This: "One of America's most respected newspapers has come out on the side of copyright owners..." really annoys me. I am a copyright owner. I make money from that fact. I am against SOPA.
Setting up a false dilemma of "copyright owners" vs "others" is incorrect and evil spin. Everyone be sure to note that many of the sites and people against SOPA (e.g. Google, Tim O'Reilly, etc) are all major copyright holders and beneficiaries when you talk with people about this.
What bothers me is that in most news coverage the set up veers further off as "copyright owners" vs "internet giants". This sets the tone that only large Internet business are protesting SOPA because they make money from pirating in some way. It completely overlooks the fact that the backlash is largely driven by average informed users.
I agree. In any debate it's important to frame the issue carefully and to avoid letting the opposition choose the terms that will be discussed. If most people view this as "rogue sites/thieves vs. legitimate copyright holders" or something similar then the debate is already partly lost.
Exactly. They've already won in the press where SOPA and PIPA are referred to as "piracy bills". We need an alternate term. Unfortunately "skip-due-process bills" has too many syllables.
Even worse, introducing the WSJ as "one of America's most respected newspapers" automatically presents the paper in a very positive light -- "respect" is good, "America" is good, so good + good must be good, right?
What if a different formula was used instead, like "one of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers"? It'd be much more correct and impartial, technically (ownership can be proven; "respect", not so much), but the spin would feel quite different.
Setting up a false dilemma of "copyright owners" vs "others" is incorrect and evil spin. Everyone be sure to note that many of the sites and people against SOPA (e.g. Google, Tim O'Reilly, etc) are all major copyright holders and beneficiaries when you talk with people about this.