My thoughts on SOPA

In my views of the SOPA debate, there has been a lot of information about this bill.  I have learned so much about piracy, I sometimes wonder why I never wanted to be a lawyer.  As I looked into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I learned how the law making process favors the larger companies.  Viacom has the advantage of taking down any song it wants, believing the internet is similar to TV.  I have seen the amount of money given to CEOs of these multimillion dollar companies while they say that piracy prevents progress.  In the fights against piracy, I have had a number of people continuously find a new target for their venom.  Sometimes the target is a rogue website.  Sometimes, it’s an accusation that people want everything for free, not understanding the difference of digital and tangible goods.  Over ten years of research and study, with the books of Lawrence Lessig, the influential writings of Mike Masnick at Techdirt, the European touch of Enigmax at Torrentfreak, the outstanding and sweeping commentary of Codewarrior at Dmusic, and even the quotations of Terry Hart in the last few years at Copyhype.

I came to my own conclusions as I read the research documents and studied the papers showing the truth about piracy.  Fighting piracy has always been the losing side of the battle.  The fight to stop someone from copying a song or preventing sharing has always been a losing battle.  By no means does this mean I am not against SOPA.  I full heartedly despise the legislation that has truly embroiled the entire world in a fight for an un-splintered internet.  However, I have to recognize exactly what this legislation is supposed to do and how effective that mission is.

Will anyone actually look at this desperate attempt at controlling the internet in a positive light?  Just a small look at the people that oppose people is no laughing matter.  100 First Amendment lawyers say it is a disaster.  83 Engineers have signed a letter stating this is not a wise move.  Small time artists and independents have stated they do not want these strong censoring powers.  Gamers have gone on record criticizing the bill.   Human rights groups have criticized the bill by exposing them.  The list continues to go on that the entire public does not want nor need this bill.  And yet it is only two industries and a group of legacy supporters of copyright that continue to push for this bill.

Of course, those that understand the bill know that it’s unconstitutional on a number of grounds.  It will cost the US $10 million to enforce copyright.  As we speak, the enforcement angle brings on prior restraint, censorship, and the hypocrisy of the United States in supporting internet freedom while censoring others.

As the debate continues this Wednesday, rest assured, the public understand that our politicians are bought.  Rest assured that the problem of piracy has been greatly exaggerated by those willing to attack new platforms for artists.  The Pirate Bay has existed for 10 years.  Yet all sales of media have continued to increase.  In other countries, the filesharing has continued despite the increased laws to punish infringement.  And yet, those that continuously try to impose the punishments are also the same people causing the harms.  Surely, piracy will continue to serve the market.  Clearly, enforcement will always cause more harm than good.  But to suggest that it can be stopped with a government initiative when all signs are showing otherwise is a fool’s errand.

How much research is needed to understand that copyright enforcement is bad?

In one of my last posts, I've explained how filesharing has caused an increase of interest in multimedia products.  What's amazing is how much research from various governments have come to the same conclusion.

Dutch - Artists don't think that filesharing hurts them in a survey.  However, there is still enforcement occurring even though Dutch unions want to legalize filesharing.

US - The United States has had various governmental agencies to discuss copyright infringement.  The Government Accountability Office, has said the information for piracy data was unreliable (link to original report is in the article).  Just recently, even more information has been found by Techdirt's Mike Masnick.  The fact remains that Hollywood is thriving despite any negative aspects of piracy.  Further, the work of Joe Karaganis and his team in Media Piracy in Emerging Economies has shown the ineffectiveness of copyright enforcement in various countries.

Swiss - Filesharing is not a big deal.  As evidenced by the study, most of the money goes to entertainment products anyway.

Bolivia - Has no copyright.  Their music industry thrives along with all other industries introduced.

China, Nigeria, India - All thrive because of piracy.  The ability to share files leads to more chances to sell merchandise.

Japan - As Glyn Moody has pointed out, the lost sales revenue only occurred when the pirates figured out how to fulfill demand not met by the industry.

As each article shows, piracy is unmet demand.  Those that rely on copyright enforcement are already established, not helping the artists or smaller individuals in their efforts of promotion.  Does piracy have bad effects?  I continue to doubt that more and more each day.  Perhaps more research will show a negative aspect, but as it stands, piracy encourages increases sales far more than enforcement.

Why I can't ever support Gog.com nor any more games from CD Projekt

Like many people, I enjoy companies that think outside the box.  Gog made me a customer by saying they won't support DRM.  This was a great thing from them, showing that maybe I was supporting a good business decision on their part.

Even though we're very, very opposed to DRM, we don't argue that fact, but there are a few facts that are worth noting. Piracy isn't nearly as devastating as some studies would have you believe. People throwing around numbers in the billions of dollars of lost revenue are making some false equivalencies.

Every copy of a game that is downloaded does not equate to a lost sale. In many cases, torrent trackers display inflated numbers of seeds and downloads. Those scary numbers aren't real, and by letting ourselves be deluded as to the impact of piracy, we don't rationally look at what it really means for the industry and how to go about minimizing it in an effective manner.
Then the other shoe fell. While CD Projekt is saying they won't harm their customers, they are doing something much worse.  A copyright shakedown.

“Yes we will track illegal file-sharing hoping people will find the game good enough to actually change their mind and be willing to pay for it,” CD Projekt’s Agnieszka Szostak told us earlier.


Although this initially sounded quite reasonable, away from the spotlight the company followed in the footsteps of so-called copyright trolls, by signing up for a so-called “pay-up-or-else” scheme. CD Projekt hired a law firm and torrent monitoring company to track those who illegally downloaded and shared the game, and has been sending them hefty cash settlement proposals.


The price CD Projekt is asking through their lawyers is slightly higher than what gamers have to pay in stores, to say the least. Over the past several months thousands of alleged BitTorrent users in Germany were asked to cough up 911,80 euros ($1230) to pay off their apparent debt to the company.

So CD Projekt is suing innocent bystanders and potential customers because they want an instant payout.  Quite frankly, they're acting as if pirates cost them more than making a real game and keeping it updated.  It's also downright hypocritical given that they've said they support filesharing.  This does not support filesharing.  It also does nothing but piss people off as they hear the story.

I will not be putting money into Gog.com no matter how good the games are.     Gog has really hurt their message with me.  Why support a company that believes that suing innocent bystanders is more important than making games worth buying?

Quick thoughts about me

Unfortunately, I never had an inclination to be a lawyer.  As I have looked more into copyright law over the past 15 years, I have always had questions within.  Why do so many people want control of product so badly?  Is piracy destroying the internet, or is it used to control what people can do in an ever growing digital world?

Take these posts and their connections with grains of salt.  I am not a lawyer.  I am a person who is looking for answers in the digital world that seems to need copyright less and less.

Stop Online Piracy and the Hearings

The events of Nov 16 were very interesting.  The internet rose up to fight a bill going through the House and Senate to criminalize sharing online.  In an effort to reduce piracy, Congress has tried to fight the public with two forms of legislation, giving very broad and vague powers to rightsholders that do not represent artists or creators.  The bill from the Senate is Bill is the Protect IP Act while the bill in the House is Bill the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Both bills seek to disable websites with a vague definition of "rogue website".  The major complaint of both bills are the overbroad definitions and the ability to turn anyone into a felon.

An overview is here.  To say that the internet did not like so much power given to a small group would be an understatement.  Here is the tally on just one day.

The fight for the internet is far from over.  There continue to be problems with new legislation in various form. Let's hope that more people wake up to the fact that copyright is not a tool for innovation but a nail in censorship.

Saturday round up (4/9)

I love reading various amounts of data in regards to copyright.  The best part is finding new information that can help to change your views.

Moral rights of Copyright - Mike Masnick

5 mistakes of Anti Copyright - Jonathan Bailey

Metrics in gaming - Measuring games versus innovation in gaming.

The Other Street Fighter - Oddly, this one shows some of the insanity of copyright as more of an aside.

Backpedaling on mass lawsuits - Looking at Judge Beryl's new ruling and possible reasons for her new way or "protecting" the defendants.

Citation needed

What I find very particular about some of the views of copyright is how someone can make up a rant in regards to copyright and try to sound professional.  It's quite peculiar to hear of copyright having links to terrorism or supports gang activities without any sources for these views.

I recently stumbled upon the musings of Sandra Alistair and must thoroughly question how she's come to some of her viewpoints with very little in the form of research to back her up.

