25 Comments

I'm a content producer and yet I would hate to see this bill go through.
This legislation is just for the big boys so that they can stamp out the competition.
inet
2012-01-18 13:33:34

The big players simply cannot be trusted not to abuse their powers. Recently, Universal Music Group had the video for MegaUpload taken down from YouTube repeatedly claiming they owned the song when in fact, the song was not theirs, nor was there any copyrighted material that was theirs in the song. UMG also took down 50 cent's newest video from YouTube, and had his website shut down all because of a feud with the artist. So don't let the record labels (and other big players) claim that they're doing this for the artists, when in fact, they're doing it for their own benefit. Kill SOPA & PIPA.
Brian
2012-01-18 13:45:01

This is ridiculous. If we are the united states, and we still follow the constitution, this is going against the first amendment for our right to free speech!! Unconstitutional!!
Brooke spiker
2012-01-18 13:52:09

This does sound pretty alarming. Yeah, no-one should profit from another's work without the author/creator getting what they deserve, but if no money is being made and merely 'showing it to the world' then there's no reason for that to be made a crime.

As well as being a designer, I'm also in a band - when we released our second album it leaked online before it hit the shops. We're not sure how, and we've only got a small following, but it did. Countless share links appeared on Google with the download counts pretty high. Yes, we did lose 'sales' due to that, but on the other hand it opened us up to possibly 1,000s who'd never heard of us and then they may come to see you live, buy a tee etc etc.

So, not quite the same as that is direct piracy, but I just wanted to make the point that not all sharing is bad on the internet. Yes, much of it it wrong and damaging.

As said in the article, there needs to be a clear distinction as to whether the 'sharer' is going to be making money directly from what he or she is 'sharing'. If not, cool, if they are then that's wrong. Let's hope the bills are at least slowed to make sure they will be fair and just and not just a knee-jerk reaction which will punish innocent net users unnecessarily.
Ben
2012-01-18 13:58:28

If you create it you own it. If you wish to give it away that is your choice. If someone uses it without payment or permission, it is theft. Period.
xlphotographer
2012-01-18 14:10:49

Right wing policies and creativity rarely make happy bedfellows.
keith hardy
2012-01-18 14:23:14

As a content creator (photography/copywriting) I personally feel that copyright infringement is unfair as it doesn't represent the time and effort put into creating content. However as a marketer, I also understand the importance of using the internet as a promotional tool and having my content shared elsewhere is part of the recognition process.

I do not believe that SOPA/PIPA are the way forward but agree that tackling copyright online is an issue to some degree; particularly amongst those who use/share content without getting permission from the owner OR the simple common courtesy of back-linking. I think this comes down to education and self-regulating.

As for the big entertainment industry that SOPA/PIPA are supposed to be representing, particularly for illegal downloading of music/movies/software, I do not feel that they should penalise all internet users (note, not just US) for their industry's inability to wise-up to modern technology methods. I also feel that these legislations are a stepping-stone for more internet regulation to come.
Michaela
2012-01-18 14:27:56

As a designer I of course believe in the protection of intellectual property. However this really doesn't seem like the way to do it. As you said, it's a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut, and I don't think it's even the right nut.

Unfortunately this approach just smacks of the old order trying desperately to hold onto the business methods that made them wealthy now that the world around them has changed and they're struggling. It's starting to sound quite familiar these days - successful capitalists being shafted by capitalism, then turning to the state for help.

I don't know what the solution is, but we can't hide from the fact that the world is changing all the time and we all need to change with it. Isn't one of the often touted rules in business "adapt or die"? We clearly haven't worked out how to adapt yet, so we're changing the rules to something with a safety net: adapt or lobby government.

To be honest - and at the risk of sounding like the wooliest of lefties here - as with so much attempted remedial action these days, it feels like it tackles only the symptoms rather than the cause. Even if these bills were successful in their aims, they'd be sticking plasters on a wound that needs major surgery. It's arse about elbow - if we're unable to change our businesses to suit our needs, we can't change our needs to suit our businesses. Even the most hardened capitalist must admit that the world of commerce has failed if it becomes something we need to prop up rather than something that props us up.

So long term, perhaps we need to be looking not at how we can recommodify our intellectual property but how we can live in a way where such commodifcation isn't necessary.

