Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on December 21, 2011, 05:38:51 PM
-
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-through-out-ip-addresses-111221/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29 (http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-through-out-ip-addresses-111221/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29)
RIAA: Someone Else Is Pirating Through Our IP-Addresses
A few days ago we reported that no less than 6 IP-addresses registered to the RIAA had been busted for downloading copyrighted material. Quite a shocker to everyone – including the music industry group apparently – as they are now using a defense previously attempted by many alleged file-sharers. It wasn’t members of RIAA staff who downloaded these files, the RIAA insists, it was a mysterious third party vendor who unknowingly smeared the group’s good name.
Over the past week we’ve had fun looking up what governments, Fortune 500 companies, and even the most dedicated anti-piracy groups download on BitTorrent. All we had to do is put their IP-addresses into the search form on YouHaveDownloaded and hit after hit appeared.
To our surprise, we found out that even IP-addresses registered to the RIAA were showing unauthorized downloads of movies, TV-shows and software.
This curiosity was quickly picked up by other news outlets to whom the RIAA gave a rather interesting explanation. Apparently these file-sharing transactions weren’t carried out by RIAA staffers, but by a third party who’s using the RIAA IP-addresses to share and distribute files online.
“Those partial IP addresses are similar to block addresses assigned to RIAA. However, those addresses are used by a third party vendor to serve up our public Web site,” a spokesperson told CNET, adding, “As I said earlier, they are not used by RIAA staff to access the Internet.”
This is all a bit confusing. First of all, the addresses are not similar, they are simply assigned to the RIAA. Everyone can look that up here, or here.
Secondly, while we are prepared to believe that RIAA staff didn’t download these files, we are left wondering what mysterious third party did. Also, is it even allowed by the official registry to register a range of IP-addresses to your private organization, and then allow others to use these IPs?
Also, just as a bit of friendly advice, it’s generally not a good idea to let others use your organization’s addresses to browse the internet. This time it’s “just” copyrighted material up for debate, but who knows what else they may be sharing online.
Considering the RIAA’s past of suing tens of thousands of file-sharers for copyright infringement, the excuse is perhaps even more embarrassing than taking full responsibility. When some of the 20,000 plus people who were sued by the RIAA over the years used the “someone else did it” excuse this was shrugged off by the music group’s lawyers. Can these people have their money back now? We doubt it.
Whois pirating?
(http://torrentfreak.com/images/riaa.jpg)
Elsewhere, Henrik Chulu from the Free Culture blog discovered that someone at the infamous Johan Schlüter law firm downloaded the Danish movie ‘Dirch’. But Maria Fredenslund from anti-piracy group RettighedsAliancen had their excuse ready.
“We’re working for right holders, who obviously have given us permission to collect their material online as part of an investigative work,” she told Comon.dk in response.
Notably, Sarkozy is staying quiet and not attempting to justify any infringements carried out in his name. Perhaps a case of least said, soonest mended…
-
Anti SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) rap song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w6GtwOvnWM#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w6GtwOvnWM#ws)
:thumsup: :thumsup:
-
Frankly, I'm shocked at the low level of rage this bill has provoked.
I guess most people don't understand what's going on?
Basically, if this passes, it's the end of the Internet as we know it. Welcome to communist China.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/00315917151/mythbusters-adam-savage-why-protect-ip-sopa-could-destroy-internet-as-we-know-it.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/00315917151/mythbusters-adam-savage-why-protect-ip-sopa-could-destroy-internet-as-we-know-it.shtml)
MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
from the speak-up dept
One of the more interesting things that I've seen over the last few months as the SOPA/PIPA fight has become more involved, is that people I respect in the entertainment industry itself have been speaking out against the bill, and talking about how horrible it would be -- even though they work "in the industry." The latest is famed MythBuster's host Adam Savage, who recently admitted that he's a "serious copyright law geek" (in linking to Bill Patry's excellent new book, which I'll have a writeup on relatively soon). Savage is using his column space at Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/mythbuster-adam-savage-sopa-could-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-6620300) to rip apart PIPA and SOPA, urging people to call their elected officials in protest of the bills, and noting that they "would be laughable if they weren't in fact real."
Think of all the stories you've read over the past 14 years of people slapping DMCA takedowns of content that they didn't own, just because they didn't like what it had to say. One that comes to mind is Uri Gellar, the popular psychic who performed spoon bending and other tricks on TV in the 1970s. Using a DMCA claim, he had YouTube pull videos of him being humiliated during a 1973 appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, when he had no copyright claim to them at all.
This is exactly what will happen with Protect IP and SOPA. We've seen it again and again. Give people a club like this and you can kiss the Internet as you know it goodbye. It's really that bad. And it's a clear violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.
The Internet is probably the most important technological advancement of my lifetime. Its strength lies in its open architecture and its ability to allow a framework where all voices can be heard. Like the printing press before it (which states also tried to regulate, for centuries), it democratizes information, and thus it democratizes power. If we allow Congress to pass these draconian laws, we'll be joining nations like China and Iran in filtering what we allow people to see, do, and say on the Web.
Again, Savage is the kind of person that the industry is claiming needs this law -- and yet he's clearly vehemently against it. When you see the US Chamber of Commerce dump out their bogus line about "19 million jobs in IP-intensive industries," that includes Savage and all of his colleagues at MythBusters. How much longer will we let Tepp, the US Chamber of Commerce and the MPAA pretend that they represent the will of people who are actually very much against these bills and everything they represent?
Conservative Blog RedState.com
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/stopping-sopa/ (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/stopping-sopa/)
Stopping SOPA
Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
Thursday, December 22nd at 8:50PM EST
I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress.
And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid.
I wonder if the left feels that way about Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Both Marsha Blackburn and Debbie Wasserman Schults, the head of the Democratic National Committee and a Congresswoman from Florida, are cosponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act.
The Act intends to stop online piracy. The way the Act goes about doing this is, in large part, allowing Eric Holder to take control of the internet and shut down websites he does not like. It is a totalitarian response from a bipartisan coalition of Congresscritters most of whom admit they have no freaking idea how the internet even works. Don’t believe me?
In a committee hearing on SOPA, co-sponsor Mel Watts (D-NC) was really open about it saying, “I’m not a nerd” before proceeding to admit he understood nothing about the law, how the internet worked, or pretty much anything else related to it.
The legislation originated with Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX). As Neil Stevens explained in detail here the legislation will wreck terrible havoc on the internet. There is an alternative called the OPEN Act, which stands for Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act. The OPEN Act accomplishes what SOPA intends to accomplish without handing Eric Holder the power to shut down websites that make him unhappy. Another big difference is that SOPA is backed by rich men in Hollywood and the OPEN Act is backed by people who actually use the internet and know how it works.
This battle is so important — and is one of those rare fights where the left and right are united against Congress — that I suggest the left and right unite and pledge to defeat in primaries every person named as a sponsor on H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.
It’s actually a simple idea.
Everyone on the left and right who is interested should pledge $10.00 per candidate, or $321.00. If that’s too much, just pledge $10.00.
A fund should be created and the left should go out and find candidates to take on the Democrat sponsors. The right should go out and find candidates to take on the Republican sponsors. Heck, maybe Act Blue would let us on the right come by and we can all use their pre-existing platform (a platform no one on the right has even been able to really compete with. Seriously, I’m a big admirer).
The money should then be used to fund the primary challenges against the incumbent sponsors of SOPA. Let the right vet and direct the funding on the right so no one thinks the left is trying to pick the challenger and vice-versa on the left.
This might mean some allies are taken out. It might mean we take out Marsha Blackburn on the right and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the left.
But sometimes a fight is that important. Killing SOPA is that important. Letting the Attorney General of the United States shut down the internet as he wants, whether it be Eric Holder or a future John Ashcroft, should scare the mess out of every American.
Congress has proven it does not understand the internet. Perhaps they will understand brute strength against them at the ballot box.
If members of Congress do not pull their name from co-sponsorship of SOPA, the left and right should pledge to defeat each and every one of them.
Co-founder of Reddit Alexis Ohanian
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9AKObJmk34 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9AKObJmk34#ws)
-
Also, GoDaddy supports SOPA and are basically mocking people that say they're boycotting them.
The boycott started here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/)
GoDaddy doesn't give a fuck.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars)
GoDaddy seems unimpressed by the boycott so far. They made the following statement to Ars Technica: "Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA regulations."
Easy step-by-step guide to transferring all of your domains from GoDaddy:
http://blog.jeffepstein.me/post/14629857835/a-step-by-step-guide-to-transfer-domains-out-of-godaddy (http://blog.jeffepstein.me/post/14629857835/a-step-by-step-guide-to-transfer-domains-out-of-godaddy)
-
Ben Huh, "Teh CEO of Cheezburger (I Can Has Cheezburger?, FAIL Blog, The Daily What, Memebase, Know Your Meme, etc.) "
https://twitter.com/#!/benhuh/status/149965881479397376
We will move our 1,000 domains off @godaddy unless you drop support of SOPA. We love you guys, but #SOPA-is-cancer to the Free Web.
-
Automattic founder and Wordpress creator (a technology we use here at the X) Matt Mullenweg tweeted a link this morning to GoDaddyBoycott.org, a site that encourages users to sign an online petition against GoDaddy and pledge to transfer their domains away from the service. The site looks to be an extension of Fight For the Future, an anti-SOPA advocacy site.
http://godaddyboycott.org/ (http://godaddyboycott.org/)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc#ws)
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111029/07003216560/go-daddy-supports-e-parasite-legislation-even-though-its-own-site-is-dedicated-to-theft-property-under-terms-bill.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111029/07003216560/go-daddy-supports-e-parasite-legislation-even-though-its-own-site-is-dedicated-to-theft-property-under-terms-bill.shtml)
-
I'm going to need a tl;dr version of this story.
So SOPA prevents people from illegally downloading content that is copyrighted? Or it stops TigersX from existing?
Just wondering how this actually affects me.
-
If SOPA passes, it is the end of TigersX, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Google, megaupload...virtually anything and everything you use on the Internet.
Basically it is enabling the entertainment industry to send people to federal prison for LINKING to material that THEY say is copyrighted material, even if it's not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_w4NGp1e50#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_w4NGp1e50#ws)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM#ws)
-
A couple of issues with the video you posted:
It said it aims to stop unauthorized material from being posted on the internet such as movies, music, and products.
Then it goes into a long list of scare tactics that were preceded by "in all likely hood."
