DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: MetalMike06 on November 17, 2011, 01:51:45 PM

Title: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: MetalMike06 on November 17, 2011, 01:51:45 PM
Has anybody heard of this yet?

https://vimeo.com/31100268 (https://vimeo.com/31100268)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: jsem on November 17, 2011, 01:59:27 PM
I've heard of it. It must be defeated.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: chknptpie on November 17, 2011, 02:11:46 PM
I haven't really had time to read or research about this. Is it really as damning as people make it out to be?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 17, 2011, 02:20:28 PM
I think the idea behind it (protecting copyrights, primarily) is a worthwhile endeavor.

But I don't know enough about the law to form an opinion just yet, and this video describing it is not from an unbiased source, if such a thing even exists. (doubtful)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: MetalMike06 on November 17, 2011, 02:24:00 PM
Many of the sites I've found trying to describe the law seem pretty outlandish, but the video itself seems fairly reasonable.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on November 17, 2011, 02:26:36 PM
I have not heard one good thing about this.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 17, 2011, 02:34:56 PM
Many of the sites I've found trying to describe the law seem pretty outlandish, but the video itself seems fairly reasonable.

I don't disagree with you.  But as someone who also believes artists are entitled to be fairly compensated for their work, I believe that we need to find a solution to the problem of digital piracy as well, so I'm willing to thoroughly investigate both sides of this issue before making a decision.

As I mentioned above, I don't have an opinion on this law yet, because I don't know enough about it. 

But thanks for posting the video.   :)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 17, 2011, 02:45:23 PM
I have not heard one good thing about this.

One of the things that bugs me about this particular advocacy group is I'm not exactly thrilled with some of the people they openly claim they are aligned with.

Quote
We're friends with EFF, Public Knowledge, FSF, Creative Commons, Demand Progress, Mozilla, Question Copyright and many more.  We care passionately about making real concrete change, and we are here to be successful.  Plus we're hiring.
Source (https://fightforthefuture.org/)

For example, Aaron Schwartz, the founder of "Demand Progress" (one of the groups that FightForTheFuture.org openly embraces) was recently in some hot water (https://torrentfreak.com/demand-progress-founder-arrested-for-downloading-articles-110719/)....(<--pay close attention to the URL of that link and the tone taken in the description and comments) and when you start digging into this a bit you start to realize what's happening here. 

It's not as cut and dry as this video makes it seem.

Why is why I remain firmly on the fence regarding the proposed law.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on November 17, 2011, 03:19:31 PM
If you read the comments, and look more into it, that site seems to discredit demandprogress..
Also a look at other site shows different sides, such as Wired.co.uk
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: MasterShakezula on November 17, 2011, 03:32:19 PM
I see people are rather worried/outraged, but is it actually going to cause harm to y'all beyond inconvenience?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on November 17, 2011, 03:37:12 PM
Basically, this bill would lead to sites being blocked or even shut down if they have anything that could in any way be considered copyrighted material, or links to such, even if it qualifies under fair use. This includes anything posted by a visitor to the site, such as a link to a 'pirate' site in a comment section.
It would have jurisdiction over what they consider 'domestic sites', which actually by their definition includes many sites owned and hosted by parties outside of the US.

It's like if a mosquito landed on someone's arm, and their reaction was to fire a cruise missile at it. There would be hardly any actual benefit, while absolutely crippling the internet as we know it.

Let me put it this way; at a recent hearing concerning the bill, a representative from Google spoke out against it, which caused several politicians and witnesses present to call Google a pirate organization, likening Google to a bunch of rogue thieves.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on November 17, 2011, 03:39:49 PM
I see people are rather worried/outraged, but is it actually going to cause harm to y'all beyond inconvenience?
Technically, under this law, the site we're on now could be blocked in the entirety of the US, or shut down, because your avatar technically contains copyrighted material. Or say, because of any instance of someone posting a link to a youtube video of a song, or clip from a movie, or parody of something that uses copyrighted material even if it qualifies for fair use.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on November 17, 2011, 03:42:32 PM
First,  haven't watched the video.

My problem with it is that they aren't going to stop internet piracy,  they can't,  but they will screw up a lot of other things  well beyond what they understand.  Like most things the government sets out to rid us of,  the only thing they'll accomplish is nabbing a bit of low-lying fruit and inconveniencing the good guys.

They can't knock down distributed networks or usenet, which is where we all go to steel stuff.  They can blacklist tracker sites,  but in a month we'll all be finding our torrents through some other distributed network. 

Honestly,  I think this is more about trying to gain some control over the tubes than anything else. 

As has been said all along,  the trick is not to end piracy,  it's a waste of time trying.  It's to find a way to prosper despite it.  Considering that the TV, movie and music industry has been doing quite well,  even while the rest of us scrape by,  I'd say they're already accomplishing that. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: snapple on November 18, 2011, 09:02:15 PM
www.southparkstudios.com


They've been doing this for years and it's been working great. Shove advertisements down my throat, sure. But I get free South Park. Almost every fuggin' episode, too.

I agree with Bart. They can't stop piracy.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: faemir on November 19, 2011, 09:51:30 AM
https://torrentfreak.com/sopa-sponsors-break-their-own-law-111117/

Lol

Many of the sites I've found trying to describe the law seem pretty outlandish, but the video itself seems fairly reasonable.

I don't disagree with you.  But as someone who also believes artists are entitled to be fairly compensated for their work, I believe that we need to find a solution to the problem of digital piracy as well, so I'm willing to thoroughly investigate both sides of this issue before making a decision.

The fact that the law is so close to passing despite overwhelming negative known issues with it, and pretty much no positives, means that there is no time or place for investigation or decision making. The bill needs to be scrapped, and proper talks made. Then you draft up a law from the results.

And I know you want fair compensation for artists, I do too, but this bill does absolutely nothing to help towards that.

Quote
But I don't know enough about the law to form an opinion just yet, and this video describing it is not from an unbiased source, if such a thing even exists. (doubtful)

Being bias isn't a problem. Having an agenda isn't a problem. Everyone has one.

Not presenting all the facts is. The facts on this bill are high and dry.

It's a disaster.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: faemir on November 19, 2011, 12:50:54 PM
And don't worry guys, the companies pushing this bill clearly know what they are doing:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for-files-it-hasnt-looked-at.ars
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on November 19, 2011, 05:42:00 PM
There are basically two things that will luckily keep this bill from passing;
1) There's a lot of money at stake, and several large companies, such as Google, are extremely against it passing. Money influencing politics may actually be a good thing for once.
2) Obama has basically said that he'll veto it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on November 19, 2011, 11:23:19 PM
There are basically two things that will luckily keep this bill from passing;
1) There's a lot of money at stake, and several large companies, such as Google, are extremely against it passing. Money influencing politics may actually be a good thing for once.
2) Obama has basically said that he'll veto it.
Wow, really?  Given that he stacked his DoJ with entertainment lawyers,  I thought he would have been gung-ho for this.  If he actually did shoot this down,  I'd have to move him a step or two up from completely worthless. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: snapple on November 20, 2011, 07:59:44 AM
There are basically two things that will luckily keep this bill from passing;
1) There's a lot of money at stake, and several large companies, such as Google, are extremely against it passing. Money influencing politics may actually be a good thing for once.
2) Obama has basically said that he'll veto it.
Wow, really?  Given that he stacked his DoJ with entertainment lawyers,  I thought he would have been gung-ho for this.  If he actually did shoot this down,  I'd have to move him a step or two up from completely worthless.

:clap: qfmft
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: faemir on November 20, 2011, 08:17:20 AM
There are basically two things that will luckily keep this bill from passing;
1) There's a lot of money at stake, and several large companies, such as Google, are extremely against it passing. Money influencing politics may actually be a good thing for once.

Yeah except that the entirety of hollywood and sony, microsoft and nintendo are behind it.

(Even those the internet overall earns far more money for America than them combined)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on November 20, 2011, 12:26:30 PM
The key difference is that most of those companies are just 'in favor' of it, many of them basically out of obligation due to their involvement in the BSA. Companies like Google and Facebook, by contrast, are much more invested in this, and much more involved.

As well, there's some political power against SOPA. As I mentioned, Obama has said that he'll veto it, and Pelosi recently denounced it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: The Dark Master on November 20, 2011, 01:53:19 PM
Obama has said that he'll veto it, and Pelosi recently denounced it.

Can you porvide a link to that, please, because, as Barto pointed out, Obama has packed the DoJ with entertainment lawers and thus far has been the lap-dog of the RIAA/MPAA, so I, and others, are more then a bit skeptcal that all of a sudden he would be against something like this.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: carl320 on November 20, 2011, 03:14:42 PM
Obama has said that he'll veto it, and Pelosi recently denounced it.

Can you porvide a link to that, please, because, as Barto pointed out, Obama has packed the DoJ with entertainment lawers and thus far has been the lap-dog of the RIAA/MPAA, so I, and others, are more then a bit skeptcal that all of a sudden he would be against something like this.

I haven't found anything about Obama being opposed to it, but Pelosi tweeted Thursday:
Quote
Need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet MT @jeffreyrodman: Where do you stand on Internet censoring and #SOPA?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on November 20, 2011, 03:59:45 PM
I've seen plenty of speculation,  but nothing confirmed.  The scuttlebutt seems to be that State has spent too much time ragging on other countries (meaning China) for their censorship for us to adopt the exact same policies,  so Obama would have little choice to but veto it.  If that is the plan,  then he's absolutely right not to tip his hand.  If he announces in advance his intention to veto,  then it'll become highly politicized, and the next thing you know there'll be more Republicans voting for it just to obstruct. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: faemir on November 21, 2011, 11:47:06 AM
Oh awesome.

So no-one is allowed to testify except those that are in support on the bill. They have banned anyone else from testify.

GO DEMOCRACY
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on November 21, 2011, 06:49:57 PM
The BSA is backing down at least a bit. Many companies, such as Microsoft and Apple, were only 'in favor' of this by default, since they're members of the BSA. This is a good sign.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12585716869/bsa-changes-its-mind-sopa-unintended-consequences-too-big.shtml

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: faemir on November 24, 2011, 09:16:41 PM
Turns out this bill was introduced by that Texan representative who doesn't believe in modern medicine.

That explains everything.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on November 24, 2011, 09:25:49 PM
Turns out this bill was introduced by that Texan representative who doesn't believe in modern medicine.

That explains everything.
:facepalm:
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: skydivingninja on November 25, 2011, 04:05:52 PM
There are very few things politically that I get REALLY passionate about, and this is one of them.  I am strongly against it.  Like Barto said, it won't stop piracy, and it'll make the web less secure for all the good people using it.  Just a horrible, horrible idea.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Nekov on November 29, 2011, 04:42:47 AM
Let's hope this doesn't go through. My concern here is that if they can just block sites for random people posting links to copyrighted material then the internet will be complete subject to trolling since anyone that doesn't like a site can post a link to a video or something and get that site blocked. It's a little ridiculous if you ask me.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 29, 2011, 06:53:09 AM
The more I have read about this proposal, the less good I think it will do.  I think the motivation behind it is well-intentioned, and I agree, in principle that something has to be done to protect copyright owners from piracy, but I don't think this solution will, at the end of the day, achieve that goal.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on November 29, 2011, 07:39:48 AM
The more I have read about this proposal, the less good I think it will do.  I think the motivation behind it is well-intentioned, and I agree, in principle that something has to be done to protect copyright owners from piracy, but I don't think this solution will, at the end of the day, achieve that goal.

The unfortunate fact is that piracy will never be stopped. No law or restriction that the government can put in place will stop people from doing it. The nature of the game at the moment is that it's now up to the copyright holders to create something that people will be willing to pay for.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 29, 2011, 09:55:31 AM
The more I have read about this proposal, the less good I think it will do.  I think the motivation behind it is well-intentioned, and I agree, in principle that something has to be done to protect copyright owners from piracy, but I don't think this solution will, at the end of the day, achieve that goal.

The unfortunate fact is that piracy will never be stopped. No law or restriction that the government can put in place will stop people from doing it. The nature of the game at the moment is that it's now up to the copyright holders to create something that people will be willing to pay for.

I disagree.  I believe there is a reasonable solution that will stem the tide of piracy.  The sentence I've bolded above is little more than a weak rationalization that kids use to justify stealing music off the internet.  It's not up to copyright holders to make something so good that kids won't steal it with impunity.  Just as we put locks on the doors of our homes to prevent thieves from entering and stealing our possessions, I believe there is a fair and reasonable way to prevent people from uploading and downloading content they have no legal right to upload and/or download. I just happen to believe (based on my research) that this law won't really solve that problem and it may infringe upon the legitimate rights of some copyright owners.



Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on November 29, 2011, 10:02:19 AM
All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on November 29, 2011, 10:18:19 AM
All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on November 29, 2011, 05:13:28 PM
All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

Criminals are always going to get guns, it doesn't mean we should sell them on the street corner.

Honestly, one good way to get rid of a lot of pirating is to have search engines not give you torrent results. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on November 29, 2011, 05:19:12 PM
Going along with your analogy, this bill is the equivalent to outlawing anyone owning a gun.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on November 29, 2011, 05:19:55 PM
Going along with your analogy, this bill is the equivalent to outlawing anyone owning a gun.

And I've never supported this bill.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on November 29, 2011, 05:21:19 PM
All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

Criminals are always going to get guns, it doesn't mean we should sell them on the street corner.

Honestly, one good way to get rid of a lot of pirating is to have search engines not give you torrent results. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

So we mess with the functionality of a search engine?  That sounds exactly like the previously mentioned notion of treading on offenders and non-offenders alike. 

Also, I really doubt that anyone is going to stop pirating because they won't be able to look up torrents on Google.  Maybe a minor inconvenience for some, but a deterrent?  Nah.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on November 29, 2011, 05:37:49 PM
All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

Criminals are always going to get guns, it doesn't mean we should sell them on the street corner.

Honestly, one good way to get rid of a lot of pirating is to have search engines not give you torrent results. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

So we mess with the functionality of a search engine?  That sounds exactly like the previously mentioned notion of treading on offenders and non-offenders alike. 

Also, I really doubt that anyone is going to stop pirating because they won't be able to look up torrents on Google.  Maybe a minor inconvenience for some, but a deterrent?  Nah.

I'm sorry, but there isn't a real good reason to, say, Google certain keywords with .iso on the back of them (*edited so I didn't literally tell you how you can pirate.. well.. anything*)

And I'm gonna go ahead and just quote my quote you quoted:

Quote
It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

I don't expect it to do prevent all pirating, and maybe not even a terribly large amount; but being able to Google stuff to pirate is like buying a gun on the street corner.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on November 29, 2011, 07:34:41 PM
Sure, but that's only one door.  For lack of a better word, the internet really is a "web", and trying to stifle one area invariably results in leaving wide open loopholes, or removing legitimate strands.  We're currently under the former, this bill is the latter, and I'm not so sure that there can be a comfortable medium.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on November 29, 2011, 08:12:12 PM
Oh there's no doubt alternatives will come up but there will be a confusion period.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on November 29, 2011, 08:31:46 PM
Which will probably be as effective as everyone not buying gas for a day. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on November 29, 2011, 10:24:52 PM
Sure, but that's only one door.  For lack of a better word, the internet really is a "web", and trying to stifle one area invariably results in leaving wide open loopholes, or removing legitimate strands.  We're currently under the former, this bill is the latter, and I'm not so sure that there can be a comfortable medium.

