Does SOPA destroy the "spirit" of the First Amendment?
No witty comment to this, I just hate when free speech, and freedom of expression is being regulated and controlled by the government.
They are trying to stop a medium that transcends national boundaries, culture, race, religion, and class.
Just want your opinions, and maybe educate me a little more.
by
atd15
asked 5 months ago
I don't have time to do more than make a passing comment (apologies for that)...
I don't see sopa as a first amendment issue, but rather as an attempt to monetize things that are free in current law without changing current law. For example, fair use... rather than pass sopa, if they want to kill fair use for some or all copyrighted works, then they should push to modify copyright law. Of course, this would never fly so the devious parties that want to do this figure that the rest of us are too stupid to realize what they are really trying to do. The truly unfortuante thing is that they are likely correct, at least with respect to many people including most politicians.
@baqui63: Your passing comment is longer than 90% of the comments I see on woot. So I'd say it's not passing exactly.
Passing in the sense that I didn't really think it through, nor do more than a cursory check for usage, grammar and spelling errors.
Also, it was shorter than 1000 characters: on a topic like this, I normally use all 1000. ;)
I once received an award for "Verbal Dysentery" as a teenager. (Funny thing, I've never really enjoyed writting.)
-
Surely the OP and I are not the only ones with opinions on this subject though.
@baqui63: And then there are the concerns about how it will affect internet security and personal privacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/22/2648219/stop-online-piracy-act-sopa-what-is-it
These I believe are the real issues.
Though having read a bit more about the free speech implications of SOPA, I'll grant that it will make it easier to censor both US- and foreign-based content providers.
I am conflicted...
While I am all for protecting the first amendment, I get the feeling that much of the SOPA argument is from people who just want to keep illegal distribution of software, media, etc. as easy as possible.
I know that's not really the case for everyone opposed to SOPA, but I feel like any time someone wants to keep doing what they want even though it may be questionable or illegal, the free speech argument is always brought up.
I consider myself a fairly conservative person who does not want any more government intrusion or powers granted, but it also seems like there is so much content that is illegally distributed that I want to make sure everyone else pays for stuff honestly like I do.
Basically, I think I am against SOPA on the basis that it is more government and that there may already be laws that handle the issue (granted, they may not be enforced properly). While I am concerned about the First Amendment, I don't think it is why I am against SOPA.
I think it is trying to use a sledgehammer to cure the flu. The concept of IP is a relatively new one (as opposed to the concept of physical property) and there are cultural variances to how it is viewed. Corporations unsuccessfully try to equate unauthorized use of IP with theft of property but that doesn't fly. I think the biggest problem is that a relatively small percentage of people actually own IP (as in, have created original works that would fall under the category of IP), so a lot of people don't think through the idea that this artist or inventor has made a major investment of time and energy in creating this work and should be fairly compensated. This is complicated further when the material is openly broadcast for free use by everyone (such as TV shows and music on the radio), it's hard to feel like you are stealing when you download and listen to a song or TV show you heard or watched for free yesterday. (TBC)
cont'd: The relationship between advertisers compensating the creators to publicly air the entertainment with their ads embedded and the viewer receiving 42 minutes of programming in exchange for tolerating 18 minutes of commercials is a subtle one. I think of it like fruit, where it's 80% deliciousness wrapped around 20% seeds. That's why nature invented fruit, as an incentive to transport seeds. Being human, we cut out the seeds and throw them away, or even breed fruit without seeds. We like to download TV shows without commercials, we like it seedless. It's in our nature. Trying to hammer the consumers isn't the answer, creating a more direct link between creator and customer is. The bands that are selling their music directly online have the right idea, I think.
Stats
- Asked
- 5 months ago
- Asked By
- atd15
- Answered
- 8 times
- Viewed
- 514 times
- Voted Against
- 2 times
- Voted For
- 39 times
8 Answers answer
Sort By: