Last week, a consortium consisting of Adobe, Apple, Dell, and Microsoft — to name a few of the well known members — offered their support of SOPA, under the guise of the Business Software Alliance (BSA). After companies like Google and Mozilla had spoken out against SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), it was surprising to see companies like Apple and Microsoft side with the government on this particular subject.
There are 29 members of the BSA, most of which are well known among those who follow the tech industry. Aside from the four indicated above, other companies include Intel, Symantec, McAfee, and Corel. However, the reason Apple and Microsoft are the focus is because they are two of the most well known companies in the world, and their initial support of SOPA was all the more dumbfounding. Apparently, however, the backlash against this support has caused the BSA to reconsider its position in relation to SOPA, which led to the following blog post, featuring the following title:
“SOPA Needs Work to Address Innovation Considerations”
Essentially, the BSA backtracked, saying the Alliance supports the elimination of piracy, but that SOPA needs to be refined. The post in question was written by BSA President & CEO, Robert Holleyman. In it, Holleyman offers the adjusted position of the BSA:
The idea behind SOPA, as Chairman Smith explained at last week’s hearing, is to remove pirates’ ability to profit from their theft. We think that is the right approach as long as it is done with a fine touch.
Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill. It is intended to get at the worst of the worst offenders. As it now stands, however, it could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors. To fix this problem, definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed. Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights cannot be compromised.
Which is exactly the position many who oppose SOPA. It’s not that they are asking for permission to pirate. Instead, policing these actions does not need to be done with sacrificing the freedoms Holleyman discussed. Too bad the entertainment industry is too blinded by their pursuit of the bottom line to see how much the bill, largely influenced by these entities, attacks the ideas of privacy and due process.
As long as that teenage girl down the street gets busted for downloading the new Twilight movie, all’s well. Unfortunately, SOPA doesn’t even work that way. Instead of going after the Twilight downloader, the bill goes after the site that hosted the torrent that facilitated the download.
The BSA post winds itself up with the following:
BSA has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet. All of these concerns should be duly considered and addressed.
My question is, did the BSA not know SOPA included such stipulations when they offered their support? Better late than never, I guess.
That’s Professor Chaos from South Park which appears on Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom. The reason the image is leading this post is because it’s Viacom’s intellectual property, vicariously, anyway, and after watching their propaganda video supporting SOPA, I’m hoping you have the same reaction as the Professor does.
First, the laughable video:
Oddly enough, Viacom didn’t post this on YouTube. It was apparently ripped from this page — notice the “anti-piracy” in the URL — and that’s another reason I’m using it: To show how ridiculous their position really is. Notice they haven’t requested that YouTube pull this format of their sob story, even though it’s been up on YouTube for two days. Good thing it wasn’t a 30-second clip of South Park, otherwise it would’ve been gone already.
Apparently, the good people who made this video aren’t trying to monetize it, so it’s OK for YouTube to have it. Ah, hypocrisy at its finest.
As for the video itself, as TechDirt so eloquently pointed out, it’s essentially a “support SOPA or Spongebob dies” approach, and it stinks of hyperbole and a “woe is our company because there’s no SOPA to protect it” approach. Don’t forget about the “we need more of your money, therefore, SOPA is right” approach, either, because it’s definitely available in the video.
It should be noted that Viacom’s view on piracy is not in dispute here. If you get caught downloading a movie you haven’t paid for, you should have to pay the consequences. The problem is, SOPA is not the way to go about it because it gives entirely too much power to the entertainment industry, which has been the major sticking point against SOPA all along.
Ironically enough, Viacom’s quarterly financial report has also been released, and after watching their sob story video, you’d think the company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Yeah, about that. A quick look at the document’s title reveals a much different outlook than the one the video presents:
VIACOM REPORTS DOUBLE-DIGIT GROWTH FOR FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL-YEAR FISCAL 2011
But, but… didn’t the video essentially plead for people to keep consuming Viacom’s products in such a manner that the money keeps on flowing in, saving the entire Viacom staff from certain doom? So is this more hypocrisy or just an outright lie? Furthermore, when does Viacom get held to the fire for refusing to adapt the technology available? Or, as TechDirt put it:
Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that’s the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn’t do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.
It should be noted that full episodes of VH1’s amazing lineup of reality programs are available at the VH1 website, but you wouldn’t know that if you visited Viacom. If you want to actually combat episodic piracy, why not go out of your way to promote the fact these very same episodes are available for free on the website of a property you own instead of making videos that further turn public opinion against you?
