Stop Online Piracy Act

[Apollo]

You've bought the corporate line lock, stock and barrel -- the above statement is wrong.

It doesn't protect artists at all -- it protects corporations. Artists can be better protected by ditching the corporations they whore for and forming cooperatives. They could sell their music for half the price what the corporations do, and earn more.

And that's not the issue anyway -- the issue is that this would hand the government the tools to shut down anything they felt like, any time they wanted, merely by claiming there was a copyright infringement.

Very true. Several big bands have proven that customers will and want to pay for their music. Once their contracts with the corporations ended, their next album was sold directly through them on their site. Some let you pick your own price. You could pay only a cent for a album if you wished.

These artists found that they made more by doing that then they ever did with their labels.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

You've bought the corporate line lock, stock and barrel -- the above statement is wrong.

Translation: Rather than writing my standard thoughtful line, I'm going with a standard knee-jerk reaction...

It doesn't protect artists at all -- it protects corporations. Artists can be better protected by ditching the corporations they whore for and forming cooperatives. They could sell their music for half the price what the corporations do, and earn more.

Which is probably why so many have started doing so...

And that's not the issue anyway -- the issue is that this would hand the government the tools to shut down anything they felt like, any time they wanted, merely by claiming there was a copyright infringement.

Erg. Paranoid, much? The second that the DOJ starts doing that they'll have so many problems it wouldn't be funny. That's the problem with having to generate actual paperwork; it can be tracked. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but if an agent gets a little over-zealous or if he starts using the law as a personal tool, he can nailed on it. You already have to many upper-echelon types that are going to proceed carefully on this, mainly because the potential for the trouble you've noted is already being debated, especially given the number of people that seem to think any form of enforcing the law is censorship.

The other thing is that the site does have the ability to argue against any given court order. There seems to be the mistaken impression that once a court order is given that it is fiat; there is no appeal. The site can in fact appeal (sort of mentioned in the legislation itself), and the DOJ has to explain why the order was asked for, and heaven help the agent who asks for a court order in this case who tries to defend going after the wrong sites.

A little over-reaching, but not as bad as it could be. Especially when some of the other countries are debating worse....

RG

 

[Apollo]

Send a personalized robocall to your congressman or companies supporting SOPA
http://gizmodo.com/5871541/smack-all-sopa-supporters-with-this-automated-robocall-service

Thought this was funny, cause it's true.

 

[Apollo]

Erg. Paranoid, much? The second that the DOJ starts doing that they'll have so many problems it wouldn't be funny. That's the problem with having to generate actual paperwork; it can be tracked. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but if an agent gets a little over-zealous or if he starts using the law as a personal tool, he can nailed on it. You already have to many upper-echelon types that are going to proceed carefully on this, mainly because the potential for the trouble you've noted is already being debated, especially given the number of people that seem to think any form of enforcing the law is censorship.

The other thing is that the site does have the ability to argue against any given court order. There seems to be the mistaken impression that once a court order is given that it is fiat; there is no appeal. The site can in fact appeal (sort of mentioned in the legislation itself), and the DOJ has to explain why the order was asked for, and heaven help the agent who asks for a court order in this case who tries to defend going after the wrong sites.

A little over-reaching, but not as bad as it could be. Especially when some of the other countries are debating worse....

RG
__

Thats all good and true, but by the time he is prosecuted and dealt with, this business has already lost millions and sometimes billions of dollars in revenue and might not have a leg to stand back up on.

Same with repeals. And just because they find the guy or the appeal goes through, does not mean immediate action from the government.

The government does not move that quickly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Erg. Paranoid, much? The second that the DOJ starts doing that they'll have so many problems it wouldn't be funny. That's the problem with having to generate actual paperwork; it can be tracked. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but if an agent gets a little over-zealous or if he starts using the law as a personal tool, he can nailed on it. You already have to many upper-echelon types that are going to proceed carefully on this, mainly because the potential for the trouble you've noted is already being debated, especially given the number of people that seem to think any form of enforcing the law is censorship.

The other thing is that the site does have the ability to argue against any given court order. There seems to be the mistaken impression that once a court order is given that it is fiat; there is no appeal. The site can in fact appeal (sort of mentioned in the legislation itself), and the DOJ has to explain why the order was asked for, and heaven help the agent who asks for a court order in this case who tries to defend going after the wrong sites.

A little over-reaching, but not as bad as it could be. Especially when some of the other countries are debating worse....

RG

So naive, so trusting. I bet you still think cops are your friends.

The government can create the evidence it needs -- they do it all the time. I'm not talking about some agent screwing around, I'm talking about the people at the top, who have little regard for law and Constitution unless it suits them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thats all good and true, but by the time he is prosecuted and dealt with, this business has already lost millions and sometimes billions of dollars in revenue and might not have a leg to stand back up on.

