GOG, NVIDIA, Frozenbyte, Notch vs SOPA

By Alec Meer on January 13th, 2012 at 5:24 pm.

Expect plenty more of these kinds of updates leading up to next week’s web-wide SOPA protests: it’s an enormously important issue for the future of the internet and everyone who uses it, so we’re giving it our all.

Also declaring themselves strongly against the online culture-trashing folly today are Minecraft-makers Mojang, who intend to make a right old song and dance about SOPA next week, NVIDIA, Trine chaps Frozenbyte, Torchlight devs Runic and retromancers Good Old Games. Positions, statements and assorted protests below.

Following up yesterday’s welcome about-face by GoG owners CD Projekt regarding their ridiculous and mercifully cancelled plans to track down and sue anyone they decided had pirated their game, GoG have spoken up to say SOPA “will restrict the scope of legitimate content allowed on websites in ways we probably don’t even know yet. A few examples of what might change if SOPA is passed: it could kill streaming of game footage or even game-chat, radically alter how your favorite user-generated content websites–including the GOG.com forums–function, and finally, it may well undermine the basic structure of the Internet.” Additionally, they don’t believe it will counter P2P-based piracy – “it only will have an effect on people who are, by and large, honest consumers.”

Meanwhile, Notch and his team of Minecraft-makers are chewing over ways to join in the protests on Wednesday. It’s still very much in discussion, so keep an eye on Notch’s Twitter to see where he’s at in his thinking, but so far the team have declared that Minecraft.net and Mojang.com will go offline for the day.

Additionally, graphics card giant NVIDIA has thrown its not inconsiderable hat in the ring. They revealed today that they weren’t consulted by the tykes of the ESA about that body’s decision to not fight SOPA, and put their own position as this”we oppose piracy, as it hurts our game-developer partners. However, we do not support SOPA. We don’t believe it is the right solution to the problem. We remain committed to working to address this problem in a constructive and fair manner.”

As for Trine creators Frozenbyte, I’ll let them do their own talking:

Update: and Torchlight devs Runic too. “It is clear that the scope of the proposed legislation would give unnecessarily broad power to large corporations while reducing the rights of individual citizens — and it won’t even stop software piracy. We at Runic Games oppose the SOPA/PIPA legislation and we encourage you to do the same.”

More, no doubt, to come from all over the world wide web in the coming days. Meantime, if you’re American you can help by contacting your spokesperson or representative to politely but firmly tell them why you oppose SOPA.

Our own coverage and list of known pro/anti-SOPA positions in the games industry is here.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , .

101 Comments »

  1. CMaster says:

    The big question that needs to be asked of any ESA members who declare themselves against SOPA is this – what are they doing to change the ESA’s position. After all, it’s their member fees that ESA is using lobby in the act’s favour, and you can bet that the ESA says “we represent our members including X, Y and Z” whenever they make a statement or carry out lobbying – even if X, Y or Z have declared themselves against the act.

    • woodsey says:

      Very true; and I can’t imagine Mojang making a song and dance about it is going to help in anyway (unless song and dance is code for threatening the US Congress with a bomb).

    • Fede says:

      @woodsey: you mean, with a creeper?

    • Kent says:

      Don’t worry. Being Swedish, Mojang knows their dancing and singing. It’ll probably be the Mojang crew in the nude, using bread to cover themselves with.

    • Phantoon says:

      Considering how the fascist bill, the NDAA passed, they may very well decide to consider it terrorism.

    • aerozol says:

      Ok, I was talking more about gun restrictions to be honest.
      The war on drugs or whatever has undoubtedly hurt ‘honest’ (whatever the hell that means) people at some point, but more than drug dealers? Starky, all your comments are aimed at the American system, which is obviously massively flawed. Marijuana, which I guess is what you’re talking about, is also illegal here in NZ, but our system wont turn you into a cirminal (eg make it so you can’t get a job by giving you a permanent record) unless you are actually a dealer.
      Although I’m for Marijuana legalization, I would never say “hey government, let adults and children have all the guns and drugs they want, because regulation is bad”. Heroin is not a great thing.
      It just annoys me when people like Ultra-Humanite complain about government regulation, but if their house gets robbed, they wont hesitate to call the police.

      Although no doubt the system is flawed.

  2. ResonanceCascade says:

    I’m glad the industry recognizes how poorly thought-out and ridiculous this bill is. It makes me wonder if a lot of the legislation regulating other industries that I don’t understand as well is just as pathetic. That’s a scary possibility.

    • Ultra-Humanite says:

      It’s more than a possibility, it’s reality. Whenever any government tries to “control” anything, be it drugs, guns or online piracy, they end up hurting honest people more than actual criminals.

    • Harlander says:

      Murder?

    • Verio says:

      “It’s more than a possibility, it’s reality. Whenever any government tries to “control” anything, be it drugs, guns or online piracy, they end up hurting honest people more than actual criminals.”

      This is one of those ‘Rawr government bad! Man’s independence good! A rifle and a will to survive is all I need!” kind of statements that is kind of intellectually lazy.

      My response to the original statement here would be that while it is alarming and really makes you think about what other legislation is on the books that is clueless, the thing that should be somewhat heartening is that (IMO) part of the problem here is that the people writing this legislation don’t understand the internet, they don’t understand it’s fundamental workings. A statement I read else ware that I think is telling is this: the laws on this are being written by your parents. Think about that a second. Some of them may even be doing this out of an honest desire to fight a perceived problem, and not because of lobbying money. Granted, their subsequent ignoring of protests from people who DO understand is telling and sad.

      But my point is this – it’s a lot easier to understand regulations on what is poisonous chemicals in the ground, or what makes produce unsafe to eat, or how interstate trucking works, or what makes a car safer in a collision, then it is to understand how the internet works.

    • aerozol says:

      @Ultra-Humanite, I’d like to see your evidence that the government trying to control ‘drugs and guns’ has hurt ‘honest’ (?) people more than criminals.

      In any case, the problem I see here is corporate control over legislation in the US. As I see it, lobbying is some kind of legal form of bribery that seems to take part in everything. The government should be able to police things, as long as they follow certain strict common-sense- requiring evidence, not invading personal privacy, etc.

      If government had no control, I don’t doubt that corporations would have been shutting down whatever they want long ago. Who would stop them? Your internet services are all at some point being delivered through a corporation, whose legal obligation to its investors is profit.