Like I said, it's like selling guns on the corner of the street. People will still find a way, just like people obviously can still buy guns if we don't sell em on the street corner, but there are obviously some simple things that could be done, which would have an effect. I think you'd be surprised how many people wouldn't pirate if it was just a little bit harder.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on November 30, 2011, 01:54:35 AM
I'm not really arguing against you, I know they would have an effect.  I just think that the side effects are too great. 

Now that I think about it, music piracy would be much worse today not because of the Napster lawsuit (which made it more difficult for a time), but because of iTunes.  People didn't necessarily save money by buying online, and in fact they technically lost more than they gained (sound quality, liner notes, etc.) but it was a sudden paradigm shift that people latched onto it.  I wonder if we need another one of these paradigm shifts.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: BlobVanDam on November 30, 2011, 07:46:43 AM
I'm sorry, but there isn't a real good reason to, say, Google certain keywords with .iso on the back of them (*edited so I didn't literally tell you how you can pirate.. well.. anything*)

This all amounts to censorship to me. There are plenty of 100% legitimate torrents (and even isos) used by sites so they don't use up their own bandwidth on giant downloads that they want to offer for free for their users (I know because I've used them myself).
The same applies to blocking any other avenues used by illegal downloads. And it is dead easy to work around. Then you'd simply just have search engines targeted towards that kind of material. Then where do we stop? Do we block all searches with the word "download"? Because that's what it would have to come to to stop anything.
Perhaps in the vast majority of cases these are illegal downloads, but the result is going to be the same as every other anti-piracy measure. You're inconveniencing the legitimate users a lot more than the pirates, because the pirates don't care about going against the rules to avoid the problem, whereas you're slowly limiting the options further for the legitimate users.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on November 30, 2011, 11:53:23 AM
I'm pretty confident that in the next 5 to 10 years there will be a solution that will stem the tide of piracy.  I think it will be a combination of factors.   As far as music goes, one thing I think is absolutely necessary is for there to be some tangible "consumable" that you cannot upload or download that will bring an incentive back to get people to buy instead of downloading.  It could be a special kind of mix or content that goes on the CDs that cannot be digitized.   The other thing that I think will eventually happen is technology will be developed that will make it possible to identify stolen content from legitimate content on the internet.  Again, I think these innovations are many, many years in the future.  As mentioned above, there may also be another paradigm shift, or the ideas I have mentioned here may be part of that paradigm shift, who knows?  But one thing I don't see is the ongoing endless blatant outright theft of copyrighted material, at least, not at the current level we see now.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on November 30, 2011, 01:31:03 PM
I'm sorry, but there isn't a real good reason to, say, Google certain keywords with .iso on the back of them (*edited so I didn't literally tell you how you can pirate.. well.. anything*)

This all amounts to censorship to me. There are plenty of 100% legitimate torrents (and even isos) used by sites so they don't use up their own bandwidth on giant downloads that they want to offer for free for their users (I know because I've used them myself).
The same applies to blocking any other avenues used by illegal downloads. And it is dead easy to work around. Then you'd simply just have search engines targeted towards that kind of material. Then where do we stop? Do we block all searches with the word "download"? Because that's what it would have to come to to stop anything.
Perhaps in the vast majority of cases these are illegal downloads, but the result is going to be the same as every other anti-piracy measure. You're inconveniencing the legitimate users a lot more than the pirates, because the pirates don't care about going against the rules to avoid the problem, whereas you're slowly limiting the options further for the legitimate users.

Hopefully this doesn't get me in trouble..

Tell me one good reason why someone would google, for example, "skyrim .iso" or "download skyrim .iso," or "skyrim .iso torrent" I never said that .iso should be gone after, rather that certain keywords are just obvious in their use. Very few people will rip their bought Skyrim dvd into an .iso, and those who do, are probably smart enough not to need to look it up; and there would still be ways for them to get the help they need (go to Skyrim forums, search around for help on what you need). I hardly see how this inconveniences the legitimate user much, especially considering the same is true of gun laws. If we sold guns on the street corner, it would be much easier for anyone to get a gun, including the ones that I have no problem with having a gun (and I'm not your average liberal on gun control, just fyi); by not selling guns on the street corner, I inconvenience the perfectly legal citizen buying a gun. Criminals still get guns, and pirates would still pirate, but that doesn't mean we should let it be insanely easy to pirate.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on November 30, 2011, 03:30:20 PM
I agree with Blob.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Just because some use a technology for crime does not mean we should take it away from everyone.  This is another fucking example of no one having any personal responsibility so unnecessary blanket rules must be applied.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on November 30, 2011, 04:16:10 PM
I hardly see how not letting you Google "skyrim .iso torrent" is not letting people use internet technology. It's not as if that's not letting you google .iso, or skyrim, or even torrent - that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can target certain, specific, keywords rather easily - my best friend does it to try and target those keywords, to make websites, to get ad money - and you can get that specific without getting general.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on November 30, 2011, 06:29:36 PM
I just think that giving our government (and more importantly, by extension, certain companies) the authority to fuck with the functionality of a search engine is a slippery slope.  As I believe Faermir posted examples of further back in this thread, the companies who are going to be deciding what is blocked from us as far as searching aren't exactly going to make it a priority to make sure that they don't block anything without full certainty that they'll only be affecting piraters.   And really, if things are unjustly blocked, what the fuck will we be able to do about it when it's at that point?   

It just seems like a prospect that could very easily turn rotten. 



I also like a good torrent now and then.  There's that. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on November 30, 2011, 07:59:26 PM
I hardly see how not letting you Google "skyrim .iso torrent" is not letting people use internet technology. It's not as if that's not letting you google .iso, or skyrim, or even torrent - that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can target certain, specific, keywords rather easily - my best friend does it to try and target those keywords, to make websites, to get ad money - and you can get that specific without getting general.

How about the novel of idea of actually going after the people who upload this shit and make the punishment severe.  It seems like the gov just likes to make stupid laws controlling stuff they don't have to get into when there is a much more direct way of solving the problem.  Go after the people who commit the crimes.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: BlobVanDam on November 30, 2011, 09:20:52 PM
I'm not going to quote the post since it seems to break the rules, but I didn't realize we meant blocking very specific Google results like that. The logistics of that would be insane, to have people constantly manually blocking specific search phrases like that for every copyrighted release, and they could only ever cover a fraction of the search terms and copyrighted materials possible. You could cover the major flavour of the week things, but it's only going to account for a small percentage of piracy in the long run.
To me that just sounds like trying to patch holes in a sinking ship. All you're doing is slightly slowing down the process, not stopping it at all.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 01, 2011, 12:55:17 AM
I'm not going to quote the post since it seems to break the rules, but I didn't realize we meant blocking very specific Google results like that. The logistics of that would be insane, to have people constantly manually blocking specific search phrases like that for every copyrighted release, and they could only ever cover a fraction of the search terms and copyrighted materials possible. You could cover the major flavour of the week things, but it's only going to account for a small percentage of piracy in the long run.
To me that just sounds like trying to patch holes in a sinking ship. All you're doing is slightly slowing down the process, not stopping it at all.

There will always be rape, and our laws against it can at best mitigate the amount of rape, and punish rapists. There will always be murder, and our laws can at best mitigate the number of murders, and punish murders. There will always be theft, and our laws can at best mitigate the number of thefts, and punish thieves. If the ship is sinking, then we're no whee near the shore, so patching the holes is the best we can do.

People keep rebutting, "but it won't stop it!" But that isn't very much of a real argument. The only laws that actually prevent anything from happening are the physical laws of the universe, the rest are simply moral code and justification for judicial punishment. Nothing we do will ever stop all pirating of material on the internet, and due to the nature of software, will probably be less effective than non-virtual laws. That is a given, and it is not a reason why we should not do something that's rather easy to do.

Piracy will end when we stop socially accepting it; and we'll stop socially accepting it when we make every excuse in the book to not try and do something about it.

How about the novel of idea of actually going after the people who upload this shit and make the punishment severe.  It seems like the gov just likes to make stupid laws controlling stuff they don't have to get into when there is a much more direct way of solving the problem.  Go after the people who commit the crimes.

Haven't they tried that? It's probably harder to do this, than anything I'm suggesting.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ehra on December 01, 2011, 11:00:03 AM
I don't see how it would make sense from any perspective to mess with search engines to add inconvenience to one specific type of illegal activity and not any others. On one hand, if you're going to worry about people googling an easy way to download a game then you might as well look into people googling "how to best commit rape and not get caught" or any other crime under the sun. And it'd be absolutely silly to think that any legislation/movement towards restricting searches related to pirating would stop right there and wouldn't also extend towards attempting to prevent searches on other illegal things.

It's not and never will be just a case of "do we censor the internet to attempt to prevent piracy or not?" it's really "do we censor the internet to attempt to prevent illegal activities or not?" No attempt at preventing online piracy will ever stop just there, and it wouldn't even make any sense to stop there in the first place.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 01, 2011, 01:15:45 PM
I don't think the search term restrictions are going to gain any traction.  I think most of you coming out against it have made pretty compelling arguments.  It's a slippery slope, and I don't think the comparisons to selling guns on the corner really map to cleanly to the torrent or .iso file indexing in, say, Google.

By the same token, I wouldn't have any sympathy for people who get busted for uploading pirated shit and thrown in jail.  I'm not sure how you enforce such a thing, but like I wrote in my previous post, I think it will be a moot point within a decade because surely there will come some kind of solution that is going to stem the tide of piracy -OR- there will be another paradigm change in media consumption that will render piracy irrelevant. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 01, 2011, 02:29:55 PM
By the same token, I wouldn't have any sympathy for people who get busted for uploading pirated shit and thrown in jail.  I'm not sure how you enforce such a thing, but like I wrote in my previous post, I think it will be a moot point within a decade because surely there will come some kind of solution that is going to stem the tide of piracy -OR- there will be another paradigm change in media consumption that will render piracy irrelevant.

Itunes didn't really stop much piracy, did it? Most people I know who use it are people who didn't know how to pirate, didn't want to pirate, or got a gift card.

And whether or not a solution comes up sorta ignores the moral problem. Piracy won't be bad for the economy, because people will spend that money elsewhere; but it's a moral issue of who is getting money, in compensation for what. With music, the field is going to change becuase artists can produce and record at home, and not need a big record label to give them studio time, and who then take the material as theirs. Artists who do this now sometimes upload it for free and ask for donations, but that's only because they know it'll be pirated and they'll see no money anyways. If there was some sane anti-piracy measures (and going after the distributors is not only hard, but sometimes impossible; especially if they're in a foreign country where your laws have no jurisdiction). Measures to go after distributors would probably be much more of a violation of privacy than simply "censoring" Google results - the kind of "censorship" we have no problem with in the real world (you couldn't run an advertisement buying the murder of an individual, or the selling of stolen goods, or many other things). Once again, people want to treat the internet differently, as if it's somehow separate from every other social norm and rule we have in society.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 01, 2011, 02:36:50 PM
I've gotta be honest, there Scheavo, I'm really not even sure what your point is?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 01, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
Waiting for a paradigm shift is fatalistic, and as silly to me as waiting for science to magically address over population, food shortages, and climate change.

Going after the distributors would likely require a more heavy monitoring of IP traffic, and thus more invasion of our privacy. Also that it's easy for them to not live in the US, therefor we have on legal jurisdiction, so it's a rather impotent way to go after piracy. "Censoring" search engine results is the best way to actual prevent some people from gaining access to torrents and other illegal material. Also that "censoring" google results is not something we dont 'accept in the non-virtual world, so why is it such a big deal when it's done on the internet?

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 01, 2011, 02:57:47 PM
Waiting for a paradigm shift is fatalistic, and as silly to me as waiting for science to magically address over population, food shortages, and climate change.

Going after the distributors would likely require a more heavy monitoring of IP traffic, and thus more invasion of our privacy. Also that it's easy for them to not live in the US, therefor we have on legal jurisdiction, so it's a rather impotent way to go after piracy. "Censoring" search engine results is the best way to actual prevent some people from gaining access to torrents and other illegal material. Also that "censoring" google results is not something we dont 'accept in the non-virtual world, so why is it such a big deal when it's done on the internet?

First off, I'm not "waiting for a paradigm shift" I was merely noting that by the time any solution is reached on this, one may occur anyway.  Going after distributors requires monitoring of specific kinds of IP traffic.  And as I've already stated many times here, the illusion of "privacy" on the internet is just that: an illusion.  We do a TON of forensic work in court cases here and you'd be astonished at how little privacy you really have on the internet.

I don't disagree that filtering search engine results might help, but I think you'd just end up playing a gigantic cyber game of wack-a-mole with torrent site owners simply coming up with new keywords to search on and where do you draw the line?  Let's put it this way:  It's never going to happen here in the states, so the idea is DOA.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in principle.  I want piracy stopped dead in its tracks.  But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 01, 2011, 03:33:29 PM
Quote
But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

That's just a red herring though. No one is suggesting real censorship of the internet. Censorship is getting thrown about in a way which really tells me people don't understand censorship. You can't yell fire in a theater, and that's not restricting your freedom of speech.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 02, 2011, 06:49:10 AM
Quote
But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

That's just a red herring though. No one is suggesting real censorship of the internet. Censorship is getting thrown about in a way which really tells me people don't understand censorship. You can't yell fire in a theater, and that's not restricting your freedom of speech.

I disagree that it's a red herring.  The potential for abuse is there.  Believe me, I understand what censorship is.  And I also understand that in the united states of america, where we have a very strong awareness of and affinity with the ideal of "freedom of speech" you're never going to see any form of censorship enacted on internet search engines.  It won't make it through our political system to become law.  Never happen.   
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on December 02, 2011, 08:23:44 AM
Quote
But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

That's just a red herring though. No one is suggesting real censorship of the internet. Censorship is getting thrown about in a way which really tells me people don't understand censorship. You can't yell fire in a theater, and that's not restricting your freedom of speech.
Censoring search results won't do anything about the problem.  Period.  What it will do is give the government another foot in the door towards censorship.  I agree that this isn't as severe as the Great Firewall,  but only to a point.  Much like the USAPATRIOT Act was designed to fight terrorists, but is actually used to go after all sorts of people,  this thing won't stop with piracy.  The DoJ takes a pretty hard line on what it considers pornography.  No reason to let search results for Back Door Sluts 9 go through,  since it violates the community standards in Oshkosh.  Selling a bong online isn't legal either.  No real need for head shops to promote their wares online.  Abortion is verboten in Oklahoma,  so lets make sure that women can't find out how to travel to Colorado to get themselves hoovered.  I realize all of these things are a bit of a stretch now,  but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

As has been said over and over before,  the government doesn't cede power it's been given.  It expands it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 02, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

Quote
but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on December 02, 2011, 09:23:02 PM
Colbert mentioned the issue last night
https://fightforthefuture.org/colbert-sopa/
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on December 02, 2011, 10:24:29 PM
Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

Quote
but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.
That's an interesting point, but here's where I differ.  It's not that I want anarchy.  What I want is the very smallest intrusion necessary.  My experience is that The Man will never go for the minimum option.  He goes for the maximum he can get away with. 

I don't recall too many discussions here about laws that don't go far enough. 

What causes asshole representatives to back off a little is objection from the opposite side.  They always manage to enact laws that they're hard for,  and eventually some anti-piracy provisions will pass.  I'm just hoping that the dissent is strong enough that when it happens,  it'll be something reasonable. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on December 03, 2011, 02:38:52 AM
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop?  Ok, we redirect search results so those sites aren't displayed front and center.  I would wager a guess that most people by now don't search for application.iso, but already have the torrent site bookmarked.  Once that happens, what else can we do other than pass bills like these?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 03, 2011, 01:58:22 PM
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

Quote
but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.
That's an interesting point, but here's where I differ.  It's not that I want anarchy.  What I want is the very smallest intrusion necessary.  My experience is that The Man will never go for the minimum option.  He goes for the maximum he can get away with. 

And I'm all ears to know where that is on the internet. It really is a new field, and something I"m not entirely sure humans are made to be able to comprehend easily (we're made for face to face, bodily interactions, for starters).
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 04, 2011, 06:06:02 AM
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

Quote
but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.
That's an interesting point, but here's where I differ.  It's not that I want anarchy.  What I want is the very smallest intrusion necessary.  My experience is that The Man will never go for the minimum option.  He goes for the maximum he can get away with. 

And I'm all ears to know where that is on the internet. It really is a new field, and something I"m not entirely sure humans are made to be able to comprehend easily (we're made for face to face, bodily interactions, for starters).


With all due respect, just because you say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy does not make it so.

Whether or not there is a slippery slope here is 100% opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  And it is certainly worthy of consideration in matters of censorship
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on December 04, 2011, 09:51:34 AM
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.


It's a fallacy only if the premise for each step isn't given sufficient argument and jumps wildly to an end scenario without evidence.  Based on how quickly the internet works, and the savvy of those who pirate, the hit to piracy based on your keyword censoring would be minimal.  Yes, there is a "confusion" period, but not for long.  If the end goal is to stop piracy, then these actions need to be taken further to stop the majority of pirates who find their way around the censor.  Like I mentioned in my previous post, I wager that most folks wouldn't be affected by the censors since they already know the names of the sites they use.  Therefore, the ONLY option is to maintain the status quo or enact further restriction measures. 

Let me clarify that I don't think it's a bad thing to try and find a way to stem piracy.  But I don't think this bill or your solution are effective ways of removing access to piracy.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on December 04, 2011, 12:18:27 PM
The internet is the greatest communication tool humanity has ever created. The US entertainment industry is trying to cripple it, because they're not making quite as much money as they would like to. Piracy is a scapegoat; the real issue is them not wanting to put the effort into adapting to the changing face of content delivery, and not wanting to give up the control that they currently have over it.
Basically, with the internet, sources of entertainment have become much less centralized, and they don't like that.

This bill is the equivalent of solving a small ant problem by burning your house down. Also, the fire spreads to several neighboring houses. It's a drastically exaggerated problem, and they mostly back it up with bullshit statistics and over the top rhetoric.

The music industry is making less money for two main reasons;
1) You no longer have to buy an album of mostly filler to get one or two songs you want. For a while, the model was just that; a pop artist would put out a mostly shitty album with a catchy song or two. If you wanted to be able to listen to those songs, you had to buy the entire album. Now, you can just buy those two songs, and some people just obtain them illegally, almost on moral grounds, since they feel like such a lazy effort doesn't deserve their money (I'm not saying this is okay, I'm just saying that this is how it is). Obviously one or two songs bought on iTunes bring in less money than an entire album. Since a large chunk of music sold is Top 40 pop, this is reflected as a huge loss financially, even though it will eventually even out.

Just look at two genres that haven't really taken a significant hit; metal and country. They tend to have more devoted fan bases, and rely less on catchy singles to sell albums. Going for the long term instead of a short term profit like pop has gone for, has paid off, and demonstrated that piracy isn't the main problem there.

2) Loss of focus. Look at the music scene over the years. It used to be that people mostly listened to a handful of bands or artists at any given time. That changed over the years, and now, in the age of the internet, it's extremely decentralized. There are so many options out there, many independent with no money going to the RIAA. As well, it both takes focus away from pop acts the industry tries to artificially cultivate, and shows people that they have more options, meaning that some people who would have purchased an album by a pop artist may be less inclined to do so. There's also the simple notion that they're putting out less quality content. Even some of the worst pop acts of past decades are brilliant artists compared to much of the schlock on the charts now. The average listener probably doesn't even know who half of the acts on there are right now, and even with the ones they do, they may be hardpressed to name any of their songs. If you put out lower quality content, fewer people will buy.

On the side of the MPAA and television, they're just worried about the rise of easy digital independent film making, and web series. These are still in their infancy, but are definitely getting bigger, and it causes the MPAA and major studios and networks to lose a bit of control. They don't like this.
The thing is, they're still making obscene amounts of money. For the past several years, we've had multiple films per year grossing over a billion dollars at the box office, with many more in the high nine figures. The home market is also doing quite well, with both physical media sales and streaming. For television, streaming has opened up a whole new stream of revenue for them. Again, they just don't like losing control of when people watch their shows, which is just silly and shortsighted. Viacom alone has pulled in over a billion dollars from streaming over the past few years. A billion. With a B. They're just mad that the internet and specialty cable, with innovative, creative programming, are beating their formulaic, cookie cutter schlock. They could actually try being creative themselves, but effort is hard, so they'd rather just squash the competition, which in this case includes the internet.

Piracy gives them an easy excuse to go after online content.

As a sidenote, the RIAA and MPAA tend to count every single illegal download as lost sales. While some are, how many are either people who wouldn't have purchased the content in question? How many are people who simply wanted to try before they buy, and purchased a copy if they liked it? Again, I'm not saying illegal downloading is okay, but it's extremely overblown.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 04, 2011, 02:45:51 PM
With all due respect, just because you say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy does not make it so.

Whether or not there is a slippery slope here is 100% opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  And it is certainly worthy of consideration in matters of censorship

No... slippery slopes are a fallacy, pure and simple. And that isn't me saying you are going to be wrong, it's me saying you're argument is fallacious, because it relies upon fallacious logic.

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.


It's a fallacy only if the premise for each step isn't given sufficient argument and jumps wildly to an end scenario without evidence.  Based on how quickly the internet works, and the savvy of those who pirate, the hit to piracy based on your keyword censoring would be minimal.  Yes, there is a "confusion" period, but not for long.  If the end goal is to stop piracy, then these actions need to be taken further to stop the majority of pirates who find their way around the censor.  Like I mentioned in my previous post, I wager that most folks wouldn't be affected by the censors since they already know the names of the sites they use.  Therefore, the ONLY option is to maintain the status quo or enact further restriction measures. 

Let me clarify that I don't think it's a bad thing to try and find a way to stem piracy.  But I don't think this bill or your solution are effective ways of removing access to piracy.

I think your point about people having the sites bookmarked is a good one; I never do that so probably why I overlooked it. However, you're logic is fallacious because it assumes people will accept the continual censorship. I mean, shit, look at how any bill regarding internet piracy get's treated by the people. Do you think that's going to change in the future? Not bloody likely! People act sometimes as if the government can just do whatever it wants; and the fate of the SOPA bill itself should show you just how untrue that is. Obviously, there are factions within the government that would love to completely censor the internet like China... and they're not being successful at all.

To not be fallacious, you have to show how exact proposals open the door for continual abuse, and not just some weird, conspiratorial assumption that things would just automatically get worse. The actual SOPA bill might be like this, but I'm not defending SOPA at all. Banning and blocking websites is bullshit, I've already said that, and already explained how that's not what I"m proposing.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on December 04, 2011, 03:03:12 PM
To not be fallacious, you have to show how exact proposals open the door for continual abuse

I think there is considerable evidence supporting the notion that the government wouldn't take great measures to ensure that everything that is censored is affected only pirates.  If a fairly general set of keywords comes under the cross-hairs with the possibility of restricting more content than exclusively illegal material, something tells me the companies dictating the censoring will not nobly consider the collateral damage.  Of course, it would be a fallacy to say that this is definitely going to happen, but I think the reasoning to suggest that it would happen this way to an extent is strong.  Strong enough that I'd rather not give them the possibility.  I feel that this previously posted link supports what I'm saying here.   

And don't worry guys, the companies pushing this bill clearly know what they are doing:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for-files-it-hasnt-looked-at.ars

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 04, 2011, 04:44:21 PM
To not be fallacious, you have to show how exact proposals open the door for continual abuse

I think there is considerable evidence supporting the notion that the government wouldn't take great measures to ensure that everything that is censored is affected only pirates.  If a fairly general set of keywords comes under the cross-hairs with the possibility of restricting more content than exclusively illegal material, something tells me the companies dictating the censoring will not nobly consider the collateral damage.  Of course, it would be a fallacy to say that this is definitely going to happen, but I think the reasoning to suggest that it would happen this way to an extent is strong.  Strong enough that I'd rather not give them the possibility.  I feel that this previously posted link supports what I'm saying here.   

And don't worry guys, the companies pushing this bill clearly know what they are doing:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/warner-admits-it-issues-takedowns-for-files-it-hasnt-looked-at.ars

Are you actually going to address my position?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: lordxizor on December 05, 2011, 08:56:06 AM
As a sidenote, the RIAA and MPAA tend to count every single illegal download as lost sales.
This has always bugged me too. When I was a frequent pirate of music, I was only ripping off the stuff I never would have paid for. I still purchased the albums of all my favorite bands and purchased future albums of bands that I liked a lot that I had pirated in the past. Before I started pirating music, I purchased perhaps 2-3 albums a year and listened to the radio a lot. Once I started pirating, I was purchasing 2-3 times as much music. Me pirating music has been a net positive for the music industry. Not to say this is the case with all pirates of music, but I would guess it's not that abnormal.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 12:16:09 PM
With all due respect, just because you say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy does not make it so.

Whether or not there is a slippery slope here is 100% opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  And it is certainly worthy of consideration in matters of censorship

No... slippery slopes are a fallacy, pure and simple. And that isn't me saying you are going to be wrong, it's me saying you're argument is fallacious, because it relies upon fallacious logic.



Nothing is a fallacy just because you say it is.  It really doesn't matter how many times you assert something, it doesn't make it so.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 12:17:29 PM
As a sidenote, the RIAA and MPAA tend to count every single illegal download as lost sales.
This has always bugged me too. When I was a frequent pirate of music, I was only ripping off the stuff I never would have paid for. I still purchased the albums of all my favorite bands and purchased future albums of bands that I liked a lot that I had pirated in the past. Before I started pirating music, I purchased perhaps 2-3 albums a year and listened to the radio a lot. Once I started pirating, I was purchasing 2-3 times as much music. Me pirating music has been a net positive for the music industry. Not to say this is the case with all pirates of music, but I would guess it's not that abnormal.

The problem with this is you are an exception to the rule.  The plummet in CD sales over the last decade proves this.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on December 05, 2011, 02:09:38 PM
As a sidenote, the RIAA and MPAA tend to count every single illegal download as lost sales.
This has always bugged me too. When I was a frequent pirate of music, I was only ripping off the stuff I never would have paid for. I still purchased the albums of all my favorite bands and purchased future albums of bands that I liked a lot that I had pirated in the past. Before I started pirating music, I purchased perhaps 2-3 albums a year and listened to the radio a lot. Once I started pirating, I was purchasing 2-3 times as much music. Me pirating music has been a net positive for the music industry. Not to say this is the case with all pirates of music, but I would guess it's not that abnormal.

The problem with this is you are an exception to the rule.  The plummet in CD sales over the last decade proves this.
Did you read my post at all? The one he's quoting? Piracy is not even close to being the leading cause of the drop in music sales over the past decade or so. It's largely that casual listeners;
a) no longer have to buy entire albums to listen to a catchy single.
b) are able to find music they like more, without even really having to look, thanks largely to the internet. Much of this music is from smaller, independent acts, and doesn't show up in official counts of album sales.

Yes, people who are buying more albums are the exception, but that isn't because of piracy. It's because a shady business practice has become outdated and doesn't work anymore.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 05, 2011, 02:54:19 PM
As a sidenote, the RIAA and MPAA tend to count every single illegal download as lost sales.
This has always bugged me too. When I was a frequent pirate of music, I was only ripping off the stuff I never would have paid for. I still purchased the albums of all my favorite bands and purchased future albums of bands that I liked a lot that I had pirated in the past. Before I started pirating music, I purchased perhaps 2-3 albums a year and listened to the radio a lot. Once I started pirating, I was purchasing 2-3 times as much music. Me pirating music has been a net positive for the music industry. Not to say this is the case with all pirates of music, but I would guess it's not that abnormal.

The problem with this is you are an exception to the rule.  The plummet in CD sales over the last decade proves this.
Did you read my post at all? The one he's quoting? Piracy is not even close to being the leading cause of the drop in music sales over the past decade or so. It's largely that casual listeners;
a) no longer have to buy entire albums to listen to a catchy single.
b) are able to find music they like more, without even really having to look, thanks largely to the internet. Much of this music is from smaller, independent acts, and doesn't show up in official counts of album sales.

Yes, people who are buying more albums are the exception, but that isn't because of piracy. It's because a shady business practice has become outdated and doesn't work anymore.

Right, piracy is not even close to being the leading cause of the drop in music sales.....no completely unsubstantiated hyperbole there at all, right?  :lol

You think I haven't seen the arguments you're posting here?  They don't hold a whole hell of a lot of water, and they rarely accompany any kind of substantiation, because, well, there is none.

But I'm not going to argue about whether or not water is wet with people that have convinced themselves that it's not.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on December 05, 2011, 03:40:20 PM
CD sales drastically dropping and piracy going up are to two events affected by a confounding variable. Sure, some people may have stopped buying CD's because they could illegally get music, but the people who cared enough to buy CD's regularly before the internet will continue to buy them. I bet the loss of sales is due to the rise of listening to/buying music on the internet. iTunes, Pandora, and YouTube allow people to just listen or buy that one song they're looking for as most people have pointed out. iTunes is probably the biggest part. Everyone has it, and iTunes gift cards are probably one of the most common and safe gifts nowadays as well.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on December 05, 2011, 05:37:47 PM
You think I haven't seen the arguments you're posting here?  They don't hold a whole hell of a lot of water, and they rarely accompany any kind of substantiation, because, well, there is none.

But I'm not going to argue about whether or not water is wet with people that have convinced themselves that it's not.
The irony and lack of self awareness in this post is absolutely staggering. You are literally doing what you've accused me of doing; ignoring information and sticking to your predetermined opinion.

Then there's the extremely overused and very telling tactic of "well, I'm not going to argue with you anymore" people often use when they realize they're not going to win an argument. You don't know what you're talking about.

