★ Should we shut down OccupyWallSt.org on the 18th to protest SOPA?
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 14, 2012, 6:31 p.m. EST by jart (1186) from New York, NY
Can I get a temperature check? Could you guys live without your favorite forum for a day? <3
Basically what this means is that the website would be replaced with a statement speaking out against SOPA.
Yes. Anything to get the issue in front of the public. Even those that don't use the internet.
How would shutting this site get the issue in front of the public, especially to those who don't use the Internet? Do you think the New-York Times will report that occupywallst.org was shut down for a day in protest against SOPA?
Not only that but shutting down the site is exactly what SOPA stands to do. It would actally show support of the bill by doing what SOPA intends to do to the internet. Are people really ths stupid?
Why should we be silent, shut down, go on black out, to protest Internet free speech? If anything, this site should stay up and running as advocates of free Internet speech. If this is what we are fighting against, why should we be silent. This is not a business. This is a communication tool for a protest. The protest would speak more loudly by continuing our protest. Not shutting down. That would be entirely counter-productive.
Instead of shutting down this site, they should create ten others like it.
Indeed.
no,but i will report it
Fair enough. What is the demographic of your audience and how do you reach them? Just curious.
You first.
My demographic? Hmmm... The few users on this site.
Yes. I could use a break from the trolls. LOL!
Let's go dark! A lot of websites are planning this action. It wouldn't feel right if we didn't join them in solidarity.
Why are you in favor of this? This seems counter-productive to me. This is not a business. This is a communication tool for a protest. Why should we stop communicating over the Internet to protest freedom of speech. If anything, we should be communicating more, not less, not going on blackout. This does not make sense to me.
I gave my reason for supporting this action in my original comment. Can you not read?
Yes, I can read. It doesn't "feel" right? So "feeling" right is more important? To stand in solidarity with other sites that are going on blackout? Those sites are not communication sites affiliated with a protest. It think thats a big difference. I'm just trying to understand. We're not a business and we don't provide a service except to ourselves - protesters. This is a communication tool which promotes free speech. So we'd be initiating a direct action against ourselves.
A hunger strike is a direct action against one's self. That does not render it meaningless. Jart asked for a temperature check, I let Jart know how I feel. I'm hot on the subject, and you are apparently cold. Go put on a sweater.
ok I'm done. I'll put on a sweater. I'm also going to have a snack because I'm hungry. : )
You are entitled to your opinion and you had expressed it clearly the first time around. That's true.
However, let me just say that your comparison to a hunger strike is dubious. Shutting down this site to protest the danger that SOPA might censor the Internet and shut down this site would be like going on a hunger strike to protest against a legislation that might one day force you to go on a hunger strike. It's quite ironic really. I mean, would you protest animal brutality by being brutal to animals? WTF?
Perhaps we should repetitively copy and paste - NO SOPA - for 24 hours straight on the forum in protest, or better yet, just let Jart do it for us.
I like that idea better than shutting down.
Then you're still cold. Did you put on that sweater?
That's an interesting idea, but self-spamming ourselves is also a form of self-censorship. If you really want, I could use a bot to auto-post NO SOPA every few minutes. It will just make the forum really dirty though and we'll see it in searches for months to come.
I think the best way to protest would have been to use this as an occasion to launch another forum or website aimed at communicating ideas through the use of free speech.
In response to the many sites who want to protest SOPA by shutting down, I reply using this saying:
Talk more, not less
Actions speak louder than words.
It's self-explanatory.
Don't do unto yourself what you don't want others to do unto you.
It's self-explanatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
That is not the golden rule. That is your misinterpretation of the rule.
There are various forms of the rule. This is a lesser known one. The more common being:
Don't do unto others what you don't want others do to unto you.
The Golden Rule is simply about Reciprocity. Their have been many phrases to represent this concept throughout time and cultures.
I actually think its "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". Anyway....
The variation most known today is the one found in the Bible. However, this expression was also used in many other forms before and after the Bible was written.
It's often referred to as the Golden Rule, which has two main forms amongst many others.
There's a whole bunch of different forms listed in the Wikipedia entry if that interests you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
The variation I used in this thread is close to the one from Sexus the Pythagorean.
What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either.
Thanks. I don't put much stock in the bible. People get to caught up in the messenger and tend to forget about the message. If the bible thumping christians would do some research they would find the story of Christ is just a more recent variation of other older religious stories. Too much fighting goes on in the name of religion and the message gets lost. Its very simple, as we have been discussing here. "Do unto others".
I thought the golden rule was he that has the gold, makes the rules
If you have to reach for obscure, lesser known rules to support your point, I would have to say your grasping.
Ran out of replies. This will be my last comment in this thread. It doesn't matter anyhow, I don't have control over what jart wants to do.
The KISS and DRY principles are important, but, again, you use a flawed analogy.
By shutting down this site which promotes free speech through discussions to protest against Internet censorship, it would be like an overweight person protesting their weight by eating more, not less.
If you want to be inline with your overweight analogy, we should do the opposite. We should use this day to create a new site to promote free speech, not shut down an existing one.
I don't think I'm grasping. I think it's fairly obvious. You don't protest animal brutality by being brutal to animals. You don't protest online censorship by self-censoring yourself. Etc...
It may be obvious to you, but I think it is an over-complication of a simple idea.
Reddit stands to lose money by shutting down. It is against their short-term interest to do this, but they feel it will send a powerful message and this will better serve their long term interest.
Much the way an overweight person might approach the idea of going on a diet. The overweight person would protest their weight by starving themselves in the short term in order to accomplish the long term goal of being thinner and healthier.
I arrived at that by using the KISS rule.
If you want to do something like that, may I recommend sending it in email form to all 635 legislators in DC?
And do so using as many different, and unique, email addresses as possible?
Be my guest.
LoL!
I might need a whole new email address - after spamming Congress with this
I wouldn't worry to much. They are a do nothing Congress and in all likelihood that includes reading email.
LoL!
I'm sure that's true - but the spam filters are all automated - which most likely means that no matter how accurate or inciteful the email, the url is still probably blocked by now . . .
The only thing they hear is money.
You're going nuts! Copy pasting comments like ModestCapitalist!
lol. It was not an exact copy. I changed a few words. : )
Now I know how Modest feels. I am kind of in a hurry. And this thing is making me a little crazy. You could help you know! Instead of just making fun of me!!!
Yes, solidarity!!!
Yes, I'm in favor.
Why are you in favor of this? This seems counter-productive. Why should we stop communicating over the Internet as part of a protest to make a statement about freedom of Internet speech. I think we should protest against this by continuing to protest against this. Not shutting down our communication tool.
You have a good point. I was in favor simply because I see little else we could do, under such short notice, to make a statement
We could put a notice on the site's home page and ask every user who visits to send an email to the government to complain about SOPA.
I think thats a great idea! Of course, I'm not a professional revolutionary... but maybe if we all did it, sent 10 or 30 emails even, we could like back up their email systems for days. And that sounds more professional revolutionary doesn't it? : )
why not?
Because we'd be shutting down our freedom of internet speech to protest against freedom of internet speech. This seems counter-productive. We should be speaking out more, not less, not shutting down. The sites that are shutting down are not communication tools for a protest. I think this is a big difference.
sounds good.
If you shut this down, even for a day, you'll have something like seven people who won't have anything to do for the day. Not to mention those of us here for the laughs! So, like fifteen maybe.
lol. But per jart below, its actually 40k hits on an average day. : )
Jart....Shut it Down!!!
Do it! - Just for one day though :)
Thanx for askin'
you guys know SOPA got shut down by guess who? eric cantor. a big scary republican that you guys keep talking about.
Read the White House position statement on SOPA:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog
The Obama administration came out against one of the most offensive aspects of this proposed law, but it's due process wording is a little obscure. Nevertheless, SOPA is in trouble (but we can't be complacent--plenty of shit bags in congress are still trying to dilute internet freedom).
yeah shut this thing down
Somebody should plant dDos attack on those companies MPAA (represents The Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers) RIAA (represents EMI Music, Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group) 3M Adidas ASCAP Autodesk Bose Caterpillar Inc. Chanel Comcast Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. Dolby Laboratories Ford Motor Company Harley Davidson Independent Film & Television Alliance® (IFTA®) kate spade Lacoste Liz Claiborne Macmillan MLB Monster Cable Morningstar, Inc. NAB National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) NBA NCAA Netflix Pfizer Philip Morris Time Warner UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) US Chamber of Commerce Revlon Rolex Viacom Wal-Mart Xerox
They are Anonymous. They are Legion.
http://anonnews.org/?p=press&
Yesterday (Saturday), the White House came out w a statement that it would not support SOPA or PIPA. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/white-house-sopa-pipa_n_1206347.html
But Obama didn't promise to veto the bill, so it might just be a political gesture.
He promised to veto NDAA...and look where THAT got us.
You won't get any argument from me on that. Guess I should have said 'For what it's worth...'
Yes. Maybe include a message that says
This is what could happen if SOPA is voted into law.
I'm not sure how I feel about SOPA yet. I see some valid arguments for and against. It obviously needs some work.
As far as shutting down this site, I think we would be the only one's that notice. : ) So I'm not sure I see the point.
This is a pretty high traffic website.
Mainly, by a regular bunch of users, I'm guessing. So, we'd be civilly resisting ourselves, to make ourselves aware of, something we're already aware of?
This website gets from anywhere between 40,000 to 500,000 visits a day. 2/3 of them are new visits.
Bless their hearts.
That's interesting. That's a huge variation. Without knowing the time frame, I'm not sure how to interpret it. I mean, at one point in time, 100% were new visits.
How about the number of new visits for an average week, say, last week for example. A time period that is more recent would be more relevant.
We typically get big traffic spikes when big events happen, like the eviction or the N17 day of action. N17 was our biggest day.
I still feel like this is enacting resistance against ourselves. We might be able to make a statement by suggesting "Don't use any e-commerce sites" for a day, something like that, to help raise awareness.
Rather than shutting down this site, I think it would be more productive to be researching and discussing the issues and merits of SOPA here.
The statement is much more powerful if you completely shut down the site. And don't forget that scores of other high traffic websites are going to be doing this on the same day.
Right, that would be an anomaly. Is there any way you can get your hands on the stats for last week, which I think would be a good sample, to understand what the real impact might be.
I don't mean to put you on the spot with this. Obviously, I don't want you spending an inordinate amount of time on it, but it would be interesting to know.
Honestly, I don't understand why any site would go on blackout. It seems counter-intuitive to me.
Yesterday we got 40k visits, so that's more what the impact will be.
Also, and I hate to be that annoying person who corrects people, but the N17 traffic was an outlier, not an anomaly.
You're right, outlier is a better word choice. : )
There's also lots of sites not going on strike. Perhaps because they see it as counter-productive.
Are you saying 2/3 of the 40k are new visits?
Yes, 2/3 are new visits.
So if you think this is counter-productive, I'm wondering if you also dislike labor strikes because they shut down businesses?
Not at all. I think well placed and well thought out strikes can be very effective. Labor strikes have brought about alot of positive change in our country.
But the OWS forum isn't a business. It wouldn't have any effect on any businesses. It's a communication tool for a protest/revolution. We wouldn't be shutting down anything except our own communication. That's counter-productive. I think its more productive, more important, that we keep communicating. We'd be blacking out a communication tool for a protest that is protesting inequality and unfairness (among other things). If SOPA is unfairly limiting speech through internet censorship, why should we quiet our internet speech? We should speak out more, not less, in opposition to it.
Extreme example - if the government produced legislation that would seek to limit free speech to the third Sunday of the month, I don't think people should fall silent in opposition to it. Instead, people should take to the streets and scream like crazy to protest against it.
Well crafted comment and very good points.
Instead of shutting down businesses with strikes, why doesn't OWS simply start creating businesses that use the anarcho-syndicalist model? If anarcho-syndicalist run businesses do well (and I see no reason why they shouldn't), then people will start to want to be part of those businesses and will stop applying for jobs in the traditional hierarchic businesses. This was done in banking where co-ops were created and many people stopped using big banks in favor of these banks which are collectively owned by their users. Caisse Desjardins is a very old co-op bank in Québec and has done very well.
If I led OWS, I would concentrate my efforts in building working examples of anarcho-syndicalist businesses instead of trying to shut down current businesses. It seems to me this would be so much more effective, especially since it would provide a robust example for change and an real alternative to the current businesses. You can strike against a company like Apple in an effort to shut them down, but if you don't offer a practical solution to replace them, I don't think people will just stop buying their computers.
OWS should start by creating an anarcho-syndicalist news agency. Everyone from editors to janitors would own this business. You could create a newspaper for the people. This would help you to propagate unrestricted news as well as show the world what an anarcho-syndicalist company looks like and how well it can function.
I guess that as an artist I always favor building instead of destroying. In the end, something that's better built ends up destroying the poorer older alternative anyhow. Einstein destroyed Newton by providing a better theory, not just by attacking Newton without a practical replacement.
OMG. You suggest creating businesses using a different model.
Alternate employment. Example included. Self employment.
Einstein to boot!
I replied to this comment due to your attention to a real need. Bravo to your proposing a theoretically different way to help solve the economic crisis.
The internet allows many to work at home like you. This is a radical change to jobs known before the internet. A great improvement to the environment, and to personal freedoms.
You live outside US, and bypass some of its jurisdiction. Cool.
Elsewhere you admitted your ignorance of the complicated SOPA. (who isn't) This entertains the fact that few are able to police bills that are constantly introduced in congress, and demonstrates the fallacious concept that direct democracy would improve upon the current representative government.
The posts are few that offer insights to solving problems, and they are being overlooked, in favor of lesser important gripes.
BTW: SOPA? What would Disney do?
You know, that has crossed my mind, too. I was pondering how the workers could take over existing businesses (fairly) and came to the conclusion that new start ups could/should be done with this model. I know I've heard of employees buying out struggling businesses, and really, Credit Unions are a variation of that theme.
But i struggle with a turnover of the Ge's and Exxon's of the world. Also struggle with the concept that if started a new business and put 100+ hrs/wk into it for a year and then hired some help and all of a sudden my ownership is diluted by these new employees,
It's the best way to go about changing the face of economics in America. It's not a pipe dream and would have real repercussions if anarcho-syndicalism works. It's a practical solution that can be implemented right now. I think it's much more productive than to try to strike against big companies which I think is absolutely useless unless you have a replacement on hand.
If such companies started popping up like mushrooms people would want to work for them instead of big companies who treat their employees like crap. Furthermore, if this truly is a wonderful model and can be shown to be effective in practice, then I'm quite certain other forms of structures like the government would start adopting them.
I live in Bali and I think that anarcho-syndicalist businesses are the future here. Because Indonesians were quite poor 50 years ago, they were not able to build nice hotels and restaurants. The government of Indonesia then decided that to promote tourism, the best way would be to let foreigners with big money come in and build these businesses. What has happened is that these foreigners take the bulk of the tourism income and the Balinese mostly get low paying jobs and have to fight for the leftovers.
Bali is a small island with only 3 million people. It's the perfect place to start implementing anarcho-syndicalist businesses. The Balinese could pool their efforts and money together to build restaurants and hotels that they would collectively own. If done right, the government of Indonesia could stop giving permission to foreigners to come in and invest and the Balinese could truly benefit from tourism.
The point is, you don't need to overthrow the current government or current businesses to start implementing the OWS dream. You just have to start creating anarcho-syndicalist start ups and show that they work better than the current hierarchic models.
I have to say that you are the most sophisticated sophist I have encountered on this site yet. There isn't any topic you can't attack with a longwinded diatribe designed to at once confuse and bore the reader into submission. All of this, plus the fact you haven't been banned from this site, gives us a clear window into who you are and why you're here.
I don't understand the purpose of your reply. You accuse me of sophistry which is essentially the art of using logical fallacies instead of proper arguments, but, ironically, you do so by using logical fallacies. You accuse of being a sophist without saying why, and you say that I should be banned without saying why. This is the type of reply that I call sophistry, albeit very unsophisticated sophistry.
I use this forum to learn about OWS and for debating serious issues and problems that affect America and the rest of the world. I'm turned on by proper discussions using strong arguments and counter-arguments, and I'm turned off by empty logical fallacies like you posted above. If you believe I am using sophistry and that my above comments are weak and amount to nothing more than logical fallacies, then my hope is that you will counter them using proper argumentation to show where are my faults. This way, I might be able to learn something.
The arguments I posted above were crafted honestly and I believe in what I said. However, there very well might be logical fallacies in my comments. After all, we all make mistakes. Simply saying there are some doesn't help me improve my arguments, and it doesn't help readers deepen the debate. Thus, I feel that the type of reply you have provided is a dead end. It doesn't help in any way.
I suggest you use one of three options when you want to reply to one of my comments.
Seriously, replying with ad hominem is absolutely and utterly useless. Don't do it if you want to be taken seriously and if you care about the art of debating.
You realize we are WAAYYYYY off topic for this thread. It's a shame, as this should be a separate one.
Ya, sorry guys! I did go way off topic. I'll stop now. I'll be creating a separate posting with this idea later on tonight. I have a bit of work to do first.
jart, if you think those off topic comments should not be here, please delete them. I'll zip it now. Thanks.
I'd be ok with going without for a day
Better protest against ACTA. It is more evil.
I'd miss it, but I do understand.
Expand it to shut off your internet connection day.
It'd be like the 80s all over again, and I survived..................................barely...................:)
[Removed]
[Removed]
guys, dont forget about civil nonviolent protest. today i upload my first torrent to piratebay =)
Wow. I don't know if the world is ready for shutting this down. For those in doubt (and there are always a few) that's a little bit sarcastic there. Sarcastic means an ironical kind of taunt. Ironic means...
[Removed]
It's irrelevant. The internet will soon be obsolete. Wireless communication is about to become as ubiquitous as air.
lightradio article
Light Radio
The legislation you see being proposed means nothing. it's a last gasp attempt by very scared desperate people that know whats coming. none of the legislation made now will stick or be relevant at the end of this decade.
Last time I checked, data transit solutions won't replace hierarchical internet services like DNS, BGP, SSL, etc.
SSL? not sure encryption has a lot to do with it.
I was using SSL as an example of a internet service that's centrally controlled. It doesn't matter if you create a mesh network of wireless cubes and kill off all the ISPs... there'll still be 13 root dns servers, verisign will still control all the .com domains, certificate authorities will still control ssl. So long as you have those central points of failure, a repressive government can potentially find ways to control them.
ah. my point was that connectivity will become small enough an cheep enough that large corporations will no longer be needed. as long as you have a full duplex line, you can use tcp/ip. DNS servers are only a way to resolve names to an IP, I'm sure replacing DNS would't be hard.
if sopa passes, it will only speed along a path to individual participation in a move to build a people powered web.
Not like tomorrow or anything but that product started like 5 years ago. Cern is working on an internet replacement as well, more than i'll bother posting. It's not next week but it's within a few years. Besides that, SOPA will fail for the same reason similar laws over the past 20 years have failed. By the time they get something done on it, we'll be on a entirely new level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States
Well thats rather despondent of you
instead protest by using one of my banners!
not really. I like this forum. but i'm not concerned. we are in the "then they fight you" stage. The explosion of communication technology is a one way street, it would be anti-capitalist to do otherwise :)
May I ask, why are you against SOPA? Since when is SOPA about censoring the Internet instead of stopping online piracy? Did I miss something? Just curious.
FYI - I'm a musician and a portion of my earnings are generated through sales of copyrighted material. I don't really like it when people copy stuff illegally from the Internet. It makes it harder for people like myself to earn a living. I'm already poor enough as it is.
Because I believe having a free and open internet is more important than imaginary property rights. I don't think governments should have any control whatsoever over the internet.
As far as I know, SOPA gives judges in America the power to alter DNS records to take down entire websites / email servers. This is censorship and worse. It also undermines the security/robustness of internet services and gives the government bigger guns when they choose to pursue extra-legal tactics against political opponents.
SOPA is also designed to pressure websites into policing each each others content to avoid incurring legal liabilities, or being shut down themselves. Why pay law enforcement to be repressive when you can get the private sector to do it themselves? This creates a social environment of fear, censorship, and mistrust.
Blame capitalism you can't sell your music. We all hold many different passions in life, but our society only grants a prosperous life to those possessing passions which are profitable.
I think we already have a social environment of fear, censorship, and mistrust.
Shutting this forum down will just give the NSA / CIA / FBI / Homeland Security and police monitors, agent provocateurs and trolls a day off.
I use to be able to sell my music quite well before people started copying it. I don't blame capitalism at all for that. The problem has to do with everything being digitized and thus easy to copy if proper protection is not used.
Personally, I believe copyright laws are important for the protection of artists and software designers. And, I believe it's crucial we find ways to properly enforce those laws. That's becoming harder and harder in our digitized world. Unfortunately, I know some people who had to change professions because all the pirating of their works killed their revenue stream.
I haven't looked at SOPA in much detail. If it's improperly designed and censors the Internet instead of protecting copyrighted material, then there's obviously a problem. Most artists I know hate censorship just as much as they hate their works being stolen.
If that were true, open source software wouldn't exist. Writers, artists, and musicians would give up because there's no money in it. But they seem to all be getting along working without getting paid much.
If they were only making music for the money, then I'm glad they're no longer making music.
You can't "own" information, you cannot control information, you cannot steal information. I swear, the things selfish competitive men came up with.
Artists have a right to own their work, because they live in the same world as everyone else, and have to eat. If they are not allowed to do so, they will not create significant works of art. Art is not a hobby - not art that matters. The problem with the current system is that while the copyrights of corporations are enforced the copyrights of individual artists are not. I know what I'm talking about.
Oh my God! We agree on something! Cool!
Note: I would delete the last bit since it's a logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
Your view is extremely simplistic. All forms of content have their own problems and money can be made in various ways. I work for an open-source software company that makes money from supporting their software. It's hard for a writer to make money by supporting his books that are stolen from the Internet.
You would be surprised. Even the musicians who make the most experimental and interesting music need to eat. The musicians who have to stop making music because of this problem are not the superstars making pop music. I'm talking about modern composers who earn a very meager living. I knew a guy who used to write music scores for classical guitar. Very nice and interesting music. He was making about 8,000$ a year selling his scores before they were copied and people started downloading them for free on the Internet. The types of musicians I know, the ones I met while studying classical music at university don't make music for money. Hell, these are the least well paid musicians in the business. I'm talking about people doing modern music and jazz. They just want to have enough to eat, or else they do like myself and turn to side jobs like computer programming to make ends meet. That's sad because it results in a lot less interesting music. If I could earn just 10,000 dollars a year doing only music, I would stop programming tomorrow. Luckily, I live in Bali so I only have to program computers for two months in one year to pay for a year of living.
That was a weak and uncalled for argument. I have no idea why you bring men into this. Is that the opposite of being mysogonistic? Sorry, but I don't see the point in using such ad hominem.
I guess we can agree to disagree. If I spend 1 year writing a novel, I hope I can sell a few copies so that I can put food on the table. If everyone illegally copies the book I wrote, it just means I can't write another one. Maybe you have a nice heritage that makes it easy for you. Unfortunately, I need money if I want to survive.
