Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Viacom's SOPA/PIPA Pitch Video, Annotated

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the rehashing-II-the-return dept.

Censorship 177

Lauren Weinstein writes "Viacom has just released a video calling for support of global Internet censorship via SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). A truth annotated version of this approximately seven-minute video is now available." Reader quantumplacet writes with word that the Business Software Alliance (probably for reasons other than this video) has withdrawn its support for SOPA, claiming that "Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill." Writes quantumplacet: "While the BSA has a long history of focusing on the worst offenders and mostly ignoring casual piracy, this still represents a dramatic turnaround as the organization has been a SOPA supporter since the act's inception. BSA President Robert Hollyman posted on the company blog that 'Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights that cannot be compromised. ....Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas.'"

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38135178)

How many times now have similar bills died, only to be reintroduced under more and more bizarrely inaccurate names? Next time I suspect they'll call it the "Stop Online Pedophiles Act" and use the argument that it can be used to combat child predators. After all, you don't want to support pedophiles *DO YOU*?

I propose a law that mandates that laws introduced in the future can only be called by their official Congressional letter-number designation. I'm calling it the "Super-Patriot I-Love-America Act."

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135238)

wow! not the typical "first" comment! way to go!!!

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (0, Offtopic)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38135268)

Third!!

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (4, Funny)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about 2 years ago | (#38135354)

I think the Stop Online Pedophiles Act would face stiff opposition from the American Football Coaches Association

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#38135472)

Either that, or they'll use the "feed the dog a pill" approach. First, they'll chop SOPA up into component parts. Next, they'll hide pieces of it into must-pass legislation. "We need to pass this emergency bill to help those poor flood victims. [mumbled tone]and require ISPs to block whatever websites we tell them to[/mumble]. You don't hate flood victims, do you?" This will keep us from noticing it until much or all of it is already law. Or, at least, that's what the SOPA proponents would hope to achieve. Hopefully, enough eyes will be on those non-related riders to sniff out these hidden pills.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#38135570)

Heh. I'm no supporter of Herman Cain, but there is some merit in wanting bills to be shorter and plainer in their language. I would support requiring the entire text of a bill to be read out loud either in committee or on the main chamber floor with a quorum present before a vote on it can be called. That might shorten the bills a bit...

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (2)

bobstreo (1320787) | about 2 years ago | (#38135626)

Either shorten bills, or take longer to pass any during the thrilling readings of thousands of pages. win-win.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (5, Informative)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#38136566)

Or disallow riders that are not related to the primary bill being passed.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#38135668)

"You don't hate flood victims, do you?"

Well, looking at what happened with Katrina... Yes, the Congress does in fact hate flood victims.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137000)

I don't believe that for a second! The congress does *not* hate all flood victims. They may hate some of them. After Katrina, they did seem not to give a fuck about a lot of them.

But they could hardly hate all flood victims. That would be crazy, I mean, technically members of congress could themselves be flood victims.

I think they only hate a part of all the flood victims - some group that could be defined by something else than just being flood victims. How do they discriminate between hated and not hated flood victims? Maybe different flood victims are color-coded or something?

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137426)

... Yes, the Congress does in fact hate flood victims.

no no no... Kanye set the record straight already. It was George Bush that hates them.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135546)

I'm proposing House Resolution HR.6669 which makes Media Lobbyists illegal and being found to be one punishable by summary execution. I'm going to call it the "Hyper-Patriot I-Give-Uncle-Sam-a-Aloe-Vera-lotion-handjob every morning Save the Orphaned Baby Fetuses Act of 2011"

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (3, Funny)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#38135604)

Anonymous Coward in 2012!

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137532)

Anonymous Coward in 2012!

Thank you for your support.

I do hereby solemnly swear....

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (1)

Pecisk (688001) | about 2 years ago | (#38135654)

Democracy in it's essence - never-ending fight. Especially with freeloaders (yeah, corps, you are freeloaders - 160 - 180 years of copyright protection?! Come on!).

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (1)

ox01a4 (2147002) | about 2 years ago | (#38135870)

I think that your proposal is a wonderful idea. Of course it would also be nice to have a clean webpage that would reference each member of congress so that you could cross reference the bills that they introduced, and gasp, how they voted on all bills. Transparency would pull down the Krone Capitalist society that Americans currently live in.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (4, Informative)

squidflakes (905524) | about 2 years ago | (#38136286)

Done.

http://www.opencongress.org/ [opencongress.org]

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#38136300)

If what you say we're true, it would already be done, since congress already has such a page.