    • gwathdring says:

      I agree with Verio. Lobbying and corruption is an issue, but not to the extent the public perceives. There is a genuine lack of understanding in congress on a large number of important issues.

      But it goes deeper than that. Informative and instructive letters can’t fix this. It seems to me that there is a culture of isolation, especially in the Senate, that goes beyond the reach of even lobbyists. I feel as though our congress has ensnared itself in a rich political mythology that colors their thoughts on various policies and their ability to perceive the public will; their version of the American party system competes with the public fictions to make valuable communication between us and our party leaders, between us and our congressmen, extremely difficult. They live in a world where everything is a campaign, and where the explicit campaign takes up an entire year of their efforts and all of the money they raised since their last election.

      And it is only going to get worse as election regulations disappear. Not becasue politicians are greedy slimy human beings. But becasue, for most of them, this is what the job has become: campaign, raise money, win election, avoid losing the next election. Consider this: a lobby through campaign donations isn’t just a bribe, it is a threat of negative campaign adds, the possibility of other senators or opponents being offered the same money instead. It is not common for senators and representatives to be given personal funds at all … just money that can be dumped back into the campaign. I honestly feel like the only way out of this, to get actual representation and quality legislation, is to switch entirely to publicly funded elections with a very small cap on election spending. Failing that, we need extremely tight limits on donations from collective sources (corporations, advocacy groups, unions, etc), limits even on private donations, and no option to bring personal funds to bear on the campaign. I don’t care if it is the ACLU, Enron or the candidate’s personal bank account–there is no excuse for anyone to be able to buy the votes of the populous. Since we can’t dump all of this on at once, the first step would be to return to McCain-Feigngold era regulation and gradually twist the knob all the way to 11.

      Hmm. Someone above mentioned the troubles of government regulation. The fabled inadequacies of publicly controlled and regulated systems. And of all the possible opportunities to speak about government inadequacies said person chose SOPA. SOPA is the work of a large amount of misinformation by the telecommunications industry, an industry that got its incredible wealth and power from the privatization and deregulation of communications several decades earlier. Many of the odd standards and much of the slow progress in American communications infrastructure relative to technological advances can be pinned to the industry’s rather enviable position between private and public infrastructure–a position established through a long series of broken contracts, clever mergers and good old disorganization. We’re so skittish about regulating anything that we put in place enormous and expensive regulatory bodies that essentially allow the industries to police themselves. I think this is where most of our regulations go wrong. The problem is not that our government is a bumbling fool of an institution or that regulations are inherently worthless or corrupt but rather that our current system never really regulates to begin with. You haven’t seen real government regulation in this country; so far it’s all industry work. We have a very strong bureaucratic tradition and a large army or well-trained bureaucrats that has been completely crippled; various presidents have repeatedly installed inexperienced or overly invested individuals from industry at the tops of these organizations and inadequate funding and horrible legislation have prevented the rank and file from properly managing anything.

      We talk a lot, for example, of welfare fraud. But while damaged, the system isn’t as broken as it appears. Most of the problems and abuses the public sees are dealt with in various bits of welfare legislation and shouldn’t happen. What goes wrong? When you look to the agencies responsible, there is carelessness at the top and inadequate resources at the bottom. The systems are enormous but empty. Inefficient by practice rather than by design or principle. We’re too scared of regulation to give it the substance it needs to have a fighting chance, and then we blame the very IDEA of regulation for the failures of our regulatory systems. It is not regulation that is at fault, but rather shitty legislation and a complete unwillingness to commit to important regulations that would genuinely change the way our country does business–and politics.

    • Devan says:

      And I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not the government per se that’s designing or pushing this legislation, it’s the entertainment industry and other sectors that would benefit from greater power over “Intellectual Property”.

    • Starky says:

      @aerozol
      In evidence i submit the fact that the US (and UK to a lesser extent) are overflowing with minor drug criminals, people who’ve never harmed anyone other than themselves, stupid laws like 3-strikes resulting in minor offenders serving stupidly long terms turning the US prison system into amodern day slave work-force.

      So there is your war against drugs harming the innocent, or at least punishing the guilty massively and disproportionately to their actual harmless crimes.

      Seriously, how can anything that has never directly caused a fatality, with shaky evidence at best that it causes any significant long term harm (and even the heaviest abusers only suffer mild “harm” compared to legal drugs, and that is psychological, and only in people predisposed anyway)… all the while hundreds of thousands die directly as a result of cigarette and alcohol abuse.

      I’m British, but an American friend of mine served 2 and a half years for what was a minor cannabis crime (as in he had about 2 ounces for personal use)… 2 and a half years, a while middle class university student who’s only prior was a drunken disorderly (on his 21st)…
      2 and a half years… (well he served 9, with good behaviour, but still).

    • Reefpirate says:

      Although it is private industry interests that are pushing this legislation, it’s become the accepted culture that the government ought to be used as a tool to intervene. Big regulations help big business stay big and keep little guys out. Big business has the wealth and organization to launch these types of regulatory campaigns. In my opinion it would be better if the government just didn’t have the power to interfere in such ways. That way corruption would be less of an issue, and we wouldn’t have SOPA problems.

      Also, people like congressman Ron Paul speak out and vote against issues like this all the damn time but then win labels from our ‘common-sense’ public like ‘bat-shit crazy’, ‘old and cranky’, ‘unelectable’, or ‘Confederate, homophobic, racist’. Sometimes the country gets what they deserve.

    • gwathdring says:

      But what you say is just as unproven and hyperbolic. We have seen many examples of completely deregulated industry both at home and abroad over the past 200 years and I really don’t think unregulated industry looks a whole lot better. It certainly doesn’t look less corrupt. This isn’t to say regulation can solve everything. But America doesn’t use regulation as a catch-all solution. We scarcely regulate to begin with and we let the industry set all of the limits. Do you really think a deregulated industry would favor small companies and prevent big industries from tearing them down? Do you really believe that the *government* is the primary cause of the corruption that leads to things like SOPA?

      I don’t. I think the cause of these sorts of issues is first corrupt business culture, second poor management of regulation, and third corruption in government. But here’s the kicker. When we talk about corrupt government regulation … what do we typically mean? Politicians being bought through donations by third-party interests, re-writing laws and regulations to favor big companies. Our biggest corruption problems with respect to this issue and similar ones comes equally from private industry and corrupt officials. It’s not like getting rid of the regulations will magically make these powerful, careless companies play nice. Mostly it means they wouldn’t have to first convince congress to get their way.

    • Reefpirate says:

      If these big businesses could be so powerful and corrupt on their own, why do they even bother trying to buy influence in the government? The government holds the marbles, particularly in this case with SOPA. If it were somehow codified into law that the government is not allowed to create laws that govern the content of the internet this would be a non-issue. The issue on the table, afterall, is a piece of legislation. You’d rather police the motivations of business somehow?

    • nil says:

      Because it’s cheaper that way. The mechanisms of oppression ain’t free; instead of paying for them yourself, let the taxpayer foot the bill. Seems to be working fine for them.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      but an American friend of mine served 2 and a half years for what was a minor cannabis crime (as in he had about 2 ounces for personal use)… 2 and a half years, a while middle class university student who’s only prior was a drunken disorderly (on his 21st)…

      Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

    • Ajh says:

      An example of how government policy on drugs has hurt honest people.

      …People who need the generic Ritalin in some areas have to travel hours to find a pharmacy with it in stock, because the government regulations on how much of the drug can be produced doesn’t differentiate between generic and label. Many people have bad reactions to inert ingredients in one or the other or their insurance refuses to cover the more expensive option when a generic is available.

  3. Lone Gunman says:

    The mega corporations must know it won’t stop piracy. They are probably using piracy as an excuse to become more controlling and try to increase profits.

    • Brun says:

      They’re doing it in an attempt to preserve their old, outdated business models. The MPAA and RIAA (and the gaming industry, to a lesser extent) have failed to adapt to consumer trends and preferences. That failure is to blame for a significant portion of the piracy that does happen.

    • Llewyn says:

      Nasty evil corporations making us pirate stuff. It’s all their fault!

      RIP personal responsibility, how little we appreciated you.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      There was me thinking people wanting to consume content without the unfortunate side effect of paying the creators of said content for the privilege was “to blame for a significant portion of the piracy that does happen.”

    • Brun says:

      Totally missed the point.

    • CMaster says:

      The music industry especially dropped the ball a lot on this one. For years and years and years, there simply wasn’t any legal way to acquire music online. Even when there was a clear demand there, with services like Napster growing rapidly, all they tried to do was shut down the ways people were getting music, not make it possible to legitimately acquire it. I dare say that the state of piracy today would be quite different if they had embraced digital distribution from the start.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      I’ll point out that, at least here, you still can’t use Amazon’s MP3 store. If I don’t want to use iTunes (being a shitty bloated software run by a company I hate), what exactly does that leave me with? Napster?

    • Blackcompany says:

      Brun has it correct. Funny I just said the same over on another site. Many businesses behind SOPA are trying to regulate competition out of existence using SOPA. The businesses behind SOPA are mostly those who failed to adapt to the digital world. Recording and movie industry. Video game dev houses whose profits are primarily through physical, console-game sales.
      .
      Video game and game-related physical sales fell about 20% in 2011. All the while, digital distribution increased dramatically in the same year. Why? More people gaming on PC, perhaps. Also, digital games are generally indie or smaller titles and are cheaper than the copy/paste/retexture AAA titles sold for $60 in Brick and Mortat retailers. Also, digital games are generally more casual gamer friendly (wider audience) and more readily available (I want something new – at midnight on Sunday). Not to mention digital games generally mean indie games, and more original.
      .
      Numerous businesses have failed to adapt to life in the digital age. Circuit City went under in the US and they sold the toys we use to explore the internet. Best Buy is the next one down – slowly spiraling away into being Amazon/Dell/HP’s unauthorized show room, a next-door-to-bankrupt step for certain.
      .
      SOPA is their way out. Their one last chance to preserve their archaic practices. Their final opportunity to cement brick and mortal as the only way to shop.
      .
      But it won’t work. E-commerce is here to stay. Isn’t going away. You can’t force technology onto the back burner. Evolve or die – its how the world of business works.

    • Wulf says:

      SOPA isn’t about piracy, it was never about piracy. You can’t stop pirates because it’s effortless for them to be everywhere and everyone. That’s why groups like Anonymous are a pain in the arse.

      (I wonder if anyone will hit reply after that and accuse me of being a piracy activist without bothering to read on?)

      Anyway, SOPA is about censorship. You can’t stop piracy, you just can’t, because the price to pay for stopping piracy is just too high. They know that, you probably don’t know that. What they also know is that piracy is a scapegoat, here. It’s a buzzword that they’re using. This is about being able to censor their competition.

      Okay, here’s what’s going on: Someone creates a Youtube video and advertises their self-published work. A fat publisher somewhere gets a rage-on about this, because they believe that this person should be publishing via them, and that they should be handling the marketing for this person, and that they should be receiving most of this person’s profits. Independent marketing and publishing cuts into the profits of greedy, fat publishers. I mean, look at Kotick, he’s the perfect example of a greedy, fat publisher and you can bet he supports SOPA. With his mouth.

      This is about being able to shut down possible competitors, this is about forcing people to use big publishers, this is about rewind time back to the ’80s and the ’90s where you could only have an advert if you paid a big publishing company to put one on telly for you. There were no Youtubes back then, there was no self-publishing, and being indie was hell and hard. It’s not like today where you can put your entire book up online for free as its own form of advertising and still get pretty great profits from it. (You rock, Doctorow.)

      And these well-fed, money-grubbing publishers hate that. They can’t stand the way the world is today, they can’t handle the thought of independence, of true independence. If I want to make a game, I can do it without a publisher. I can get together with a group of friends and even turn a mod into something that I can sell independently (The Ball). I can even then later have optional support from publishers who are indie-friendly (Valve). And this fills greedy publishers with so much endless rage.

      SOPA Is about control.

      SOPA is about stopping your favourite indie from being indie. It’s about stopping competitors, it’s about making publishers the ‘gateway’ to entertainment again. It’s about rewinding time, and like has been said, it’s about publishers holding onto their outdated, archaic, and near-dead business models. This isn’t a statement about piracy, this is a statement about the right to be independent. And if you don’t understand that, then I feel more than a bit sorry for you.

      You see, these publishers can feel that they’re near their extinction point, that the world is changing and leaving them behind, and they’re fighting tooth and nail to hang onto their relevancy. That’s what SOPA is. SOPA is nothing more and nothing less than that, and piracy’s involvement isn’t anything other than a scapegoat. If it wasn’t “piracy” then they would have found some other banner.

      If you support indies, oppose SOPA. That’s all there is to it.

      For those curious about the Cory Doctorow point, there was a little personal investment for me. See, I’d been pressured by my incredibly intellectual friends to read Down and Out, and I wanted to. But my sight gets easily tired due to what’s wrong with it, I can’t read more than a few pages at a time.

      Due to that, I really couldn’t get along with any version of it – dead tree or online. However, because Down and Out was released under a Free banner, someone actually went and made a podcast of them reading the book. No, seriously, someone read the book in a podcast. (And they had a truly amazing voice, to boot.)

      For this, I was extremely thankful. I felt that my purchase of the book was truly justified, and I was left wishing that I could give Doctorow more money.

      Think about it, if more books were released in the same way as Doctorow’s, then there’d be more audio books out there. Because there are people on the Internet who go from being simply kind to just outright awesome. There are people who do things like that for people like me.

      In the SOPA World that big publishers desire, this never would have happened.

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      Activision doesn’t support SOPA… -_-

    • SiplNico says:

      @Wulf

      First of all, I’d like to say I don’t support S.O.P.A or any other bills that put Internet freedom at risk. However, I fail to see how it would negatively affect indie developers in the way you describe. I don’t think someone could be sued for downloading a game that was released for free, even if S.O.P.A was approved. After all, there’s no copyright infringement in such a case (unless, of course, the game was being distributed through websites that didn’t have the developers’ permission to do so).

      And how exactly would S.O.P.A change the level of control the developers have over the game?

    • Lone Gunman says:

      @Llewyn
      I was not trying to defend pirates, only point out that the big companies will be able to squash the little guys more easily.

    • alundra says:

      @Lone Gunman

      Why argue with that?? it was clear you were not defending piracy, but some people see everything in black and white and if you dare to be gray then you are against them.

    • Aninhumer says:

      @SiplNico
      Depending on how it’s interpreted, SOPA potentially allows companies to completely cripple websites, by taking away their domain name, and forbidding US companies (including payment processors) to deal with the site, and to do so without any kind of proof of infringement. The fear is that this will be used by major content producers to eliminate their competition by making bogus or tenuous claims against them.

    • Wulf says:

      @Raiyan

      A lot of searching around the Internet tells me that Activision are in complete support of SOPA, RPS’s own page does not seem to dispute this.

      Are you, perhaps, mixing up Activision with Blizzard? So -_- back at’cha. :P

      Before I forget.

      @SiplNico

      I know it’s easy to believe as you do, but I find it naive, especially considering past incidents. Do a little web searching about EMI and learn of the post, and thus you won’t be doomed to not seeing the its potential repetition in the future.

      The thing is this: A publisher sees a site which allows for independent marketing, they don’t believe that independent marketing should be allowed. They check that site for any shred of evidence of piracy, no matter how vapid or vacuous, and then they can use that to demand the site be shut down.

      It’s in the wording of SOPA itself. It gives big publishers ultimate control over whether a site retains its DNS presence or not. Is that something you want a publisher to have? Do you honestly, really believe that they’d use it to combat piracy? Really? Truly? I don’t. And nor do a bunch of more eloquent people than I.

      There are a lot of articles about this out there, and many people have come to this conclusion. The thing is is that if you shut down the ways with which a person can market and publish their game, then they have to come to a publisher with their tail between their legs begging the publisher to do it for them.

      That’s the problem. That sort of thing should not be permissible.

    • edit says:

      I found this quite interesting and a bit plot-thickening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

    • SiplNico says:

      @Wulf

      I hadn’t thought about that, and I find it incredible that the U.S even considers passing such a bill, if that’s the case for every website. However, I think that if the bill is actually approved, then it wouldn’t really last long in its current form because of the potential response from citizens.

  4. Paul says:

    Google should just close the google.com site for a couple of days, and put up STOP SOPA/PIPA/WAR sign instead. Maybe that would make some waves.

  5. digitalgabeg says:

    Also protesting: Riot Games (makers of League of Legends)

    http://na.leagueoflegends.com/news/help-us-stop-sopa

  6. wccrawford says:

    It seems to me the ESA is seriously watering down its power in Congress by saying it represents these companies, and then having the companies come out and say they are opposed to SOPA.

    If this continues, it may find it doesn’t have any voice at all, and I’m sure that’s not what they want. It would be far smarter for them to remove their name from the list and say that the companies they represent didn’t form a consensus.

  7. DOLBYdigital says:

    I am very heartened by the backlash of this from journalists and companies. Great to see the internet help bring the real voice of the people to light :)

  8. dontnormally says:

    THIS PAGE IS NOW OUT OF DATE
    (in case you didn’t know)

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/esa-members-and-sopa-where-they-stand/

  9. Sweedums says:

    is there anything us non-americans can do to try stop this sillyness from moving forward? aside from signing online petitions and the general informing of family and friends (who are also largely non-american)… i feel so powerless…

  10. aircool says:

    And by the way things seem to be going with Richard O’Dwyer, it looks like whatever SOPA come up with could well effect people on this side of the Atlantic.

    • koziello says:

      Well. we are susceptible. Earlier this day, I commented about SOPA counterpart in EU. Apparently there is an “IPRED directive”, which forces european governments to introduce new anti-piracy law (similiar to SOPA). Just recently I bumped into an article in Irish Times. According to them, Irish EMI sued the Irish Government for not introducing such law.

      “THE IRISH arm of multinational music group EMI has launched a High Court action against the State as part of its bid to stop the illegal downloading of music.

      The Government recently pledged to issue an order to allow copyright holders to compel internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites that they consider are engaged in piracy”

      Link –>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0112/1224310141468.html

    • Wulf says:

      Oh lovely, EMI again. That group of frickin’ monsters.

      If you’re not aware of their unethical shenanigans, do a little searching around on Google, and realise why I have the opinion of them that I do. This is just another addition to the pile of horrible things that EMI has done.

    • cliffski says:

      That guy wasnt some innocent kid postng some copyrighted text on a forum for lulz. he ran a major, popular pirate site which eraned him $230,000 in ad revenue. The first time it was shut down, he replaced the front page with a sign saying “fuck the police”.

      He is hardly an example of the law affecting the innocent. He knew exactly what he was doing, and kept doing it, presumably to make money.

