Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Cageside Seats, SB Nation and Vox Media Officially Oppose SOPA and PIPA

Photo

I'm sure there are plenty of you that get online and hit your usual stops like Facebook, Twitter, and, of course, CagesideSeats.com, without ever really traveling too far outside your bubble. And I don't blame you because there are a lot of times when I do the same. It's easy to get caught up in the Internet without realizing some of the things that are going on behind-the-scenes that can greatly affect our enjoyment of it. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) are two things you should be educated about and come to understand.

Major sites like Wikipedia, Google and Reddit (among many others) have gone dark today as a way to both protest and raise awareness for the fight against these ill-conceived Acts. Now SB Nation and Vox Media, the overlords of Cageside Seats, are officially opposing SOPA and PIPA. We endorse the ensuing message and ask that you do what you can to raise awareness and if you're an American citizen, please support the opposition of SOPA by calling your local Congressmen and lobbying for them to oppose this bill. It's important for our continued enjoyment of the Internet as we know it now. An easy way to do that is to use this Google form, which is also a great way to learn a lot more about both SOPA and PIPA.

You can watch this video to help understand more and after the jump read the official Vox Media position on SOPA. Thanks, Cagesiders.

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Star-divide

Vox Media Position on SOPA

The internet has been abuzz recently with strong opinions on the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA as it is commonly called. Content owners feel that the legislation is absolutely necessary to enable them to stem the rampant piracy that is eroding their markets; they need a better way to enforce their rights. New media companies see the legislation as a Web killer that threatens their very existence, as the key to engaged communities is the freedom to contribute to the conversation, including the contribution of relevant content. As a new type of media company that invests heavily in both developing our own premium content and providing our communities of readers with powerful tools with which to express themselves, Vox Media is in a unique position to understand the conflict raised by the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

Vox Media -- the parent company of SB Nation -- is officially opposed to SOPA. The bill as drafted is overly broad, vaguely worded, and gives rise to a number of significant concerns:

  • Decreased effectiveness and questionable availability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor for sites that host user-contributed content;
  • Higher compliance costs for all sites that host user-contributed content;
  • Potentially overzealous compliance efforts by search engines and payment providers in their attempts to maintain the immunity offered by SOPA section 104;
  • Serious constitutional issues in regards to due process and seizure of property.

These are major issues that appear to be insurmountable in SOPA as it is written. Although the legislation purports to target only so-called foreign pirate sites and not US-based sites or those that end in .com, .net, or .org, there is a very real possibility that (over)reaction to the legislation would catch more than a few U.S.-based .com sites in its crosshairs.

Vox Media may find our domain names to be the subject of an in rem lawsuit as a result of users posting unlawful video clips. We may find that payment providers proactively turn off payment accounts for any sites that have been the subject of a recent copyright claim, however frivolous. We may find that a service provider decides to redirect our domain names away from our content as a knee-jerk reaction to a single unsubstantiated complaint.

Whether or not US-based sites are directly targeted by the language of SOPA, Vox Media will certainly end up having to defend our properties and the content we display, whether published by our own employees or by our dedicated readers. We will eventually be forced to show why our publications fall outside of the wording and thus the reach of SOPA, which may prove to be an easy task or a much more difficult one - the vague language of SOPA makes it impossible to predict. What we do know is that dealing with SOPA will cost us time, money, and energy that would be better spent serving our readers with quality journalism and empowering our communities with innovative technology. Whatever heightened protection SOPA might offer to content owners is not worth that price, and SOPA should be opposed.

If SOPA is not the right answer, what is? It seems clear that there are two legitimate sets of interests that need to be reflected, addressed, and balanced. As a media company that creates content and empowers communities, Vox Media walks the very line where the balance must be struck. Vox Media is a company founded on and steeped in community content across hundreds of editorial websites dedicated to passionate conversation, but we are also increasingly a premium original content owner and creator that employs top-tier journalists and produces premium multimedia programming across each of our content verticals. We believe this hybrid model is the future of journalism; it is certainly the future of our company. We need a copyright law that understands the rapid pace of innovation online and allows it to flourish.

Content owners, including Vox Media, need to be able to enforce their rights in a meaningful and practical way against those that would steal from them. And we need to preserve the power of communities, like the Vox Media communities, by explicitly expanding fair use to encompass a wide range of legitimate uses that do not erode the market for the original works: commentary, criticism, parody, remix. Vox Media's opposition to SOPA is not limited to defeating one bad law grounded in an outmoded view of content; it extends to a genuine desire for copyright law and policy to strike the right balance, which must start with comprehending and embracing the the powerful and inspiring new media world in which we now live.

Comment 50 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This act is so retarded, I'm honestly surprised that it may actually become reality.

P4P TOP 5 1. Nick Diaz 2. Nate Diaz 3. Fedor 4. Overeem 5. Junie Browning … Also Nate AND Nick will both be champions of thier respective brackets. Dont Fuck With Mean Mug he will make you slob all over your most hated fighters knob 209 BITCHES!!!!!!

by Cyclonejoker on Jan 18, 2012 3:27 PM EST reply actions  

The NDAA already is reality

and it basically would allow the government on a whim to say all wrestling fans are terrorists and detain us indefinitely

by Jonathan Loesche on Jan 18, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

if you support any of the unamericans, you're a terrorist

and SOPA is truly a very evil thing to enforce. Hopefully your politicians get a hold of reality and stop that abortion of an act.

pride never die.

by vhw_ on Jan 18, 2012 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Good to see this on the front page

CSS is the only SBN blog I check regularly that has a post about this on the front page, kudos Geno

by Jonathan Loesche on Jan 18, 2012 3:33 PM EST reply actions  

The entire thing is insane.

This blackout today and everyone voicing their opinions on it has helped sway a few Congressmen.

Forget it Donny, you're out of your element.

by Geno Mrosko on Jan 18, 2012 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I hope so

Obama sure as hell won’t veto it, despite what people keep on thinking. His administration unofficially authorized several operations that were the preludes to SOPA

by Jonathan Loesche on Jan 18, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Scary Scary Scary

It’s the beginning of the end of our freedom if congress passes this bill. Shits gonna hit the fan!

by MaynardoYO on Jan 18, 2012 4:00 PM EST reply actions  

Actually, NDAA was the beginning of the end

but there isn’t any need to make things worse.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Give the Gov. a inch they take a mile. So they figured they got away with passing the NDAA bill now they will run rampant on our rights as a free country. Communism is around the corner.

by MaynardoYO on Jan 18, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Hollywood can suck it.

It’s pretty clear that when offering a high-quality product at a decent price – and when giving the consumer options – companies can make good money off of the public. Take Netflix, for example. These companies licensed movies and shows that they weren’t making any money off of to Netflix. Netflix paid them to license the shows. We paid Netflix a fair price. Everyone made money. Everyone was happy.

The issue is that Hollywood won’t just let me pay a fair price for their product without making me jump through hoops. I would gladly give HBO 25 bucks a month just to stream HBO GO through my Roku. The app is there. I have the money. I want to pay so that I can get the channel. So why do I have to go through a middleman (Comcast) to get cable service I don’t want so that I can subscribe to HBO and then get HBO GO? It’s like they’re asking customers to pirate their shows by deliberately making the model to access those shows legally as much of a pain in the ass as possible.

/end rant

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 4:11 PM EST reply actions   2 recs

Bingo

SOPA/PIPA are getting their backing because they want to try and legislate their way into having 20th century cartel business model without competing with 21st century market pressure.

by Jonathan Loesche on Jan 18, 2012 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Kane needs to drag SOPA to hell

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 18, 2012 5:00 PM EST reply actions  

Hah

If you ever read Kane’s old political blog, Citizen X, I’m sure he is 110% against this.

by Jonathan Loesche on Jan 18, 2012 5:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Nothing more jarring than reading Glenn Jacobs is headlining the Libertarian convention

and then watching said speech. Definitley a “Say what!?” moment.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
Ryder or Riot #WWWYKI

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 18, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions  

there's only ONE good thing to SOPA

the end of pretty much all internet memes. Other than that is pure evil

pride never die.

by vhw_ on Jan 18, 2012 5:23 PM EST reply actions  

Don't see it as a big deal

First off, this video is pretty biased. The object of the act is not to get people to buy more movies or to boost the economy. That’s a distortion. The goal is to prevent the illegal act of privacy. People are definitely concerned about the implications.

