I did not ask for alternative LAWS, Obama did; I merely quoted him, and this article mentions no law - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 07/02/2012 04:56:59 AM
Meanwhile, the author cannot simultaneously contend
After that it is just a discussion of how intellectual property owners can make it easier for people to purchase that property, and why the onus should be on them to deter simply getting it from thieves either at a discount for free. Sorry, I am a socialist, not an anarchist, and see no reason intellectual property rights are the ONLY ones whose defence should be ENTIRELY on their owners. Yes, it is easier to steal someones intellectual property than their jewelry, and harder to detect since data is intangible, but, as I noted elsewhere, that is an argument for MORE rather than LESS legal protection and enforcement. No one called it a First Amendment violation when banks put cameras in their lobbies, let alone when cops arrested bank robbers.
Is the media industry shooting itself in the foot to a great degree? Almost certainly, but that does not justify breaking the law for sheer entertainment, let alone profit. Among the many things SO/PIPA opponents know, but never mention when touting their models of media companies making money providing fast easy downloads, is that many people already make money that way: They are called "pirates."
The argument is that if only media companies would offer customers a way to do that for a couple bucks they would all stop doing it for free. Somehow I doubt many people willing to illegally do it for free now would pay to do it legally, and that is basically what we are talking about: People breaking the law for free deciding to pay to be law abiding. Good luck with that. 
Do SO/PIPA go too far? Undoubtedly, but I find "this regulation goes too far so we should just remove it entirely" no more compelling an argument from civil libertarians than from corporate lobbyists. Most SO/PIPA critics realize the federal government has authority and power to block access to sites making money off stolen intellectual property, they just dislike SO/PIPAS means and scope. That is fine, precisely the proper debate: How can the government best accomplish the goal of getting rid of pirate SITES, which no one but pirates and/or anarchists opposes? The easiest most obvious correction is exclusively targeting pirate sites and sites actively knowingly assisting them, not everyone who has ever sent an email, and requiring specific citation of violations rather than unspecified accusations.
Hopefully we get there in the end, but since the debate is stalled between media interests demanding a cyber police state and netizens demanding cyberanarchy, I am not optimistic. We are basically relying on Congress and Obama to find a compromise FOR them, with tons of media lobbyist money tipping the scales that direction.
this is in no way meant to be a “pro-piracy” piece, it is merely meant to show the inescapable realities of piracy that media companies refuse to acknowledge...
AND that piracy is a service problem.
I mean, OK, he can, because of that all important word "meant," but if he is serious, he failed to convey his meaning.After that it is just a discussion of how intellectual property owners can make it easier for people to purchase that property, and why the onus should be on them to deter simply getting it from thieves either at a discount for free. Sorry, I am a socialist, not an anarchist, and see no reason intellectual property rights are the ONLY ones whose defence should be ENTIRELY on their owners. Yes, it is easier to steal someones intellectual property than their jewelry, and harder to detect since data is intangible, but, as I noted elsewhere, that is an argument for MORE rather than LESS legal protection and enforcement. No one called it a First Amendment violation when banks put cameras in their lobbies, let alone when cops arrested bank robbers.
Is the media industry shooting itself in the foot to a great degree? Almost certainly, but that does not justify breaking the law for sheer entertainment, let alone profit. Among the many things SO/PIPA opponents know, but never mention when touting their models of media companies making money providing fast easy downloads, is that many people already make money that way: They are called "pirates."
The argument is that if only media companies would offer customers a way to do that for a couple bucks they would all stop doing it for free. Somehow I doubt many people willing to illegally do it for free now would pay to do it legally, and that is basically what we are talking about: People breaking the law for free deciding to pay to be law abiding. Good luck with that. Do SO/PIPA go too far? Undoubtedly, but I find "this regulation goes too far so we should just remove it entirely" no more compelling an argument from civil libertarians than from corporate lobbyists. Most SO/PIPA critics realize the federal government has authority and power to block access to sites making money off stolen intellectual property, they just dislike SO/PIPAS means and scope. That is fine, precisely the proper debate: How can the government best accomplish the goal of getting rid of pirate SITES, which no one but pirates and/or anarchists opposes? The easiest most obvious correction is exclusively targeting pirate sites and sites actively knowingly assisting them, not everyone who has ever sent an email, and requiring specific citation of violations rather than unspecified accusations.
Hopefully we get there in the end, but since the debate is stalled between media interests demanding a cyber police state and netizens demanding cyberanarchy, I am not optimistic. We are basically relying on Congress and Obama to find a compromise FOR them, with tons of media lobbyist money tipping the scales that direction.