The problem is that the product of an artist is often nothing but information that can be digitized. If an artists works all day to make this product he needs to get paid or else he won't be able to continue doing this. If you're a sculpture you make an object that can be sold. Perhaps we should all turn to sculpting and painting and give up making music and writing books.
If you're going to play the game, play it right. Open source support is a terrible business model. The real money is in a) forcing closed source businesses to buy a proprietary license, b) using your open source cred / visibility to upsell expensive services to businesses.
Looks like you read that before I made my ninja edit to change "come" to "came" to make it clearer I wasn't referring to you, but the white men who invented these sick psychopathic systems by which we're forced to live.
Since you mentioned it a second time, I have to point out that this argument is a false dilemma. People generally DO have some time to themselves after work, unless you have kids :P You could also say it's somewhat entitled to expect to maintain your standard of living working on nothing but music. Everyone has to work shitty jobs to survive, why should musicians deserve better? What about people who like to crochet? Should they be entitled to make a living off that too?
Musicians simply have to have to accept the fact that there's no longer a market for CDs. Consumer habits change, markets change. That's just how the system works and no draconian legislation that punishes consumers isn't going to change that. It didn't work with DRM, it didn't work with the DMCA, and it won't work with SOPA.
If you could just accept this rather than get frustrated, you'd be one step closer to finding a business model that works for selling your particular type of music in the 21st century. Or you could choose to understand it while refusing to accept it by helping us fight for a better society where people aren't forced to choose between their passions and survival.
I just have to ask - what happens in an alternate anarcho or egalitarian society when everyone has all of the knitted sweaters that they need. Does that passionate sweater knitter get to keep knitting away a mountain of sweaters? And get paid the same equal wage? Like forever??
It's not my company. I just work for them. As far as I know, they seem to be getting a pretty good income from selling support. They always pay me on time.
OK, I see where you're coming from. You think that everything humans do must have a clear money making function or else it should be abandoned. That everything should be susceptible to the law of the fittest in this capitalist world.
That's usually an argument that comes from the far right. Personally, I believe art is very important to society even if some types of art don't seem as useful as what a plumber might be doing. I believe in government grants for the arts. In Europe, modern music composers and writers get support from the government allowing them to live decent lives so that they can fully concentrate on their craft. I think this is good and that their art is important to society even if the amount of money it generates seems small. I don't think the worth of everything humans do in society should be judged by the amount of money that thing generates. In Canada, the government is currently cutting funding for the arts as it is modeling itself after George Bush. I find this rather sad. Guys like Norman McLaren were able to make their art in the past because of the Canadian Council for the Arts and NFB. You might think that few people have watched McLaren's animations and you would probably be right. However, they have been a major influence in the works of many animators and movie makers. And those who do see these works are touched in profound ways.
Asking artists to work after hours is essentially killing them. I know, Iv'e tried several times. To create deep art one needs a lot of time and energy. It's extremely hard to concentrate after a full days work. I used to do that but it didn't work. Having one job is hard enough, having two just means the one you're doing at night when you have a free hour here and there won't last very long.
That's why I moved to Bali. The American model didn't work for me and modern music composers were not respected because we don't make a type of music that sells very well. In Bali, everything is different. Communities get together and pay for the lively hood of their musicians and artists. Because of that, art is flourishing in Bali even if it is a capitalist system like American. I think this is great.
However, you'll note that I'm not even asking for a free ride. I'm simply asking that I get paid for the product that I do. A lady who does crotchet ends up with objects she can sell. If I write a book or music sheets and people can just steal those from the Internet, it means I no longer have a product I can sell.
Many people would agree with you, I don't. I believe art is extremely important to society and that we can't let artists die just because they can't easily generate money like plumbers. Most of the artists I know are already willing to suffer greatly for their craft. Some make as little as 10,000$ a year.
I haven't yet decided about SOPA. I need to read more about it. If it causes problems with censorship, then it definitely needs to be reviewed. However, for me it's clear that copyrights are important. If people are going to say that products like books and music that can be digitized should be copiable by anybody without pay, then I see two solutions to this problem:
Come on, now you're trolling me. I'm just telling you how things are, not how they ought to be.
I propose a much more radical solution: take care of the needs of everyone, so long as they're contributing their abilities back to society, regardless of what those abilities are. Like I said before, artists aren't the only people getting fucked by the current system so it doesn't make sense to pass reform to give them special treatment.
Things are as they are because copyright laws are not being enforced on the Internet. It wasn't like this before the advent of the Internet, and there's no reason why this situation cannot be changed to help the lively hood of people creating art that can be digitized.
