SOPA/PIPA and the ASD community

Post Reply New Topic

I did a google search of SOPA and autism, but didn't get much (figures). I want to get your opinions on how this bill could effect your life or someone you know. To clarify, I realized earlier today that this bill could shut down millions of blogs created by people on the spectrum and the consequences it could have on these people, especially nonverbal people. Thoughts?

It would ruin the Internet. Fortunately, the blackouts today have had great results in showing legislators that we won't sit around while they sell the Internet to corporate interests.

Wait I'm not an expert on this. I don't pay attention to news. What EXACTLY is SOPA trying to get rid of on the internet?

SOPA is a bill created by Hollywood lobbyists to stop online piracy, which you may know, costs the industry millions every year. The main idea was to stop foreign online piracy. The writing of this bill is vague, but many people are afraid that it will also destroy websites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, and Reddit. Basically, if you share content (videos, music, pictures) that someone else made, the US government will knock on your door. AKA internet censorship. I am not opposed to stopping online piracy since I want to work in film/tv, but to censor the internet would put us back in the 80's, and new artists will find it much more difficult to find an audience.

Tag : SOPA

CannibusForAutism, I just found your site earlier today! Keep up the good work!

Seems to me it might affect education, particularly for children with autism...

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4334578.html

Well, as with any censorship law, it might be used for things it wasn't intended for. So the true effects on our community are beyond what we can imagine.

Given the fact that there are youtube-vids on this forum, they might even shut WP.net down.

Thank you Ms Robinson, if that is indeed you from that autism play on the net no so long ago?

I oppose SOPA, I need my daily intake of knowledge, especially wikipedia. I always have the urge to learn more and more. If I do not satisfy this craving I do not feel right. Plus my sense of socialization is usually internet based as I have poor interaction with people in real life.

Plain idea. If these idiotic measures go through, will it be the end of the US involvement in the internet?

I think the reverse will be true, and that tech firms are going to increasingly attract content creators (i.e. artists) away from the traditional publishers, film and music distributors. Hollywood will wither and turn into a niche. Tech companies do not yet have the political savvy to court politicians and lobby for their interests, but politicians are surely going to notice which industry butters their bread. It might be a really dirty fight inbetween now and the new regime though.

Old copyright laws are certainly unfit for the world that we live in, and the idea of shutting down a website or an organisation for copyright infringement - even if it is a tiny part of their overall content, and even where the infringement is unintentional - is just plain counter to any developed nation's economic interests. Who does not have an infringing image, quotation or link on their blog? I am sure I have, and I earn income from the copyright on my own writing, so I should be more aware and careful than most people.

Perhaps we will move to some form of revenue-assurance system where content is presumed to be free the moment it leaves the publishing house or recording studio, but dissemination is tracked and charged - a bit like iTunes, but common to all content providers. Then every artist would be actively torrenting their own material to maximise dissemination fees.

@stuartN

i like your idea of dissemination based distribution,

as i see it one should pay for the service itself and not the content,

its already happening in many videogames and some music, many once-underground musicians still publish their own work on youtube despite having records on sale, they make the most from concerts anyway with modern "copyright" holders in the mix.
we have to find a way to make sure that the artist is the prime benefactor of his or her own works, not some middleman sworn into the mix by contract with only the intention of profit.

I think these ideas (and the rest of your post) are perfectly correct. What I wonder is... will the "tech companies" bother to acquire "the political savvy to court politicians", or may they just move their operations out of the country that has started the process of imprisoning them?



(Edited to correct my awful grammar mistyped idiocy. I.e. one duolicated word.)

Last edited by lau on 25 Jan 2012, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It would literally kill everyone.

Ars Technica had a good article suggesting that Republicans made a swing to tech companies when they saw the level of feeling in the SOPA blackout (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... or-gop.ars).

At the same time though, Apple seem quite happy at creating proprietary ecosystems in which authors and users are locked in by laziness, simplicity and the low pricing of their market - even if that annoys some authors (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/ ... ncerns.ars). But if they ship 1/3 million books in the first three days after launch, with virtually nothing in their inventory, they are not going to be swayed by criticism.

My own printed books have a cover-price of about £15 ($23), with royalties to the author at 12.5%. In reality, the publisher sells at wholesale for as little as £5, which is an income of 60 pence ($1) per copy. I can see a real attraction to sticking the next book on iTunes at $0.99 with a $0.70 income, in the hope that very many more people would buy a copy at 1/23 of the physical print price.

My guess is that the US will probably take a lead on rewriting copyright and selling virtual intellectual property in a market that we can barely conceive yet, a whole new export industry with tiny raw material needs and unlimited output.