Like I stated earlier, I personally enjoy the freedoms the internet has..... I also agree that corporate greed and patenting DNA is going WAY to far.

Vapor, I was in a colorful disagreement today with a Lobbyist/Lawyer that deals with Net Neutrality..... One of my jobs is to put him out of business in representing BS legislation to solve a problem that business methodology can solve.

I really do deal a lot with this issue and I do agree with you about the importance of the ecosystem. I temper that hardcore support with my belief that IP protections are necessary for a healthy ecosystem to thrive. The answer is not one sided and lies in the middle with common sense compromise that is based on mutually beneficial long term outcomes for all parties involved.

@osusev said:

Vapor,

for every frivolous lawsuit that has little to no merit, there are literally hundreds of patents from drugs, to manufacturing, etc etc that have in fact protected innovations.

As for your example of COD... well the LICENSED use of the Unreal engine as the core technology is an example of proper use.... Those other copy cats and competitors all license something like the Unreal engine or create their own.

Everything from the Xbox 360, Wii, game engines, playstation 3 etc etc all have multiple licenses and patents protecting and allowing the proper use for commercialization.

IP is in fact the very basis of their price points, competitive advantages, business models and strategic partnerships.

Vapor I do understand your opinion, I do personally agree.... however the situation has a business/legal nature I cant ignore just because my preferences and beliefs support an outcome I just dont think is fair to Business.

Patents on drugs... Oh boy, you're opening up a can of worms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology,_et_al._v._United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office,_et_al.

tl;dr

Company files a patent for technique to isolate a gene associated with breast cancer, ACLU challenges it, SCOTUS sides with company. If you want to do research on this gene, you need this company's permission.

FUCK EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS.

You do NOT stifle scientific research in the name of profits, you fucking whore of a company. I'll admit, I'm pretty passionate about vidya games, but this? This!?!? This is horseshit.

for every frivolous lawsuit that has little to no merit, there are literally hundreds of patents from drugs, to manufacturing, etc etc that have in fact protected innovations.

As for your example of COD... well the LICENSED use of the Unreal engine as the core technology is an example of proper use.... Those other copy cats and competitors all license something like the Unreal engine or create their own.

Everything from the Xbox 360, Wii, game engines, playstation 3 etc etc all have multiple licenses and patents protecting and allowing the proper use for commercialization.

IP is in fact the very basis of their price points, competitive advantages, business models and strategic partnerships.

Vapor I do understand your opinion, I do personally agree.... however the situation has a business/legal nature I cant ignore just because my preferences and beliefs support an outcome I just dont think is fair to Business.

@vaportrail said:

Yeah, IP theft explains why we're in the proverbial economic shitter. Please.

first, I was not making an argument of our current macro economic state and its correlation to IP theft....

To that point, IP protections meaning laws are the cornerstone of innovation and economic growth. From Electricity to Mass production to any "business" protecting those business investments is in fact the cornerstone of our economic system. The patent and civil/business law system is the regulatory controls that keeps the system moving forward.

Technology and automation plus cost of manufacturing is one of the main drivers why the "middle" class or low to semi skilled jobs have disappeared or been relocated out of country.

Try not to link to totally different topics as my positions.

@vaportrail said:

Yeah, IP theft explains why we're in the proverbial economic shitter. Please.

Good point VT, some people go to college and lose all aspects of common sense. I'm glad to see your keeping it sane.

@osusev said:

IP protection is KEY to economic innovation and growth, without everyone would be afraid to create new business or innovate.

Yeah, IP theft explains why we're in the proverbial economic shitter. Please.

@vaportrail said:

I'm sorry sev. The internet has always been a bastion of free speech. I will not stand for ANY attempts to limit it (except in the cases of child porn). I find it disgusting that the assholes responsible for the housing bubble continue to live lavish lives, and our government is more concerned with IP theft.

Um no, the "internet" has not always been about free speech....... Tim Berners Lee while he was working for Cern made a better way to transmit data by creating HTML.

The "internet" is a amalgamation of technologies not a unified system, use of the VAST multitudes of technologies client side, server side, languages, transport protocols etc etc has been rapidly evolving for all kinds of uses.

The "internet" or the term you are using to define what you think the "internet" actually is does not support any moral/constitutional idea or have any driving axiom what so ever. There are millions of technologist adding to the amalgamation of technologies on a daily basis for all kinds of purposes.

Vapor your problem is that you have a concept that is important to you and those who profit from theft are using that as a anchor point for PR to protect their income stream.

The "government" is being lobbied by the Media and Communications industries because both have COST burdens without the upside (Google and companies stock value) that enrich themselves by providing safe harbor for illegal communication....

Every NFL game in the beginning has that announcement about illegal rebroadcast...... the "internet" is all about BROADCAST or Transport of data/communications..........

