Why Second Lifers Should Support SOPA -- and What Second Life Teaches You About How SOPA Can Work

I started this discussion here -- why aren't Second Lifers supporting SOPA? They should.

The usual dopes show up to say the usual idiotic copyleftist things we've all heard a million times. There's the usual mindless regurgitation of other people's youtubes -- Joe Biden, for example (!) whom most people wouldn't cite on anything serious. Pussycatnip or what's-her-name says falsely that Human Rights Watch has opposed SOPA -- it hasn't made a comment on it at all that I can see, she's mixing it up with something else. Most mainstream human rights groups stayed away from it. It's not about censorship; it's about a struggle for property and a struggle for consumption, just like the fake "net neutrality" topic. It's a struggle for whether you have the social system called "communism" that nobody calls that, but calls "progressive" -- or the capitalist system. That's all. It's a struggle about power and property, and not about rights.

The left is trying to falsely convert it to a rights struggle -- that's what I find most obscene about the debate, truly. Internet censorship is when the government tracks you down and drags you out of an Internet cafe and tortures and imprisons you, or shuts down your Live Journal (Russia) or pulls the plug entirely on your servers. Internet censorship is not your inability to get your latest episode of Lost or Twilight pirated, or your inability to convert your Youtubes to songs for your i-pod. Pretending that this consumption/piracy/intellectual property issue is about "censorship" is truly vile. It's as vile as Fred Wilson, the "venture communist" saying that copyright infringment isn't theft. He funds all the start-ups like Kickstarter and Twitter and Etsy and Disqus and whatnot that all rely on ad-clicking and special sales to marketers as a business model, and give away their service for free, letting people upload content first, infringing or not -- they don't care -- then letting IP holders chase them with DMCA notices. So it's in his and their interests to erode the moral distinction about theft and make it seem as if copyright infringement is just a kind of bureaucratic obstacle in the way of "innovation" that platform providers can get through with lawyers -- not a nihilist force in society destroying business and livelihoods.

The infamous Chris Pirillo, known in Second Life circles as a real nerd dummy when it comes to the sophisticated life of the virtual man, looks really goofy here either pretending to be dumb about how a bill becomes a law -- or maybe actually *being* dumb -- so he brings in an expert, Brian Rowe.

I take it apart, line by line, here.

I explain why geeks are screaming about this -- the Google lobby, and the copyleftist shill we heard for years in SL until finally they had to get the third-party viewer policy. There's a lot of interesting things about the Second Life prototyping capacity of virtuality that we can look at to gain insights into why SOPA is justified and how it will work:

1. The content creating community of SL rejected Creative Commons utterly as it didn't serve them -- it didn't get them paid. There is no CC license for "take a copy but pay me" that is explicitly so and technically backed up. There is only the coercion to share and make everything non commercial with the hollow gesture that you get credit with your name mentioned. Big deal. Better to get paid, too.

2. The DRM that obtains in SL works -- sure it's circumvented from time to time by copybotters, but by and large it holds, and people use it to put their stuff for sale, not for free, and for copy but no transfer.

3. SL solved the problem technically, because of its virtual world nature, of giving the people the ability to make unlimited copies for whatever they needed, i.e. different locations or levels on their servers, but then also put in "no transfer" so that it can go on being sold, and so that distribution doesn't kill sales. Sure, this is an affordance of virtuality itself, but this very model of virtuality is fast becoming the Internet itself, or the smart phone itself, and so it becomes more plausible.

4. When a copybotter is found, i.e. a pirate, the Lindens can remove all copies of the infrinting content instantly, with one sweep through all inventory, because of the asset server set-up. So the person with only one copy isn't punished, but just loses the inventory. The person caught making the copies with exploits overriding the DRM or permissions system is the one punished with loss of his account or suspension. Sure, there are affordances of virtuality here, too -- the content is name-stamped and date-stamped in the system, it is rezzed inworld and points to an asset on the asset server and so on. Pretty soon I think we will come to see that the cloud is a virtual world and platform providers like Amazon or Google produce it.

5. There is the capacity to make punishments short of a waiting for a successful DMCA procedure that are indeed sometimes used. Some alt account found with masses amount of pirated material will normally, when complaints are made, be suspended without having to wait for the completion of the DMCA process. It can work faster. Again, the world makes it visible.

6. The third-party viewer program is basically like SOPA. It says that if you run a viewer that accesses Second Life servers, you must register them and warrant that they are not infringers, i.e. they don't have the copybotting functions built within them and don't incite infringement through their features, i.e. backing up sims for content that you do not own. Despite a lot of silly edgecasing on this by a tiny handful of educators who hyped the alleged problem of "lock-in," this by and large works to protect IP. This is how the Lindens have a political if not technical means to stop pirating. It's not a pretense that anti-piracy can be engineered; rather it tells engineers that if they engineer piracy, they cannot expect to last long in the community of Second Life.

So again, the third-party program functions not as a prior review or filtration of content of the sub-providers of content access -- the coders of viewers -- nor does it place undue burden for sub-providers to go police content. It says "don't run your operation as a copying operation or you can't play."

7. Linden Lab doesn't make prior examinations of content, or filter content, or filter accounts for possible infringing content. It responds to complaints from IP holders, and this has not placed an undue burden on them. Indeed, this is a sterling example of how phony the copyleftist claim is that chasing pirates is impossible or places an undue technical burden on platform providers. It doesn't. They get complaints. They research them. They deal quickly with massive, obvious piraters with loads of boxed stolen content -- it's not rocket science. They don't "place a chill on speech" by trawling through chat and banning residents who might have passed a SLURL (i.e. a URL equivalent) to stolen boxes. That's not what they do nor what they need to do. They go for the pirates. The pirates are the targets; the pirates are pretty clearly visible.

8. To be sure, some people get stuck in DMCA hell if they can't show their case for various reasons -- it's impossible to improve that some skin and makeup for an avatar was in fact ripped, and not just "inspired by" some other skin and makeup -- especially given that they have to use the same templates. But then they have other remedies -- peer pressure, blogs, media, land bans, boycotts, etc. The community has evolved lots of ways of dealing with people who steal others' designs and texturess.

9. While this can have its pluses and minuses, in SL, the commodities of content, the creative process, isn't separated from community -- you can see the people you are buying something from; you can see their process of creation sometimes right before your eyes; you are in a relationships with them. Creative Commons creates an uneasy, false commons and fake community of people coerced into sharing. What Second Life succeeded in doing -- which is one reason Mitch Kapor and other Silicon valley collectivist ideologues hate it so much -- is creating a community of commerce that connects content and commerce in that community so that people can get paid and have livelihoods directly tied to the creative process. The rejected the silly CC "licenses" as noted and put "no copy" and "transfer" and "price" on their creations or "copy" and "no transfer" and "price" on their creations *because they could*. The Internet is the way it is because we made it that way, says Jaron Lanier -- and Second Life *was made different* so that PRICE and PAY ME were linked integrally with permissions and a community. It is really the antithesis of the phony Creative Commons.

Now, you think SL is a toy, a game, some played-out failed exoticism. No. Press on it, and push the inside out, and you will see the future of the Internet, if we let it. Everything I have described here could be part of the broader Internet -- and will be, and already is, with some models like streaming music for paid subscriptions.

Now, if some content holder or provider could reach into your home hard drive and remove content at will if found to be infringing, wouldn't that be a terrible invasion of privacy or property? I think either it will come to be seen differently, or the media consumption space people have online will increasingly be so much in the cloud and online or on phones and not downloaded that it will cease to seem like a privacy/property issue -- in the same way your ability to hear a radio or watch tv in the old days was an activity that enabled you to consume media, but not own the commodity of the individual copy of the content.

The devices will drive this, whether tablets or smart phones.

There will also be some kind of micropayments system as ingenious as the LindEx. It will come.

 

 

Comments

[cube inada]

just keeping it real..SL WASNT made originaly with any "commerce" only a CC mentality... by 2003 it was failing to find any users...
they- robin and corey came to a SFWEB3D meeting when again i suggested strongly a CCC model..of IP ownership and Commerce-since you HAVE to give folks a REAL REASON to use web3d...making money...duh...

by next year they implemented the CMT code and beyond server leasing, a "workable" model for "an internet of things" became what they offered.

Too bad they never really cared about creative content makers beyond the percentage of what their content would make for them...exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are always accused of.... nothing changes, except who leads the charge into ripping others off....

when it comes to content, at least old media paid artisans for decades to make stuff for hire, and paid them a living wage for the most part and took part in unions etc....

all of that is now to be killed by the new "northern california biz model" as we call it...

not many public art museums in silicon valley as compared to LA;) think about it.

