Summations Only

There has been a lot of talk in the Internet lately surrounding legislation pending in the U.S. House and Senate (SOPA and PIPA, respectively). The reported goals of the pending legislation are to protect 'intellectual property' (research, writings, music, productions, etc.).What no one seems to want to ask, detractors of the legislation included, is whether 'intellectual property' is something that actually needs to be protected, or, indeed, something that even exists at all.Supposedly 'piracy' stifles creativity by reducing incentive for artists to create, but this is the same old worn-out argument used when arguing for reducing taxes on people already shitting dollars. I maintain that free access to art, entertainment, research, etc. plays an essential role in spreading and encouraging creativity, and is, furthermore, a fundamental human right.Not only do efforts like SOPA and PIPA need to die where they stand; but we need to take even further measures to cut profit-making out of the arts and entertainment aspects of our communities.People shouldn't have to pay for access to their own culture!Jon

Thread copied here from the SOPA/PIPA and 'Intellectual Property' thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I fully agree in that Freedom of Speech is fundamental to our culture and censorship protects nobody. If people cant make money on Social media sites, they need to get more creative rather than expecting Uncle Sam to protect their advertisement.

Freedom of Speech is really only a small part of it.The real issue is the use of government law in place of private distribution contracts.

are we protecting freedom of speech or commercial license, though?if a guy invents a new song and posts it on You Tube, are we protecting his commercial rights or are we protecting his freedom of expression?

OK, say I sing a song and post it on You Tube. How is that different from singing on a street corner? And were someone to record me on a street corner, would I have any claim against them?Or say someone took my picture...and I, being a movie star, commanded a sum for the privilege of looking at me. Can they take my picture in public, as the paparazzi do? and if so, how is You Tube or facebook any different than a public place?

One word: AvatarIllegally downloaded upwards of 5 million times, something like 5-13million. Also, made an obscene amount of money.Piracy doesn't hurt the "art" industry because the art industry is Miramax, Dreamworks, Sony Music, etc. Giant corporate entities that are rarely ever hurt.SOPA and PIPA are bullshit.- Oni

Just like when you could 'tape to tape' when cassettes came out (in the before times).'Oh noes! The music industry will die'. Never happened.

100% agreement. As I said on Facebook, the essential argument against SOPA/PIPA is that we need a free Internet more than we need copy protection for "Chipwrecked."I'm genuinely pissed that the impetus behind these efforts to restrain speech isn't politics or ideology, it's entertainment. For some reason, we place Hollywood's money ahead of speech in a way we never would for the "security of the state" or the feelings of the religious.But it seems like our voices were heard. As many as 25 Senators reversed their positions on PIPA Wednesday. People were literally shitting themselves because they couldn't access Wikipedia (and then shat themselves again because they realized they couldn't look up what to do when you shit yourself.) It was like an entire nation woke up after having one of those strokes that makes you forget the names of your kids and what street you live on.

I see the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation as welfare for failing industries. They are failing, because they have not adapted to modern digital technology.Whatever happened to that "conservative" ideal of a free marketplace?I don't have a problem with the concept of intellectual property. But the purpose of IP law should be to encourage creativity, not to reward and protect failing business models.

You can get that on a T-shirt. Mutate and Survive

If it became legal to copy and distribute, say a movie, why would Hollywood make any?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

As I understand it, most films don't make a profit anyway. People continue to make films because people like to produce art. With less of a profit incentive, of course, we may see less big budget Hollywood style films, since it will be harder to get investment from people only seeing it as a money making vehicle.There would still be incentive to produce special effects bonanzas along the lines of Transformers, or superhero films, for merchandising reasons. They might look even more like expensive toy adverts than they already do, however.

If you added up all the income of all the X-Factor winners, would it exceed the income of Simon Cowell....?But at least X-Factor has contributed to the anti-piracy movement by making music that isn't worth pirating.

Hi crashfrogThe worst part is that this is big industry trying to protect there greedy profits, rather than actual artists and inventors getting royalties. If you have ever been the creator of "intellectual property" you will know that it is usually business that profits more than the creator (you often sign a release of your share of such items when you are hired, so the company owns them not you).Enjoy.