Stopping Online Piracy – One Way or Another
by Bruce AbramsonThe Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), currently the subject of hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, has generated interest far beyond the community of copyright lawyers.
To its proponents, SOPA is a critical addition to copyright law, necessary to help creative Americans protect their legitimate property rights from foreign attackers, and thus to preserve the numerous American jobs in our world-class creative industries.
To its opponents, SOPA is an unprecedented attack on civil liberties that threatens to destroy free speech, the Internet, and the thriving American technology sector—not to mention the many American jobs that it creates.
Who is right? It turns out that they both are: SOPA will help copyright holders protect the rights that copyright law grants them by suppressing free speech and impeding the functioning of the Internet, with predictable consequences on American jobs.
This result is hardly an anomaly.
In fact, it is an entirely predictable consequence of a collision between law and technology. It is impossible to understand the debate over SOPA without first understanding the crisis of copyright.
Copyright law, at its very heart, awards selected individuals (i.e., creators) with the exclusive legal right to control the duplication and circulation of selected bit strings (i.e., the binary representations of their creative works). Modern digital technology makes it practically impossible for anyone to control the duplication and circulation of anything digitized. This conflict is an objective part of modern reality, not a statement of morality. It is equally true whether you view copyright law as a protector of legitimate property rights and an enabler of mass culture or as a regulatory legacy of a bygone era that interferes with the smooth functioning of the free market (both characterizations are partially true). Whether you love copyright law or hate it, there is no questioning its collision with information technology.
In practical terms, our grandparents didn’t “pirate” copyrighted works because they couldn’t. (My own wonderful grandparents, of course, would never have engaged in anything as unspeakable as piracy, but I can’t speak for their peers). Not too long ago, it was expensive to buy printing presses or recording studios, and it took serious connections to maintain a network capable of distributing anything beyond a small circle of friends. In those days, technology protected copyright holders from most of the world. Copyright law provided only the additional protection necessary to prevent attacks from a small number of identifiable, well-funded, direct competitors.
That world is not this world. Today’s copyright law still awards copyright holders the same basic set of rights, but the protection that technology used to afford them has eroded. In today’s world, technology protects copyright holders only from the tiny stratum of society that cannot afford Internet connections. Technology has unleashed the folks who used to respect copyrights only because they had to respect copyrights.
Bills like SOPA are inevitable because copyright holders have a solid argument: The law grants them rights for important reasons grounded in public policy that are difficult to enforce because of important technological advances. As that difficulty grows, increasingly powerful and draconian enforcement tools become necessary simply to let them preserve their legal rights. Deny them those tools and you might as well deny them their rights.
Therein lies the quandary of contemporary copyright policy. The rights that we grant are incompatible with technological reality. This conflict first came to a head in the discussions that led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, and they have recurred every few years since then. SOPA is merely its current manifestation—and regardless of Congress’s resolution of the current dispute, it will arise again in the near future. Sometime—soon—we will have to decide how we want to address this discrepancy. We will have to choose between rethinking our approach to motivating creativity—the Constitutional goal underlying the copyright system—and passing copyright enforcement mechanisms that stifle free speech and Internet development entirely.
Proponents and opponents of SOPA are thus both right. We are poised on a precipice between two slippery slopes. A step in one direction moves us towards the end of copyright as we know it. A step in the other direction moves us towards the end of free speech as we know it. Congress, as usual, is likely to finesse some “compromise” that will allow us to pretend that we have avoided the problem and moved forward together.
Don’t let them kid you. The choice is inevitable. Regardless of the fate of SOPA, we will either combat online piracy by rethinking the ways that we motivate creativity to make it a non-issue or by hanging growing numbers of pirates on our digital yardarms.
I know where I stand.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
53 Comments
SOPA is one of the worst ideas of all time.
Just about anyone that understands what it will do is against it because it forces insane levels of protection that would make it next to impossible to even post to Youtube. Or a blog. Or anything on the internet, really.
Copyright law is such a mess right now… SOPA only makes that worse, with collateral damage like crazy
Change is the only constant and business needs to change instead of demanding new laws. Once upon a time people thought music sharing sites would put an end to the music industry, ITunes fixed that problem even though the industry it saved fought them. EBook readers have saved the publishing industry. Drug companies are their own worst enemy by selling proprietary drugs cheaper to other countries, when drugs can be bought from another country for less money than a pharmacy in the US pays for them there is a problem.
I have come to the conclusion that enforceable rights in anything published in a digital medium are antithetical to freedom of expression. The copyright laws should be changed to reflect this, and protect only those items published in a non-digital medium. Somehow I doubt that that would greatly reduce the popularity of digital publishing.
Internet stealing is as enforced against as illegal immigration,as shown by my B-I-L bootleg collection. My concern over becoming a bot is strong, that these thieves are not wanted without a source registering shows this adding of laws has another aim.
Don't be so certain about your grandparents. Did they ever sing you a birthday song? Did they learn a musical instrument so they could play songs by The Carter Family? Hummed a hit they heard on the radio? I bet they didn't pay a royalty.
I do not agree with the view presented here: that this issue somehow stands by itself. It is in fact a sub-part of another.
Christianity is about self control.
Atheism (which is part and parcel of humanism — socialism, communism, etc) is about being externally controlled.
The problem are the atheist hippies: coming and going. The hippies make unjust laws that the just despise – therefore the just will break such 'laws'. The hippies will ignore anything that requires self-control or -discipline – they are the original law-breakers.
The problem is one of two utterly incompatible world-views: Christianity Vs. Humanism. Christianity has ideas inherent in it like truth, justice, love (not the hippie-stupid-variantS). Hippies know only lies (obvious), murder (DDT ban, etc), politics (obvious), and hatred (no tolerance of politically correctly defined intolerance, 'hate'-crimes, etc) – even their deepest 'love' is little more than passing whims of lust and fads – vapid ideas, and not reality. Hippies are so pathetic that the stories of their loves are more real than the loves themselves were.
'Social Justice' IS necessary in a non-Christian world: followed, logically, by the collapse of every and any freedom. This is the ending of a world where external control is required to keep the populace in check.
My grandparents copied VHS like crazy, between them and their friends.
But to the point, SOPA is a Federal bulldozer in an operating room. As it stands right now (without SOPA), parties can go after internet content providers who violate their copyright. There is a steady flow of Cease and Desist orders flowing from attorneys every day. What more is needed? Oh, the bulldozer.
The real problem is the near perpetuity of copyrights. Thanks to Disney, they effectively never expire. I would be in favor of reasonable copy protection for the newer works if there was a definite expiration similar to patents. As it is, under the current law I say more power to the pirates.
Unfortunately, that's not possible. Even if there was a manner in which to make copy-protection foolproof, you still have to consume the media at one point (listen, watch, read etc…). As long as there's an actual product to consume, it can be copied one way or another.
The media-morons like to call this the "analog hole". The ultimate solution is you just pay them money and get nothing, which is pretty much the way it is now anyway
I've read quite a few opinions from tech folks which indicate that the method of censoring infringing websites mandated by this bill causes security vulnerabilities which may be exploited by people to destabilise the entire internet. Now, as a 'lay' person, I can't vouch for that claim, but the fact that some of the people who're making it are people who developed the early internet protocols, well, let's just say that gets my attention. I'm much more disposed to believe Vint Cerf on matters about technical internet security, than I am someone like Maxine Waters, Al Franken or Chuck Schumer.
Copyrights are important if you are a creator of objects and depend on copyright protection to support your family.
Since the number of people who benefit from copyrights is very very small compared to the number of people who violate them, I'm surprised that anything is being done to fix the problem.
Heck, it's getting to where I can't even d/l a ringtone without having to look over my shoulder. It's bad enough that the FCC has a 'kill switch'.
Funny, Congress is forbidden by Federal Law from abridging the Freedom of Speech, as per the Firsrt Amendment of the US Constitution, and the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment.
Look at counterfeiting of our money. No matter how technical the engravings get they still find away to print funny money. Looks like the artists are out of luck if they think they can stop the internet pirate or Rouge governments.
SOPA needs to go down hard. Representative Issa is spearheading the opposition to SOPA and is offering a much more rational version (I believe it's called FIRST). If that doesn't tell you where you should stand, then let me tell you who one of the cosponsors of SOPA is: Florida congresswoman and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. SOPA would gut the internet, it needs to DIAF.
As noted noted above, Disney, the MPAA and the RIAA all have very deep pockets, which they use to get Congress' attention.
did your grandparents charge you per song? Mine didn't. Your logic is ridiculous.
so much for limited government eh?
fact is…the people who own the rights are the only ones that should be legally able to take actions to protect thier rights…the government isnt our babysitter…we need to stop depending on them to do everything for us…
let the patent holders take thier case before a judge…the judge can authorize them to sieze the web sites…this is already a means to an end…
if we keep pushing the government to do everything for us…before long…they will just arrest you for letting your kid stub thier toe in your back yard…the US Constitution set enumerated powers for the federal government….that limited its power…everything else belongs to the states…and the people…that includes the responsibility to use copyright and patent laws to protect thier property…if you want to keep it…you need to protect it…
stop the nanny state…funny thing is…when you need the DoJ, they refuse to help….yet when th DoJ gets involved in something like this and refuses to investigate actual criminal activity…like election fraud…then you have to realize that the clowns are running the show now
More police state.
Bernanke, is doing a fine job of counterfeiting our dollars as we speak. He is running those printing presses day and night. The dollar can only get weaker when we need a strong dollar polices.
violating copyright laws is not a criminal offense…its totally civil…get the DoJ out of the private market…they dont have any right to infringe on anyones ability to violate copyright…just like copyright holders have no right to infringe on the DoJ's ability to prosecute bank robbery….
make the copyright or patent holders responsible for defending thier own property rights…get the government out of private industry…as long as the tools exist for civil action…thats all the property owner needs…
civil action should be taken by private owners who have a vested interest in thier own property rights…if they dont…surely the govt has even less…let alone any duty to defend those property rights when they fail to investigate and prosecute election fraud against BHO
I found a bit of temporary good news on this bad piece of legislation. SOPA Mark-up Delayed as Support Continues to Crumble December 16, 2011 – by Donny Shaw
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2452-SO...
Keep up the great work Patriots!
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
The entertainment and software industries attempted to protect their properties with DRM encryption and going after violators via civil suits. The 99%-ers and hacker twits gave them hell for being such meanies–and it worked. I see history repeating itself if SOPA is passed.
The best way these industries can protect themselves is by following the Apple method of IP protection. Make the products exclusive and incompatible. Seems counter-intuitive, but it works.
The entire concept of Copyright needs to be rethought. Shortened to 3 years. Why am I still paying Ringo Starr for something he did 40 years ago. He hasn't created anything in years. Do YOU still get paid for your first job? I don't.
Same for patents….and no patents should be allowed for software , business methods, or human genes.
Hey, you've lived in your house long enough. Move out. I want it. I also want your car and your computer. You've owned them long enough. I want them.
Oh, you work out of your home? You need your house and your car and your computer to make a living? Too f'in bad. I want them. Gimme.
An interesting read on that topic: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants...
Be sure to read all three parts.
Well, there are statutes for criminal copyright infringement, but I know what you mean and agree with what you're saying — DOJ must stop being the legal footsoldiers of the RIAA, MPAA and other IP owners.
"Somehow I doubt that that would greatly reduce the popularity of digital publishing."
Exactly, but I would extend that to physical goods as well. Would creation stop if a gov't granted monopoly wasn't available to use against potential competitors or would more things be created because people can innovate without fear of being sued out of existence? IMO more innovation would happen in the absence of IP laws, not less.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with big gov't working on behalf of big businesses.
It's a good question. The one thing we can say with certainty is that the higher entry and setup costs of producing a physical medium would increase the risk of loss, were someone to copy the work and represent it as his own. But ultimately, it would have to be tried out.
The one case I know of that's close to being "on all fours" is cassette tapes vs. physical records, a few decades ago. The claim was made that "home taping is killing music." But I never saw any market measurements that would bear on that claim — and it was counterclaimed that inasmuch as sales of physical records were increasing, any allegation of lost revenue was without support.
Because Hollywood and the music industry haven’t turned the public against them enough with DRM.
Royalties apply to public performances that charge for admission, not private use (FYI, streaming files online so that anybody can copy them is not private use).
Having former Senator Chris Dodd as the head of the MPAA makes it even worse.
