are they greedy for wanting the money that they deserve?

I also have nothing against piracy, because otherwise everyone would be broke... especially in today's economy.
The front page of our newspaper today read that consumers pay on average 350$ more a year to cover theft/piracy. That's enough to buy a good amount of entertainment.

[5M0K3]

Would you be okay if I took 10% (can't find actual data, seems close though) of your annual income? Why are they greedy for wanting the money that they deserve? Do I make millions of dollars? No. I make around 600 dollars every two weeks. Sometimes more, sometimes less. 10% of 600 is 60, and after bills and whatnot, that's more than half of the amount of money I have left. 10% of a million is 100,000; a million - 100,000 is 900,000; so they still have tons of money, assuming they aren't even multi-millionaires.

[mewichigo34]

My thread of patience with the Government is almost non-existent.This is completely absurd.Regardless if I'm still in school and don't have a job,I have enough of a brain(compared to the idiots I deal with on a daily basis)to say that.I will protest if that gets passed.The government will get a rude awakening if me and my friends can't listen to Vocaloid.
While on this topic, and reason for bringing it up, is that now that they are thinking about making laws against cosplay.

Oh wow,I cosplayed on Halloween.Big f*cking whoop.


In matter of fact if I say Twilight and refer to the movie I just commited copyright infridgement because they company didn't give me permission to use it.
Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.Twilight.

Freedom of speach b*tches! :giggler:

[Amish Nick_SC]

It sounds like they're trying to pass a couple of bills, Stop Internet Piracy Act, and the Protect IP Act, that could end up getting rid of a lot of websites, including MTS if EA wanted that. That's not why I'm worried about it really, just trying to make it more relevant here. I'm guessing I'm late on finding out about this because I don't watch the news, heard about it on youtube actually. Is anyone else worried?


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

Wow, I'm gone for a while and this place changes a lot.

Glad to see some old faces around here still. Many more new ones. Thou the place looks far more dead then last I stopped by some... time ago.

Considering this is the only topic active in the last few days. I'll make it quick.

Take the time to actually understand the bills, not from sites dedicated against them, but from a more impartial source. Because those sites provided initially are intended to be very bias against it from the start, so your not getting the full story, or even a true story on what the bills are intended to do.

Lets start with Stop Online Piracy Act;

The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and others to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the infringing website; barring search engines from linking to such sites and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement. To put into layman's terms, lets say you create some thing for Sims 3. A cool mod. Then after a few days, while visiting another pay site for the game, you spot your creation on that site, and some one else is claiming to have created it. This bill will give you the power to go after said site, if the site owner refuses to take your creation down. They are enabling the theft of your creation.

Now to quote AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida on this during testimony;

"The First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks,"

So answer this then, why should we protect stealing goods off the internet?

For the second bill. PROTECT IP Act

The bill provides for "enhancing enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas", and authorizes the United States Department of Justice to seek a court order in rem against websites dedicated to infringing activities themselves, if through due diligence an individual owner or operator cannot be located.

Its biggest part is that various search engines would have to block said sites from popping up on web searches. Along with a few other actions. Similar to SOPA.

What this bill would target would be sites that provide warez, CD Cracks, Pirated Music, and the like. Sites that are dedicated to selling, or providing stolen illegal downloads.

[DrowningFishy]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/?tag=mncol;txt
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57330078-281/surprise-microsoft-quietly-opposes-sopa-copyright-bill/?tag=mncol;posts
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10256481-93.html?tag=mncol;8n

I ran across this tonight and I found it pretty interesting. And I was thinking and I realized we already have a version of censoring here in America right now. It is called the Sixth Strike Law.

http://www.slaw.ca/2011/07/13/us-isps-adopt-futile-6-strike-approach-to-illegal-file-sharing/

I chose this website because the guy at the end has some good points.

All in all, don't think what your doing online is not being watched. Chances are unless your doing something major to alert someone you arn't but truth be told it sucks to say it, but paranoid people are right. If anything this whole six strike thing just goes to prove online really you have no rights to privacy.

[Sunbee]

This is, as far as I know, the only thing actually resembling a study on the effects of internet piracy: http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver6.asp It's old--a decade, just about, but considering that Baen is still giving away ebooks left, right, and center, I'd guess they still find it a profitable move. Might be useful to those calling their politicians.

[christmas fear]

It kind of sucks because even if this did happen, we wouldn't know what to do if we didn't have things like youtube/sims/facebook/tumblr and we would be way more concentrated on getting it back than we would be on finding other things to do. People used to live a very long time ago without these things and now they seem like things we can't live without. That's what sucks. :(

[5M0K3]

That's why I think they aren't going to pass the bill.

It's the stupidest thing they could do, and if Obama wants to be re-elected, there's no way people will vote for him knowing that he approved this nonsense. Obviously some people still are, maybe his real followers, or people who support SOPA (which makes me wonder, who?!) so I guess I shouldn't say that nobody will vote for him, but his votes will most definitely go down.

[Mistermook]

Take the time to actually understand the bills, not from sites dedicated against them, but from a more impartial source. Because those sites provided initially are intended to be very bias against it from the start, so your not getting the full story, or even a true story on what the bills are intended to do.
Except that's not exactly how it goes down. Just judging from the last overreaching legislation we've had on internet copyright issues, what we'll have, in effect, is a massive push from well-connected, well-funded copyright holders taking extremes on copyright issues in effect to bludgeon their way to either the total eradication of fair use or else to hover over the heads of smaller property users to extract more money. It's giving copyright holders more tools to perform rent-seeking behavior, which is the whole problem with copyright as we perform it these days anyways - everyone wants musicians and artists to make some money off of their creations, but at some point you can both take it to an extreme where it's stifling creativity and innovation (which we don't want) and sustain the "property" in perpetuity which isn't good for anyone either.

I'd rather every ten years or less folks just have to create something new, rather than sit on the fruits of their past innovation. The current situation brought about by Disney is unsustainable. Eventually we won't be able to make anything new at all without an army of lawyers to navigate the tricky business of derivative works, and that's not good for the country and it's not really very good for people in general.

[Julieryc]

That's why I think they aren't going to pass the bill.

It's the stupidest thing they could do, and if Obama wants to be re-elected, there's no way people will vote for him knowing that he approved this nonsense. Obviously some people still are, maybe his real followers, or people who support SOPA (which makes me wonder, who?!) so I guess I shouldn't say that nobody will vote for him, but his votes will most definitely go down.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of Congresspeople who support SOPA. I wrote my congressperson stating my opposition and got an auto-message back from him about how he supports SOPA because it's all about piracy, not about censorship. I feel like I should write him back pointing out that the bill is too broadly written, but I know another letter from the same voter isn't going to change his mind, particularly when he's a Republican from a conservative, old-skewing district and I'm a young, liberal-leaning voter who probably wouldn't vote for his re-election anyway.

The problem is, it's not an issue that's received much coverage in mainstream media, so not a lot of people know about it. Even if they did, a number of people wouldn't care: they either figure that they're not doing anything censor-worthy, don't think the government would actually censor things, or don't use/care about the sites that are likely to take the largest hit from this (message boards, social media sites, eBay, Etsy...although pretty much everyone uses Google, but again, the problem is apathy/disbelief.)

Also, to think that people are going to base a presidential or congressional vote solely on one's stance for or against SOPA is short-sighted: people care a lot more about the economy and jobs than they do about their First Amendment freedoms, particularly in states where the unemployment rate is high.

I've heard Obama will probably veto the bill if it hits his desk, which he SHOULD, but does Congress have enough for an override? And will he veto it? The fact that there are closed hearings on this, with only supporters allowed, is already disturbing. But to think that most people, or even a significant number of people, are going to base their votes on SOPA isn't realistic.

(Also, really, if you're a left-leaning voter and Obama doesn't veto, what do you do in the next election? Most of the Republican candidates are probably in favor; Ron Paul is the only one I can think of who opposes it, and Paul's realistically never going to secure the Republican nomination. So do you sit it out and not vote for Obama, but then risk giving power over to anti-LGBT-rights Republicans with big-business-favoring tax policy?)

[Amish Nick_SC]

Except that's not exactly how it goes down. Just judging from the last overreaching legislation we've had on internet copyright issues, what we'll have, in effect, is a massive push from well-connected, well-funded copyright holders taking extremes on copyright issues in effect to bludgeon their way to either the total eradication of fair use or else to hover over the heads of smaller property users to extract more money. It's giving copyright holders more tools to perform rent-seeking behavior, which is the whole problem with copyright as we perform it these days anyways - everyone wants musicians and artists to make some money off of their creations, but at some point you can both take it to an extreme where it's stifling creativity and innovation (which we don't want) and sustain the "property" in perpetuity which isn't good for anyone either.

I'd rather every ten years or less folks just have to create something new, rather than sit on the fruits of their past innovation. The current situation brought about by Disney is unsustainable. Eventually we won't be able to make anything new at all without an army of lawyers to navigate the tricky business of derivative works, and that's not good for the country and it's not really very good for people in general.

The problem Mook is this. Your condoning and excusing theft. Plain and simple.

If you were to walk into a store, walk over to the music section, pick up a CD then walk out the door without paying for it, you would be prosecuted for theft. And I doubt any one here would argue with that.