About the bill in question; This isn't a bill created "with good intentions" as you suggested on the first page. It's a bill lobbied by entertainment companies. They either don't want to bother adapting to the changing face of media consumption, or don't know how to. Either way, while piracy hasn't had zero effect on purchases, it's a small enough effect as to be irrelevant. It makes for a very compelling scapegoat though.
Yes, artists should be compensated fairly for their work. In that regard, piracy has only really had a noticeable, negative impact on performers clinging to the 'few catchy singles and a bunch of filler' business model. Many smaller artists have actually gotten more attention thanks to downloading and such. Oh, and if we're going to get into fair compensation for artists, the RIAA are the last people around who can say anything; they're so unbelievably hypocritical on that.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 06, 2011, 02:02:32 AM
With all due respect, just because you say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy does not make it so.

Whether or not there is a slippery slope here is 100% opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  And it is certainly worthy of consideration in matters of censorship

No... slippery slopes are a fallacy, pure and simple. And that isn't me saying you are going to be wrong, it's me saying you're argument is fallacious, because it relies upon fallacious logic.



Nothing is a fallacy just because you say it is.  It really doesn't matter how many times you assert something, it doesn't make it so.

It's a fallacy for the reasons I gave, and the definition of the slippery slope fallacy. I mean just because you assert something doesn't make it so, so no matter how many times you say it isn't a fallacy, that doesn't make it so.

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Quote
Form:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

That's the form of your arguments so far, and I've even given my reasons for thinking why that's what you've been arguing. You conventionality ignore the argument I'm giving, because it's not me "just saying" it isn't a fallacy, it's me saying it's a fallacy, and giving an argument as to why it's a fallacy.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on December 06, 2011, 02:42:31 AM
From that same article:

Quote
This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.

Besides, I'm not arguing (and I don't think others are either) that should censoring specific keywords will inevitably lead to full censorship a la China.  I (and others) have provided reasons why that specific measure won't be very effective, and provided a possible (not inevitable) next step that could be taken to try and mitigate piracy even further.  I think the article posted earlier shows that it isn't unlikely that corporations and government would apply these keyword censors indiscriminately and penalize legitimate sites from being promoted on search engine results. 

Using the definition on the site you posted, that's a jump from A to B, with evidence presented that provides a possible causal link between the two.  I highly doubt that would be considered fallacious reasoning.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on December 06, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
While I wouldn't go so far as to call the effect of piracy on record sales negligible,  I do think TL's arguments are sound.  There are plenty of reasons why record sales are down,  and plenty of them stem from the seriously flawed model that the music industry has evolved into.  The same thing applies to Hollywood. 

Personally,  I find it rather annoying that instead of cleaning their own house,  they're desperately looking for a legislative solution that will allow them to continue the same insane business practices that have led to where they are now.   
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 06, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Using the definition on the site you posted, that's a jump from A to B, with evidence presented that provides a possible causal link between the two.  I highly doubt that would be considered fallacious reasoning.

Except B and far from A, and would be many steps in between. Just because what's between A-B (or, in this case, Z) and left out in someone argument, doesn't mean that those premises aren't necessary for the argument to be valid. Giving the power to regulate copyright infringements is a far cry from censorship, and China is being used as the example end. There'd be a lot of steps along the way, none of which are necessary, many of which are implausible.



Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on December 13, 2011, 06:19:43 PM
https://americancensorship.org/infographic.html

Quote
It's do-or-die time:  The House Judiciary Committee will likely pass the Stop Online Piracy Act THIS Thursday. Once the bill moves out of committee, the House can pass it at any time.
BUT, if we're able to kill it at this stage it'll probably never recover.
That's why we need your help this week:  We want to make sure people understand what the Internet could be like if SOPA passes, so we're asking millions of people to protest censorship as part of our #CensorshipEverywhere campaign -- use our tool to censor parts of your own posts to Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and anything and everything else.
 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on December 13, 2011, 10:13:03 PM
Wow, I'm basically watching with baited breath.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on December 13, 2011, 11:16:02 PM
Worst case scenario...

I don't even want to think of the worst case scenario. There will be so many awesome people I won't be able to talk to again. So many communities will be destroyed.

Hopefully nothing like that will come to pass.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on December 14, 2011, 06:42:43 AM
Damn, I didn't even think of that. It'll make following the leak/pirating rules here so much more vital because so much more will be at stake.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on December 14, 2011, 08:04:51 AM
Not to mention any sort of review websites that use clips or sounds or images from what they review will get shut right down, no questions asked.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 14, 2011, 08:26:51 AM
Not only that, but if you even hum a melody from a copyrighted song in public, your head will instantly explode!   :eek

I'm telling you now!  It MUST BE TRUE because I saw it on the internets  :hat
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on December 14, 2011, 08:53:30 AM
Not to mention any sort of review websites that use clips or sounds or images from what they review will get shut right down, no questions asked.

This is not true.  This kind of thing is protected under fair use. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on December 14, 2011, 09:36:26 AM
Wow, I'm basically watching with bated breath.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on December 14, 2011, 10:47:59 AM
Not to mention any sort of review websites that use clips or sounds or images from what they review will get shut right down, no questions asked.

This is not true.  This kind of thing is protected under fair use.

Fair use is not even considered NOW, let alone after a bill like this passes.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on December 14, 2011, 10:49:05 AM
Fair use is considered now.  It is a real thing and holds up in court.  What are you talking about?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on December 14, 2011, 10:54:55 AM
I mean that if I went out right now and made a video using copyrighted music for the purposes of review, parody, or tribute (that is to say, FAIR USE), and posted on Youtube or a similar website, it can and will be taken down without warning, or else have the entire soundtrack muted to cover up the song I used.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on December 14, 2011, 10:57:00 AM
I mean that if I went out right now and made a video using copyrighted music for the purposes of review, parody, or tribute (that is to say, FAIR USE), and posted on Youtube or a similar website, it can and will be taken down without warning, or else have the entire soundtrack muted to cover up the song I used.

Then you can challenge that and have it put back up.  You could also challenge it in court.  But either way, that's a youtube policy.  Not a government one.  The reason youtube does that is because they don't want any legal trouble at all.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on December 14, 2011, 10:59:34 AM
But this bill would essentially make that policy THE policy. Copyright holders can basically have websites shut down on request, and the Attorney General has the right to block any website they see fit. Surely you don't think that with the amount of corruption in Washington that that power is going to be used responsibly?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on December 14, 2011, 11:01:39 AM
What I'm saying is that any site that is using something for education or review will still be allowed to keep their stuff up.  Bill or no bill.  Fair use will still be in our laws. 

And I don't like this bill at all, so don't make it out like I'm supporting it.  I'm just saying review sites will not have stuff taken down.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on December 14, 2011, 11:02:49 AM
What I'm saying is that any site that is using something for education or review will still be allowed to keep their stuff up.  Bill or no bill.  Fair use will still be in our laws. 

And I don't like this bill at all, so don't make it out like I'm supporting it.  I'm just saying review sites will not have stuff taken down.

Review sites can have their content removed under the current copyright laws. This will only make that problem worse.

Edit: And I have seen it happen on a review site I visit regularly. I can pull it up if you want me to.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on December 14, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
It really depends on how said site presents the review and the copyrighted material in it.  If it's a video game review and they show some clips of game play, that is protected and cannot be taken down.  If it is a movie, they can post certain clips that have been approved for promo reasons.  You can't just show any part of the movie you want.  It has to be within reason that you use it.

I think this act is mostly to shut down sites like Megavideo or the Piratebay or wherever else you can find stolen or pirated content.  I don't think it is going to be targeting people who use a picture of a book cover in the review of a book, or the CD art to a review of a CD.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on December 14, 2011, 11:13:00 AM
What it's most likely to be used for doesn't really matter if it has the effect of scaring people into changing their lawful habits.  Fair use doesn't really help much if you can't afford to hire Bosk to defend you in court,  for example.  The chilling effect on free speech is just as damaging as the outright curtailment of it. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Genowyn on December 14, 2011, 11:15:44 AM
It really depends on how said site presents the review and the copyrighted material in it.  If it's a video game review and they show some clips of game play, that is protected and cannot be taken down.  If it is a movie, they can post certain clips that have been approved for promo reasons.  You can't just show any part of the movie you want.  It has to be within reason that you use it.


Then any sort of comedic reviews (that is, the reviewer shows a clip of the movie and then jokes about it), Rifftrax, things set up to be like MST3K, "Let's Play" reviews of video games, would not be allowed. And that would make the internet about 50% less fun.

What it's most likely to be used for doesn't really matter if it has the effect of scaring people into changing their lawful habits.  Fair use doesn't really help much if you can't afford to hire Bosk to defend you in court,  for example.  The chilling effect on free speech is just as damaging as the outright curtailment of it. 

All of this as well.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on December 14, 2011, 03:32:06 PM
I think this act is mostly to shut down sites like Megavideo or the Piratebay or wherever else you can find stolen or pirated content.

I know that the bill was probably first conceived for that, but who knows how far companies like Viacom will actually take their new rights. Also, I don't understand how they think this will help against the pirating issue; it's already illegal. People will find other ways to illegally share music and movies, but it'll be much easier to hurt the casual YouTuber or other online communities like Tumblr and forums such as this one.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on December 15, 2011, 04:05:38 PM
https://mashable.com/2011/12/15/house-sopa-debate-raises-specter-of-a-lawless-internet/
I don't understand what this means.. no decisions?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on December 15, 2011, 04:11:08 PM
Yeah, no verdict yet. From what little I saw of it, they did seem to agree that they had no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on December 15, 2011, 04:57:24 PM
Insane tangent:

I think this debate makes me realize how much people don't like physical laws of reality. With the internet, we, in a lot of ways, have a world we can make, with our own laws, etc. For instance, in real life, it's somewhat hard to truly disguise your identity. Here, I mean literally face to face interactions. Humans are made to recognize faces, voices, etc, and to identify people; with the internet, on the other hand, we would have to create rules which allow for easy recognition, assuming we want to be able to identify and recognize people online. With those rules, comes possible ways to abuse those rules, so we don't like them. If we had a choice on the matter, I'm thinking most humans would do away with their body, and all the ways that makes it possible to identify you.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on December 15, 2011, 05:14:05 PM
That's very interesting Scheavo. It would be the kind of thing we'd be in denial about.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: energythief on December 16, 2011, 11:21:12 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/nf5p1/sopa_emergency_list/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/nf5p1/sopa_emergency_list/)


Americans, start copying this info so you can still have an internet after SOPA.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on December 16, 2011, 01:12:14 PM
Explain for the computer illiterate please. :P
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on December 16, 2011, 01:18:57 PM
Quote
Let's say you have a friend, named Dave. When you want to send him mail, you can't put "Dave's house" and throw it in the mailbox, can you? DNS essentially translates "Dave's house" (The URL) to 123 Example St. (IP Address).

What the hosts file does is essentially skip the DNS and say "Dave's house IS 123 Example St.". This is also a way that malware can hijack websites on your machine. If you visit google.com and it redirects to somewhere else, it's possible that your hosts file has been edited by malicious software to say that google.com = some other IP address, other than google's website.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 16, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
Yeah, but the problem is many hosts use round-robin DNS or host headers for hosts with multiple websites on one server.  I'd estimate that less than 1/4 of those websites would be directly accessible via IP address.  Also, do you really think they can't block those sites by IP as well?  I've got news for you:  It's easy.  I do it every day.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on December 16, 2011, 01:31:24 PM
Yup. Just testing it now, a lot of them don't work. Not to mention that I'm sure the ISPs will block IP addresses, unsurprisingly they actually know how the internet works.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 16, 2011, 01:31:56 PM
Yup. Just testing it now, a lot of them don't work. Not to mention that I'm sure the ISPs will block IP addresses, unsurprisingly they actually know how the internet works.

Ya think?  :lol
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on December 16, 2011, 01:34:33 PM
From that thread:

Quote
This is so over the top it's insane. This is the Internet equivalent of the crazy suburban Mom duct-taping her house because Fox told her the terror alert went up to amber!

 :rollin
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on December 16, 2011, 01:38:16 PM
By the way, adding these sites to your host file would be a better solution.  It still won't work for the majority of them because they'll block the IPs by policy at the firewall level, but it will work for some.

The hosts file is located in C:\<SystemRoot>\System32\drivers\etc   (where <SystemRoot> is the folder that you have Windows stored)

It's a text file that can be opened with notepad.

For each site you want to add, just put the IP on the left, and the site name on the right, like this:

172.27.80.56                www.ohshitthissitedoesntwork.com (https://www.ohshitthissitedoesntwork.com)
99.45.129.78                www.anotherbrickinyourass.com (https://www.anotherbrickinyourass.com)
76.123.90.118              www.downloadmyassfromhere.com (https://www.downloadmyassfromhere.com)

etc, etc, etc

Again, it's highly doubtful that they won't be blocking IP addresses anyway, but if you want to try to circumvent the blocking your host file is the place to start.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on December 16, 2011, 05:03:25 PM
I think I'd rather just work on blocking this bill.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on December 16, 2011, 05:32:21 PM
I chuckled
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: MetalMike06 on December 16, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
Eh. This will pass, and we'll be fucked, again.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on January 06, 2012, 01:09:28 AM
Everyone's trying their best, but it sounds desperate:
Quote
The Senate is scheduled to vote on the internet censorship bill on Tuesday, January 24th, and unless we can find 41 senators to block the vote, it is going to pass. Will you meet with your senators during the January recess and ask them to vote it down?
https://americancensorship.org/
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 06, 2012, 06:09:28 PM
Everyone acts as if it would be the end of the world, when it would mostly just mean the end of a lot of congressional members careers.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: snapple on January 06, 2012, 08:14:38 PM
What did we learn with Napster, Kazaa and LimeWire?

There will always be another one. So, while SOPA may take down a lot of sites, there will always be more.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 06, 2012, 08:21:57 PM
I'm not really worried about that so much as the individual cost this implies, like what people have been saying about YouTube users, and how having their videos removed for copyright would now also mean that person is thrown in jail.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 06, 2012, 11:44:20 PM
I'm not really worried about that so much as the individual cost this implies, like what people have been saying about YouTube users, and how having their videos removed for copyright would now also mean that person is thrown in jail.

Or, the judge sentences to community service, or some other nonsense. Given a lot of the cases, the judge might also rule that it falls under common use laws. It would probably be ugly, but this is one reason why I think people get a little unrealistic. You honestly think the movie and other industries are going to shutdown youtube/Google, or Facebook? Like I put in the thread about IP, Google has already blatantly broken IP laws by photocopying books, and coming to negotiations that kept it from going to court. It would certainly shake up the internet, there are aspects about it which are worrying, but people completely overreact to the actual consequences, and ignore the fact that we still have trials for people. Jury can chose not to convict, even if there's obvious evidence; Judges can basically make their own ruling, so long as it lasts through appeals.

YouTube users would probably never go to jail. If they did, the law wouldn't have much life after that. People are growing tired of throwing people in jail for marijuana, making youtube videos is so much tamer than that, that jail would never pass the sorta democracy we have.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: orcus116 on January 07, 2012, 01:51:28 AM
Is there anything in this bill that is worthwhile or was it just of those things made by a bunch of people who have no understanding of what it actually contains?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 07, 2012, 01:56:54 AM
made by a bunch of people who have no understanding of what it actually contains?