    • Aninhumer says:

      @cliffski
      I still don’t think it should be illegal to collate publicly available information, regardless of how much money he made, or how immature his behaviour is.

    • nil says:

      Without selection pressure, you don’t get evolution. If your aim is to produce anonymous, resilient, adaptive, and ultimately indefeasible sharing networks (which, thanks to the zero marginal cost of software duplication, everyone will have the opportunity to partake in,) this a pretty good way of going about it.

      Or, you know, you could outlaw general purpose computation. That works too.

    • cliffski says:

      “I still don’t think it should be illegal to collate publicly available information, regardless of how much money he made, or how immature his behaviour is.”

      We are talking about movies that take 200 people 3 years to make, and he provides a database to get them for free, whilst selling advertising space.
      The guy KNEW he was openly breaking the law for his own personal gain, and said ‘fuck the police’, when challenged.
      You have to do some awesome mental gymnastics to treat this guy as some sort of hero or innocent party.

    • nil says:

      Or you could have a reasonable difference of opinion when it comes to the relative moral standing of other people’s unenforcable claims to the exclusive sale of certain very large numbers, versus one’s own control over one’s own compute hardware and communication links. It’s been known to happen.

  11. Kefren says:

    Nice one, Frozenbyte. I’ve already bought Trine (DRM-free on GamersGate! http://www.gamersgate.co.uk/DD-TRINE/trine), now I’ll have to consider buying Trine 2 as well. Grrr!

    • Wulf says:

      I bought Trine 2 a bit back. It’s really very good. I prefer the gameplay mechanics of Rochard, but Trine 2 is a delight to play because it is so incredibly pretty. It’s “I want to hug their artists.” levels of pretty.

  12. Tei says:

    Pretty, but this is nothing to do with the SOPA, that is about simple censorship, giving corporations directly the power to censor everything.

  13. Reefpirate says:

    I think it might be worthwhile to mention here that the only candidate currently running for US President who is actively and totally opposed to SOPA is Ron Paul.

    • Vinraith says:

      And that’s a shame, because he’s also actively and totally opposed to things like federal disaster relief.

    • Wulf says:

      Politics is nothing more than a cult of popularity style contest these days, anyway. Paul isn’t supporting SOPA because he’s generally against it, he’s supporting it because he believes it’ll make him popular with the swathe of people whom are against SOPA.

      And, of course, more popularity equals more votes.

    • Blackcompany says:

      Wulf I usually agree with you. And I do agree that politics is nothing more than a popularity contest (and perhaps a test of one’s emotional intelligence and no other kind.)
      .
      However, I disagree on Ron Paul. For too many years now he has preached only a single message: a hands-off, smaller government. He is against a meddlesome, privacy-robbing Big Brother government. He is against American expansion in the way of world wide military bases. He is against over-regulation. Never once has he changed his stance or his message in all these years. Not for popularity points; not for votes. He really is what he is. I admire that.
      .
      I even agree with his anti-disaster relief stance. States have Hurricane prone coasts, fault lines and tornado alleys. States also have budgets. Let the states set aside disaster relief. Make them more accountable than they are now. After all, state legislators in many states make as much money as federal legislators, despite the salaries of one coming from the coffers of an entire nation while the salaries of another come from the coffers of only a fraction of that nation.
      .
      Ron Paul is the only candidate worthy of a vote.

    • Vinraith says:

      No Wulf, Paul (unlike the vast bulk of politicians) is actually quite intellectually consistent about these things. He’s batshit insane, mind you, but he’s consistent.

    • Wulf says:

      Ah, forgive me, then. I may just have become overly cynical about the ‘turnabout nature’ of British politicians.

    • Vinraith says:

      Oh, most American politicians are certainly the same way, there’s no real reason you’d know this is a rare exception.

    • kyrieee says:

      Actually, I’m also running for President.

    • Reefpirate says:

      Again with the ‘he’s right on this issue, but the old fart is bat-shit crazy’ comments… Look, anyone who’s opposed to SOPA, opposed to the NDAA, opposed to the Patriot Act, opposed to Guantanamo Bay, illegal detentions of all kinds, illegal assassinations and torture, opposed to undeclared wars and foreign adventurism, opposed to sanctions that starve innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, opposed to the ‘bat-shit crazy’ war on drugs, opposed to systemic racism in the judicial system, opposed to the secrecy of the world’s largest money printing press, opposed to the TSA grabbing my crotch, and on and on and on, is maybe worth a second look. He’s got my vote, and I’d argue that the country is bat-shit crazy and he’s maybe just a little off on a couple of relatively insignificant things.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Reefpirate

      Yes, all of those positions are quite nice, it’s a shame about that whole “let’s do away with every useful, helpful and productive government program while we’re at it” thing. Paul’s a fascinating mix of forward-looking progressive ideas bolted to a peculiar desire to return us to the economic and government policies of the 1800′s.

      Not that it’s any real concern, as the man’s never going to win the presidency anyway. His son, on the other hand, scares the shit out of me.

    • gwathdring says:

      I’m with Vinraith on Ron Paul. My personal views are fairly far left, and as such I find myself rather ambivalent about Ron Paul’s ideological ticket. He and I agree on a lot of foreign policy issues and on personal rights, but we disagree enormously on acceptable scope of governance. I respect him, however, because he has more legitimate rationals for disliking so-called big government than most of the candidates I’ve listened to and voters I’ve spoken with who talk about small government.

      I don’t believe in a small government ruling a large nation. I can get behind smaller nations being more efficient and having numerous advantages. I think ideally governments would be much smaller and more flexible than ours … but they would also cover less physical territory and a smaller number of people. 300,000,000 is a lot of people, and it takes a lot of government for a nation of our size and scope to function. I also don’t trust private industry at all. I have seen too few reasons to do so and SOPA is yet another reason not to.

      I do despise the power that Bush put into the executive. Obama has only strengthened the executive-boosting elements Bush began with every action he has taken, down to his supreme court nominations. I do believe in more responsibility being shifted to state governments (providing revenue collection is shifted similarly … you can’t just dump the same responsibility on a sector of government that has fewer resources).

      Mostly I don’t like Ron Paul’s practical answers to many of the issues we agree on ideologically. I like a good half of his political theory and almost none of his actual policy ideas. I respect him, however, far more than I respect most of the politicians I *do* agree with on policy because he is a man of conviction and integrity as far as I can tell. I would still be quite upset if he were my president.