Cal I have no idea what you are talking about..... This is truly a issue that does not see democrat or republican take a look at who is being lobbied (BOTH SIDES) This has nothing really to do with the White House right now.

Vapor The "internet" does not have a reason of being nor a guiding principle and it does not even really have one underlying technology. Your concepts are not really a part of the system of communications that is powered by for profit industries.... we are all just participants empowered by vast multitudes of ever evolving technologies.

There are going to be inter state commerce and communications rules and broadcast is a part of those limitations...... Current technologies currently enable broadcast of content which means they will fall under purview of the government for all kinds of reasons. IP protection is KEY to economic innovation and growth, without everyone would be afraid to create new business or innovate.

Neither Bush (H or W) nor Reagan ever wanted to control the internet and media airwaves. Bill Clinton didn't, and neither did the president at that time (Higgardly)...

But this Constitution violating, violent revolution supporting ("You are why I ran for president"), marxist president and his minions do.

Isn't that odd? Really, really, really ODD ?

Like totally supporting the filth and crime of the fleabitten occupiers... and hating the Tea Party?

Obamao and Co. hate dissent. You are allowed to agree with them - that's free speech. Disagree, and even the U.S. Supreme Court

won't escape their wrath. Okay - Spiro Agnew did - he was a moron - and the left freaked out and screamed about it everywhere in our country -

now? A lot of the left would be happy. Their side would rule. You can agree - and you can't disagree. Censorship always works like that.

We aren't talking about what the definition of "decent" is - we're talking about working towards total political control to enable a revolution/transformation to

an all powerful, stay in power marxist style gov.

No wonder that they embrace Assad of Syria and Chavez of Venzuela, and Castro, they want that kind of control. After all, the lefties are so-o-o-o-o right about everything....

"it's right for the people".... them people. We're in big, big trouble.

.

@vaportrail said:

What about sites with user-generated content?

Sites that exist to distribute content and enrich themselves from traffic driven from the users have a responsibility to operate within the laws.

Sites=business

Virtual business=physical business

A physical business is not allowed to enable distribution of stolen/trademark/patented/IP protected goods regardless of who provides the goods so why should a virtual business?

The US has a responsibility to enforce laws...... Virtual businesses should not be protected from laws

A site that allows "user" content is the same as providing a address for people fencing stolen property or just showing off products they dont own....

The laws should apply to the web, the companies against SOPA somehow feel above the law for some made up reasons..... The "internet" is not a public right but a collection of systems owned by for profit companies.

Makes perfect sense, maybe if these companies focus on law abiding business models that generate revenue from legitimate practices they would have nothing to worry about.

I realize this is coming from the hard left, but it may be interesting to 1 or the other of you guys on the subject.

WSS

your every breath or every website that you may google search while

looking up information then this may be of concern to everyone.

U.S. contemplates unprecedented internet censorship: Bill proposes web site closure link HERE

In 2008 in the U.S., The Motion Picture Association of America asked President Obama to introduce laws that would allow the federal government to effectively spy on the entire Internet, establishing a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection.

In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced, proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications

Prediction: Internet in government's hands

"Net neutrality" Prediction read it HERE

An opponent of "net neutrality" is explaining why the free market and religious groups should be concerned about the Federal Communications Commission's impending order.

Seton Motley, president of Less Government and editor in chief of StopNetRegulation.org, says the ultimate objective of net neutrality is to drive out all private investment.

"The godfather of the media reform movement, a man by the name of Robert McChesney, said [net] neutrality does not commandeer control of the Internet," Motley cites. "'We're not at the point yet,' he actually uses that sentence, 'but the ultimate objective is to eradicate the media capitalists from the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.'"

But the Less Government president warns that when the private investment is gone, the government will be the sole Internet provider.

"At which point, they will be rationing bandwidth, just like ObamaCare will result in rationing of healthcare," he relates (see earlier story). "And when that happens, if they're choosing websites that get bandwidth, and they're choosing between Daily Kos [and] MoveOn.org vs. National Review and American Spectator, who's the government going to choose?"

Net neutrality is set to take effect Sunday, November 20. The House recently voted to repeal the effort, but the Senate voted against it in a 52-46 decision.

@vaportrail said:

The government is no where near as intrusive as Facebook or Google in terms if of privacy invasion and the use of flash/HTML 5 based super cookies are growing exponentially.

I'm not at all concerned about the invasion of privacy. If you put your information on the internet, that's your prerogative. My problem is that the government is going to be able to prevent people from accessing websites.

I get that,however when you access the internet you are opting to use for profit services that adhere to FCC controls because the nature of interstate communications.

If you dont like the turnpike rules in Ohio or any other state you dont have to drive on them, the same goes for using interstate communications systems like the internet.

Consumers believe they have some sort of predefined rights based on well nothing, you opt to use a service governed by rules that can be amended or added at any time. If you dont like limits than dont use the service.

I could see if the "internet" was wholly owned and subsidized by the public...... well its not by a LONG shot so you dont really have any say because this is a for profit private industry that has to abide by Federal rules.

Using the internet is an option/feature that you pay for....the wonderful thing about choice is that you can make another one.

I'm not at all concerned about the invasion of privacy. If you put your information on the internet, that's your prerogative. My problem is that the government is going to be able to prevent people from accessing websites.

WSS

Piracy is definately a major element here, however it is much easier to come down on the supply side of the problem. Coming down on google or other major distributors of content is a target that is collectible financially and a major source of dessimination.

Dmca and other anti piracy strategies have not failed by a longshot. Itunes, pandora, spotify, rhapsody are successfully reducing piracy in music. Amazon videos and now ultraviolet and other lockbox dmca based systems are now entering the video system not to mention Netflix much like pandora reduces the need to pirate content.

The media industries are adapting successfully with subscription based products using the cloud as the delivery/admiin mechanism for users. Services like HBO GO are working with cable/satellite/DSL distributors and ESPN are successully making the transition.

The government is no where near as intrusive as Facebook or Google in terms if of privacy invasion and the use of flash/HTML 5 based super cookies are growing exponentially.

You will never stamp out theft, however you can reduce distribution from major companies as well as influence better services by prodding the players to work together by regulations that promote proper IP protections.

"content is king" and protecting the creators rights to IP is key to new great content being created in the future. Consumers are on the back end of the learning curve of internet based services and the regulatilons are even further. Things will stabiize sooner or later, just dont get caught up in th PR talking points and realize neither side really cares about you the

consumer....... They care only about protecting their income stream. We are just the pawns

Completely agree with you there.

For profit companies that create these services are important as well as protecting the monetary motives and protections of IP are key to innovation and upgrading of these services. Internet, Electricity, Automobiles, etc are all transformational "utilities" that humans use that have changed the course of our species. Enabling theft just because a consumer does not "like" limits or wants the product/service for the lowest costs (free) does not mean smart limits and protections that enable business are not necessary. You dont have a "right" to steal(content for use or distribution without consent), or have access to a services (internet)that costs a TON of money to upkeep,upgrade and create.

If it passes, anyone who still wants to download stuff from tpb will be able to do so just by entering the site's IP address. If this bill is here to curtail piracy, it's already a failure. So, since it's here to protect intellectual properties, but it isn't really protecting them, what's the point of it? It's just going to increase self-censorship by websites so that they don't get on the blacklist, which is a big no-no, imo.

Piracy isn't an issue for companies who choose to adapt to the market (see Valve). All these Draconian rules (DMCA anyone?) only punish the legitimate buyers, as pirates typically find a bypass around these hurdles and the only people left to deal with it are the legitimate buyers. The industry should accept that piracy is going to happen, and they need to adapt to it by releasing better products and services that people would prefer to pay for.

We can agree to disagree.

I work in the industry on both sides of the issue, I have a lot of exposure to lobbyists from both camps so I do have some insight (not that its worth anything)

Vapor I do think the thing we define as the "internet" (I quoted internet because it really is not a unified object more a generalization of a concept than an actual material unified object)

is the MOST important innovation in human history... (Hyperbole? not in my opinion)

The problem defining it as a "right".... electricity is much like the "internet" yet if you dont pay you dont receive access..... Is electricity a human "right"? you could make the argument that Electricity a giant necessity for humans as well.

For profit companies that create these services are important as well as protecting the monetary motives and protections of IP are key to innovation and upgrading of these services. Internet, Electricity, Automobiles, etc are all transformational "utilities" that humans use that have changed the course of our species. Enabling theft just because a consumer does not "like" limits or wants the product/service for the lowest costs (free) does not mean smart limits and protections that enable business are not necessary.

You dont have a "right" to steal(content for use or distribution without consent), or have access to a services (internet)that costs a TON of money to upkeep,upgrade and create.

Rules and limits are never popular, however they usually are there for reasons..... just think when you were a child and now that you an adult some of the limits now make sense because you have a greater understanding of the costs,responsibilities, potential repercussion of your actions.

This problem is because consumers who have never had any rules largely because the industry was in its infancy does not understand the real landscape. These rules that both sides are fighting will in the long run benefit consumers, but consumers are largely like children...... impatient,does not care about the carrying costs or what the "parents" IE Communications/media companies vs Services companies are fighting about and does not want any limitations.

The internet does not belong to the consumer, access to the internet is a for profit private business OPTION. If you dont like the rules than dont participate in the usage. The internet is funded and ran by for profit companies who by law have to conform to IP economic based protections of our commerce system.

I'm in this boat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

So let's agree to disagree.