SOPA

[Fully]

I haven't seen anything on here about SOPA. If you want to take a stand against SOPA - Stop Online Piracy Act - the bill that would allow the US Govt. to effectively censor the web, here's an easy way to send a message to Congress : http://americancensorship.org/

[el_chode]

THere's also the Anti-Piracy act or something similar in the senate. both are equally evil

[Fully]

If anyone is interested, they can click the link below and have their name read out during Sen. Ron Wyden's promised fillibuster. I've signed up. http://stopcensorship.org/?

Also, Chode, I think you are referring to PIPA: Protect IP Act. This fillibuster is for that as well.

[el_chode]

Yes that's it. I posted that link to my FB last night too. I went to school for this and ironically, I now do P2P interception work (but not for piracy).

If you want a good read on this stuff, lessig's free culture is an excellent starting point. The first half is a philosophical argument against the notion piracy is killing anything, the second half is his personal self-criticism in his arguments before the supreme court regarding copyright extensions.

[MMJ_fanatic]

Sorry but the 1st post is purposely(?) misleading by the use of "censor".  I read about HR3621 and its intent is to protect the owners of intellectual property from internet pirates.  I have never used any p2p sites and never will.  When start an artistic collective such as a musical group, it is your job--you work, sweat, eat, sleep, breath the creative process to bring new, interesting, attractive works to both your current base of fans and hopefully continue to expand your audience.  To make this work you need to generate cd and/or digital content sales as well as ticket sales on the tour to support this new creation.  Meanwhile a bunch of self entitled brats are leaking your new work and sharing it via websites catering to other self entitled brats.  The reaction to this type of law is just a measure and reflection of the gimme, gimme, gimme attitude pervading OWS.  I dare anyone to try to support themselves by making music, or painting etc. while others pirate/forge and "share" your blood, sweat, and tears with the whole world.

[el_chode]

This is a bill sponsored by corporations and special interest groups that will circumvent the notion of an open Internet that is neutral in content and opinion. It subverts due process and allows people not party to a contract to modify a contract on their own terms, two legal rights that as citizens we all have; rights that supersede the artificial rights granted by government fiat to copyright holders. It allows the DOJ and ICE to shut down a website on mere complaint of speculation of piracy without proof or fact and can be used to redirect Internet traffic.

In practical terms, if during an uprising someone accused twitter of allowing posts to pirated content (a first amendment right, ranked higher than copyright), they would shut down twitter without factual inquiry.

[Fully]

This is a bill sponsored by corporations and special interest groups that will circumvent the notion of an open Internet that is neutral in content and opinion. It subverts due process and allows people not party to a contract to modify a contract on their own terms, two legal rights that as citizens we all have; rights that supersede the artificial rights granted by government fiat to copyright holders. It allows the DOJ and ICE to shut down a website on mere complaint of speculation of piracy without proof or fact and can be used to redirect Internet traffic.

In practical terms, if during an uprising someone accused twitter of allowing posts to pirated content (a first amendment right, ranked higher than copyright), they would shut down twitter without factual inquiry.

Yep, that's pretty much how I understand it.

[el_chode]

This is a bill sponsored by corporations and special interest groups that will circumvent the notion of an open Internet that is neutral in content and opinion. It subverts due process and allows people not party to a contract to modify a contract on their own terms, two legal rights that as citizens we all have; rights that supersede the artificial rights granted by government fiat to copyright holders. It allows the DOJ and ICE to shut down a website on mere complaint of speculation of piracy without proof or fact and can be used to redirect Internet traffic.

In practical terms, if during an uprising someone accused twitter of allowing posts to pirated content (a first amendment right, ranked higher than copyright), they would shut down twitter without factual inquiry.

Yep, that's pretty much how I understand it.

Ok good because I wrote that drunk in a bar while my buddy was peeing.

[Fully]

This is a bill sponsored by corporations and special interest groups that will circumvent the notion of an open Internet that is neutral in content and opinion. It subverts due process and allows people not party to a contract to modify a contract on their own terms, two legal rights that as citizens we all have; rights that supersede the artificial rights granted by government fiat to copyright holders. It allows the DOJ and ICE to shut down a website on mere complaint of speculation of piracy without proof or fact and can be used to redirect Internet traffic.

In practical terms, if during an uprising someone accused twitter of allowing posts to pirated content (a first amendment right, ranked higher than copyright), they would shut down twitter without factual inquiry.

Yep, that's pretty much how I understand it.

Ok good because I wrote that drunk in a bar while my buddy was peeing.

I think I love you. :-*

[mgriff73]

These laws always say they are to protect us and then they oppress us.  In this case it's to protect the corporations and then they will controll anything they see as a danger to there agenda.

[Jaimoe]

Sorry but the 1st post is purposely(?) misleading by the use of "censor".  I read about HR3621 and its intent is to protect the owners of intellectual property from internet pirates.  I have never used any p2p sites and never will.  When start an artistic collective such as a musical group, it is your job--you work, sweat, eat, sleep, breath the creative process to bring new, interesting, attractive works to both your current base of fans and hopefully continue to expand your audience.  To make this work you need to generate cd and/or digital content sales as well as ticket sales on the tour to support this new creation.  Meanwhile a bunch of self entitled brats are leaking your new work and sharing it via websites catering to other self entitled brats.  The reaction to this type of law is just a measure and reflection of the gimme, gimme, gimme attitude pervading OWS.  I dare anyone to try to support themselves by making music, or painting etc. while others pirate/forge and "share" your blood, sweat, and tears with the whole world.

I tend to agree with you 100%.