But if you go to one of the numerous sites that upload those said CDs, and allow others to DL them without charge and without the musicians permission, thus deigning the musician the right to earn money from their work, every one is trying to condone the theft from the musician as some form of 1st amend. right, or "Well they made enough money any way".

Its still theft.

For the misguided, they some how believe that if it happens over the internet, it is some how harmless, that its ok to steal from others, and no one should be allowed to stop them.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) tabulates the cost of intellectual property theft at about $250 billion annually to American businesses and citizens. And yet this number is acceptable to those defending the theft of property over the net. That is $250 Billion that could be used to create new merchandise, employ more people, and generate more tax dollars for local, state and federal coffers.

[kattenijin]

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) tabulates the cost of intellectual property theft at about $250 billion annually to American businesses and citizens. And yet this number is acceptable to those defending the theft of property over the net. That is $250 Billion that could be used to create new merchandise, employ more people, and generate more tax dollars for local, state and federal coffers.

...Maybe. My issue with those figures is that they accept the figures given to them by the various companies/institutions as gospel. Say that company X determines there were 100,000 pirated downloads of a music album that retails at $9.99; they then claim a loss of $999000. This is a "fake" loss; the majority of people who pirated, would not have done so had it not been an option. The number of people who would have gone and actually purchased would be quite small, thus the value of the "lost revenue" dosen't come near to $250 Billion. Not to say that makes piracy ok, it just invalidates their position that the lost revenue would have been ... "real" for lack of a better word.

It's kinda like your money in the bank, if everyone decided they wanted cash-in-hand at the same time, there isn't enough paper currency to cover it. Although the ammounts people have in the bank (in this case) are "real", the existance of those amounts isn't.

[Mistermook]

The problem Mook is this. Your condoning and excusing theft. Plain and simple.
I've done nothing of the sort: I've said that the current system of intellectual property rights and the vehicles for controlling those rights are becoming progressively untenable, and are also becoming less and less advantageous to society as a whole. I've also pointed out less than advantageous consequences of continually pursuing this quest to lock down ideas in the same way we lock down durable goods. You don't have to become an advocate for street racing to suggest that lowering speed limits on the Interstate to 45 mph would result in an unsustainable, perhaps overly-aggressive wash of speeding tickets. Just because something is the law doesn't mean that it's a good law, or that the law is the best example we could come up with for the maximum productivity and innovation in the country.

If I were advocating and condoning theft I'd have said something different. I know it's easier to attack the straw man argument of what I didn't say than challenge me on what I actually did, but I really wish you'd try if you are going to attempt a debate. Obviously there's a middle ground between "complete lack of intellectual property rights" and "no one can have a new idea ever because copyright holders hold all sustainable rights forever and ever," and I think I've pointed that out. I'm not advocating illegality, I'm pointing out that once everyone gets flying cars having speed limits of 25 mph are perhaps not a good idea because technology changes things and laws have to accommodate reality, not some simple-minded rote interpretation of what someone in the past argued when the law might have formerly made sense. Laws have to fit the goals and enrichment of society, not simple rent seekers who sit on ideas for perpetuity, doling out those ideas to the masses at great cost to those unwashed because the government has chosen to allow them ill-advised monopolies.

Its still theft.
Again, it's still copyright infringement. They're different classifications in the criminal code for a reason. If you can't be precise and keep on insisting that apples are oranges I'll know you're not really serious in maintaining a discussion on this.

The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) tabulates the cost of intellectual property theft at about $250 billion annually to American businesses and citizens. And yet this number is acceptable to those defending the theft of property over the net. That is $250 Billion that could be used to create new merchandise, employ more people, and generate more tax dollars for local, state and federal coffers.
Where is the study on the benefits to innovation and trade from less draconian copyright and patent monopoly rights? Because, just looking at it from the outside I see China basically spitting on the normal rules of such and doing a fair shake better at quite a lot of things that we're doing right now. Now, I fully admit that China obviously has other things going on that are adding to its rapid industrialization, but I wonder if such a thing would be possible at all in say... Iowa, with current Western style rules?

I'm not claiming that China's situation regarding copyright is admirable, but it does beg the question whether or not it's actually making a significant contribution to their productivity and largess? At what point do the current intellectual property rights rules become more of a hindrance to innovation and productivity than they provide a benefit to certain shareholders owning the monopolies? Since we're supposedly all about the promotion of free trade in all its forms, by what argument do we really sustain intellectual monopolies in their current form? I'm not condoning anyone breaking the law, but I am promoting the notion that laws aren't iconographic things that are chiseled into stone and handed down from mountains. If that was the case, in fact, we'd have much more sustainable and arguable intellectual property rights.

More pointedly, how much of that $250 billion is in productivity and benefits from China infringing upon our copyrights? If it's truly significant, and I'm betting it's much more significant than our challenges in maintaining property rights in the US, then why are we worried about domestic intellectual property issues more than international ones? How is giving US intellectual property rights holders more tools to crack down on what is a small, perhaps even insignificant portion of the illicit intellectual property trade looking to accomplish anything really except less and less perfectly legal fair use and free speech? Because the US can't really easily sustain the sort of IP blocking at the whims of copyright holders on the internet: It's truly international. Unless the US intends to engage in trade war tactics against each and every nation where the internet exists, or ever will exist, with the varying degrees of concern those localities consider US trade and vagaries of foreign law enforcement, the easiest performance of this new law for US internet providers equates with massive censorship of whole domains and perhaps even whole countries. If that's wrong when China does it, why is it then right for the US to do so?

By the way, if you're going to quote me, I insist that the MTS moderators ban you. You're "stealing" my intellectual property. Perhaps it's Fair Use, but as an intellectual property holder I simply don't have the time to chase down each and every instance of infringement. Better to treat all infringement similarly, and exact a take down notice upon the website owners else they perpetuate this great injustice on my ideas.

[5M0K3]

But as far as downloading music goes, does it count as illegally downloading the music if you already bought the CD? (maybe you bought the CD, but it was damaged, lost, etc) I think they are considering this mainly because of the mass amounts of multimedia sharing, streaming, and downloading, but should it still be illegal if you already have the CD, just never got the chance to rip it onto your computer, or should you have to go out and buy the damn blasted CD again?

[Oaktree]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to procure a digital copy of something you have a physical copy of. I haven't actually looked up the law, but ripping CDs would be illegal if you couldn't have a digital copy of something without paying for it again. I'm sure there are businesses that would love to make it illegal to make or procure a digital copy of something you own, but I can't see that sort of things actually happening.

[5M0K3]

Wait, wait, wait... It's illegal to rip CDs? Maybe you have ripping and burning confused? When you rip a CD, you save it onto your computer so you can have it in a media library and use it for... whatever. Burning a CD is when you copy it to a separate disk. I'm pretty sure burning CDs is legal as long as you aren't burning full copies of CDs and selling them.

[Oaktree]

Wait, wait, wait... It's illegal to rip CDs? Maybe you have ripping and burning confused? When you rip a CD, you save it onto your computer so you can have it in a media library and use it for... whatever. Burning a CD is when you copy it to a separate disk. I'm pretty sure burning CDs is legal as long as you aren't burning full copies of CDs and selling them.

I said would be illegal to rip cds if it were illegal to have a digital copy of something you own a physical copy of without paying for a separate digital copy.

I was responding to your question and saying that I'm pretty sure it's legal to download a copy of something you already own. There are some grey areas, though, such as with video games, where downloading another copy usually requires a cd key these days.

[ModClod]

I would be p*ssed without MTS!

[Tempscire]

I'm pretty sure it's legal to procure a digital copy of something you have a physical copy of. I haven't actually looked up the law, but ripping CDs would be illegal if you couldn't have a digital copy of something without paying for it again.
For the U.S., there's a difference between ripping a CD you own and downloading a copy of what someone else has ripped. If nothing else, downloading that other file means you're obtaining a copy from someone who is not authorized to distribute it (and therefore not fair use the way ripping is), which is always illegal here, so far as I know. Consider the case against MP3.com (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/emusic-files-lawsuit-against-mp3-com-20001220) a decade ago.
At issue is MP3.com's database of some 80,000 songs that My.MP3.com members -- after proving that they had purchased the CD containing those tracks -- can access at will, storing digital versions of their own CDs. The service, which failed to get permission from labels and publishers, was suspended in May and was restored earlier this month, in free and subscription forms.
The service attempted to offer digital versions of songs their users had proved they owned (another article (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/04/35933) explains the users had to have the CD loaded before they could access the database), available through their server. The problem was twofold: 1)MP3.com did not have a license to distribute all that music, regardless of who was accessing it; and 2)the copies of CDs in the database were not generated from the members' own CDs.

I'm sure there are businesses that would love to make it illegal to make or procure a digital copy of something you own,
Yep (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars).

[Oaktree]

For the U.S., there's a difference between ripping a CD you own and downloading a copy of what someone else has ripped. If nothing else, downloading that other file means you're obtaining a copy from someone who is not authorized to distribute it (and therefore not fair use the way ripping is), which is always illegal here, so far as I know. Consider the case against MP3.com (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/emusic-files-lawsuit-against-mp3-com-20001220) a decade ago.

The service attempted to offer digital versions of songs their users had proved they owned (another article (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/04/35933) explains the users had to have the CD loaded before they could access the database), available through their server. The problem was twofold: 1)MP3.com did not have a license to distribute all that music, regardless of who was accessing it; and 2)the copies of CDs in the database were not generated from the members' own CDs.

Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose I just heard one of those rumors. I think it's a silly point of distinction, but it's good to know.

Yep (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars).

Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

[5M0K3]

After almost a week without internet, I can say that if they take away my internet I am if anything not amused.

[joot27]

They can't do this, it would start a civil war. Anyway, where I live, it won't affect me.

[Tempscire]

Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose I just heard one of those rumors. I think it's a silly point of distinction, but it's good to know.
Very silly. I'd definitely consider it an exception to the usual moral/ethical debates that accompany discussions of piracy, for sure. Though to be fair, even if downloading it is considered wrong, if you were to do it in such a way that you were not simultaneously uploading it for someone else...well, you're not exactly bullet-proof, but I haven't heard of any cases in which the defendant was not being hauled into court for being a distributor (i.e. they were downloading mp3s on BitTorrent or something that allowed other users to download files or parts of files from the defendant's computer).

Lest anyone should get the wrong idea: if you're in the US it's definitely still illegal (I hear that's not the case for Canadians, but don't quote me on it), and even if you're (way) less likely to be sued over it, the RIAA or even your ISP would still be within their rights to slap you down for it if they notice.

[Mistermook]

What's really muddling things is how these same laws are being used to halt legitimate free speech and stifle innovation. Whatever the real "cost" of internet piracy might be, I'm not sure there's a good case for giving content owners more tools to do "creative" things like patent trolling and sending cease and desist orders to news organizations for showing snippets of public interviews just because someone with deep pockets managed to throw some law talk around and/or money enough to purchase distribution/ownership rights. While I disagree on the characterization of piracy as "stealing," I'm generally on board with there being some laws or mechanisms to protect media properties and such. I'm just completely at odds with adding more mechanisms for abuse to a business that's already showing signs of abuse.

It's how I disagree most of the time with legislator's claims that "we need to give police more tools to go after bad guys," for the same reasons. There's nothing wrong with the tools that already exist. I might be fairly progressive for an American, but adding enforcement powers is somewhere where I'm just inherently conservative. As far as I can tell it's not like we're having trouble filling prisons and suing each other in the country right now. I can't think of a time I saw a company and went "those guys probably want to take out a lawsuit on those guys, but can't." Maybe some lawsuits are harder to win without "ruin someone's life with a letter" clauses, and maybe information is harder to lock away these days than back when it was copied by hand and stored under the Bishop's pillows, but in general I think that's a good thing.

[Elyasis]

Congress doesn't even have any idea what the SOPA will actually do. They even refuse to get someone who does take a look at it to make sure it doesn't fubar the internet as we know it.
http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/12/16/dear-congress-it-s-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-the-internet-works

Also, is it just me or does this seem a little conspicuously like the People's Republic of China's internet legislation? You'd think at the very least the strong right would have a problem with that.

[LuvSims2011]

And more than half the world is over 18. (I'm assuming.) If they are worried about kids seeing something... TOO BAD. That's like saying we should remove South Park from TV just because it's mindless and obscene, or saying we should cut out sex scenes from all movies because some kids might watch it? THAT'S UP TO THE PARENTS TO CENSOR THEIR CHILDREN.

AngryBunny, next thing y'know, they're gonna make us remove our avatars because The Sims belongs to EA. :lol:

Yeah, and the parents shouldn't be swearing in front of their kids either.

EDIT: Can someone explain the "funny" part to me?

[hello2u08]

If this gets passed, it will be on December 21, 2012. Better lock your doors for the coming revolution, don't want to get caught in the riot.

EDIT: I don't even think that the congress members who are passing this law know what the internet is. They don't understand what a "Hacker" is. Or even worse, a "Cracker". If this law triggers, there is already workarounds, and there will be more if this continues. I don't think that they understand how loosely worded it is. You could get fined for mentioning a movie. If this happens, two words to everyone here to keep MTS alive. Use Tor. Search "Tor" on the internet, and you will get soft ware that completely bypasses these censorships, if they ever exist. Plus, it is legal, and government made.

[tallyb]

"To put into layman's terms, lets say you create some thing for Sims 3. A cool mod. Then after a few days, while visiting another pay site for the game, you spot your creation on that site, and some one else is claiming to have created it. This bill will give you the power to go after said site, if the site owner refuses to take your creation down."

But you already have the right to have your content removed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or if you are in the EU, the European Union Copyright Directive (not sure about other parts of the world). If the site owner refused to remove the copyrighted material, you simply send a DMCA or EUCD notice to both the site owners and their hosting company. I've used this route myself, and know others who have and it seems to work quite effectively. On the other hand, SOPA is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's unfocussed, one-sided, and penalises a whole site because of the infringement of one visitor or member.