From what I saw of the hearing before Christmas, yeah, they fall squarely in the 'series of tubes' category.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 07, 2012, 04:52:49 PM
Is there anything in this bill that is worthwhile or was it just of those things made by a bunch of people who have no understanding of what it actually contains?

Well, the people who wrote the bill are the companies with IP concerns on the internet. So no, it was made by people who have a very clear idea if what the bill contains, more than anyone on this board I'm sure. The people passing and voting on the bill probably have no clue though.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: glaurung on January 09, 2012, 01:13:09 PM
What did we learn with Napster, Kazaa and LimeWire?

There will always be another one. So, while SOPA may take down a lot of sites, there will always be more.

This is different. All it would take to shut a site down is the person who owns the copyright to complain and a site is shut down with one click. There is no trial.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 02:05:18 PM
What did we learn with Napster, Kazaa and LimeWire?

There will always be another one. So, while SOPA may take down a lot of sites, there will always be more.

This is different. All it would take to shut a site down is the person who owns the copyright to complain and a site is shut down with one click. There is no trial.

No offense, really, but that sounds like hyperbolic nonsense to me. 

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 09, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
True or not, we should all want Web 2.0 to remain a relatively free place. Some clamping down on file sharing and the like is laudable, but there should be limits.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on January 09, 2012, 05:26:53 PM
I'm not really worried about that so much as the individual cost this implies, like what people have been saying about YouTube users, and how having their videos removed for copyright would now also mean that person is thrown in jail.

Or, the judge sentences to community service, or some other nonsense. Given a lot of the cases, the judge might also rule that it falls under common use laws. It would probably be ugly, but this is one reason why I think people get a little unrealistic. You honestly think the movie and other industries are going to shutdown youtube/Google, or Facebook? Like I put in the thread about IP, Google has already blatantly broken IP laws by photocopying books, and coming to negotiations that kept it from going to court. It would certainly shake up the internet, there are aspects about it which are worrying, but people completely overreact to the actual consequences, and ignore the fact that we still have trials for people. Jury can chose not to convict, even if there's obvious evidence; Judges can basically make their own ruling, so long as it lasts through appeals.

YouTube users would probably never go to jail. If they did, the law wouldn't have much life after that. People are growing tired of throwing people in jail for marijuana, making youtube videos is so much tamer than that, that jail would never pass the sorta democracy we have.
I'm not so worried about youtube posters going to jail as I much as I am the chilling effect.  Why would google even continue to operate youtube if it becomes a liability to the bigger picture.  If nothing else,  I could easily see creating enough hurdles that it's not worth the bother anymore.  Sort of like making people fork over a credit card number to sign up for a free porn site. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 09, 2012, 05:36:37 PM
Quote
Why would google even continue to operate youtube if it becomes a liability to the bigger picture.

Why did Google knowingly and willingly scan and digitize every book it could get, knowing full well it was breaking the law doing it? GOogle already loses profit on youtube itself, apparently they do it all for the sake of gathering information, to make their searches better, to make their ads more targeted, so they can get more advertisement money. Just had a commercial on youtube the other day. The "liability" that it'll become is Google giving some money to the music and other media industries, in relatino to their product, as a percent of their income.


Now, where I think this bill would cause issues is with the smaller players. Google is a huge, powerful company, you can't just push them around.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ehra on January 10, 2012, 11:46:06 AM
Massively just posted their own writeup on SOPA, for anyone interested. It's written from a slight gaming/blogging stance.

https://massively.joystiq.com/2012/01/10/the-sopabox-defeating-online-piracy-by-destroying-the-internet/

Quote
Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of SOPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) and PIPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act). The Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act are two radical pieces of copyright legislation currently being pushed through the US government. Although the stated intent of the new legislation is to provide companies with additional tools with which to combat piracy, the bill's loose wording has raised some serious alarm bells (https://motherboard.vice.com/2011/12/16/dear-congress-it-s-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-the-internet-works). Opponents to the proposed law say it would give corporations the ability to shut down any almost any website under the guise of protecting copyright infringement.

Gamers will be affected worst of all, as the loose wording of the law makes any website with user-submitted content potentially vulnerable to a shut down order. That could include YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, any blog with a comment section, or even any online game with a chat system. Perhaps the scariest part is that you'll be affected even if you're not in the US, as one of the new law's enforcement mechanisms is to remove a site from the DNS records, a move that assumes the US has jurisdiction over the global Domain Name System. AOL is among many huge companies strongly opposing SOPA, and so naturally Massively opposes it too.

In this week's massive two-page Soapbox, I make the case for why you should be worried about SOPA, and I suggest what can be done to tackle piracy in the games industry. Comments can be left on page two.

Current enforcement mechanisms

Companies in the film, music and games industries obviously have a need to protect their copyrights and prevent misuse of their intellectual properties. The internet has provided massive opportunities for piracy, making it incredibly simple and cost-effective to illegally obtain copies of games, films, and music. The use of digital formats means that the old argument of pirate copies being lower quality no longer applies as pirates are getting the full digital product for free.

The current system in place to stop this kind of copyright infringement is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act), a piece of legislation designed to provide a fast-track method for companies to get their copyrighted material removed from an offending website without putting that website at risk.

Because of the DMCA's "safe harbour" rule, a website with user-submitted content like YouTube is not held liable for the content its users post. If you upload a song to YouTube, you might be breaking the law, but YouTube isn't. When copyright owners find infringement like this, they send the website owner a DMCA request, and the offending content is selectively removed. The argument being put forward by corporations supporting SOPA is that the DMCA doesn't work against websites that just ignore the requests. Websites hosted in the US that ignore DMCA requests can eventually be taken down, as the webhost company would be aiding criminal activities if it refused, but foreign sites can't.

The spirit of the law

The US legal system has no jurisdiction over websites hosted outside the US, so pirates usually just move their servers to another country and ignore takedown requests. These "rogue websites" may be doing business with people in the US, and the spirit of SOPA is to provide a mechanism for blocking access to those websites for all US citizens. Unfortunately, it's such a badly worded piece of legislation (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/05/rps-asks-esa-members-to-denounce-sopa/) that it can be used to block access to almost any legitimate website.

A website can be classified as rogue if it is primarily engaged in offering services that can enable or facilitate copyright violation, but any website with user-submitted content fits that description. The primary purpose of gaming forums and blogs, for example, is to offer people a means to have text discussions. As text can be used to share links to copyrighted material and therefore facilitate copyright violation, those sites (including Facebook and Twitter) could easily be deemed rogue if any user posts a link to copyrighted material. History is replete with examples of people using the word of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, and there's no reason to assume SOPA would be treated any differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xrrj9Wc2L84

Shifting the blame

People have also complained about some of SOPA's bizarre provisions that expose website owners to uncertain liabilities (https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO1117.pdf); Section 103(a)(I)(B)(ii)(I) in particular renders a website owner liable if he takes "deliberate action to avoid confirming a high probability" that a user is infringing copyright. The unclear wording of this provision means website owners and ISPs that don't invasively monitor all user-submitted content (including private messages) could be held liable for the actions of their users. This would effectively override the DMCA's safe harbour rule for websites operating in good faith whose services are nevertheless used to facilitate piracy. YouTube, for example, could be made liable for copyrighted music appearing on the website even though it's financially and technologically infeasible to check every video for violations.

SOPA's own version of the safe harbor rule grants immunity from DNS takedowns to ISPs and websites that voluntarily block content they believe to be in violation of SOPA. This is so incredibly abusable that I'm shocked it's even being considered; it would allow any ISP to preferentially block content from a competitor as long as it could say it had reason to believe there was copyright violation involved. Imagine your ISP blocking a competing ISP's website because of "an anonymous tip" about copyright violation, or webhost Comcast blocking video streaming services that compete with its own NBC. Worse yet, imagine an MMO publisher that also owns an ISP (https://www.sony.com/index.php) throttling or blocking competing games, in clear violation of the principles of net neutrality. This is clearly a law created by people who fundamentally do not understand how the internet works.

DNS takedowns

SOPA has three major enforcement mechanisms (https://www.theverge.com/2011/12/22/2648219/stop-online-piracy-act-sopa-what-is-it): DNS takedowns, court orders to banks and advertisers, and search engine delisting. The possibility of a corporation getting a court order to cut off a foreign website's access to funds from the US could have dire consequences for startup game studios around the world. Startups won't have the financial backing to stay afloat while a challenge goes through a US court; they may not have the funds to even fight such a case. Delisting an upcoming online game from search engines could also destroy its launch, and Google may also be obligated to delist every gaming news website that linked to the offending website.

What I'm talking about is the most disgraceful form of censorship, with which any corporation with a strong enough legal team can try to erase a competitor from the web entirely at strategic times just by citing belief of copyright violation. The most contentious issue with SOPA has of course been the provision for DNS takedowns. If the law goes into effect, it will allow a corporation that believes its copyright is being infringed upon to get an entire website delisted from the domain name service so that it's inaccessible. This could be disastrous for online gaming, as shutting down an MMO's website via a DNS takedown request would also kill access to any game servers that resolve under subdomains of that domain.

The provisions of SOPA technically don't apply to US websites (https://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/o27jr/letter_from_adam_schiff_dpasadena_and_member_of/), only to foreign websites that are accessible in the US. Unfortunately, this too is a legal gray area as most popular websites are not hosted in one particular location. Google has servers around the world, and all of its services are accessible globally. What should really get you worried is that many MMOs and other online games have servers distributed throughout the world to reduce lag by directing players to a local server. Imagine waking up one morning to find the entire RIFT (https://www.riftgame.com/en/) website and its game servers blocked in the US because people on an EU server were sharing links to copyrighted material in chat. It may sound far fetched, but it's all within the scope of SOPA.

At least it stops piracy, right?

If this weren't such a serious issue, I would be laughing at how ineffective the provisions in SOPA will actually be at combating piracy. Takedowns can be easily countered by anyone with half an ounce of wit, rendering it almost farcical that the anyone in the entertainment industries is supporting the bill. When a website hosting pirate material is taken down by its webhosts or domain host, which already happens regularly despite there usually being no legal basis for it, the website can be back online within minutes. If the domain is seized, which has also happened without a legal basis (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml), a new one can be created and within a few hours the new name can proliferate through social media.

Taking a domain name out of the DNS register does nothing to stop people accessing the website, as it can still be accessed via its IP address, and there's no legal way to stop people sharing that. I could write a small piece of software in five minutes that would run in the background and resolve the IP of any website (https://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/o8ept/in_case_sopa_goes_through_heres_how_you_can/) whose DNS record had been taken down through SOPA, thereby bypassing the entire system. People have already started working on browser extensions and alternate public DNS servers to nullify the effects of SOPA; the bill isn't even law yet and it's already obsolete.

SOPA is a goldmine of legal loopholes that grant any corporation with a good legal department shocking censorship powers over the web, and it's a chilling thought that it could actually go live. Just this month, Belarus made it illegal for foreign websites (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16407235) to offer goods and services to the country's citizens, and further made it illegal to access pornographic or extremist websites. Spain followed suit, with its newly elected government putting the controversial Sinde law (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/04252517273/spanish-government-adopts-its-own-version-sopa-sinde-law-approved.shtml) into effect. Wikileaks reported that the US actually helped draft the Sinde law and threatened to put Spain on a trade blacklist (https://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikileaks_proves_us_forced_spain_to_adopt_sopa-sty.php) if it wasn't put into force, a move that isn't altogether surprising since SOPA's being fast-tracked through the US government at the same time.

Copyright protection is a colossal issue for the games industry, but bills like SOPA will do nothing to stop it and will cost the world a great deal in personal freedoms. I think the way forward to combat game piracy will be to adopt the same model as the music industry. ITunes reduced the effort threshold to buying music legally so much that millions of users prefer it over pirating, YouTube Vevo monetises popular music through advertising, and a lot of money has been moving to live performances. For games, this model would involve both making it extremely easy for players to buy a game and offering a better product than it's possible to pirate.

Steam is the players' DRM and purchasing-platform of choice; offering free updates or downloadable content on Steam can go a long way to securing a sale and keeping honest people honest. Hard copies of games (even non-collector editions) can continue to offer things you can't easily pirate, like high-quality maps, posters, collectible pen drives and beautiful artwork books or manuals. MMOs in particular are largely insulated from piracy as the online community is what sells an MMO, so perhaps we should see a lot more games for which online play is the main selling point. Ultimately, the best way to combat piracy is just to offer a better product than the pirates.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 10, 2012, 11:59:49 AM
Well, in the interest of providing some balance to this thread, which is obviously very strongly tilted against SOPA, here is something I read today in favor of the law (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-arguments-in-favor-of-SOPA) that I thought was very well articulated:

Quote
Brian Dunlap (https://www.quora.com/Brian-Dunlap), I work on a series of tubes.16 votes by Todd Branchflower (https://www.quora.com/Todd-Branchflower), Noah Chestnut (https://www.quora.com/Noah-Chestnut), Monil Kothari (https://www.quora.com/Monil-Kothari),  (more) (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-arguments-in-favor-of-SOPA#)I'll preface this with two statements:
  • I work in the content production field and, by extension, spend a fair amount of time pursuing legal action against other parties over copyright infringement.  Any law that makes it easier to pursue others for violating copyrights is likely one that I will benefit from.
  • I'm fully aware SOPA will have unintended consequences that are undesirable to most - even myself included as a fan of the free flow and exchange of information and ideas (legally) over the internet.
Having thrown that out there, I will say that I'm of the belief the best thing SOPA can offer - and this is all relative to existing law and the status quo - is encouraging ISPs and website owners to be more proactive in making sure their sites are not havens for copyright infringement.

DMCA is, like SOPA, far from perfect.  It places what I would consider undue burden open copyright holders to:
  • Seek out instances in which their copyrights are being violated
  • Absorb and suffer losses while awaiting responses to notifications and take-down notices
Unfortunately, I've frequently been a first-hand witness to ISPs abusing the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA, and going out of their way to avoid compliance with DMCA to the greatest extent possible - because they know they can, to a certain point.  I certainly would not say this is true for most ISPs, but I'll state my belief it is true for enough to cause content producers and copyright holders considerable harm as they go about attempting to protect copyrights online.  DMCA is currently structured to make abusing safe harbor quite easy, and many ISPs are fully aware of that.  While I'd consider most mainstream websites to have a genuine interest in complying with DMCA and respecting others' copyrights, the way the law is structured makes it quite easy for website operators with less noble intentions to freely distribute copyrighted material, in violation of those copyrights.

With SOPA, however, websites will be required to take a more proactive role in ensuring their product and service does not encourage copyright infringement, and their own success does not come at the expense of copyright holders suffering harm at the hands of their product and service. 