Nowhere on Viacom’s site is that knowledge gained. In fact, it was Google that let me know these episodes are available, but yet, it’s a lack of SOPA that causes people to download Viacom’s IP and not a lack promotion? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
We’ve been following the massive internet backlash to the SOPA (PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE) bill currently being debated in Congress, and it’s coming from all sides. Not only has the internet community rallied against the bill in the form of online petitions and various sites like Tumblr and Boing Boing devoting graphics to censorship, but tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter and AOL have submitted a joint-letter speaking in opposition to the measure.
Today, House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi voiced her opposition to SOPA on Twitter. Responding to a question from another user, Pelosi said that we need to find a better solution (presumably speaking of piracy) –
Pelosi, a Democrat, received backup on Twitter from Republican House member Darrell Issa – an influential conservative from California. He responded to Pelosi’s tweet –
Issa has been a vocal opponent to the bill, tweeting about “ctrl+alt+delete”ing the measure. He also tweeted out this video of his opposition during the debates taking place in committees as we speak.
@DarrellIssa Darrell IssaI tweeted last night about my strong opposition to #SOPA…got video of my stand against it in yesterday’s judiciary hearing…stand by2 hours ago via Twitterrific · powered by @socialditto
Speaking of Tumblr, they announced today that their efforts led to 87,834 calls to representatives to voice opposition to SOPA. One of those calls even lasted 31 minutes – which signals a pretty healthy discussion.
It’s interesting to see bipartisan opposition to SOPA, considering that its proponents in Congress have been touting it as a bipartisan effort. What do you think about SOPA? Let us know in the comments.
We’ve recently told you about the backlash coming from all angles concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act (PROTECT-IP/E-PARASITE Act), a bill currently being debated in the halls of Congress that many feel would create the “Great Firewall of America.” The bill has been a topic of discussion and derision for free internet advocates on the web for some time now, and it was just this week that some big names on the internet like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and AOL threw their support against the legislation.
We reported earlier this month on the new petition site started by the White House called “We The People.” It’s a service where users can submit petitions on pretty much any topic, and if it receives enough signatures, the White House will issue an official response.
Back then, we told you about a We The People petition called “Stop the E-PARASITE Act” that had garnered over 7,000 signatures. And as of right now, it has over 38,000 and is growing rapidly. The petition was submitted on October 31st.
Here’s what it argues, quite succinctly and effectively I might add:
This Bill would allow essentially allow A Great Firewall of America and would be a shameful desecration of free speech and any sort of reasonable copyright law. The new Law would allow copyright holders to force websites which have any copyrighted material to be blocked by ISP companies around the country, without requiring that the websites be given time to take the offending material down. It would also put pressure on ISP companies to monitor their users like never before, a gross invasion of privacy. This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality. Essentially it’s a censorship law that would end the internet as we know it in America.
The creator of the petition is a redditor, and he took to the site to talk about his petition, where he says thanks for all the support.
The problem is that not everyone has faith that the We The People initiative is all that helpful. Internet users in the past have expressed frustration over some of the responses from the White House, especially concerning a particular petition on the legalization of marijuana.
I read that if a petition gets enough signatures, the president will personally print it out and wipe his ass with it.
Another example of the lack of faith in this new petition system comes in the form of an actual petition on the site called “We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.” It’s gathered nearly 12,000 signatures already.
Since these petitions are ignored apart from an occasional patronizing and inane political statement amounting to nothing more than a condescending pat on the head, we the signers would enjoy having the illusion of success. Since no other outcome to this process seems possible, we demand that the White House immediately assign a junior staffer to compose a tame and vapid response to this petition, and never attempt to take any meaningful action on this or any other issue. We would also like a cookie.
Each petition currently has to reach the threshold of 25,000 signatures in a month, so it looks like the White House is going to have to give a response to the Stop SOPA petition. Let’s just hope it’s not that vapid, condescending, politically safe response that many have come to expect.
The Stop Online Piracy Act, or any of its many variations, something WebProNews has discussed before, is finally meeting a great deal of resistance as various online movements, and the long-awaited push back from entities like Google, Facebook, and Mozilla have (finally?) decided to throw their own weight around.
Where do you stand concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act? Do you side with the web giants or the government? Does the power SOPA give to stop piracy go too far? Let us know what you think in the comments.
It looks like the American public is also getting wise about the consequences of such a bill to pass, as the SOPA acronym is currently the top Google Trend. One hopes this isn’t a case of too little, too late. The resistance that’s getting the most coverage has to do with the rebellious responses of a consortium of well-known — and powerful — web companies, all of which banded together to create the following letter as their opening means of disagreement.
