We have got to stop SOPA

[Ambrocious]

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) is in lesser words, a censorship Bill that will allow for the censorship of the whole internet. If any person uploads any sort of copyright information anywhere online, THAT WEBSITE where the copyright info was pasted to WILL BE TAKEN DOWN! The person responsible will be black listed from using the internet. We all need to stop this bill! There is many other bad things about this bill and I won't waste too much of your time but please, go look into it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t74BzyM7iis[/ame]

Send petition to congress to STOP the Protect-IP Bill: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/

Why stop at just 1 petition; click here to send another petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now

OR, Write your congressman yourself: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

OR Call your congressman!: http://act.demandprogress.org/call/sopa_call/?rd=1&t=4&referring_akid=1075.1282229.5d6zvL

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

[facepalm]

There are at least 37 reasons to dislike this bill, and yet the only one I ever seem to see is the Censorship Bogeyman. This bill will not censor any site that is doing business in any legitimate way; Youtube, Google, etc. will not be shut down because someone posts something that is a copyright infringement, and most of those sites have mechanisms in place to deal with copyright infringers.

This bill will not prevent someone from producing offensive material, marketing it, having it be seen, or otherwise preventing it from being sold; all of that would fall under censorship, and none of that applies. The sole exception is distribution, and even then it merely prevents someone from distributing something for free without the owner's permission.

Threats to privacy, security issues, and even the lack of transparency are legit issues, and this act needs to better address those issues. But the threat of censorship is not one of those issues; you can still post videos of your kid singing a copyrighted song. The intent of this act is to allow creativity while allowing copyright holders to control the distribution of their product.

Easiest way to scare a person to say that it will censor them, and piracy is not free speech. Yeesh...the easiest to get an intelligent person to drop IQ points is to say something encourages censorship; then they automatically turn their brains off and oppose it....

RG

 

[Ambrocious]

Well, you shall soon see exactly how right you are if SOPA passes eh?

 

[JB3]

[facepalm]

There are at least 37 reasons to dislike this bill, and yet the only one I ever seem to see is the Censorship Bogeyman. This bill will not censor any site that is doing business in any legitimate way; Youtube, Google, etc. will not be shut down because someone posts something that is a copyright infringement, and most of those sites have mechanisms in place to deal with copyright infringers.

That's not correct. SOPA allows copyright-holders to shut down ANY website for ONE instance of infringement. The copyright mechanisms in place won't EXIST under this law, because everything is based around the ability of those copyright-holders to do whatever they want.

This bill will not prevent someone from producing offensive material, marketing it, having it be seen, or otherwise preventing it from being sold; all of that would fall under censorship, and none of that applies. The sole exception is distribution, and even then it merely prevents someone from distributing something for free without the owner's permission.

Again, not true. All you need to do is look at a situation that occurred last month with MegaUpload and the MegaUpload song. UMG had that video pulled, claiming it violated copyright (it didn't) under illegitimate circumstances, and using the EXACT same arguments it and other record labels are using for support of SOPA. THAT is censorship. There was NOTHING in that video that was a violation of copyright. UMG had it pulled because they didn't like what it said. If SOPA passes, instances of that occurring would explode.

Threats to privacy, security issues, and even the lack of transparency are legit issues, and this act needs to better address those issues. But the threat of censorship is not one of those issues; you can still post videos of your kid singing a copyrighted song. The intent of this act is to allow creativity while allowing copyright holders to control the distribution of their product.

Actually, under this act, no you couldn't. That's precisely why people hate it.

Easiest way to scare a person to say that it will censor them, and piracy is not free speech. Yeesh...the easiest to get an intelligent person to drop IQ points is to say something encourages censorship; then they automatically turn their brains off and oppose it....

RG

Except this DOES encourage censorship, and we haven't even discussed the scariest part of this bill yet. Are you aware of HOW it deals with 'offending' websites? It doesn't just delete the contents of the website. It literally wipes the website address off the face of the earth. Its like giving record labels and movie studios the ability to reach into the core of the internet and rip websites out, chunk by chunk. The DNS of an 'offending' website will be scrubbed away; the only way to get to a website that's been scrubbed is to do it through the IP address. To give ANYONE that power is scary. Its encouraging those groups to abuse power that they should never have in the first place.

Further, not only do they have that ability, but having that ability itself BREAKS the way the internet works. DNS' are not meant to be messed with. Giving them the ability to do so breaks the security of websites everywhere and encourages people other than those 'approved' censors to muck around with other DNS entries.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/20/sopa_breaks_dnssec/

I'd kindly suggest you do more reading about SOPA. There is no legitimate defense for this bill or anything like it. It IS censorship. Don't buy into the bullshit that those that support it are spreading.

 

[CowboyBob]

I'm afraid corporations and their purchased politicians will use internet piracy as an excuse to censor the internet. That will be their excuse as they want to control what happens online.

Freedom of speech can be a dangerous thing when you're trying to control your citizens.

 

[Ambrocious]

I'm afraid corporations and their purchased politicians will use internet piracy as an excuse to censor the internet. That will be their excuse as they want to control what happens online.

Freedom of speech can be a dangerous thing when you're trying to control your citizens.

That is exactly correct. It has always been a tactic in the past to get rid of websites and then claim legitimate reasons such as child porn or piracy or hacking in order to expand their censorship legislation. Because it appears that the whole world is either in revolt or is NEARING revolt against their own governments, it would be crucial to make sure that the people did not and were not connected via information so that they would not have fair and level battle conditions.


Due to exceedingly difficult financial times (on purpose in my personal belief) the plans to get rid of freedom on all levels is now and HAS been going on slowly for a long time, but now, it's speeding up and even taking whole leaps and bounds. For example NDAA passed and nearly everyone I meet and talk to has NO CLUE what it is or that it was even really. Many people are so disconnected from the real issues that are happening globally. Lots of people still can't see the takeover plan either. It starts as a financial takeover, then once they get enough money to buy out whole economies and even political figures, then they can do whatever they want. It ends in nothing less than absolute tyranny with us, the common folk losing our freedoms abroad. No conspiracy theories here, just the truth.

 

[Apollo]

[facepalm]

There are at least 37 reasons to dislike this bill, and yet the only one I ever seem to see is the Censorship Bogeyman. This bill will not censor any site that is doing business in any legitimate way; Youtube, Google, etc. will not be shut down because someone posts something that is a copyright infringement, and most of those sites have mechanisms in place to deal with copyright infringers.

This bill will not prevent someone from producing offensive material, marketing it, having it be seen, or otherwise preventing it from being sold; all of that would fall under censorship, and none of that applies. The sole exception is distribution, and even then it merely prevents someone from distributing something for free without the owner's permission.

Threats to privacy, security issues, and even the lack of transparency are legit issues, and this act needs to better address those issues. But the threat of censorship is not one of those issues; you can still post videos of your kid singing a copyrighted song. The intent of this act is to allow creativity while allowing copyright holders to control the distribution of their product.

Easiest way to scare a person to say that it will censor them, and piracy is not free speech. Yeesh...the easiest to get an intelligent person to drop IQ points is to say something encourages censorship; then they automatically turn their brains off and oppose it....

RG

Actually, youtube is cited as an example for SOPA from congress, along with twitter, facebook. All three sites were used in arguements for SOPA and why the bill is important.

So yes, youtube will be shut down if it can't keep up with taking down thousands of videos in time.

 

[Apollo]

Again, not true. All you need to do is look at a situation that occurred last month with MegaUpload and the MegaUpload song. UMG had that video pulled, claiming it violated copyright (it didn't) under illegitimate circumstances, and using the EXACT same arguments it and other record labels are using for support of SOPA. THAT is censorship. There was NOTHING in that video that was a violation of copyright. UMG had it pulled because they didn't like what it said. If SOPA passes, instances of that occurring would explode.

Very true, and just to show you how wrong UMG was, huge megastars came out in full support of Megaupload over this offense. Kanye West and similar. These megastars weren't about to allow UMG to try and destroy Megaupload because they all legitimately use that site give out free samples and store stuff they are working on.

