The "Stop Online Piracy Act".

[Fedorov]

The problem here is that we all know we are going to get screwed one way or another and I doubt any Internet user in his right mind would come here to defend the act, so there won't be much "discussion", as this matter should be discussed with the ones who will vote and its a majority of voters that don't represent the Internet community or have nothing to do with it.

But of course, Drakon2k has not posted here yet.

 

[Reise]

You guys should check out the list of random bills like this that get proposed every year.

You think this is bad? You only know about it because it has some decent attention.

 

[braindead]

Personally, I don't believe this is anything to really worry about, as it is too big. Can you imagine the billions of dollars it will cost to enforce this? and do you think the owners of Youtube or Facebook are going to sit back and allow themselves to be shut down? no chance, that'll be a battle that will go on for years and cost the gov and extra so many million.

As far as it stopping piracy is ridiculous, as it will still happen regardless. Black markets have existed for centuries and will continue to exist as long as someone ( just one person ) does not want to pay through the official channels for something.

Remember Napster when it first started? and the RIAA was in uproar for it to be shut down, yes they got their way but within days 3 more Napster style programs were available.

I do agree that gaming/music companies should be allowed to protect their content, as they have made it and spent money to do so but I think this is a pointless exercise and will not make a slight bit of difference to what it going on.

 

[Grobut]

You guys should check out the list of random bills like this that get proposed every year.

Ohh i know this bill is by no means alone in the big pile of crazy that goes on, but the difference is, this bill is backed by a majority of the Senate, it has a real shot at passing.

Personally, I don't believe this is anything to really worry about, as it is too big. Can you imagine the billions of dollars it will cost to enforce this?

That's the problem, it's cheap, it's handing over control of the internet to private corporate organizations who are both willing and able to pick up the tab for it, and will require little upkeep from the Government.

What this bill proposes to do, at it's core, is simply to make it really easy for corporations to shut down their competition, without a court order or even hearing required to do so. It makes every site owner directly responsible for anything posted on their domain, even if it is user supplied and they have no control over it, if any media giant see's anything of theirs on the site (even if it's just a video of somone talking with a radio on the the background, playing a pop song), they can shut down the entire site at will with just a phonecall to the ISP, and the ISP will have to make the site unlisted.

It's circumventing due process, fair use and all reasonable measures to assign personal culpabillity to the people actually in the wrong, just so it will be easier for groups like the RIAA and Disney to stomp out anyone who doesen't play by their rules. Shutting down a pirate is hard, but stomping out the site he posts on will be easy as pie, and that's just one less potential rival in the world, so it's a win/win for them to do so.


The costs won't fall on the US Government, they will fall on the private sector, and mainly the smaller sites who won't have the capital to fight back against it, and will have to employ extreme measures of self-censorship to stay alive.

 

[braindead]

Ohh i know this bill is by no means alone in the big pile of crazy that goes on, but the difference is, this bill is backed by a majority of the Senate, it has a real shot at passing.



That's the problem, it's cheap, it's handing over control of the internet to private corporate organizations who are both willing and able to pick up the tab for it, and will require little upkeep from the Government.

What this bill proposes to do, at it's core, is simply to make it really easy for corporations to shut down their competition, without a court order or even hearing required to do so. It makes every site owner directly responsible for anything posted on their domain, even if it is user supplied and they have no control over it, if any media giant see's anything of theirs on the site (even if it's just a video of somone talking with a radio on the the background, playing a pop song), they can shut down the entire site at will with just a phonecall to the ISP, and the ISP will have to make the site unlisted.

It's circumventing due process, fair use and all reasonable measures to assign personal culpabillity to the people actually in the wrong, just so it will be easier for groups like the RIAA and Disney to stomp out anyone who doesen't play by their rules. Shutting down a pirate is hard, but stomping out the site he posts on will be easy as pie, and that's just one less potential rival in the world, so it's a win/win for them to do so.


The costs won't fall on the US Government, they will fall on the private sector, and mainly the smaller sites who won't have the capital to fight back against it, and will have to employ extreme measures of self-censorship to stay alive.

Understandable and I definitely disagree on giving full reign to the corporations but when you think about it small site owners are going to be at fault and responsible for what is on their website.

Ok, the guy used the Toyota analogy, which is actually incorrect, as that is going a step too far, as if you do use a car as an analogy, you have more variables present from the driver, the small car dealership to the franchises in between, so basing this on his analogy

you could say that a driver willingly knows that a passenger is in the back of the car and smoking pot. He can use the argument, Toyota let him do it, see them?
Or a small car dealership knows, drugs are being smuggled in the vehicles and would argue that it is down to the company supplying the cars and not him?

To put Facebook/Youtube against a major company is ludicrous as they all started out as small websites and are just bigger versions but should be held in the same regard as a single website owner, the same as the car owner is responsible for his car instead of the company that made it.

plus.. let the large corps spend money, which they will get fed up doing because the only reason they are where they are is because they don't like spending money.
If this helps bring them down, then so be it

 

[REZ]

Ahh, I hate to sound defensive but I must clarify that I, at least, wasnt going on about left vs. right. My concerns are and will continue to be about up vs. down. The jist of my previous rant is how sacrosanct and deeply embedded the pursuit of business/profit has become in our collective psyche, to the point where citizens actually defend immoral unjust behavior. We raise little profiteers here in this country; fed from cradle to grave the virtues of profit and the dangers of not pursing it.

But anyway, reeling it in a bit and back to SOPA specifically. Of course I'm against it, but what I think is needed is clearer language. How far is too far to go in the protection of IP. Business has a right to protect itself from theft and therefore some sort of boundry with accompanying structure should be created as their concern is legitimate, but being able to shut down a site because Aunt May's vacation videos have the Rolling Stones playing in the background is absurd, it's pretty obvious. I'm with Fed in that there isnt much to discuss there.. it's a massive overreach.

 

[I. Kant]

Pardon me for sounding outlandishly naive and uninformed, but

The internet is American?

The American Senate's decision is going to affect the entire Internet?

Help.

 

[LightsabeR]

Pardon me for sounding outlandishly naive and uninformed, but

The internet is American?

The American Senate's decision is going to affect the entire Internet?

Help.

Uninformed indeed. You should have read up about it a little bit before going all sarcastic on us. You could have at least watched the video posted by the OP.

 

[I. Kant]

I was not sarcastic. I was uninformed. I did not watch the OP's video, for bandwidth reasons. If that contains the answers I seek, I shall do so, once conditions allow.

Do not ostracise me, I beg of you.

 

[LightsabeR]

Do not ostracise me, I beg of you.

I will try to refrain from doing this.


Also, "funny" pic for a change:

Spoiler!

 

[Fedorov]

Posted by the AVGN:

http://cinemassacre.com/2011/12/18/urgent-sopa-and-protect-ip-threatens-internet/

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Ugh, sounds like a bunch of garbage to me, extreme overkill.

Thanks for the info Fed...

 

[Peter.Steele]

Pardon me for sounding outlandishly naive and uninformed, but

The internet is American?

The American Senate's decision is going to affect the entire Internet?

Help.

Seriously?

Yes. The internet is American. I'm not being a jerk, here. The Internet was developed by the US Department of Defense. Yes, the rest of the world uses it, and in fact uses more of it than the US DoD, but if the US Military decides it wants the internet back, guess who loses?

I'm not assigning any value judgements on this, just stating a fact. Might as well argue the rightness or wrongness of the sun rising in the east tomorrow.

 

[Moyako]

Holy crap. It's too hard to hold your tongue with this political threads.

Evasive maneuvers, NOW!!!




Captain, infraction successfully dodged. All systems normal

 

[Grobut]

Understandable and I definitely disagree on giving full reign to the corporations but when you think about it small site owners are going to be at fault and responsible for what is on their website.

Ok, the guy used the Toyota analogy, which is actually incorrect, as that is going a step too far, as if you do use a car as an analogy, you have more variables present from the driver, the small car dealership to the franchises in between, so basing this on his analogy

you could say that a driver willingly knows that a passenger is in the back of the car and smoking pot. He can use the argument, Toyota let him do it, see them?
Or a small car dealership knows, drugs are being smuggled in the vehicles and would argue that it is down to the company supplying the cars and not him?

To put Facebook/Youtube against a major company is ludicrous as they all started out as small websites and are just bigger versions but should be held in the same regard as a single website owner, the same as the car owner is responsible for his car instead of the company that made it.

plus.. let the large corps spend money, which they will get fed up doing because the only reason they are where they are is because they don't like spending money.
If this helps bring them down, then so be it

What it boils down to is the "Safe harbour" laws, thease are the laws that protects companies like Toyota from getting sued when a car owner breaks the law whilst driving a car they made. And thease laws are common sense goodness, they are a very good thing.

The Safe harbour laws also applies to the internet, a site like Youtube is not held responsible for what you upload to it, and if you do upload something illegal, the IP owner can contact Youtube and say "hey! That guy uploaded our stuff!" and have Youtube block the content.
Only if Youtube, after having been made aware of illegal content, refuses to block the content have they commited a crime they could be sued over.


But SOPA aims to remove the Safe harbour laws from the internet entirely, meaning that any site that allows users to post content on it, is now held directly responsible for everything any random person posts on their site.
That includes this forum mind you, TWI would be held responsible if any random troll uploaded anything copyrighted here, and this forum could vanish off the face of the internet without warning or due process because of one random person's post, that is how far-reaching this bill is.

This is no differen't than if Toyota was to suddenly become liable for every driver that owns one of their cars, no differen't at all.

 

[Nezzer]

NDAA and SOPA. So much for the "land of freedom", eh? That's why most politicians are scum.

 

[The Masta]

What's NDAA?

 

[Merin Redplate]

What's NDAA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

 

[NoxNoctum]

Well Obama just signed the NDAA into law. Goodbye bill of rights.

Nice quote from Lindsey Graham one of its proponents:

“The homeland is part of the battlefield, and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not.”

 

[Nezzer]

Well Obama just signed the NDAA into law. Goodbye bill of rights.

Nice quote from Lindsey Graham one of its proponents: