Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Missing The Point
I've been disappointed to see the various responses to SOPA, especially the "DEVIATION CENSORED" images. They so completely miss the point that I can only assume the people posting them have absolutely no comprehension of what SOPA means, why it's a problem, and what they're actually protesting against.

First off, SOPA is not about censorship. Unfortunately, many of the opponents of SOPA decided to cast it as being about censorship in order to mobilize public opinion. Why did they do that? Unfortunately, they did that for two reasons: 1) they knew that without mobilizing mass support, the bill would go through and 2) they knew that the masses they wanted to get support from simply don't care/understand the real problem enough to do anything - because the truth is much to complicated for the typical internet user. I have some sympathy for that view, because I've discovered over and over again that copyright is, in fact, too complicated for the typical internet user to grasp. Or, perhaps it's easy to grasp but they just don't want to because they like downloading "free" music and movies and your art and my art too much to be bothered. See, SOPA is not about censorship, it's about copyright and the people mobilizing public opinion against it knew that if they tried to cast it in its true light there would be too much nuance and not enough anger.

So, those who are posting those "STOP SOPA CENSORSHIP" images - they've been played. The fact that SOPA is bad legislation is also true (I'll get to that) but they've still been played. The fact that arguably it was the 'good guys' who played them doesn't change the fact that they were manipulated into publicly voicing an opinion that they aren't qualified to hold because they don't understand it. If you believe that the public should have a voice in public policy (hint: that's why they call it "public" policy) you need to understand what's going on and not just chant slogans that you hear on FOX News or some popular webcomic.

Some History
Hopefully, you remember or have heard of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1996. There were complaints and protests at the time of DMCA, as well - for too many good reasons to go into - but of course it passed anyway. DMCA was unpopular with the online community because of some much-discussed provisions that made it illegal to reverse engineer the security of copy protect systems or to attempt to bypass (or even to describe how to bypass) copy protection. In spite of widespread criticism - and similar screeching about researchers being "censored" - DMCA passed. Unfortunately, DMCA was worse than most people understood it to be, because they were too busy watching the fireworks over copyright research and very few people noticed the razor blade hidden in the apple.

The razor blade in the apple was the safe harbor provisions in DMCA. Basically, what DMCA's safe harbor provision says is that a site that hosts content gets a pass for copyright violations in all user-uploaded content as long as they have a mechanism whereby the copyright holder of a stolen work can submit a takedown request and have their copyrighted work removed. The official terminology for the safe harbor is the "passive conduit" safe harbor - and it seems reasonable enough at first glance. How can a site like Youtube be expected to proactively determine what was violating copyright and take it down? Every video would have to be reviewed; they'd be out of business!  A site like Deviantart couldn't exist! Exactly! Never mind that Youtube is valued at billions of dollars because of the advertising revenue it makes from showing 99.9% pure stolen stuff. So what happens is that a media company that can afford to hire someone to search youtube for material that belongs to them, then turn that over to a lawyer-bot that submits DMCA takedown notices - well, the media company can get justice. Sort of. Because it's not "justice" if it's not fair. And you can realize it's not fair if you think about a small-time copyright holder - like, say, me. I actually first signed up for Deviantart because some weenie had taken a bunch of my images and posted them (unattributed, of course) so I had to make an account in order to submit a complaint. But I'm just one guy; I don't have employees or a posse of lawyers. Unlike Disney, if I wanted to actually protect my copyright online, I'd need to spend 48 hours a day on redbubble, deviantart, fetlife, facebook, myspace, youtube, blah, flip, boo, whatever - a billion websites that exist to re-host content, a huge amount of which is violating copyright. That's not justice; that's "a system designed for the powerful who can afford lawyers." And, on the flip side of that, it's "a system designed to protect sites that host user-provided content from lawsuits." Youtube can make millions selling banner ads on stolen copyrighted material, but the copyright holder can't come along and ask for their slice of the revenues - can they? For Disney, that's no big deal, but if I got the banner ad revenue from my neko-girl pictures that are all over the interwebs, I'd be able to buy a nice shiny toy Ferrari.*  So DMCA allows you to profit from stolen material if you're big, and prevents you from recovering damages if you're not.

It's win-win-win for the powerful and it's a great big "fuck you" to the individual artists who are left with a nearly useless weapon (DMCA takedowns) to protect themselves. So, while Metallica and the music industry can pat themselves on the back for hammering a few file sharing sites what happens to the small independent artists like Ray Wylie Hubbard or Fred Eaglesmith or every single garage band that's just starting out without a big label behind them? Yeah, the US' lawmakers took care of the big companies and the lawyers and the big website and media companies - their paymasters.