The letter, found under the Protect Innovation TLD, is signed by the following entities:
Google
Facebook
Twitter
AOL
eBay
LinkedIn
Yahoo
Zynga
Mozilla
The stance of this group is one of disapproval concerning SOPA, and the crux of their position is here, with our own emphasis added:
We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.
Essentially, these companies would like to stop piracy as well, they just don’t want it to be under the guise of “The Great Firewall of America,” which is what some entities have started calling SOPA.
The push back doesn’t stop there, however. With Mozilla, besides co-signing the letter, they also created a page that clearly states their position in relation to SOPA in its current form. The page links to an Electronic Frontier Foundation page that, in part, generates letters of opposition to whatever state representatives are applicable. The page also features valuable information about the potential harm SOPA can cause.
An example:
As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users’ attempts to reach certain websites’ URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.
I urge you to continue reading.
Google, which also signed the letter of opposition, has also posted about their intentions over at their public policy blog, which includes Google copyright policy counsel Katherine Oyama testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Oyama was scheduled to testify earlier today, and the post has a link to her written and oral testimony.
An example from the written portion explains Google’s position quite well:
We support SOPA’s stated goal of providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign rogue websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as written, as it would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that could require monitoring of web sites and social media. Moreover, we are concerned that the bill sets a precedent in favor of Internet censorship and could jeopardize our nation’s cybersecurity. In short, we believe the bill, as introduced, poses a serious threat to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation.
These more well-known companies are not the only voices of dissension concerning SOPA. Even Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the spirit of the act, and although the White House clearly supports the reduction of online piracy, at least one component of the United States Government disagrees with how SOPA goes about its prevention:
Biden, apparently, is on the side of the pirates. Levity aside, while he’s not operating from the same stance as Google, Mozilla, et al, but the fact remains, a visible member of the White House has spoken out — quite articulately, I might add — about how the ideas that help give structure to SOPA are harmful and do not represent such standards like freedom and due process.
It doesn’t stop here, either. Websites all over are using “No Censorship” graphics for their logos, including such well known properties as Reddit and Boing Boing. There are a veritable avalanche of articles speaking out against SOPA as the backlash continues to build.
If you’re still wondering what all the hubbub is about, watch this video — in its entirety — and if, after finishing it, you still don’t understand why Google and their cohorts are against it, watch it again:
Are you for or against SOPA? Do you stand with the tech industry or not? Does being against SOPA mean you support online piracy? Is there no middle ground? Let us know what you think.
I mean, besides the AAs of the world (the RIAA, the MPAA)? Granted, the backlash took a little longer to get than some of us would have liked, but it’s here now, and even though the hearings for SOPA have turned into one big, misguided circle jerk for the entertainment industry, with industry reps in the middle, basking in the glow of congressional support, the push-back is finally here.
The question is, was the wool removed from the public’s eye with enough time to act against SOPA, or should we simply be resigned to the fate that the United State government is in a position, provided SOPA survives becoming an actual law, to wield a level of control over the content of the Internet, one it was never intended to have, all to pacify the entertainment industry. SOPA’s existence really doesn’t go beyond that. If the entertainment behemoths pulled their support for SOPA and embraced the concept of file sharing with open arms, or, conversely, agreed with tech industry in the belief the bill gives too much power to those that wield it, the act would fall apart like a house of cards.
Here’s something very telling about SOPA and its sponsors. Recently, Lamar Smith, one of the Republican representatives from the state of Texas, and one of SOPA’s most visible sponsors, was quoted as saying, “I’m not a technical expert on this,” but yet, there’s Smith, foolishly attempting to take Google’s representative to task with an incredibly ignorant offering that says:
…one of the companies represented here today has sought to obstruct the Committee’s consideration of bipartisan legislation. Perhaps this should come as no surprise given that Google just settled a federal criminal investigation into the company’s active promotion of rogue websites that pushed illegal prescription and counterfeit drugs on American consumers.
Smith’s ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so potentially harmful to the Internet’s existence, but yet, there he is, trying his hardest to regulate the content of the Internet.
Smith, while being wholly ignorant of how Google operates its search engine index, also apparently ignores the wishes of the American people as well. In an ongoing study conducted by The American Assembly project at Columbia University, some of their early findings have been made available, and because of them, it’s pretty clear the events surrounding SOPA do not reflect the attitudes of the people it’s designed to govern.