Under SOPA if a website contains copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner then the entire site can be shutdown by the government without a trial. This is like saying that if you think that someone has slandered you then the government can confiscate his larynx.
The reason for trials and court orders is to ensure that rights are protected. The problem with the arbitrary power that SOPA represents is that there are constant disputes about whether or not quotations or short excerpts of songs are copyright infringement or merely instances of "fair use" as in quoting someone for reasons of criticism or review.
It should be noted that copyrights were originally for the purpose of censorship which was implemented by granting publishers perpetual rights to a work and in return the publishers would not print works of which the government disapproved. They were never about protecting the rights of creators until the Enlightenment when copyrights were no longer perpetual but limited to 14 years in both England and America.
It seems that SOPA is an attempt to "return to those thrilling days of yesteryear" when ideas could be controlled by the government. Oops, I think I just violated the copyright of the old "Lone Ranger" radio show and the feds may have to close down "Big Government".
You do make some good points there – for example copyright's are too long, especially in the digital age. A similar situation exists with patents, but not the length of the patent, rather the three issues you mentioned plus lawyers buying up unused patents for the expressed purpose of suing people, rather than developing the product.
But conversely, 3 years is far too short, and there are many more problems than just the length, too many to go over in a small post. One thing – a copyright should NOT extend past the lifetime of the creator.
I don't know how equivalent your suggestions are. You can't patent a produced house or car, nor can you maintain their distribution rights either.
Since copyrights are gov't granted monopolies, their terms can be changed, and have been changed multiple times, retroactively bringing things that were in the public domain back under copyright. How does that change in copyright terms encourage, [...], the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries?
Patents for things like business processes are asinine and simply used as rent-seeking.
The copyright laws are murky. If your grandmother sang Happy Birthday to you in a Ponderosa Steakhouse, technically a royalty and permission is due. If you whistle some Lady Gaga while walking down the busy sidewalk in NY, the same.
Then you can consider our National Anthem which was a poem set to the music of an English song. We didn't get permission to use that music, although the U.K. did have copyright laws forbidding it…..
Hay "Taxpayer12345" – I built my house before you did. So I own the concept of building a house. You need to pay me every year as long as you intend to live there.
There's a huge difference between owning a car and "owning" the right to build a car.
Copyrights and patents are not natural rights like speech, religion, and assembly. Those things exist until government infringes on them. Copyrights and patents only exist by the hand of government.
Disappointing to see this site adopt the same position as the Occupy movement: http://www.nycga.net/sopa/
The following links show a more thoughtful conservative approach to SOPA: http://ipi.org/IPI/IPIPublications.nsf/Publicatio... http://precursorblog.com/content/in-defense-rule-...
Copyright laws may be murky, but they're not that murky. I would argue that content creators, not having attempted to collect fees for all those "public performances" you cite for the past hundred years will have to live with the precedent they themselves have already set. Without making a concerted effort to notify potential users of Happy Birthday that the copyright holder intends to enforce his right to royalties, I'm afraid that case just wouldn't gain a lot of traction. The time to set the precedent for that sort of enforcement was when the song was new. Changing the rule capriciously and perhaps even retrospectively wouldn't fly.
Plus, can you describe for us a reasonable enforcement scheme to keep all use of a popular song including whistling the riff from it on the sidewalks of New York would work? Do you put audio sensors on all streets in all cities and hire either an army of people or a couple of multibillion dollar supercomputers to analyse the data? In truth, there is no reasonable means of enforcing such casual use of the copyrighted material and therefore an overwhelming majority of our courts would probably choose not to pursue the matter.
This also highlights a fundamental problem with the modern idea of copyright.
The idea of copyright really began with the rise of printing in Europe. Before then, it was more or less meaningless. If someone took the time to copy a book you wrote, that meant you'd made it big and the Monastic orders or rich folks wanted your writing to live on.
However, with the advent of cheap printing, printing and reprinting of works became common and easy. You could write a book in one city, team up with a printer, make a killing selling your work, and be happy. Then someone else would take a copy of your work to the next city over, hire a printer, and make a killing selling your work, often selling at a lower price than you sold it for originally (after all, their needed level of return on investment was much lower). Repeat with each new market.
Enter copyright: an effort by governments to protect Individual Authors against unscrupulous publishers. In other words, it was to protect the livelihood and property of an individual.
Ask yourself a very important question: does today's copyright law protect the individual, or the publisher?
The answer is: the publisher more than the individual.
This can be seen by the over-extension of copyright laws. Currently it sits at lifetime of the creator plus seventy years. This is the Mickey Mouse copyright, defined as however long Disney needs to hold onto the copyright for Mickey Mouse. This should be reformed, though shortening it down to the length of a patent is likely to short (as most creative works made by an individual do not have a high rate of return). I personally prefer life of the author or thirty years, whichever is greater (this would allow a family to gain some residuals in case an author met an untimely demise). For communal works, where there the copyright is held by a company, it should just be thirty years. No renewals.
All that said, the problem with online piracy isn't that it hurts the corporations, though it does, make no mistake, it hurts the individual artists and authors who's works get taken, they are not given credit, and no royalties are paid. It also hurts our overall economy, especially when done on a national scale. China is notorious for copyright violations, they literally screw Americans out of billions of dollars by outright stealing many copyrighted works.
Finally, our doctrine of "Fair Use" should be expanded to give more leeway to folks. As it stands, while America has some of the strongest copyright and patent laws around (and has for years, which is partially why we became the center of world culture and entertainment), they are outdated and need revisiting.
Finally, for people who scream "Federal Overreach", refresh your constitutional memory. One of Congress' listed responsibilities (and thereby power), in Article 1, Section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". It is the Federal Government's explicit responsibility to be acting in this arena. This isn't even some crazy gray area, the Founding Fathers knew the important of copyrights and patents, and knew only the Federal government would be effective at creating uniform law so that authors would be protected throughout the nation.
As to SOPA itself, I feel mixed about it, but digital piracy is rampant, and I get the feeling the folks who are most against it are folks who care little for actual freedom, and more for themselves. If you cared about actual freedom, you should ask yourself: do I have the right to steal from another person? Because, at the end of the day, that is what digital piracy, and any copyright or patent violation is, the stealing of someone else' work for your own profit.
Copyrights are property, which can be transferred or sold. And definitely, that property gets stolen. Daily.
So, if there were no copyright, then what encouragement would there be for anyone to put their ideas to practice in the market? If I spent years writing a book or a software program or composing music, then put it on the market Monday–only to have it copied, and sold by others by Friday–how exactly would that encourage me to do any more of the same?
People get their noses bent out of joint, rightly so, when the Chinese copy our IP (for example, DVDs) and sell it for their own profit. I do not see the difference between that violation and the pirating and distribution of others' work for free, without the originator's consent, over the internet.
Copyright is a property protection. No one wants to treat it that way because it's just too lazy and inconvenient to respect someone else's property rights. So don't whine when someone takes your property without paying for it.
And definitely, that property gets stolen
Copying is not theft.
if there were no copyright, then what encouragement would there be for anyone to put their ideas to practice in the market
Since copyrights are a product of government, they have not always existed, and yet creation still occurred. The fashion world still manages to flourish largely devoid of any IP protection. The banking industry creates (for better or worse) complex securities, also without any IP protection. What's the incentive to create anything if it can be copied? First-to-market is a powerful incentive to create, and continue creating to differentiate one's self from competitors.
People get their noses bent out of joint, rightly so, when the Chinese copy our IP (for example, DVDs) and sell it for their own profit
*People* don't get bent out of shape so much as Big Content does. And in all honesty, those infringers are doing the business people a favor — they're telling the businesses that a market exists for their products, just not at the price point and/or convenience level offered by the infringers. In that case, it's a problem of business model.
I do not see the difference between that violation and the pirating and distribution of others' work for free, without the originator's consent, over the internet
Value is a product of supply and demand. The less of something there is, or the harder it is for people to access, the more scarce and expensive it will be (think of the value of a glass of water at Niagra Falls vs Death Valley). Digital goods have an essentially unlimited supply since their replication cost is essentially zero. Therefore, from an economic point of view, even if every single person in the world wanted it, the value of an unlimited item is zero since there is no competition to acquire it. In order to compete with this reality, sellers of digital goods must change their business models. Sell what is scarce and maximize its value to the consumer. Increasing the length of copyright or threatening teenagers with jail time won't change any of that.