Now, let these entertainment companies sue Facebook and Google. These companies have gigantic bankrolls. If they fight and win the lawsuit, they’ll create a hell of a precedent.

Also, this isn’t censorship. They aren’t suing or shutting down websites because of their message, theyre shutting down websites engaging in illegal activity. I believe the SOPA act is flawed because it has too many implications. Id like to see it written with more specifics (I doubt anyone has read the actual legislation, yet instead just watched a video like this).

I dont support SOPA, but I also am against piracy. Who the hell is for piracy?

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 6:33 PM EST reply actions  

The irony being, of course, that neither law will stop piracy whatsoever.

SOPA/PIPA will target sites that have a GIF with a two-second image from another source. All the sites that actually pirate will continue to pop up and stream media illegally. SOPA and PIPA won’t stop the likes of Front Row Sports or any of those sites that stream media, especially those from overseas.

This is just a clumsy power-grab by Hollywood, the cable companies, and legislators. And yes, we’ve all actually read the bill, dude.

But here’s the worst of all, Benny. I could claim that your site, which maybe has a message that I don’t like, is harboring illegal imagery/video/etc. Then guess what? The government seizes your IP BEFORE they actually check to see if my claim was right. So what can I do if I don’t like the message your site is sending out? I just report it and let SOPA/PIPA do the work. If YOU had read the bills yourself, you would get why “They [whoever ‘they’ are] aren’t suing or shutting down websites because of their message” is not necessarily true.

Finally, this bill being about money is not at all a distortion, at least from Hollywood’s POV.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly.

I have no objection to their objection to piracy. They should be trying to do something about it. But the way they’re proposing is asinine. Big enough to cause sites like Wikipedia and Google to go dark for a full day in protest.

Forget it Donny, you're out of your element.

by Geno Mrosko on Jan 18, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I fully grasp the concepts here guys

I am against SOPA because it’s written in a way that gives too much power and doesn’t have the specifics. Once again, I ask you: did any of you actually read the legislation?

But, this bill is not censorship. It’s not an infringement on free speech. I understand why people think it is, but it’s not. This is an attempt to stop illegal activity ( a bad one at that). This isnt the government prohibiting dissent, altering view points, or statements. It’s not censorship.

To say this bill is a way to generate money is laughable. This bill also isn’t an attempt to set up the foundations of censorship. It’s a poorly written piece of legislation that is trying to deal with piracy.

Google also didn’t go dark. They half assed it and just blacked their logo. Wikipedia also didn’t go dark. You just had to hit the escape button to bring the site back.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 7:37 PM EST up reply actions  

We are in agreement Geno

The video posted above is biased and reaches. I also would like to say that a lot of people against SOPA, not on this site, are against copyright laws, which are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR A FREE SOCIETY.

Also, Geno, what’s good withe the writers search for SB? Should I keep posting or call it a day?

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 7:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Copyright laws are extremely important for a free society?

I beg to differ. Read Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture. That might better explain to you why your viewpoint is out of line with the concept of a free society.

You also clearly are taking the bill at an extreme face value that isn’t consistent with the reality. This bill can certainly be used to censor sites because of the lack of due process. Whether it will or not is another story, but it certainly is set up so that is possible.

Likewise, why is Hollywood so gung-ho about this bill? It isn’t because DVD sales, movie ticket sales, etc. are down? I get the sense that you actually don’t understand much about SOPA/PIPA, who supports these bills, how they came to be. I ask you: Did YOU actually read the legislation?

