Google should be forced to but SOPA in their collective mouths... - Page 2

Greed, properly regulated is good. It overcomes another basic human trait. Sloth.

 

As far as this bill Google has it right in this case. Say you have an honest hard working American who builds a website LEGALLY selling a good or service. They can have their website shut down without due process. How would you feel if someone claimed you were using their cupcake recipes and your store had to shut down based solely on the claim until you could prove your case? Kinda flies in the face of that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

And in the case of SOPA/PIPA, bureaucrats decide who's right and wrong and only if a person or company goes to Federal court to prove themselves innocent can they over-turn the ruling. Placing the burden of proof on the accused and not the aggrieved. It makes the government the arbiter of everything on the internet and the enforcer solely of the largest corporations. If you are a small music artist, it ought to scare you more than anyone. You think the labels won't think, "Hmmm, I like that song. Think I'll file a SOPA claim and have them removed and take the song(or idea)"? You think bureaucrats won't use it to shape the internet into what they and they alone think is best? Hi, I'm John. This is earth. Welcome!

lol, there is no reason to go out and ensure that crooks aren't stealing intellectual property.   The problem is why are we going to put even bigger crooks in charge of it....

 

But you're going after the wrong person.  The way this legislation is written.  Take Google for example.  IMO they aren't worried so much about revenue as much as costs.  They're a search engine, if they were supposed to go through and figure out what is piracy and what isn't on an infinite number of hits. It is more than just a nice little program.  And if they don't, they can be shut down...  Without their day in court.  One day shut down, and that is some serious bank...  All for basically one bad link... 

The system to me so far seems to b working. There will always be crime no matter what. If you try to regulate something further, it will just go underground deeper. Take prohibition for example. 

The proponents of the new law say that they are trying to address mostly foreign infringements.  

 

Perhaps I am dense, but how does a law in the USA prevent foreign entities from copyright infringements?

 

Any movie or music done here is commonly copied over and sold openly in shops in China.  Any token crackdown by the government police (to appease the USA) is a sham, as the shops just put all the pirated stuff in a back room until the token inspector is gone, or perhaps even paid off for silence.

 

So, how again does a law passed in Congress effect China, India, and all the other countries where this is commonplace?  LOL   

 

Like with any problem that is occurring in any society, the course of action is to enforce the law when an illegal activity occurs, not pass burdensome laws that infringe on everybody in order to prevent illegal activity or supposedly preemptiveky address some problem.

All good points, Beth. And I would add, this does nothing to end piracy or even punish those who engage in that activity, just American citizens ability to access what big business and bureaucrats consider copyright infringing. This is not only bad law, it is the biggest blow to the 1st Amendment ever contemplated.

You just make the ISP provider filter that web address.  Of course it gets mirrored renamed or whatever.  

 

Even is SOPA is passed, piracy will still exist, it will just push people into more creative ways to do so, making their job even harder, it just doesn't make since. All SOPA is really doing is infringing on our first amendment, the government can't be trusted, once they have the control, they won't just stop with piracy, they will go to the point where every bit of media they don't want us to see, will be kept under lock and key, keeping our country in the dark!

i have been in the music industry...still am to a degree. some of what you say is correct to an extent...but at the same point the same bands and artists typically get their music out for free in the beginning. your argument in the a way reminds me of the mettalic/napster war.

mettalica the first few years allowed their fans to bring recording equipment to their show and make their own videos, tapes...etc..and pass them around to friends...latter metalica gets big....and greedy and wanted napster to stop sharing their music for free. my point? every band..young producer...ets....starts out giving it away for free...it isnt until the start getting paid real money that they care.....

bands now days make their money from concerts and tours...cd sales are down and their percentage from internet sales is negligable at best. radio play is where the rest of their money comes from.....this law.....in the grand scheme...would do little to increase their income...and may even reduce it.......i find a lot of obsure band due to piracy and such....with out that...i would never had attended their shows in this last decade.

I tend to agree, I've bought whole discographies after hearing throw in songs on a torrent...

Not to mention most bands do not own the rights to their music once signed to a major record label. That usually happens later. Meaning they do not receive income from "spins" and such unless it is in their contract. They are given X amount of money upfront usually to record an album. Most hardly see any revenue from record sales until later in their careers. As I stated...the money is in the tours......

You can get any song you want off news groups on the web, you just have to know where to look.