Win! Win! Win!
Big business and big media were happy with DMCA because it let them club a few sites into submission and the lawyers were happy with it because they were able to form consortia that do nothing but litigate copyright claims.  Win! Win! Win! In the software industry, we saw the establishment of the Software Publishers Association, which has nothing to do with software publishers other than that it's a warehouse of lawyers who try to make claims against software pirates and, well, they pocket the settlements. So copyright became a "hunting license" for lawyers who can go to the big firms (and media companies) and say, "We'll tell you what - we'll go out there and sue a few of these bastards and really show them who's boss! It'll stop you losing so much money to piracy and it won't cost you anything because we'll pay ourselves out of the proceeds from the lawsuits!" See how that works? And now you understand why the lawyers are seeking damages of $400,000 against some single mom who uploaded a bunch of albums to bittorrent - because they can. Meanwhile, if that small garage band or amateur photographer wants to protect their copyright? There are lawyers who'll help you out, but their fee for sending a generic "cease and desist" letter start at $1,000 and go up. That's why you have someone like deviant artist Laura Jade spending 3 years and who knows how much lawyer money trying to get a porn company to stop using her portrait as the cover illustration of a DVD. Or Harlan Ellison suing American Online to try to get them to take down copies of his writings that one of their users had published in a forum.

Short form: if you steal an image from Disney, you get crushed. If you steal copyrighted work from an individual, you get away with it. Because the law isn't even-handed; it wasn't designed to be. It was designed so that the big guys would win and the little guys... aaaah, fuck the little guys.

More History
Unfortunately for the big media companies, DMCA did not give them the complete domination of the playing field that they wanted. They probably wish they could sue Youtube for damages or hold a site hostage if it didn't beg for mercy quickly enough. It's not enough that they can get the government to shut down a site like megaupload.com. I'm not sure what is "enough" but the next step was SOPA and PIPA.

You need to understand, SOPA and PIPA are not about censorship. They are about further tilting the bias of the internet in favor of large corporations and government privilege. Because, make no mistake about it, the government is perfectly happy to see big companies expanding their power over the internet, since that also (by extension) expands the government's power-by-proxy over the internet. If you were awake when the US Government tried desperately to shut down Wikileaks, you would have noticed that the first weapons in their arsenal that they deployed were by getting banks to interfere with Wikileaks' money supply. The government/corporate connection is strong here, and the reason that the government is able to sweet-talk big corporations into helping it out is because the corporations stand to benefit as well from a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement.  And that's why, if you were wondering how the US Government could seize a site like Megaupload when Megaupload is in Hong Kong.

On the bright side, Disney hasn't built its own army, yet.
On the not-quite-as-bright side, Disney doesn't need to, because it can use the US' Army whenever it needs one.



(gosh I love photoshop!)

The Scandal
The scandal of SOPA isn't really anything to do with the (admittedly shitty) piece of legislation. The scandal of SOPA is that it's been obvious from the beginning that we, the people, have no interest in this legislation, whatsoever. The people who are strongly supporting it in the US Legislature are in the pocket of lobbyists and, right now, the biggest lobbyist in favor of SOPA is the multi-million-dollar-per-year-salaried Chris Dodd of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) - a former senator. A senator who once, apparently, said he'd never become a lobbyist. The scandal, if you will, is that anyone gives that motherfucker the time of day - but, equally obviously, his former comrades who pushed the legislation, did. It's yet another example of the egregious effect of money on the political process.

The secondary fallout from that scandal is that the media has largely let the real scandal blow by, in favor of talking about what a darned shame it is that SOPA is such a bad piece of legislation - as if it suddenly appeared on the docket after having been left there by space aliens.

Lastly, as a taxpayer, I'm disgusted by watching the lawmakers scurry like cockroaches when the kitchen lights are turned on. Last week they were all in favor of SOPA but this week they're all against it. Because SOPA got attention in the news and a lot of people obviously didn't like it. The subtext message here is "if you hadn't noticed, we'd have fucked you." Just like they did with DMCA. Only harder.

So, I don't give a damn about SOPA. I give a damn about a broken political system in which the people's "representatives" are for sale to the highest bidder. It is why, for the record, I do not think democracy is a good political system - especially not a representative democracy. If you think representative democracy works, ask yourself how accurately those people in Washington "represent" you. Then ask yourself if you woke up last year thinking "copyright needs to be strengthened in order to protect Hollywood!"

