Even if you accepted the "copyright infringement is theft" analogy, SOPA is not about the Internet equivalent of "stealing goods off a truck." Copyright infringement is already illegal and there are already provisions to handle it. You notice your copyright is being infringed, you send a DMCA notice to the website, they take down the infringing material (or open themselves to a lawsuit), and then the uploader gets to respond (to get the stuff put back up). If you want to take down an entire site for copyright infringement, however, you need to first prove your case to a judge.
SOPA takes that pesky judge out of the equation. Suppose that there are 10,000 sellers on SomeAuctionSite.com. Of these, 9,999 are legit. They sell items that nobody would have any problem with. One seller, however, is selling copyright infringing material. (For example, copies of DVDs.) Instead of the DMCA notices, the MPAA could contact the payment processors and ad sites that SomeAuctionSite.com uses to get their operating money. With their access to money cut off, SomeAuctionSite.com closes down. 9,999 legit sellers are taken down to get rid of 1 pirated DVD seller. It's using a bazooka to kill a fly, but the RIAA/MPAA doesn't care because they just want the fly dead and don't care about the collateral damage.
In fact, it's even worse than that example. Suppose that the 1 seller on SomeAuctionSite.com didn't sell pirated DVDs but instead sold photos he took. Now let's say someone looked at one and thought it looked like a photo they had taken. They start to believe that this seller is selling other people's copyrighted photos and send SOPA notices to the payment/ad companies SomeAuctionSite.com uses. Nothing is proven in court, but still funding is cut off and SomeAuctionSite.com closes. Even if that seller is innocent of any infringement. SomeAuctionSite.com isn't even given any notice until their funds are cut off. By that point, their business will be bleeding money until they can clear things up. (Imagine if your business couldn't take any money in for some reason. How long would it last before it closed shop?)
SOPA is a MPAA/RIAA wet dream and a Freddy Krueger for the rest of us.
The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.
Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.
Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.
They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.
Which does this constitute?
A) stealing
Or,
B) competition
The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?
Eh, sorta. I used to believe the same thing, but a lot of that case of Monsanto vs. the Farmer isn't true, and has become something of a Slashdot Urban Legend.
Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.
From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?
(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)
If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permi
What you are missing is that it doesn't matter all that much that you're right and you didn't actually steal. With enough money and competent lawyers, you can tie someone up in court for so long that they just fold. At that point, theft is indeed defined by who has more lawyers. It is bullshit, it is no laughing matter, and there is nothing you can do about it, short of reforming the current legal system. Furthermore, quite a few people do equate competition with stealing.
However, it has more to do with inappropriate uses of the legal system being generally tolerated than it does with property law. The same series of events can occur with charged of libel, or of sexual misconduct, for instance.
As long as there exists a disproportionate level of wealth weilding a disproportionate force in the courtroom, coupled with a lack of punitive measures against such abuses, and the ability for legal agents to twist the law (like lawyers and su
They kind of do. Its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law [wikipedia.org]case law. You could argue that its the judge who technically makes the "laws" but the lawyers are the ones convincing the judge which way to go (and besides, most judges start out as laywers anyway, so you could still argue the original comment based on that;)).
Anything the government doesn't specifically create a law for, the lawyers (and judges) are free to basically make up as they see fit. And once they do, its almost as hammered in st
So how is this scenario different from any other patent infringement?
Suppose I develop a brand new widget that increases gas mileage by 50%. By dint of my genius I feel I am deserved an exclusive franchise on this invention and use US law to obtain a patent on it.
Now some other person goes out and buys one of these widgets, and uses it as an example to produce many more of these. The manufacturing process includes sunshine, water and fertilizer as it's main inputs. This person decides to include these widge
"It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise."
You've hit upon it. We must demand a legal system that puts the onus on the competing parties to demonstrate that their case actually benefits the public interest. If they do not, they loose. In that way everyone ultimately benefits.
Right. And that agreement is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, and the laws of various divers nations, and international treaties.
Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.
