Our founding fathers believed that you should be very careful what powers you give to any authority because, even though they may be nice now, you have no idea who will be in charge in the future.
This is why any student of history is against SOPA. We believe that it does not protect the rights espoused in the Constitution. We believe that it may be abused in the future.
Some people, such as yourself, seem to believe that this would never happen. You seem to think that because there is a need (in your view) for copyright holders to remove "owned" content, that we need a law like this. And further you seem to believe that its ok to have such a broad law, even though it may be open to such abuse.
UMG is just demonstrating why the founding fathers were right and why you are naive and short-sighted.
Here's the thing: if UMG wasn't actively doing it, you'd still be naive and short-sighted. You'd still be an "asshole", in your words, and the founding fathers would still be right.
There's one thing that the OP is indisputably correct about: Content creators (should) own the content they create. When Isee someone do something like putting "owned" in quotes, it just immediately strikes me as someone who justifies piracy to themselves by saying that no one owns content.
Or at the very least, if nobody owns it (as some people seem to believe), then content creators shouldn't be deceived into thinking that they own it and that society won't just pass it around. Whether or not IP exists, society at large needs to mostly agree one way or another, or a lot of people will put a lot of effort into something they wouldn't otherwise, and they won't be reimbursed in the way that convinced them to put in the effort in the first place.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
"limited times". Apparently the US Constitution disputes your assertion. Bunch of pirates, those founding fathers.
This is why any student of history is against SOPA. We believe that it does not protect the rights espoused in the Constitution. We believe that it may be abused in the future.
Some people, such as yourself, seem to believe that this would never happen. You seem to think that because there is a need (in your view) for copyright holders to remove "owned" content, that we need a law like this. And further you seem to believe that its ok to have such a broad law, even though it may be open to such abuse.
UMG is just demonstrating why the founding fathers were right and why you are naive and short-sighted.
Here's the thing: if UMG wasn't actively doing it, you'd still be naive and short-sighted. You'd still be an "asshole", in your words, and the founding fathers would still be right.