[Me]

I think a technological way to prevent copyright infringement is much better than a community way. This is because with an automated means, the application will be standard and probably more fair. Leaving it to the community seems really bad because there won't be standards, people will not follow the standards, people could turn to crime such as cyberstalking or some other problem as a means to try to enforce laws companies like LL may not be enforcing... Also, art and creating things should not be able susteining a livilihood, but about individual growth. The reason why is that art is meant to reflect the inner mental state to the outter world, a communication. When a person is dependent on the communication, their art shows this. People's art should be entirely determined by their internal mental state, not their mental state determined by their art or how people assess or value their art.

People can have their own opinions about this subject, but my conclusions pretty much summarize what it takes for art to be successful in the long run. And no matter how competitive art or related industries get, good art will always be successful at reaching out and connecting to an audience.

[melponeme_k]

"not many public art museums in silicon valley as compared to LA;) think about it."

Of course not, they want to BURNING MAN it all down. Thats the kind of "Art" they like and want to make everyone's art (even little mom & pop efforts) like their own forced obsolete software/hardware. Yes, everything old must go and never be new again.

Its really hilarious that this same group of people think they are going to cheat death and be uploaded into gigantic world emulating servers. Will this hardware be made to last and not forced into obsolescence? I think the rest of us plebes should throw those "Second Life" (wink) servers into a Burning Man kind of fire.

[Rukh Zeno]

I'm AMAZED that I still get surprised when you support things that are so completely counter to your supposed goals.

SOPA is horrible for EVERYONE, even the people/companies that it claims to be made to protect.

Seriously, supporting SOPA in an effort to help copyright protectors online is not terribly unlike saying, "People who love children to an obsessively creepy level are less likely to physically hurt them... therefore only members of NAMBLA should be allowed to adopt!" Which I hope you understand is a completely insane and idiotic argument on every level.

It's as though you have no concept of the consequences whatsoever, but since tech-minded people think SOPA is a bad idea, you conclude that it must actually be the best thing ever.

[Luna Bliss]

Me...this attitude that you are perpetuating towards artists (that we should hold them up as something special and not compensate them for their efforts) is very destructive and forces a lot of artists to give up creating all together. For example, I'm afraid if I don't receive some compensation for my work and sit here at my computer freezing and without food I won't have much motivation to bring beauty to any world and would have to get a real life job. This would cause me to have no energy left at the end of the day to create anything.
Why do people insist on making this crazy dichotomy? Artists can love what they do, make their art a genuine self-expression, and yet expect some money at the same time.
Now if one focuses exclusively on the money I agree with you - art cannot come from that - and one can certainly see when people focus too much on money vs what they're creating. And personally, at some points I have worried so much about my business here and surviving that it was difficult to create from my heart.
I think balance is the key - the ability to learn and grow while creating while at the same time keeping an eye on finances.
In fact, keeping in mind what other might appreciate/want to buy could actually be considered more selfless than just gazing into my own processes of self-expression and growth - I want to contribute to the world in a way that includes others, making something they want to use,value, and are willing to pay for. Isn't this more about, as you say, "communication" than only expressing what's rolling around in my own head all the time?
Someone wrote in a blog about me once "I'm sure she makes money at her store with what she does, but still her stuff is great". What is it with this strange attitude toward artists?

[Me]

Luna Bliss:

Well, I am talking from an ideological standpoint, in my belief system human rights comes before all other rights, without a gauranteed established base for human rights then all other rights and laws become a means for coercion and manipulation. It is true! I believe this is why anarchism exists, because when people see some rules enforced at other's whims while others rights are violated, leaving them suffering, people may get so upset and distressed that they want to see everything burn.

The problem Luna is talking about appears (to me) to be more of a social issue than a closed art one. First of all, if everyone had a fair system for earning money, then art would reflect this through popular buying power. SL art is not necessarily considered that good all the time. There are many articles discussing the depravity of SL, SL is legally banned in countries, from schools and libraries.

Artists must be self sufficient to make real art. Otherwise they are puppets to a marketing base making products! And their art will be function of the society around them - if society is depraved, their art will be a reflection of this. Without artists being safe and selfsufficient, their art will be forced to reflect an accepting attitude of a marketingbase, those whom they sell to, rather than a function of the artist's own identity, their own vision. It is much better for an artist to take on a lowly job outside of art-making - even being a maid! - Than to depend solely on art for their income because this dependence will force them to lose themself and decieve others about who they are. They might as well be robots at that point instead of humans! But like I said, I am a supporter for human rights and all that will help people to keep their humanity!

