If the SOPA/PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act/Protect IP Act) legislation were to pass in the US, sites like Charlton Life could be censored and penalised in the name of protecting copyright.
This is not about piracy, or copyright, it's about control.
This is not something that will only affect those in the US. It will change the nature of the internet entirely.
Sites you use everyday will be blocked by DNS, simply if they feature "uncertain" content. Who decides?
This is not unlike the censorship currently existing in China.
Forums will be untenable, because site admin cannot possibly guarantee all content posted to be un-disputed and not foul of the law.
The web economy will break as "linking" will be a potentially unlawful act.
This is mental!
You can read more about it all
here. Or just Google it, whilst you can!
On the 18th January, many of the world's sites will be "blacked out" in protest of these bills.
Comments
This is an election year. The Obama administration are never going to let this bill run on their watch, it would be an unprecedented disaster. They'll veto it, even if it makes it that far. In fact they've already pretty much said as much.
So relax and enjoy the show.
On another note - The day that I watch mtv cribs and see that a successful recording artist or movie star is just about eeking out a lower-middle class existence rather than sporting 5 cars and an indoor basketball court is the day that I'll stop pirating.
Which I think is a liberty!
Where's the freedom of choice in that
The piracy thing really gets me - it's always been there - I used to record my favorite tunes from the radio using a compact cassette! So only the technology has changed. And I really don't think the chinese guy who sells dodgy DVDs locally is part of a drug cartel.
Films and music I really want I pay for, but I object to paying more than once - if I've got it on vinyl I own it - I've paid the artist for his work, so if I get a moody MP3 copy I don't feel an obligation to pay him/her/them again.
Our last album was released in September and with a release there are promo copies sent out a few weeks or whatever before the release date, they're sent to journalists, the relevant magazines and radio stations etc and it's always 'close your eyes and prey time' that it doesn't get leaked onto the Internet, well all seemed good- until the DAY BEFORE the release date, when it was leaked on a Russian download site- it was downloaded nearly 2000 times in that one day!
Free downloads have a big impact on our income- we don't really consider record sales because of it, ours comes from playing live and sales of records and t-shirts at the shows, actual physical products that you can touch and hold!
The biggest mistake the music industry ever made was going to cd- therefore enabling people to upload material (though I doubt they foresaw this at the time?).
How many more copies would we sell if there was no downloading?
Could probably take that magnet off the meter...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087574/Richard-ODwyer-extradition-A-naive-British-student-facing-10-years-chains.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Part of the "incentive" has been to allow "subversive" blogs which make the internet attractive to use and thus reel people in for the real agenda of greater government control.
The blogs, especially anti EU and Islamic ones, have developed a will of their own though and are now becoming a nuisance as they encourage people to question their oppression.
Internet censorship is therefore coming and the likes of Obama want it as much as anybody. It is the so- called right, i.e libertarians, who will put up resistance if anybody does not the authoritarian left to whom free speech is anathema.
Of those 2000 people who downloaded your album, studies have shown that only 6% or less would have actually paid for it if the option of downloading it for free were not available. Take a look at your mp3 collection and tell me that you would've bought every one of those albums. I know I wouldn't. I'd probably only have about five.
Also, the free distribution of your album will only ever lead to you playing bigger audiences at your live shows. And if live music becomes the main earner for bands and recording artists from now on, I only see that as a good thing.
Two of my friends are in a band called Codes In The Clouds. They're pretty well respected and tour Europe every year to decent crowds. Then they come back and work in HMV and Asda... If you're struggling to eek out a lower working class existence based on music, I'd get a proper job as well.
Agree about working, the other guys do work too, I don't myself as I have 2 little uns to bring up, but hey this is what I've chosen and what I do- it's the only thing I'm any good at (quite a good dad I hope).
The bottom line is it's our music and we'd rather have the decision on who gets it for nothing. But that won't happen.
Or a more ridiculous statement: if someone planned to steal your car for a joy ride would you think it sensible to allow him to 'hire' it for a monthly subscription of £5?
I know that the piracy is going to be almost impossible to stop, but I don't think that the solution to breaking the law is to change the law so that all the crimes become legal.
"So if we discovered that thousands of fans were jumping over the wall to watch Charlton for free would you be advocating selling free entry to all games for a monthly subscription of £5?"
The comparison should be whether or not the person hiring the ladder to the jumper should be fined. To attack someone who innocently facilitates the wall-jumpers does not seem the right thing to do.
These web sites have known that they were implicit in breaking the copyright laws but they always seemed to be able to find a loophole to get away with it. The solution is, sadly, to have a law that is so fierce that there is no way these individuals can carry on facilitating piracy. I mean, the leading web site is called The Pirate Bay for heaven's sake. If that isn't putting two fingers up to the authorities then I don't know what is.
My point was that if we are going to allow people to help themselves to audio and video for free then we will have to accept that some will want to watch football for free also. They are very similar products, in that once the football match is put on there is little extra cost in having a few more watching. At the margin there is no more cost! An even better comparison would be if CAFC Player was available (illegally) for free and suddenly all the subscriptions stopped. Very soon there would be no content on there as there would be no revenue to be made for providing it.
http://americancensorship.org/#petition-state-department