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess if you're anti-copyright

You’d never agree with me. There’s no point in having that discussion. However, I’d advise you not try and make a living off of your intellectual material in a country without copyright laws. We agree to disagree.

I am not taking this bill at face value. I disagree with it because of the implications caused by it, the implications you are afraid of, which I agree with you, makes this flawed. I just think to say it is some grab of power by movie studios and the music industry as well as attempt at government censorship is wrong. it’s a really bad attempt (and futile), at solving a really bad problem. If you don’t think piracy is a huge problem, I’d say that’s pretty immoral. (I’m not saying you are suggesting that). I recognize most politicians are incompetent and flawed—that’s why this bill sucks, not because of some conspiracy.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions  

People did fine before convoluted copyright laws.

But that’s not the point and I’m not even against copyright laws. I’m just against your assertion that copyright laws are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR A FREE SOCIETY because that’s grade-A bullshit, no offense. Art and society have flourished in the past when copyright didn’t exist. There is a reason that pastiche is such a crucial concept to various artistic types.

Anyway, we’re off the track. Your assertions about “immorality” are strange, frankly, so I’ll put those aside as well. All I’ll say is this: I’m not for piracy. I do think that if the MPAA, RIAA, etc., would like to stop piracy, they’ll find it easier to do so not through legislation, but through innovation in their business models. However, they are too lazy to do so, so they’ll go this route instead, a route which quashes creativity and freedom on the internet (you do know that Hollywood’s lobbyists crafted this bill, correct).

I find that more “immoral” than anything that pirates are doing, but whatever.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 8:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Well pirates are stealing

That’s immoral. I agree with what you said about the bill, not about art flourishing though. The purpose of copyright laws is not to make art ‘flourish’ whatever that means (I’d like to see you define it.). The purpose of copyright laws Is to protect your interests and use of your work.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 8:05 PM EST up reply actions  

No, pirates are not stealing.

They are violating copyright.

If I download a copy of True Grit, that doesn’t take a copy away from the seller. If I actively take a True Grit DVD out of the store, it does.

Now, clearly you find this to be an egregious sin. I would prefer that the artists themselves got the money for their work, but they are not being stolen from. Let’s also not assume that the pirate would have otherwise bought a legitimate copy. Honestly, as long as you aren’t taking money directly from someone, I really don’t care that much. Pirates who steal WWE PPVs aren’t plunking down fifty bucks if those sites are down.

Per your other point, if we’re talking about a FREE society, artists did just fine (and their business flourished) without needless legislation. They were able to share and borrow ideas without having to beg BMI or who the fuck ever. Something like Dangermouse’s Grey Album is illegal because BMI wants to charge an arm and a leg for an artist to sample The Beatles’ work, but fuck that. It’s constricting and it goes against everything we’ve ever believed about how art is made (from a standpoint of Western culture).

You might think that BMI’s rights to the Beatles’ catalog is more important or has a higher moral imperative. I really don’t. We’ll agree to disagree about that.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 8:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Pirates don't just download

BMI does have a higher moral footing because they own the catalogue. If you want to use their product, they have the right to charge you for it. They don’t force you to pay. It’s a voluntary exchange of goods.

Art is flourishing now more than any other time in human history! What do I mean by flourishing? I mean more people have the ability to make a living from their artwork. If Dangermouse has to steal to create their artwork because they can’t afford the tools, it doesn’t make them right. It doesn’t make them right, especially just because art takes precedence over everything else.

I appreciate having this discussion Razz. There’s no need to harbor ill will, as I thoroughly enjoyed it and hope you did as well!

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 8:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, let's put it this way.

You have a different idea of “moral footing” than I. BMI controls the airwaves and interjects themselves as middleman. They underpay new artists that then have to give their songs to BMI just to break even on their contracts.

