Copyright law needs serious revision. It's important to note the historical context of copyright. Before copyright, circa 1700, distributing written material was prohibitively expensive and it was common for writers' inventions to be stolen by rich, powerful publishers who would sell their material (without payment to author) at large, at a price the writer couldn't possibly beat. This not only left artists in poverty, but it also reduced the quality of artistic work. Copyright law evolved in the era of nation-forming (1650 to 1850) because countries realized it was in their national interest to have notable artists and scientists, and that they wouldn't have this if the rich and powerful (being the only people who could publish) could steal their work.
Before copyright, an author (or, for the best modern analogue, a musician) would make almost nothing on his first book (it'd just be stolen by a publisher) and the only way he could make a decent living would be to negotiate an arrangement over his future work with publishers, who nonetheless held most of the cards. Does this evil system sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what we have now, under corporate copyright provisions that are far too permissive of the law being used for purposes exactly opposite to what was intended. Copyright was designed to protect "the little guy" against the rich and powerful, not vice versa.
Also, the people in power (responsible for SOPA) don't actually give a shit about Hollywood. Not in the least. This is about control for them. Copyright (like drugs) has become a selling point evil men use not because they care about the issue (they don't) but because they want an excuse to centralize power and practice some good-ol'-fashioned fuckin'-with-people. The real goal of SOPA is not to destroy the Internet. For most people (but not those who need it) the Internet will work just fine. It's to exert control by bringing into question the legality of its components. When something essential (such as private business, as observed in Soviet "communism" and post-Soviet ochlocracy) is made illegal or extremely difficult to do legally, it doesn't disappear outright-- it becomes beholden to officials who enforce these absurd laws selectively.
> Does this evil system sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what we have now
I disagree. Our situation is very different to back then. If the situation was the same as back then we wouldn't need any copyright reform.
The little guy is protected from publishers legally. The problem that the little guy has with publishers now is that serious brand development, marketing and production investment is needed to make consumers buy books/music/film/games these days, at least in numbers that can provide a decent, sustainable income. The publishers, of course, are looking for a ROI on their investment (and they will try and negotiate the best rates from the artist, as any investor will - including copyrights if necessary).
Then, as competition in the high-investment high-return music business increases, risk-aversion also increases and publishers tend towards sure bets and artists who are most likely to sell well (constructing them to fit a market if necessary). This is what makes it harder for the little guy today, not large publishers copying their work indiscriminately.
Before copyright, an author (or, for the best modern analogue, a musician) would make almost nothing on his first book (it'd just be stolen by a publisher) and the only way he could make a decent living would be to negotiate an arrangement over his future work with publishers, who nonetheless held most of the cards. Does this evil system sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what we have now, under corporate copyright provisions that are far too permissive of the law being used for purposes exactly opposite to what was intended. Copyright was designed to protect "the little guy" against the rich and powerful, not vice versa.
Also, the people in power (responsible for SOPA) don't actually give a shit about Hollywood. Not in the least. This is about control for them. Copyright (like drugs) has become a selling point evil men use not because they care about the issue (they don't) but because they want an excuse to centralize power and practice some good-ol'-fashioned fuckin'-with-people. The real goal of SOPA is not to destroy the Internet. For most people (but not those who need it) the Internet will work just fine. It's to exert control by bringing into question the legality of its components. When something essential (such as private business, as observed in Soviet "communism" and post-Soviet ochlocracy) is made illegal or extremely difficult to do legally, it doesn't disappear outright-- it becomes beholden to officials who enforce these absurd laws selectively.