[Alisha]

Sopa will overturn dmca. Forcing hosts like linden labs to actively assess and filter content. And when the proves impossible, ll leaves its self and us open to being filtered off the Internet. As would google, YouTube, Wordpress, etc. etc.
Sopa overreaches and hands all the power to the corporations. Dmca gives the little independent artist like me a chance. Protecting my IP will be impossible under sopa without powerful lawyers.

So many issues with this bill. Please, look at sopa's wiki page and read the ramifications section. Please.

[Alisha]

Me... I do somewhat agree with you pov that money taints art.
But, it is a part of modern society. Artists have to eat too. Art also doesn't wait till your 8 hour shift is over. Lost inspiration.
What society really needs for art to flourish, are patrons. Not in the modern definition of the word, but in the original artist patron context. Remove the strains of the capatalist world from the artist and let them create. (/pipe dream )

[Me]

Well, I read a bit of it but I am not sure it is good or bad.

I don't think it will protect artists. There will just crop up new services that make making your own art a lot easier. Why buy art when you can customize it yourself?

I don't have anything against artists but I don't see this bill as being straight forward.

Alisha, like I said, artists will eat if they take care of their needs. "Artists have to eat" just misdirects frustration over social and wage issues into something against people who have nothing to do with artists. We can empathize with people's troubles, but this is not the same thing as muting a person's voice in order to make them feel like they have achieved something that they have not. A real friend to an artist tries to guide them toward growth in their life, not decieve and flatter them. (/manipulation)

[cube inada]

we know have joi itos THE BLU to follow the fail of BLUE MARS.... it "says" come build it WITH US...

lets SEE how much they PAY or how MUCH of CUT they take and the TOS....

fair or not, awaits....then fail or not...

but in all ways i can see, its a late to the club, cash in on dupes crowd running the fishes. with joi itos cash pals banking on it.

somehow i htink many of them were the refugees from the company that designed many of those showcase spaces for blue mars... now they all are in unity3d...
which of course they would have poo pooed 3 years ago as substandard tech...lol

and so it goes... lets see what the "deal" is.

and finally to all those who think "art" and culture artifact making is free... youll get the world you deserve... in fact youve already got it.... kardassians as the new mozart.

[Amanda Dallin]

Patrons in the traditional sense of the word did not support artist to create any "art" they wanted too. The artist was paid to produce things the patron liked.

Michelangelo didn't one day decide he wanted to make a sculpture of David. He was commissioned by the Guild of Wool in Florence to finish a statue of David that was started by another artist decades before. Most of his career was spent following the orders of several Popes who employed him. After he made his reputation as one of the greatest artist of his day, he had more freedom but he still had to please his patron.

"Artists must be self sufficient to make real art." How will this be accomplished? Do you want government to use the threat of force to take money from some people to support artist. Where are your human rights in that? Do "artist" have more human rights than others? Who decides who is an artist and who isn't an artist? If art is defined only by what the artist wants to do then we are all artist. Who will farm or build or do any of the jobs necessary for society to exist? I suppose government can use the threat of force to make most people work but then again human rights goes down the drain.

If your art does not appeal to anyone but yourself it's not art. It's a hobby. Art is about communication. You need other people to communicate.

[Me]

I never said artists should manipulate the government into giving them money, Amanda. I am not sure how you got that idea.

How will this be accomplished?

Well, by looking for other jobs. I mentioned housekeeping.

I am not sure if you are just trying to distort what I say or what.

[Me]

Amanda:

I suppose everyone can have their own definition of art, and art can be broken down into types and genres and these genres can correspond to particular markets of customers with shared experiences.

To me, I find art to be real when the artist has control over it. By real I mean genuine. And I simply want to make a distinction between what is genuine, what exercises trust, freewill and the first amendment, from what is a product of fear and other reactions to environmental factors and conditions.

I never said there is no worth in commercial design, advertisements, "low" brow art, etc. Worth is pretty objective and refers to financial compensation. However, to me market value is not the same as intrinsic value. This is all I say and I want to be the type of person who encourages genuine , susteinable growth from artists, just as I would wish to do the same for all people. It is called "finding your voice". I do not put down other opinions or try to make other people's opinions look corrupt, just want to encourage people.

[Amanda Dallin]

My comments were more and answer to Alisha than you Me. She said,

"What society really needs for art to flourish, are patrons. Not in the modern definition of the word, but in the original artist patron context. Remove the strains of the capitalist world from the artist and let them create."

The best art is done to appeal to the "low brow." Shakespeare wrote to appeal to the common people and for monetary gain. "Individual growth" was the last thing on his mind. Capitalism does not mute the artist freedom of expression but amplifies it.

[Me]

Amanda:

"Capitalism does not mute the artist freedom of expression but amplifies it."

That's not true, but I can see how the two may be related and correlate.

Money can motivate people because money is useful and increasingly necessary for people to perpetuate their own self interests.

As such, money can motivate people to create products that appeal to the masses as a way of increasing the likelihood that the creator will make money.

Art with the "best" fit for maximizing net profit may end up being "low" brow and appeal to the common everyday person.

But just because something is possible in many circumstances, doesn't make it true.

I do not see capitalism as supporting the arts, but I do see art creation being possible in many capitalist-like contexts.

Truly supporting art and not self-interested propoganda is a really difficult thing, it requires a lot of independent thought. It can be really hard for people to put their perspectives outside their own goals. However, to get down to the truth I think it is necessary.

[rex cronon]

@ "me":
-"in my belief system human rights comes before all other rights"
guess what, artists also have the right to be compensated for the art they produce. you certainly don't want to them to become your slaves just so you get to enjoy their art for free. right:) btw, you having access to free art is not a human right:)

-"It is much better for an artist to take on a lowly job outside of art-making - even being a maid!"
let me see if i get this right. you want your maid after cleaning your whole house for the whole day, to start producing art, that you want it to get it for free? lol. you do realize that person will be exhausted and their art will suffer, or even worse, might not be even be created. do you also realize that you would actually look down on the art made by the same person that cleans your toilet? even if you personally might not look down, those that you might want to show off your maids art, are very likely to do just that. there are lots of snobs in this world:(

-I am curious "Me" if you could share a little more of what/who you are, and why you criticize artists for making a living with their art, while at the same time you prefer anonymity? are you an artist? a person with no financial worries, that looks down on others because they require payment for their work? creating art, it is work. it takes time, effort, money and other things to create art.

p.s.
maybe i miss-judged you, so why don't you set things right:)

[Prokofy Neva]

@cube3 you are so right -- thank you for that correction -- that was just before my time, so I tend to forget it. But yes, just as I came in, in Sept 2004, Philip was beginning to tout the idea of real estate agents -- before that, he had discouraged them.

I'm never convinced that the RIAA and MPAA are the evil creatures everyone says. If that were true, they'd have no clients. But they have plenty. So some musicians must get an advantage, enough to keep the system going.

well, there's the Tech Museum? Remember when they won the Linden Prize? I thought that was awful...

@Me you have to put a valid SL avatar name or recognizeable RL or blogger name to post here. Those are my rules.

The idea that artists have to be *coerced* into spiritual exercises like "individual growth" is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with having artists GET PAID. All the great artists have GOTTEN PAID throughout the ages, one way or another, if not with sales of landscapes and portrait commissions then by patrons. Where are those corporate patrons of the arts, eh?

The idea that art "has to be" determined in some way already makes it not art, but propaganda. This is an old story. Marxists always trying to press art into service of their ideology.

Art isn't succsesful when it is didactic or serving a political agenda like "reflecting internal mental states" or "not caring how people assess their arts". Arts are markets. It's all good.

If this belief system *really* stressed human rights before all other rights, it would have freedom of expression and freedom of association which in fact protects commerce.

Um, great program -- see injustice, burn stuff. Sounds like a great plan *snort*.

The real puppet-artists are those who cannot make a living or achieve independence because they have to be dependent on the collective, the socialist state, etc. because no free market is allowed. That's the real enslavement.

You're just spouting New Age nonsense about guiding artists toward "growth". What needs to grow is their bank account.

Amanda has asked exactly all the right questions.

@Rukh SOPA isn't "horrible" -- you're just brainlessly spouting propaganda you read on tech blogs. The analogy to NAMBLA is so weird and vile that I can't imagine what it is supposed to "mean," but I am uninterested in having it further explicated.

It's not about "tech people". It's about First Amendment lawyers. It's about law, and crime. It's all good.

@Luna Bliss, I'm glad you spoke up about the importance of LIVELIHOOD. That says it all. I, too, hate this fake dichotomy in SL, not only in the arts, but all kinds of business and activities. There's an outspoken minority that always whines on the forums that they are in SL "for the love" and anyone else who "makes money" is somehow tainted.

Those are the people who usually end up feeling shafted and used -- because they have been.

@Alisha Read the texts of the law. Searches require a warrant, which requires probable cause. That doesn't require pre-filtering. It requires responding to complaints that meet certain thresholds of intent, quantity, repetition, commercial, etc. etc. SOPA doesn't hand power to corporations, it establishes the rule of law OVER corporations so that artists suffering copyright violation don't have to rely on dilatory California-business-model corporations to get justice.

We've been over this before with you, however -- you endorse the copyleftist model even though you sell content and even though no doubt you've suffered theft like everyone else. So you should start paying attention to which side of your bread is buttered here.

[cube inada]

yeah..
we can talk if you like about Second Life and SFSUs class in virtual worlds.. but id rather have my old friend jane veeder-who taught the class- speak to it all. i think they "freely" used SL(or got used by LL;) from about 2002-4.

anyhow, i gave up on this thread after a few "me's"..lol- what total horseshit.

and i gotta tell ya, the amount of scare tactics about "censorship" and "free speech" that the anti sopas are using on goooglie plus is just amazing...

no truethfully i havent read the full bill in all details, and i thank you for your outline at WS... and i have little faith in the small type since the DCMA "supposedly" was "arts union" assisted...

so i really dont have great faith in sopa, but we really need a CCC mentality now if we plan on having any virtualized future thats not only made up of pyramid schemses of distribution upgrade platforms and micro advertising reinforced by advertorial jounalism in the guise of gun for hire bloggers...with no laws or ethics to follow.

[Micha Sass]

I think the bill is being criticised by the tech guys because the senators who are backing the bill have little knowledge of the technology they are regulating. There is also a clause in the bill that seems to allow deep packet inspection, and has some power over the ISP's to enforce this if needed. This will in-effect allow the govt to spy on its citizens packets, all in the name of IP protection. I do not like being spied on very much.

Prokofy your beef is that copyleftists are representing communism. My worry is that when governments try to assist capitalism with legislation that gives governments more control over the citizenship/marketplace then you have a brand new form of totalitarian control, which is equally as worrying.

[Micha Sass]

Also the apparently better bill (PROTECT-IP) which was backed by many of the tech firms (e.g. Microsoft and Nintendo) is now gone forever it would seem.

[Prokofy Neva]

No, Misha, you're wrong on both points, it's just the usual British socialist anti-American hate rant based on fear and loathing of American capitalism and anti-copyleftism.

It's a fondly cherished meme by the geek squad and the copyleftist contingent that Congressmen are "technically inferior" to them. They've been flogging this meme about their parents or anyone old enough to be their parents or anyone in authority being technically incompetent since the first days they were 10 years old and programmed those flashing VCRs that their parents felt helpless about. Silly ignorant stuff all its own.

For one, in fact the bills are technically competent -- read them. They examine and envision all the typical technical exigencies and have qualifying language precisely for that reason. There are plenty of technical experts available to write these bills. Lobbyists from Hollywood -- a good thing! -- are perfectly capable of having their own geek squad -- and do.

For two, you don't have to be technically competent in every field to have an educated opinion and to govern. The idea that only experts can govern on state committees belongs to that realm of Marxist utopianism that was invalid even in the Soviet era as the communist party hacks got in the way of the real scientists. There's always a strain between civilians and experts in any field but it needs to be in legitimate balance. I don't want geeks writing legislation, they are in fact too stupid about governance.

Third, the issues involved in controlling piracy aren't merely technological. In fact, they are *legal*. The people in Congress tend to be *lawyers* with experience *drafting and passing laws*. Duh. It's about organic legal policy extended to what is, after all, an organic human activity -- the Internet -- that is hiding behind pixels or electrons but is still human.

The idea that it will "break the internet" isn't in fact a *technical* idea but an ideological notion, a certain geek philosophy. The premise isn't that the Internet will be physically and technically harmed or destroyed by closing or blocking sites. They're already closed or blocked all the time:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57331562-281/u.s-executes-another-round-of-web-site-takedowns/?tag=mncol;txt

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20081495-261/supporters-of-pro-ip-bill-say-rogue-sites-can-kill/?tag=txt;title

(and in fact nothing "went away" as you claim).