    • Weylund The Second says:

      I’d say that calling Ron Paul “batshit insane” is a fairly moderate stance to take. Read some of his less-recent campaign materials or newsletters.

    • bill says:

      Ron Paul = Andrew Ryan without the cash.

      His ideas are extreme enough that he’ll never be elected, thank god, but they have an element of appealing simplicity.

    • MultiVaC says:

      Yeah, as much as I disagree with Ron Paul on enough things that I could never vote for him, I have to give him credit as someone who consistently refuses to play the “popularity contest” game in politics. Predictably, because of this he’s not really popular, at least not at the levels he need to be to actually be elected. I can’t help but have some begrudging respect for him for having consistent and genuine ideas, even if a lot of them are really, really terrible ideas.

    • Reefpirate says:

      Well that’s great. I guess as long as people are put off by the taste of free markets we’ll just continue to lose personal liberties, the internet, and probably bomb a few more countries on our way out. Because there’s noone else in the political structure who will stand up for these things and also has the chance to be president. But hey, it feels good to be a liberal, right?

    • bill says:

      Let’s not get into the “liberal” thing again. This is a UK site so it doesn’t mean what you think it means anyway.

      Libertarianism is like Communism – it sounds like a great idea when you first hear about it (let everyone fend for themselves! yay! vs let’s all share and be equal! yay!).
      But in practice it means that we essentially go back to the dark ages before democracy. Might makes right. Wealth equals power. Hit some bad luck? Tough, die. Like communism, it might work in a perfect world, but human nature will screw it up. Ann Randian politics might work in her ideal implementation, but again real life and human nature would screw it up. (see: Bioshock).

      I also respect him for sticking to his guns and not bending…. but on the other hand, that’s a common trait of extremists and sometimes moderating your views can be a good idea.

      If he was a very moderate figure then I might actually support him, but as always, taking things to extremes is a bad idea.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      Reefpirate: why do hate freedom, son?

    • Reefpirate says:

      So your two sources on libertarianism are Bioshock and Ayn Rand? You know there are several other intellectuals who defend the ideology, and frankly I think they do a much better job. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Paul, etc.

      Paul has stated several times he’s not going to touch the safety-net that you’re so worried about, although he argues against it philosophically. He figures if you cut out the bank bailouts and large parts of overseas spending you can solve a lot of the unfunded liabilities at home.

      Oh, and he’s opposed to SOPA unlike any other candidate (which is what is relevant here). So my main point is that there is a choice in this election between someone who will actually solve the problems you claim to care about, or more of the same crap. Because of your phobia with libertarianism (even though the guy can’t actually implement most of the domestic libertarian stuff) the status quo will continue marching on. So the real question is, do you actually even care about SOPA and civil liberties at all?

    • gwathdring says:

      I personally do not have a phobia of libertarianism. I just strongly disagree with most of what Ron Paul stands for.

      I believe in a strong federal government. I believe that by giving a government more responsibilities towards the people, we can develop a better society. I think my personal liberties are best protected by regulation of industry, by a strong bureaucratic tradition, by publicly owned utilities and health care infrastructure. I don’t believe that every tax increase is a bad tax increase. I’m ambivalent about flat-rate taxes. I don’t believe that protecting the legal rights of fertilized human embryos is sound social, economic, political or (most subjective of all) moral practice. I feel that we DO need to have federal marriage statues as it seems fundamentally wrong to me that a couple married in one state should not be allowed the distinction of marriage in another. I believe that while many things currently run by the federal government SHOULD be handed over to the states, we cannot afford to treat our state governments as isolated units and expect to function well as a single country.

      I disagree a lot with Ron Paul. I disagree more with the Republican nominees. I cannot vote for Obama due to his support of so many awful Bush-era policies. In your estimation, that leaves my only option to vote for Ron Paul. But I’m going to take a good hard look at third party choices (scant as they are in American politics) and strongly consider a write-in candidate. I simply don’t believe in voting for the candidate who best balances electability and my other metrics. I vote for a person I feel would serve our country well as a president. While I would love to have an in depth discussion with Ron Paul, I simply don’t think his answers are best for our country.

      Really, how dare you accuse someone of not caring about civil liberties because they won’t vote for the guy you prefer for the election? Where do you get off? Maybe his views on Libertarianism are uninformed, but that isn’t enough to excuse you.

    • Reefpirate says:

      I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty right here in the RPS comments section (RPS rocks), but I think you are making a lot of assumptions in your broad-strokes condemnation of libertarianism. I wouldn’t even know where to start to be honest (since when did we need the federal gov’t, whether heterosexual or otherwise, to confirm our love for our partners?).

      Power to you to vote for someone you actually believe in. I like Gary Johnson as well, but you probably could have guessed that by now. The question I posed was rhetorical and I didn’t actually mean you don’t care about these issues. The point I was making was that there is an opportunity to attack these issues head on if you want to take it and if you have priorities that are more important than those then by all means vote that way. That’s why I said there is a choice to make in this, just like any other election, and you should vote according to your priorities.

      For me, putting an end to perpetual war, illegal torture, senseless drug wars, endless bank bailouts, and general assaults on habeus corpus and SOPA, outweigh anything that could be perceived as ‘negative’ about Ron Paul, especially because he could actually get elected this time. That being said, I would happily debate with you about any of these so-called negatives, which for me makes the choice all the more clear.

    • Unaco says:

      The White House has voiced opposition to SOPA and PIPA. So, Obama and Ron Paul both appear to be against the Bill(s). Obama digs the Witcher 2 though (he was 5th on the Arena scoreboard for a time), and killed OBL. That’s a plus for him.

    • Reefpirate says:

      There’s still plenty of issues for me to take up with Obama, but it’s encouraging that he seems to be hesitant with SOPA in that piece. Notice that that statement from the White House didn’t say they’d oppose it, they just would like it modified somehow. Half-good news I suppose.

      But… Obama played the Witcher?? Wtf, is there a link/source for that please?