[Elyasis]

Except you can't really as you don't actually own the copyright for that material because EA does.


It's all there in the EULA.

In the words of Gabe Newell of Valve, "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem."

[Mistermook]

Which is part of the problem - derivative works, copyrights of formats and file types, patents, etc. The whole system is a mess. It's not doing what it's supposed to do - not for the intellectual property rights holders, not for consumers, and not for innovators. We haven't had the system entirely implode yet, but the way we're going I don't see how that's anything less than inevitable at some point unless we make radical adjustments in the way we do things. But SOPA isn't part of the radical solution, it's an incremental progression of the same problem. It's realizing you have a fire in your back yard and pouring gasoline on it because you've noted "sounds wet" by sloshing around a container.

[123blissb]

This is complete garbage. I can't belive that the Government is STUPID enough to even THINK about passing this bill. It completley undermines an amendment! Which one was it? oh yes THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!!!! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!! and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!!

I swear, if SOPA becomes a law, I WILL Seek political asylum in Australia.

Um, fararoc? Internet cencorship is not in our first ammendment rights. The freedom of speech allows us to speak our mind without fear of the government, and freedom of the press allows criticism of the government by the press. This bill is aimed at stopping piracy in the us by taking down or blocking websites in the US that link to copywrited materials. Like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, MTS and many many others. The Internet is not covered by any rules of any government. Do get me wrong here, I am a active stop-SOPA person, but don't be calling first ammendment rights.

Oh yeah, the kicker? EA is a active supporter of SOPA. Hows that for a slap in the face, fellow simmers?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Oh yeah, the kicker? EA is a active supporter of SOPA. Hows that for a slap in the face, fellow simmers?

if it* didnt come from a source that we've observed to continually make horrible decisions, it might bother me. as it stands, it just falls in line with what i'd expect from EA and their bright box of crayons.


*the slap... after re-reading that sentence, i could see how it might be misunderstood. thus; clarification!

[123blissb]

if it* didnt come from a source that we've observed to continually make horrible decisions, it might bother me. as it stands, it just falls in line with what i'd expect from EA and their bright box of crayons.


*the slap... after re-reading that sentence, i could see how it might be misunderstood. thus; clarification!

That came from the list of SOPA supporters right off the Fight for the Future website. Or the Stop American Censorship? I cant remember, I was just shocked.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/247339/lawmakers_seem_intent_on_approving_sopa_pipa.html
Someone better start compiling a list of IP of the Internet. Anyone know MTS's IP?

[PhenethyaSim]

I think a lot of companys support the overall Idea of stoping piracy so they support SOPA rather than actually read it most people don't relise how dangerous the wording alone is I have family who thought it was a good idea untill I eplained it to them. I also heard some where that most of congress hasn't even read SOPA and or doesn't know what its about. I sent an email to my congressman a while back but I don't know if it did much good.

[LuvSims2011]

The Google logo is all black (and if you roll over the black with the cursor, it says "Tell Congress don't censor the internet") and Wikipedia is completely grayed out with a message telling you to call your representative. Is this bad or what?

[KKiryu007Joker]

The representative must be Big Brother.

[Mistermook]

The Google logo is all black (and if you roll over the black with the cursor, it says "Tell Congress don't censor the internet") and Wikipedia is completely grayed out with a message telling you to call your representative. Is this bad or what?
It's not as bad as SOPA and PIPA making all of those sites and the rest of the Internet only available in Canada, Asia and Europe. Which, let's face it, is what will happen because the Internet we know right now depends on a fair amount of gross Intellectual Property violations - far beyond mere software piracy there's this whole site, our avatars, some of our signatures, and even some of our discussions. All of them could prompt a "you're stealing! Turn it off!" complaint.

At that point, everyone turns themselves off and moves elsewhere with more amiable laws. Everyone with data centers in the US will move them elsewhere create a link deprived alternate Internet to satisfy US law. The US will have worse data security as everyone moves to bizarre filtering and redirects to get around the laws, which will prompt even more draconian monitoring of content at the roots, jobs will vanish in the US, innovation will fail in the US, and dogs and cats will have sex with each other.*




*OK. I made the last one up.

[Mootilda]

Unfortunately, if the states passes something like this, then they will put a lot of pressure on Canada to do the same thing.

[NollemD]

It sounds like they're trying to pass a couple of bills, Stop Internet Piracy Act, and the Protect IP Act, that could end up getting rid of a lot of websites, including MTS if EA wanted that. That's not why I'm worried about it really, just trying to make it more relevant here. I'm guessing I'm late on finding out about this because I don't watch the news, heard about it on youtube actually. Is anyone else worried?