"Some background: Individuals and crime syndicates – oftentimes outside the United States – are setting up websites that traffic in unlicensed intellectual property, selling everything from counterfeit drugs and auto parts to ripped off e-books and unlicensed streams of live sporting events."

[Citation needed]

"These are not legitimate or licensed products, and they often come with nasty surprises for the consumer, such as malware, spyware and other means of facilitating identity theft."

Has Sandra read the GAO Report?  Sounds like she's parroting points from the trade industries.  If you can't force someone to buy from you, then scare them away from your competitors.

"The sites are often operated by criminals, who use the profits to finance gang and other illegal activities. No money is returned to the individuals who created the works."
And yet, she has no proof of gang related activity...

"This is the online equivalent of a back alley black market. "
So is a flea market, making her suggestion even funnier.

"Further, unlike a back alley that can be patrolled by local police, law enforcement does not have adequate tools to reach these illegal activities because so many of these sites operate by storing files abroad"

Yes Sandra, that is very much correct when ICE decides to seize domains with nary a thought into the after effects.  There is also a massive exodus of domains to .eu, .ch, or even .ph over seizure worries.  For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.

"Policymakers are discussing measured, common-sense steps---"

I get a chuckle when people put this with:

" to protect consumers and American intellectual property makers from this criminal behavior by giving law enforcement the tools they need to act against these web site operators, and by seeking cooperation of online intermediaries to cut off sources of funding (like ad networks and payment processing) to infringing internet sites."

This.  Protect consumers.  Let's think about this...  If consumers WANT counterfeit goods or cheaper drugs, won't they go to get them?  So the second part of policy makers protecting IP makers?  That's yet another dubious claim.  There's more evidence of those artists that are creating content using other means to get by.  What's probably meant here is copyright holder.  To which, Hollywood and music industry (the main ones lobbying the government) are quite explicit they want more control of the internet by turning Google into copyright cops.

"Specifically, draft legislation favorably considered last year, and likely to be reintroduced in some form again this year, would have allowed the Attorney General to take action against sites “dedicated to infringing activities”.  "

Looked at favorably, when it was stopped by Ron Wyden.  Right...

And there's already evidence that this approach is not the best:  Link to Heesob's IP blog

In total, by the thirty-one individuals, 544 pieces of computer game software, 216 pieces of motion pictures, 113 pieces of cartoons and 23 pieces of TV shows have been transmitted through ten ISPs. Interestingly, no musical works were involved. On average, 22.67 pieces of computer games (24 users), 10.8 pieces of motion pictures (20 users), 22.6 pieces of cartoons (5 users), and 23 pieces of TV shows (one user) have led up to the temporary disconnection.

It's a very flawed argument to say that a copyright holder can talk to the AG, call a site infringing, then get it kicked off the internet.  How about a better system than one where collusion is rewarded?

"...protect American creators and their products from online theft as threatening the Internet, free speech, and apple pie."

When Congress does that, I'll be surprised.  Right now, it seems they are only interested in who is supplying them with the most cash.

"In fact, the nine sites seized during the original phase of Operation in Our Sites were taken down and remain down"

Ninjavideo
TVShack - By the way, they got seized twice.
TorrentFinder
In other words, out of the 100+ sites that ICE has seized so far, they've failed miserably

"Moreover, it is highly ironic that these anti-copyright extremists would argue that free speech is being stifled when criminal sites are shut down, when their most recently favored tactics seem to consist of online bullying of artistswho speak out in favor of their rights and outright malicious attacks on the websites of individuals and entities supporting the rule of law on the internet."
One of the things about Due Process is facing your accuser in a court of law.  One of the things missing right now, is facing the person that has made an accusation.  These have yet to be found out as criminal sites, that's only an allegation.  So the question we should ask is one that has yet to be answered:

When do these people get a court date BEFORE they lose their website.  By all means, the domain seizures seem to be successful by the "data".  But when you look at the exodus of websites from .com domains, you have to question if this will be an effective method when we have more .eu, .info, and .ph domains that ICE lost access to.

Maybe the enforcement is working...

But when the net result is people finding better alternatives in other countries, we should look into that instead of effectively saying that ICE has done a successful job.