SOPA

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

EL PRESIDENTE

Username Retired in Honor of Lanny.
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
50,346
Likes
22,532
Points
113
Stop Online Privacy Act. What's your position. I'm for it, I am pro-intellectual property rights and generally anti-piracy.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.[2] Now before the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act.[3]

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]
Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws especially against foreign websites.[5] They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to buy illegal prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.[6]

Opponents say that it violates the First Amendment,[7] is Internet censorship,[8] will cripple the Internet,[9] and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech.[7][10] Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and even proposed service blackouts by major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next Congressional hearing on the matter.

:MARIS61:
 
Stop Online Privacy Act. What's your position. I'm for it, I am pro-intellectual property rights and generally anti-piracy.

:MARIS61:

You're pro-intellectual property rights yet you copy and pasted intellectual property without giving credit to the original author?
 
It's another move orchestrated by DHS to shut down businesses, political parties... without due process.
 
i will be recording vhs tapes of everything i watch, so in 20 years, if i get a hankering for "bones" i will be allowed to watch it on laserdisk without breaking federal law
 
I would think the #1 website for abetting copyright infringement is Google search. Are they going to shut that down? Will I be allowed to sue Google if a painting I copyright appears in their Image search?

Or is it the fact that Google isn't "dedicated" to copyright infringement? If you want to argue that, then you have to prove also that that applications like Frostwire are "dedicated" to copyright infringement, when in fact they are not. They are sometimes used for completely legal file sharing. Guns don't kill people--people kill people. Web searches don't steal--people steal.

Is it some sort of magic ratio? If 50%+ of your site usage is used for copyright infringement, does it make the site illegal and liable? If so, how do you measure it? Does Google have to provide usage statistics to every court that they get sued under? Would Google really do that, or would they just say "fuck it" and drastically limit their search results?

And what happens when the illegal sites just throw up a site based in some country that doesn't give a fuck about US law?

I just don't see how you can enforce this. Every solution just creates more hassles for legal companies, while the shady sites will just innovate new ways to circumvent the law.
 
pirate away, I suppose. The main thing it would act is as a deterrant for sites to put in copy-protection type of measures, much like how videos on youtube (and now facebook) will disable audiotracks of music that is the copyright of a music company. They are clearly aiming this at major streams of illegal content. even if the illegal sites set up out of the country, SOPA could kill its revunue by killing its advertising network, then what's the point.
 
pirate away, I suppose. The main thing it would act is as a deterrant for sites to put in copy-protection type of measures, much like how videos on youtube (and now facebook) will disable audiotracks of music that is the copyright of a music company. They are clearly aiming this at major streams of illegal content.

Sure. That's where they are aiming. But that's not what I'll be aiming at with my armies of lawyers and my copyrighted painting that Google is stealing. I just don't see how you prosecute some without persecuting Google.

Even if the illegal sites set up out of the country, SOPA could kill its revunue by killing its advertising network, then what's the point.

As an American consumer, if I can buy an illegal version of Justin Bieber's latest hit or watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones for $.25 streamed from Bosnia, what's this law going to do to stop me? It may take away ad revenue. But they'll just come up with another way to do it.

Personally, I've always felt the best way to eliminate theft is for each industry to:

#1. Get rid of middle men (ie, music executives, Netflix, Directv, etc) exclusives and go straight to the consumer via download for fee. I should be able to go to GameOfThrones.com, pay $10, and be able to download the series right from their site. Louis CK did much the same thing recently and pocketed a million bucks for a one-night performance. I do this right now with NBA League Pass Broadband. I buy tons of audio books from Audible.com because it's just easier than trying to steal, not because of some regulation.

#2. Doing #1 eliminates a ton of your costs. Pass those costs along to the consumer. Make it cheap enough to behave legally that the majority have no incentive to behave illegally.

The problem is that there are a huge spectrum of middle men who hate this model. It's much more comfortable for them to pressure the Justice Department and Congress to try to punish violation. But you just have to look at the music industry to see this is a losing fight for them.
 
No one wants to set up an account with 50 different media companies to download digital content. hell, they tried this with Ultraviolet and people are still complaining about it. Even if a company sets up in some place like Vantanu or wherever to set up a company, they're not going to be making any money and it would be a complete waste of time for them to distribute content if they can't make money off it.

Google image search is not stealing content, its fair use.
 
I thought SOPA is already going to be DOA since Obama said he'll veto it?
 
