https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/10/hollywood-believes-the-time-is-ripe-to-bring-back-sopa/
It's been twelve years since the big SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) /PIPA (Protect IP Act) fight. I've been talking with a few folks lately about how it feels like many people have either forgotten that story or weren't paying attention when it happened. Two years ago, we did a 10-year retrospective on the fight, and it feels like some people need a refresher. Most notably, Charles Rivkin, the head of the MPA (formerly the MPAA), certainly appears to need a refresher because he just announced it's time to bring back SOPA.
For the young ones in the audience, SOPA (and its Senate companion, PIPA) were bills pushed strongly by the film (MPA) and recording (RIAA) industries. They were pushing for "site blocking" for websites that the industries accused of being "dedicated to piracy." The law was a slam dunk. It had a huge number of co-sponsors, and the MPA/RIAA combo had convinced Congress to pass ever more expansive copyright laws basically every two to three years for the past 25 years. SOPA was set to become law.
Until it wasn't. Because the public spoke up loudly. I (coincidentally) was at the Capitol on the day of the big Internet Blackout in protest of SOPA/PIPA, and I heard the phones ringing off the hook. I was running up and down the halls of the office buildings, having Reps. tell me how they were removing their names from the co-sponsor list. The public spoke up and it worked.
But it's important to remember why it worked: because the law was a horrific attack on free speech and the open web. And for no good reason.
We spent much time explaining why this would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, you cannot shut down an entire publishing house just because it sometimes has published works that contain, say, defamation. You cannot ban access to a photocopying machine because some users use it to infringe. SOPA was basically built-in prior restraint.
You can only target the actually violative content and not declare entire sites be blocked. That goes way beyond what the First Amendment allows.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday April 12, @08:07PM
They only have to win once for this to permanently become law.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Friday April 12, @08:11PM (4 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @02:39PM (3 children)
Cool, now apply that to your job. Can you "compete" against someone willing to do your job for free?
About 10 years ago, my parents passed away and left me enough money and property that I don't *need* a job. I can easily live out a modest life until I hit 90--and I'm not likely to hit 90 based on genetics.
I *love* IT and engineering. I manage a very large network for a client, and I charge them ~$7,500/mo for managing 75 offices. It's literally $100/office. That money doesn't pay my salary...it pays for another employee to help handle calls and cover when I go on vacation. Many MSPs have come in over the years and presented their "we know how to be point-and-click-and-google admins better than *anyone* else"...but the lowest cost I've ever seen is $400/office/mo.
*No one* can beat me on price. Can you compete with that?
If you even get close to $100/office, I'll just keep doing it for $50/office/mo and pay the employee out of my decently-sized savings. I suppose if I had to, I'd do it for $1/office/mo.
Oh, and you can't be the average shitty MSP that constantly nickel-and-dimes them for everything either. "Oh, you bought a new computer? That's not a 'covered' device, so this new project is going to be $75/hr". You also have to have enough competence and staffing to answer the phone on the first ring 99% of the time.
Good luck competing or litigating.
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday April 13, @06:52PM (2 children)
>Can you "compete" against someone willing to do your job for free?
I cannot wait for the program that instantly generates stories, movies and music. If it comes out in my lifetime, I will put on my eyepatch, install a pegleg, and pirate the shit out of it. People that didn't even want it will be getting it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @10:57PM
You actually want to pirate it?
I install ad-blockers.
So far, the power switch makes a sufficient block for the latest Hollywood offerings. As long as their content stays in their cables and in their theaters, and doesn't invade my house, they can do whatever floats their boat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16, @08:41AM
There are already AIs that generate music. The one I'm testing out is not bad but typically isn't great usually generic but there are plenty of humans whose jobs involve producing generic music.
https://suno.com/song/96ba7eae-576d-47cf-81e5-3adfef3fdf53 [suno.com]
Chorus translated:
See also:
https://suno.com/song/e950da27-d894-42fe-afcc-e45df091dd61 [suno.com]
https://suno.com/song/c83d007e-92da-4ae4-bf9c-f7fc48278aec [suno.com]
https://suno.com/song/98accd9a-b3e7-47c6-8252-f1eac9524c1e [suno.com]
For now it seems I'm better at doing melody stuff than the AI (probably true for many other humans), so the results might be even better if they add a feature/option where the AI uses melody etc from the human and adds the other stuff - vocals, riffs, percussion, etc; like it's doing now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12, @09:01PM (38 children)
And if people really supported it, they would have spoken up against the CDA and DMCA also. The call for more censorship is getting louder every day, because of you-know-who. We need a bulletproof internet that can't be censored. The law can never build that.
The state can do what it pleases, and will keep doing so until the tyrants are voted out. All this pissing and moaning without the accompanying vote has a very short term effect at best. You have to eliminate the threat on election day, convince the majority that censorship is a Bad Thing®
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12, @11:21PM (34 children)
No, I don't know who. Please spell it out.
(Score: 4, Funny) by janrinok on Saturday April 13, @04:59AM
It is a popular technique to make the claimant look intelligent. He doesn't know who it is either. But by using the phraseology that the has everybody who reads it can insert their own bogey man and thereby 'agree' with the original claim.
He hasn't got the answer. It could mean anybody from the President of the USA (past or current), through the legal system and businesses, down to every member of this community. You called him out. I wonder if he will reply?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @05:54AM (32 children)
"He-who-shall-not-be-named". It's freakin' obvious! You keep him on the front page of all the tabloids every day
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @06:24AM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday April 13, @06:28AM (30 children)
Yet still you seem unable to name him.
Yes, I know who you might mean. I'm a European, and I'll bet the person I am thinking of isn't on the front page of our tabloids everyday. And why you should be blaming Putin, or do you mean Netanyahu , or perhaps you are referring to a famous sportsperson, well, why you should be blaming someone that you cannot or will not name for something leaves me puzzled.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @07:12PM (29 children)
Amazing how you are all hung up over bullshit, conveniently ignoring the subject of censorship in the post. I'm not obsessed with names, I'm only interested in preventing censorship by any means possible so people will cease arguing about it.
And please, the both of you can end the charade, you know exactly who I was talking about. The name doesn't need any more press than it already gets. Dwelling on it is totally offtopic deflection.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday April 13, @08:59PM (21 children)
No, I really haven't a clue who you are talking about. It could be one of any number of people. I thought my comment made that clear.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, @07:03PM (20 children)
This I will grant, a great number of people are pro-censorship (trying to stay on topic here). But please don't try to sell the line that you don't know who is the most famous one of those people.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Sunday April 14, @07:06PM (19 children)
You are assuming that everyone lives in the same country as you, reads the same newspapers and watches the same television. I haven't a clue who you mean. So, if you want to go an play games, count me out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, @07:12PM (18 children)
Please, he's on the front page everywhere in the world, I can't figure out why you insist on playing this charade..
And it appears you are the one modding me down, shame on you! That is abuse
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday April 14, @10:53PM (17 children)
Ooh! How about we play 20 questions? I'll start:
- Does the person have orange skin?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday April 14, @11:03PM (15 children)
But I think you're on the right track so I'll submit my question: Did he recently, and ironically, lose a lawsuit against an organization that generated an unflattering report on growing bigoted behaviour on his social media site?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @12:41AM (14 children)
Well, at least your question is a tiny bit closer to the real topic of this thread on censorship. Names of the people are totally unimportant, expect to those who are trying to create distractions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Monday April 15, @12:44AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 15, @01:58AM (12 children)
I don't even care who you were referring to originally, name someone else. A name links to an event which leads to details and then I could offer you something interesting. If saying one name in particular means you cannot carry your case then it was quite silly to bring it to the table and throw a limelight on it.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @03:19AM (11 children)
The post was about censorship, what the hell is the matter with you? Why are all of you so obsessed with creating distractions? Rhetorical question. The answer to that is obvious too.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 15, @03:22AM (1 child)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @03:55AM
Ah, but you have enough to carry on with the distraction? It's ok, I understand
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Monday April 15, @03:30AM (6 children)
More to the point, why are you self-CENSORING the name of someone in a post on censorship?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @04:10AM (5 children)
Simple, I didn't "self-censor" anything, it goes without mentioning, more to the point, why do you care so much about a name? Too bad everybody prefers to deal with distractions instead of helping to find ways to defeat censorship, but to tell the truth, I find this obsession quite fascinating, very revealing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday April 15, @04:33AM (4 children)
How do any of these statements alone engage with the reader?
You were trying to make a point and using a particular individual as an example to back that point up. The problem is, it seems that none of us have any idea who that person is. By omitting this name and then continuing to refuse to name them when requested, you've now wasted your opportunity to convince others of the strength of your argument and instead just appear as someone who is being stubborn for the sake of it (and therefore not worth listening to). This does your argument more harm than good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @10:00PM (3 children)
Good show! Again you have successfully avoided the subject of the post entirely, focusing strictly on a distraction. Oh well... looks like we're doomed to another "four more years", minimum, of the same old - same old...
