"As in all things, some compromise must be possible."
I've believed for quite some time that SOPA itself was never really seriously thought to be passable by anyone. Rather just an extreme first salvo to make the next set of oppressive measures seem like a reasonable compromise in comparison.
I think the only right way to do it is in reverse... start with a list of idealized demands from a citizen/consumer point of view, then let industry push back on the really egregious items until an actual compromise has been reached.
Shame the law will probably have passed by the time they make a new season.
Allegedly from the South Park Studios FAQ: (http://www.idealog.us/2006/10/matt_and_trey_w.html):
> Matt and Trey do not mind when fans download their episodes off the Internet; they feel that it’s good when people watch the show no matter how they do it.
Source(s):
They would probably have some point like "these laws are bad , but if you don't want people trying to pass them then you should stop pirating stuff"
Too bad it sounds like there's no actual proof that he's talking about SOPA/PIPA, although it would be pretty hard to argue otherwise. If true would Gore be the most notable politician to come out against these acts? (As much as some of us might wish otherwise, it's not all that notable for Ron Paul to come out against it.)
http://sopaopera.org/P000197/ (entire list at http://sopaopera.org)
I'd also argue that Sen. Rand Paul is more prominent than Ron Paul because he's a Senator...at least in terms of real influence. He's 1 out of 100 votes; a filibuster of the Senate variant of SOPA needs 40 votes.
Point being I think many artist are open(ish) about sharing music (for example). It does seem things like SOPA come from far larger groups like the RIAA.
Is SOPA really a war between creative people and analytical people?
Why should anyone support that regardless of what sort of pretext is used to justify such an abuse of power? Should we round up all single adult males over the age of 40 out of a fear of pedophilia in order to "protect the children"?
There are numerous examples of "creative people" making good money out of their work on the internet, without worrying about piracy too much.
Without SOPA: Let's pretend that there is an innovative site that is going to be made in a few years that allows people to submit things to it and sell. This site gives some creative person a chance to make a full living. (this is actually happening now in many places)
With SOPA: Two options: Site either does not get created at all because of fear of creating sites that might cross SOPA at some point or this site gets taken fully off the internet because some other user on it posted some sort of infringing material for an indefinite period of time. in either case the creative person is out of luck with respect to making a living from their creative work.
But I am not sure enforcement measures against piracy would actually help "creative people" much if at all. Cory Doctorow is a prime example who makes his work freely available but makes his living through his creative work. Perfect enforcement of copyright wouldn't have virtually no impact on his situation.
Obviously, that is just one anecdote. But we can see every single person making their living off of creative work as a counter-example right now as a counter-point since Piracy is currently rampant and while there is enforcement it is minimal compared to the emount of piracy that happens.
Plus there's a certain amount of inevitable piracy. But mostly it's the bought-out politicians who are just trying/lying too hard.
Eliminating our civil liberties will not strengthen copyright enforcement. Nor is strengthening protections of intellectual property a sufficient excuse for such.