"We think that Volkswagen over there might have had stolen candy in it, Volkswagens are hippy cars. Confiscate it. And that van over there... you can see those people in the van are singing and I'll bet they haven't licensed the song they are singing for a public
Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.
You're aware that this is already legal, right?
That's how the police can confiscate a drug-dealer's stuff and keep it without any inconvenience like warrants, trials, verdicts, that sort of thing.
And if the police take your stuff under those laws, you have to bring suit against them to recover the stuff, after PROVING that you are not, in fact, a criminal....
Any analogy to the methods used in the war on drugs can only be used if you are trying to show how those methods are illegitimate. The war on drugs is not to be emulated.
Any analogy to the methods used in the war on drugs can only be used if you are trying to show how those methods are illegitimate. The war on drugs is not to be emulated.
While the methods are used in the War on Drugs, they are not original to them. The legal principle in question was inherited from Great Britain, and predates the USA.
It was originally used to prevent ship-owners from committing crimes (smuggling, that sort of thing), then just never coming back to that country WITH THAT SHIP, thus making
I'm not sure the history negates the unconscionability. The penalty must fit the crime and the accused should have an opportunity to be heard before the penalty is imposed. Seizing property of arbitrary value, which may not even belong to the accused, without any opportunity to be heard before the penalty is executed is an injustice plain and simple.
Which is naturally why we impose it in the war on drugs. Our inability to change human nature and our stubbornness in refusing to admit it has led us to abandon
I Agree (Score:2)
> the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'"
>
Why should one be allowed to steal stuff ?
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
It all depends on whom gets to define "steal".
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on whom gets to define "steal".
+1
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you accepted the "copyright infringement is theft" analogy, SOPA is not about the Internet equivalent of "stealing goods off a truck." Copyright infringement is already illegal and there are already provisions to handle it. You notice your copyright is being infringed, you send a DMCA notice to the website, they take down the infringing material (or open themselves to a lawsuit), and then the uploader gets to respond (to get the stuff put back up). If you want to take down an entire site for copyright infringement, however, you need to first prove your case to a judge.
SOPA takes that pesky judge out of the equation. Suppose that there are 10,000 sellers on SomeAuctionSite.com. Of these, 9,999 are legit. They sell items that nobody would have any problem with. One seller, however, is selling copyright infringing material. (For example, copies of DVDs.) Instead of the DMCA notices, the MPAA could contact the payment processors and ad sites that SomeAuctionSite.com uses to get their operating money. With their access to money cut off, SomeAuctionSite.com closes down. 9,999 legit sellers are taken down to get rid of 1 pirated DVD seller. It's using a bazooka to kill a fly, but the RIAA/MPAA doesn't care because they just want the fly dead and don't care about the collateral damage.
In fact, it's even worse than that example. Suppose that the 1 seller on SomeAuctionSite.com didn't sell pirated DVDs but instead sold photos he took. Now let's say someone looked at one and thought it looked like a photo they had taken. They start to believe that this seller is selling other people's copyrighted photos and send SOPA notices to the payment/ad companies SomeAuctionSite.com uses. Nothing is proven in court, but still funding is cut off and SomeAuctionSite.com closes. Even if that seller is innocent of any infringement. SomeAuctionSite.com isn't even given any notice until their funds are cut off. By that point, their business will be bleeding money until they can clear things up. (Imagine if your business couldn't take any money in for some reason. How long would it last before it closed shop?)
SOPA is a MPAA/RIAA wet dream and a Freddy Krueger for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also a good point.
Re:I Agree (Score:4, Informative)
SOPA has nothing to do with theft. This is a completely flawed analogy.
Re: (Score:1)
Since when did cold logic have a part in Congressional business?
Re: (Score:2)
They get big fat bribes, and vote accordingly. Perfectly logical, if absolutely immoral.
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Why should the record companies be allowed to steal art from the public domain by eternally extending copyright?
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.
Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.
Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.
They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.
Which does this constitute?
A) stealing
Or,
B) competition
The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Monsanto, it's theft.
Re: (Score:2)
>>According to Monsanto, it's theft.
Eh, sorta. I used to believe the same thing, but a lot of that case of Monsanto vs. the Farmer isn't true, and has become something of a Slashdot Urban Legend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right, quite right.
The rest of the question though:
"Why is it theft?" ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, forgot that part...
Again, if you're Monsanto, it's theft because they have more lawyers....
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.
From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?
(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)
If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permi
Re: (Score:3)
What you are missing is that it doesn't matter all that much that you're right and you didn't actually steal. With enough money and competent lawyers, you can tie someone up in court for so long that they just fold. At that point, theft is indeed defined by who has more lawyers. It is bullshit, it is no laughing matter, and there is nothing you can do about it, short of reforming the current legal system. Furthermore, quite a few people do equate competition with stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not discount this as empirical truth.
However, it has more to do with inappropriate uses of the legal system being generally tolerated than it does with property law. The same series of events can occur with charged of libel, or of sexual misconduct, for instance.
As long as there exists a disproportionate level of wealth weilding a disproportionate force in the courtroom, coupled with a lack of punitive measures against such abuses, and the ability for legal agents to twist the law (like lawyers and su
Re: (Score:2)
I like to call that a "lawsiege".
Re: (Score:2)
lawyers do not create laws
They kind of do. Its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law [wikipedia.org]case law. You could argue that its the judge who technically makes the "laws" but the lawyers are the ones convincing the judge which way to go (and besides, most judges start out as laywers anyway, so you could still argue the original comment based on that ;)).
Anything the government doesn't specifically create a law for, the lawyers (and judges) are free to basically make up as they see fit. And once they do, its almost as hammered in st
Re: (Score:2)
So how is this scenario different from any other patent infringement?
Suppose I develop a brand new widget that increases gas mileage by 50%. By dint of my genius I feel I am deserved an exclusive franchise on this invention and use US law to obtain a patent on it.
Now some other person goes out and buys one of these widgets, and uses it as an example to produce many more of these. The manufacturing process includes sunshine, water and fertilizer as it's main inputs. This person decides to include these widge
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the problem with intellectual properties in general.
You cannot prevent people from using your ideas. If its a good idea, people will use it.
Patent and copyright laws are intended to COMPROMISE between necessary competitive agents, and incentivisation of creators.
It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
"It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise."
You've hit upon it. We must demand a legal system that puts the onus on the competing parties to demonstrate that their case actually benefits the public interest. If they do not, they loose. In that way everyone ultimately benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And that agreement is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, and the laws of various divers nations, and international treaties.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.
"We think that Volkswagen over there might have had stolen candy in it, Volkswagens are hippy cars. Confiscate it. And that van over there... you can see those people in the van are singing and I'll bet they haven't licensed the song they are singing for a public
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
You're aware that this is already legal, right?
That's how the police can confiscate a drug-dealer's stuff and keep it without any inconvenience like warrants, trials, verdicts, that sort of thing.
And if the police take your stuff under those laws, you have to bring suit against them to recover the stuff, after PROVING that you are not, in fact, a criminal....
Re: (Score:2)
Any analogy to the methods used in the war on drugs can only be used if you are trying to show how those methods are illegitimate. The war on drugs is not to be emulated.
Re: (Score:2)
While the methods are used in the War on Drugs, they are not original to them. The legal principle in question was inherited from Great Britain, and predates the USA.
It was originally used to prevent ship-owners from committing crimes (smuggling, that sort of thing), then just never coming back to that country WITH THAT SHIP, thus making
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure the history negates the unconscionability. The penalty must fit the crime and the accused should have an opportunity to be heard before the penalty is imposed. Seizing property of arbitrary value, which may not even belong to the accused, without any opportunity to be heard before the penalty is executed is an injustice plain and simple.
Which is naturally why we impose it in the war on drugs. Our inability to change human nature and our stubbornness in refusing to admit it has led us to abandon
Re: (Score:2)