Answers on a postcard please...
sprungseven
2012-01-18 17:05:24

Once it's out of your head...it's no longer your own.

Creativity is about sharing ideas and inspiration. Always has been. Always will be.

Get your head around that, and you'll be fine.
Curator
2012-01-18 17:11:56

The problem with SOPA and PIPA is that they can be easily be abused to gi e the copyright holder powers far beyond what they should, leaving the accused with no means of retrobutuion. For example, I recieved a false DMCA violation on a vodeo that I once submitted to youtube. The issue is that someone decided to claim copyright on apple's royalty free loops. Now if I were to turn on advertising on this video, a portion of the adsense money would go to the false copyright holder. With SOPA and PIPA, my account at Youtube likely would have been banned outright, even though I did nothing wrong.

Its not like there haven't been stories of large media companies claiming false copyrights before. Viacom kept using the DMCA to pull trailers of video games shown during their video game awards on spike, even though the copyright belonged to the publishers of those games. SOPA and PIPA would likely be used to silent sources that fall against corporate interests, for example using SOPA to take down a website that talks about a leaked iPhone.
Darrell
2012-01-18 17:12:36

@ Curator
To an extent, yes, but what if you are a type designer and your livelihood depends on people licensing and paying to use your work - you may not be quite so keen on others 'sharing' your typefaces instead.

Surely there's a difference between 'ideas' which others may choose to be inspired by and reference and 'products' which the makers of would like to be paid for
 PatrickBurgoyne
2012-01-18 17:40:09

Ignoring SOPA, PIPA and the equally daft UK legislation for a moment, what is important in the arguments against piracy? Well for me cost of the content is up there.

As a consumer, I will not pay more than £5 for a DVD. I will not pay more than £5 for a CD and I will not pay more than £5 for a ‘disposable’ paperback. I would suggest that the reason why these values are so high (yes high!) is because I will have a physical product in my hands, which I can stick on a shelf and lovingly look at for years to come. In the electronic content world, it is just a file on my computer, lacking in physical presence and intrinsic production costs, so I will value it far less - this means I am not willing to pay as much for it. PLEASE READ THAT STATEMENT AGAIN - IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT ME TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF A PRODUCT AS A PHYSICAL COPY.

I am, also, as a cynical consumer, made so by being ‘sold a duff-un’ over and over again, weary of paying too much up front for something that is going to be a waste of my time. Even if that is my own fault for judging the book by the cover. So I want to pay as little up front as I can.

So for a new film, album, or book in electronic format anything less than £3 sounds reasonable. I may well then, if I am suitably impressed go out and buy the DVD/CD/book in physical form, because I want to ‘own’ something tangible that means something to me. I accept that there are production costs involved and I am willing to pay for this, however I don’t want to be ripped off. (hint $1 != £1)

So for the artists, of the initial electronic purchase I would expect you to get the lions share of the asking price. Say £2 of the 3. the other £1 going to the company that is providing the mechanism for me to obtain this content. I do not want DRM of any kind as this is just another way to force me to use particular products and limit the way I consume the content that I HAVE JUST PAID FOR. I don’t want a time limit on how long I have to consume the content, limits on when I consume it, or limits on how many times I consume it. it is, in my puny little mind MINE TO DO WITH AS I SEE FIT, though I accept that as part of this the content has been purchased by ME for MY USE and that the COPYRIGHT remains with the copyright holder. This is an agreement between thee and me. If you force unnecessary restrictions on me I WILL REBEL. Accept this.

For the subsequent ‘real life’ purchase I would expect production to come to £3 (inc distribution and delivery!) and still £2 to the artist.

Hence if the content is worthy of my purchasing a physical copy then the artist gets £4, the various distributors get £4 too, and I get something that feels like £8 and which I can ‘lend to my mates’ if I want. This seems equitable to me.

If the content is mediocre or genuine shite, then I have wasted £3, the artist is paid a little for the work, but not over rewarded for something that is not really up to scratch. The electronic distributer doesn’t really care once the cost of storage and distribution is covered, it is all profit. The loser is the traditional arbiter of content (the book publishers, CD and DVD distributors) and well I am sorry, but that is the market. Sell better quality stuff next time - DO YOUR JOB A PROMOTE QUALITY ITEMS PEOPLE WANT TO BUY RATHER THAT RETREADED RETARDED CONTENT.