Same with repeals. And just because they find the guy or the appeal goes through, does not mean immediate action from the government.

The government does not move that quickly.

So even in the best view, this act is destructive: it inherently punishes the accused, regardless of guilt.

And the so-called "War on Drugs" has shown us just how much the government cares about our well-being, or justice: property seized as drug-related is supposed to be kept until the cases are resolved, but with oppressive regularity those who are found innocent are released to poverty, their homes and businesses and vehicles already sold and their cash vacuumed into the arresting agency's maw.

In both cases supporters argue from statistics, which means they don't give a rip about individual human beings (or human rights). Oh, such situations are tragic, they agree, but the law is helping us crush criminals!

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Apollo: Note that it's a court order and not a full-on court case. This means that order can be retracted (some have even been retracted before they were handed out). Also, if the court order was given without merit, the person being served can sue the person whose name is one the order. There's a reason that judges are so loathe to fill them out: They can be held personally responsible for something that they sign with the potential for it to bite them on the butt...

So naive, so trusting. I bet you still think cops are your friends.

Some cops, sure. Actually, most. It's just a matter of weeding out those that shouldn't be a cop or those that are in it long past when they should have gotten out. Introduce a perfect system, and the corruption disappears. Oh, wait; as it would be based on imperfect people, that isn't possible. Guess my one recourse is to be a bitter old man about it and assume that all cops are corrupt...

The government can create the evidence it needs -- they do it all the time. I'm not talking about some agent screwing around, I'm talking about the people at the top, who have little regard for law and Constitution unless it suits them.

See, now you've confused me: If powerful corporations are above the law, then how this law be enforced exactly? Oh, wait: But some people, believing themselves to be immune to little things like procedure can take them down, right? But then the corps just buy them off and sacrifice someone, and it's back to business. But since only corporations EVER break laws, never individual citizens, that would mean that that the individual citizens must be framed in order to fill jails. And then----

Sorry, but that sounds like the plot of a bad cyberpunk novel rather than real life. This law isn't meant for the Big Piracy Sites; it's meant for the little ones where some kid put up some links and the ICE/FBI/locals just have bigger fish to fry and can't be bothered to really slap down little Johnny like he needs to be. You have obviously not read through the law, and noticed all of the language that basically says, "Clean it up and we back down." This is littered throughout both bills.

Yeahyeah; I've officially hit the point where I'm not advocating for the law, and am just trying to get people to read the bloody things. It's just amazing how many so-called informed people are getting their information through people that haven't read them, and are basing their arguments on things that just don't exist in the bills (my personal favorite has to be the creation of new felonies), or on political leanings rather than fact, and it's ironic because these are the same people that point out that the masses are being led like sheep. Weird that....

RG

 

[Apollo]

we've hit the wall with this arguement. All I will say, is that a lot of people who have read the bill and are hating on it can't be wrong.

I have linked to the bill and to highly informative articles. So really, it is up to the JUBBER to decide. I stand firmly agaisnt it, that's the end of it. There needs to be a MUCH MUCH MUCH more refined bill if there must be one, or let the FCC do what it's been doing since the beginning.

 

[Kulindahr]

Some cops, sure. Actually, most. It's just a matter of weeding out those that shouldn't be a cop or those that are in it long past when they should have gotten out. Introduce a perfect system, and the corruption disappears. Oh, wait; as it would be based on imperfect people, that isn't possible. Guess my one recourse is to be a bitter old man about it and assume that all cops are corrupt...


See, now you've confused me: If powerful corporations are above the law, then how this law be enforced exactly? Oh, wait: But some people, believing themselves to be immune to little things like procedure can take them down, right? But then the corps just buy them off and sacrifice someone, and it's back to business. But since only corporations EVER break laws, never individual citizens, that would mean that that the individual citizens must be framed in order to fill jails. And then----

Sorry, but that sounds like the plot of a bad cyberpunk novel rather than real life. This law isn't meant for the Big Piracy Sites; it's meant for the little ones where some kid put up some links and the ICE/FBI/locals just have bigger fish to fry and can't be bothered to really slap down little Johnny like he needs to be. You have obviously not read through the law, and noticed all of the language that basically says, "Clean it up and we back down." This is littered throughout both bills.

Yeahyeah; I've officially hit the point where I'm not advocating for the law, and am just trying to get people to read the bloody things. It's just amazing how many so-called informed people are getting their information through people that haven't read them, and are basing their arguments on things that just don't exist in the bills (my personal favorite has to be the creation of new felonies), or on political leanings rather than fact, and it's ironic because these are the same people that point out that the masses are being led like sheep. Weird that....

RG

I'll ignore the meanderings based on your own fantasies....

I doubt that Google's attorneys have misread the law. I haven't argued anything here that they haven't pointed out.

For any act like this, the government should be required to go to court to prove their case beyond any doubt that makes sense to a juror, and that means prove that the behavior was known and deliberate on the part of the site owner.