Here's the last bit of the scandal, in the form of a prediction: SOPA will pass more or less as it's currently constructed, eventually. In a year or so, key provisions will get tied to a budgetary continuing resolution and the president will wring his hands, blame whichever party he's not from for being obstructionist, point to a different piece of porkbarrel spending (but not a big one) and sign the damn thing. And, by then, all the clueless chumps who are currently putting "STOP SOPA CENSORSHIP" deviations up on DA will be finishing Skyrim2 or - oooh, shiny thing!

Now, the Censorship
That covers the scandal and the hypocrisy. Now let's talk about stupid censorship. Specifically, the silliness of complaining about censorship on Deviantart - a site that has its own draconian and absurd regime of self-censorship that is above and beyond what the law requires, and which maintains a system whereby people can anonymously request images be censored as "inappropriate." We all know that Deviantart's rules, which are already arbitrary, are applied in an arbitrary fashion - if you're going to complain about censorship, kids, delete your Deviantart account.

Under US law, at present, there have been attempts to criminalize making erotic material visible to minors. In the US, out in the real world, those legislative attempts have been universally stomped on by the judiciary, including our fairly conservative Supreme Court. I'm pleased that the justices on The Supreme Court can read The Constitution and are still trying to enforce it. The Department of Justice has stumbled repeatedly (basically, smacking itself down) trying to define explicit content adequately. For more information on that, you may want to read this journal entry I wrote back in 2009:
mjranum.deviantart.com/journal…

I have no problem with Deviantart's saying "it's our site; we can make up our own arbitrary rules." I'm even OK with Deviantart saying "and, we enforce our arbitrary rules, in an arbitrary manner." Yep. That's censorship. If you're going to do it - own it. But once you play the censorship game even a little bit, you forfeit your right to complain if someone ever infringes your freedom of expression. Want to see my head explode? If I ever see one of the people who put DA's censorship rules in place - complain about censorship.

Another form of censorship is the constant comments such as "meh. this picture is only on the front page because it's got boobs in it" or "this is porn not art" etc - the message, again, is that certain forms of expression are inappropriate or lesser than others. When you start applying social pressure in an attempt to get someone not to express themselves in a way that you don't like, you're preparing the ground-work for censorship: the next step is to have a little button that you can click that just makes all the bad stuff you don't like go away.

Got it? Every single deviation on Deviantart has already been censored. If that doesn't bother you, you're on the wrong side of history but you're blowing with the prevailing winds.



(* I don't care about that. Like most small artists I decided when I put my stuff on the web that I was letting it go and that the reward I'd get was maybe a few "nice shot!" emails. But that was a decision that I was forced to make - unless you're lawyered up like Disney you're left with the "if you put it on the web, you gotta expect to get ripped off" argument. That would be a reasonable argument if it applied evenly to everyone. But it doesn't. The little guys can have their case heard in the court of "fuck you" and Disney gets to rewrite legislation for Congress.)
  • Listening to: Teddy Bears - "Cobrastyle"
  • Reading: Gibbon
  • Watching: nothing
  • Playing: skyrim
  • Eating: nothing
  • Drinking: apple cider
Add a Comment:
 
:iconalexisquimby:
AlexisQuimby Featured By Owner May 28, 2012  Student Filmographer
On censorship:
Fine art is just 2 or 3 clicks away, where as porn is only a single click away. The line that separates limitations from censorship is made up of many toes. They will no matter what happens get stepped on. And I may have just hit some.

On property rights:
Outright violations of ownership to me is the most important issue. The bigger the guns, the bigger the violations and the bigger the profits. Google's stand is, we will publish it without getting permission, contact us if there is a problem. Not only can they get away with it, their revenue skyrockets in spite of it.

On SOPA:
SOPA would work if the f@cking government stayed out of it.
Reply
:icontysonius:
tysonius Featured By Owner Mar 17, 2012
I take your point about people supporting something they don't understand--but that happens ALL the time. Living in DC (sadly), I see this every day, and as far as I can tell, the only thing people do on the Hill is argue about nuances in legislation of which 99% of the population are blissfully unaware. So, given that SOPA was a crappy piece of legislation, I'm ok with it not passing, regardless of the reason why. If something good happens for the wrong reasons, do you want to undo it? For me, the problem is essentially that our population and social/political structures have grown far too large and complex to be effectively governed, at least to where they benefit everyone to some degree, not just those with the deepest pockets. I'm really not sure what can be done about it, though. So many people have become accustomed to government doing everything for them, and that it's likewise ok for it to keep taking more power to itself. Where does that stop? It doesn't. And as you pointed out, government and big money go hand in hand. So I guess we're screwed. Ah well, it's not all hopeless. At least we can keep "liking" your work, at least until free speech is outlawed.
Reply
:icondochott:
DocHott Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Love your commentary as usual. :thumbsup:

They have a few laws in Canada up for discussion, Bill C-11 & C-30, and they tacked on the "paedo..." title to make everyone want to pass it.