People, being people, will of course try to pirate, copy content without paying for it. If the prices for content are reasonable then the percentage of people who pirate will be less than if prices are kept high to fund excessive profits (consumers, believe it or not, understand this!). Some people will ALWAYS PIRATE. Bad luck, you will not force them to pay, they will find ways around whatever protection (legal or technological) you put in place, you should concentrate on selling quality products to those that are willing to pay at a reasonable cost and in a way that fits into their lifestyle. To paraphrase Princess Leia “The more you tighten your grip the more people will slip through your fingers”

The business model for distribution through a few arbiters of content, who control the artists and the consumers no longer works. It is broken, outdated, and superseded. Accept that and move on. Everyone else has.
simmo
2012-01-18 18:57:39

Big issue here, which is multifaceted but I will try and give my two pence

Firstly I think shame on facebook, twitter and Google for not shutting down. Would have really shown a message. Imagine no Google for a day, peoples heads would explode.

Music and Movies.

Both the MPAA and the RIAA are full of shit and have brought this upon themselves through greed. We are not fools, a CD costing 10 quid is a joke, especially when you consider development's in technology, MP3 albums going for 8 quid. People cant/dont want to pay these prices. The other day I purchased an album solely on a review, because the artist was selling it on his site for 4 USD like £2.60.
Distribution is an issue as well, mainly for TV and Movies if your going to wait 9 months extra until you release a sitcom in another territory people will find another way to view it. Why is content from MTV USA or Comedy Central blocked in a globalised world? Why cant I watch the beebs entire back catalogue at the touch of a button? Why do networks get annoyed when people upload and promote content they would only show once a week? When will networks and record labels, stop telling us when and how we can access content?

These guys are lazy and there laziness is fueling their demise.

Maybe some transparency, if you want to charge me 10 quid a pop- explain to me where my money is going, how much is the artist getting.

You cant stop change or progress, but instead of adapting, creating new business models, etc These organisations just try to put roadblocks, but they will and I am sure of this, eventually lose this battle. Just a question of how many more stupid bills, people going to jail, money wasted until they give up.

I love music, I mix and buy vinyl, I cannot tell you how many artists I have discovered through sharing, and then I go to see them perform, or buy some of the back catalogue on vinyll or whatever. Without sharing sites, to this day half the artists I go to see, I would have never heard of.



Now with regards to design

Firstly Software
Im not going to pretend to know what goes on a Adobe HQ, but you cant tell me every update warrants the prices they charge, its madness. Same with videogames, Is FIFA 2012,2011,2010 etc all so different they need to be asking for another 40 quid, why not release updates for less
I went to a talk by Kirsten Schmidt and I don't think i have ever in my life seen someone talk so passionately, he was talking about Open Source and how its not giving things away for free, but developing things together, community etc( That doesn't touch the surface of what he articulated so well)

But if you look at people who do things for free VideoCoPilot, Greyscale Gorilla , C4D Cafe (Any motionographers in the house). Yes they give things away for free, but there exposure is massive and then when they release paid for content a lot more people buy it. I have watched so many free (they are free) tutorials on C4D cafe, that when they ask for 13 Kiwi dollars after 10 tutorials, its a no brainier. I don't have to pay, but I want to keep the community alive, keep the site up and the price is very reasonable. This is something not done enough in the music world, releasing content for free, Getting exposure, creating community's, asking your fans to fund a new album. Have a link to paypal.etc

Then in terms of content, as designers. Again I will go to my previous example. Greyscale gorilla, you could go onto his site and create a reel just from his tutorials, his ideas, but our community is not large, people will know what you did and you will eventually get found out. I think the design community does a good job of policing when something is not quite right. For example when advertisers pinch ideas.
More and more designer's release source files for people to pick apart and learn and go forward. (check out Beeple.com, everything hes ever done is on there for you to download source files and all)

Someone may go on my site and nick half my images and present them as there own for an interview, but what happens when they need to make something new. Your skills and ideas are invaluable and worth so much more than your content


Anyway so much to say, I know our industries are linked in with those mentioned and if theres less money in the pot, that is less for all of us but there are creative way to get around this, on a really basic level im talking merchandise, look at bjorks beautiful box set with the forks, something you cant download, but many fans will want.