This is an example of this bill not protecting the artisit, this shows how to bill will only protect the corporations who barely pay their artisit enough.

This is a link talking about the song all these super stars made supporting the site agaisnt corporations. http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...w-Music-Video-Gets-Censored-By-Universal.html

Read the article and see what could happen if SOPA is passed. Not only would UMG be able to take down an entire website, not just a video do to what will most definitely be poor regulation. It will be a lot harder and expensive to get the site back up, possibly destroying their business and putting the owners in debt.



Artists know how dirty and evil the RIAA and MPAA are with their legal fights, and megaupload was one site they were like fuck you.

Will.i.am
P Diddy
Kanye West
Chris Brown
Jamie Foxx
Kim Kardashian
Lil John
The Game
Floyd Mayweather
Serena Williams
Ciara.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

That's not correct. SOPA allows copyright-holders to shut down ANY website for ONE instance of infringement. The copyright mechanisms in place won't EXIST under this law, because everything is based around the ability of those copyright-holders to do whatever they want.

Could you please quote the actual bill on this? As per the actual bill, the only group of people that can do is the DOJ acting under court order. Read: A copyright owner has to complain to the DOJ, who then need to explain to an actual judge why the site needs to be shut down.

This bill does not give copyright owners, contrary to a number of theories out there, the ability to shut down sites. Again, please quote the bill itself.

Actually, under this act, no you couldn't. That's precisely why people hate it.

Well, you can't really control who uses your product now, can you? If you ask for your stuff to be pulled, and it is, you get told you practice censorship. If you let people pirate your stuff, you lose the copyright. A creator is screwed either way.

Fuck the corps. If you're argument boils down to, "The Man likes this so it has to be bad," you're blind. Because of the lack of copyright control, you're starting to see a lot of the small- to medium-sized content producers starting to disappear; they simply can't afford to put millions into something that is distributed by the pirates with no money coming back to them. Investors are really debating giving money to indie movies, unless they want to take a loss. This lack of funding capital means that all that are going to be left are the itsy-bitsy producers and the corps. But if that's what you want....

Except this DOES encourage censorship, and we haven't even discussed the scariest part of this bill yet. Are you aware of HOW it deals with 'offending' websites? It doesn't just delete the contents of the website. It literally wipes the website address off the face of the earth. Its like giving record labels and movie studios the ability to reach into the core of the internet and rip websites out, chunk by chunk. The DNS of an 'offending' website will be scrubbed away; the only way to get to a website that's been scrubbed is to do it through the IP address. To give ANYONE that power is scary. Its encouraging those groups to abuse power that they should never have in the first place.

Again, as per the actual bill, all that is happening is that the DNS is being suspended until the site has been cleaned itself up. The DNS (or even the site) is not being scrubbed away, or even touched for that matter. It is merely being suspended. I know it's nice and dramatic to go for the censorship angle, but the site actually needs to have done something in order to be suspended.

More to the point: They already have the power to have sites shut down. They just need to file a basic civil suit, and then convince the judge to slap the site with a restraining order. They can already do exactly what you're afraid they'll gain the power to do....

Further, not only do they have that ability, but having that ability itself BREAKS the way the internet works. DNS' are not meant to be messed with. Giving them the ability to do so breaks the security of websites everywhere and encourages people other than those 'approved' censors to muck around with other DNS entries.

1) They can't muck around with DNS' willy-nilly.

2) I've already pointed out that there are some security issues. However, they are caused by people taking closer looks at things than they should be able to. Merely suspending a DNS won't muck with security issues....but you would have known it had you actually read up on the bill,from the opponent's side.

I'd kindly suggest you do more reading about SOPA. There is no legitimate defense for this bill or anything like it. It IS censorship. Don't buy into the bullshit that those that support it are spreading.

Make a deal: You actually bother to read the bill sometime, and actually read up on what censorship REALLY is, and I'll continue to read about the issues with it. You know, the ones I posted up above? Better yet, why not come up with a way that a small- or medium-sized production can actually make money without government sponsorship; that does seem to be missing in all of the "Up The Man!" arguments....