Similar - they want all IPs to monitor every site every internet user views, and if the police want to get the info they can w/o a warrant. The minister did a little backpedalling after he found that out. Obviously just his secretary read it and summarized it for him. lol
Reply
:iconascahithiel:
Ascahithiel Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
SOPA may have been shelved, but unfortunately Canada's considering similar legislation in the form of Bill C-11, and then there's the international ACTA negotiations... the little fry ain't getting anything out of this.
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2012
It's all corporate welfare - the powerful inflicting their will on the weak/less wealthy. Capitalism FTW!
Reply
:iconetherealopolis:
Etherealopolis Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2012
Thanks for the information you've presented. I got here by way of Prose Petal's Journal here at DA.

Ceannt
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2012
Thanks for dropping by - I'll check Prose Petal out...
Reply
:icondecaniaphoto:
deCaniaPhoto Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2012  Professional Photographer
This comment is not for mjranum (He is Informed) ...
this comment is for everyone who reads this Journal...

Here is the best explanation for fighting PIPA / SOPA... Please Take the time to watch it so you are informed. And Please Share it so others may also be informed... Just because SOPA/PIPA may be tabled for now does not mean they wont rear their ugliness in some other form to come.


[link]
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2012
Thanks! :D
Reply
:icondecaniaphoto:
deCaniaPhoto Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2012  Professional Photographer
You're very welcome!
Reply
:iconwickedprince:
WickedPrince Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2012
Yeah, my roommate was telling me about this SOPA stuff and what it was really about. His version of it based on the news blogs he reads is that it's designed mainly to prevent small-time artists of any sort from actually using the internet to promote and sell their own work. If you are a small band and just want to get your music out to the public, SOPA can be used to break your back unless you sucked up to RCA or one of the other big record companies first and let them rape you over your hard work. Stuff like that.

And I agree, about the corruption in government. The Founding Fathers realized that any government that got power would lose interest in supporting the people it claimed to serve and deliberately made things to be as hard for that to happen as they could. But most people are so disinterested in making their own decisions and owning up to them that they CRAVE having Big Brother tell them how to live their lives. They gleefully and willingly ignore the complete lack of altruism in our (or any) governments motivations for the sake of not having to take responsibility for themselves.

On the other hand, as I pointed out, Big Business doesn't completely own the government, because if it did, BB wouldn't have been forced to pull nearly all manufacturing out of the U.S. because of the absurd over-regulation of things like the EPA and OSHA and so on, none of which does anything to help Big Business make money.

Another reason for why everybody really could use a good strong drink. In fact, don't mind if I do.
Reply
:iconprosepetals:
ProsePetals Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2012
Oh...and more fun to bring to light. :gun::shithitsthefan:
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2012
Oh, yes.
Reply
:iconvombatusv8:
vombatusv8 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Mark, a really well crafted piece of journalism ( though calling you a journalist could be insulting :D)
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
Thank you for both of those. :)
Reply
:iconjoeyclem:
joeyclem Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2012
Well this makes you think: [link]
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Aug 4, 2012
Oh, ouch!
Reply
:iconrikoh:
rikoh Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2012
Great article. =)
Reply
:iconasaph70:
asaph70 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
repost this on your Google+ account if you don't mind and I'll share with my followers... all 12 of them. That is if you remember the password :P
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
Uhh... google+ password... No.
Reply
:iconasaph70:
asaph70 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
I kind figured you would have forgot it seeing that you do not use the site especially with them having a even tougher policy on nudity then DA. you can not even show as much as 1/2 a nipple.
mind if I post a link to this then?
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
Sure, be my guest.