I really don’t find these record and movie companies to be very “moral” in their business practices, nor do I find the law “moral.” In fact, unless the Beatles themselves are getting screwed out of money because I took something of theirs, I don’t get why I should get fired up about a monolithic company that screws its artists not getting a download they would not have received anyway.

Again, it goes back to understanding how art has historically been made. People who understand this understand that art isn’t actually “flourishing.” In fact the only reason art is still living is because, in part, of the free internet where hopefully artists like Radiohead will continue to cut out the middleman. Oh, and DJ Dangermouse didn’t steal anything. He utilized a form of art called pastiche that, for most of human history, was considered fair use as opposed to being considered “stealing.” It’s only in these weird times that a large group of people think otherwise.

Anyway, we’re way off topic here. That’s all I have to say about being concerned about the moral imperative of a bunch of crooked-assed companies who want to take away even Fair Use for the creation of other art, satire, etc.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 8:33 PM EST up reply actions  

But the contract is voluntary

No one FORCES these artists to sign these contracts. So it’s not being screwed. Are the artists underpaid? Who knows? But Radiohead is a great example because they voluntarily cut the middle man and made their fans pay for the album at any price they wanted. Great for them. It doesn’t make the huge corporations immoral. If more acts get like Radiohead will they change? Bet your ass they will.

I wasnt insinuating Dangermouse stole. I don’t even know who he is. I thought you were just giving me a act who blatantly ripped.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 8:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, when artists really want to get their art out

their options are playing in clubs for no money or signing with a big company that screws them.

Now that the internet has come, you see acts getting away from this. Louis CK made two million bucks by cutting out the middleman. However, you cannot just expect artists to flock to the internet. There isn’t a clear business model that will allow individuals to do so; we’re also still waiting for most people to adopt devices that are primarily streaming/DLC, which will help those artists.

Until then, the big bad record companies are still their best bet. This is why you see SOPA and PIPA being supported by organizations like the RIAA. They don’t want to face their own uselessness and their own shitty business practices, so they support draconian legislation and pretend that if it just wasn’t for those darn pirates, they would be making billions and billions rather than just a whole lot of millions.

We are WAY off-topic though, so I’ll quit this tack now.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 8:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Just bc we're off topic doesn't mean what's being discussed isn't valuable!

Razz I find this back and forth to be stimulating. If you don’t, that’s fine of you to leave.

Here’s the thing: you act as if the ‘big bad record companies’ don’t help these acts at all. They provide the chance of exposure, touring, fame, and making a living off art! That’s a great deal. Most musicians are totally happy on big labels because they aren’t as smart as Louis CK. And Radiohead to do it on their own.

Hell, a group like the Barenaked Ladies has had 20x the financial success self publishing rather than being signed. It has to make sense for the artists. Not all artists have the business sense of DIY. This is why you’ll never see Britney Spears cut out the middle man!

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 8:53 PM EST up reply actions  

It's not a power grab by Hollywood and cable companies

What do they want power for? They want people to stop bootlegging their shit. The law sucks, but this is not some conspiracy for power or censorship. It’s not.

And besides… Do you really think they’ll shut down Google or Facebook? Never. They’d get crushed in a lawsuit, but they would kill some small fish and that is anti-business and unfair.

But people should also stop fucking pirating and violating copyright laws.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 7:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Really? So that's why a site with a commenter that, through Fair Use, uses a clip of a television show as part of a satirical post

can cause that site’s IP to be seized and shut down BEFORE due process? That sure will help people stop bootlegging their shit!

Do you work for the MPAA? RIAA? Or are you just being contrary for some illogical reason?

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 7:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes, I'm a government plant

Don’t be so condescending and hostile, man. I love being engaged in this discussion. Listen, I don’t like the bill. It sucks. Something must be done about piracy and the violation of copyright laws. IS THIS THE BEST CHOICE… NO. I don’t want it to pass. I’m just making points that need to be addressed.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 7:58 PM EST up reply actions  

What?

I think it’s pretty fucking condescending to say “Did you guys even read the legislation?” You pretty much lost your “don’t be condescending” card a couple weeks ago, dude.