I've often dealt with website owners and operators who have knowingly published on their sites others' copyrighted material, feigning ignorance and doing the bare minimum to respond to DMCA take-down notices.  Among the actions I've observed have been:
  • Responding to take-down notices with no more than the deletion of a single dynamic URL to an infringing file, rather than removing the file itself.
  • Encouraging users to upload copyrighted material through financial incentives, "premium" download capabilities or access, "premium" access to libraries of other files on the site, and so on.
  • Not taking action against users who have been shown to repeatedly and regularly, if not exclusively, upload infringing material.
  • Attempting to block the IP addresses from which take-down notices are received.
  • Altering uploading content in attempts to remove watermarks, logos and other signs material may be copyrighted.
  • Simply moving or renaming files for which take-down notices have been received.
Proving, in court, such actions have taken place, or are taking place, can deny an ISP safe-harbor and open them up to considerable civil penalties - but only after what are often lengthy and expensive legal proceedings. 

Another possible benefit of SOPA is that US-based ISPs who are making genuine and good-faith efforts to respect the intellectual property rights of others will no longer suffer from such a competitive disadvantage as they now do with overseas sites/ISPs.  US sites that put in place an infrastructure and policies to effectively monitor copyrights and respond to DMCA notices might face far more difficulty gaining an audience and becoming successful when overseas sites are freely able to ignore DMCA and make no attempts to abide by it.

Admittedly, SOPA is far from perfect.  Likewise, though it's no consolation and certainly not an excuse, DMCA as it exists is far from perfect.  The latter places what I would consider to be an unfair and excessive burden upon copyright holders to ensure ISPs aren't permitting and even encouraging the violation of their copyrights, and the former may very well go too far in attempting to assign some of that burden to the ISPs.

I accept, from the perspective of a copyright owner, that owning copyrights in the digital age brings with it the risk your copyrights will be violated, and pursuing violators and enforcing copyrights is an accepted cost of doing business.  ISPs accepting user-submitted content may now have to accept that monitoring and more effectively policing such content to ensure it does not violate copyrights is an accepted cost of doing business for them.


Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 10, 2012, 06:13:42 PM
DNS takedowns, court orders to banks and advertisers, and search engine delisting. The possibility of a corporation getting a court order to cut off a foreign website's access to funds from the US could have dire consequences for startup game studios around the world. Startups won't have the financial backing to stay afloat while a challenge goes through a US court; they may not have the funds to even fight such a case. Delisting an upcoming online game from search engines could also destroy its launch, and Google may also be obligated to delist every gaming news website that linked to the offending website.

See, this is what I'm talking about. It's such a load of crap.

Predatory examples like you use are usually thrown back in the faces by judges, common use laws and practices not only mean can gaming news websites use the content, but the game owners aren't going to go after the people doing free advertising for them and their product. Google would always vehemently fight that from happening, in court.

I think what that writer is complaining about is the corruption of our government, really.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 16, 2012, 01:51:10 PM
House kills SOPA?

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

Is that really as simple as it seems?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Fiery Winds on January 16, 2012, 02:00:17 PM
I think so.  Obama promised a veto of PIPA as well, not just SOPA.  Any more time spent in Congress would just be a waste of time, regardless of any changes.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 16, 2012, 02:06:41 PM
Well, maybe now they'll go back to the drawing board and come up with something that everyone can get behind.

I think no matter what you're not going to please everyone, but something has to be done because the status quo is unsustainable, imo.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 16, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
Apparently Wikipedia is "going dark" on the 18th in protest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikipedia-blackout-coming-jan-18-says-co-founder-jimmy-wales/2012/01/16/gIQAh2Ke3P_blog.html
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 16, 2012, 02:13:35 PM
They're going dark to protest a law that isn't going to pass and that the president said he'll veto?  :lol   
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: jsem on January 16, 2012, 02:25:00 PM
It's still a good idea to black out. To raise awareness of what might have happened and to equip and inform the world that future efforts to pass legislation like this is unacceptable.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Nel on January 16, 2012, 02:49:04 PM
Plus a black out on Wikipedia will probably alert waaaaay more people that this existed in the first place.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: orcus116 on January 16, 2012, 04:00:47 PM
I love slacktivism because of the guise of "raising awareness". Whoever will care about this bill has already known about it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 16, 2012, 04:13:07 PM
Jimmy Wales is a slacktivist?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 16, 2012, 04:16:20 PM
Whoever will care about this bill has already known about it.

ehh, I'm not sure I buy that, especially if it really does have anywhere near the far-reaching effects some are talking about (which is still a big if).
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 17, 2012, 12:53:27 PM
Plus a black out on Wikipedia will probably alert waaaaay more people that this existed in the first place.

Craig's List, Reddit, and a list of several others, all plan on blackouts as well.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on January 17, 2012, 01:27:14 PM
so for teh blackoutz i herd you has to like, run magnets over your screen for it to work properly

is dat the rihgt thing to do/?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on January 17, 2012, 02:44:03 PM
found something interesting:

https://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 17, 2012, 03:33:59 PM
Quote
SOPA and PROTECT IP contain no provisions to actually remove copyrighted content, but rather focus on the censorship of links to entire domains.

I think that's probably the most important point in all this.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: orcus116 on January 17, 2012, 04:42:02 PM
So basically if they suspect someone is uploading an album through mediafire (because that never happens) then they'll have the power to block anyone from using mediafire even if it's just one out of every thousand legitimate uploads?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 17, 2012, 04:58:27 PM
Sounds like it. I mean, if a site is hosting an album someone illegally uploaded, that would definitely fall under the purview of "facilitating" piracy.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on January 17, 2012, 07:55:15 PM
Infringement?!
(https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUYPWnnG1_Sjx3VrLxrp76ambUP6u0t9NPScYRCW2iaesrJX_I)


that's pretty much it
and since the wording is [apparently] very poor and non concise, a very large amount of things will fall under the category of "infringement" of the act
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: orcus116 on January 17, 2012, 09:24:23 PM
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/dodd-lashes-out-at-sopa-strike.html

My favorite quote:

Quote
"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and who use their services,'' Dodd said in a statement. "It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today."
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 17, 2012, 09:35:11 PM
:lol what an asshat
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 17, 2012, 10:02:46 PM
lol. It's abuse of power that a company funded solely by donations take an action directed by decisions made by the people who donate. Alright then.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on January 17, 2012, 10:46:28 PM
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/dodd-lashes-out-at-sopa-strike.html

My favorite quote:

Quote
"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and who use their services,'' Dodd said in a statement. "It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today."
Wow.  Asshat indeed. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Nigerius Rex on January 17, 2012, 11:13:12 PM
found something interesting:

https://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

Great quote:

Quote
If the Attorney General served reddit with an order to remove links to a domain, we would be required to scrub every post and comment on the site containing the domain and censor the links out, even if the specific link contained no infringing content. We would also need to implement a system to automatically censor the domain from any future posts or comments. This places a measurable burden upon the site's technical infrastructure. It also damages one of the most important tenets of reddit, and the internet as a whole – free and open discussion about whatever the fuck you want.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jaffa on January 17, 2012, 11:25:19 PM
Ooookay, it took a Wikipedia blackout, but I'm finally taking this thing seriously.

Can anyone link me a site where I can read the text of the bill itself?  Not just people talking about it or summarizing it, but the actual wording of the SOPA act.  I'd appreciate it very much. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 17, 2012, 11:31:52 PM
found something interesting:

https://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

Great quote:

Quote
If the Attorney General served reddit with an order to remove links to a domain, we would be required to scrub every post and comment on the site containing the domain and censor the links out, even if the specific link contained no infringing content. We would also need to implement a system to automatically censor the domain from any future posts or comments. This places a measurable burden upon the site's technical infrastructure. It also damages one of the most important tenets of reddit, and the internet as a whole – free and open discussion about whatever the fuck you want.

It was good up til then, but he basically takes a very self-centered view of freedom. A lot of what he brings up are good points, but instead of adding to the discussion of how the bill / idea of protecting IP can be improved upon, it denies that anything should eve be done, and that it's a matter of free speech, or something.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2012, 04:47:45 AM
(https://img594.imageshack.us/img594/482/imagezzv.jpg)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2012, 04:51:45 AM
This may have been brought up earlier, but doesn't our government have more important things to focus their time and money on?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 18, 2012, 05:05:04 AM
Apparently not, no. :facepalm:

Well, where the legislative branch is concerned anyway.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Zantera on January 18, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
I didn't find out about this whole thing until today, I normally visit Wikipedia 30 times per day for checking different things, so you can imagine my shock.  :lol
While I haven't read up much about it, I think it sounds like a pretty crappy law to be honest, and I don't get where stupid ideas like this comes from.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 18, 2012, 06:54:17 AM
Shit, I didn't realize the guy Orcus quoted was the Chris Dodd. That's revolving door politics for you, eh?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 18, 2012, 07:07:35 AM
Fortunately, Wikipedia has their whole blackout set up to redirect each page to their blackout page.  So the actual page comes up briefly.  If you hit escape before it redirects, you can still access the page you're looking for.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: AcidLameLTE on January 18, 2012, 07:19:35 AM
Or you can just use this link:

https://www.wikipedia.org/?banner=none
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: jsem on January 18, 2012, 08:05:36 AM
Fortunately, Wikipedia has their whole blackout set up to redirect each page to their blackout page.  So the actual page comes up briefly.  If you hit escape before it redirects, you can still access the page you're looking for.
aawww yeaaahhhh

Thanks!
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 18, 2012, 08:10:28 AM
So who here actually contacted their local representative when the blackout went up? I did so early this morning, but unfortunately the guy's gonna be outta my district by the time the presidential election's over.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: rumborak on January 18, 2012, 08:15:47 AM
I just called MA's Republican senator (I'm assuming the Democrat one already opposes it). Apparently Scott Brown said yesterday he's willing to oppose it too.

rumborak
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 18, 2012, 08:21:11 AM
Wow, Brown? I would've thought he'd be on the bandwagon.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: rumborak on January 18, 2012, 08:29:39 AM
Yeah, I was somewhat surprised too, especially when Kerry hasn't made any statement yet it seems.

rumborak
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 08:39:48 AM
Scott Brown's days are numbered and he knows it.  Elizabeth Warren is very likely to take his seat.  The only reason Scott Brown even got elected was because Martha Coakley (his opponent in the election) is about as charismatic as a fucking cinder block.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 18, 2012, 08:59:53 AM
A couple webcomics I read including QC and Homestuck have info about SOPA today. I'm glad to see that the word is getting out.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 10:30:49 AM
This may have been brought up earlier, but doesn't our government have more important things to focus their time and money on?

This is actually one of their constitutional duties.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2012, 10:53:02 AM
Lots of people on Facebook (myself included) have made this (or something similar) their profile pic.

(https://img594.imageshack.us/img594/465/imagervg.jpg)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Phoenix87x on January 18, 2012, 12:09:56 PM
(https://img594.imageshack.us/img594/482/imagezzv.jpg)

This definitely brought a smile to my face.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 18, 2012, 12:13:59 PM
Me too.  I love Office Space.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Hprog on January 18, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
I can totally imagine Lars Ulrich supporting this Act.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on January 18, 2012, 12:14:55 PM
They've lost three more sponsors over the blackouts.  One senator and two representatives.  Harry Reid is under quite a bit of pressure, as well.

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 18, 2012, 12:58:45 PM
Looks like a lot of people on Facebook are finally aware of the bill. This actually does a great job of spreading the news.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2012, 01:05:44 PM
Apparently an alternative draft has already been written. Still doesn't sit well with me.

https://censorshipinamerica.com/2011/12/10/internet-censorship-the-good-and-the-bad-of-the-new-open-bill-from-wyden-and-issa/
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: reneranucci on January 18, 2012, 01:06:14 PM
Lots of people on Facebook (myself included) have made this (or something similar) their profile pic.

(https://img594.imageshack.us/img594/465/imagervg.jpg)
I'm not putting it on facebook, it's funny when your native language is Spanish  :lol
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 18, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
DOWN WITH SOUP PIPES
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: PraXis on January 18, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
If only people were as passionate against the Patriot Act and NDAA.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: jsem on January 18, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
The thing is, there's big money/interests on the right side this time. Google, Amazon, Wikimedia.

Against Patriot Act/NDAA, there's no money on the other side. There's no lobby groups trying to fight against it with legalized bribery.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: skydivingninja on January 18, 2012, 01:47:23 PM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/sopa-livesand-mpaa-calls-protests-an-abuse-of-power.ars

Right.  Because backing the bill by pumping money into congress because you can't adapt to a changing world isn't an abuse of power, but peaceful protesting of legislation that could destroy the first amendment on the Internet is.  Okay. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 18, 2012, 02:02:35 PM
Former Senator Dodd is such a piece of shit.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 02:27:15 PM
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE: ENGAGED



Well, two things come to mind here....

1. Google DOES make a shit-load of money from ads on sites that serve up pirated stuff.  That is a fact.

2. The DNS blocking portion of the bill, the thing that everyone was supposedly most upset about, has been removed.

So, if we all agree that internet piracy is a bad thing (because we all agree on that, right?  :) ) And if we all agree that it should be stopped, and if the language in the bill that most people were up in arms about has been removed from the bill, then what has everyone chosen as their new rationale for being against the bill?

Be honest:  How many of you have actually taken the time to READ THE BILL? (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf)

It's 78 pages long, and some of it is pretty dense with the language of lawyers, but I have personally read the entire thing.  Frankly, the majority of the opposition that I've read here and elsewhere seems like fairly uninformed hyperbole.

Something tells me that no matter what kind of law they try to write, if it's going to interfere with people continuing to download (and not pay for) music, movies and games, the reaction is going to be the same. 



DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE: DISENGAGED

edited: took out specifically named websites from which Google earns money from ads.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 18, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/sopa-livesand-mpaa-calls-protests-an-abuse-of-power.ars

Right.  Because backing the bill by pumping money into congress because you can't adapt to a changing world isn't an abuse of power, but peaceful protesting of legislation that could destroy the first amendment on the Internet is.  Okay.

I mean technically, he's right; the reason the protest has become so widespread is because you have bigwigs that disseminate information about it so easily, and have the money to do so.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 18, 2012, 02:55:06 PM
1. Google DOES make a shit-load of money from ads on sites like The Pirate Bay and RapidShare, etc.  That is a fact.


Huh? Just checking it now, TPB runs ads through Z5X, not Adsense, and Rapidshare doesn't even have ads.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 18, 2012, 02:58:21 PM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/sopa-livesand-mpaa-calls-protests-an-abuse-of-power.ars

Right.  Because backing the bill by pumping money into congress because you can't adapt to a changing world isn't an abuse of power, but peaceful protesting of legislation that could destroy the first amendment on the Internet is.  Okay.

I mean technically, he's right; the reason the protest has become so widespread is because you have bigwigs that disseminate information about it so easily, and have the money to do so.

It's about time moneyed interests are actually on the right side of an important issue.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 03:00:24 PM
1. Google DOES make a shit-load of money from ads on sites like The Pirate Bay and RapidShare, etc.  That is a fact.


Huh? Just checking it now, TPB runs ads through Z5X, not Adsense, and Rapidshare doesn't even have ads.

ETC. <--see that 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 18, 2012, 03:03:50 PM
I'm sorry, but that seems like justifying saying, "Lots of animals can fly, like cats, dogs, etc."

