SOPA/"Protect IP" Act

[MetalMike06]

Has anybody heard of this yet?

https://vimeo.com/31100268

[jsem]

I've heard of it. It must be defeated.

[chknptpie]

I haven't really had time to read or research about this. Is it really as damning as people make it out to be?

[kirksnosehair]

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)

[MetalMike06]

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

[antigoon]

I have not heard one good thing about this.

[kirksnosehair]

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.   

[kirksnosehair]

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.

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

For example, Aaron Schwartz, the founder of "Demand Progress" (one of the groups that FightForTheFuture.org openly embraces) was recently in some hot water....(<--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.

[Dark Castle]

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

[MasterShakezula]

I see people are rather worried/outraged, but is it actually going to cause harm to y'all beyond inconvenience?

[TL]

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.

[TL]

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.

[El Barto]

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. 

[snapple]

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.

[faemir]

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.

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.

[faemir]

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

[TL]

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.

[El Barto]

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. 

[snapple]

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.

qfmft

[faemir]

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)

[TL]

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.

[The Dark Master]

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.

[carl320]

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:

Need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet MT @jeffreyrodman: Where do you stand on Internet censoring and #SOPA?

[El Barto]

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. 

[faemir]

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

[TL]

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

[faemir]

Turns out this bill was introduced by that Texan representative who doesn't believe in modern medicine.

That explains everything.

[Dark Castle]

Turns out this bill was introduced by that Texan representative who doesn't believe in modern medicine.

That explains everything.

[skydivingninja]

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.

[Nekov]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[Genowyn]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[antigoon]

All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

[Genowyn]

All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.