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday April 16, @12:31AM (2 children)
Pot, meet Kettle.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16, @01:04AM (1 child)
:-) Classic! and thanks! I'm definitely archiving this thread! Confirms everything I've said on the power of distraction
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16, @02:56AM
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday April 15, @06:13AM (1 child)
So everybody should know exactly who you are thinking of? That sounds very much like the old military story about something said by a proud mother who was watching her son marching on parade - "Oh look, everybody is out of step apart from our Johnny!"
Your assumption was simply wrong, but you made it the main argument of your initial comment.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @10:08PM
No, you all did that. The main subject was censorship and how to defeat it, and you have very successfully changed it to something else entirely. That is what is commonly called a "distraction". And your analogy doesn't apply. A majority doesn't automatically make you correct, it just means you agree with it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @12:34AM
Totally irrelevant and offtopic question. The topic here is censorship, try to stay focused
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @09:13PM (6 children)
i was trying to save time, i didnt expect to trip over your insecurities. are we gonna get a name or more dawdling?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, @07:07PM (5 children)
The subject of censorship is a "what", not a "who". And you, my friend, are hung up on the "who", not the subject of censorship. I consider that a distraction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 14, @10:55PM (4 children)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15, @12:32AM (3 children)
The topic is censorship. Clearly you never were interested. I don't even know why you bothered to reply, other than trying to distract the discussion.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 16, @02:02AM (2 children)
We were all discussing censorship until you introduced an unknown person, claiming that the unknown person was responsible for the increased censorship. Your claim was the entire justification for your comment. For anyone to continue the discussion they would have to know who "you-know-who" is. But we don't.
That fact that you have now continued this childish example of refusing to name a person is a demonstration, as clear as it could be, of distraction. But it is you who has introduced it. There appears not to be a person responsible. It was a false and unjustified claim in the hope that others would insert their own bogeyman, thus making your contribution seem intelligent. You have been called out on it. And you cannot provide a name.
You are attempting to troll us all. Archive whatever you want - it might remind you not to try to do it again.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16, @03:25AM
And you sure ran with it! to the exclusion of all else, completely diverted the thread. Funny as hell! Your obsession over such a tiny insignificance is truly fascinating.
Forest for the trees, babe..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17, @02:01AM
And the downmodding! Simply because you feel offended by the truth.. So childish!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 16, @06:33AM (2 children)
I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but I don't think we can blame a 1998 copyright law on him. The Apprentice didn't even air until 2004?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17, @02:12AM (1 child)
Actually, I'm not blaming him nearly as much as the people that want to censor him, but yeah, he helped take it up a notch over the last few years.
The bad copyright law, along with the present attempts to censor the ex-prez, we can pin squarely on the democrats
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19, @07:54PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12, @09:47PM (6 children)
The public is to blame here. The public continues to fund Hollywood, the MPA, RIAA, and all the other guilty parties.
Some of us make our purchases based on company history, along with all the other criteria that everyone considers. I'm a Second Amendment activist, among other things. Do I shop Dick's Sporting Goods? Not only "NO!" but "HELL NO!" Do I shop any place that falls in with the D party line on the Second? Never. If a CEO comes out against guns, I ain't giving that company ten cents.
The public isn't smart enough, generally, to vote with their wallets. If Hollywood wants PIPA and SOPA, just stop buying their crap. You bet your butt, if Hollywood spends a zillion dollars on "blockbusters" this year, and make nothing for it, execs are going to make some kind of amends.
The really crazy thing about Hollywood? They're pretty basically anti-Second Amendment. But, the drivel they put out is filled with violence. Rapes, bludgeonings, shootings, non-stop explosions, stolen tanks, stolen aircraft, stolen helicopters, and ever more explosions. Hollywood sells more guns than either Obama, or Biden. But, they're anti-2A. Anti 1A. Anti constitutional for that matter. Their profit trumps any right you may have.
Just stop giving Hollywood your money. They'll wake up after awhile. Entertainers should only be paid when they actually entertain the audience. The stand up comedian with a lame line of boners isn't going to get many drinks, tips, or re-appearances. Tell Hollywood that they're not very entertaining, and you're not paying for their shite.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Friday April 12, @11:22PM
Heh. Cancel Culture!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @03:51AM (2 children)
Been avoiding Hollywood for decades now. Not because I am mad with them...I am downright bored with them. All these "celebrities", yet what did they do besides show up and wear some outlandish garment?
Disney? I live a couple of miles from their flagship park in California. Been 20 years since I have been there. Last time I went, it was way too crowded for me. If you like waiting in lines, you will love the place.
Movies? Haven't gone there either. Nothing seems to interest me. I can't seem to relate to them.
It's probably me. I am getting older.
I can't see why the celebrities are so anxious to censor their own publicity. It's like our Church charging for sermons and trying to enforce copyright on their interpretations of the holy books... Oops! They did do this! Now they are complaining about declining Church attendance. I am no longer around to hear it.
I see the supermarket tabloids and all their reports of so called famous celebrities ... and I don't recognize any of them. The copyright companies have done a fine job of keeping artistic works from public exposure.
As far as I am concerned, it's like caviar. It's terribly expensive. I smelled some once. I got the idea it wasn't something I would pay for, but if offered some, I might see if my cat would eat it
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday April 13, @10:53AM
And for the same reason. Ancient stories, rehashed and regurgitated, without any new twists or interesting angles that would make you think. Sorry, but if I want to get bored, I can do that for free.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 13, @11:36AM
I was going to mod you "interesting", and move on. Then I saw the QOTD, which seems appropriate here.
Good-bye. I am leaving because I am bored. -- George Saunders' dying words
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday April 13, @10:54PM
"The public isn't smart enough, generally, to vote [...]"
you could have stopped there. we've known this to be a fundamental truth since the founding of our nation, which is why the constitution was written the way it was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16, @06:30AM
You were making a decent point until you went off the rails here.
Picking one random issue and boycotting any company whose owners have the wrong opinion, which is going to be about half of them in the country, is rather dumb.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday April 13, @04:17AM
Who is not disillusioned with all political processes in this country at this point?
Broken, corrupt societies are the perfect target for broken, corrupt laws.
(Score: 1, Touché) by DadaDoofy on Saturday April 13, @12:28PM (10 children)
"You cannot ban access to a photocopying machine because some users use it to infringe. SOPA was basically built-in prior restraint."
Funny how this concept seems crystal clear to leftists who bemoan any impediments to their ability to steal and profit from others' intellectual property. However, when the very same concept is applied to suing gun manufacturers out of existence because some people use their products illegally, they suddenly go dumb.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Saturday April 13, @04:04PM (9 children)
For any of you just tuning in, 'using their products illegally' is code for 'people *killed* by guns'.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Interesting) by epitaxial on Saturday April 13, @04:33PM (1 child)
In their mind this kindergartner wasn't fast enough to return fire. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-man-killed-6-year-old-way-kindergarten-road-rage-shooting-s-rcna147667 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16, @09:02AM
They justify it by saying it helps keep their Government in check. To be fair it does make it harder for the Government to do certain stuff. And US Presidents do really have a high chance of getting shot (probably one of the most dangerous jobs in the world - the killed in job rate is rather high).
But the reality is in many cases the citizen with the gun becomes the perp and not the hero. And looking at the number of killings/murders by the US cops (often minimally punished) is it really keeping the Gov in check?
Since I'm not in the USA and don't ever intend to go there, I'm fine if there are even more guns in the USA so that more people there can shoot the people shooting at people... Just post those videos for the rest of us to watch. Might be educational for the rest of the world.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Saturday April 13, @05:08PM (2 children)
No, there are a vast number of ways to use a gun illegally, and the number is growing by the day here in Biden's America. But this is a red herring, as the discussion was about prior restraint. Thus demonstrating the last phrase of my last sentence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, @05:21PM (1 child)
yes, there are a million different ways of committing violence with a gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @08:20PM
There are a million different ways of committing violence with any god damn thing. Some require more imagination than others but all items are potential weapons and many of them can cause massive damages. Don't be a fobic idiot.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dwilson on Saturday April 13, @10:18PM (3 children)
You appear to be trying to bring an appeal-to-emotion in to the debate. Why?
- D
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday April 13, @11:26PM (2 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Sunday April 14, @08:09PM (1 child)
Nope. It was bought up on the topic of prior restraint. You do realized the more you play dumb, the more you prove my point, right? But I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't playing. *wink*
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Sunday April 14, @08:23PM
I don't recall you making an argument against the abortion bill that inspired that action. :)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