Too bad people would rather sit on the street and whine than they would make a change and vote.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (4, Interesting)

Digital Vomit (891734) | about 2 years ago | (#38136718)

Too bad people would rather sit on the street and whine than they would make a change and vote.

I think it's even worse that people think voting, at this point, even matters anymore.

If you want change, you're going to have to attack the sources of the problem: political parties, lobbyists, and the media. Voting is for suckers.

Re:Even if SOPA dies, they'll just reintroduce it (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38137382)

I think the real problem is that there aren't nearly enough voters who agree (or care enough about) that these things are problems. If we want change, we'll have to somehow convince the majority to vote differently than they are now.

I mean, we'd need support either way.

I don't think it matters... (4, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#38135430)

This is probably going to get rammed through one way or another. After all, these guys all spend billions of dollars every year buying off our representatives, they're not going to let a pesky thing like the outrage of us plebeians get in the way of clamping down on their Intellectual Property and any other IP they can make an even unreasonable claim to.

I would hope SOPA would get challenged in court and rejected on First Amendment grounds (online censorship of web sites seems an awful lot like an attack on Freedom of Speech, to me, but IANAL or judge) but given some of the other rulings we've seen out of the SCOTUS I'm not so sure it would even get overturned, there. Our court, as it sits, seems to be a lot less concerned about the rights of people and a lot more concerned about the rights of "people", i.e., corporations.

Bad strategy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135566)

but IANAL or judge

If you anal the judge, you aren't likely to win your case.

Unless, of course, the court is in San Fransisco.

Re:I don't think it matters... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135848)

Disagree, we stopped this iteration of the bill with nothing more than a wave of emails. Congresscritters hate it when they think people are paying attention. All we need to do is - pay attention.

Re:I don't think it matters... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136818)

This is probably going to get rammed through one way or another. After all, these guys all spend billions of dollars every year buying off our representatives, they're not going to let a pesky thing like the outrage of us plebeians get in the way of clamping down on their Intellectual Property and any other IP they can make an even unreasonable claim to.

Unfortunately I agree with you. If not this month, then another month; if not this session, than another session. Their master hath spoken, and the Congresscreeps will obey sooner or later. It will be passed.

And when it does, I personally will do the only thing left to fight. I will... stop. I will stop going to the movies. I will stop going to concerts. I will stop buying DVDs and BluRay discs. I will stop buying music CDs. I will stop buying cable service, stop DVD rentals, stop giving them both my money and my eyeballs for their advertisements.

The media masters have forgotten something. I don't need them. I already own plenty of media, and in between reading books and rewatching the media I already quite legally own, I can go for years before I'd have to start back at the beginning of the list again. And frankly all the new stuff is quite boring anyway.

I won't miss them. And if I'm the only person who does this, they certainly won't miss me. But if I'm not the only person who does this....?

Re:I don't think it matters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137160)

I agree it's going to be get rammed through, eventually. And courts see free speech and copyright as separate issues.

The demand for free content is very large. SOPA is trying to eliminate the supply. Historically, when this has been tried (prohibition), the demand is met with underground supply, resulting in more costly law enforcement, criminalization of average people, and therefore wide disregard for the government. And of course, more sophistication in the part of suppliers.

I imagine after the passage of this bill, encryption will be outlawed, resulting in more encrypted traffic on the internet. You know, the usual stuff.

How long till (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#38135460)

So how long until the corporate masters send a take down notice to youtube for that "obviously" infringing video.

Annotations... (5, Informative)

Jahava (946858) | about 2 years ago | (#38135490)

So for those who haven't watched the "annotated" version, allow me to summarize. The production presents a series of film industry professionals talking about how they think things "should" be, why piracy is "not right", and dropping some of the classic inflated statistics that we all know and love. Each annotation is overlayed on top its respective scene to act in shallow rebuttal. The annotations present very few (if any) actual facts in rebuttal, rather relying on the same appeal to emotion and common sense that the original production pursued.

I hope I'm not the only one who was gravely disappointed with these "nuh-uh!"-style counterpoints. Rather than "and yet the film industry made record profits", let's drop some actual numbers. If our premise - that these guys have failed to make their case to support SOPA - is correct, then all of the world's facts should back us up.

If you're going to rebut a video, have something more inspiring and concrete than "and yet you want to censor the Internet."

Re:Annotations... (3, Interesting)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#38135568)

Ya I thought it was a bit thin as well. A better video would be to cut to black, and then shows something that refutes what they are saying. Plus it would break up the whole emotional tone they try to set for the video. After watching that video unannotated, had I not known better I would thought all writers, makeup artists sound guys are out of work and the reason movie stars are always so thin is because they can't afford food.

Re:Annotations... (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#38135680)

Record profits are not healthy. Look at the Basic Materials sector, growing faster than the S&P500 while the Financials don't. Eventually, the Basic Materials sector will slow, and Financials will start to grow again. If this never happens--if we somehow protect XLB--then there is still only so much money, and there will be continuously less wealth as more and more money flows into the mines and refineries. That leaves less money for other economic activity, as everything else starts to wither.

Eventually, these industries which have seen explosive growth--movies and CDs and tapes were a huge market for a while there--will have to experience a pull back, as consumers become bored with the theater, or as growth simply slows because people can't consume as much music and movies as gets produced. As things stabilize, these industries will shrink and others will grow. Maybe they'll grow back--probably, considering entertainment is a fundamental requirement for life--but for a while they'll lose the spotlight. The only thing that could permanently down the movie industry would be changing our views such that sex is a primary recreational activity--why in the hell do I want to watch 6 hours of TV every day when I can spend most of that time having sex with my two hot neighbors?! One movie a week maybe, but I've got shit to do!

Every industry wants that death grip, but they all have to grow and decline.

Re:Annotations... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136884)

It'd be great if the financial sector starts to wither. It's too damn big and too damn useless for what it costs society to keep around as is.

Re:Annotations... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135728)

It's the same reason most people ignore linux zealot arguments against Windows. Calling people "lusers", saying "M$", and telling people they should just accept inferior FOSS because of the "but it's freeeeee!" argument makes people's eyes glaze over. If you want the average person to come to your side on SOPA you need better arguments than "preventing me from downloading [copyrighted work x] is teh censorship!!!!!!1111eleventyone".

Re:Annotations... (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#38135856)

I hope I'm not the only one who was gravely disappointed with these "nuh-uh!"-style counterpoints

The video was very disappointing. It alternated between 'truth annotation' and commentary at random, so it was difficult to tell which things were meant to be translations of what the person was saying and which were comments on what the person was saying.

Re:Annotations... (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38135864)

If you're going to rebut a video, have something more inspiring and concrete than "and yet you want to censor the Internet."

For me, that is about all I need to hear.

Re:Annotations... (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#38136448)

It kind of gets on my nerves that noone seems to get what censorship is. HINT: A book publisher trying to stop people printing unauthorized copies of their book is NOT censorship, full stop.

You want to criticize a bad plan for being a bad plan, act like an adult and focus on the issue rather than bringing in unrelated words like censorship just for the emotional effect.

Re:Annotations... (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | about 2 years ago | (#38137102)

From Wikipedia:

"Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace."

So yes, this is censorship.

Re:Annotations... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#38137226)

Theyre talking about people who work for or are associated with the company-- that is, if your company told you "dont write a review of Brillo pads, or we will slash your salary". That would be corporate censorship.

RIAA / MPAA being litigious and nasty because people are pirating their stuff isnt censorship at all.

Re:Annotations... (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38137416)

You're equivocating.

Re:Annotations... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38137246)

A book publisher trying to stop people printing unauthorized copies of their book is NOT censorship, full stop.

Like the other poster said, yes it is. It's censoring certain information. It's still censorship even if the copies are unauthorized and you agree with the censorship.

I don't care about the emotional effects. I only care about what it actually is.

Re:Annotations... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135878)

Thin as it may be, did you see a single "reference" or "fact" to back up any of the Film Industries claims? No, you didn't, because there are no facts to back up their claims.

Heck, up until a few years ago they were still using CASSETTE TAPE sales declines as "proof" piracy was killing the music industry.

I agree, they should have provided the facts, which anyone can get by googling "box office records" the more piracy becomes rampant, the more money they make opening weekend.