And that made me laugh.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2012, 03:06:16 PM
Seems that it needs emphasis.......

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE: ENGAGED
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 18, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
I'm just saying, it's easy to say "oh all these sites use Adsense", but the major players don't, and if you go to most of the torrent/seedier websites, they're not using it either. That's not to say Google doesn't have a moneyed interest in the matter, but I have a hard time believing it's a very large factor.


2. The DNS blocking portion of the bill, the thing that everyone was supposedly most upset about, has been removed.

Even without that, you still have search engine blacklisting, ad refusal, and payment embargo from US customers. All of those are obscenely heavy handed actions given the vague definitions of what qualifies.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: yorost on January 18, 2012, 03:22:18 PM
Seems that it needs emphasis.......

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE: ENGAGED
I hate that something like this needs to be pointed out.  I used to get in really stupid arguments here because I would argue a point counter to what I believe,  To me, a discussion is about arguing for any and all sides, how else can you understand your own opinions fully?

Ah.... /support /rant?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 18, 2012, 03:24:15 PM
What's the point in posting argument points if no one's going to discuss them? Just because you're playing devil's advocate doesn't mean there's nothing to be gained by discussing it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: yorost on January 18, 2012, 03:26:49 PM
It's a way to analyze your own stance, a way to solidify arguments.  It helps you take an abstract look into what other people might be thinking, which can help you understand their points.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jaffa on January 18, 2012, 03:47:01 PM
READ THE BILL? (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf)

Thank you.  I asked for this thirty replies ago. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 04:33:50 PM
If only people were as passionate against the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I was basically coming in to to post this.

Everyone on the internet is upset about a bill that won't be signed into law. Menawhile, during the same period people are getting their panties in a bunch. Obama signs the bill which basically does away with the right of habeus corpus if you're considered a terrorist. 

I mean, it's just boggling.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on January 18, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Terrorists bother me. Pre-teens pirating high school musical don't.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Diewithyourbootson on January 18, 2012, 05:11:43 PM
Here is a good vid from Khan Academy explaining SOPA
https://youtu.be/tzqMoOk9NWc
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 05:13:48 PM
Terrorists bother me. Pre-teens pirating high school musical don't.

Ya, becuase that's the only kind of piracy that occurs on line...

There's far more pirates than there are terrorists - and we have our reason why!
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on January 18, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
I completely agree with Scheavo, this one girl talked with me and she just kept ranting on and on about how bad this was, and I just kept telling her "It won't get passed", her response was always WHAT IF IT DOES THOUGH, IT'LL BE AGAINST OUR RIGHTS RAGHHHHHHHH.
And for an update, Senator Thune came to Madison, SD for a town hall meeting to talk about it, and said he will not support it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: orcus116 on January 18, 2012, 05:26:28 PM
DOWN WITH SOUP PIPES

I lost it.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 18, 2012, 06:44:50 PM
If only people were as passionate against the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I was basically coming in to to post this.

Everyone on the internet is upset about a bill that won't be signed into law. Menawhile, during the same period people are getting their panties in a bunch. Obama signs the bill which basically does away with the right of habeus corpus if you're considered a terrorist. 

I mean, it's just boggling.
I think I've established my hard-on for civil liberties issues in this forum by now, but I still think it's a good thing that Internetters are rallying against this. Would I rather this amount of attention be aimed toward something like that? Of course! But I'm still happy to see what's happening now.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 18, 2012, 07:10:35 PM
Shit.











Just.












Got.












Real.
















(https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8016/imagegjgh.jpg)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on January 18, 2012, 07:28:49 PM
Love how so many idiots think SOPA would just straight up block everything on the internet.  I mean I'm against SOPA but god damn people, learn what it actually does.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 07:48:23 PM
If only people were as passionate against the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I was basically coming in to to post this.

Everyone on the internet is upset about a bill that won't be signed into law. Menawhile, during the same period people are getting their panties in a bunch. Obama signs the bill which basically does away with the right of habeus corpus if you're considered a terrorist. 

I mean, it's just boggling.
I think I've established my hard-on for civil liberties issues in this forum by now, but I still think it's a good thing that Internetters are rallying against this. Would I rather this amount of attention be aimed toward something like that? Of course! But I'm still happy to see what's happening now.

All that's happening are a bunch of people are trying to protect something they like, for selfish reasons. No one thinks they're a terrorist, or could ever be labeled a terrorist, so they don't give a shit. It has nothing to do with principle. If it was due to principle, these websites would have done the same thing when Obama signed the defense bill


Btw, I'm not describing you, but the general attitude of the masses, are seen by the reaction to SOPA/PIPA and the reaction to the NDAA/Patriot Act, etc. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 18, 2012, 07:54:21 PM
I agree with your assertions that a principled approach would be far more beneficial and that these mega-sites have clear business reasons to oppose SOPA/PIPA.

I still think what's happened is pretty good, though.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jamesman42 on January 18, 2012, 07:55:43 PM
I called a representative LIKE A BOSK

Tried to call 2 others but one's voicemail was full and the other line was busy.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 18, 2012, 10:16:57 PM
I agree with your assertions that a principled approach would be far more beneficial and that these mega-sites have clear business reasons to oppose SOPA/PIPA.

I still think what's happened is pretty good, though.

In some manner of speaking, I like what happened today too. It's a great showing of democracy, and a very interesting showing of the power of internet sites. It's just a shame that it feels like the majority of complaints made against SOPA are so lousy, and that a large amount of the fear involved is extremely conservative and self-interested (and I'm not talking about just the companies, but a lot of people who are against it). There's a long road between America and China, and there's two checks on congressional power that people are completely forgetting. Even if the worst of the fears about this law became law, I sorta highly doubt it would last long. I use today as proof, where sites simply changing themselves was enough to create a huge political event.



Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on January 19, 2012, 06:11:01 AM
1. Google DOES make a shit-load of money from ads on sites like The Pirate Bay and RapidShare, etc.  That is a fact.


Huh? Just checking it now, TPB runs ads through Z5X, not Adsense, and Rapidshare doesn't even have ads.

OK, edited the original post and removed the specific names of sites.  The fact stands.  Google DOES earn money on ads placed on *some* websites that serve up pirated content.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on January 19, 2012, 06:44:32 AM
Even if the worst of the fears about this law became law, I sorta highly doubt it would last long.

so what, they're just going to go through all this trouble of passing this law, and then just forget about it?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on January 19, 2012, 07:12:04 AM
Quote
Today was nuts, right?

Google launched a petition.  Wikipedia voted to shut itself off.  Senators' websites went down just from the sheer surge of voters trying to write them.   NYC and SF geeks had protests that packed city blocks.

You made history today: nothing like this has ever happened before.  Tech companies and users teamed up.  Tens of millions of people who make the internet what it is joined together to defend their freedoms.  The free network defended itself.  Whatever you call it, the bottom line is clear: from today forward, it will be much harder to mess up the internet.

The really crazy part?  We might even win.

Approaching Monday's crucial Senate vote there are now 35 Senators publicly opposing PIPA.  Last week there were 5.   And it just takes just 41 solid "no" votes to permanently stall PIPA (and SOPA) in the Senate.  What seemed like miles away a few weeks ago is now within reach.

But don't trust predictions.  The forces behind SOPA & PIPA (mostly movie companies) can make small changes to these bills until they know they have the votes to pass.  Members of Congress know SOPA & PIPA are unpopular, but they don't understand why--so they're easily duped by superficial changes.  The Senate returns next week, and the next few days are critical.  Here are two things to think about:

1. Plan on calling your Senator every day next week.  Pick up the phone each morning and call your Senators' offices, until they vote "no" on cloture.  If your site participated today, consider running a "Call the Senate" link all next week. 

2. Tomorrow, drop in at your Senators' district offices.  We don't have a cool map widget to show you the offices nearest you (we're too exhausted! any takers?).  So do it the old fashioned way: use Google, or the phonebook to find the address, and just walk in, say you oppose PIPA, and urge the Senator to vote "no" on cloture.  These drop-in visits make our spectacular online protests more tangible and credible. 

That's it for now. Be proud and stay on it!
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on January 19, 2012, 11:27:10 AM
Even if the worst of the fears about this law became law, I sorta highly doubt it would last long.

so what, they're just going to go through all this trouble of passing this law, and then just forget about it?
No, the Supreme Court would slam it for the unConstitutional piece of crap that it is.  Checks and Balances.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jaffa on January 19, 2012, 11:54:56 AM
Even if the worst of the fears about this law became law, I sorta highly doubt it would last long.

so what, they're just going to go through all this trouble of passing this law, and then just forget about it?
No, the Supreme Court would slam it for the unConstitutional piece of crap that it is.  Checks and Balances.

Or this exact same public outcry would happen, except infinitely more intense, at the first signs of censorship. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on January 19, 2012, 11:55:48 AM
Even if the worst of the fears about this law became law, I sorta highly doubt it would last long.

so what, they're just going to go through all this trouble of passing this law, and then just forget about it?
No, the Supreme Court would slam it for the unConstitutional piece of crap that it is.  Checks and Balances.

Or this exact same public outcry would happen, except infinitely more intense, at the first signs of censorship.
Or both  :P
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 19, 2012, 12:30:14 PM
Even if the worst of the fears about this law became law, I sorta highly doubt it would last long.

so what, they're just going to go through all this trouble of passing this law, and then just forget about it?
No, the Supreme Court would slam it for the unConstitutional piece of crap that it is.  Checks and Balances.

Or this exact same public outcry would happen, except infinitely more intense, at the first signs of censorship.
Or both  :P

Exactly. You see, the sorta good thing about slimy crappy politicians who are only interested in their career as a politician, means they can be sensitive to huge public pressure. A lot of sponsors of the bill have already pulled their support.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 19, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
So MegaUpload is gone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html?_r=1
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Sigz on January 19, 2012, 01:44:17 PM
What are they being charged with? It's all user uploaded and they seem to comply with DMCA filings.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 19, 2012, 01:49:01 PM
Not entirely sure, but apparently it's the result of a two year investigation.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: AcidLameLTE on January 19, 2012, 02:48:47 PM
https://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/2719223/megaupload-criminal-copyright-justice-department-conspiracy

Quote
The United States Justice Department filed charges against MegaUpload today, calling the file-sharing service an "international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy." Founder Kim Dotcom and three MegaUpload executives were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand at the request of the US government under provisional arrest warrants, and the DOJ describes three other execs as "at large."

The complaint alleges that MegaUpload, founder Kim Dotcom, and his team are responsible for $175 million in "criminal proceeds" and "more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners." Specifically, Kim Dotcom and six of his executives are charged with running "the Mega conspiracy websites" under a business model "expressly designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works." The DOJ also says MegaUpload also developed its uploader rewards program as a means of laundering money.

The complaint charges Dotcom, his executives, the MegaUpload Limited company and a second company called Vestor Limited which Dotcom used to shield his personal assets. Specifically, the charges are:

engaging in a racketeering conspiracy
conspiring to commit copyright infringement
conspiring to commit money laundering
two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement
The DOJ has also issued more than 20 search warrants in the US and eight other countries, seized more than $50m in assets in the US, Netherlands, and Canada, and seized more than 18 domain names associated with MegaUpload. The investigation was led by the FBI with broad international assistance from New Zealand, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, and the Philippines.

The charges and the arrests come just a few weeks after MegaUpload itself filed suit against Universal Music Group for having a controversial promotional video featuring Kanye West, will.i.am, and other celebrities pulled from YouTube — it appears that battle was just a minor skirmish before a much broader international war. The enforcement effort also comes just one day after the internet community launched massive protests against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act in the United States, a law which would grant the government the ability to block sites like MegaUpload from the US internet. While SOPA has been tabled for the moment, the MegaUpload case should prove to be a flashpoint for the issue in the months to come: both an example of how large the claimed piracy problem has become and how the US can already enforce its laws with broad international support. Get ready for a ride.

Update: Rick Shera, a New Zealand-based attorney, reports on Twitter that Kim Dotcom's mansion is blockaded by police at all entrances. No escaping this one, it seems.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: chknptpie on January 19, 2012, 03:02:54 PM
I read that in response hackers shutdown DOJ website?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 19, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
:|
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: snapple on January 19, 2012, 03:30:10 PM
Sounds like more than just SOPA related shit.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ClairvoyantCat on January 19, 2012, 03:39:23 PM
I read that in response hackers shutdown DOJ website?

As badass as it is, I feel that pulling shit like that will ultimately be detrimental to the cause of preventing things like this from happening in the future. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 19, 2012, 03:47:08 PM
Yup.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: JayOctavarium on January 19, 2012, 03:48:57 PM
shit's gettin' real yo
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: orcus116 on January 19, 2012, 04:25:51 PM
This is hilarious.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 19, 2012, 04:32:00 PM
Sounds like more than just SOPA related shit.

It's not SOPA related at all as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: JayOctavarium on January 19, 2012, 04:37:03 PM
https://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike

Quote
Update: Anonymous says they've also knocked off the RIAA's site—looks down for us at the moment as well.

Update 2: Universal Music Group has also fallen off an e-cliff.

Update 3: Goodbye for now, MPAA.org.

Update 4: Affected sites are bouncing in and out of life, and are at the very least super slow to load. Anon agents are currently trying to coordinate their DDoS attacks in the same direction via IRC.

Update 5: The US Copyright Office joins the list.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 19, 2012, 04:39:10 PM
Oh dear. I hope this doesn't get too out of control.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 19, 2012, 04:40:38 PM
Hope DTF isn't next :p
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jaffa on January 19, 2012, 04:48:11 PM
I read that in response hackers shutdown DOJ website?

As badass as it is, I feel that pulling shit like that will ultimately be detrimental to the cause of preventing things like this from happening in the future.

Seriously.  They think they're flexing their muscles and showing off how cool they are, but all they're really doing is providing more and more reasons to police the internet.  It's like responding to increased airport security by hijacking a plane: ha ha, very funny, but you just made the problem that much worse. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: dethklok09 on January 19, 2012, 04:52:55 PM
(https://gifsforum.com/images/gif/dis%20gon%20be%20good/grand/this_gon_b_gud_gif.gif)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: JayOctavarium on January 19, 2012, 04:53:46 PM
 :omg:

Quote
Update 9: Major record label BMI is down for the count.

Update 10: La résistance est international—French copyright authority HADOPI bites the dust under Anon pressure.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: AcidLameLTE on January 19, 2012, 04:54:25 PM
(https://gifsforum.com/images/gif/dis%20gon%20be%20good/grand/this_gon_b_gud_gif.gif)
I don't know why but the fact that you never get to see him sit down on the chair has always really bothered me.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: dethklok09 on January 19, 2012, 04:56:40 PM
(https://gifsforum.com/images/gif/dis%20gon%20be%20good/grand/this_gon_b_gud_gif.gif)
I don't know why but the fact that you never get to see him sit down on the chair has always really bothered me.
great now it's actually starting to bother me a bit lol
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 19, 2012, 06:39:48 PM
Sounds like more than just SOPA related shit.

It's not SOPA related at all as far as I can tell.

Course it's not SOPA related... SOPA isn't even a law yet.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 19, 2012, 06:47:35 PM
Sounds like more than just SOPA related shit.