On a related note, my good friend works for Harelquin Books and he freely burns music he borrows from friends along with library copies and downloads from cheap sites. He said: "I'll never buy another CD". He knows I won't let him borrow any of my store-bought CDs since I'm not a fucking free library and I told him repeatedly in the past that his attitude is killing the music industry. He's no brat at 45, but he's being hypocritical since I told him 5 years ago that ebooks will suffer from the same kind of sharing and illegal downloading that has crippled the music industry. He didn't agree then, but does now given his industry and career are starting to feel the effects. Literally, anything on the internet is fair game and this ain't right.

[el_chode]

Oh Noes! The industry is dying because of downloaders. Those poor media companies and content creators are being milked dry by the millions:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/29/business/fi-executive-pay-media-20110529

   

May 29, 2011|By Meg James, Los Angeles TimesEven in the most rarefied echelons of executive compensation, media mogul Sumner Redstone and his top lieutenants are in a league of their own.
Philippe Dauman, chief executive of Viacom Inc., last year earned the distinction of drawing the largest compensation package in corporate America: $84.5 million. That was a 149% jump from the previous year, lifted by a one-time stock and options award totaling $54.4 million, which came courtesy of signing a new five-year employment agreement to run the company that boasts such prominent cable TV channels as MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central and Hollywood movie studio Paramount Pictures.  Dauman's second-in-command, Thomas E. Dooley, received $64.7 million. His take, also boosted by a nearly $41 million one-time stock and options bonus tied to the signing of a new contract and added responsibilities, represented a 139% increase from his 2009 pay. The Viacom chief operating officer's compensation was even six times higher than for a typical CEO in the U.S.
Dauman's and Dooley's salaries covered only nine months of work, rather than a full year, because Viacom changed its fiscal calendar midyear to align it with the TV season.
At Redstone-controlled broadcasting giant CBS Corp., CEO Leslie Moonves reaped $57.7 million, including a $27.5-million bonus. His package, an increase of 34% over the previous year, also included $2.5 million to cover taxes he paid in New York, where CBS is based and where he maintains a home. Moonves' primary residence is in Los Angeles, and he frequently works out of CBS' West Coast complex in Studio City.
Both Viacom and CBS turned in strong performances last year. But in good years and bad, pay packages for media CEOs have eclipsed those for other captains of industry — except oil barons and Wall Street bankers. The 30 highest-paid media executives in the U.S. made an average of nearly $22 million last year, an increase of 13% over 2009, according to a survey by Redwood City, Calif., executive compensation research firm Equilar Inc. In contrast, the norm for CEOs of Standard & Poor's 500 companies last year was $10 million.
Several factors contribute to the outsize salaries of media bosses. Corporate governance experts chalk up the phenomenon to the so-called star effect. Chiefs don't want to make less than the talent they employ. CBS, for example, pays daytime syndication star "Judge Judy" Sheindlin more than $40 million a year.
In addition, many media companies started as family-owned businesses, and the founders have preferred stock with increased voting rights, which gives them even greater sway in decision-making.
The large wage earners at Viacom and CBS dramatically outpaced the chiefs at much bigger media companies. Walt Disney Co.'s Robert Iger received a $29.6-million package in 2010; Time Warner Inc.'s Jeffrey Bewkes made $26.3 million, and 80-year-old Rupert Murdoch, the lion of News Corp., earned $22.7 million.
But 88-year-old Redstone, who monitors his companies' affairs from his Mediterranean-style mansion above Beverly Hills, has them beat. Redstone has been collecting paychecks from two companies since the 2006 corporate breakup of Viacom that divided his empire into two pieces — Viacom and CBS. As executive chairman of both companies, Redstone pulled in $35.3 million last year.
That's a considerable boost from his salary before the breakup. In the five years before Viacom split, the compensation for Redstone, then the CEO, was $17 million to $24 million annually.

[el_chode]

And besides, if those poor media companies suspect someone might be engaged in piracy (which by statute the burden rests up on them, not one the citizen), it's only fair they should not have to employ lengthy legal processes that ensure the protection of the rights inherent to the people (natural rights) as opposed to the copyright which only exists by virtue of the government saying it does. After all, Mr. Dauman might only get $25m in bonuses for 9 months of work in FY 2011

[Fully]

If any of you are interested in helping to stop this bill in the Senate, go to http://americancensorship.org/ to learn about the call in day that they are organizing. If El Chode hasn't convinced you that this is a bad thing, maybe this site will.

[woodnymph]

Ok I'm finally on board here, thanks for sharing all the info guys, count me in!

[el_chode]

[Fully]

Stephen Colbert explains SOPA

[blucas]

Nice work Fully and Chode.  I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but corporate america is the worst threat to our way of life, yet they spend gross amounts of resources to divert our attention to other matters and laugh while we "peasants" debate ideology.  If something is pro-corporate, then I am against it!!!

[Fully]

Nice work Fully and Chode.  I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but corporate america is the worst threat to our way of life, yet they spend gross amounts of resources to divert our attention to other matters and laugh while we "peasants" debate ideology.  If something is pro-corporate, then I am against it!!!

I find that I'm more and more of that thought myself. I see all of the small businesses that aren't around anymore having been replaced by big box stores. The corporations that run them don't care about the community. I teach high school and our students regularly have to go out "begging" for sponsors in the community. The small businesses will donate, but the big box stores won't. They took away all of the opportunity and replaced them with minimum wage jobs for the undereducated. I see so many more of my students on free and reduced lunch now. Most of their parents have jobs, they just don't have the higher paying jobs they had a decade ago. They don't own their own businesses because they can't compete with Walmart. It makes me wonder what opportunities will be there for my three girls when they are grown in about ten more years.

[el_chode]

now now lets not gang up on corporations here. some of the biggest corporations are also fighting SOPA tooth and nail. the issue is corporations rigging the system because our elected leaders have no integrity. those that think they can buy their financial stability through the government are just as to blame as the government itself.