The fact remains, they are attempting to control and restrict a GLOBAL network based on US laws. It's a load of crap, based on a load of crap, sprinkled with sugar coated pieces of crap, served on a coal fired piece of crap platter.

My favorite part is how it goes from "downloading" to stopping counterfeit goods. How exactly is restricting MY internet access going to stop companies in China from making fake dora toys? It isn't.

An illegal download is NOT a lost sale, it's a potential lost sale.

If you don't want your business to fail, LEARN TO ADAPT. you can't pull a Steve Jobs and tell the market what they want, that only works for inferior applie iProducts. You have to cater to your target market, and adapt as it changes.

Radio will kill the industry
VHS and BETAMAX will kill the industry
Cassette audio tapes will kill the industry
CDs will kill the industry
DVDs will kill the industry
The internet will kill the industry.

fool me once.........

Re:Annotations... (3, Insightful)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about 2 years ago | (#38135928)

I hope I'm not the only one who was gravely disappointed with these "nuh-uh!"-style counterpoints. Rather than "and yet the film industry made record profits", let's drop some actual numbers. If our premise - that these guys have failed to make their case to support SOPA - is correct, then all of the world's facts should back us up.

Precisely this. Far too many arguments and debates simply turn into dogmatic slanging matches, where both sides make meaningless assertions without taking any time to construct a reasonable argument. If SOPA is as bad as people say there should be piles of ammunition to use against it.

Why aren't people challenging these figures about piracy and demanding to see the factual evidence? Why aren't people combing the industry produced literature on the subject and pointing out blatant corruptions of fact and any absurdities within them? Why aren't people producing counter proposals and statistics for the change they would like to see?

The way to win an argument is to make your opponent's position untenable by the use of factual information and well versed, coherent debate. Not to simply scream in their face louder than they scream in yours, which plays into their hands. Fight your battles on higher intellectual ground!

Re:Annotations... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#38136178)

If SOPA is as good as they say, there should be a tons of arguments... Oh, btw, about the fake dora's, do you know that the real dora's are made in china too? So the fake dora's are 10 times cheaper than the original ones, that are actually the same ones (made in the same country, by the same labor, with the same production cost...), so, who is the good guy here i wonder!!!

Re:Annotations... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#38136506)

o the fake dora's are 10 times cheaper than the original ones, that are actually the same ones (made in the same country, by the same labor, with the same production cost...)

Yea, that doesnt follow. The knockoffs can be made with different materials (read: lead paint), no QA, etc. Having been there and been burned on knockoff products, I know that to assume what youre assuming is a recipe for disappointment (im still holding out hope on my "North Face" jacket tho).

Re:Annotations... (4, Informative)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38135998)

You can't counter emotive appeals with facts. While it may be logically sound and correct, people don't care about logic and correctness. Shit like this Viacom propaganda has to be squashed with withering counter-emoting taking into account the bigger picture, which this annotation does, although a little half-assed.

Re:Annotations... (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#38136540)

You can't counter emotive appeals with facts. While it may be logically sound and correct, people don't care about logic and correctness.

The only proper way to expose half-truths and emotional BS is to clearly show why theyre half-truths and BS. Responding with your own BS just makes people realize that noone is capable of rational discussion anymore, and causes both sides to lose credibility.

Re:Annotations... (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136934)

It's called showmanship. Be factual and truthful, yes, but do so in a way that makes an emotional impact. Human beings don't really respond to facts without some sort of window dressing. Failing of the species, perhaps, but that's how it is.

Besides, to look at our politics, media, etc. the last few years, one would think we are incapable of rational discourse anymore.

Re:Annotations... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#38137200)

One WOULD think that, but I would hope a discussion board like slashdot wouldnt take the stance "facts are retarded, use emotion".

Re:Annotations... (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38137444)

Now you're just being flippant.

Re:Annotations... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#38136084)

I did not see any fact from the both sides, so your point is what? That both sides are wrong? And actually, a movie that costs half a billion dollars to produce??? Really??? WTF??? Let me translate it to you, if they are able to spend half a billion dollars for the latest Avatar movie, that means that.....YOU ARE RIGHT, that they have half a billion dollars to spend. Do you follow me? The question is where are these money coming from? Oh, sorry, that was the answer, silly me.

