SOPA and it's companion PROTECT IP bill promise to curtail "foreign" piracy of copyrighted content. However, the bill as it is remains far too vague and open to interpretation. Due process through the courts is not required for the government to pull a site. An accusation of copyright infringement is all it requires. It would allow private corporations free reign to censor the internet. In many ways, it is not dissimilar to China's Great Firewall.
This presents a huge threat to sites like Google, YouTube, and Facebook, as well as smaller internet entrepreneurs like Channel Awesome, and MMNTech. While it is an American bill, the internet community has chosen to draw the line here. Other countries are also contemplating similar legislation.
I oppose all attempts to censor the free flow of knowledge in any form. Our society relies on this to grow, and the internet is the best tool we have today for this. While piracy may be a problem, SOPA opens far too big a loophole for abuse and should be scrapped entirely. It was a bill drafted and supported by only a hand full of media conglomerates. They are the only ones that stands to benefit this, should it become law.
If you live in the United States, please take the time to write your congressional representatives and tell them that you oppose the bill. The Obama administration has already come out against the bill, and I applaud them for doing so.
If you have the time, it may also be worth it to let SOPA's supporters know that you oppose their attempt to censor the Internet. A complete list can be found below.
Many websites including Wikipedia and Reddit will be taking action against the bill on January 18th. They will switch off for the day in protest. MMNtech supports them in their endeavours.
SOPA supporters:
- ABC
- BMI
- CBS
- Comcast/NBCUniversal
- Disney Publishing Worldwide, Inc.
- EMI Music Publishing
- Entertainment Software Association
- ESPN
- Major League Baseball
- Marvel Entertainment, LLC
- MasterCard Worldwide
- Motion Picture Association of America
- National Cable & Telecommunications Association
- National Football League
- News Corporation
- Random House
- Scholastic, Inc.
- Sony/ATV Music Publishing
- Sony Music Entertainment
- Time Warner
- Universal Music
- Universal Music Publishing Group
- Viacom
- Visa Inc.
- Warner Music Group
- Entertainment Software Association
US piracy and counterfeiting estimates have been greatly over estimated.
That's what the Government Accountability Office is saying. The RIAA, MPAA, and the FBI frequently cite the figure of $250 billion and 750,000 jobs lost per year due to copyright theft. The damning report concluded that it was impossible to place a dollar or job figure on looses due to piracy. The GAO concluded that it could not figure out where the FBI had gotten the $250 billion figure.
Pro-IP groups assume that one incident of piracy equals one lost sale. Ars Technia reports that substitution rates, "how much of the infringing activity should be counted as a lost sale", are only based on "assumptions" at best.
The US administration under Bush and Obama has been actively defending the Pro-IP side of the debate. The RIAA and MPAA recently began calling for the government to mandate spyware on computers to automatically detect and delete infringing material. They also want border agents to search travellers' electronic devices and confiscate them if pirated material is found. It's another stepup in their war against piracy that has many online civil rights groups worried.
Ubisoft's new ultra-draconian DRM system is not working vary well. Two weeks after launch, gamers who bought Settlers 7 are still finding themselves locked out of the game.
People are reporting that they are unable to log in and play. They are receiving the message the "server [is] not available". Ubisoft told Eurogamer that "our technical teams have made progress but we are not yet able to say that the issue is completely resolved." A 50 page forum thread lists countless complaints so it appears the problems are far from being fixed.
Ubisoft came under heat last month when they released a new DRM system that required gamers to maintain a solid internet connection to play single player titles. Server problems have plagued the French publisher, part of which the company blames on denial of service attacks from hackers. Despite the PR flack, Ubisoft has shown no plans to back down the scheme's internet requirement.
The extreme approach to DRM had failed on two fronts. It has not stopped increasingly brazen pirates. It's also angered paying customers to the point where they abandon the platform or turn to piracy. Publishers are not going to abandon copy protection on their products. But they're going to have to consider changing tactics. Let's look at a few alternative DRM system and see how they measure up in fairness and protection.
The No-DRM Method (aka The Honour System)
This method has been advocated by Sins of a Solar Empire publisher Stardock games. It's pretty self-explanatory. The single player game has no DRM while multiplayer requires a CD key. Stardock has blasted it's competitors DRM in the past. Even to the point of publishing a "Gamers Bill of Rights". The game does require you to register your legitimate copy with Stardock to purchase expansions or get patches. The system is by far the most user friendly. No keys to input, no install limits. However, the game remains wide open to piracy. Sins still sold quite well though. The game itself wasn't exactly a mainstream title so it could fly under the radar. This method works best for indie titles but isn't going to work for blockbuster releases.