“Piracy” is common. Roughly 46% of American adults have bought pirated DVDs, copied files or discs from friends or family, or downloaded music, TV shows or movies for free.* These practices correlate strongly with youth and moderately with higher incomes
Only 1% of Americans are heavy pirates of TV/movie content (i.e. possess more than 100 movies or TV
shows and copied or downloaded most or all of them)
Console-based video game piracy on any scale is rare. 48% of households surveyed owned game consoles (Xbox, Playstation). Of these, roughly 3% (1.5% overall) have consoles that have been modified to play pirated games. Of this 3%, 55% were modified at time of purchase and 33% by the owners. We did not inquire about PC or mobile games
Aside: So much for Sony’s reasoning for locking down the PS3… Other highlights include:
Copyright infringement among family and friends is widely accepted. Substantial majorities of Americans say it is “reasonable” to share music files with family members (75%) and friends (56%). For movie/TV files: 70% and 54% respectively
Only a slim majority of Americans (52%) say “people should face punishment if they download an unauthorized copy of a song or movie from a website or file-sharing service.” 34% are opposed to penalties altogether; 7% say it depends on the circumstances; 7% did not answer
This support is limited to warnings and fines.
Even among those who support fines, 75% support amounts under $100 for downloading a song or movie. “Less than $10” attracted 32% support; “$11 to $100” attracted 43%. This contrasts sharply with U.S. copyright law, where the statutory penalty for willful infringement runs to $150,000 per act. Fine in this range were supported by less than 1% of Americans.
As for the crux of SOPA, that is, should the government and/or the entertainment industry be allowed to block online material, the respondents are pretty unanimous in their lack of support:
American Internet users (79%) have strong views about whether corporations or the government should monitor their Internet use “in order to prevent copyright infringement.” A large majority (69%) said no. 27% responded yes or sometimes. 3% did not know. Attitudes are softer when asking whether ISPs should “block access to sites that provide access to pirated songs and videos.” A 58% majority responded yes to this question, with 36% opposed. When asked if the government should block access, that majority vanishes (40% yes; 56% no).
The report also indicates that when the word in the survey was changed from “block” to “censor,” support diminished even further. Even though people were more comfortable with ISPs blocking infringing users, when the word becomes a precursor to censorship, support for ISP blocking reduces as well. According to the report, with these parameters, only 46% said yes, and 49% said no.
There’s a handy graph that helps put the study’s current findings in perspective. Click it for a larger version:
Of course, if you were to present these findings to government officials who support SOPA, or, say, representatives of the MPAA/RIAA, the response would, in all likelihood, be the equivalent to sticking one’s fingers in their ears and yelling, all in an effort to block out the unpleasant truths they’re trying to ignore.
Today’s infographic round-up explores the SOPA “Internet blacklist bill” that everyone’s talking today, as well as site authority and the growth of Tumblr.
Do you know why are all the tech companies of note up in arms about the SOPA act? Why have Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Mozilla, among others, banded together to speak out against the SOPA bill that’s currently undergoing hearings at Capitol Hill? Is it simply a matter of wanting to pirate goods without the interference of outside government agencies?
If you’ve been keeping up, no, it’s not. In fact, the tech companies that are so outspoken against SOPA specifically say they are against online piracy, but they disagree with the way SOPA goes about fighting it. Why would that be? What is contained within SOPA that has companies that normally compete against one another teaming up against a common foe? Hopefully, the following infographic will clear the air.
Here’s the resized version, which you can click for a full image:
Here are two of the more important sections, which I’ve clipped out of the overall graphic, which explains the extent of the “why” concerning the potential for a site being block, or, playing on the word of today, censored:
A visitor/user posted a YouTube video of The Beatles performing on the Ed Sullivan Show? It’s your fault for not taking it off, therefore, your site has infringed and is subject to the punishments pointed out in SOPA. So your site’s blocked and your access to ad revenue has been cutoff. Was justice done because you didn’t remove the infringing video in time?
Another point of concern is the broad, sweeping power SOPA provides affects all kinds of US Internet users:
How would you like it if the links you send your friends in emails were subject to censorship, which means the content of them would need to be actively read? Does that appeal to you?
With the existence of this infographic and the video from the previous article, if you aren’t informed about SOPA, then there’s no one left to blame.
Today’s video round-up features the Vice President discussing SOPA, and Next Media Animation discussing Google X (Google’s top secret robot lab). And I know you’ve just been dying to see more Rebecca Black videos.
This guy was named “world’s worst person of the day” by The Daily What. It’s hard to really call this a “top video”, but people should see what an asshole this guy is.
Two girls dressed like Super Mario Bros. playing its theme:
