White House Responds To SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN 517
eefsee writes "The White House today responded to two petitions with a statement titled 'Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet.' They note that 'We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet.' In particular, they cite manipulation of DNS as problematic. But overall the statement is clearly supportive of anti-piracy efforts and lays down this challenge: 'So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don't limit your opinion to what's the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what's right.' So, what's right?"
Re:Protecting rights (Score:4, Informative)
I think you will find that if the artists were getting paid properly for their efforts and so much of the money wasn't going to line the pockets of middlemen, there wouldn't be nearly as much "demonizing".
It also doesn't help that those middlemen are stretching the law to its limits in an attempt to extort even more money from people (private copying levy, law suits, threats, paying off governments for new laws, etc).
The media world is changing and a lot of new artists are now finding that having their work copied is actually helping them in the long run. The artists get better and cheaper publicity (word of mouth) and more money (by bypassing the media companies that try and dictate what the customers should buy) and we all get a richer experience and greater variety in entertainment.
A (slightly) more sane approach to enforcement (Score:2, Informative)
I support copyrights as originally described in the Copyright Act of 1790, of 14 years plus 14 years. With that in mind, if we were really interested in strengthening copyright provisions, below is a much more reasonable approach than SOPA.
The DMCA, despite all its faults restricting fair use, also provides a loophole for copyright violators. Remember when Google was going to buy YouTube, everyone was saying that Google was opening up itself to untold copyright liability? What the public didn't realize is that Google had read the DMCA and determined they could leave copyrighted videos up on YouTube as long as -- until -- the copyright owner complained.
To fix this loophole, the proper solution is not domain seizure, but rather civil penalties. Google/YouTube should pay a copyright clearing house for video downloads between the time of original posting and the time of DMCA takedown. Then Google/YouTube can decide whether it's more cost effective to have turks screen videos before posting or to risk the copyright fees.
Obama's point is a shot across the bow. (Score:4, Informative)
This is a warning. We have to come up with competing systems to address the problem. Simply saying "do nothing" isn't going to work. They're going to pass something. And if we offer them nothing to pass they'll just take what the RIAA gives them and run with it.
It's very important that the EFF amongst others come up with some alternative... Or we're boned.
Re:Protecting rights (Score:5, Informative)
Given past positions, it will be interesting to see how Slashdotters respond to the question in the submission.
How about "stop making excuses and lead you do-nothing poser?" He could trivially bring in tech leaders and ask them. He could guide some legislation. He could take a stronger hand in the FCC. He could denounce this for what it is, as a massive example of corruption in politics. He could take the advice of any number of well-regarded pundits on the topic and do something, and instead his staff says, "Golly, what should we do? You tell us! Send us 100,000 emails, and we'll read EACH ONE!"
Instead of bread and circuses, we just get circuses.
Re:It isn't that complicated (Score:3, Informative)
Reality check. Downloading a 20 year old movie or game that is almost impossible to buy is just as illegal as downloading this years blockbuster. And for doing so i should be forced to pay 3 years worth of gross wages. Seems fair.
Re:Protecting rights (Score:5, Informative)
Also, if you look at the sales of top albums now vs. 10-20 years ago they have decreased significantly.
Surely this is 100% due to piracy and not due to a completely different phenomenon called "the internet" giving people a choice of something else to do with their time other than a) watch TV or b) listen to music or c) hang out with friends.
Fuck The Whole Damn Lot (Score:4, Informative)
When it comes to Wikileaks, the freedom of the internet and the cancerous copyright law we now have, there is no such thing as a voice of sanity in the government. The only reason I'm voting for Obama again is because I know that whatever loonie the Republicans rally behind will put up the exact same platform (with the added bonus of fucking social services and civil rights).
This is depressing.
Re:Solutions (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA doesn't prosecute people. The RIAA sues people. The massive statutory penalties are a different issue than the criminalization, although both speak to disproportionate severity of the judicially sanctioned response.
You don't understand the GPL. (Score:4, Informative)
False. The GPL does not "expect" users to contribute anything. The GPL requires that parties who modify and redistribute the code make their modifications available.