Hacker News Reader

If I worked for the music or entertainment industry, then the act, as described http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act would be very attractive.

I'm sure HBO, and all of its employees, and their families, would appreciate being able to somehow DNS blackhole all the search engines leading to torrents of the content they try and sell for $18/month on digital cable, or $85/Season for DVDs.

If you are Adele, or one of the tens of thousands of artists like her (or their families, or the people that provide services to them) - don't you think you'd like to DNS blackhole, and remove from every search engine of note, http://mp3skull.com/mp3/someone_like_you_adele.html starting today?

The Global entertainment industry is worth 100s of billions of dollars, much of it created in the United States - SOPA is an attempt, however ham handed, at protecting that industry.

I'm curious, dos1 - how would you protect rights holders? I don't have any good answers, but perhaps you do.

> how would you protect rights holders?

The entertainment business hasn't ceased to exist despite a decade of internet piracy -- and in fact seems to be doing quite well. Both of your examples, Adele and HBO (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/media/time-warner...) are doing great -- so I wouldn't hold them up as examples of the plight of the entertainment industry.

So, I'd ask you instead, how can you show that our existing laws that protect rights holders aren't adequate.

The United States has been pretty effective at shutting down wholesale internet piracy.

What many (most?) commentators fail to understand is that the entertainment industry is not interested in anything that account for less than 1% of the population. If 2.6 million americans wish to use some wacky "Direct Connect" or "Darknet" or "Unregistered Usenet" system - have at it. You are round off error.

It's when it moves into the wholesale category of piracy - ala: http://www.google.com/search?q=adele+mp3+download

Then they have a problem. As do the artists.

It would be interesting to see a study of "Health of Entertainment Industries with heavy emphasis on Content Resale" vs "Protection of Intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks, internet policing" in various countries.

HBO and Adele may be doing okay - how many thousands of artists can't make a living (and don't even try) - because they would be just ripped off.

Don't get me wrong - I'm opposed to SOPA, but not because I don't think it wouldn't help the entertainment industry - I'm certain it would. I'm opposed to SOPA because I care more about the internet industry (which SOPA would hurt).

At the end of the day - it's really a question of which we value more - creation of high-value entertainment content, or individual rights, freedoms, and the entire internet industry.

I know where my vote is.

> how many thousands of artists can't make a living (and don't even try) - because they would be just ripped off.

This is the crux of the issue. I contend that more art is being created now than ever before. I know so many musicians in my personal life, I can't even keep track of all of their albums and shows. On SoundCloud and YouTube and Internet Archive I could listen to music freely given for months on end and never listen to the same song twice.

However, I have never once met a musically inclined person that decided not to make music because of GrooveShark or BitTorrent. I've never heard someone say "well, Adele is only worth 20 million, and I'll never be as big as her, so why bother?"

ding Your experience mirrors mine. I actually do play an instrument, but I'm not "talented" in any stretch of the word; I just enjoy it. I've said for a long time there are 2 types of musicians; those that have to do it and those that can afford to. I'm in the latter camp.

I think this is what the labels are missing and politicians, too. Well, perhaps the labels know it, but don't want too many independent creators out there anyway.

But ultimately, we as humans build on each other's works. It's the best way to progress. Why re-invent the wheel for everything each time? So much less productive.

how many thousands of artists can't make a living (and don't even try) - because they would be just ripped off

Um, I don't know if you know this but artists being "ripped off" by the entertainment establishment is not exactly unheard of. In fact (though I don't know firsthand) I believe it's par for the course.

This is why I only buy music directly from the artists. It's the middle-men who haven't realized that the internet has made them almost completely obsolete who keep proposing these horrible laws that would break the internet for no benefit, so it's not in my best interests to give the middle-men money.

> If 2.6 million americans wish to use some wacky "Direct Connect" or "Darknet" or "Unregistered Usenet" system - have at it. You are round off error.

Then those 2.6 million people give physical copies to their friends and you're back to square one. That same theory has been trotted out every time someone has a new anti-piracy technology and wants people to believe that this time, it will work. Every single thing has failed..

Most people aren't very good at cryptography. But it only took a few people to write DeCSS and a few more to run it, then everyone had DVD rips. Same for BDs, same for video game copiers especially back when they were cartridges instead of DVDs. Same for everything else.

The same exact story has been repeated over and over. Why do you think it will be different this time? Do you think it will be more successful because the government is calling the shots now?

You are trading the rights of innovators for that of content holders. SoundCloud is my favorite audio startup - one that is helping independent artists. But under this legislation, companies like them would suffer.

I upvoted you because I agree that SOPA isn't an irrational response. It is crude, selfish and ham-handed approach but is a rational effort to protect a huge hoard of rent-collecting, nominal "capital".

That said, I utterly disagree that the US has any obligation to protect the "intellectual property" of any group. The music industry has stolen and stolen and stolen from musicians for years and having vast influence now, they want the right to steal services from anyone else based on any possibility, any whiff, that their government-granted-monopoly might be infringed on.

As others have pointed, the era of the fall the music industry gate keepers has been good to musicians.

If the US government is our government (big if there), it does not have the obligation to make its main priority private policing for a variety of falling monopolists. In other words, I don't have an answer to your final question but my comment is "this is not my problem, it is their problem and our response should be to throw it back to them".

Getting China/Iran like powers over the Internet is exactly the kind of power they want (they've said it in public). They want to have total control over any kind of infringement happening on the web, no matter how trivial. But don't be fool'ed into thinking that would be enough. They would take down "little guy" competition, too. They've already proved it with the Megaupload video.