No, it's about the notion that "Internet philosophy says you can't deny links" - but that's bullshit. Of course you can. Geeks themselves do it all the time when they IP_block people they don't like politically or block malware sites that they agree are bad -- it's merely they don't agree that pirating is wrong so they concoct this "breaks the Internet" crap.

There isn't any "totalitarian control," that's absurd. The same standards of warrants, probable cause, and being able to mount a case on the merits all still apply. It's only in the geek mind that things on the Internet execute with machine-like precision without human intelligence.

Sorry, but uttering the phrase "deep packet inspection" doesn't paralyze me with fear. Server providers use DPI without geeks complaining when it's about things *they* want to control. It's practiced widely in a variety of settings for a variety of purposes already long since recognized as legitimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

Like copyleftism, it's only a minority cult of geeks who believe DPI shouldn't be used at all -- or not used for certain tasks -- for ideological, not valid technical reasons.

I don't have the loathing of corporations that you as a British socialist do, so I'm not troubled by corporations having firewalls and anti-intrusion devices and inspection. This idea that the Internet should only consist of socialist utopias that are "open" and can't be "closed" for the legitimate goals of lawful public property is one of those flaws of the Internet as conceived by Tim Berners-Lee et. al. that companies are still compensating for. They have to, and that's a good thing, to make the Internet viable and useful to human institutions in the real world, as distinct from the tekkie utopias.

Again, most big pirate sites are obvious. You don't need particular intelligence or deep packet inspection to see them.

[Micha Sass]

Prokofy,

paragraph #1 : I am not a socialist. Socialism as a pure concept died many years ago. I made no hate rant at all, nor did I make any claims which were anti-american or otherwise. I have no fear or loathing of America.

paragraph #2-4 : I was not saying any of this. The senators in support of the bill were lobbied. The bill may or may not be technically correct, however the Senators who support the bill are not qualified to say it is. The Senator is a acting on a request of a lobbyist. Many of the technical arrangements (DNS blocking, email scanning and censorship etc.) are being pioneered in Communist China and Iran by multinational companies such as Siemens and Nokia.

I think its you Prokofy who has a fear and loathing of Capitalism not the 'Geeks'. The US is heading towards a blend of totalitarianism and capitalism. A sort of 'we are watching you' type of capitalism. The burden of the monitoring will fall on the businesses that operate user-content services on the web (e.g. Facebook, Second Life), if the businesses cannot afford to filter their service then the business will have to take chances or cease to exist.

Your two examples were based on real life products (Fake pharmaceuticals and clothing). I feel sorry for the family who lost a member to poisonous prescription drugs. You must surely ask why people are turning to shady websites to buy their meds, rather than ONLY shutting the fake med sites. In the UK we have a fixed price for prescriptions, some complain it is too high (and for some generic meds such as paracetamol it is) but we do not have the consumption of non-approved meds that is obviously present in the US.

Fake clothes are bad, they often use animal products that would be unheard of in the clothing industry (e.g. Dog and wild animal furs for shoe trimmings). Closing the retail websites is only one part of this battle.

Both stories are from the angle of real tangible goods, as opposed to little Johnny uploading a Iron Maiden backing track to his latest Call of Duty machinima, which is the beef of the RIAA.

China and Iran must be well pleased, the SOPA bill is going to give them an ally in the war on citizens. The bill needs to be reviewed and re-written. I am not against protecting IP, I am against government coercion.

[Micha Sass]

Cube, You seem pissed that silicone valley does not want to pay the people who make content. SOPA will not fix this. SOPA makes no attempt to normalise getting paid small amounts of cash for individual views of web content. SOPA does not offer any more protection to individual content creators than the DMCA already gave. SOPA is a very large club for the big media giants/pharmaceutical firms to wield on anyone who stands in their way.

Within a system such as Second Life, Linden Labs would have to make a viable filter to combat all piracy on their system. Maybe SOPA will kick their arse (ass?) into tightening up against piracy, maybe they will just shut down any user uploaded content (or switch to vetted content), maybe they will be forced to close...who knows.

[Alisha]

I have read it, and read around the subject a lot.  Here is a link to someone defending sopa's process. 

http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/11/the-facts-on-the-stop-online-piracy-act-due-process-for-all-stakeholders/

You'll note that the legal system does not get involved until the sites payment system or ad network dispute the claim.  Only, if a claim is disputed then due process clicks in.  Also, unlike dmca, there is no pre-court way for a falsely accused infringer to dispute the claim. Only in court, long after the accused offender's site payment crippled. That sure looks like the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty" to me.