Re:Annotations... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#38136422)

I think the problem is that the strongest opposition to these type of acts seems unfortunately to come not from a sincere desire to reform the copyright system, spur the economy, or protect free speech, but simply because people want to use bittorrent.

There are good reasons to change the copyright system, but if youre looking to college students to argue for those when its easier to pull out the good old satire "you wouldnt download a car would you", you will be disappointed.

I almost started to cry... (1)

Pecisk (688001) | about 2 years ago | (#38135532)

....just how they. don't. get. it.

And Viacom, you allow to watch me Colbert Report for free on your own damn website. With ads.

For the rest...industry going down and shareholders crying cramping their coffers "Nooooo, not ooooour moooooneeeeey! Where is infinite profits!?". Just put them out of misery.

Re:I almost started to cry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135748)

....just how they. don't. get. it.

And Viacom, you allow to watch me Colbert Report for free on your own damn website. With ads.

Perhaps Ironically YOU don't get it. It isn't for free, you are watching on their website BECAUSE of the ads. Same thing for when it is broadcast on tv. What ad revenue are you sending their way if you just download the show? Oh that's right, NONE. The industry isn't whining about "infinite profits", they are complaining "hey I made something why do people get to see it for free? That's not fair.". Meanwhile you are whining "Why don't I get to watch shows and movies other people pay for without having to pay a dime myself?" Or even more accurately, why should the rest of us pay for you to watch for free?
 
For the record I oppose the SOPA/PIPA act because of the potentially chilling impact on free speech.

Re:I almost started to cry... (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about 2 years ago | (#38135834)

Yes, the website is supported by ads. However, trying to tell me that millions of people pirated the daily show when it is available for free on the internet is crazy. Unless they're referring to before that was available, in which case it seems like the problem was the business model; you could only watch the daily show with a cable subscription (and we aren't allowed to buy just one cable channel, another problem) people couldn't buy the daily show for a price that seemed appropriate. I would love to see some numbers here, supposed "pirates" of the daily show before and after they put it up on Hulu and then later on dailyshow.com itself.

Re:I almost started to cry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136244)

Woosh. He said WITH ads. He's willing to pay, they aren't willing to take his money.

Re:I almost started to cry... (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#38135918)

And Viacom, you allow to watch me Colbert Report for free on your own damn website. With ads.

They don't allow me to watch it, because I'm not in the USA. But if I watched it on some other site then I would still count towards their however-many-billion statistic of people watching it illegally. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are both things I'd probably pay to be able to stream / download (without ads or DRM), but Viacom would rather bitch about piracy and try to get laws passed to make it even more illegal than it already is than sell me what I want. Their video made the point that content is a product - perhaps someone should point out that you only make money from products if you're willing to sell it to potential customers...

Re:I almost started to cry... (1)

mishu2065 (1616553) | about 2 years ago | (#38136308)

Seems to work fine [colbertnation.com] in Italy.

Re:I almost started to cry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136564)

Doesn't work in Canada.

Re:I almost started to cry... (3, Informative)

paedobear (808689) | about 2 years ago | (#38136698)

Daily Show / Colbert Report are blocked from streaming in countries where it's shown on a domestic channel or HAS IN THE PAST been shown on a domestic channel (it's the second part that's asking for trouble)

Apple/Google should just buy Disney (1, Interesting)

alispguru (72689) | about 2 years ago | (#38136290)

Disney's market cap is ~ $60 billion. Either Apple or Google could buy half of that with their cash on hand.

Once they had control, they could make one major media player start acting in everyone's best interest.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore (2)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about 2 years ago | (#38135796)

Farnsworth (Youtube) [youtube.com] Obligatory.

This is gross. They draw conclusions which are tenuous at best, and completely ignore the actual issues. Are these people ignorant, and were just told to say something for a video, or are they knowingly misinforming the public? Either way, I'm disgusted.

Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore (2)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136138)

That's how propaganda works, man. Facts are ignored in favor of hyperbolic, emotional "what if..." scenarios and complete miscarriages of truth. They are not ignorant, they are very clever and are using psychological techniques to make their position gain support. So yes, they are knowingly misinforming the public, and yes, you should be disgusted. But look at it this way, you're smart enough to see through it if you're disgusted. You're responsibility now is to lift the veil from others who might not be so well-equipped to deal with being manipulated like this. Spread the truth, brother.

Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136226)

*YOUR* responsibility... dammit... *flogs self for fucking up something I bitch at others about*

What's with the funny names? (4, Funny)

TuringTest (533084) | about 2 years ago | (#38135854)

As a native Spanish slashdotter, I'm amused by the funny names your lawmakers assign to your acts. For reference:

SOPA -> soup
PIPA -> sunflower pipe
ACTA -> proceedings (at least this one is about a formalized document written on paper)

Or is it because any combination of two consonants with two vowels is a valid word in Spanish?

Re:What's with the funny names? (1)

TuringTest (533084) | about 2 years ago | (#38135894)

Or is it because any combination of two consonants with two vowels is a valid word in Spanish?

Except GNAA, I mean.

Re:What's with the funny names? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#38136208)

in my language:

SOPA -> stick PIPA -> touching

Re:What's with the funny names? (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#38136394)

in my language: SOPA -> stick PIPA -> touching

Funny, I PIPA my SOPA almost daily...

Re:What's with the funny names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136588)

And as a Greek(-speaking) slashdotter:

SOPA -> shut up
PIPA -> blowjob

How very appropriate, huh?

Re:What's with the funny names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137174)

In swedish:

SOPA -> trash
PIPA -> pipe (for smoking)
ACTA -> watch out (for something)

South Park (5, Interesting)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | about 2 years ago | (#38135910)

Anyone else find all that South Park stuff being on there is somewhat ironic? Maybe they just need to pitch more that all the episodes save some of the more recent ones (after the first week and then they pop back on) and two taken down for censorship are online for free?

I say Ironic was Trey and Matt stated they pushed for all the episodes being online for free because they were tired of having to pirate their own series whenever they easily wanted to rewatch an episode easily?

More ironic (3, Interesting)

Deathlizard (115856) | about 2 years ago | (#38136400)

They aired this on TV.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103759/not-a-big-deal [southparkstudios.com]

Re:More ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137228)

And when I click your link I don't get the content, I get this [imageshack.us] sad image instead.

Perhaps this is why Viacomm is losing all those internet monays? Yeah I think so buddy...

Re:South Park (1)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | about 2 years ago | (#38137132)

Meanwhile - outside the U.S. of A....

We can't see them in the U.K. or Ireland, where we only get "chosen" episodes.

Same goes for Comedy central shows like Jon Stewart + Colbert.

Free Speech? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38135964)

That's a nice rationalization for people that just want to steal from others. People work hard to provide the content that you take without paying, you freeloading scum.

Re:Free Speech? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136272)

And all those people were already paid long before a copy was uploaded to the internet. Try again, dipshit.

Who cares. (4, Interesting)

digitalsushi (137809) | about 2 years ago | (#38136060)

I hope SOPA passes. We'll just fix our geek software even better. Encrypted everything, out of band non-deterministic port hopping.. the only hope they'll have is million dollar stat boxes that make lots of wrong guesses and snip VIP VPNs. Our skin will grow over their bandaid.

Re:Who cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136206)

But then some kid downloads something without encryption and your ISP gets sued and shuts down or throttles your connection.

Re:Who cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136808)

If enough people start getting cut off from the internet, maybe the unwashed masses will start to wake up to this kind of corporate control of the government.

Re:Who cares. (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about 2 years ago | (#38136902)

[...] the only hope they'll have is million dollar stat boxes that make lots of wrong guesses and snip VIP VPNs.

At the customer's and/or taxpayer's expense, in more than one way...

Producer or consumer? (0, Flamebait)

Barnett (550375) | about 2 years ago | (#38136088)

How many people here are producers of content, as opposed to consumers of content? All I see is lots of people with a not-my-problem attitude. Does anyone actually have an alternative or better solution?

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136228)

I'm a producer. I don't like SOPA. I'm afraid larger companies will use it to bully me out of the market.

Re:Producer or consumer? (2)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136478)

If this is true, you need to find others like yourself and form a coalition, make your own ads. People need to know that it's not the entire industry crying out on this, that there are opposing voices on the inside.

Re:Producer or consumer? (2)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136388)

Sure. Collapse the industry megaliths. They've become entitled behemoth leeches sucking the lifeblood of the world. Content will still be produced, and it might actually improve the general quality of the product to not have huge productions aimed at mass-appeal just to make the largest possible profit margins. The problem isn't piracy. The problem is corporate expectations. When those expectations aren't met, they start crying like children. Guess what? Life isn't fair or certain. It's a zero-sum game. You start with nothing, you end with nothing. Expectations to the contrary are doomed to disappointment. The sooner one accepts that, the better off they'll be.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

Barnett (550375) | about 2 years ago | (#38136472)

I am sorry, but that does not help the small guy who is struggling to make ends meet while watching others steal his work. I am not saying this bill will help either, but I would like to hear what all the consumers suggest he do?

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | about 2 years ago | (#38136664)

Either hold on tight or bail. Trying to mold the world to fit your needs doesn't work. You have to adapt or die. That goes for the little guy too. In fact, the little guy has the better chance because they're usually better equipped to adapt to change. That's really what this boils down to, the giants aren't fighting piracy, they're fighting evolution, and they're ultimately doomed. The metaphorical asteroid is on its way.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

Barnett (550375) | about 2 years ago | (#38137034)

If I was a farmer struggling with people stealing from my fields, what would you suggest I do? Hold on tight or bail? Or just stop worrying so much about the potential loss? Surely not?

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 2 years ago | (#38137142)

If I was a farmer struggling with people stealing from my fields, what would you suggest I do? Hold on tight or bail? Or just stop worrying so much about the potential loss? Surely not?

Farm produce is physical, and you can protect your field physically from stealing in ways that do not affect the legal end-user of your product.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

Barnett (550375) | about 2 years ago | (#38137332)

Farm produce is physical, and you can protect your field physically from stealing in ways that do not affect the legal end-user of your product.

Not really. If the thieves have enough fire power you won't be able to stop them. The only reason we don't have anarchy, where everyone just take everything that they want, is because we have government, police, and the law. Why should the government protect the farmer but not the artists?

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 2 years ago | (#38137372)

Farm produce is physical, and you can protect your field physically from stealing in ways that do not affect the legal end-user of your product.

Not really. If the thieves have enough fire power you won't be able to stop them. The only reason we don't have anarchy, where everyone just take everything that they want, is because we have government, police, and the law. Why should the government protect the farmer but not the artists?

If the thieves have enough firepower, the government won't be able to stop them either. That's actually the root cause of the whole discussion: powerful corporations or groups of corporations (RIAA, Monsanto, the banks, the defense industry, the energy industry, take your pick) forcing their will on the government. Giving those thieves MORE power is probably not the answer to the woes of the little guy.

Re:Producer or consumer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137504)

If you were a farmer you'd have a physical product of real value. A product that can be digitized and reproduced with a cost approaching zero has no real value. Economics 101 farm-boy, but thanks for trying to convolute the issue at hand with the old parlour tricks of transference of properties between a physical good with a digital good.

And yes, I would download a car.

Re:Producer or consumer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38137114)

A great deal of economic value of anything is related to how scarce it is. With the world now capable of digitally replicating so many things, those things capable of replication simply aren't scarce anymore.

If you're creating something that can quite frankly be duplicated and up to every person in the world be given a copy, at the cost of duplication less than pennies, then what you're doing isn't worth much. Even if it's creative. Even if it's otherwise unique.

You can keep doing what you're doing and put up a tip jar, hoping those who stumble upon your work like it enough to give you a buck or two... or you can stop doing it and try doing something else that someone might find valuable.

I know that's a horrible answer from your point of view. But you need to understand that no one cares about you. It's quite all right with the rest of humanity if you and your family starve to death. Harsh, yes, but true.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 2 years ago | (#38137286)

If you're creating something that can quite frankly be duplicated and up to every person in the world be given a copy, at the cost of duplication less than pennies, then what you're doing isn't worth much. Even if it's creative. Even if it's otherwise unique.

I have to disagree on the details with you there. The limitless duplication makes it difficult if not impossible to rely on scarcity once the original has been created, but it may well be so that no-one else could produce the original if you didn't. In that sense the good is still scarce - if the potential creator decides not to make it, then the good will never be available, even if there is in fact serious demand for the product.
Therefore there are potential business models for such goods where you get a (group of) consumers to advance the cost of creating the good.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38136510)

Does anyone actually have an alternative or better solution?

Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

Barnett (550375) | about 2 years ago | (#38136580)

Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.

Ignoring the problem is not going to feed my family.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 2 years ago | (#38137074)

Not this. Stop worrying so much about the potential loss of potential profit. It's being treated as some kind of national security issue.

Ignoring the problem is not going to feed my family.

Doggedly continuing to do something that doesn't make any money isn't going to feed your family either, nomatter how much you would like to make a living doing what you love. I sympathise, it sucks, but like steam-engine maintenance some types of work just don't have the remunerative power they might have once had.

Re:Producer or consumer? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38137312)

And introducing laws like this, even if they fed your family (highly doubt it), is not a good solution, in my opinion.

I was just stating that I do not believe that introducing draconian legislation is a good solution.

A little one-sided, no? (4, Informative)

a_nonamiss (743253) | about 2 years ago | (#38136150)

I hate to defend the MAFIAA, but they really should post a link to the original video in the summary. We should watch what they put out before biasing ourselves with a (probably very accurate) edited version of the video. I'm a believe that more information is better than less. We can't form good opinions of ignorance.

That being said, the original video is crap. You can watch it here [viacom.com] .

BSA ignores casual piracy? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | about 2 years ago | (#38136688)

While the BSA has a long history of focusing on the worst offenders and mostly ignoring casual piracy . . .

That is not the way I understand it. Having been to their web-site, it seems to me the BSA gloats, non-stop, about collecting $60K - $90K fines from people who are not "pirates" at all. For example, people who think the COA is proff of ownership.

Lets try a different approach (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136774)

I quite frankly don't understand the annotations in the video.

Opponents of SOPA seem to frame it as destroying the internet and free speech in order to save an industry, jobs, and to protect people's property rights. Not only does no one want to destroy the internet, or censor free speech, but In a capitalist society, people's property rights are pretty important.

I understand that many think SOPA is over-the-top, and that may be the case, but at the same time, the safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA are over-the-top as well — they remove all forms of tortious liability, and are currently far broader than they were intended to be. They were intended to protect physical network level service providers, not websites running above the application layer which wrap content in their own branding and sell advertising against it.

If the industry is simply unwilling to police itself, or get on board with a more reasonable interpretation of the DMCA, you're going to see conflict and opposition, and ultimately, regulation. This is how it's worked for every industry throughout time.

Other comments — like that US law does not apply overseas doesn't make any sense — if the infringing data is being sent from a server overseas to a computer in the United States, than part of the traffic flow is subject to US law. It's like they're making intentionally stupid and irrelevant arguments.

These annotations ring hollow — the first few minutes don't actually make any substantive claim against the proponents of SOPA. Its irrelevant that these media conglomerates want to squeeze more money out of The Daily Show, or Spongebob — they are entitled to a share of all revenue generated by these properties, and they are entitled to negotiate the terms for licensing its use — a site like MegaVideo, VideoBB, and even yes, YouTube, and Facebook, have no right to generate revenue off of these properties, and even by some interpretations off of a derivative work. Its fair use to make a parody of Spongebob, but it may not necessarily always fair use for YouTube to put their logo on it and sell ad space against it without sharing some of that revenue with the original rights holder. Simultaneously, traditional broadcasters are asked to compete with internet broadcasters, yet be liable for copyright infringement, and having to vet their content. This double standard is laughable.

If you keep up this polarizing fight, the only outcome is either the destruction of the content industry, or the destruction of the internet as we know it. Why don't we come up with a rational implementation of law which creates a fair playing field for both sides.

SOPA Unintended Consequences? (4, Insightful)

rnturn (11092) | about 2 years ago | (#38136876)

Yeah, right. Like the corporate drafters of SOPA didn't consider how it would make virtually anything done beyond passively viewing their content a felony. They'll deny it , of course, but they know full well that a prosecutor would be able twist the provisions of SOPA to fit anything they want to nail someone.

"Ah, puny citizen... you are charged with violating section 27.1.14 of the EULA that was updated on the vendor's website six months after you last read it. How do you plead?"

Think that won't happen?

Can all of the participants in the video be ID's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38136942)

As a business owner and potential employer, I'd sure like to know who they are so that I know NOT to employ them in the future.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>