The RIAA and MPAA rule the majority? No. We have private property rights in this country. Because the majority wants something doesn't mean they can just take it.You continually equate people who oppose SOPA to people who want free digital media. What is it about "we are happy to support the cessation of piracy but oppose the way it's being proposed" that's hard for you to understand?
No one here wants to just take something. We don't want something taken from us.
What I see here is a bunch of talking points that have been circulated by people funded by large corporations who have an indirect stake in piracy. Tell me how SOPA is going to stifle your expression, innovation, and speech, not Google's. The big boys and girls are more than capable of protecting themselves.I have seen several "non-big boys/girls" examples in this thread. If you choose to ignore them, not much else can be done, can it?
I concur. There seems to be a lot of binary thinking: Support SOPA vs. Support Piracy.
I think most people who oppose SOPA opposed the implementation, not the stated goal. It is undeniable that content creators should see their work protected, just as someone who manufacturers a physical product (like a Canon 1DX) shouldn't be expected to just give that product away (unless Canon ones to give one to me). The problem with SOPA is that it establishes vague legal language that make little effort to protect individual freedoms or the Internet's generally unregulated dynamic. Rather, the imprecise scope seems to instead encourage the legal system to settle all scores. This would mean that some questionable legal action might extend for a while before matters are settled. It also means that some bizarre and creative legal precedents can be conjured out of the bill's more obtuse language. In this case, any questionable use of the law might not be something a court could easily overturn; the court might conclude that the action was within the vague confines of the law and that the questionable use can therefore only be overturned by a subsequent revision to the law. This would require mass action by Congress, which is easier said than done, and... This legal web can get pretty convoluted and contributes to a number of issues that are currently hotly contested, from the scope of Executive Power to the ramifications of Citizens United decision.
Because of this complexity, I think many of us want legislation that clearly articulates the intent and scope of the law. Even if no one in Congress intends to abuse a law's more extreme powers, we have to question whether those powers should be pre-emptively extended just to combat a potential worst case scenario. In some cases, the answer might be "yes," as getting caught unprepared in the midst of a disaster could threaten continuity of government, the stability of the market, etc. In other cases, however, it makes more sense to be cautious about the execution of legislation. President Obama has recently negotiated with Congress on sanctions related to Iran. While some have argued that his behavior betrays a soft attitude toward international affairs, others - including the President himself - have argued that he is being justly strategic, that his decision is not a matter of the target but of the optimal approach. I think this reasoning - whatever you think of U.S. international policy, which is a separate issue that I invoke only for its parallel logic - applies to SOPA as well.
Piracy in many forms needs to be eradicated. If media producers are unable to protect their products, the situation will not only be unfair, but also, given how much work the media industry feeds tangential industries, economically significant. That piracy needs to be addressed is not in serious dispute. Nevertheless, we mustn't rush into a solution just for the sake of action. We can't tie up debate in committees forever either-- but we need to pass a law that makes sense, not one that "sort o"f addresses the problem while causing ancillary damage that either erodes individual rights or must be slowly repaired in an endless bureaucratic process. SOPA opposition isn't necessarily an ideological extreme; it can also represent a shared goal coupled to a disagreement over tactics.