If I were in the music/entertainment industry I would want my employers to stop throwing money away on senseless legal action and legislature to cripple the internet, and start thinking of new models to generate revenue working with these tools.

"Video cassette recorders now provide the technical means of taking the works of creative people from them without compensation. If we allow a new technology, the VCR, to take property without paying for it, I believe the Nation will be jeopardizing one of its greatest assets, our film industry." -Richard Orear, President of National Association of Theater Owners in front of Congress in a proceeding to block the sales of the VCR, 1982

The MPAA lost and the VCR stayed in the market; phenomenally increasing MPAA member revenue because apparently, potential is a two way street.

The IP-based industries see new potentials (eg, the internet), get FUD'd up by the potential abuse, refuse to be creative enough to see the potential revenue, and then go into Destroy-Everything mode.

The stupidity runs deep. They seek legislative blockage due to their thorough inability to be compatible with emerging patterns of consumption.

And with both a product and delivery marginal cost of nearly zero, it should be easy to make money by the truckload. As Apple has shown. Make it easy to get content at a reasonable cost and the only people who will be seeking out pirates are people who would never buy anyway.

Why do the rights holders need any more protection than they already have? Are you mad? Look at major league baseball and the NFL. They have currently managed to remove almost any shred of their product from the internet. Same goes for Disney. No, the content providers are doing just fine without SOPA. There will always be pirates, even with SOPA - so simply making it easier for these content providers to shutdown legitimate businesses will only hurt the innocent in the long run.

I know what you're saying here so I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate...

> If you are Adele, ... don't you think you'd like to DNS blackhole...

Well, no. I'd like to see what removing all pirated works and making it much more of a pain the ass to get my IP actually does for sales vs. leaving them out and possibly garnering the goodwill and increased exposure. But then, I'm a numbers guy and not an entertainer.

I've read about studies that say piracy is good, and a lot that show how little piracy or the lack of it actually effects the artists (vs. the industry whoring them out); maybe there's some sort of laffer curve effect there, or maybe the studies are all bullshit too. I don't have any good answers either, but I know what I'd try. And maybe I'd get real broke, real fast too. <Shrug>

You might be biased because you work in the industry probably most effected by SOPA. The movie & music industry are pushing this piece of legislation through because it will give these companies a lot of power to "protect" their work. Just remember that the people who vote for the bill are getting funded by the same companies protected by the bill. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/21/sopa-supporters-are-c...

> If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered?

Because our 'representatives' don't really represent us. Never have, never will, IMO.

This is why I think "petitions" should have real power, or the gathering of a certain number of people should have the power to veto or at least postpone a certain bill. Clearly the more representative-oriented democracy isn't working too well. We need a democracy with a little bit more "direct democracy" measures thrown in there.

I'm not advocating for 100% direct democracy. I'm just saying there is a scale, and we need to push that scale back a little more towards direct democracy, because right now it's too easy for politicians to do whatever they want when in Office when the only repercussion is not being re-elected (maybe). Getting a lot of funding for the 2nd campaign can help negate that "punishment" too sometimes.

I am not sure that I'm 100% against this idea, but the situation in California makes me really hesitant about direct democracy of that form. I'd like to think we could implement something like it that incorporates lessons learned, but I'm not too optimistic. If the CA situation went nationwide I'm afraid we'd basically be stuck in this do-nothing gridlock indefinitely.

> What I can't figure out is why our legislators are hell bent on passing this thing.

The cynic in my would say "money". They're getting paid to pass it. I don't have any hard data backing that up, which is why I'm only saying in cynically, but if that IS true, would it surprise anyone here?

I'd also add: power.

The recent history of the US government shows a frightening trend toward giving itself more power. And power to control information is always especially coveted.

If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered? Is it really just so certain Congressman can collect money from the proponents of the bill?

Just playing devil's advocate...

Consider the civil rights laws of the 50s and 60s. These were widely (albeit not universally) reviled, but passing the laws was the right thing to do (in most cases). Indeed, having sworn to uphold the Constitution, the legislators may have been obligated to do so.

I do not believe that a strong case can be made for SOPA in this way. But it's definitely a mistake to believe that all legislation should be determined on purely democratic grounds.

Civil rights legislation was not "widely reviled". People were protesting in the streets for god's sake. It was not universally approved, of course, especially in the southern states. But I don't think there's a really a comparison to be made here.

SOPA was/is bought and paid for for a clearly tiny minority of interests. The civil rights laws emerged as a result of a contentious political process spurred on by protests and resistance by a sizable part of the population. It was certainly democratically motivated --- just not in the sense of counting heads.

SOPA has nothing to do with democracy at all. It's about corporations protecting their interests. This happens all the time, of course, but to say that democracy should be thrown out the window because, well, sometimes you just have to "do the right thing" is garbage.

Just a theory, but could part of the urgency be to make it pass in time to shut down unauthorized streaming sites for the Superbowl?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/20/tech/web/super-bowl-online/ind...

I tried defending it on Hacker News and received a dozen downvotes. Don't be surprised if everyone in an echo chamber agrees.

In your previous comment you essentially said: "I just don't believe the US government wants to shut down Reddit, Wikipedia, YouTube, and all of the other major sites". Aside from avoiding the main issue, that's hardly a "defence". It's just a statement of disbelief.

Do you have some links to your posts? I have seen people defend the concept of being able to go after sites that exist solely to profit of others work, but most of those disagree with the methods SOPA employs.