RG

 

[bw92116]

As a copyright owner, I'm in favor of it.

 

[Pangelboy]

With the recent passage of the NDAA that included huge affronts to the civil liberties of Americans everywhere and the huge push to create a Great Firewall type blacklist of websites by our government, things don't look so great.

This bill stinks of the MPAA and RIAA which seem to exist purely for evil.

This bill will cost American jobs and probably end the next Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. before it even starts. According to a study by Booz & Co. (funded by Google):

* A large majority of the angel investors and venture capitalists who took part in a Booz & Company study say they will not put their money in digital content intermediaries (DCIs) if governments pass tough new rules allowing websites to be sued or fined for pirated digital content posted by users.

* More than 70% of angel investors reported they would be deterred from investing if anti-piracy regulations against “user uploaded” websites were increased.

*More than 80 percent of the angel investors would prefer to invest in a risky, weak economy (with the current internet regulations) vs. a strong economy (but with the new, more stringent proposed regulations on copyright infringement).

http://www.booz.com/global/home/press/article/49953717

Not only will this law do nothing to stop piracy on the internet (they're not called pirates for nothing), this law will end investing and creativity because of an obscene increase in liability.

The content creators behind this bill, such as the movie, music, and publishing (magazines and newspapers) industries have shown again and again that they have little to no idea how to operate in an internet based economy. Like the DRM of the pass, they try draconian measures that only effect legitimate users. This time they're going too far.

If SOPA passes these content producers are going to be chasing their phantom profits while the internet as we know it ends.

Win-Win?

 

[CowboyBob]

As a copyright owner, I'm in favor of it.

I'm a copyright owner too of over a dozen copyrights and I'm dead set against it.

 

[jackoroe]

So, last week Obama signed a bill allowing him to have the military snatch up American citizens on American soil and send them forthwith to parts unknown for indeterminate periods of time.

Now, we're going to be closing down websites and blackballing people for having posted a single copyrighted item.

It's getting close to revolution time, isn't it?

 

[Ambrocious]

The answer to this Orwellian "1984" type scenario is 1776. But before we even attempt an ARMED revolution, all other avenues must first be exhausted to the point where NOTHING else works at all. A peaceful learning revolution must FIRST take place and all people, young and old, religious and not, gay, straight, bisexual, lesbian, and everyone in between NEEDS to know what this really means, to the fullest extent.

The whole earth is in upheaval and people by the masses are realizing that this isn't just some random move against pirates or other criminals. This is truly an enslavement grid being built around us threw full spectrum dominance. But why would they want to do that for? Simply put, the wrong people have all the right amount of power in this world.

Although an armed revolution may be inevitable one day, for now we must gain as much understanding as possible so that we may be able to stand up against this hostile world wide take over by the technocrats (social engineers who know exactly how we tick by the study of how we respond to earth changes and other important world events) and the oligarchs who have slowly over time bought out our government via the megalomaniacle corporations.

It is vital that people know what all of this is about. For anyone who wants to know more, I'm not here to force the issue, click on my "Information For The Discerned" button and have a look see. That isn't the only source of info of course but it is pretty spot on in many regards. For those of you who already know this info, teach others as well because the war that we are all going into is going to be a battle for our very freedoms, even the basics that all humanity considers freedom. It happens slowly, until more and more people realize it's happening and THEN they speed it up and it gets more obvious in the last stages. In these last stages of world dominance, it will become SO evident that not a single person will be able to deny it.

 

[JB3]

Could you please quote the actual bill on this? As per the actual bill, the only group of people that can do is the DOJ acting under court order. Read: A copyright owner has to complain to the DOJ, who then need to explain to an actual judge why the site needs to be shut down.

They've already shut down sites in cases unrelated to copyright without court-orders. Allowing this kind of access will only allow more abuse. (and that's ignoring the fact that they type of access they have now is completely superficial compared to that of SOPA)

This bill does not give copyright owners, contrary to a number of theories out there, the ability to shut down sites. Again, please quote the bill itself.

That is the entire purpose of this bill. I'm sorry you don't understand that. The only reason this bill exists is because copyright owners apparently believe that the US government is their personal enforcement agent. There is no reasonable justification for this bill. Copyright owners do not need the right to have websites pulled at their behest.

Well, you can't really control who uses your product now, can you? If you ask for your stuff to be pulled, and it is, you get told you practice censorship. If you let people pirate your stuff, you lose the copyright. A creator is screwed either way.

You don't understand copyright law. People do not lose copyrights for not enforcing them. (that's trademarks, FYI) And the point still stands; ONE instance of infringement, even a kid singing a song for their parents, would result in the entire site getting pulled.

Fuck the corps. If you're argument boils down to, "The Man likes this so it has to be bad," you're blind. Because of the lack of copyright control, you're starting to see a lot of the small- to medium-sized content producers starting to disappear; they simply can't afford to put millions into something that is distributed by the pirates with no money coming back to them. Investors are really debating giving money to indie movies, unless they want to take a loss. This lack of funding capital means that all that are going to be left are the itsy-bitsy producers and the corps. But if that's what you want....

Horseshit. While studios like to trumpet piracy as a huge drain on their resources and profits, it is, in fact, a minuscule part of it. I'm sorry that you bought their bullshit, because it just isn't true. The level of copyright control right now is adequate. The MPAA and its ilk will not be happy with anything short of the internet being shut down, because that's the only way to reach the level of 'control' they seek.

Again, as per the actual bill, all that is happening is that the DNS is being suspended until the site has been cleaned itself up. The DNS (or even the site) is not being scrubbed away, or even touched for that matter. It is merely being suspended. I know it's nice and dramatic to go for the censorship angle, but the site actually needs to have done something in order to be suspended.

That's simply not true. Sites are taken down permanently under SOPA. It is not temporary.

More to the point: They already have the power to have sites shut down. They just need to file a basic civil suit, and then convince the judge to slap the site with a restraining order. They can already do exactly what you're afraid they'll gain the power to do....

No they don't. DMCA gives ALL websites safe harbor over user posted content, even if its copyrighted. The burden of proof now is much higher than under SOPA, as it should be. No court in their right mind would allow a copyright holder to have an entire website shut down over an instance of copyright violation; SOPA would make that the default standard for responses to violation.

1) They can't muck around with DNS' willy-nilly.

2) I've already pointed out that there are some security issues. However, they are caused by people taking closer looks at things than they should be able to. Merely suspending a DNS won't muck with security issues....but you would have known it had you actually read up on the bill,from the opponent's side.

I don't care to read the opponent's side, because their stance is nonsense. No company, court, or government should be given DNS access to wipe websites off the face of the earth. THAT is censorship. No reason they give for doing it is valid.

And that ignores the fact that ACCESS TO DNS ITSELF BREAKS THE INTERNET. The internet and the DNS system were not designed for this; the implications of this act go far beyond anything you're willing to admit. There is no legitimate reason for ANYONE to have access to DNSes in this way.

Make a deal: You actually bother to read the bill sometime, and actually read up on what censorship REALLY is, and I'll continue to read about the issues with it. You know, the ones I posted up above? Better yet, why not come up with a way that a small- or medium-sized production can actually make money without government sponsorship; that does seem to be missing in all of the "Up The Man!" arguments....

RG

Drop the attitude. You know less about this bill than anyone here. THIS is censorship. This bill will allow copyright-holders that have already proven their disregard for the law an unprecedented amount of access to the core of the internet for their own means. It is not necessary, and it is certainly not constitutional. (or legal, due to DMCA)

 

[Ambrocious]

I don't specifically encourage this but...download as much as you can right now while you still can. All that you have on your hard drives may one day be the "only remaining piece of history of the free net" which you took part in helping to preserve. Once it does all go down, find NEW alternatives to share, as humans have done so through all history. Sharing is ingrained into our very nature, why on earth should we stop now simply because the higher ups want to get power hungry and greedy?