Plus copyright law is grossly out of date.


Anyway I have already bored you all to death, hope it makes sense
Long live the internet, let us adapt and be ready and not try to hold onto our fortunes of the past. Screw the RIAA, MPAA, SOCA PIPA and all other stupid organisations and pieces of legislation that will ultimately FAIL. The net is bigger than all of us.
A
2012-01-19 02:36:16

We have to stop SOPA & PIPA for our survival independently in the World of Internet!
Nora Reed
2012-01-19 06:59:22

I'm a musician. My band completed an album and though we spent money to make it, we offer it for free on Bandcamp (but people may pay whatever they want for it also). We published it on The Pirate Bay too. We want our music to spread as much as possible. I think it's a beautiful thing being able to reach people around the world. I believe in the free flow of digital media. In this way art and ideas can live like a virus. Buying things that can be so easily copied makes no sense to me. You can't stop computers from performing the most basic task of copying data. The cat will not ever go back in the bag. "Piracy" is here to stay. Everything that stands against it will not last.
Jed Procter
2012-01-19 08:10:29

I strongly agree and couldn’t put it any better than what Curator said:

Once it's out of your head...it's no longer your own.

Creativity is about sharing ideas and inspiration. Always has been. Always will be.

Get your head around that, and you'll be fine.*

I also strongly believe that if there is a problem then you go to the root and ‘create’ a solution. SOPA and PIPA is just creating an obstruction and will only encourage some sort of underground ‘get-around’. Piracy is the problem, not the ‘model’ used to make it possible in this case. the web. Surely they should be asking ‘Why does Piracy exist?’ - I don’t pretend to have a clue what the answer is…but I think that’s where the answer would be?

I just know that there is a big difference between taking something somebody else has created and saying that you made it when you didn’t compared to sharing and appreciated somebody else’s work. Otherwise- we would not all be muted and unable use the power of ‘speech’ to tell each other about our great finds. Sharing and communicating creativity is what has got use where we are today – we should celebrate it.

* note that I mentioned my source of information and am clearly in appriciation of what Curator says! I did not say it :0)
Beckythegeek
2012-01-19 13:19:36

Patrick,
Unfortunately copyright law isn't worth the paper it's printed on...
Curator
2012-01-19 13:47:08

You don't own the internet - the internet owns you !
RockinRickBuzzin
2012-01-19 15:49:10

A
2012-01-19 02:36:16

Love this post. It's definitely worth more than two pence.

(See you at the Café)
Dougie
2012-01-19 15:52:10

You make a fatal error by asserting that PIPA/SOPA have anything to do with copyright; they're thinly veiled policies that turn a free and open internet into a consumer device; all at the beck and call of lobbying.

Any sane human being that's not on the payroll of Big Media is either against SOPA/PIPA, or ill-informed.
Nathan
2012-01-19 16:06:48

A
2012-01-19 02:36:16

I concur... 2 pence well spent:
make things more affordable and people will be more inclined to afford it!
take apps for example... may the majority profit and the few expire:)

(See you at the banana stand)
Unit60
2012-01-19 22:32:48

If I may chip in again...

I'd guess, of all the design work out there in the digital realm, the percentage that's actually making any money for its creator is pretty tiny. That's why the majority of us creatives are so good at sharing - we have nothing monetary invested in most of our output as nobody would pay for it anyway. So we can endlessly pour the contents of our brains onto sharing sites (flickr or whatever) saying 'look at this'.

It's the same with music. For every millionaire rock god superstar there are countless regular people uploading work to soundcloud or handing out free CDs, or regularly gigging at a loss. And so with comedy, for every stadium filling comedian or those being paid for weekly TV panel show appearances, there are countless stand ups traipsing round the country doing 5 minute slots to half empty rooms while barely covering their transport costs. Again with writers, for every author there are a million bloggers typing endlessly into the ether.

It's the same with any art form. They're things we don't have to be paid for to still want to do, and the internet - that most democratic of communication tools - allows us to put it out into the world in a way we couldn't before. And we're all so happy to share in the way the poor generally are; those with lots to lose are usually far more selfish than those with nothing.

