I love Ars Technica. They fairly consistently have the best journalism of any mainstream-oriented tech news site, work hard to stay unbiased (though don't always achieve that 100%), and hire quality writers.
That being said, I don't like this piece. It's emotional, and even as they admit, hyperbolic. Unless "crazy freetards" is a word the MPAA used in their posting, I don't see a legitimate reason for Ars to use it. The bill might be absolutely freaking insane, but I don't read Ars to be told that, I read Ars to be informed about the issue.
I understand their passion, their disgust, and their defensiveness. I share their sentiments exactly. I just don't understand why that should undermine their professionalism.
I disagree. This comes across as a fantastic editorial, with just the right amount of frankness ("The thing is, we're really on the MPAA's side; they just don't realize it.") to make me sit up and take them seriously.
My only quibble is that it's filed as a news piece, rather than the editorial it so clearly is. This isn't news; it's meta-news.
ArsTechnica tends to classify itself as a professional blog. While it certainly reports the news, they have for a long time freely intermixed opinion, reviews, and political commentary with the news, though they generally go out of their way to make certain that it is easily distinguished from the facts.
This was an excellent news piece with some editorializing both presenting facts that occurred along with the opinion of one of Ars' editors. I found it a highly interesting piece from an outstandin organization.
MPAA forgot the other half of the gun argument. Guns can kill people but we don't prevent law enforcement from having guns? OK, but U.S. citizens have the right to own guns also, kind of a balance of power so to speak.
So where is my balance of power with respect to SOPA/PIPA? When someone improperly targets my website (intentionally or not) and it's offline due to a simple accusation, what's my recourse?
If a company abuses DMCA, they are liable for perjury. The police prosecutor is meant to charge them. However, that hasn't happened.
Alternatively, if a person suffered monetary damages (current and future), they can sue the abuser for damages. This is what protects big companies from potential DMCA abusers because they have a lot to lose.
Since free content creators can't sue for damages but only counternotice and accept liability if they're not scared from the notice; but people sharing the content will be more afraid of the legalese in counternotices. The bill's intent was to stop freely infringing copyright content, it also consequently kills free content sharing due to the unchecked abuse. It's brilliant bill for the anti-Internet activists.
When some random person on the Internet trolls, they are ignored. So why don't we ignore the copyright trolls? "A piece of literature is arguing against our policies." Well... yeah, welcome to society!
MPAA wants censorship rights without due process on bytes traveling between any device. If you resist then you are labeled as petty thieves who want paid content for free.
MPAA wants to preserve a 18th century business model against a modern infrastructure where thought, matter, data, energy, directives and commerse exist as one and can be freely transmitted between minds (the future devices they want to censor... You and I, our sensors and transmission devices)
our minds will eventually join this symphony of communication called the internet. We better cook freedom right into it or you'll find penalties for thinking and communicating unauthorized information.
[+] [-] freehunter|14 years ago|reply
That being said, I don't like this piece. It's emotional, and even as they admit, hyperbolic. Unless "crazy freetards" is a word the MPAA used in their posting, I don't see a legitimate reason for Ars to use it. The bill might be absolutely freaking insane, but I don't read Ars to be told that, I read Ars to be informed about the issue.
I understand their passion, their disgust, and their defensiveness. I share their sentiments exactly. I just don't understand why that should undermine their professionalism.
[+] [-] Doches|14 years ago|reply
My only quibble is that it's filed as a news piece, rather than the editorial it so clearly is. This isn't news; it's meta-news.
[+] [-] timwiseman|14 years ago|reply
This was an excellent news piece with some editorializing both presenting facts that occurred along with the opinion of one of Ars' editors. I found it a highly interesting piece from an outstandin organization.
[+] [-] dhughes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delinka|14 years ago|reply
So where is my balance of power with respect to SOPA/PIPA? When someone improperly targets my website (intentionally or not) and it's offline due to a simple accusation, what's my recourse?
[+] [-] Joakal|14 years ago|reply
Alternatively, if a person suffered monetary damages (current and future), they can sue the abuser for damages. This is what protects big companies from potential DMCA abusers because they have a lot to lose.
Since free content creators can't sue for damages but only counternotice and accept liability if they're not scared from the notice; but people sharing the content will be more afraid of the legalese in counternotices. The bill's intent was to stop freely infringing copyright content, it also consequently kills free content sharing due to the unchecked abuse. It's brilliant bill for the anti-Internet activists.
MPAA are anti-Internet activists by the way.
[+] [-] c0ur7n3y|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vivtek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Natsu|14 years ago|reply
Because they're modifying our copyright laws.
[+] [-] nvrmor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maeon3|14 years ago|reply
MPAA wants to preserve a 18th century business model against a modern infrastructure where thought, matter, data, energy, directives and commerse exist as one and can be freely transmitted between minds (the future devices they want to censor... You and I, our sensors and transmission devices)
our minds will eventually join this symphony of communication called the internet. We better cook freedom right into it or you'll find penalties for thinking and communicating unauthorized information.