Yeah, what kind of dumbass site freaks out at a glimpse of nipple?? I mean, seriously. Everyone's got nipples!
Reply
:iconasaph70:
asaph70 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
Google+ has not put in a "mature content" filter or a way to flag photos as mature content and I do not think they intend to. They block most nudity... about the only thing that is allowed is a bare ass. you should try and get on. It's takes a bit of effort but you can find things/people of interest. Hell the Dali Lama and Snoop Dogg I think he only post when he is stoned, same for the Dali Lama
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
Why would I want to be on a site that blocks nudity? That'd be like hanging out in a museum that blocks nudity...
Reply
:iconasaph70:
asaph70 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
I know I know for you it would like walking into a titty bar with a blind fold on.
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
No. It would be like walking into a church where Calvin was preaching ridiculous nonsense about "sin" and everyone was just sitting there believing it and doing what he said.
Reply
:iconlunartyk:
lunartyk Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
One of the best dissections and set of observations I have read. Thank you for your thoughts.
Reply
:iconcrazyforthedesert:
crazyforthedesert Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Second that.
Really, nothing more left to add.
Reply
:iconnurunuru:
nurunuru Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The shutdown of Megaupload proves that sweeping legislation like SOPA and PIPA are not even necessary for the job of copyright enforcement to be carried out. So it obviously isn't so much about catching pirates as about organizations that make money off other people's content raking in even more cash under the pretense of "preventing loss."

By the way, free speech most certainly does enter into the discussion. Just as the War on Terror has been used to justify the neutralization of political threats both real and perceived, this kind of law would certainly be used to silence non-pirates who happen to have politically inconvenient voices. Hell, with that kind of power, they'd be crazy not to abuse it, right? So how about we leave the idle semantics debate until after we know it's safe.
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2012
The shutdown of Megaupload proves that sweeping legislation like SOPA and PIPA are not even necessary for the job of copyright enforcement to be carried out.

Yep. But the way megaupload was shut down was illegal. The US interfered way too much in another country's law enforcement processes. :\

Hell, with that kind of power, they'd be crazy not to abuse it, right? So how about we leave the idle semantics debate until after we know it's safe.

It never will be safe. :(
Reply
:iconpelicanh:
Pelicanh Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Professional Photographer
Yea - the day I put my stuff on DA, I knew it was gone.
Video covers, web sites, and anywhere people want em....off my images go with no recourse for me.
I've come to a place where I don't give a shit. It's a freakin picture... nothing more. "All these things will be lost in time, like tears in rain!" (Roy Batty from Bladerunner....hmmm....or should I give credit???)
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2012
"All these things will be lost in time, like tears in rain!"

Yep.

I don't mind giving my stuff away. I mind my "representatives" in congress doing it for me.
Reply
:iconcalleighblack:
CalleighBlack Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I think you've made not only some very interesting points here, but that you also have a valid point. To tell you where I'm coming from, my husband is a musician who loses money from free web downloads, but we're still against any sort of "censorship" on the internet whatsoever. However, that's not the only way we're looking at it. We also think that politicians in general do not give a crap what any of us who aren't paying them think. (Remember the parental advisory label hearings? I remember, and I remember that despite eloquent speeches and the public's feelings in general, we still got screwed on that one.) So...I like your points and yes, I read it all, I'm just commenting on this bit.
Reply
:iconmarcony:
marcony Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
The other thing that nobody mentions is how the rest of the world will see Sopa/pipa. It comes across out here in the rest of the world as america taking it upon it's self to knock off line any site they don't like in a way that could well put it off line to the whole world. In short it's America claiming soverinty over the whole internet no matter where in the world the site may be stored. The rest of the world will get fed up with this almost instantly. It will only take one company to go after the wrong site (especially if it's on slightly dubious grounds) and the result would effectively be the declaration of Web War One (and I'm not sure who you could say was doing the declaring) This might start with just a bunch of script kids but then as part of it's cyber defence America dose something that hits some innocent connection provider. War is joined counties covertly throw their cyber defences in to the game on one side or another. Claims are made god knows what happens next... and some of the most proficient potential participants out there have no allegiance but their own Egos.

This wouldn't make a bad novel. I don't have time to write it. if anyone else wants to credit me.
Reply
:iconkariannlax:
KariAnnLax Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Professional General Artist
I read this whole thing on my phone last night. And I don't have anything to add, you've covered it all and then some.
What I wanted to tell you is that out of all the articles I've read, aside from the 13 year old quoted in Lolly's journal, it
seems that you STILL are the one that I'd prefer to read because of your writing style, research, knowledge and no BS.

Thanks for taking the time :)
Reply
:icontheechoinside:
theechoinside Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Agree with your sentiment, a great deal. Not seen anything, anywhere yet, which actually gives the small guys a fighting chance.