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere here, so this is the last I’ll speak upon the topic. Let me just say that there is a reason that people here clearly disagree with even your core ideas about copyright, and it isn’t because we “didn’t read the legislation.”

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 8:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I wasn't being condescending by asking that question

I was serious. Because the first severability clause in the bill is if they use it to violate the freedom of speech. People who suggested they were abridging speech didn’t read it.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 8:06 PM EST up reply actions  

And yet, since there is no due process to examining a site for takedown

I can STILL target sites I don’t agree with just by making a claim that the site violates copyright. I can be pretty damn vague about how this is true, but it doesn’t matter. The IP is getting seized.

by Razztopia on Jan 18, 2012 8:15 PM EST up reply actions  

100% agree

The devil is in the details. I just disagree with the notion that it will be used for censorship. I mean hell, the gov overtly tried to kill Wikileaks, but it’s still up and going. I don’t this will kill it either. We would have to wait and see. I could end up eating crow.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 8:26 PM EST up reply actions  

A wolf in Sheeps clothing........

Piracy is just a smoke screen excuse to be able to control all aspects of what the Internet gives us. Free speech. Damn this isn’t china!!!
China is completely shut off too the whole world because the gov. Controls the Internet. Is that what you want? I hope not.

by MaynardoYO on Jan 18, 2012 7:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Piracy really???

So shouldn’t the gov. be focusing there efforts on more important things!!!! Stealing movies or any other entertainment would be the last thing on my list to fix in this crazy world of ours!

by MaynardoYO on Jan 18, 2012 7:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

It's not about free speech dude

Honestly, I understand your concern about the violation of the freedom of speech, but it’s about piracy, not about speech.

by BennyProfane on Jan 18, 2012 7:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I live in Asia

yet even I myself am aware of what kind of ramifications this bill is capable of when passed in any Congress. It will set a precedent that other nations in this world can use to justify harsher Internet laws.

The Internet is the only medium currently available where it cannot be fully controlled or manipulated by any corporation or government in the world, and that’s the way the majority of the folks dwelling in cyberspace prefer it to be.

Too bad I can’t sign the petition, though—you know, what with the Asian zip codes and all…

by horsewithnoname on Jan 18, 2012 8:34 PM EST reply actions  

The only thing a lot of people fail to grasp is that pirates are not gonna buy anything if their means of pirating are blocked, they’ll just find another way to pirate or something free.

Greatest lover ever during the day, Trainyard Sleeper at night.

by IRodC on Jan 18, 2012 10:42 PM EST reply actions  

The interesting thing is, there are studies that show that pirates are often the biggest spenders on content. WWE has the best policy for dealing with piracy, making their content as easy to find and watch as watch as possible through official channels. You don’t need to download Smackdown because they release it on Youtube anyway.

Valve doesn’t consider piracy a threat to their business model because they know the PC market and how to exploit it to it’s fullest potential. Piracy is always going to exist on the internet. But if you offer your content in an easy, DRM free package that is reasonably priced on formats that people actually want, piracy will be kept to a small fringe where it will deal little damage to whatever industry you’re in.

The way to fight piracy is with innovative business models and smart marketing, not crappy laws. But the MPAA and the RIAA doesn’t want to do that. The internet has created a free market of content creation unheard of. They are losing their gate keeper status as musicians and creators can make money and find fan bases outside of their systems. That’s why they want to break the internet, to protect a business model that has been outdated by innovation and technological progress. First the VCR was going to destroy the movie industry, then the cassette tape was going to kill the music industry. The MPAA and the RIAA simply want it to be 1991 forever.

by StrongStyle81 on Jan 19, 2012 1:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"Behind you there may be one, or there may be many, waiting to stick a knife in your back. But you don't have to worry about me ... I'll shoot you right between the eyes." -- Kevin Nash

The General

Solidsnake_small Geno Mrosko

Editors

Small Keith Harris

Bane2_small Jesse Holland

File1684_small Sergio Hernandez