SB Nation's Official Opposition to SOPA And PIPA

This is just another example of the length at which this federal administration will go to invade our individual privacy, freedom and liberty. This is unadulterated B.S. and needs to be stopped.

Call your congressman and your senators and express explicitly to knock off the nonsense and defeat both SOPA and PIPA.

These are typical of the kinds of invasions of our liberties in Washington that has to stop.

In November throw all these liberal minded A-holes out of office but today, and do not procrastinate, please take the time to CALL and demand the defeat of both acts.

Rest assured there will be further assaults by this current administration as they are like rust, they never stop.

"Agreed," Ohanian responded. "I just wish we had been called to the table when this legislation was written. If you look — last year, $94 million was spent lobbying to get this bill — to get these bills made. It’s just so frustrating because we look at Congress and we can’t see them do anything that’s important. They can’t solve the problems of unemployment, they can’t solve the problems of the deficit. Yet as soon as a lobbyist shows up with $94 million, Democrats and Republicans line up to co-sponsor it. Something is wrong."

disable JavaScript, after you contact your congresspersons.

https://twitter.com/#!/fakewikipedia

https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia

To an artist, writer or content creator, the copyright on intellectual property is as much an asset as is the TV set in your room or the car in your garage. It is the fruit of labor and should be paid for in the same manner that lawyers get paid for briefs and arguments and cooks get paid for cakes and casseroles.

There is a lot of disinformation and misinformed belief over the issue of what is copyrighted and the permitted uses. I’m sure that SBN has licensed the rights to the media it uses and has passed on those rights to its son and daughter sites. In that sense, individual licenses set the scope of use.

And, the copyright laws allow some uses, without licences.

So, the question asked in another thread here as to whether someone can use a photo and/or edit and use it, is not as simple as “it was taken by a state employee so it’s fair game”. Or, we took it off a state site so it’s ok. Actually, it may not be. It depends on how the “owner” of the copyright has licensed or given his rights. Not all work done at a university is owned by the university.

The problem with these bills is that one has to look very carefully at whose rights are purportedly protected. It really is all about money.

In the late ’90’s, the DGA and WGA realized that the “new media” , as it was known then, might well become the functional equivalent of TV — and the Guilds sarted to work hard to protect the content creators’ rights to profit from their work.

I find it interesting that the network world, on the one hand can argue against paying residuals for the use of content while on the other argue that they have an absolute right to control derivative type uses.

Polemics that tie this to political parties do not move the ball forward. As mentioned upthread, there is bipartisan interest in getting this right. What’s made this difficult is the infusion of massive amounts of money on one side of the equation.

The real problem is that few people really care or understand what’s at stake.

Yes, in the scope of life, one can see this as not important. But, for many people, it’s a “jobs and survival” issue. And for others it’s about encouraging creativity and expression in all spheres by protecting the right to both profit from one’s work and have some say in its dissemination.

I hope this is not too much of a rant and I’ve deliberately stayed away from arguing a position on the bills. Just thought I’d add a “worker’s” perspective.

The other day, a small town photographer walked by the local bakery. The window was full of cupcakes of indescribable beauty. The aroma was just too much for him. He walked in, reached behind the counter, took one, peeled back the paper and ate it on his way out the door. He’d not gotten to the end of the block before he was stopped and arrested for shoplifting.

“But, it was only one cupcake — he had dozens of them. Not a big deal.” “Not to you” the baker said. “But, I make my living selling those cupcakes — one at a time. I have an investment in them — equipment, ingredients, rent, time. And, I have a family to feed. You can’t just walk in here and take a cupcake. It’s stealing.”

Interestingly enough, a few months later, the baker joined an online bakers’ forum. In need of an avatar, he grabbed a photo of a cupcake from a web site. Karma is a bitch. The copyright to the photo was owned by the local photographer — who promptly called the police and asked that the baker be arrested for theft. “But, it was only one use of the photograph — not a big deal” said the Baker. “Not to you” the photographer said. “But, I make my living selling those photographs — one at a time. I have an investment in them — equipment, rent, time. And, I have a family to feed. You can’t just take it. It’s stealing.”

Taking the copyrighted material of another, without compensation, and not within an exception to the copyright law is stealing.

What I don’t get is why it is somehow justifiable to take creative work but not the tangible things that the same type of labor produces. Why is it ok for a lawyer to take an artists’s work but not OK for an artist to demand free legal services?

Property rights are property rights — all should be respected.

In reality, the police would not arrest the baker for stealing copyrighted work. The truth is that to protect their work, artists have to hire lawyers. Do you think someone will get sued for using a copyrighted work as an avatar?Unlikely. I know several IP lawyers — they won’t get involved in a case unless there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow — at least $100,000 or more — no avatar case will generate those fees.

Rip off a $3.00 cupcake and the state prosecutes you. Rip off a work of art — you’ll probably get away with it.

The call for creating “new ways” of doing things in the intellectual property area is really rooted in the fact that, with the new media, it is almost impossible to protect work once it is put into use; that does not make the unauthorized use right.

If I could steal cupcakes without being detected or physical threat, would that make it right? If that’s so, why are we prosecuting wire fraud and hacking crimes?

This has little to do with the bills in question. However, when discussing them, I think we have to give more weight to the content which we claim we should be able to use without payment. To the creative, the content is the baker’s cupcake.

An alternative to SOPA!
http://keepthewebopen.com/