I did not mean to troll you in any way. I simply don't agree with your position.
I'm not asking for artists to have a special position. You are. I'm asking that if a novelist spends a year writing his novel and wants that the people who wish to read it pay for it, he should be protected by copyright laws that are well enforced. He spent time creating a product just like your crochet lady. If people have to pay for her product, they should also have to pay for his. If people think the works of novelist should be copiable at will as if they were in the public domain, then the government should pay this novelist to write. In that case there is no problem, whatever the novelist writes is owned by everyone in the country.
You can't have it both ways. I don't think it's correct to steal hard work just because it has the possibility to be digitized.
When you have finished implementing your world where everyone gets paid the same for their contributions to society, then perhaps copyright laws won't be necessary. At the moment, I believe they are.
Hopefully, SOPA can be modified to protect copyright laws without censoring the Internet, or some other legislation that protects the copyrights of artists can be conceived.
I'm curious. Is it the position of OWS that all digitized content should be available for free even if the creators of said content would like to be paid for it? Is it a goal for OWS that the works of novelist be available for free when these novelist still have to pay the crochet lady for mittens?
I'm asking because I was starting to support OWS, but if it's Occupy's position that copyright laws not be enforced, I will sadly have to drop my support. This question is of primordial importance for me as it is a huge part of my lively hood and of my friends.
I truly believe a new better world needs to support its artists. Either by making sure they are paid for their hard work through copyright protection, or by paying them with the community's money so that their works are available for all to consume. At the moment, both systems already exist. The National Film Board of Canada pays film makers to make documentaries that are then owned by the people of Canada and can be downloaded for free, and copyrights are given to creators who finance their own work. I hope that if copyright protection is abandoned that artists won't be left to fight for themselves without pay and that the government will compensate by paying them to create publicly owned products.
Do you disagree with SOPA because you disagree that the digitized works of artists should be protected by copyright, or because you are afraid that SOPA will censor the Internet?
The users on this forum are so funny sometimes. I get down voted for asking questions in an attempt to further my knowledge of SOPA. WTF? I guess asking questions to better understand something has become a faux-pas. That's the first step in abandoning logic. When people can't ask questions, what's next? Conspiracy theories à la Icke flowering on each street corner because people go around like zombies accepting everything people feed them?
OK guys, hurry up and collapse my above questions to jart. God forbid someone tries to educate themselves by asking questions.
You may be a musician, but I'll assume you don't have a computer science background. First off I'd like to know are people really pirating your work? I mean, Justin Bieber's claim to fame was simply publishing his work on Youtube, for all to see, free of charge (and now the kid is a millionaire, many times over).
Piracy has always existed (and will always exist). There's already laws that enable music companies to sue web sites which enable piracy (note: sites like Napster were shut down using current law).
SOPA would chill free speech on the internet. Imagine, if you were filming a protest rally, and there was some billboard in the background with a company logo, or someone was playing music in the background. Would this be a copyright infringement or would it be fair use? Under copyright law it would most likely be considered fair use, but when you make sites like Google liable (in the way SOPA would), they'll probably censor anything that remotely smells like copyright infringement (even if it's fair use).
This is censorship, pure and simple. In fact a music company wouldn't even have to go to a judge and get an injunction, they could go to the justice department, which means speech could be censored without due process. This is beyond draconian, this is what nations like China and Iran do, not the United States.
Big music stars make most of their money with concerts and merchandise.
Your argument here is a logical fallacy. You're using a corner case example to argue against something that applies to all artists. What's this logical fallacy called again? Argument by exception?
I'm not about to judge SOPA on probabilities. I'm not really into dabbling with the hypothetical. I'd rather have a critical and serious analysis of SOPA.
Like I said to jart, I haven't looked into SOPA in great detail. Obviously, it's flawed if it becomes more about censorship than copyright protection. Perhaps something which better deals with copyright material without turning into censorship is needed.
I'll take a look at SOPA and decide for myself. Thanks for your input.
Why would you assume such a thing? Just curious.
Personally, I don't like to base my claims on assumptions. That's one of the reasons why I hate conspiracy theorists so much.
I would hardly define myself as a conspiracy theorist (anyone who knows me would be amused by that charge), but anyway, when so many computer professionals are telling us that SOPA would be censorship, I'm very surprised that you would support this WITHOUT EVEN READING IT?
For your information, I never said you were a conspiracy theorist. I simply asked why you assumed I was not a computer professional then I said that I don't like conspiracy theorists because they make so many assumptions.
When and where did I say that I supported SOPA?
I asked questions to better understand what it was. I also said I was going to read more about it before deciding for myself. I'm not American. I just heard baout SOPA very recently. Is it a crime to ask questions?
You might not be a conspiracy theorist, but boy do you ever make a lot of assumptions. For your information, I am a computer programmer. That's how I earn the bulk of my living. Strangely enough, many computer programmers I have worked with are also classical musicians.
It seems to me you that should work on your English comprehension skills. You misunderstood everything I said even though I wrote in a clear manner.
Hello, What's a a computer professional?
Why don't you ask francismjenkins? He used that expression, not me.
wait - I'm confused - are you a musician? a software engineer? or an English teacher? I think I've seen you claim all three . . . .
If you are gainfully employed, and married, how is it you find so much time to spend here?
oh
oh, right . . . .
Iv'e worked in all three fields at various times. Right now, I'm working about 20 hours a week as a computer programmer and spending the rest of my time doing music. I don't teach English for the time being. I work from home.
Sure.
You can shutdown if you want.
But I think the day would be better spent if a petition could be published and then circulated all day collecting signatures to present on the issue.
Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb
Internet petitions are an abomination. I loathe 'feel good' activism.
Its better than doing nothing.
It's worse than doing nothing, because it gives you the satisfaction of feeling like you're contributing when you're not. If you do nothing, you at least feel guilty that you're doing nothing.
First, off, it is simply inaccurate. Petitions are one effective tool. So are other actions, like call in and write in campaigns to one's congressmen and Senators. So is occupying.
It is the aggregate effect that is important, not a pissing contest about which one is better.
What's more, not everyone can join an occupation. But they can sign petitions. Sometimes, a petition and a rally dovetail, and people can participate in both. It is not an either/or proposition, and getting too high-handed morally does not attract supporters.
Ok yeah I can see it. My mistake
Yet they have been and can continue to be effective.
Please give me an example of a grassroots internet petitions causing political change in America.
A couple months ago, a MoveOn member named Robert Applebaum started up a petition for student loan forgiveness using a new website, SignOn.org. Robert's petition spread quickly.President Obama actually responded—not with a form letter, but with an actual change in policy that will lower student loan payments for over 1.6 million people.
In just two days, more than 175,000 people signed the Contract for the American Dream sponsored by Van Jones. Lots of media outlets have covered the Contract. That media coverage gets people talking, just like OWS does.
Yesterday, ReBuildtheDream launched an emergency petition to stop BB&T bank from shamefully evicting a community church in Atlanta. Bank executives now say they’ll come to the table and negotiate with Higher Ground Empowerment Center church.
That's three. There are more. OWS does not cause political change. It has caused (hurray!) the political dialogue to change. Petitions, especially when they gain traction and attract media attention, do the same. Neither OWS not internet petitions are in conflict with each other: they both have effects. I support OWS AND sign petitions. I see no need for them to be mutually exclusive. Indeed, they can potentially "double team" and gain strength, just as OWS being joined by Unions has done.
.
Now if only you moveon num nuts would go after NDAA and SOPA.
I think it shows great stupidity to insult people who are are your side. Way to gain support.
Really, what's wrong with you? Is your therapist aware of this behavior?
I don't think people should have their school debt whipped out the decided to go. Also moveon will never go after NDAA2012 their love Obama signed it.
Except they already have "gone after" NDAA, and have taken Obama to task on more issues than I can count.
You clearly have an addled brain. Get some rest.
i am talking about Moveon.org not OWS
So am I.
What's more, you just don't get it. Even if they didn't, it is a single issue, and there are other organizations that pursue a variety of causes. Regardless, they are OWS allies. On the whole they are useful for pushing a common agenda forward. No ally can be expected to cater to everything on a laundry list of another organization. Calling them "numb nuts" because you (falsely) believe they have not supported one of your specific issues is simply idiotic. OWS needs to GAIN supporters, not alienate them, and you, in your misinformed zealotry, are hurting that effort by insulting supporters. YOU, not Moveon or other activist sites, are the one hurting OWS.
I triangulated BannedForTruth's IP. He just escaped an institution for the mentally ill. I'm afraid your previous assumption was correct. His therapist is not aware of his recent behavior.
LOL!
(Or maybe I should be sad.)
I note that wiki is going black -
I think that is different. Wiki provides a service to millions of people. That is a great way to bring attention to the issue when those millions of people go to use Wiki and it doesn't work. This is a communication site for a protest. We should speak more loudly about freedom of speech in protest. Not be silent about it, not shut down.
I wasn't taking a position on whether this site should go dark for a day as well -
I would note that this site is in its infancy, and appears to be in decline, going dark for a day may adversely impact the forum further.
Indeed. I'm sad they decided to self-censor themselves in order to protest censorship. It's like beating animals to protest animal brutality. I guess it might work in an ironic way. I would have done the opposite. i would have create 10 new versions of Wikipedia and 10 new versions of this site. You want to censor our speech? Alright then, we'll just speak even louder!