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

I think one major flaw of these bills is that they are poorly described. The wording can easily be manipulated and used against an innocent business website, by a rival business website, out of a malicious intent to bring down the funds and wipe out competition. The poor descriptions in the bills, I believe, are what make the bills so controversial in the first place, and why so many websites today have urged the public to call their legislators and representatives to vote 'no' on this issue by striking out against these two seemingly protective bills against copyright infringement. Although piracy is clearly wrongdoing, SOPA and PIPA may not be the right ways to protect intellectual property. Perhaps, a better worded bill will produce less controversies, allow freedom of speech, and strictly target against pirate websites.

[Riptide651]

Well I for one suggest that we temporarily make a black theme for modthesims to protest SOPA

[KKiryu007Joker]

Well I for one suggest that we temporarily make a black theme for modthesims to protest SOPA

Maybe they should, it would definitely be destroyed by the crumball law if or when it functions.

[Rileyjcquinn]

Unfortunately, if the states passes something like this, then they will put a lot of pressure on Canada to do the same thing.
No, if the use passes it, the internet is everywhere, it will control the internet and it will spread throughout the internet.

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA how about NOPA.

I have been watching this from afar, being that I am in Australia we have different measures but still something similar, and I have a unique perspective. I am a student and an upper class high school, and to use stealing music and movies is an everyday normal thing, trading around a hard-drive with movies and music is quite common, so I understand where the movie companies are coming from, and I often don't bother grabbing this stuff because I like to pay for things. I am a huge content consumer I 103GB of Podcasts, about 5GB of music and a few movies, and then comes my thousands of dollar game collection which is piling up beside my desk.

What is the Value of Content
Content gets and aspirational price, it goes with what the market can bare, so for iTunes it's 99c for a song (or $1.70 for us Australian's, 70% really) which is what the market likes, Movies and TV shows are different in which there are varied prices such as Hulu (which i don't know the prices,) or Netflix which is around $8 a month for unlimited streaming movies. The market loves these solutions. Video Games are prices between $50-60 ($100 and $120 for us, which drives me INSANE) which is roughly what the market can bear.

Content Companies don't get it.
If you have some time I would look at an argument on a tech network found here http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/332, which is that content companies such they don't want me to buy there stuff. Lets look at EA, remember back in 2008 a thing called SecuROM which limited that I could install a game 5 times and then if I trued a 6th all my computers would explode in a firey ball of f***, I am sorry but its true, now they are forcing spyware on our machines called Origin which is just suck-tastic. As I said above is that I pay out to twice as much for the content, 2x. or %70 more for the content. Now this content becomes loaded with DRM, which limit's me in its usability and functionality, but the people on the piratebay.org get it for free and have no-DRM and can do what they want. I am also limited in the Internet end, we have a caped Internet, we as a family pay a huge amount for our Internet, so I can get roughly 200gb a month which we only use half of that but there is no lower plan, the reason they have caps is so they can premote there own content, they have a digital streaming service which doesn't coun't against the cap.

Why can't I get what I want, when I want it and how I want it.
Its because these companies don't get it, I have delays in which as show comes out weeks/months/years before it comes out in Australia, movies are nomrally 3-weeks later, but now this stuff is everywhere and I can't get it? Why? They don't want my business. They want it to stay the same as it always has and then the internet to not exist.

Thats what SOPA, ACTA or PIPA its all to preserve the old model and control the Internet, because they don't like change!

[yayme123]

Scare tactics... Imagine the outrage if Facebook got shut down... No one would want that amount of bad press on their agenda.

Not really, All it would do is force everyone to go outside and make friends instead of being behind a computer screen clicking buttons...but i am in the middle with SOPA and PIPPA

[KKiryu007Joker]

America may be a pig power place. If you want advice on its future, go back to your childhoods and read Orwell's books, Animal Farm and 1984. They are not just about Communism, they are about the possible future of America and of its citizens. If this law becomes validated, then that makes a democracy kind of null whenever the government and the elite have no use for it, because its citizens wanted to be represented in their disapproval of this law, but they were not listened to. I suppose we shall see.

[PuffyAmi]

I hate the whole idea! it's so cruel what those idiot "leaders" want to do. So annoying how the politics and other "big" people always want to control others. Why can't they just let us leave how we want as long as we're not hurting physically anyone. Doing this is like becoming the new Hitler but instead of killing people it's like killing our souls! Murdering the joy of internet.
I couldn't bear you-tube to be shut down. Even blogger would go down. If this happens I hope USA citizens would start a Riot. I'd definitely fly over to join no matter how much it would cost me, even my life :P

[NollemD]

I couldn't bear you-tube to be shut down. Even blogger would go down. If this happens I hope USA citizens would start a Riot. I'd definitely fly over to join no matter how much it would cost me, even my life :P

Of course the two sites you mentioned would be blacklisted. Both of them are owned by Google. If Google ever becomes blacklisted, so will blogger and youtube.