 

[Apollo]

Well, this act isn't too popular right now. Look at what's happening with godaddy. Today (the 29th) is suppose to be the day of the great exodus... of domain names. Godaddy is loosing literally tens of thousands of domain names as people are migrating to other hosts in protest of godaddy's support for this bill. Godaddy has pulled support for this bill, but the deed's been done and people are still migrating to other hosts.

Even wikipedia is about to move out of godaddy.

Yeah, today is the scheduled exodus. But apparently GoDaddy is holding on to the domains through some jankum process that slows it down considerably. They are hoping human laziness and hatred of inconvenience convinces some of the domains to stay.

Goodbye GoDaddy regardless.

 

[Kulindahr]

That so many in the internet community are bailing on godaddy over this is more than enough to condemn it.

 

[Apollo]

Electronic Arts, Nintendo and Sony Electronics have officially pulled support of SOPA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...lleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider+(Silicon+Al

 

[Kulindahr]

I never understood why Nintendo supported it in the first place.

 

[evanrick]

Why does the United States think it has such control over the world?

because little bitch ass countries like yours know their place. but srsly the net is the last best place for real freedom, we will see how long that lasts.

 

[Reika]

I lol when i read about stuff like this, because in the end it's going to be futile. Not going to pretend to know anything about the politics behind it and so forth, but even i know that if someone wants something badly enough, they'll find a way around it.

I often think that, in these days of "HACKERS HIT MASTERCARD" and "THOUSANDS OF CLIENTS DATA STOLEN" headlines, maybe governments should have put stuff like this in place before the internet really took off. It's like someone giving you one bite off a candy bar before they snatch it away again.

As to those saying it "only effects America, i'm not worried, i'm in Guatemala", just think if it passes and succeeds, whats to stop other countries from bringing in their own versions of it and if it's law in America, it'll be easier for other countries to follow suite, if the big boys have it, why can't we sort of mentality, already happened (sort of) in the UK with Newzbin.

 

[crazymentalguy]

I support SOPA...

Hey Jubbers:

I wanted to get a discussion going about the merits and demerits of issues surrounding the new SOPA bill. I know many people think that it "might" limit freedom of speech and create internet censorship, but I think it would be a great bill. Hear me out: what if you had a new idea for a great TV show and you spent all this time and money in order to get it onto the air; you pay the actors, the producers, the sound guy, the lighting guy and what have you and at the end of the day your production sees the light of day and you're an instant hit. Great, right?! Well, along comes some pirate who takes your idea (something you put your blood, sweat, and tears into) and posts it onto his ad-supported website and makes an instant profit off your idea--how would you feel?

I cringe at the thought of independent creators of movies who have their idea stolen and don't make any profit off of their creation. I think it devalues our culture and in the end we stop seeing artistic masterpieces like Mad Men and start seeing more Jersey Shore: why invest in art when you know some idiot will just upload it to a website and you don't get any credit.

Anyways, that's my two-cents....

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Re: I support SOPA...

That's all you got for your support of something so detrimental?

 

[blackbeltninja]

Re: I support SOPA...

I don't know why you foreigners pirate stuff.

Hear me out - stuff is cheap over there. It's usually cheaper for me to buy it from Amazon and pay the shipping and the Customs/Import duties than to buy the stuff here, but it takes weeks to get here.

Also, you can stream stuff because your internet is fast and dirt cheap. You can pay like 1 dollar and watch an episode of something brand new live off iTunes in real time; surely it takes longer to find the pirate stuff and download it than just buy it and own it legally. The legal streaming sites won't stream to us because of licencing issues with local distributors. iTunes does not work here in .za.

For me, piracy makes sense. I can get an entire series which is unavailable here almost for free from someone quicker, than it would take to download a single episode in watchable quality (as in more than 240x300 pixels) legally, assuming I could find someone willing to sell me an episode. I can get an album downloaded in an hour from a streaming site the day it drops overseas instead of waiting the mandatory several weeks/months for local publishers to pull finger and get it to us. I can get extended editions of something which will never ever get a local release and, when it does, cost 3x to buy legally what it would cost to buy it legally overseas. They make it difficult for us to get stuff legally in the 3rd World.

So for me, I buy what I can and piracy makes sense for the rest. For the rest of you, piracy seems like it's more of an effort than it's worth.

-d-

 

[jackoroe]

Re: I support SOPA...

Well, you'll disappointed to learn the bill is dead.

http://www.examiner.com/computers-in-denver/house-kills-sopa

 

[JayHawk]

Re: I support SOPA...

There does need to be some sort of a solution but it would appear that SOPA goes to far and gives the larger corporate media companies power to squash smaller ones by drowning them in lawsuits.

I see that PIPA is coming up the pike but know little about it. I wonder what it has that is different from SOPA.