If the Federal government can shut down Megaupload....

[Kroze]

Why the need for SOPA?

Corporate crooks have their hands in fat politicians pocket again?

 

[lxskllr]

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Politicians need moneys from companies, so they still support SOPA in their souls.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Maybe, you should do a little research. Megaupload is not the only company that has been shut-down for illegal activity by the Feds.

 

[amdhunter]

Politicians need moneys from companies, so they still support SOPA in their souls.

I'd support SOPA for three fiddy.
I'd support anything for money.

 

[alkemyst]

SOPA will add ties into LEGAL download sites especially if you look at the companies backing it and how they have influenced what is played on radio and tv.

 

[mmntech]

The MPAA basically outed itself on FOX News that they are bribing politicians. There's a petition being put forward to the White House to start an investigation.

 

[God Mode]

Because its a power grab. No loose ends. No limit. Ask for a mile even when an inch is more than enough. This is the way things are.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Currently, sites can be taken down due to gross copyright infringment and things like child p0rn ect.
SOPA would allow for sites to be taken down based on a very loose base of criteria that essentially would give the federal government power to close ANY website.
So if a website, say Fox News, was running an exclusive that was going to expose Obama as an alien from the planet Vulcan, the feds would shut it down to prevent the news from coming out. SOPA isn't about protecting copyrighted material, it is about limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

 

[ElFenix]

Because its a power grab. No loose ends. No limit. Ask for a mile even when an inch is more than enough. This is the way things are.

same shit as closing the "analog hole" by disabling HD over component out on blu ray players.

 

[Patranus]

Why the need for SOPA?

There need to be laws that force companies to act responsible.
If a company is actively making money for users uploading pirated work, they should be taking proactive measures to prevent the illegal use of intellectual property.

SOPA forces those companies to take measure to ensure that there services are not being used for illegal acts. That is a good thing.

 

[ponyo]

The Feds need to shut down YouTube. But you know they won't.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There need to be laws that force companies to act responsible.
If a company is actively making money for users uploading pirated work, they should be taking proactive measures to prevent the illegal use of intellectual property.

SOPA forces those companies to take measure to ensure that there services are not being used for illegal acts. That is a good thing.

The basic copyright laws already do that. SOPA was an end around due process because MPAA and RIAA was tired of having to actually prove that their copyrights were being broken. They litteraly think that because a new business might hurt their profits that should be enough to have it shut down, no matter if what they are doing is illegal.

 

[God Mode]

There need to be laws that force companies to act responsible.
If a company is actively making money for users uploading pirated work, they should be taking proactive measures to prevent the illegal use of intellectual property.

SOPA forces those companies to take measure to ensure that there services are not being used for illegal acts. That is a good thing.

You mean spend time and money on accountability and prevention like our government and their employees to the state level? :awe:

Only as I grew older with more responsibilities besides videogames have I felt such bitterness and hatred for untouchable state and gov workers.

 

[Patranus]

The basic copyright laws already do that. SOPA was an end around due process because MPAA and RIAA was tired of having to actually prove that their copyrights were being broken. They litteraly think that because a new business might hurt their profits that should be enough to have it shut down, no matter if what they are doing is illegal.

No, existing laws do not do that.

Lets take YouTube as an example. If someone posts a video on YouTube containing copyrighted material, that video stays on YouTube until it is reported by the copyright owner. While that video is on YouTube, Google is generating revenue from that copyrighted material.

So, not only do you have a direct cost to the copyright holder - having to have someone monitor YouTube - but Google is making money from that copyrighted material.

So the company complains to YouTube and they take the content down. Google still keeps the revenue the copyrighted material generated while not reimbursing the copyright holder for the costs associated with policing Googles service.

This is why a law similar to SOPA is needed. To force companies that profit from copyright violations (like YouTube) to crack down on intellectual property infringement.

 

[Juddog]

No, existing laws do not do that.

Lets take YouTube as an example. If someone posts a video on YouTube containing copyrighted material, that video stays on YouTube until it is reported by the copyright owner. While that video is on YouTube, Google is generating revenue from that copyrighted material.

So, not only do you have a direct cost to the copyright holder - having to have someone monitor YouTube - but Google is making money from that copyrighted material.

So the company complains to YouTube and they take the content down. Google still keeps the revenue the copyrighted material generated while not reimbursing the copyright holder for the costs associated with policing Googles service.

This is why a law similar to SOPA is needed. To force companies that profit from copyright violations (like YouTube) to crack down on intellectual property infringement.

So you would rather have the option to take down all of youtube just because a single user uploads copywritten content?

 

[Patranus]

So you would rather have the option to take down all of youtube just because a single user uploads copywritten content?

If YouTube refuses to police itself and/or refuses to reimburse the intellectual property holder for the revenue generated, yes.

Just because YouTube is popular doesn't mean it should be able to derive revenue from stolen work. Period.

 

[alent1234]

No, existing laws do not do that.

