Donate Today! Help us help others.

Lynch Coaching


Thursday, August 15, 2013

An artist rights, Internet piracy & how to stop it

People who are otherwise law abiding citizens think nothing of breaking copyright law and infringing on the property and livelihood of others. They excuse it away pointing to rich corporations or super stars without thinking of the millions of authors, singers, session musicians, actors, directors, writers and other working middle class or lower people who depend on being paid for their work through residual income. Material shows up before it is published or presented in theatres and most of the public seems to think that is OK...People who would never steal a candy bar from a 7-11 or willingly take money from someone elses' pocket, are willing to share and take the property of others off the Internet. Why is that?

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

A blackout landing page inside the "Anti-Sopa War Room" at the offices of the Wikipedia Foundation in San Francisco on Jan. 18, a 24-hour blackout of Wikipedia's English-language articles, joining other sites in a protest of U.S. legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

Hour 2 of Radio Times from WHYY
From the download of that song stuck in your head to the episode of that TV show viewed on a foreign website, it's easier than ever to get your favorite media for free on the internet. Online piracy has run rampant, costing U.S. businesses as much as $200 million a year by some estimates.  Two anti-piracy bills recently proposed by Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), were met with intense opposition and even inspired popular sites like Google and Wikipedia to black out their websites in protest.  As a result, the bills have been put on hold, but supporters of the legislation have vowed to fight on.  Joining us to discuss internet piracy and help us make sense of SOPA and PIPA is LARRY DOWNES, who writes about the intersection of technology, politics and business. Then we’ll get opposing views on SOPA and PIPA from DAVID COHEN of the AFL-CIO and CORYNNE McSHERRY, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Listen to the mp3
Go to website: 

First Published February 17, 2012


Anonymous said...

Clearly there is an issue of online infringement of copyright. Honestly though, SOPA and PIPA are not the answer.

As far as the #'s go about loss of jobs, or the amount of money lost a year they "cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology".

If you downloaded something that you didn't intend to buy in the first place, or wouldn't be able to buy, is that lost sales / revenue?

No doubt it's copyright infringement, but I can't in good conscious say it's lost revenue / sales.

Undoubtedly you might argue with that logic that people will never buy anything again if they can always get it for free. That to me is a bit extreme as an argument to that point.

A separate OPEN act was proposed that might be a better trade off / compromise other than SOPA and PIPA, but still undecided here.

I have got to add, the Pod cost / mp3 was an amazing conversation to listen to.

Ryan Clift
Com 101-4049

Anonymous said...

Listen to the not respond without listening. It talks about compromise and also about how SOPA and other bills are endangered to the point that it could be China behind he "free speech" and "freedom". The doors left open to spy on and even take cyber-terrorist actions against the US are open because people over simplify and do no read the bills before they protest or oppose them.
Stop Cyber crime, including theft.

Anonymous said...

An Open Web is how we are losing our is ideal, but with the reality of cyber-warfare and hackers, an open web is asking for the loss of all intellectual property,security, safety and rights over the long run due to the ability to use the web for damage, ill will and undermining our economy.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous 2/17/2012 - 12:51 PM:
I'm appalled and livid, and it is furthermore appalling that you think I responded without listening to the podcast.
Since you won't accept the towned down version of my original post, here we go.

Just for good measure, I listened to it two more times trying to figure out where you might've
gotten the idea from that I didn't listen to it. Also I wanted to find out where to infer or deliberately indicate
that it could be China or some other foreign entity that is behind the freedom of the internet or free speech
and wanting to keep it that way. I'm sorry, I could not, can you please cite examples and exact
points or your thoughts / ideas based off the podcast for what you are indicating?

Where did David Cohen or Corynne Mcsherry even talk about compromise?
It was a debate between two divergent sides on the topic, giving their
perspectives. There was very little in the way of any compromises between
those two. Larry Downes, was one of the only ones that talked about any types of
compromises, and his view was also that SOPA and PIPA was going too far. He is not a politician,
but an author / journalist / consultant to help businesses get more out of this digital age. A very intelligent
man from what I can tell based off the podcast.