It's not SOPA related at all as far as I can tell.

Course it's not SOPA related... SOPA isn't even a law yet.

Yet? I thought it got totally blocked already?

And yeah, a quick look at Extra Credits who've been following everything says that Megaupload is gone via DMCA. Damn shame though, I'm gonna miss Megavideo (assuming they're included in this packaged deal).
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on January 19, 2012, 07:00:23 PM
Sounds like more than just SOPA related shit.

It's not SOPA related at all as far as I can tell.

Course it's not SOPA related... SOPA isn't even a law yet.

Yet? I thought it got totally blocked already?

Bad choice of words, just meant it's not law.

I mean, I do have some issues with this takedown myself. They'll still have a chance to prove their case in court, but I'm not sure arresting them before hand, and shutting down the site, without due process, is in order. That's really my main beef with SOPA too, but it's almost more systemic in our current judicial system. I remember Dominique-Strauss Kahn, when that scandal broke, got arrested because charges were brought up against him, but then everything dissolved into nothing. I think the French were right to complain about our current order of things.

Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Aramatheis on January 19, 2012, 07:29:39 PM
Hope DTF isn't next :p

same bro
we're a high-profile target.


this site contains music experts from all over the world.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: lordxizor on January 20, 2012, 06:17:38 AM
If Megaupload was taken down by existing laws they must have pretty good evidence that they were in violation of existing laws. Meaning they were asked to take something down by a person who could prove they have a copyright on the material and they didn't do it in a timely manner (whatever is allowed by law). Sucks, but when you run a site that is probably 50% or more used for uploading copyrighted material, it's really only a matter of time before this happens.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2012, 07:22:27 AM
Hope DTF isn't next :p

You shut your mouth!
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Volk9 on January 20, 2012, 08:29:48 AM
(https://gifsforum.com/images/gif/dis%20gon%20be%20good/grand/this_gon_b_gud_gif.gif)
I don't know why but the fact that you never get to see him sit down on the chair has always really bothered me.

I was thinking the exact same thing
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: AcidLameLTE on January 20, 2012, 09:40:43 AM
https://maddox.xmission.com/

There's quite a good article about SOPA there...surprisingly (not that I don't like Maddox or anything).
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2012, 11:36:20 AM
AWWWW YEAH!


https://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technology/SOPA_PIPA_postponed/index.htm

Great first step
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 20, 2012, 04:23:07 PM
That's good news.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ResultsMayVary on January 20, 2012, 08:49:27 PM
I heard that Rep. Lamar Smith, who was mainly behind SOPA, has introduced another bill called HR 1981. I haven't read into it yet, but apparently its along the same vein.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on January 21, 2012, 12:21:32 AM
Is that postponement "indefinite" for now?
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on January 21, 2012, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Chris Dodd, former US senator and current Asshole-in-Chief of the MPAA
Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Implode on January 21, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
 :| Well fuck them.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on January 21, 2012, 12:51:56 PM
Fuck our politicians. I'm so sick of all of them.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jamesman42 on January 21, 2012, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: Chris Dodd, former US senator and current Asshole-in-Chief of the MPAA
Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

Fuck you.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Dark Castle on January 21, 2012, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: Chris Dodd, former US senator and current Asshole-in-Chief of the MPAA
Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

Fuck you.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: yeshaberto on January 21, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Chris Dodd, former US senator and current Asshole-in-Chief of the MPAA
Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

Fuck you.

Seriously?   
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jamesman42 on January 21, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
Not antigoon, the guy he is quoting.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Super Dude on January 21, 2012, 01:24:26 PM
Fuck our politicians. I'm so sick of all of them.

I don't think that was the point of showing that quote...
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on January 21, 2012, 07:51:13 PM
So Bill Maher is a douche https://youtu.be/H7bIDBD6eus
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: 7StringedBeast on January 21, 2012, 08:10:45 PM
Fuck our politicians. I'm so sick of all of them.

I don't think that was the point of showing that quote...

I don't care.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: ResultsMayVary on January 21, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
Holy shit...  :|
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Jaffa on January 22, 2012, 12:01:32 AM
So Bill Maher is a douche https://youtu.be/H7bIDBD6eus

He may be a douche, but he is not ENTIRELY wrong.  A lot - I'd like to believe the majority - of people protesting SOPA were, indeed, trying to protect the free and open internet.  But I don't think anybody can deny (with a straight face) that at least SOME protesters were mostly outraged that they might lose their access to free downloads. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: KevShmev on January 22, 2012, 07:40:35 AM
Bill Maher is a douche for many reasons completely unrelated to this matter.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on January 22, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Nah actually I was okay with him until this. He didn't say anything that annoyed me before but then again I don't watch his show regularly.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 22, 2012, 12:32:01 PM
Bill Maher is a douche for many reasons completely unrelated to this matter.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: TL on January 22, 2012, 02:10:06 PM
Bill Maher is a douche for many reasons completely unrelated to this matter.
This. He's a slimy douche, and a partisan hack. He's the kind of guy who you you don't want on your side of the argument.

For the matter with the MPAA and the unabashed bribing of politicians, that is very fucked up. I mean, many people already knew that sort of thing was going on, but for them to be so shameless about it, and to more or less admit that they don't think it's wrong. More than ever, I hope that the next decade or so sees smaller, more artistically driven groups gain more prominence in the film industry. Anything that reduces the influence of the MPAA and RIAA, who are both extremely corrupt and out of touch, is a good thing.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: MasterShakezula on January 22, 2012, 02:26:15 PM
More than ever, I hope that the next decade or so sees smaller, more artistically driven groups gain more prominence in the film industry. Anything that reduces the influence of the MPAA and RIAA, who are both extremely corrupt and out of touch, is a good thing.

I'm pretty sure most of us here would appreciate that.

Doubt it'd happen though, because it'd mean less payola for politicians. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Rathma on March 15, 2012, 11:39:58 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on March 15, 2012, 11:53:38 AM
So Bill Maher is a douche https://youtu.be/H7bIDBD6eus

He may be a douche, but he is not ENTIRELY wrong.  A lot - I'd like to believe the majority - of people protesting SOPA were, indeed, trying to protect the free and open internet.  But I don't think anybody can deny (with a straight face) that at least SOME protesters were mostly outraged that they might lose their access to free downloads.
Sorry for the late reply, but the majority of people who would be pissed off about not being able to steel stuff on the internet would easily get around SOPA or any other minor roadblock our corporate masters wish to throw out there.  I don't think anybody is really concerned that SOPA would prevent them from DL'ing at will. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 15, 2012, 01:31:58 PM
So Bill Maher is a douche https://youtu.be/H7bIDBD6eus (https://youtu.be/H7bIDBD6eus)

He may be a douche, but he is not ENTIRELY wrong.  A lot - I'd like to believe the majority - of people protesting SOPA were, indeed, trying to protect the free and open internet.  But I don't think anybody can deny (with a straight face) that at least SOME protesters were mostly outraged that they might lose their access to free downloads.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Chino on March 15, 2012, 05:53:52 PM
Bill Maher is a douche for many reasons completely unrelated to this matter.

Please explain how Bill Maher is a douche.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on March 15, 2012, 06:14:14 PM
So Bill Maher is a douche https://youtu.be/H7bIDBD6eus

He may be a douche, but he is not ENTIRELY wrong.  A lot - I'd like to believe the majority - of people protesting SOPA were, indeed, trying to protect the free and open internet.  But I don't think anybody can deny (with a straight face) that at least SOME protesters were mostly outraged that they might lose their access to free downloads.
Sorry for the late reply, but the majority of people who would be pissed off about not being able to steel stuff on the internet would easily get around SOPA or any other minor roadblock our corporate masters wish to throw out there.  I don't think anybody is really concerned that SOPA would prevent them from DL'ing at will.

Oh it's gonna take a couple of month but the leechers will regroup somewhere. They're amazing like ants that way :lol
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on March 15, 2012, 08:12:09 PM
I think even Bill Maher would agree that Bill Maher is a douche.

Aside from that, his partisan grandstanding can be tiring.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on March 15, 2012, 08:47:07 PM
I watched some clips from Politically Incorrect the other night, and I'd forgotten how much better that was than Realtime.  PC was a panel show, and Bill Maher was actually a very good moderator in that format.  Realtime is the Bill Maher show, where he spends a little time interacting with some guests.  Big difference..
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Nel on March 15, 2012, 10:22:33 PM
I'm not really one to argue politics, but I did see this and thought it may be relevant. After SOPA, this appears to be their next step:

https://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57397452-261/riaa-chief-isps-to-start-policing-copyright-by-july-12/

Wasn't sure if it was worth a topic or not.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: XJDenton on March 16, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0&feature=player

This made me laugh.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Rathma on March 16, 2012, 01:41:42 PM
That has not been posted yet.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: XJDenton on March 16, 2012, 01:54:11 PM
Liar. :p
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Rathma on March 16, 2012, 02:08:34 PM
 :D
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Progmetty on April 24, 2012, 12:18:04 PM
Got an email from the same people we helped take down SoPa. I don't understand this new problem:

Quote
On Thursday, Congress is scheduled to begin consideration of H.R. 3523, the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011" (CISPA).

This bill is the next great threat to our privacy over the Internet, but unlike the fight against SOPA and PIPA, Internet giants like Facebook and Twitter are openly supporting CISPA.

And as I write this, House Leadership is quietly working hard to gain your representative's support, including holding classified, "members only" meetings to make their case.

I'm counting on your immediate action to halt this bill's progress and protect our privacy from the government's ever-expanding reach.

CISPA is promoted as a harmless bill to facilitate the voluntary exchange of information between the private sector and government intelligence agencies.

In reality, it would allow the transfer of vast amounts of data, including personally identifiable information, to any agency in the federal government - including the National Security Agency.

The overly broad legislation has the potential to override all existing privacy laws due to a "notwithstanding any other provision in law" clause that grants companies immunity for sharing your information with the government.

So I need you to call Rep. Quico Canseco at (202) 225-4511 and demand a "NO" vote on H.R. 3523.

Tell Congress to also reject any other legislation regarding our online privacy that does not adequately defend the rights of Americans by including strong civil liberties protections.

With a vote coming up this week, you and I don't have a moment to lose.

So please call Congress right away.

In Liberty,



Tim Shoemaker
Director of Legislation


P.S. CISPA, the latest plan from Congress to further infringe on our privacy, has the support of Internet giants like Facebook and Twitter.

So it's up to C4L grassroots members to fight back and stop H.R. 3523, the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011."

Please call Rep. Quico Canseco at (202) 225-4511 and demand a "NO" vote on H.R. 3523 and any similar legislation!

Me no get the new problem.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on April 24, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
I'm not familiar with it, other than the author's remarkably biased summary, but it sounds to me like they're wanting to further codify (and I suppose expand) the immunity from prosecution that the tel-coms were granted a couple of years ago.  In a nutshell, Uncle Sammy tells the folks at Comcast "I want every bit of information related to John Q. Citizen, and no I don't have a warrant."  Comcast hands over the info, but in doing so violates a half dozen other laws protecting JQC's privacy.  This bill would prevent Comcast from being sued or prosecuted. 

More of the silly war on terror bullshit, and there's nothing anybody's going to do to stop it.  People will fight against laws that are intended only to deter piracy, but mention terror or Muslims and suddenly everybody's a patriot.  Until Americans actually grow some balls for a change, we'll keep seeing more and more of this. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on April 24, 2012, 02:24:54 PM
Quote
Tell Congress to also reject any other legislation regarding our online privacy that does not adequately defend the rights of Americans by including strong civil liberties protections.

 :lol What online privacy? Private companies, corporations and personal decisions threw that out years ago.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on April 25, 2012, 01:19:15 PM
The term "online privacy" is pretty much an oxymoron.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: PraXis on April 25, 2012, 02:54:53 PM
CISPA = SOPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=btUTCzoSNAY
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on April 25, 2012, 07:23:08 PM
Again, not defending CISPA, but what can the government do to be able to provide cyber defense? This is a rather serious issue, and could be vastly important for national security, so the government does have a role, but any role suggested is automatically demonized and reduced to the same overreaction.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: kirksnosehair on April 26, 2012, 01:18:42 PM
But Free Speech!
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Rathma on April 27, 2012, 08:41:03 AM
So the government would be able to read all my mails? Veto pls.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Rathma on April 27, 2012, 08:42:18 AM
Not that I would expect a veto if it passed the Senate, since Obama has pretty much supported all recent pushes for America to be a more authoritarian state :/
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: PraXis on April 27, 2012, 08:59:36 AM
(https://mikeduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/obey-2.jpg)
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: El Barto on April 27, 2012, 10:43:35 AM
Again, not defending CISPA, but what can the government do to be able to provide cyber defense? This is a rather serious issue, and could be vastly important for national security, so the government does have a role, but any role suggested is automatically demonized and reduced to the same overreaction.
Which is of course where it started.  And then they slapped on any other provision that they thought they might like, effectively expanding it to all activities online.
Quote
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

And now we have that dickhead Obama threatening to veto the thing,  thereby taking some of the pressure off of the Senate opposition, and in the end he won't veto it anyway since they'll slip some executive powers in there for him to wield. 
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on April 27, 2012, 10:53:51 AM
This really seems so much worse than SOPA.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: PraXis on April 27, 2012, 11:34:02 AM
This really seems so much worse than SOPA.

That's how it works... big bill gets voted down (lots of media coverage), then bigger bill gets passed quickly (much less media coverage). All by design.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: antigoon on April 27, 2012, 11:39:44 AM
...Also we don't have all of Silicon Valley on our side this time.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Scheavo on April 27, 2012, 12:36:38 PM
Again, not defending CISPA, but what can the government do to be able to provide cyber defense? This is a rather serious issue, and could be vastly important for national security, so the government does have a role, but any role suggested is automatically demonized and reduced to the same overreaction.
Which is of course where it started.  And then they slapped on any other provision that they thought they might like, effectively expanding it to all activities online.
Quote
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

And now we have that dickhead Obama threatening to veto the thing,  thereby taking some of the pressure off of the Senate opposition, and in the end he won't veto it anyway since they'll slip some executive powers in there for him to wield.

Again, are those not valid areas for police powers? Hacking is one of the major problems I was talking about, and can turn into a security threat when we're talking research and development. Protection of Individuals? Sounds maybe more like witness protection? Again, seems like a legitimate area for government activity. Protection of children? I don't think it's some "epidemic," but there are obviously area's where child sex trafficking is happening, and I have no problems with trying to put a stop to it (though, I would also say legalize prostitution, which is probably much more effective than anything like CISPA).

I won't defend CISPA, because seeing as how it's passing through this Congress, it's almost assuredly corrupt, and therefor contains loopholes and provisions that go too far. However, people don't attack those, they attack even the general idea of the Bill, and that seems very wrong to me.
Title: Re: SOPA/"Protect IP" Act
Post by: Rathma on April 27, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
This really seems so much worse than SOPA.

That's how it works... big bill gets voted down (lots of media coverage), then bigger bill gets passed quickly (much less media coverage). All by design.

Are the same people pushing CISPA?