Lets take YouTube as an example. If someone posts a video on YouTube containing copyrighted material, that video stays on YouTube until it is reported by the copyright owner. While that video is on YouTube, Google is generating revenue from that copyrighted material.

So, not only do you have a direct cost to the copyright holder - having to have someone monitor YouTube - but Google is making money from that copyrighted material.

So the company complains to YouTube and they take the content down. Google still keeps the revenue the copyrighted material generated while not reimbursing the copyright holder for the costs associated with policing Googles service.

This is why a law similar to SOPA is needed. To force companies that profit from copyright violations (like YouTube) to crack down on intellectual property infringement.

youtube is a bad example, not like i can watch the whole transformers 3 on there in full?

 

[Patranus]

youtube is a bad example, not like i can watch the whole transformers 3 on there in full?

YouTube is a great example.
What intellectual property being violated is irrelevant, be it a song, image, tv show, movie, patent, software code, or trademark.

 

[alent1234]

most of the IP content on youtube is licensed. things like movie reviews and people making mashups and other fan stuff is not the same as sharing full length movies

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

youtube is a bad example, not like i can watch the whole transformers 3 on there in full?

exactly because Youtube polices itself. There are bots that automatically detect if you use copyrighted audio. I made slideshows for a few trips I went on with friends and they were muted instantaneously.

Similarly with copyrighted videos, they detect that automatically too. You see all those "Glee" soundtracks they put on every week? The ones with video invert the video, and a lot of the audio stuff uses tricks by changing the pitch, etc so they don't get automatically caught.

The fact is Youtube does a decent job in policing. Megaupload obviously does not, and even if it did try policing, the amount of pirated material there is just overflowing. You know like a epidemic that you're fighting but you can't really do anything about because its just spreading so rapidly? There you go.

I know people like me and many others here are upset, but lets not kid ourselves here and paint Megaupload like a truly legal file sharing venue. It's not like any companies were really hurt because they were sending megaupload links to each other when sharing large powerpoint files.

 

[alent1234]

megaupload was making money off the pirated content. they have internal emails proving it

 

[CountZero]

No, existing laws do not do that.

Lets take YouTube as an example. If someone posts a video on YouTube containing copyrighted material, that video stays on YouTube until it is reported by the copyright owner. While that video is on YouTube, Google is generating revenue from that copyrighted material.

So, not only do you have a direct cost to the copyright holder - having to have someone monitor YouTube - but Google is making money from that copyrighted material.

So the company complains to YouTube and they take the content down. Google still keeps the revenue the copyrighted material generated while not reimbursing the copyright holder for the costs associated with policing Googles service.

This is why a law similar to SOPA is needed. To force companies that profit from copyright violations (like YouTube) to crack down on intellectual property infringement.

Sounds like the government butting in where it isn't needed. There are methods out there to resolve dsiputes, and clearly there are methods to have websites taken down.

Asking youtube to police its content for copyright makes no sense. There is no way to know if any given video has been granted use of copyrighted material or not. This is why DMCA works the way it does, only the copyright holder knows who has or hasn't been granted use. This alone would kill any site that allows any user interaction at all. There is no way for even Anandtech to guarantee no link or written word in any comment or forum violates copyright let alone a site with a volume like youtube.

 

[Sonikku]

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, existing laws do not do that.

Lets take YouTube as an example. If someone posts a video on YouTube containing copyrighted material, that video stays on YouTube until it is reported by the copyright owner. While that video is on YouTube, Google is generating revenue from that copyrighted material.

Yes that is how copyright works. You are responsible for monitoring your own properties usage. It is completely unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to do it for you. Especially considering that you make money by giving other people the right to use that copyright. How is anyone to know who is and is not a proper copyright licensee?

So, not only do you have a direct cost to the copyright holder - having to have someone monitor YouTube - but Google is making money from that copyrighted material.

The first part is the cost of creating and licensing intellectual property. You have to monitor its usage. This is not new it has been this way since the inception of IP.

So the company complains to YouTube and they take the content down. Google still keeps the revenue the copyrighted material generated while not reimbursing the copyright holder for the costs associated with policing Googles service.

This part is also not true. The IP holder can sue Google for royalties on profit gained from their IP. They just don’t want to have to sue for each infraction considering they are likely to only win a few dollars per lawsuit. It is not cost efficient to regulate their IP that closely. Google owes then nothing for monitoring usage of their own IP, that is a part of the IP owner’s job.

This is why a law similar to SOPA is needed. To force companies that profit from copyright violations (like YouTube) to crack down on intellectual property infringement.

It seems to me that IP laws are already working as intended, the IP owners are just upset because the cost of IP monitoring has increased. Now they want to make their profit margin everyone else’s responsibility.

Personally, I think IP is broken. I think that the entire concept no longer works in the 21st century. I think we need to abandon it and find a new way, and it is entirely possible that there is be a lot less profit in that new way. It would not be the first time that a industry was made obsolete by technology, nor will it be the last.