US Congress may not have stomach for another SOPA

While some groups representing copyright holders still want to see stronger online enforcement, U.S. lawmakers don't seem to have the collective will to reintroduce similar bills and potentially face another massive online protest. In January 2012, more than 10 million Web users signed petitions, 8 million attempted calls to Congress and 4 million sent email messages, and more than 100,000 websites went dark in protest as the Senate scheduled a vote on PIPA.

Source

Google and other major sites do not usually organize a unified effort to inform the public of most crap legislation. This is why we have ATS

I'd say we need to stay vigilant. This fight isn't over by a long shot. They just got done with the UN Internet Summit as I seem to recall seeing somewhere between end of the world headlines. I hope they don't have the fight left in them to attempt it. I just hope that doesn't turn around on us by meaning they don't have the fight left in them to resist it.

It could be that it never comes back....or that it comes back and sails through without hardly a mention. I hope someone is watching the agenda for the coming year's stuff.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Copyright advocates will never go away. This thing called "money" always seems to be the great motivator!

I see one of two possible outcomes. Either we reform copyright laws and take into account the digital nature of the world today, or the internet will eventually become much more regulated. It's only a matter of time. There simply is to much money to be made.

My thoughts are companies like Netflix and Spotify will become the norm in the future. Everything will be "pay to play" streaming. While the service may be relativley inexpensive, the internet access will be where they get you. In order to stream your content, you will have to have high speed access and a gobs of data.

I think Google sees this, hence the reason why they are piloting their own ISP. Google not only wants to make devices and connect you to media portals -- they also want to be in charge of the route that information is traveling on. Pretty smart Google, pretty smart.

MS doesn't seem to be keeping up with the ever-changing landscape of the digital age as well as Apple and Google. I think in 50 years it'll just be "Gopple" everything.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


No.. People who create real content and don't have to pay managers and giant companies like MGM, or Sony make more money now than they did before..

Stealing is an issue, but these are human consciousness issues.
Moral behavior cannot be regulated.. It has to be learned..

Some kid in college creates file sharing. He becomes a target and his technology is stolen to create a business model for iTunes.

Ironically, commerce rules as the only law left in the "free" world. . Just remember, "People who share are criminals."

I'd say both the criminal MPAA/RIAA/et al. and the congress have been entirely too quiet on that front lately. Which, of course, makes me believe that they have something in the pipes but aren't showing their hand too early. I expect it to show up, fully formed, ready to be ramrodded through, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, and sail through like nothing has ever sailed through before.

I'd say we've taught them their lesson too well--to our everlasting regret....

I have said this before and I will say it again and again!

A human being, a person or a group of people can create books, movies and music.

A corporation or business can not create anything.

Therefore,

Only People should have the ability to own copyright!

The problems today is that the creators earn little while the Corporation gouge profits. This is wrong. Most people see the problem for what it is, a lust for money at the expense of those who create.

P

Originally posted by WhereIsTheBatman

While some groups representing copyright holders still want to see stronger online enforcement, U.S. lawmakers don't seem to have the collective will to reintroduce similar bills and potentially face another massive online protest. In January 2012, more than 10 million Web users signed petitions, 8 million attempted calls to Congress and 4 million sent email messages, and more than 100,000 websites went dark in protest as the Senate scheduled a vote on PIPA.

Source

Google and other major sites do not usually organize a unified effort to inform the public of most crap legislation. This is why we have ATS

Now.. Only if we can get people to do the same thing when it comes to taxes, out of control government spending, voting, etc etc etc...


reply to post by pheonix358

True but people can form a business in order to mass market, develop and sell items people create. Not to mention inventions / patents protect the individual as well as the business who supported the idea, development, marketing and sales of that item.

Such a black and white viewpoint opens up pandoras box imo. Had it not been for business, we would most likely not be where we are at today in terms of civilization advancement.

Secondly shouldn't a person have the right to develop, market, sell their creation in the manner they see fit?

reply to post by Xcathdra


'Secondly shouldn't a person have the right to develop, market, sell their creation in the manner they see fit?'

No, business has tried that and have abused the privilege. A business is not a person and should not have the protection of the laws governing the people. The largest multinationals make billions per year, cry about copyright, meanwhile the artists are stitched up, time and time again like turkeys.

When the business makes more money, much more than the original artist does, the system can be said to be broken.

When business buys great inventions with the sole intention of putting them on a shelf because it will harm their lucrative business then the system is dysfunctional.

Many people are making moral judgements rather than legal ones and big business does not like it.

We need a new system. The current one only serves the overlords.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Respectfully you glossed over my question..

If a person creates something should they not be able to sell that item as they see fit, up to and including using a business to market / develop / produce it?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pheonix358

 

Respectfully you glossed over my question..

If a person creates something should they not be able to sell that item as they see fit, up to and including using a business to market / develop / produce it?

No. They can lease the rights, they can engage for marketing etc etc, but, they have to retain ownership. Since corporations can not create, they should not be able to own something invented or created.

Society has many laws to protect consumers from shady businesses. This should be no different!

Historically, many artists wanting the big break have been shafted by big business. A new business model to protect them is long overdue!

P

Originally posted by pheonix358

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pheonix358

 

Respectfully you glossed over my question..

If a person creates something should they not be able to sell that item as they see fit, up to and including using a business to market / develop / produce it?

No. They can lease the rights, they can engage for marketing etc etc, but, they have to retain ownership. Since corporations can not create, they should not be able to own something invented or created.

Society has many laws to protect consumers from shady businesses. This should be no different!

Historically, many artists wanting the big break have been shafted by big business. A new business model to protect them is long overdue!

P

Caveat Emptor comes to mind...