    • gwathdring says:

      @Reefpirate

      I’m not trying to make broad strokes about libertarianism. There are some pretty diverse opinions under the umbrella of libertarianism and no small amount of debate and disagreement about the nature of libertarianism among theorists and politicians alike. I’m making broad strokes about Ron Paul’s specific policy viewpoints, and I recognize that even here I’m leaving out tons of nuance and rationalization at work in Ron Paul’s political theory. There’s also a lot more nuance to my own opinions on these issues. For example, my comment about marriage: Ron Paul believes that defining marriage should be left up to the states and that no states should be compelled to accept marriage licenses from other states. This sounds sensible given the various complicated financial aspects of marriage that vary from state to state. My issue is not that I believe the government needs to recognize people’s love for one another, but rather that a family that moves to another state for one reason or another could, under such a system, find themselves without some rather fundamental rights and privileges related to marriage–hospital visits, child custody, and so forth. This is not a sustainable system. I do not believe our economy and political system can afford to be that fragmented. I would argue, legally, that the supreme court was wrong to say marriage doesn’t deserve full-faith-and-credit protection. Something like different educational standards between states? Fine, as long as they share some form of federal scaffolding to avoid complete incompatibility. But something as fundamental to many family economies and mechanisms as marriage? It isn’t sound.

      I don’t feel the need to go over every single one of my comments in such a manner here. But the nuance here is limited by the space on the page I want to take up and the willingness of other parties to join in this particular branch of the discussion–not my prejudices against libertarianism. It isn’t that I think the issues on which I agree with Ron Paul are unimportant. It is that I feel the issues I disagree with him on are also important. As I don’t even know if he’ll be an option on my ballet (I can’t vote in my state’s primaries as I am not registered with any political party, let alone the Republican party), I’m certainly not going to throw my hat in for a candidate who is as rough a match to what I think this country needs as Ron Paul.

      Edit: I should probably mention an issue more important to my troubles with Paul. Government intervention in industry. I think our economy is in shambles because of the way we’ve embraced unregulated free-market capitalism and the way we have created an economic machine that provides no incentive for large businesses to hire new workers, create new jobs, or do anything that improves the general state of our economy. The “free market” today is mostly controlled by firms that make enormous amounts of money that doesn’t budge–it doesn’t go into trade goods, consumer products, worker salaries … it just sits on the stock market or in executive pockets. Finance capitalism is destroying us on it’s own. We need regulations to prevent it from spinning any more out of control.

      Unregulated industry does not pursue the good of the consumer. It does not pursue the good of the worker. It does not pursue the good of the economy. There’s nothing wrong with the people involved; but when the people fade into the mass of a lucrative company, the ability of that organization to make moral decisions or even GOOD decisions rapidly deteriorates. Unregulated industry, especially sectors with no obligation to consumers, is brilliant, shortsighted, uncaring, impulsive and wasteful. Now, our current regulatory system could be described the same way (with the additional modifier “scant”). But let’s not pretend that unchecked industry has ever worked well for America. Or China. Or most other countries. There are some bizarre exceptions, and bad regulations can be just as horrendous. But avoiding another 1920s or gilded age sounds worth the risk of bad regulations to me. Whatever happened to FIXING things that were broken rather than throwing them out?

    • Reefpirate says:

      Well, I didn’t want to get in to this on RPS. (X-Com, yay!) But I guess I may as well since no one has tried to stop us yet.

      You seem a very reasoned and considerate person when it comes to discussing and thinking about these issues. I appreciate that very much because I am getting used to a lot of insult-hurling and it is nice to find someone in opposition willing to discuss the issues rather than the personalities involved.

      (It sure would be nice if RPS would fix their GODDAMN COMMENTS SECTION so that I could reference your post while I write this, but I’ll just try to remember your points fairly)

      The gist of my rebuttal goes like this: Contrary to popular belief, we have not had anything resembling unregulated free markets in a very very long time, and therefore to blame the economic problems we are now experiencing on unregulated free markets is inappropriate. Further, the ‘measured’ and ‘sensible’ response by the government and regulators has made it worse. I’ll try to address these two main points to start off, and then I’ll probably launch into some relatively unrelated rant by the end of it.

      When I say that unregulated free markets have not existed for a long time, it is not as shocking or far-fetched as you might think. Since the early 1900s, and certainly by the 1930s, finance has not been a free market operation in the United States nor in most of the world. The price of money, ie. interest rates, have been determined arbitrarily by central banks, and the risks that banks take have been socialized either by the Fed or by other government institutions such as the FDIC. The ‘lender of last resort’ socializes risk and losses by inflating the money supply when necessary. The FDIC allows banks to take risks with depositors’ money without the depositors or the banks actually having to take a risk at all. These risks are instead taken on by the US population at large through inflation, taxation and debt to finance these risks. This is where a major distinction can be made between Friedman or Reagan type conservatives and Austrian libertarians. When I argue for free markets, the same way Dr. Paul does, we are advocating more complete free markets than someone like Romney or Gingrich. The Federal Reserve is a price-fixer and needs to disappear eventually for any sort of free market to form.

      This means that all of these ‘out of control free market banksters that are ruining the country’ should all be out of a job. Bankruptcy courts should have sold off what assets they might still own in early 2008 at the latest. Instead, regulators and generally big government advocates have decided to keep the charade going by bailing these guys out. Libertarians didn’t bail these guys out or advocate for their bonuses. The market should have eaten them a long time ago. It is the government that has kept them around. So when you advocate for new regulations but with the same failed bankers in charge, I call it a farce. The real, tough-love regulation that these guys needed would have been provided by a free market financial system. But finance is not free market, it is highly regulated and propped up by the Federal Reserve. What better punishment for the bankers than unemployment? You think a million dollar fine will make these guys stop? They can hire good lawyers and dodge most fines anyways. Either that or they will just populate the regulator staff with their buddies and never get prosecuted in the first place.

      This sort of arrangement can be seen in many other industries. Time and again, big business takes advantage of regulation to reinforce their bigness and to keep smaller businesses out. The horror show that is ‘Intellectual Property’ and patent regulation is a great example of this. I’d be curious to hear some examples you might want to show of unregulated markets running rampant and doing damage to the consumer. You are capable of detecting nuance, and I think that if you really examine such examples you will detect a subsidy or regulation that is leveraged by these ‘free market’ offenders to perpetrate their crimes. Rather than struggling to enforce morality through regulation, which you have admitted can be quite ugly at times, I would argue it is better if you limit the power of the government so that big business cannot take advantage of its power as they so often do.

      Ultimately, the most fundamental ingredient in a free market is money. It is money that should probably be the most free market of them all, and therefore if your money market isn’t free (ie. currency is controlled by a central, arbitrary authority like a central bank) then your market isn’t free.

    • gwathdring says:

      You make a compelling case. I agree that the federal government has had a stake in industry all the way back to the trust-busting era. The trouble with words like “free market” and “unregulated” is that they never truly apply so long as a government writes laws that so much as interact with the markets. The closest thing America has ever had to a truly free market system would be under the Articles of Confederation. It would be unfair to blame unregulated markets for the troubles seen under that farce of a government, though, as we were so disorganized and had so many competing currencies and enterprise was so much different and at such a smaller scale.

      I guess we can then look to the closing of the National Bank by Andrew Jackson and some of the messes caused by small banks with no legal limitations placed upon them; the period of wild-west banking that followed the shut-down of the Bank of the United States, I feel, greatly exaggerated our boom-bust cycling. Of course … it isn’t fair to blame our current troubles on the loss of a central bank, as the Great Depression made such enormous ripples as to render the ripples caused by that shut-down mostly irrelevant; we were also just learning how banking worked and a free-market theorist could easily argue that the period was part of the evolution of free market banking rather than a symptom of inherent dysfunctions in free-market finance.

      But if we can’t use that as an example, our case is getting rather weak. Perhaps we should look instead to the gilded age … but there we have the same problem. We were just learning how to use massive corporations. Temporary dysfunction is the only way to figure out that certain sorts of business don’t work.

      I could keep going, and tear down all of my arguments, both general and specific, in this way: promising that we have never truly seen free markets left to evolve on their own alongside changing technology and economic infrastructure. The key issue with this line of argument is that it goes both ways. I could argue we haven’t given clean regulation, free of undue influence from big business, a just chance. That we haven’t seen what regulation can do when written carefully and responsibly. That regulations have cropped up over the years not to prevent future troubles but in response to past wrongs on the part of industry–such as chronically unfair wages set by manufacturing plants until the first minimum wage laws around 1910.

      You are right about the way banks abuse financial regulations, though. My dentist (and close family friend) invested substantially in a local bank and joined the board. They are currently having to contend with regulations that are perfectly designed to kill off small banks by requiring they generate obscene amounts of capital while restricting their lending rights to be as stingy as those voluntarily taken up by the larger banks in light of the recession. Local banks all across the country are losing funds and ultimately being shut down–usually without notification to many of the employees, and at night–and taken over by the government. Which wouldn’t be a problem for me if the banks were legitimately causing trouble … or if they weren’t then handed over to larger firms for control. As things stand, the government is being used by these larger firms as a way of kicking out smaller competition. And that certainly makes matters much more complicated.

      I don’t see “the government” as an entity. It isn’t a side of the battle. It is us. It is our decisions, our laws, our contracts, our protections, our rights, ourselves. Shrinking the government doesn’t change the fundamental troubles in our economic system or in the way we as a country do business. It simply changes how much control we have–both to make them worse (as we are currently doing) and to make them better. Regulation, deregulation, communism, capitalism, socialism, mercantilism … it is not our system that matters quite so much as our implementation. Before we do something big like decentralize, something that (as you yourself argued) we don’t have an especially robust tradition of practice with … we need to think about the systems we are creating. We want to build a system that creates an incentive to hire educated employees, employ more workers overall, hire workers who most need employment, pay just salaries and offer reasonable worker benefits, improve the economy at large, create long-lasting and high quality products, hire American workers and so forth. We need a system in which these things happen, otherwise our economy is not sustainable and cannot support our current population, let alone a growing one.

      I am not convinced that a free market economy encourages job creation any more than this current economy. Manufacturing can, I suppose, if you first assume workers will always be treated fairly. But there is an essential disconnect between a system that rewards profits and unprofitable goals like increased employment and higher wages. So, as long as our economy is going to be capitalistic, we need to have a system in place that protects us when the interests of capital would supersede the core interests of a healthy nation of human beings. To me it simply makes sense to use the authority and structure of our government to provide this counter-balance.

      Convince me, then. Convince me that an employed, healthy, educated population is an inherent byproduct of a free market. Show me where a free market sets just wages. Show me where the free market shrinks our crippling unemployment rate. Show me where the free market creates an educated workforce and justly compensates educated workers for educational expenses (i.e. allows them to pay off school debt through wage-scaling of positions requiring education). Show me where a free market protects consumers from dangerous products (especially pharmaceuticals … yes I know the FDA is a mess at the moment but prove to me it isn’t better than nothing). Show me where a free market protects the environment. Show me how we can do these things without government assistance and enforcement, and you’re starting to convert a leftist into a libertarian.

  14. Wulf says:

    So much respect FrozenByte. So much. You may have all the respect, because you have earned it, and I do remember these things.

    There are better reasons to be opposed to SOPA, such as it not being about piracy but rather about large corporations censoring their independent competition, but what they’ve said there also deserves respect. It’s the Newell position. And just generally? Hooray for intelligent people.

  15. Kaira- says:

    I wonder when Valve will state their position towards SOPA. Or have they done already so?

  16. molluskgonebad says:

    I’m way anti-SOPA, but the embedded video makes the case pretty poorly. I’m not sure “You should have the choice to pirate” is going to convince anyone, and doesn’t even begin to address how overbroad the legislation is.

    • Wulf says:

      This may be true, but there’s still a point in there.

      The point is is that piracy can’t really be stopped by anyone, and the only people this is going to hurt is everyone but the pirates. As per usual. So the norm. Et cetera, et cetera.

    • gwathdring says:

      I agree. It didn’t make a lot of sense to me.

    • MultiVaC says:

      I have to agree. I really admire FrozenByte for that position, it’s a great statement and a pretty bold one, but I don’t really see what it has to do with SOPA other than being about piracy.

  17. bglamb says:

    SEGA’s response is still the best.

    They suggest turning it off and on again and seeing if the problem is still there.

  18. SirKicksalot says:

    The top rated comments on the Nvidia blog are killing me on the inside. Please don’t read them.

    • alundra says:

      Why?? It’s called propaganda, the fascists, which now seem to be in power in some countries of the world, use it all the time.

  19. blipmusic says:

    ‘sopa’ fittingly means ‘a piece of garbage’ in Swedish. (pronunciation is ‘soopa’-ish)

  20. FunkyBadger3 says:

    It would be an awful lot easier to get behind this crusade if:
    a) there weren’t so many people stealing stuff all over the internets
    b) there was an alternative plan to reduce the number of a)

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>