Further, it makes the jump that the government will sue and shut down everything that is good on the internet just because corporations are evil and want to suppress the public and torment babies.
I understand the implications of giving the government the power to meddle with the internet. But here's a question I have:
How else could companies protect their product that's being freely distributed on the internet without their consent?
-
A couple of issues with the video you posted:
It said it aims to stop unauthorized material from being posted on the internet such as movies, music, and products.
Then it goes into a long list of scare tactics that were preceded by "in all likely hood."
Further, it makes the jump that the government will sue and shut down everything that is good on the internet just because corporations are evil and want to suppress the public and torment babies.
I understand the implications of giving the government the power to meddle with the internet. But here's a question I have:
How else could companies protect their product that's being freely distributed on the internet without their consent?
First of all, the whole piracy thing is way overblown. Plenty of artists support distribution of their songs/movies/whatever through the internet, via YouTube, torrents, etc.
Louis C.K. just offered his latest standup feature exclusively online for $5.00, DRM free.
It netted over $1 million and counting.
http://hothardware.com/News/Louis-CKs-DRMFree-Internet-Experiment-Nets-Over-1-Million-and-Counting/ (http://hothardware.com/News/Louis-CKs-DRMFree-Internet-Experiment-Nets-Over-1-Million-and-Counting/)
iTunes offered a better, easy, reasonably priced alternative to piracy. iTunes is insanely popular.
Pandora, Grooveshark, Spotify, etc. are other services offering good alternatives.
Netflix online streaming service is another good example in the movie industry.
Offer a service that is easier/better than scouring the internet for pirated copies, and maintain a reasonable price, and you're golden.
Basically what this amounts to is price gouging. But far worse. It's bullying the US government to meddle with the Internet like fucking communist China. Except it affects the entire world.
It's not using logical leaps and slippery slopes. There is precedent that this shit actually happens. Big companies remove content because it doesn't like the message. It sues/fines people for fucking LINKING to copyrighted material, not hosting it online. And they don't have enough control. They want more.
TigersX cannot exist because anyone can post anything linked to another site. Posting farks from another board? Godfather goes to jail. EVEN IF YOU LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.
This is straight up 1984 shit, and no one seems to care.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and research it yourself. Or at least watch all of the videos, read all of the articles that I posted here.
-
Basically it is enabling the entertainment industry to send people to federal prison for LINKING to material that THEY say is copyrighted material, even if it's not.
Umm...the Attorney General can't do anything to the website until a court order is entered. Typically, a court is going to investigate the matter before taking action; you know, due process and all.
Adam Savage sounds like an idiot for claiming that websites can be taken down "based on nothing more than the 'good faith' assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant."
http://www.webcitation.org/643NehNoc (http://www.webcitation.org/643NehNoc)
Stop Online Piracy Act - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.
. . .
Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.
Adam Savage makes a further fool of himself by claiming that "the accused doesn't even have to be aware that the complaint has been made." The act actually states that the copyright holder should contact the payment network provider and/or advertising service notifying them of the copyright infringement. They then forward the notice to the site owner.
If the site owner responds stating why their use is not an infringement, nothing happens. Note that the site owner doesn't even have to prove that it's not an infringement; he simply needs to respond and say as much. If the copyright holder wants anything else to happen, then they have to seek a court order. A court will have to decide whether it's an infringement or not.
If they don't respond, then the payment network provider and/or advertising service are to assume that it is copyright infringement, and they are to cease servicing that site. It's very simple: Respond to the damn notice if you're not infringing.
Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site's owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations. Authorizes the right holder to then commence an action for limited injunctive relief against the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or against the site or domain name itself.
-
Now, with all of that being said, there are legitimate concerns with the act. Its vague language allows for very broad reach, which may include preventing the blocking of IP addresses and the allowance of deep packet inspection.
Nonetheless, some of the more prominent claims that have been made are not accurate at all.
-
First of all, the whole piracy thing is way overblown. Plenty of artists support distribution of their songs/movies/whatever through the internet, via YouTube, torrents, etc.
What if an artist doesn't? Where is he or she protected especially if the distribution is free and not providing compensation?
Louis C.K. just offered his latest standup feature exclusively online for $5.00, DRM free.
It netted over $1 million and counting.
http://hothardware.com/News/Louis-CKs-DRMFree-Internet-Experiment-Nets-Over-1-Million-and-Counting/ (http://hothardware.com/News/Louis-CKs-DRMFree-Internet-Experiment-Nets-Over-1-Million-and-Counting/)
iTunes offered a better, easy, reasonably priced alternative to piracy. iTunes is insanely popular.
Pandora, Grooveshark, Spotify, etc. are other services offering good alternatives.
Netflix online streaming service is another good example in the movie industry.
Offer a service that is easier/better than scouring the internet for pirated copies, and maintain a reasonable price, and you're golden.
Agreed. But I don't see how this bill will affect those services as long as they are following copyright laws already written.
And "maintain a reasonable price" is a flimsy argument. What if I don't want to? What if I think is a reasonable price is different than what you think is a reasonable price? Does that mean it gets to be pirated on the internet?
If I write a song that I think will give you a spiritual experience so I charge $2000 to listen to it once. Who's to say I can't do that?
Basically what this amounts to is price gouging. But far worse. It's bullying the US government to meddle with the Internet like fucking communist China. Except it affects the entire world.
It's not using logical leaps and slippery slopes. There is precedent that this shit actually happens. Big companies remove content because it doesn't like the message. It sues/fines people for fucking LINKING to copyrighted material, not hosting it online. And they don't have enough control. They want more.
TigersX cannot exist because anyone can post anything linked to another site. Posting farks from another board? Godfather goes to jail. EVEN IF YOU LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.
This is straight up 1984 shit, and no one seems to care.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and research it yourself. Or at least watch all of the videos, read all of the articles that I posted here.
I have read some of the articles. It's hard to filter through the hyperbole and get to the meat of the bill. That's where I'm confused.
We've gone from "protect copyrighted material on the internet" to "the Feds and the corporations are trying to create a dystopia in an effort to make more money."
Where in the actual bill does it state that companies can remove websites based on a subjective criticism of the message presented? Where does the bill state that they will sue you for linking copyrighted material?
And since we're discussing a judicial issue, where's the justification for linking copyrighted material if it doesn't give compensation (at least based on whatever contract has been written) to the person or company that actually owns the material?
I understand how spoiled we are with the internet. It's wonderful. Sharing and learning is at an all time high, but this is a capitalistic economy. It is a free market. And if I own something, what right does anyone have to use it without my permission or without paying for it? Especially for any sites or users that are making a profit with the use of copyrighted material.
Outside of the internet, you purchase a song at the CD store. You read an article from a magazine you buy at a grocery store. You watch a movie after buying a movie ticket at the movie theater.
You listen to the radio thinking it's free music, but the radio paid for it. You turn on the TV to watch a movie, but the cable company paid for it.
But inside of the internet, many of these products are available for free and the people doing the work have no control.
We like to link articles here at the X. That way we can click the link to read the article at its original source. That gives the source more hits thus providing the opportunity for more compensation for the work they've done.
But what if no one clicks the link? Who is to protect the author that writes the article on their website?
Again, most of this is petty and many of the complaints are from people who are already making gobs of money. But this is a legal issue, and there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What's fair has to be established and it should be enforced equally in internet and non-internet areas.
-
You fuckers obviously didn't drink enough lick-er last night.
-
Agreed. But I don't see how this bill will affect those services as long as they are following copyright laws already written.
The copyright laws already written are fine. It's this vague legislation that broadens the terms of copyright infringement that's the problem.
And "maintain a reasonable price" is a flimsy argument. What if I don't want to? What if I think is a reasonable price is different than what you think is a reasonable price? Does that mean it gets to be pirated on the internet?
If I write a song that I think will give you a spiritual experience so I charge $2000 to listen to it once. Who's to say I can't do that?
Of course you can. And some people will pay for your ridiculously priced song. You'll make a profit, just fine. Of course, someone else will pirate it and post it online, and under the current copyright laws, you have every right to send a cease and desist to me for distributing it. I'm not saying the "reasonable price" should be part of some law. I'm saying, that's how to avoid being pirated. See the Louis C.K. example.
This law will do nothing to really curb illegal downloads. They have been trying to play whack-a-mole with piracy for over a decade since the invention of Napster. The technology will just migrate somewhere else. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Trying to cure cancer by chopping an arm off.
Stifling the greatest technological advancement in the last two centuries is not the answer.
As one of those videos mentioned, see the backlash the media industries had over the VHS tape. It was supposed to kill the film industry, according to them.
See the . As long as you're not bootlegging digital copies and trying to sell them on street corners, then no harm no foul. It's how you were able to make that mix tape, and how you had that collection of VHS tapes with movies you taped off of HBO or Pay Per View. Fair Use. Personal Use. Suddenly, it's not enough for these production companies and record labels. Now they want to throw you in jail for personal use. Now they want to throw you in jail for posting your first dance from your wedding video on facebook because the muffled song in the background is owned by Warner Music.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act[/urlAudio Home Recording Act[/url)What if an artist doesn't? Where is he or she protected especially if the distribution is free and not providing compensation?
Small, relatively unknown artists will suffer the most by stifling technology. They're the ones that are most adamantly against this. So who exactly is this trying to protect?
Justin Bieber?
http://www.bieberisright.org/ (http://www.bieberisright.org/) (Click for audioclip from Bieber himself)
Bieber v. Klobuchar - What Happened
On October 27th, Justin Bieber came out to oppose S. 978. The next day, US Senator Klobuchar accused Justin Bieber of being "misled" in his opposition to her copyright bill. But it turns out Bieber is actually right.
Justin opposes Senator Klobuchar for her extreme copyright bill that would let the government jail people for posting songs to YouTube and censor entire websites. The bill puts people who post videos to YouTube and other sites at risk (including Justin Bieber himself). Klobuchar's office struck back at Bieber.
But guess what? Copyright experts and lawyers say Bieber is 100% right.
Listen to what Bieber says about the bill and sign the petition to show him your support!
(Audio of Bieber talking about the bill and Klobuchar.)
TELL CONGRESS TO OPPOSE STREAMING BILL
I urge you to vote against Amy Klobuchar's S.978 and HR.3261. These bills will censor the Internet, discourage innovation, and risk jailing ordinary internet users. That's why some of the Internet's biggest companies, dozens of prominent lawyers and engineers, and leading civil liberties and human rights groups forcefully oppose it.