Everyone who think he can combat online piracy is a fool (not mentioning at all the legal cons and pros). It is absolutely the same as with the internet distributed computer viruses – you can combat such virus only after it is invented and spread out sufficiently. But as the politicians are technically illiterate (do you really think Obama understands something from all this even if he can use some minimal part of his Blackberry functions?) they will simply produce just a crock of nothing.
Not to mention the copyright holders increase the damages at least tenfold probably much more. And it is simple – the copyright owners say (for example) 1 000 000 people pirated a song so they calculated US$5 000 000 damages. But the truths is if it was impossible to pirate the song only those who really love it would buy it and they definitely will be much less then 1 000 000 people.
And cheap:-)
First of all, the points made here are not about 'religion': it is about a fundamental difference in thinking that exists between hippies and non-hippies. If you are incapable of drawing distinctions, incapable of performing basic conceptual discrimination, then perhaps you should consider shooting yourself in the head, hippie.
Mantra does not equal reason. To 'think' otherwise is another, related, point on the difference between the state of mindlessness that is being a hippie, and… not. You did not counter my argument(s), you just clicked your heels together three times: 'Doh. I iza right 'cause I hava sed so, so now it iza so. Clicky, clicky, clicky.'
Why stand against SOPA. Why stand for SOPA. Why stand against the TP. Why stand for Progressivism. Why consider why?
Symptom vs Cause.
Is that clear enough for you? No? A human tackles a given problem by working at understanding it. An animal (or a hippie, or a fool) does not: instead it will either rage against what lies directly before it; or else just take a dump on it, or else drag its ass in a circle around it. Etc. Get it now? No, didn't think you would. Sleep well. For then you wake the Dark will still be there, as always, waiting for you to slip that last millimeter into its grasp.
Interesting thing I realized about hippies one day: they are what the Bible calls fools. Mindless. By choice.
Well said!
Digital piracy is not imitation; it's COPYING. And copying is theft. If I duplicate a book you wrote and sell it, I have copied your work. It doesn't matter whether I xeroxed it or scanned it and sold it digitally. I have stolen your property and profited from it without your knowledge or consent.
Length of copyright is irrelevant, and the form of the creation is irrelevant. Whether it's one week or one century, on paper or in bytes, our society–as decreed specifically in our Constitution–has determined that a person's creation belongs exclusively to him or her. That's the bottom line.
The fact that people are not respecting another's property rights should be alarming and unwelcome. If our legal system allows this to continue, then it won't be long before such nonchalance will spread to other types of property. You know, like your house or car or investments.
And copying is theft
I'm sorry, but you're sadly mistaken. If I steal something from you, I get plus 1 and you get -1. If I copy or "duplicate" what you have, we each have plus 1. The existence of my copy does not harm you in any way. You can keep calling it stealing until the cows come home, but that won't make it true.
Length of copyright is irrelevant [...] as decreed specifically in our Constitution–has determined that a person's creation belongs exclusively to him or her
The length of term most certainly is relevant, especially within the context of our Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Notice how the founders noted "limited Times". Even the founders realized that copyrights should only be temporary, and for purposes of promoting more creation. You'd be hard pressed to find any evidence that more things were created because copyright terms were extended 20 years with laws like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
then it won't be long before such nonchalance will spread to other types of property. You know, like your house or car or investments.
That's a nice slippery slope you got there, but I'm not buying it. Intellectual "property" is not like any other kind of property. IP can be copied, altered and destroyed with no loss of utility to its original creator. How could that possibly apply to any physical good like a house?
Grow up. Everyone knows that ideas are not property. You know it too, you're just too lazy to support your position. So instead you throw around ridiculous unproven assertions like "copying = theft" the same way a lib tosses around "tax cuts = racism".
As for your assertion above that copyright is in the Constitution, maybe you should read it. The *right* of the feds to institute copyright is in the Constitution. Copyright itself is not. And the Constitution says that copyright must be "for a limited time". That sure doesn't sound like ownership to me.
SOPA will not stop piracy. This is a simple fact. People already found ways around it.
Why do you think armies of IT technicians and engineers (aka the actual professionals, unlike the lunatics on the Hill and the armies of lawyers who can barely operate a keyboard) have been attacking SOPA?
Here's a real argument about SOPA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM
You must be logged in to post a comment.