Reddit co-founder believes it'd be the end of their site: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/reddit-alexis-ohanian-stop-online-piracy-act/

“It’s not just Reddit,” Ohanian says in the video, “It’s every single other social media site out there would be threatened by this bill.

“It’s something we simply cannot afford to do from an economic standpoint. The tech sector is one of the few vibrant parts of the community right now and one of the few places where we out-compete the rest of the world.”

....

Just this morning, they took up the quesiton posed by Ohanian in his video: Would SOPA mean the end of Reddit?

“Probably,” redditor RorschachsMask’s wrote, “because SOPA allows them to hang a website for ONE copyright infringement. Therefore, that new kid who posts a torrent to Skyrim? We're done.”

And if somebody posts a link to Justin.tv of a Blazers game on this forum?
 
it would be up to the moderators to stop doing so. most sports sites won't let you link to illegal streams. it would target sites like that guy who was selling HD broadcasts of blazers games.
 
Last edited:
the web had a good run, now we can just view facebook and look at lolcats on our neuro implants streaming from the central net compliance office
 
yes close this site, i think people were talking about a torrent site on here once, clearly a hotbed for illegal pedo freaks
 
R.I.P. Wikipedia (and google's logo).

I guess I can't find out how old Keaunu Reaves is now. :(
 
reading my facebook wall these anti-SOPA dopes don't even know what the fuck they're complaining about. its the typical gen XYZ mindset nowadays that clings on the current wave of discussion, is heavily influenced by these marketing campaigns.


zero tech knowledge. zero business knowledge. zero intellectual property/copyright problems. the same anti-corporate/being rich is bad types that were so big in the occupy movement.

its such a hype movement.
 
Last edited:
For fucks sake, I have like 4 or 5 shares on FB of the Google Statement on this. DO YOU KNOW HOW EVIL GOOGLE IS? talking about freedom and liberty whatever the fuck, most people don't even know they're getting tracked everywhere online.

people are idiots.
 
reading my facebook wall these anti-SOPA dopes don't even know what the fuck they're complaining about. its the typical gen XYZ mindset nowadays that clings on the current wave of discussion, is heavily influenced by these marketing campaigns.


zero tech knowledge. zero business knowledge. zero intellectual property/copyright problems. the same anti-corporate/being rich is bad types that were so big in the occupy movement.

its such a hype movement.

I have several friends on FB who are e-commerce site owners, programmers and IT guys, and every one of them has posted something about how much they dislike PIPA/SOPA. Two of them are Tea Party members, one is more an OWS-type. The three smartest web companies I regularly interact with (Google, Wikipedia, Reddit) all are protesting it. My wife and I don't like it and my wife owns a software company that regularly faces piracy issues.

My personal experience doesn't seem to match your characterization.
 
I have several friends on FB who are e-commerce site owners, programmers and IT guys, and every one of them has posted something about how much they dislike PIPA/SOPA. Two of them are Tea Party members, one is more an OWS-type. The three smartest web companies I regularly interact with (Google, Wikipedia, Reddit) all are protesting it. My wife and I don't like it and my wife owns a software company that regularly faces piracy issues.

My personal experience doesn't seem to match your characterization.

SOPA only applies to foreign websites who host illegal content. No website is getting "shut down", the whole purpose in essence is to target companies who travel and set up operation outside the scope of the united states to give away free music and movies. The law disables their ad revenue banner ads, delists them since you can't file a takedown notice for them. The IT department wants a totally unregulated, but you can easily replace "stolen intellectual property" with "child pornography" and it would be the exact same bill but there would be no protest because of the marketing efforts by the tech community would fall flat. Its all smoke and mirrors. Illegal content is illegal content.

The thing is of course IT is for this, they want everything free everywhere, regardless of who created the content. Of course Google is for it, they profit via banner ads from these illegal warez sites.

but of course this is a "first amendment issue". again, most people have no idea what they're arguing against, they see buzz words and jump on the bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
i saw those pics you took at the blazer game el prez, im assuming you have written consent?
 
on tickets ive used it says on the back that the events of the game can not be disseminated in any way shape or form without prior written consent...
 
on tickets ive used it says on the back that the events of the game can not be disseminated in any way shape or form without prior written consent...

Must not have been written on my tickets. And that is not applicable to SOPA, unless I were to claim that the people in the photos were me or my employees, and set up a website on a remote island outside of the US while profiting on it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top