We will notify Senator Klobuchar of your opposition to her criticism. Fight for the Future and Demand Progress won't share your email with anyone, but we will contact you about relevant campaigns.
What Bieber Said
Bieber made several comments during the radio appearance regarding the proposed legislation, co-sponsored by Klobuchar, "Whoever she is, she needs to know that I'm saying she needs to be locked up - put away in cuffs." He added, "People need to have the freedom... people need to be able to sing songs. I just think that's ridiculous."
And finally, when asked if he is comfortable with people posting videos singing his songs, he replied, "Are you kidding me? I check YouTube all the time and watch people singing my songs. I think it's awesome."
Why Bieber is Right
Hint: Because Klobuchar Doesn't Understand The Details of Her Own Bill
Klobuchar's office and other "IP" attorneys have failed to point out that what is considered "performance" and "commercial infringement" is open-ended, so courts can argue that Bieber performed the cover songs, and that it was commercial infringement. They should know better: this bill adds extreme penalties to a very grey area in copyright law, and that's dangerous to all of us who express ourselves online.
Here's what experts are saying:
Lateef Mtima and Steven D. Jamar
Howard University School of Law, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
"Proposed Bill S 978 is rife with critical deficiencies particularly with respect to its impact on the public's interest in using and building upon copyrighted material. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Bill is that the conduct it would criminalize is so poorly defined."
S.978 co-sponsor Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)
Senator Coons said it perfectly himself, saying that the legislation would criminalize both "individuals and sites providing the streamed content."
Jonathan Band, PLLC
www.policybandwidth.org (http://www.policybandwidth.org)
"Streaming section is much, much broader than the Klobuchar bill. In essence, the Klobuchar bill allowed felony (as opposed to just misdemeanor) penalties for a public performance for commercial advantage or private financial gain. However, the Klobuchar bill left the status quo of no criminal penalties for public performances without purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. SOPA makes the same amendment as Klobuchar for commercial performances. But, it also imposes criminal penalties for public performances by means of digital networks with a retail value of more than $1,000. Felony penalties will be available if the retail value is more than $2,500. So, it sweeps in non-commercial streaming. Additionally, as I mentioned on the phone, the bill by implication lowers the standard of willfulness. Thus, unless an individual has a good faith reasonable belief that his streaming is lawful, he arguably is willfully infringing, and is subject to felony penalties, even if he had no commercial purpose."
A Line of Cases
There is a line of cases that says a transmission that ultimately results in a performance to the public is, itself, a public performance. See the following:
See NFL v. Primetime 24, 211 F.3d 10 (2d Cir 2000)
Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings
Ashton Kutcher?
http://aplusk.posterous.com/87693122 (http://aplusk.posterous.com/87693122) (Ashton's blog)
SOPA Is The Problem And Not The Solution.
SOPA Bill is trying to prevent intellectual property piracy which is a legitimate goal, but the way it is going about it will break the Internet and may cause economic calamity.
At its core SOPA unwillingly recruits Internet industry companies like social networks, ISP's and search engines to become policing agents and legally liable for it's users content. Forcing social media sites and ISP's responsible for users content is amazingly burdensome and costly. SOPA will create economic problems for Internet start-ups which will be an additional negative side effect. This may cause a slow down in the Internet economic sector, which is providing real jobs and innovation for the US economy.
DMCA may not be perfect but it does allow for copyrite owners to police it's intellectual property to be removed from web sites by bad actors or zealous fans. Thus removing the legal liability from the search engine or ISP that points to or hosts this content. Yes I understand that this is difficult to manage with overseas web sites, but SOPA as it is written causes more problems then solves.
Moreover, what is most shocking, is SOPA's idea of giving judges determination of Internet DNS. The bill suggests DNS administrators remove bad actor domains on judges orders; thus breaking the fundamentals of the Internet. It is a disastrous precedent to have Congress legislate Internet DNS control.
Placing search engines and ISP's in the middle of policing for piracy is plain and simply a bad and confused attempt by well meaning people that fundamentally don't understand how the the Internet works.
The SOPA bills secondary title is "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.", which is interesting because it almost reverses everything it attempts to do by it's methods of enforcement. I don't support SOPA and I believe we all need to call and write our Congress to help them know we want a No vote on SOPA.
Kanye West, Will.i.am, Diddy, Alicia Keys, Chris Brown ,Snopp Dogg, Lil’ Jon, Jamie Foxx, Kim Kardashian, Macy Gray, Brett Ratner, Mary J Blige, Serena Williams, Floyd Mayweather, The Game, Printz Board, Ciara, Kim Schmitz?
http://www.techspot.com/news/46641-megaupload-sues-universal-and-joins-fight-against-sopa.html (http://www.techspot.com/news/46641-megaupload-sues-universal-and-joins-fight-against-sopa.html)
Megaupload sues Universal and joins fight against SOPA
By Lee Kaelin
The file-hosting service Megaupload and Universal Music Group (UMG) have locked horns, after a video released by the former was removed on Friday from the popular video sharing site YouTube over Universal's claim that it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The surprise video featured leading recording artists including P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Macy Gray, Chris Brown, The Game and Mary J Blige, singing the praises of the popular service. As news of the video began to spread Google pulled the video in response to UMG and IFPI copyright takedown demands.
(http://static.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2011-12-13-image-2.jpg)
On late Friday, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom demanded that YouTube re-instate the video, to which UMG then responded to with another takedown request. Speaking with TorrentFreak yesterday, the file-sharing service's CEO David Robb said, "let us be clear: Nothing in our song or the video belongs to Universal Music Group. We have signed agreements with all artists endorsing Megaupload."
The illegitimate removal of the Mega Song was in promotion of its soon to be launched, iTunes style service Megabox, which will see artists earn 90% of each song sold. In Robb's opinion, it was a deliberate step in order to prevent a real competitor from going viral as news spread. The irony is it might actually benefit the firm by providing the type of media coverage that money cannot buy.
He further commented that all attempts to contact the music giant to start a dialogue have resulted in questionable legal threats, including demands for a public apology. "Regrettably, we are being attacked and labelled as a ‘rogue operator’ by organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA," Robb said, while pointing out that his firm take piracy very seriously by closing accounts of repeat offenders and removing illegal files.
After getting nowhere with the music group, the file-sharing site has filed a lawsuit with the San Jose District Court, and intends to sue the group for misrepresenting DMCA rights as a basis for validating the removal of the video from YouTube.
The whole situation has led them to start endorsing those opposing the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as SOPA. “UMG is currently lobbying lawmakers in Washington for legislation that would allow them to not only delete specific content from a website, but to delete entire websites from the Internet. After this demonstration of the abuse of power by UMG, we are certain that such an instrument of Internet censorship should not be put into the hands of corporations,” Robb said.
He also took the opportunity to thank everyone for their massive support, and asked everyone who agreed to join forces and fight for an Internet without censorship.
The video is back up...for now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs#ws)
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/16384317175/gibson-guitar-others-sopa-supporters-list-say-they-never-supported-bill.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/16384317175/gibson-guitar-others-sopa-supporters-list-say-they-never-supported-bill.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Gibson Guitar & Others On SOPA Supporters List Say They Never Supported The Bill
from the well,-look-at-that dept
I mentioned that we'd been hearing reports that some of the companies named on "the list" companies that are in favor of SOPA were surprised about this and wanted off the list. Gibson Guitar -- which has been dealing with its own ridiculous situation concerning the feds seizing property without a clear legal basis -- is now saying that it does not support SOPA, and has been asked to be removed from the list of supporters. It sounds as if the company doesn't know how it got on the list:
Hey guys - Gibson does NOT support this legislation. Gibson's CEO has demanded that Gibson be removed from the list of company's supporting SOPA. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!
For what it's worth, it looks like Gibson's "support" came from a letter sent by the US Chamber of Commerce in support of the general concept of PROTECT IP and SOPA, not directly about SOPA itself. It seems like this is a risk of just agreeing to sign on to something that the US Chamber of Commerce passes around without fully understanding the details or how it is to be used.
Gibson is not alone. Jim D'Addario from D’Addario & Company responded to a tweet by also saying that the company has not supported SOPA (though, he claims it might support a similar bill if it didn't have free speech implications).
So how did this happen? Well, Petzl provides some of the details. It's another company found on the US CoC's letter in support of SOPA/PIPA, but it has put out a detailed blog post of how the US Chamber of Commerce is being misleading here. The company says that it did agree to sign a US CoC letter in support of "government action against intellectual property theft via rogue websites," but that the letter they saw did not bring up any specific legislation. Thus, it says it's supportive of legislation to deal with counterfeiting, but not the approach taken in SOPA/PIPA:
To reiterate, Petzl America has not and does not support SOPA or the Protect IP Act. Nor do we support any legislation that would harm the freedom of the Internet. We are strongly against counterfeiting, especially, as in the case of counterfeited Petzl products, where the safety of the end user is concerned. By extension, we are for legislation that would help reduce the theft of intellectual property, production of counterfeit goods, and knowing sale of counterfeit goods. However, we believe that SOPA and Protect IP do not address these concerns in a constructive manner.
The issue here, yet again, appears to be one where the US Chamber of Commerce plays fast and loose with the truth, in order to exaggerate the real situation. These companies expressed interest in the general concept of dealing with counterfeit goods sold online. The US CoC then used that support to pretend that all of these companies supported a sweepingly broad set of bills that went way, way, way beyond just dealing with the narrow issue of counterfeit physical goods.
We've talked repeatedly about how ridiculous it is that supporters of SOPA/PIPA conflate physical counterfeiting with digital copyright infringement. The two are quite different in many, many ways. And here's a case where it's coming back to bite the supporters, as plenty of companies who would support a narrow action against a specific problem, are being used by the US CoC, who pretends they support broad, overreaching laws that touch on issues totally unrelated to the specific issue these companies wanted to discuss.
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling
from the well-look-at-that dept
So we were just discussing how a bunch of companies who were listed by the US Chamber of Commerce as SOPA/PIPA supporters are demanding to be taken off the list, noting that, while they had agreed to a generic statement about fighting the sale of counterfeit goods, they don't support crazy broad legislation like SOPA/PIPA. It seems that others listed as "supporting" SOPA are scrambling to get off the list as well. The Judiciary Committee's official list had included a bunch of big name law firms as being in support of the law as well -- which is a little strange, since law firms usually don't take official positions on things like this. They may express opinions on such matters on behalf of clients, but outright supporting legislation is a different ballgame altogether.
A group of lawyers (most of whom have a long history of working with the entertainment industry) did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee to say that they agreed with Floyd Abrams' analysis of SOPA. That's it. They didn't say their firms supported SOPA -- and, in fact, there's an asterisk with the signatures noting that the names of their firms are solely for identification purposes. Yet the Judiciary Committee took those names anyway and put them on the supporters list. Expressing a legal opinion on a bill is extraordinarily different from supporting the bill. But the Judiciary Committee ignored that and listed them as supporters anyway.
From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official list. Among those who have already complained/been taken off the official list are Morrison & Foerster, Davis Wright Tremaine, Irell & Manella, Covington & Burling. I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation. This is a pretty egregious move on the part of House Judiciary Committee staff. They're so eager to list supporters that they've been naming firms who do not support the bills. And then they've been using those claims to pretend there's widespread support...
So, between the US Chamber of Commerce stretching what many companies thought they were supporting and pretending it meant support for SOPA/PIPA, and the Judiciary Committee's over-eagerness to assume that a legal analysis of one part of the bill by a few lawyers meant their huge law firms supported the bill... it's looking like the facade of widespread corporate support for SOPA is crumbling pretty quickly...
-
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia (and Auburn grad)
https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736
I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us.
-
Looks like Wikipedia was the final blow that got GoDaddy to shit their pants.
http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup (http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup)
Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA
Looks to Internet Community & Fellow Tech Leaders to Develop Legislation We All Support
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (Dec. 23, 2011) - Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" currently working its way through U.S. Congress.
"Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation - but we can clearly do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."
Go Daddy and its General Counsel, Christine Jones, have worked with federal lawmakers for months to help craft revisions to legislation first introduced some three years ago. Jones has fought to express the concerns of the entire Internet community and to improve the bill by proposing changes to key defined terms, limitations on DNS filtering to ensure the integrity of the Internet, more significant consequences for frivolous claims, and specific provisions to protect free speech.
"As a company that is all about innovation, with our own technology and in support of our customers, Go Daddy is rooted in the idea of First Amendment Rights and believes 100 percent that the Internet is a key engine for our new economy," said Adelman.
In changing its position, Go Daddy remains steadfast in its promise to support security and stability of the Internet. In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.
"Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.
-
List of Senators that consponsored PIPA (the Senate version of SOPA).
http://1.usa.gov/nUvM0q (http://1.usa.gov/nUvM0q)
Doesn't look like there are any from Alabama. There are, however, two from Louisiana.
I sent them this:
http://www.masspirates.org/blog/dontcensorthenet/information-packet-for-senators-regarding-pipa-and-cfsa/ (http://www.masspirates.org/blog/dontcensorthenet/information-packet-for-senators-regarding-pipa-and-cfsa/)
Introduction
Two bills are nearing a vote in the Senate: the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA or “Protect IP,” S.968) and its companion bill, the Commercial Felony Streaming Act (CFSA, S.978). A similar bill in the House, called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R.3261), combines PIPA and CFSA and is even more extreme. This packet focuses on the Senate bills.
The proponents of these bills claim that they are narrowly tailored to target “rogue” websites. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation threatens every website that allows users to upload content, and every user who wishes to engage creatively with preexisting media. Further, the legislation provides for unprecedented censorship of the Internet and makes users more vulnerable to malicious hackers.
Packet Contents
1. ISSUE: Censorship
2. ISSUE: Criminalizing Infringers
3. ISSUE: Third-Party Liability
4. ISSUE: Undermining Internet Security and Privacy
5. Policy Statement
ISSUE: Censorship
PIPA would permit the government to block a website based on an accusation that part of the website infringes someone’s intellectual property rights. This is accomplished by cutting off funding to the site, requiring search engines to de-list the site, and requiring advertisers to withdraw their ads from the site and block that site’s ads. In addition, PIPA requires Domain Name System (DNS) operators to stop directing Internet users to the accused website. The effect is that a user typing in the web address would not be able to reach the website.
A website operator enjoys the right of free speech, a right that does not vanish simply due to hosting some infringing content. Even infringing speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection. The doctrine of fair use, for example, protects a wide range of speech. The proposed censorship regime is particularly reckless and disrespectful of the right to free speech because it permits websites to be censored without an opportunity for their opposition to be heard.
Imagine if all of YouTube or Facebook were shut down because some users employed the platform in infringing ways. Or if a political candidate’s website were censored because he used quotations or video clips from his opponent’s campaign, or even popular music or unlicensed photographs, without permission. Now imagine that an unproven accusation of such infringement were sufficient for censorship to take place.
In recent years, the Department of Justice has seized hundreds of domain names and redirected them so as to display NBC propaganda about the perceived need for ever more extreme anti-copying measures. A Nevada judge recently ordered that 600 accused domain names be transferred to Chanel, the luxury goods company. If PIPA were to become law and ratify these actions, the government would regularly be asked to transfer hundreds of website domain names to rightsholders, likely for use as further propaganda platforms. Judges have shown a willingness to permit these mass seizures without an opportunity for defendants to be heard, at a very early stage of litigation, an approach sanctioned by PIPA.
ISSUE: Criminalizing Infringers
CFSA provides that infringement of the performance right would become a criminal offense. Ten ‘performances’ within 180 days, and you can be imprisoned for up to five years unless the original work could have been cheaply licensed.
Practically everyone under the age of thirty will be a criminal under CFSA. Clicking a ‘share’ button on a website will carry a sentence comparable with armed robbery, involuntary manslaughter, or assault and battery with a deadly weapon.
An example: a student films herself and her friends singing a pop song (without a license) and uploads the video. Ten of her friends watch it. She may be guilty of a crime that could send her to jail for five years, as are any of her friends who re-share her video.
Criminal penalties will also cause people to pull even further back from the theoretical bounds of fair use, out of fear that their conduct will be found not to qualify. This will reduce creative output, not stimulate it. Statutory damages are already draconian and, in typical cases, disproportionate to any harm suffered by the rightsholder. Adding jail time is an extreme measure, and a step in the wrong direction.
ISSUE: Third-Party Liability
PIPA would impose liability on intermediaries and those who provide tools and platforms that support websites that involve infringement, such as advertising companies, payment processors, and search engines. PIPA also provides for penalties against an entire website based on infringing use of the website (e.g. infringing videos on YouTube).
The collateral burden to search engines, payment processors, and advertisers is why some have likened the bill to replacing the scalpel of a copyright infringement action with a chainsaw. Not only is an entire website put at risk for containing infringing content, but new burdens and liabilities are imposed on entities that have nothing to do with the infringement, and may not even have a business relationship with the website.
Further, the most popular and successful websites are those that permit people to speak and share with one another, and every website that permits users to upload content enables infringement. The bill would attempt to force innovative websites to police their users. This is a task that would simply be impossible for small innovators, and the high risk of liability would strongly deter investment in such businesses and curtail the strong job growth enjoyed in this industry.
ISSUE: Undermining Internet Security and Privacy
PIPA would require Domain Name System (DNS) operators to divert users from accused websites, resulting in US DNS operators becoming out of synch with those in the rest of the world. Internet security and privacy measures rely on an uncompromised DNS system. When this system is broken, users are more vulnerable to malicious hackers.
POLICY STATEMENT
The ostensible purpose of intellectual monopolies such as copyright was to promote the creation of eligible works, by granting creators the exclusive right to duplicate their creations for a limited time.
We live in an era where nearly every American has access to a system designed to instantly duplicate information, a system that has done wonders for our economy and empowered citizens to speak and create to an unprecedented degree. We also have tools to modify the cultural works we engage with and re-share them as part of a vast “remix” culture that is incredibly prolific.
These advances have come in spite of intellectual monopolies, not because of them, and have been threatened at every step by the handful of organizations that hold huge libraries of copyrighted works. Strengthening intellectual monopolies is a step in the wrong direction. Crippling our information infrastructure and criminalizing harmless citizens to strengthen intellectual monopolies is simply madness and an embarrassment to the ideal of a free society.
-
A website operator enjoys the right of free speech, a right that does not vanish simply due to hosting some infringing content. Even infringing speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection. The doctrine of fair use, for example, protects a wide range of speech.
This is yet again where protesters go shooting off at the mouth without knowing anything about the law.
No judicial opinion on fair use has ever indicated that a public performance (streaming) or public sharing (hosting) of the original copyrighted work (not covered or otherwise "artistically borrowed" with a new spin) is fair use. Use of the work for your own enjoyment after you've legitimately obtained the work? Yes, fair use. Handing it out to hundreds of people in the street for free? No, not fair use. Putting it on the web for millions of people to download for free? No, not fair use.
Now imagine that an unproven accusation of such infringement were sufficient for censorship to take place.
Again, I don't understand what these people are reading; my guess is that they're not reading anything at all from the bill itself, but are just jumping to conclusions based upon hyperbolic, fear-mongering propaganda. A mere accusation can not take down your website, unless you refuse to respond, or unless you are taken to court and the judge determines that your website should be taken down. There is no violation of due process; you have every chance to show that your website is not an infringement on someone else's copyright.
Are there legitimate problems with the bill? Sure. Are the majority of these people who you're citing focusing on these legitimate problems? Not at all. They're conjuring up straw men in an attempt to show that the mean ole Big Brother government is attempting to take your freedom of speech and fair use rights away, and that all of your sacred interwebz sites will disappear into a big black hole of unfounded accusations.
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03354017177/more-more-internet-infrastructure-players-coming-out-to-say-how-bad-sopapipa-are.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03354017177/more-more-internet-infrastructure-players-coming-out-to-say-how-bad-sopapipa-are.shtml)
More And More Internet Infrastructure Players Coming Out To Say How Bad SOPA/PIPA Are
from the anyone-support-it? dept
We've noted in the past that most of the people who actually understand the basic internet infrastructure have come out against SOPA and PIPA. That includes both individuals and companies (such as OpenDNS and Dyn), but it appears that we may be reaching a tipping point with tons and tons of internet infrastructure companies speaking out against these bills. We've already talked about the massive GoDaddy backlash... but it's interesting to note that many registrars and hosting companies are using this as an opportunity to speak out against SOPA and PIPA. Hover, Dreamhost, NameCheap and Name.com have all made explicit statements on their blogs. Back in the DNS space, EasyDNS has written a blistering anti-SOPA post on its blog:
If this becomes law, it's a short stretch from SOPA to NODA (No Online Dissent Anywhere) and if you think I'm a nutcase for saying so, I'd like to remind everybody what happened just over a year ago, when US politicians were tripping over themselves to shut down wikileaks (a royal fiasco in which this company was embroiled) and to this day, they have not been charged with a crime anywhere.
Many of the "dirty tricks" employed against Wikileaks would be enshrined in law under SOPA (and someday, NODA):
A requirement that service providers block access to offending domains, including that they stop resolving their DNS
Search engines to purge search results for offending domains
Payment processors to sever ties to offending domains
And they added an extra provision that it will be an offense to knowingly create a service or system to provide a workaround to a banned domain or host. So for example, they would no longer have to hassle Mozilla to remove that firefox plugin that lets you reach ICE blocked websites, it would be illegal to make it or distribute it.
And that's not all. As if to drive home the point, a relatively new group called the SaveHosting Coalition just came out with a letter signed by over 300 execs involved in internet infrastructure companies, saying they're against SOPA. The full letter, embedded below (Link (http://embed.docstoc.com/docs/109475312/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2&utm_content=3)), is well worth a read. It's quite comprehensive, and basically makes it quite clear that SOPA isn't just bad for internet infrastructure, but it's bad for jobs and the economy, as well as pretty much anyone who does anything online. Here's just a snippet:
We write to express that, after careful review of H.R.3261 - the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011 (SOPA), we believe that this legislation will lead to significant loss of high-wage, high-tech jobs in our industry and other industries that are directly or indirectly supported by our industry. This impact will diminish the attractiveness of U.S. companies to foreign customers, while also reducing the U.S. hosting industry’s ability to compete with foreign competition within our own borders. Further, and of equal importance, weaknesses in SOPA may actually lead to less protection for intellectual property owners by undermining the stability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Finally, SOPA undermines the U.S. judicial system’s reputation as a fair and transparent method of resolving business disputes.
It's getting more and more ridiculous for anyone to suggest that SOPA isn't harmful to the wider internet infrastructure, when pretty much anyone who knows anything about that infrastructure has come out against the bill.
-
This is yet again where protesters go shooting off at the mouth without knowing anything about the law.
No judicial opinion on fair use has ever indicated that a public performance (streaming) or public sharing (hosting) of the original copyrighted work (not covered or otherwise "artistically borrowed" with a new spin) is fair use. Use of the work for your own enjoyment after you've legitimately obtained the work? Yes, fair use. Handing it out to hundreds of people in the street for free? No, not fair use. Putting it on the web for millions of people to download for free? No, not fair use.
Again, I don't understand what these people are reading; my guess is that they're not reading anything at all from the bill itself, but are just jumping to conclusions based upon hyperbolic, fear-mongering propaganda. A mere accusation can not take down your website, unless you refuse to respond, or unless you are taken to court and the judge determines that your website should be taken down. There is no violation of due process; you have every chance to show that your website is not an infringement on someone else's copyright.
Are there legitimate problems with the bill? Sure. Are the majority of these people who you're citing focusing on these legitimate problems? Not at all. They're conjuring up straw men in an attempt to show that the mean ole Big Brother government is attempting to take your freedom of speech and fair use rights away, and that all of your sacred interwebz sites will disappear into a big black hole of unfounded accusations.
What are you reading? Have you read the actual bill itself? It is incredibly and intentionally vague for the very purpose of broadening the legal definition of copyright infringement.
-
I really only have one question after reading all of this....
How does this affect led technology?
-
What are you reading? Have you read the actual bill itself? It is incredibly and intentionally vague for the very purpose of broadening the legal definition of copyright infringement.
They say its "fair use." Sorry; streaming and/or hosting copyrighted materials on the internet without permission is not a fair use. Distribution of a copyrighted work is not personal use. Thus, when this is their stated opposition to the bill:
A website operator enjoys the right of free speech, a right that does not vanish simply due to hosting some infringing content. Even infringing speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection. The doctrine of fair use, for example, protects a wide range of speech.
They are showing their ignorance of current copyright laws. A website operator whose site is shut down according to the terms of this bill was not exercising any fair use, and/or was a dumb ass for not responding to the infringement notice.
Similarly, when some whiny, moronic protester states the following:
Now imagine that an unproven accusation of such infringement were sufficient for censorship to take place.
They are yet again showing me that they either haven't read the bill or are mentally retarded. Under the terms of the bill, an "unproven accusation" does not result in the censorship of your website. The hyperbolic claim of many of these protesters is that all it takes is for someone to complain that your website is infringing on a copyright, and then your site is automatically shut down.
False.
You are given notice. Respond and your site isn't touched. The alleged victim who made the complaint then has to take you to court and obtain a court order requesting that your site be taken down. Website owners are being afforded due process; they are getting notified every step of the way, and have every chance to defend themselves.
It is in this regard that most of these idiots don't know what they're talking about.
Yes, the bill is vague in many other areas, but if you had taken the time to read my post and the portions I quoted, you'll note that I'm pointing out these specific idiotic statements regarding how sites are taken down and why under this bill. I'm pointing out the misleading statements about "fair use."
Most of these people aren't even talking about the vagueness of the law; they're whining about aspects of the law that simply don't exist, or at least don't operate in the way that they think they do.
-
I'm pretty sure that as long as you're not doing some stupid shit like distributing movies, music, and other copyrighted content without the proper licenses, you don't have anything to worry about. I'm just not seeing what the problem is if you are using some company's intellectual property and they want to stop it. You're using their property, that they haven't otherwise given consent to be used. Thinking that linking to a news article would land you in trouble is ridiculous. You're linking to the source of the story who is obviously offering it for free. I understand that parts of the bill are a little murky, but I think there is alot of hyperbole involved here as well.
-
I'm pretty sure that as long as you're not doing some stupid shit like distributing movies, music, and other copyrighted content without the proper licenses, you don't have anything to worry about. I'm just not seeing what the problem is if you are using some company's intellectual property and they want to stop it. You're using their property, that they haven't otherwise given consent to be used. Thinking that linking to a news article would land you in trouble is ridiculous. You're linking to the source of the story who is obviously offering it for free. I understand that parts of the bill are a little murky, but I think there is alot of hyperbole involved here as well.
And that's where you're wrong.
Not saying linked articles is the goal of this bill, but the legislation is intentionally vague enough, that this could be considered an infringement. And absolutely linking to YouTube videos, that copyright holders later deem in copyright violation because someone was humming a pop song in the background, or because someone's Polo horse on their shirt was visible, would not only hold the user that uploaded the video to YouTube viable, but also YouTube itself, and any website that linked to it. It's ridiculous and extreme, I know, but that's within the vague language of this bill.
Want to post a funny little meme of Stan Marsh blowing his load all over the place to express you thoroughly enjoyed someone's post?
1) Viacom can sue you and Godfather for use of the picture
2) You wouldn't be able to find it because Google could be sued for linking to the picture
3) The person that posted it in the first place could be sued for posting it on their blog or whatever to begin with.
-
And that's where you're wrong.
Not saying linked articles is the goal of this bill, but the legislation is intentionally vague enough, that this could be considered an infringement. And absolutely linking to YouTube videos, that copyright holders later deem in copyright violation because someone was humming a pop song in the background, or because someone's Polo horse on their shirt was visible, would not only hold the user that uploaded the video to YouTube viable, but also YouTube itself, and any website that linked to it. It's ridiculous and extreme, I know, but that's within the vague language of this bill.
Want to post a funny little meme of Stan Marsh blowing his load all over the place to express you thoroughly enjoyed someone's post?
1) Viacom can sue you and Godfather for use of the picture
2) You wouldn't be able to find it because Google could be sued for linking to the picture
3) The person that posted it in the first place could be sued for posting it on their blog or whatever to begin with.
I see high blood pressure meds in your future at a young age.
-
I see high blood pressure meds in your future at a young age.
One would think that at his age he could fuck his high blood pressure down.
-
I see high blood pressure meds in your future at a young age.
I take Lisinopril. Seriously.
-
I take Lisinopril. Seriously.
I was somewhat kidding. I knew you were wound tight at times and probably bound for those meds, but didn't imagine you were already on them. You're like 27 right? Holy shit man - this may be nature's way of telling you to calm down. Just look at it this way - that bill is either going to pass or fail regardless of how much you stress your heart out. Why worry to that extent? Just a thought.
-
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/psuderman/2011_04/scannershead.gif)
Chizad?
-
I was somewhat kidding. I knew you were wound tight at times and probably bound for those meds, but didn't imagine you were already on them. You're like 27 right? Holy shit man - this may be nature's way of telling you to calm down. Just look at it this way - that bill is either going to pass or fail regardless of how much you stress your heart out. Why worry to that extent? Just a thought.
I'm 29, but I've been on them for at least 2 years. Also omeprazole, gemfibrozil, and simvastatin. Been on omperazole for like 10 years.
-
I'm 29, but I've been on them for at least 2 years. Also omeprazole, gemfibrozil, and simvastatin. Been on omperazole Viagra for like 10 years.
Fixt.
-
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/psuderman/2011_04/scannershead.gif)
Chizad?
That clip from Scanners is the intellectual property of the Embassy Pictures Corporation. You're going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
-
That clip from Scanners is the intellectual property of the Embassy Pictures Corporation. You're going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
I thought you would like that.
-
I'm 29, but I've been on them for at least 2 years. Also omeprazole, gemfibrozil, and simvastatin. Been on omperazole for like 10 years.
Say it with me Chizad.....
GOOS-fraba
-
Say it with me Chizad.....
GOOS-fraba
Half Irish, half Italian, half Mexican.
-
Half Irish, half Italian, half Mexican.
What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?
-
What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?
I'm pretty sure this is Snaggle's catchphrase...
-
What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?
By the way, his name's not fat-shit-cat. It's Meatball. And he's eating your crab cakes right now.
-
What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?
Sarcasm is the second cousin of Anger.
-
Sarcasm is the second cousin of Anger.
You're on my side of the arm rest. We're not gonna have problems, are we?
-
And that's where you're wrong.
Not saying linked articles is the goal of this bill, but the legislation is intentionally vague enough, that this could be considered an infringement. And absolutely linking to YouTube videos, that copyright holders later deem in copyright violation because someone was humming a pop song in the background, or because someone's Polo horse on their shirt was visible, would not only hold the user that uploaded the video to YouTube viable, but also YouTube itself, and any website that linked to it. It's ridiculous and extreme, I know, but that's within the vague language of this bill.
Want to post a funny little meme of Stan Marsh blowing his load all over the place to express you thoroughly enjoyed someone's post?
1) Viacom can sue you and Godfather for use of the picture
2) You wouldn't be able to find it because Google could be sued for linking to the picture
3) The person that posted it in the first place could be sued for posting it on their blog or whatever to begin with.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure you can be taken to court now for using somebody else's intellectual property without permission. I think you and your hipster friends are freaking out over nothing, really. I don't think it is worded vaguely so they can TAKE OVER THE WOOOORRRRLLLDDDDD! I think it is a matter of, when dealing with the internet, there are probably literally thousands of way to circumvent the exact wording of whatever you put into the bill. We're dealing with something that isn't tangible, something that isn't black and white. Of course the wording is going to be somewhat ambiguous. It's not like writing a law for DUI, or public intoxication, theft, murder, etc.
-
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure you can be taken to court now for using somebody else's intellectual property without permission. I think you and your hipster friends are freaking out over nothing, really. I don't think it is worded vaguely so they can TAKE OVER THE WOOOORRRRLLLDDDDD! I think it is a matter of, when dealing with the internet, there are probably literally thousands of way to circumvent the exact wording of whatever you put into the bill. We're dealing with something that isn't tangible, something that isn't black and white. Of course the wording is going to be somewhat ambiguous. It's not like writing a law for DUI, or public intoxication, theft, murder, etc.
Yeah, my "hipster friends", the founders/CEOs of Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Wikimedia Foundation, etc.
Buncha good for nothin punks.
"Maybe I'm crazy", but I think those guys understand the bill, and the threat it poses on technology better than you do.
-
Yeah, my "hipster friends", the founders/CEOs of Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Wikimedia Foundation, etc.
Buncha good for nothin punks.
"Maybe I'm crazy", but I think those guys understand the bill, and the threat it poses on technology better than you do.
Think about why those people might be against it. Easy answer: money. Plain and simple.
-
So, as long as it's stupid property it's cool for me to post it?
-
So, is Chizad any closer to going to prison yet?
-
So, is Chizad any closer to going to prison yet?
Chances of a heart attack are more likely I would say.
-
Chances of a heart attack are more likely I would say.
Maybe chinook can hook Chizad up with some of that Gov't merry-g-juana.
-
Maybe chinook can hook Chizad up with some of that girl on girl porn Gov't merry-g-juana.
FIXT
-
FIXT
Not sure that would help any. The way Chizad explains it, this may actually make his blood pressure worse....actually, that is guaranteed.
-
So, is Chizad any closer to going to prison yet?
He's still waiting to hear back from the CEOs of Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc to see if my post is valid.
Bottom line is, those people don't give a shit about this bill, other than the part where it is going to cost them a fuckton of money and time to be compliant. People tend to overlook that aspect when a big name joins their "cause". They just get all kinds of excited and say "SEE, I'm right, you're wrong, because these big companies are smarter than you and agree with me, so NYEEEHHHH!"
-
He's still waiting to hear back from the CEOs of Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc to see if my post is valid.
Bottom line is, those people don't give a shit about this bill, other than the part where it is going to cost them a fuckton of money and time to be compliant. People tend to overlook that aspect when a big name joins their "cause". They just get all kinds of excited and say "SEE, I'm right, you're wrong, because these big companies are smarter than you and agree with me, so NYEEEHHHH!"
You're a dumbass...
Look, you argued that the only people opposed to this legislation is me "and my hipster friends", which is fucking retarded.
Every single tech/web developer, blogger, magazine, enthusiast, agrees that this is basically breaking the internet. Sorry if the boys down at the station disagree. What great financial advantage is JoeSchmo tech blog losing if this passes? But I guess they're just hipsters. Make up your mind. So what you're saying is everyone who understands what is at stake is opposed to this legislation, from CEOs to dumb dirty hippie bloggers. And everything in between.
And why are you bemoaning the poor media giants like Virgin, Viacom, etc. losing a negligible percentage of profits from relatively rare online piracy, but in the same breath bitching about how Google, Wikipedia, etc. are just corporate fatcats afraid of having to lose a few bucks on completely reinventing how the internet works in order to be compliant to this shittacular legislation?
What personal financial interest Erik Ericson, prominant right wing blogger, (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/stopping-sopa/) have in this?
A fund should be created and the left should go out and find candidates to take on the Democrat sponsors. The right should go out and find candidates to take on the Republican sponsors. Heck, maybe Act Blue would let us on the right come by and we can all use their pre-existing platform (a platform no one on the right has even been able to really compete with. Seriously, I’m a big admirer).
The money should then be used to fund the primary challenges against the incumbent sponsors of SOPA. Let the right vet and direct the funding on the right so no one thinks the left is trying to pick the challenger and vice-versa on the left.
This might mean some allies are taken out. It might mean we take out Marsha Blackburn on the right and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the left.
But sometimes a fight is that important. Killing SOPA is that important. Letting the Attorney General of the United States shut down the internet as he wants, whether it be Eric Holder or a future John Ashcroft, should scare the mess out of every American.
How can you claim to be a Republican and favor this Big Brother government takeover of the Internet because "Hollyweird" is afraid of losing some profits?
But back to your dumbass point you're trying to make. If new legislation was being crammed down everyone's throats that severely hampered the police force's ability to do their jobs, I'd value their opinions on the subject.
When it comes to SOPA/PIPA, I'm going to trust the people who own and operate the sites we use every day before some 60+ year olds in the Senate who literally think the Internet is a series of tubes.
Anyone with a remote understanding of the Internet realizes that this will do jack squat to reduce actual online piracy. Pirates will adapt. They always do. They can play whack-a-mole all they want, but they'll never stop it. This amounts to censorship and monetizing of the internet, plain and simple.
-
The fucking Heritage Foundation is opposed to SOPA/PIPA.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/online-piracy-and-sopa-beware-of-unintended-consequences (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/online-piracy-and-sopa-beware-of-unintended-consequences)
Online Piracy and SOPA: Beware of Unintended Consequences
By James Gattuso
December 21, 2011
It is one of the most contentious but least understood issues now before Congress—one that does not align neatly along party lines and has split the business community. The issue is online piracy, the illegal sale of copyrighted and trademarked products on rogue pirate websites. Since last week, the House Judiciary Committee has been struggling with legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or H.R. 3261, sponsored by committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R–TX). The bill would strengthen restrictions on foreign-based rogue websites, while imposing new obligations on U.S.-based firms that facilitate their operation. The legislation addresses a legitimate problem, but it may have unintended negative consequences for the operation of the Internet and free speech. Congress should carefully consider these factors before moving forward with any legislation.
Rogue Sites
There is no doubt that online piracy is a real problem. Websites selling counterfeit goods, including tangible items, such as branded clothing and pharmaceuticals, and digital goods, such as Hollywood movies, have proliferated on the Internet. Such activity is a form of theft, and the federal government has a legitimate role in preventing it. Currently, U.S. authorities can, and do, shut down domestically based “pirate” websites by seizing control of their domain names under asset-forfeiture laws.[1] But a large number of rogue sites are located outside the United States, putting them largely out of the reach of U.S. authorities.
SOPA is intended to undercut such rogue sites by prohibiting third parties from enabling their activity.[2]
Lawsuits Authorized
As it is currently drafted, this is how SOPA would work: First, it allows the U.S. Attorney General, as well as individual intellectual property holders, to sue allegedly infringing sites in court. The site would have to be proven to be a foreign site “directed towards” the U.S. and that it would be subject to seizure if it were U.S.-based. Alternatively, a suit could be brought by a private plaintiff, who would have to show that the site is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” That test, in turn, can be met if the site or a portion of the site is “primarily” designed, operated, or marketed to “enable or facilitate” infringement. The bill requires that attempts be made to notify the website operator of any such legal action, but legal proceedings would go forward even if no response is received.
If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, a range of third-party restrictions would go into effect. Specifically, in cases brought by the Attorney General, to the extent “technically feasible and reasonable,” a court order would:
1. Require Internet service providers to prevent subscribers from reaching the website in question. This would be done by severing the mechanism by which the domain name entered by Web users is connected (“resolved”) to the proper IP address;
2. Prohibit search engines such as Google from providing direct links to the foreign website in search results;
3. Prohibit payment network providers, such as PayPal or credit card firms, from completing financial transactions affecting the site; and
4. Bar Internet advertising firms from placing online ads from or to the affected website.
In cases brought by a private party, only the restrictions on payment networks and advertising firms would apply.
The current version of the legislation, offered as a manager’s amendment in committee, omits a number of controversial provisions that were included in prior versions of SOPA. Most notably, a process that allowed holders of intellectual property rights to trigger third-party obligations without a court order was dropped. This and other recent changes represent a real improvement in the legislation.
Security Concerns
Yet, a number of serious and legitimate concerns remain. Foremost among these is the potential negative effect on Internet security. A number of concerns have been raised. One is that, by blocking “resolution” of IP addresses by servers in the U.S., users (and their browsers) would instead use less secure servers elsewhere to continue accessing blocked sites. Some have also said such domain-name filtering could disrupt access to other, non-infringing domain names.[3] There are also concerns that SOPA could interfere with deployment of a newly developed Internet security system known as “DNSSEC” (which is intended to ensure the successful “resolution” of IP addresses), further weakening security.[4]
SOPA would undercut other policy goals as well. The requirement that search engines omit links to rogue sites undercuts the role of search firms as trusted intermediaries in conveying information to users. There are, of course, other circumstances where search engines already omit information and links—for instance, Google routinely screens out child pornography from its search results. But there has never been a government mandate that information be withheld from search results. Imposing such a mandate would represent the first step down a classic slippery slope of government interference that has no clear stopping point.
Arguably, the limits placed on search engines as well as other third parties under SOPA would also violate constitutional protections of freedom of speech.[5] But even if not barred legally, any such restrictions should be imposed only after the most careful consideration, only when absolutely necessary, and even then, to the smallest degree possible.
While the legislation’s goal—the protection of property—is a proper one, there are alternative approaches. One potential alternative was recently outlined in a proposal by Senator Ron Wyden (D–OR) and Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA) to expand the jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission’s copyright and trademark enforcement authority to include imports of digital goods as well as physical products. That would not address all of the problems with foreign rogue websites, particularly producers of non-digital goods. But the Wyden–Issa approach would make it possible to impose reasonable limits on third-party assistance to rogue sites, under established rules.[6]
Consider Legislation Carefully
The federal government needs to protect intellectual property rights. But it should do so in a way that does not disrupt the growth of technology, does not weaken Internet security, respects free speech rights, and solves the problem of rogue sites. Congress should carefully consider the consequences of and alternatives to the legislation before moving forward.
The Heritage Foundation typically supports the RIAA & MPAA at the drop of a hat.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346829-281/pro-copyright-group-takes-sopa-to-task/?tag=reddit (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346829-281/pro-copyright-group-takes-sopa-to-task/?tag=reddit)
Pro-copyright group takes SOPA to task
Declan McCullagh
by Declan McCullagh December 21, 2011 9:41 PM PST
The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.
The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.
The Heritage Foundation, President Reagan's favorite think tank and a longtime copyright hawk, is warning of the dangers of SOPA. From left: Ronald Reagan, Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, and Heritage President Ed Feulner.
(Credit: Heritage Foundation)
"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.
Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."
Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided. (See CNET's FAQ on SOPA.)
"The areas that are the most concern are the obligation of service providers to block resolution of IP addresses and the obligation of search engines to block search results," says Gattuso, whose conservative credentials include working at the Federal Communications Commission during the first Bush administration and for then-Vice President Dan Quayle. "Those get to the core issue of why the federal government could be able to interfere with the way the Internet is operated, and the core issue of what people can say and what information they can get on the Web."
A warning from a group like Heritage, usually a staunch ally of copyright holders, could help to sway undecided Republicans. It's no exaggeration: Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general who's now a Heritage fellow, seemed to be channelling an MPAA lobbyist when writing in 2005 that "there is no difference between shoplifting a DVD from a store and illegally downloading a copyrighted movie from Kazaa." Heritage's warnings of international "threats to intellectual property rights" date back to at least 1987. And it scores protection of intellectual property rights in its annual Index of Economic Freedom.
SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially offshore sites such as ThePirateBay.org. It would allow the Justice Department to obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet providers, and other companies forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish, a kind of Internet death penalty. It's opposed (PDF) by Internet companies and many Internet users.
While Heritage may be the largest, it wasn't the first free-market group to criticize SOPA.
In a letter to Smith last week, TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Job Security, and Americans for Limited Government warned Smith that his committee "simply has not spent enough time on this legislation to properly address the complex and important issues at stake." These aren't left-leaning groups by any measure: TechFreedom has argued against Net neutrality, warned against expansive antitrust and privacy regulations, and defended the now-abandoned merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.
"You don't have to be against copyright to be skeptical of SOPA," Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, told CNET today. "Even those who will defend copyright (believe that SOPA) would have sweeping unintended consequences. So it's perfectly consistent for conservatives to insist on both the need to enhance copyright enforcement and to be exceedingly careful about how we do so."
The most prominent group on the other side is probably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become the most aggressive defender of SOPA, likely because it receives more money in membership dues from Hollywood than Silicon Valley. (Yahoo and Kapersky Lab have dropped out in protest, and Google is under pressure to do the same.) Concerned Women for America and the National Association of Manufacturers have also endorsed SOPA.
In an interview with CNET last week, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a senior House Republican, said SOPA should not be brought to the House floor. (Issa is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, which is busy investigating the Obama administration on many fronts, including Fannie and Freddie bonuses, the Justice Department's Operation Fast and Furious, and the Freedom of Information Act.)
If SOPA clears the House Judiciary committee, "would it be appropriate to bring such a controversial bill to the floor?" Issa asks. "I think the Republican House leadership will look and say, 'Unless we have the support of the vast majority of Republicans, we're not going to take the bill to the floor.'"
So just who the fuck's word are you going to take on this to realize it's a terrible fucking bill?
-
Those dumbass, know-nothing hipster Harvard researchers?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03470117178/harvard-researchers-explain-that-sopa-supporters-are-misusing-their-research-to-support-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03470117178/harvard-researchers-explain-that-sopa-supporters-are-misusing-their-research-to-support-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Harvard Researchers Explain That SOPA Supporters Are Misusing Their Research To Support SOPA
from the not-so-fast,-daniel-castro dept
We recently discussed how ITIF's Daniel Castro (who's been credited with pushing a SOPA-style censorship program to government officials in the first place) bizarrely used the web censorship done by 13 of the most oppressive governments to support his case that censorship under SOPA would work. The argument was based on a Harvard/OpenNet Initiative to study how the internet is censored and used in various repressive nations. The authors of that study have now come out pretty strongly against Castro for his misuse of their report, and have explained in detail how Castro's assumptions are wrong and his quoting their study is done entirely out of context (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2011/12/22/sopa-and-our-2010-circumvention-study/).
we disagree with the way that Mr. Castro applies our findings to the SOPA debate. His presumption that people will work as hard or harder to access political content than they do to access entertainment content deeply misunderstands how and why most people use the internet. Far more users in open societies use the Internet for entertainment than for political purposes; it is unreasonable to assume different behaviors in closed societies. Our research offers the depressing conclusion that comparatively few users are seeking blocked political information and suggests that the governments most successful in blocking political content ensure that entertainment and social media content is widely available online precisely because users get much more upset about blocking the ability watch movies than they do about blocking specific pieces of political content.
Rather than comparing usage of circumvention tools in closed societies to predict the activities of a given userbase, Mr. Castro would do better to consider the massive userbase of tools like bit torrent clients, which would make for a far cleaner analogy to the problem at hand. Likewise, the long line of very popular peer-to-peer sharing tools that have been incrementally designed to circumvent the technical and political measures used to prevent sharing copyrighted materials are a stronger analogy than our study of users in authoritarian regimes seeking to access political content.
Furthermore, they argue that the bill that Castro is so desperately in favor of would have disastrous consequences, in that it would deny important circumvention tools to those in repressive countries:
Second, our research has consistently shown that those who really wish to evade Internet filters can do so with relatively little effort. The problem is that these activities can be very dangerous in certain regimes. Even though our research shows that relatively few people in autocratic countries use circumvention tools, this does not mean that circumvention tools are not crucial to the dissident communities in those countries. 19 million people is not large in relation to the population of the Internet, but it is still a lot of people absolutely who have freer access to the Internet through the tools. We personally know many people in autocratic countries for whom these tools provide a crucial (though not perfect) layer of security for their activist work. Those people would be at much greater risk than they already are without access to the tools, but in addition to mandating DNS filtering, SOPA would make many circumvention tools illegal. The single biggest funder of circumvention tools has been and remains the U.S. government, precisely because of the role the tools play in online activism. It would be highly counter-productive for the U.S. government to both fund and outlaw the same set of tools.
We noted that Castro's paper read like a joke from the beginning, and the more people dig into it, the more ridiculous it seems.
-
What's all this fuss about napster? I thought that was settled years ago.
-
Those dumbass, know-nothing hipster Harvard researchers?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03470117178/harvard-researchers-explain-that-sopa-supporters-are-misusing-their-research-to-support-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03470117178/harvard-researchers-explain-that-sopa-supporters-are-misusing-their-research-to-support-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Calm down son. Your BP is going to be off the charts.
-
You're a dumbass...
Look, you argued that the only people opposed to this legislation is me "and my hipster friends", which is fucking retarded.
Every single tech/web developer, blogger, magazine, enthusiast, agrees that this is basically breaking the internet. Sorry if the boys down at the station disagree. What great financial advantage is JoeSchmo tech blog losing if this passes? But I guess they're just hipsters. Make up your mind. So what you're saying is everyone who understands what is at stake is opposed to this legislation, from CEOs to dumb dirty hippie bloggers. And everything in between.
And why are you bemoaning the poor media giants like Virgin, Viacom, etc. losing a negligible percentage of profits from relatively rare online piracy, but in the same breath bitching about how Google, Wikipedia, etc. are just corporate fatcats afraid of having to lose a few bucks on completely reinventing how the internet works in order to be compliant to this shittacular legislation?
What personal financial interest Erik Ericson, prominant right wing blogger, (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/stopping-sopa/) have in this?
How can you claim to be a Republican and favor this Big Brother government takeover of the Internet because "Hollyweird" is afraid of losing some profits?
But back to your dumbass point you're trying to make. If new legislation was being crammed down everyone's throats that severely hampered the police force's ability to do their jobs, I'd value their opinions on the subject.
When it comes to SOPA/PIPA, I'm going to trust the people who own and operate the sites we use every day before some 60+ year olds in the Senate who literally think the Internet is a series of tubes.
Anyone with a remote understanding of the Internet realizes that this will do jack squat to reduce actual online piracy. Pirates will adapt. They always do. They can play whack-a-mole all they want, but they'll never stop it. This amounts to censorship and monetizing of the internet, plain and simple.
I said that "I think you and your hipster friends are freaking out about nothing, really". You're the one that came back with the point about Yahoo, Google, etc opposing the bill to prove your point, and how they know way more about it than me, thus implying your position must be right since these big corporations are against it. My point to that was that they have a vested financial interest in that bill not becoming law, and that is more than likely why they oppose it. I never said that you were the ONLY ones that didn't support the bill. I never said anything about protecting a media giant's profits or anything. I don't care if Hollywood wants it done to protect their profits or what. I really don't. It's just the principle of it. It's very basic. If something is your property, you should have control of it. No matter if it is a car, a dog, a house, land, boat, an invention, etc. If you have something and you want to sell it in a free market, or make it available to others for free in an open medium such as the internet, then that is your choice.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure that as long as you're not hosting a site with a shit ton of pirated music, movies, etc, or you aren't hosting some sort of P2P service that is serving up pirated content, then you will probably be OK. Do you really really believe that the point of the law is so they can hire a million people to scour every message board on the internet to find every moron poster in the world posting some funny graphic? No, I don't think so. They would go broke doing that and taking people to court over it. When you are dealing with the internet, you almost have to leave a law somewhat open ended due to the nature of the internet. If you made a super specific wording in the law, there would probably be thousands of ways to circumvent that law. You even admit as much in the last paragraph of your post.
-
Do you really really believe that the point of the law is so they can hire a million people to scour every message board on the internet to find every moron poster in the world posting some funny graphic?