Listen to what Larry Downes says, the industry has been dragged kicking
and screaming into the digital era, as they didn't take it seriously or took
it as a threat. He notes, that services just as Pandora, Spotify and iTunes
weren't created by the industry, but by startups. Why doesn't the industry
think of that?, as consumers change, why don't they?.

He goes on to state, that just as with any other previous advantages, VHS,
DVD's, CD's, anything that upsets the industry this same type of reaction is
encountered until it is accepted and found a way to make money off of it.
If you don't adapt to change you end up paying for it, normally by going out of
business / losing money, and that is true for all businesses, not just the music / movie industry.

Ryan Clift Part 1
Com 101-4049

Anonymous said...

In addition, where did it mention in the podcast about cyber terrorism and hacking?
SOPA and PIPA and the podcast have nothing, absolutely 100% unequivocally nothing, to do with
hacking or cyberterrorism or other foreign countries stealing international secrets.
If you had said counterfeit / misbranded / adulterated / non controlled prescription
medication, I could've given you that and retracked or clarified potentially parts of my original post that
might lead to misinformation.

Also, in my post, I did admit that copyright infringement IS a problem, I did not in
any way indicate that it is not, in which case means that I'm not opposing
stopping copyright infringment, or against protecting intellectual property. Where did that impression
come from that I was? Please cite and explain. I did at least mention that the numbers being
produced and spewed cannot be sustantiated due to the absence of underlying studies. I didn't make that up,
it came straight from another government resource about the Observation on Efforts to Quantify the Economic
Effects of counterfeit and pirated goods.

You want others to read the bills before they oppose / protest / talk intellectually about
them, give them the opportunity to by posting a link to it.
Instead, I'll give them a chance, here is PIPA:

Maybe you don't trust that link, the internet is a scary place,
I've maybe tampered with it, and hacked the site
to falsify it, here's the Congress one:

The terms definitions listed are so broadly defined it's scary. Also, the wording
used to define the term Internet Site dedicated to infringing activites, is rediculous.
It could mean, youtube, facebook, google, flickr

Here's the link to that term:

Ryan Clift Part 2
Com 101-4049

Anonymous said...

In my original posting I mention the OPEN Act, and gave a link to it, and think that it might be a right
direction, whether it's the answer or not, I'm undecided, but it is by
far a better choice, even just by using an independent regulatory commission.
Since you may not have trusted the link I gave, or looked at it,
being a non .gov, here is the .gov link, as it could've just been a propagandist website
for keeping the Internet open and free.

In fact though, it's a real thing as an Amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930.

The terms are at least more narrowly / better defined. I propose that others and anyone
else go read this one and make their own opinions about it as well.

You want to talk about copyright and want to fight everything about it, we can, but honestly
as noted I'm not opposing stopping copyright infringement. Here's the link to copyright as
defined by the United States, I'm sorry but I haven't read all 351 pages, so if you wish to talk
about that, you'll need to give me time to read all of it, as I will have expected the same of you.

As far as an open web and security goes, meddeling with the internet the way SOPA and PIPA want too
could cause it to be less secure. While the link below may be a bit biased, it does a VERY good
job of explaining the bills and how they could impact the internet, and what rights the movie / music
industry already have to use against sites that infringe on copyright / intellectual property. While
some new legislation might be required, lets make sure it's the right legislation.

Maybe you trust Wikipedia more, maybe less

And No, the link will not hack your computer and I have not tampered with it etc...

I read both SOPA and PIPA and I cannot agree with them as they go too far
in how to rid / censor the internet. Maybe you can, but I cannot.

Ryan Clift-Part 3
Com 101-4049

Art Lynch said...

I am not sure who Anonymous is, as several students have yet to find out that if they do not put their names and section numbers on a post the post does not count. I do agree with much of what they say because for over a decade I have served on a national committee involved in legislation in this area and read one of the two bills (as I mentioned) and was involved in advance vetting of it. My informed feeling is that existing laws are too slow and too dependent on foreign and domestic politics for the rapid action needed to stop not only piracy, but cyber-spying, and even cyber-terrorism. We live in a new instant age, where the damage can be done long before any court can act. I am not for draconian measures, but billions are lost to people I now who can no longer support their families due to lost revenue to piracy, file sharing and the feeling that putting something on the net and then taking it off free are their "right."