Only thing I'd mention though, is that the censorship aspect of the legislation does have some validity. Not as much as those here were indicating, but the DMCA, etc, have actually been used in attempts to censor. Examples here: [link] The way the provisions in SOPA were written, there weren't any real requirements for evidence or proof, or judicial oversight and such. Combined with the time period requirements and that takedowns were basically immediate, it could easily be used for that purpose and history indicates it likely would be, to some degree.

Even ignoring that whole aspect though, it was still just terribly badly written and ridiculous. =P
Reply
:iconzebarnabe:
zebarnabe Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well written. Meanwhile in Europe (and supported by other countries, US and Japan included, 39 in total) there is something called A.C.T.A. that was created in secrecy and will be proposed without any democratic regard... Sadly 'no one' knows about it, meaning that it may as well pass...

Because there are people who don't read stuff, here goes a description (with animations and narration) of how SOPA concept works:
[link]

For more info about ACTA:
[link]
Reply
:iconwizafir:
wizafir Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
May I link this on my facebook account?
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
Sure, if you want.
Reply
:iconkurtkrueger:
KurtKrueger Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Professional Photographer
That was quite excellent! With your permission I'd love to send this out as an email to my mailing list.

~ Kurt
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
Be my guest! Thanks!
Reply
:iconshen-fn-woo:
Shen-fn-Woo Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Well thought out journal.

Hilarious though, you complaining about hypocrisy and then bringing up the idea of a button to make things you dislike go away for OTHER people to take note of. We also all know (or should know) how you hate a social order that allows power to be put into the people's hands (or is supposed to) for determining into law what they believe to be right =P. But to be technical again, just like with your view on religion, I don't see how democracy would be a inadequate political system just because of what you see occurring right here and now. People failing to work the system /= system failing to work for the people.
Reply
:icongerusadora:
GeruSadora Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
Posted this to my twitter. :love:
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
Thank you.
Reply
:icondarkbraincomics:
DarkBrainComics Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Great journal. I also felt that dA "debating" on SOPA was silly - this site is heavily censored and a moral judge over what is or is not art. I really think the name is actually misleading. "deviant" the site is not and "art" the site is not. Although I can see the point that totally uncensored can lead to terrible quality, there is plenty bad quality here too - so it doesn't stick.

Ironically, I think the White House had a great statement on SOPA: [link]
"So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. "

SOPA is here because there is a REAL problem. Our entire society right now devalues creators and glorifies middlemen. The money in the system is distribution and advertising - and the creators are expected to work for free. This is so pervasive that people see no problems with blatant copyright infringement and outright art theft. The system is so bad that it makes you wonder why creators bother to create - right now, they do it only because they need to and they can afford to. True "creative" is disappearing fast from all sorts of media - especially movies which are now so cookie-cutter they are created by accountants, not artists.

This is why whenever Google or FaceBook comes out against something, I tend to side with the other party - you must look at motivations. FB, in particular, is outrageously hypocritical and has banned and censored the entire art industry while also trying to "replace mail" with their system. The only way that happens is if people are so stupid and timid to allow it - and so far, they are. It is just a sad, sad state of the world and shows how truly lazy and boring people have become. They are cattle for the advertising dollar.
Reply
:iconguns:
guns Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Professional Photographer
Trust me I know about censorship, deviantArt has just removed my whole journal module because I was complaining about censorship here :)
Reason invoked, it was pornographic because I spoke about my flickr photostream, where I feel more free.

All the best.
Reply
:iconmjranum:
mjranum Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2012
I'm sorry to hear about that.

DA's censorship is pathetic, but not likely to change.
Reply
:icondarkbraincomics:
DarkBrainComics Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
How sad that deviantART is not supportive of artistic expression.
Reply
:icondoodyone:
doodyone Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012
e r u d i t e
Reply
:iconfelipemaker-br:
FelipeMaker-BR Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I think its very clever placement. Well, politicians are the same everywhere. Here in Brazil a musician did something different, and there is a burgeoning musician, but someone with some notoriety. He put his new job on the Internet to sell the songs. He put a cheap rate, I think $ 1.00. Repercurssão had a much larger and a profit as well.
These big corporations do not want it because they feel that their income may decrease if the "idea" spread.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconmjranum: More from mjranum


Featured in Collections

Journal by makoshark04

Journal Posts by ScottEllington


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
January 20, 2012
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
16,725 (5 today)
Favourites
48 (who?)
Comments
139
×