Advantages:
-Most user friendly
Disadvantages
-Leaves it wide open to piracy
-Only practical for smaller releases and indie games
CD Keys and Disc-In-Drive
This is the DRM system that most old-school gamers are familiar with. When you bought a game, it had a key tied to it. Usually printed in the manual. You had to entre a valid key when you installed the game. Otherwise, it refused to work. The game disc also had to be in the drive in order to play it, just like with consoles. The CD Key method is by far the most commonly used DRM system today. Most non-gaming software including Windows still uses it. It has become less common for games. Fallout 3 is one notable title that still uses it. It's simple and it works. However, it's fairly easy to find pirated keys available online that circumvent activation.
Advantages:
-User friendly
-Tried and true method
Disadvantages:
-Relatively easy to circumvent
Steam
Valve Software launched Steam as the DRM method of choice for Half Life 2. Since 2005, the system has exploded into one of the most popular gaming stores online. It wouldn't be a stretch to call it the iTunes of video games, since it works in the same way. In order to use it, you must sign up for a Steam account and download the client software. You then purchase games through the Steam Store, which are downloaded directly to your computer.
The games are tagged to your user account and can be installed an unlimited number of times on an unlimited number of systems. Steam also lets you make disc based backups of games. So you don't need to re-download them if they're uninstalled. It still requires an internet connection but you only have to be connected to boot the game. In the last couple of years, it's become the dominant service for gamers. Mainly due to the ease of purchase and frequent sales the store has.
The system is not perfect though. Steam does allow third party DRM systems to be used with their titles. The store does list what these restrictions are, which is a major step up. Therefore, gamers know which titles to avoid. You also still need an internet connection and download times are lengthly. Steam doesn't have boxed games. Furthermore, if Steam should close down its servers, the games you have become unplayable.
Advantages
-Relatively user friendly
-Online distribution offers easy, one stop shopping
-DRM isn't intrusive
-Discloses DRM limitations if any
Disadvantages
-Still allows 3rd party DRM on some games, such as Assassin's Creed II and Wings of Prey
-Requires an internet connection
-Download times can be lengthly
-Games become unplayable should servers shut down
Amazon's new Kindle is all the rage right now in the United States but it seems to be having its own Orwellian moments. Kindle owners who had purchased George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm found their digital copies to have mysteriously disappeared. Amazon claims that a third party publisher had mistakenly assumed that the two works were in US public domain. This is a fair assumption since in many jurisdictions, including Canada, copyright remains in force for 50 years after the creator's death before being released. Orwell died in 1950. In the United States, copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the author, meaning 1984 won't enter public domain until 2020. The current copyright holders of both works demanded that Amazon pull the content, which the company complied.
Amazon did not simply remove it from the store but sent out a message to all Kindle 2 readers to delete the two works. This was done without the knowledge of those who had purchased the work. Rather than incurring the wrath of (ironically) Orwell's estate, Amazon is now being sued for violation of their own terms of service as well as violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. One of the plaintiffs, Michigan high school senior Justin D. Gawronski, had been studying Nineteen Eighty-Four for school and had made notes using the Kindle's built in note taking feature. When he went to start up his Kindle, he found the book was gone but the now useless notes and bookmarks still remained. Gawronski expects he will have to read the book all over again. "A note such as 'remember this paragraph for your thesis' is useless if it does not actually a reference a specific paragraph," the suit noted. A second person, Antoine Bruguier, a Silicon Valley engineer, has also been listed on the suit. Bruguier claims that Amazon sent him an email notifying him that a refund was being processed. He asked to keep the book but Amazon refused, noting that they would not provide any "additional insight or action." Bruguier claims Amazon deceived him by making him think the books he purchased were his. Amazon's terms of service do state that books are licensed, not sold. However, it goes on to say that users have the right to keep a "permanent copy" to "view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times." The suit contends that Amazon never disclosed that it could remotely remove content from the reader without the knowledge or consent or the purchaser.
This suit pretty much sums up the reasoning for my lack of comfort with digital downloadable content. When I purchase a paper book, I own that copy and I am entitled to do what I please with it under fair use. I can read it, make personal copies, lend it to friends, and sell it if I choose. Furthermore, the license on print copies can never expire or be revoked. The inherent intangibility of digital copies has given a great deal more power to content holders than they ever had before. Probably the most disturbing part of all this is that Amazon has given itself the power to remotely control the Kindle, allowing them to add or delete content at will without the user's knowledge. This is technically illegal as the law suit contends. Under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, it is illegal to install or remove files from a computer without the user's knowledge and explicit consent. This was the reason Sony BMG was sued in 2005 over the CD rootkit debacle. It is also partially why Electronic Arts was sued over Spore and SecuROM DRM in 2008. Despite this, parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act still manage to trump these laws. It is best to avoid diving head first into the realm of digital content until solid laws are passed that guarantee some form of stronger consumer protection. Amazon has pulled the bait & switch on their customers and I really hope the two plaintiffs manage to get some laws changed out of this suit.
Source: The Register, Wikinews