[LuvSims2011]

The Google logo is all black (and if you roll over the black with the cursor, it says "Tell Congress don't censor the internet") and Wikipedia is completely grayed out with a message telling you to call your representative. Is this bad or what?

Eh, it's gone now.

[Mistermook]

They won't blacklist Google, but both laws will essentially stop Google from doing what it does or else face lawsuits. Google stops being a search engine, and starts being Bing. Now, if you're a large corporate entity that wants back the sort of content control you had over the media when everyone just had books, newspapers, television and like - when content was parceled out to you by monolithic entities that controlled huge swaths of the media, then that looks sweet as hell.

It wouldn't even really make all of these sites go away. It would just force everyone interested in the other internet, the one not rigidly controlled by content-oppressive copyright enforcement, into another internet, one where you're essentially having to trust the "pirates" to provide you access to things that Hollywood and the music industry don't want you to see because they're not selling it to you. That's okay as long as you're only dealing with "good" pirates but there are other sorts out there. And while everyone is pretty much making money on the internet in some legal way or another these day, whether they're Megaupload or MSNBC, these laws will shift a huge part of the internet into being pressures to adopt an underground economy of some sort, which sounds cool and awesome until you realize that once those sorts of things become mainstream it means the laws will essentially be pushing people who just don't want to deal with oppressive laws to hang out with mafia money launderers and terrorist cells so they can play an underground MMO that's developed by an independent rather than EA or something. Or maybe it's just foreign.

Content providers invested an awful lot of money in the past decades banking on this control they've had over content being perpetual. They bought and bribed their way until the quite reasonable copyright laws we once had are now an enormous mess. What are they afraid of? Well, things like Minecraft, for one. It's fairly clear that as awesome as The Sims 3, a dedicated group of amateur programmers could (and will) one day write a blockbuster without investing millions of dollars into developing and hyping the game. Where do I choose to have my meaningful political discussions? It's not at CNN or Fox. They're out of the loop, and as people develop the tools to more easily construct and promote content that's not controlled and sold by these largest corporations their entire role in society becomes questionable. At what point of modding The Sims 3 are we playing an entirely different game? It's a bit easier to tell in this case, but I know a few that I've played that are almost entirely reconstructed and rewritten - at some point they're not modding with the parent company's blessing they're developing a competing product. News organizations feel this sort of heat - I don't know how many times in the past I've heard about something over the net hours or even days before it hit the national news because news spreading because of people talking about it, not reading about it.

The world is changing and it's scary. Congress and their corporate fundraisers are trying to respond by putting the new stuff they don't understand back into a box. Which is funny, because part of the rationale for copyright in the first place was Jefferson acknowledging the futility of trying to lock away an idea.

[WildWitch]

Hahaha Brilliant its time the government shut down fricken pirates constantly destroying economy because selfish greedy people keep downloading on mass copyright protected material.

And dont give that excuse that you couldn't afford to product anyway because that's just retarded it's like saying I can't afford this car so I steal it which doesn't matter because I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

Finally some authority to stop the pirates in their tracks.

Also it means the end of rotten paysites like T.S.R and Pandora who rip of copy righted material all the time.

[ElementMK]

Ah, you guys thought you had created a new movement towards an open internet with the destruction of SOPA?
http://i.imgur.com/TvU1e.gif

MegaUpload, a file-sharing website that accounts for 4% of all the Internet traffic on Earth, has been shut down (http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/) by the United States government. Needless to say, some parts of the Internet are experiencing what could only be described as a "shitstorm" right now.

[Mistermook]

Except that the whole thing with Megaupload simply demonstrates that the government doesn't need new laws to protect content.

"Our tools are so busted that we were completely able to execute this awesome warrant in multiple locations across the globe to take down this internet piracy site like the ones we told you we couldn't shut down yesterday with the tools we already had. Just kidding guys, we were just grabbing for power. You mad?"

[Tim299]

so let me guess this damn went through huh now we are all shit out of luck!!!!

[DrowningFishy]

I know one website that is having a "shitstorm" right now. Wonder how long till America arrests and shut down each and every file sharing site. You can't just go after Megaupload that's discrimintory.

[Tempscire]

Well, in the case of Megaupload, it seems like they were essentially paying users to upload copyrighted content (kickbacks for high popularity content), so that might be something unique; I dunno if other file servers do anything similar to that.

[whiterider]

Eh, Megaupload have been promoting piracy for years. They even had megavideo, which pretty much existed for the sole purpose of hosting and streaming pirated video content. Whatever you think of piracy in general, they - knowingly - fought the law, and the law won. Mistermook's comment is precisely what should be taken out of this event.