How often do you think Paypal will dispute things when riaa's lawyers call?  Counter to that, how do you think paypal will react when little ol me calls? (my removal of due process and hand power to the corps argument)

Our congress of baboons seems to be running with it, though. I can only hope it is amended into something better than dmca.  Because in its current form it is far too vaguely and broadly writen, and will add a whole new level of scariness to doing business on the web. Especially for companies like LL or YouTube that rely on user content. 

Stanford's opinion. 
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6764

[Prokofy Neva]

Yes, you're a socialist. One of the chief features of many of today's socialists is that they refuse to admit that their collectivist, statist, anti-capitalist views *are* socialism -- they prefer to cloak their views in terms like "progressivism" or even "liberalism" -- because they think they can make them bullet-proof that way, and think they can make their critics look like "McCarthyites". It's total bullshit.

Your fear and loathing of American Hollywood and record companies and associations like MPAA are all showing.

You act as if there is something illegal or indecent about lobbying. There isn't. It's part of the American democratic system. Again -- that Britishy lefty cultural hatred showing so obviously. The left lobbies too -- Google has spent a huge amount on this. Duh. Of course Senators are qualified to govern. They're not experts on many things, but they have consultants, staff, and government agencies to assist them. The idea that only experts are qualified to govern is ridiculous.

Go and read Wikipedia, if you don't like hearing it from me, it's filled with your sort of geeks and lefties. DNS blocking wasn't "pioneered" by China, don't be *fucking ridiculous*. It's pioneered by US based companies -- read Wikipedia. Every time I hear this crazy frothing nonsense from the nerd brigade about "OMGODZORZ the US is becoming like China," I can only say: China has handcuffs and jails and police batons and pepper spray. If the US police these same implements in crime control, does it mean they are "like" China? Of course not. Whatever few cases of excessive use of pepper spray you might find, whatever police brutality cases, they pale compared to a country like China. More importantly, we're in a context with REMEDIES. The free media and independent judiciary count for A LOT. That's the matrix in which piracy is pursued with technology.

The same geeks who insist that software is neutral and can never take on any sort of "political profile" -- and use that argument when they want software to swing *their* way suddenly become zealously religious about the supposed autonomous power of software to do evil and oppressive things all by itself, regardless of who wields it. I'm the first to point out that geeks bake their ideology into software in ways that harms us all and violates are freedoms. But it's a balance, like many things, and government is needed to exercise governance over pirates, who also in the end harm are freedoms and kill content and the ability of people to make livelihoods. I'm not binary or absolutist on this as geeks are.

The US is not "heading toward a blend of totalitarianism and capitalism" -- again, you get these idiotic hysteric scenarios out of your British socialist ass. What part of WARRANT do you not understand??? I also find it hilarious that when the capitalist Facebook and Twitter are watching you and scraping your data, you have nothing to say. Doesn't bother you. Suddenly, the government steps in to police piracy, and OMGODZORZ it's a Panopticon.

Undue economic burden is one of the defenses under the law. You seem to imagine that this law self-executes like code, which is a weapon. It executes in the hands of law-officers and government officials as well as companies.

Google had to be sued and pay a fine to get it to stop publishing links to illegal drug sites, so insatiable is its appetite for ad clicking. People turn to shady meds sites not only because drugs are expensive, but to get illegal drugs.

The RIAA isn't fighting little Johnny uploading Iron Maiden to his Call of Duty machinima -- btw both of which are likely to be pirated. It's the sites that make those things easily available to little Johny.

SOPA is a war on pirates and piracy. The hysterical transformation of this into "a war on citizens" is just Silicon Valley agitprop because their lazy and vicious model is challenged and they will have to stop enabling piracy. Good!

And again, we have one of these lazy and duplicitous arguments "the bill has to be rewritten" and "i'm not against piracy, I'm against government coercion."

Um, are you against government coercion against piracy? Because only government coercion against criminals stops them. It's not like you can appeal to their conscience. That's what civilization is all about. The government protecting people from each other. Those claiming they support IP protection but talk vaguely about rewriting the bill are talking out of their asses. The considerations that people have about overreach have already been dealt with in this bill. They don't want to rewrite it; they want to kill it. If it was *really* about rewriting, we'd see drafts with rewriting all over the place. We don't.