H.R. 3261 - SOPA Act - Keep The Web Open - Must Read!

[Pokeraddict]

I hope you don't do that. SOPA doesn't threaten anyone who isn't doing anything illegal or accepting advertising money from sites that are stealing content for their own profit.

It certainly doesn't propose any actions the US Government hasn't already taken against Websites (as people here at PAL should recall from last Summer).

It really doesn't matter if SOPA is passed or not. The US Government has already established that it has the authority and the methods to block Websites, seize domain names, etc.

SOPA would help Websites that are being hurt by scraper sites but Google opposes it because they don't want to held financially accountable for all the scraper sites in their services (organic search, AdWords, and AdSense).

WHAT? Have you researched this at all? The recording industry, the same idiots that failed to embrace digital music and movies and ended up losing that business, are trying to force through a bill that takes due process out of their complaints. If you do not think this affects you, then you should research Righthaven. If SOPA/PIPA were alive today, Righthaven could have taken all 275 websites that they sued offline before it went to court. Righthaven lost every lawsuit that went to trial, but the companies would have been blackmailed into settling or risk losing their business while there was a court battle. This is a disgusting abuse of power proposed and it affects anyone with an internet connection.

Sites with user generated content are especially affected by this. The site owner will have to comb through any image and video to authenticate them as not being copyrighted. This means that is directly affects Jeremy as a copyrighted video could ultimately fall onto the site owner.

[Jeremy]

Google, nice work.



A lot of sites recognizing this blackout. I think it should be a statement to the 535 jackasses making our laws that the U.S. people put up with a lot of their B.S., corruption, and "fiscal cocaine parties" on a daily basis; but you start trying to censor our largest communication channel (the internet), we are not going to take it lightly.

[Pokeraddict]

Google, nice work.



A lot of sites recognizing this blackout. I think it should be a statement to the 535 jackasses making our laws that the U.S. people put up with a lot of their B.S., corruption, and "fiscal cocaine parties" on a daily basis; but you start trying to censor our largest communication channel (the internet), we are not going to take it lightly.

Under these laws, if Google executed their copyright of that picture, this website could be punished. While an extreme use of the law, you can be sure that lots of blackmail will be occurring from rogue operators.

[wjb316]

I hope you don't do that. SOPA doesn't threaten anyone who isn't doing anything illegal or accepting advertising money from sites that are stealing content for their own profit.

It certainly doesn't propose any actions the US Government hasn't already taken against Websites (as people here at PAL should recall from last Summer).

It really doesn't matter if SOPA is passed or not. The US Government has already established that it has the authority and the methods to block Websites, seize domain names, etc.

SOPA would help Websites that are being hurt by scraper sites but Google opposes it because they don't want to held financially accountable for all the scraper sites in their services (organic search, AdWords, and AdSense).

Ahhhh but that's what they say about all new unwanted legislation:

"No, no, we already do all these things. We are just passing this bill as a formality."

or

"Well, sure it's a little vague but we promise we won't interpret it that way. We would never use this legislation as a loophole to do other things that might violate your rights."

or

"This bill doesn't threaten anyone who isn't doing anything illegal. If you're against this bill, what have ya got to hide??"

And I also take issue with the fact that this is yet another example of legislation that the people very clearly DO NOT WANT. The government no longer serves the people. It no longer fears the people.

[pokerprop]

Each day that passes I find myself more and more thankful that the constitution grants me freedom to starve. If you go into the store and ask them for two tens for a twenty have you earned anything? Is our time not our personal property? Some how trading our time (something we own) for money (which someone else owns) is profit? How much did we pay for the progression of this bill so far? Seriously if anyone needs any content hit me up. I currently accept sandwiches, fresh fruit, milk, bottled water, and white xl champion tees, as payment.

[Michael Martinez]

WHAT? Have you researched this at all?...

Yes, I have researched it a great deal (and occasionally debated it).

This bill in no way "takes due process out of their complaints". I have actually read the proposed legislation AND I have followed the news stories where huge takedowns (without "due process") have already occurred in SOPA-like fashion.

I, myself, in protecting intellectual property rights through the years, have certainly taken down a number of sites without "due process". If a site is engaged in illegal activity, especially of a felonious nature, a reasonable ISP will ignore the DMCA requirements and enforce their terms of service (not all of them do that, but some have).

Where criminal activity is concerned, "due process" consists of the criminal being caught, tagged, and bagged and getting his day in court. There's no more due process than that for people who fabricate thousands of illegal copies of books, movies, music CDs, etc.

The only new thing about SOPA -- meaning, it's not something already happening -- is that intellectual property rights owners (guys like me) would be able to interdict the revenues of pirates by requiring the advertising services (like Google) to stop promoting the illegal sites.

I happen to like that feature. I don't want to have to wait another 5-7 years to see if the DOJ is going to settle with Google for $500 million or whatever because Google didn't want to implement a reasonable process for dealing with scraper sites.

[ak]

This law doesn't serve peoples rights, rather it serves the already loaded company's interests.

[Pokeraddict]

Yes, I have researched it a great deal (and occasionally debated it).

This bill in no way "takes due process out of their complaints". I have actually read the proposed legislation AND I have followed the news stories where huge takedowns (without "due process") have already occurred in SOPA-like fashion.

I, myself, in protecting intellectual property rights through the years, have certainly taken down a number of sites without "due process". If a site is engaged in illegal activity, especially of a felonious nature, a reasonable ISP will ignore the DMCA requirements and enforce their terms of service (not all of them do that, but some have).

Where criminal activity is concerned, "due process" consists of the criminal being caught, tagged, and bagged and getting his day in court. There's no more due process than that for people who fabricate thousands of illegal copies of books, movies, music CDs, etc.

The only new thing about SOPA -- meaning, it's not something already happening -- is that intellectual property rights owners (guys like me) would be able to interdict the revenues of pirates by requiring the advertising services (like Google) to stop promoting the illegal sites.

I happen to like that feature. I don't want to have to wait another 5-7 years to see if the DOJ is going to settle with Google for $500 million or whatever because Google didn't want to implement a reasonable process for dealing with scraper sites.

That is certainly an interesting point of view. You are saying that you are willing to give up your rights, lose sites like You Tube, and deal with the obvious abuse that will happen as long as you get to possibly shut someone down easier? You do realize this will do nothing to deter content theft, right?

[ak]

If this law passed...



How could one defend such a stupid law ?

[tiburon]

When did we lose Congress? Not just in terms of losing our respect for just about everyone there (one of the
least respected careers in the USA) but in the sense that they no longer even pretend to represent our interests or act as we would act if given the chance?
Seth's Blog: Learning leadership from Congress

+ a bulgarian from another forum:

They're basically trading the best form of liberty available to humanity at this point for money, and not that much money either (what Hollywood earns is a drop in the bucket compared to the profits based on the Internet, not to mention that the resources spent enforcing the bill would make the net profit go into the negative; luckily for the movie industry, it won't be they that will be paying for said enforcement). I don't generally hate capitalism, but this comes off to me as a very ugly side of that particular ideology.

Though IMO, this will happen sooner or later. Either as a single bill (current) or as a series of restrictions imposed over the years, maybe even decades. As long as the government holds the ability to censor the Internet, eventually, it will do so - after all, Diet members change (or whatever they're called in America), and so does public opinion. The better alternative, for me at least, is to get the Internet censored in a single, broad movement, thus provoking a public outcry and forcing the power users to create the proverbial Darknet that would be decentralized and thus protected from corporate meddling. With the power users leaving, the censored version would lag further and further behind the free one, even without considering the limitations imposed on it by USA law. Sadly, such a future is thus far only a dream