The boring stuff that makes the world go round, stuff like cleaning windows or fixing pipes or laying roads or mending lifts - nobody wants to do it, nobody in their right mind would do such work for free, so we don't think twice about paying for it.

Yet the creative stuff that our monetary system now deems seemingly worthless, that output spewing forth whether paid for or not, is the stuff we as a society actually value far more than any functioning lift or clean window. We adore, and consume with insatiable desire film, music, art, television, literature. All things that, despite the obviously huge demand, are stratospherically hard to make money out of; things that despite how much we might love them, we don't want to pay for.

We want such output for next to nothing. Stop paying the window cleaner and you stop getting clean windows, but stop paying the musician and you still get music. You always will. So why pay for music at all? For creative content we want to pay whatever we see fit. We don't have to care what it costs to make, so we don't.

The 'trouble' we're having with copyright issues now is surely just that of democracy. For years we've been able to commodify an intrinsic part of the human psyche: creativity. It worked because a few people held the key, a monopoly in the form of distribution chains and marketing budgets. They were the only people in a position to deliver us the stuff we love and so need, so we had no choice but to pay them. Now those days are over, the cartels have been smashed by the internet bringing us true democracy in the way we consume our creative content, and SOPA/PIPA is a cynical and obvious attempt by those cartels to grab back their monopoly, to recommodify our creativity.

I think those of us so keen to pay next to nothing for our CDs must therefore also consider the possibility of accepting that being paid for doing things we enjoy doing was never much of a realistic or sustainable proposition. Perhaps most of us creatives then (at least those not dedicated to being a tool of commerce) need to either be happy with being skint, or start doing something a bit less fun. Commerce and art have, after all, never been comfortable bedfellows, nor should they be.

I suppose what I'm saying here, in a round about way, is that I wonder whether actually, to accept that SOPA/PIPA is bad (and I very much do) may in some way be to accept that so much of creativity is of no monetary value. That it is, in fact, utterly priceless.
sprungseven
2012-01-20 12:27:02

Personally I am more worried about Google, etc's surveillance and control of what we see than that of the government. I think we need help, DMCA take down notices are pretty ineffectual. We need something strong to protect and regulate the technology industry from taking creator's work (big and small including that of the ridiculously over-hated RIAA and MPAA) and profiting from it.

Google and the organizations they fund and are intertwined with (EFF, Creative Commons, Flickr, Youtube and so forth) profit off the hard work of others without paying for it. Google et al. is worried about this legislation for the same reason as the MPAA, it will affect how they make money. In this case they have framed the argument in terms of free speech, whereas I see it as creator's rights. I don't think these companies care so much about the little guy, but I would rather be on the side of someone who pays creators than someone who exploits the work of others. Sure you can't own an idea, but you can be rewarded for coming up with one and you should be able to try and make money off years of hard work.

Lastly, If you think you are paying for physical products when you buy a book or DVD, you have no idea what goes into producing one of those things and do not realize how valuable music companies and publishers can be (advances, editors, producers, etc.) to someone creating a work that takes months or years to complete.
pkoner
2012-01-23 22:16:03

i'm not an american, i'm a from south africa. i recently graduated from university and i know that my abilities would have been severely compromised if i couldn't use the work of others to illustrate examples for student work in first year or browse online for inspiration - the amount of design resources at our disposal here are limited, magazines and books are more expensive after import, and the internet is one of the most important resources here. all the elements that may have been used are credited, so no one is claiming work - those who do don't deserve recognition anyway. these laws ought to be obliterated along with the thoughts that imply the laws will actually make a real difference instead of pissing everyone off.
cait
2012-01-26 05:45:23

i'm not an american, i'm a from south africa. i recently graduated from university and i know that my abilities would have been severely compromised if i couldn't use the work of others to illustrate examples for student work in first year or browse online for inspiration - the amount of design resources at our disposal here are limited, magazines and books are more expensive after import, and the internet is one of the most important resources here. all the elements that may have been used are credited, so no one is claiming work - those who do don't deserve recognition anyway. these laws ought to be obliterated along with the thoughts that imply the laws will actually make a real difference instead of pissing everyone off.
cait
2012-01-26 19:41:45

Tell us what you think

Your comment: What happens with my feedback?

What happens with my feedback?

We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

Name: (required)

Title:

e-Mail: (required)

URL