What's the porn industry's stance on SOPA?

[Qua]

What's the porn industry's stance on SOPA?

They've been ruined by filesharing, way worse than music, and they usually determine new media standards.

Thoughts? Other threads?...don't post here anymore lol.

 

[dandelion]

My thought is its time to accept that copyright restrictions are way too tough. Copyright exists to benefit society, but does it?

 

[SilverTrain]

My thought is its time to accept that copyright restrictions are way too tough. Copyright exists to benefit society, but does it?

So many queries in this same vein. :frown1:

 

[houtx48]

The companies need to find a way to exploit their products instead of restrict them. Thinking they are closing the barn door after all the cows have escaped.

 

[b.c.]

Bullshit legislation like SOPA has much broader ramifications than the porn industry, though it's highly likely that they (along with its mainstream counterpart) would be very much in favor of the proposed law, because the bill would undoubtedly mean more bucks in their pockets for porn we're now viewing for free. (Or maybe NOT. Maybe many of us will just stick to the free, un-copyrighted, amateur stuff that is usually way better than the pro shit anyway).

It's not altogether clear, however, just to what extent this piece of crap would result in shutting down vast parts of our known internet galaxy, nor how many web hosting providers and other related companies would defect wholesale to other countries, just to escape the confines of the law, if that's even possible.

Nor have I failed to note how the authors of "geStOPA" would hail from a certain political party that claims to be against all this "governmental interference", to no great surprise.


Lawmakers propose bullshit like this as long as they think they can do so with impunity, and given this piece of legislation and other such actions that place the wants of special interests: the wealthy, and the powerful, above those of John Q. Public, they clearly believe they can do just about whatever the fuck they want, damn us all.

We, the people, when motivated enough have the power to effect change and stop bullshit in its tracks. We did so with the Netflix debacle, and we (through our quite vocal dissent) prevented the AT&T takeover of T-Mobile. Customers have the power to halt BofA's plans to charge 5 bucks for debit card use, if they pulled their all their savings from the banks, and if not, they must like getting reamed up their bums...their choice I guess.

We'll see how it all plays out.

 

[dandelion]

copyright has got out of control. Drugs get a licence for maybe 20 years for their inventors to exploit, but authors get perhaps 150 years, depending on how long they live. What this really does is keep old stuff locked away which isnt making any money for anyone, but prevents us from using it and allows new people to come along and recreate exactly the same thing. Sure, you can remake an old story into a new film and people will watch it and buy it because it is new, but why cant we have the old film too? Old films were once written off as worthless by their creators because they were old. Now the internet and technology have provided a cheap way to distribute them, and suddenly their owners are interested in claiming copyright forever. No, that wasnt the deal. Copyright is granted to allow inventors to make a fair return, not to have a monopoly.

All the time there is a perceived unfairness people will not support paying copyright fees. Time we moved to the shareware model.

 

[houtx48]

Copy right holders should just their stuff private, let nobody see it. That way there would be no worries.

 

[travis1985]

copyright has got out of control. Drugs get a licence for maybe 20 years for their inventors to exploit, but authors get perhaps 150 years, depending on how long they live. What this really does is keep old stuff locked away which isnt making any money for anyone, but prevents us from using it and allows new people to come along and recreate exactly the same thing. Sure, you can remake an old story into a new film and people will watch it and buy it because it is new, but why cant we have the old film too? Old films were once written off as worthless by their creators because they were old. Now the internet and technology have provided a cheap way to distribute them, and suddenly their owners are interested in claiming copyright forever. No, that wasnt the deal. Copyright is granted to allow inventors to make a fair return, not to have a monopoly.
All the time there is a perceived unfairness people will not support paying copyright fees. Time we moved to the shareware model.

As someone who has created and receives royalties from intellectual property, I disagree. Intellectual property, whether writing, film, visual art, etc., is the fruit of your labor. I can't imagine why a creator and his heirs wouldn't be entitled to benefit from it. I think the standard procedure of works lapsing into public domain after a relatively short time is more than reasonable for avoiding a "dog in the manger" situation, maybe even a little TOO generous. And I don't see why a monopoly should be prevented. Since you can only copyright expressions of ideas and not the ideas themselves, all it does is protect the creator's precise work; it doesn't prevent others from doing similar work. Sure, it doesn't let anyone copy another's work outright, but why should someone not responsible for its creation be allowed to directly cash in?

 

[dandelion]

I think the standard procedure of works lapsing into public domain after a relatively short time is more than reasonable for avoiding a "dog in the manger" situation, maybe even a little TOO generous.

Im not sure I understand? you reckon 150 years of copyright protection is a short time?

And I don't see why a monopoly should be prevented. Since you can only copyright expressions of ideas and not the ideas themselves, all it does is protect the creator's precise work; it doesn't prevent others from doing similar work. Sure, it doesn't let anyone copy another's work outright, but why should someone not responsible for its creation be allowed to directly cash in?

In this age of computer technology no one individual is cashing in. Instead what has happened is that private individuals are simply sharing material between themselves. This has cut out the middlemen who used to make physical copies and charge for them. These are the people bellyaching and trying to enforce copyrights, not the artists who created the work. I'd be willing to compromise and say no one is allowed to sell the material concerned. The fundamental rationale behind copyright is that it benefits the majority, who want a copy of the thing, because allowing the creator to profit from it encourages him to make it.

Time was, i create a song, it catches on and people just sing it. Now I can charge them if they want to sing it. Stop them singing it unless they do. Is society better for this? Up to a point, yes, if income from the song encourages good songwriters. But as things stand the period of copyright is just being extended and extended to no benefit to the general public. 150 years of copyright is too long. How long does a drug company get as a patent on a new drug. 20 years? Why? because we reckon thats enough time for them to make a fair quantity of money. After that, we can all make copies for ourselves because then we all benefit.

 

[dandelion]

I see wikipedia is going on strike for 24 hours as a protest against SOPA. It would seem the bill seeks to transfer the responsibility for enforcing copyright away from the individual towards internet service providers. Like making the postman responsible because he delivered a fake book. It allows draconian punishments closing down an entire website and depriving it of all income because of some infringement the owners may not even be aware of. Someone from the US was on the radio today explaining that there is fair redress, and anyone can apply to a federal court to have an injunction lifted. Fine. As a UK website owner I can hire an international lawyer who will charge more than I own to fight this in the US on my behalf. Really doesnt matter if I am completely vindicated, because I have means of objecting. I can be punished before I am tried.

 

[b.c.]

As I said. Bullshit legislation. Brought to you by the Grand Old Pissers. The meddling fucks.

 

[marriedasian]

with respect to everyone's comments for and against it; if this passes, what else will come after? to answer the OP's question and stay on topic, what's to stop the government from shutting down all porn sites? then gambling? then any site they deem as offensive... then blogs sites, personal sites, etc... and so on...

maybe a bunch of people will band together and create a new internet. all brand new root servers with brand new IPs and such, all underground stuff, haha. IPv9 here we come!