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/paranoia.jpg)
-
The fucking Heritage Foundation is opposed to SOPA/PIPA.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/online-piracy-and-sopa-beware-of-unintended-consequences (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/online-piracy-and-sopa-beware-of-unintended-consequences)
The Heritage Foundation typically supports the RIAA & MPAA at the drop of a hat.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346829-281/pro-copyright-group-takes-sopa-to-task/?tag=reddit (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346829-281/pro-copyright-group-takes-sopa-to-task/?tag=reddit)
So just who the fuck's word are you going to take on this to realize it's a terrible fucking bill?
Just wondering, but did you actually read those two articles you posted? I mean seriously, read them from top to bottom? My next question is, do the points that those articles make accurately represent what you claim to be the end of the internet?
-
Just wondering, but did you actually read those two articles you posted? I mean seriously, read them from top to bottom? My next question is, do the points that those articles make accurately represent what you claim to be the end of the internet?
Next thing you know, we'll be talking about LED's, microbrews and homos getting married again. You know, the important things that make the world go round.
-
Next thing you know, we'll be talking about LED's, microbrews and homos getting married again. You know, the important things that make the world go round.
Wait!....
Homos can get married?
-
Wait!....
Homos can get married?
You sound pretty excited about that....
-
Next thing you know, we'll be talking about LED's, microbrews and homos getting married again. You know, the important things that make the world go round.
Oh there you go. That homo VV is about to drink a beer and go off on LED's again.
-
You sound pretty excited about that....
Well no but we are willing to learn. Will they send us somewhere special for that?
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/harold-ramis-stripes-5.jpg)
-
You sound pretty excited about that....
He's excited that VV and AWK can finally find true happiness.
-
Well no but we are willing to learn. Will they send us somewhere special for that?
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/harold-ramis-stripes-5.jpg)
Black guys, help the white guys out.
-
Calm down son. Your BP is going to be off the charts.
Don't worry, I don't think he read that article either.
-
Just wondering, but did you actually read those two articles you posted? I mean seriously, read them from top to bottom? My next question is, do the points that those articles make accurately represent what you claim to be the end of the internet?
Yes, and yes.
And that's coming from people who would typically support extreme pro-copyright laws.
Did you?
I'll break it down in smaller, easier to digest segments for you.
Consider Legislation Carefully
The federal government needs to protect intellectual property rights. But it should do so in a way that does not disrupt the growth of technology, does not weaken Internet security, respects free speech rights, and solves the problem of rogue sites. Congress should carefully consider the consequences of and alternatives to the legislation before moving forward.
"You don't have to be against copyright to be skeptical of SOPA," Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, told CNET today. "Even those who will defend copyright (believe that SOPA) would have sweeping unintended consequences. So it's perfectly consistent for conservatives to insist on both the need to enhance copyright enforcement and to be exceedingly careful about how we do so."
The most prominent group on the other side is probably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become the most aggressive defender of SOPA, likely because it receives more money in membership dues from Hollywood than Silicon Valley. (Yahoo and Kapersky Lab have dropped out in protest, and Google is under pressure to do the same.) Concerned Women for America and the National Association of Manufacturers have also endorsed SOPA.
-
Don't worry, I don't think he read that article either.
You're a dumbass...
-
Yes, and yes.
And that's coming from people who would typically support extreme pro-copyright laws.
Did you?
I'll break it down in smaller, easier to digest segments for you.
So, the end of the internet as we know it is the government going to court and having a judge decide whether DNS resolution of a foreign or domestic pirating website should be prohibited, and outlawing tools used to circumvent the blocking of those sites? Having hosting providers shut those websites down? And by blocking those sites, it could possibly, theoretically, catch non-offending sites in that same net as well? That is a far cry from regimes such as in China and Iran, for example, that block damn near everything from the Western world and only allow access to like 5 different websites. I only use that example because apparently that is what this bill is being compared to by some.
I mean, theoretically, I could wake up with a full head of hair tomorrow. Snaggle could wake up with an actual penis tomorrow. You're drawing alot of theoretical, maybe, could happen lines out of alot of things. Like I said before, tracking down every Tom, Dick, and Harry across the globe that posts a funny picture of Stewie Griffin are not the targets of the bill, and it would not be feasible or cost effective to go after them. Do you realize how much manpower and money that would take? Even in the articles you posted, they don't seem to be worried about that aspect of the bill. The main worry seems to be the blocking of certain foreign or domestic sites that are serving up the illegal content, and that a few innocents might get caught in that dragnet.
That's great that alot of corporations, bloggers, journalists, etc don't support the bill either. That's their right. I'm not necessarily saying the bill is the greatest thing EVAR, but I do think that some of the opposition is creating alot of hyperbole and using scare tactics to scare others into believing the USGOV is about to go all Tehran on the internet. Just because alot of people support, or don't support something, doesn't necessarily mean they are right or wrong. Doesn't mean I'm right either. For some reason we're becoming a culture of just going with the side that has the most supporters, instead of thinking for ourselves and being reasonable (see Occupy movement).
-
So, the end of the internet as we know it is the government going to court and having a judge decide whether DNS resolution of a foreign or domestic pirating website should be prohibited, and outlawing tools used to circumvent the blocking of those sites? Having hosting providers shut those websites down? And by blocking those sites, it could possibly, theoretically, catch non-offending sites in that same net as well? That is a far cry from regimes such as in China and Iran, for example, that block damn near everything from the Western world and only allow access to like 5 different websites. I only use that example because apparently that is what this bill is being compared to by some.
I mean, theoretically, I could wake up with a full head of hair tomorrow. Snaggle could wake up with an actual penis tomorrow. You're drawing alot of theoretical, maybe, could happen lines out of alot of things. Like I said before, tracking down every Tom, Dick, and Harry across the globe that posts a funny picture of Stewie Griffin are not the targets of the bill, and it would not be feasible or cost effective to go after them. Do you realize how much manpower and money that would take? Even in the articles you posted, they don't seem to be worried about that aspect of the bill. The main worry seems to be the blocking of certain foreign or domestic sites that are serving up the illegal content, and that a few innocents might get caught in that dragnet.
I'm from the Island of Misfit Toys
-
. . . relatively rare online piracy . . .
Did chinook already give you something to smoke? Piracy on the internet is as rare as crime in Compton.
-
Oh, and for the record, I just finished with some steamy man sex. You wouldn't believe how much sweat and sperm can glisten in the soft glow of LED lighting...
-
Oh, and for the record, I just finished with some steamy man sex. You wouldn't believe how much sweat and sperm can glisten in the soft glow of LED lighting...
Were you drinking a nice microbrew afterwards?
-
Were you drinking a nice microbrew afterwards?
No, it was past noon. I had to go with something that required coke product.
-
I had to go with something that required coke product.
Ah yes, the hooker's ass.......That's the requirement of my coke product.
-
Ah yes, the hooker's ass.......That's the requirement of my coke product.
Aint nuttin better than snort'n a line of coke off a hookers ass.
-
Aint nuttin better than snort'n a line of coke off a hookers ass.
Except eating it out of your brother's ass.
-
Except eating it out of your brother's ass.
Affliction's sons are brothers in distress; A brother to relieve, how exquisite the bliss!
-
Affliction's sons are brothers in distress; A brother to relieve, how exquisite the bliss!
U use yor tung purtyer than a $20 whore.
-
U use yor tung purtyer than a $20 whore.
DITTO!
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/03234617223/shouldnt-there-be-significant-punishment-bogus-copyright-claims-that-kill-companies.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/03234617223/shouldnt-there-be-significant-punishment-bogus-copyright-claims-that-kill-companies.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
We wrote a detailed post about the latest Veoh ruling, in which Universal Music lost (again) in claiming that Veoh violated copyright law with its YouTube-like service. Of course, as we pointed out, the "victory" for Veoh is pretty meaningless because Veoh is dead. The cost of the lawsuit itself killed it. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, when you see stories like the federal government shutting down Dajaz1 for over a year, without having an actual case for infringement, and the similar case in Japan, in which the developer of a software program, Winny, had to battle in courts for more than five years, before the court declared that he was totally innocent.
The harm done to legitimate businesses by totally bogus copyright claims seems like it should be a big deal. If the government is really concerned about jobs, rather than passing something like SOPA, shouldn't it be ramping up the punishment for bogus copyright claims that cause so much real harm to businesses? Eric Goldman, in discussing the Veoh ruling makes a similar point and puts forth an interesting suggestion for SOPA, to force companies filing such claims to put up a bond to pay, if they turn out to be wrong:
A partial fix to SOPA/PROTECT-IP would make rightsowners bear the cost of their overclaiming. Make them put up a $1 billion bond for the privilege of sending cutoff notices; and pay liberally out of that bond if the rightsowners get the law or facts wrong. Write checks to the investors and employees whose economic expectations are disrupted when rightsowners get it wrong. Write checks to the payment service providers and ad networks who turn down money from legally legit businesses based solely on rightsowner accusations. Heck, write checks to the users of those legit services who are treated as inconsequential pawns in this chess match. Sure, a $1B bond obligation with liberal payouts would turn cutoff notices into a sport of kings that only the richest rightsowners could afford, but perhaps that’s the way it should be. A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah.
The supporters of the bill, of course, would reject such a suggestion out of hand, noting that it would be unfair and would make it harder for them to "enforce their rights." But that ignores the other side of the equation. If enforcing their rights involves completely destroying someone else's company, then, as Goldman notes, shouldn't it be difficult?
Of course, the chances of this happening are nil. During the SOPA markup, Rep. Jason Chaffetz actually put forth an amendment that didn't even go as far as Goldman's suggestion. It merely said that if you file a lawsuit under SOPA and it turns out that the site was legal, then the plaintiff should pay the legal fees of the defendant. This seems quite reasonable. And it was quickly shot down by SOPA supporters who complained that this was somehow unfair. I still can't figure out why only the copyright holders get to talk about "fairness," while the companies and websites completely destroyed by bogus claims apparently have no "fairness" on their behalf.
-
The harm done to legitimate businesses by totally bogus copyright claims seems like it should be a big deal. If the government is really concerned about jobs, rather than passing something like SOPA, shouldn't it be ramping up the punishment for bogus copyright claims that cause so much real harm to businesses? Eric Goldman, in discussing the Veoh ruling makes a similar point and puts forth an interesting suggestion for SOPA, to force companies filing such claims to put up a bond to pay, if they turn out to be wrong.
This isn't just a copyright issue; this is a general issue with the entire judicial system.
I am at fault in a car wreck. There are no witnesses and no cameras. I sue you, claiming you were at fault. What do you have to do? Defend yourself. What does this mean? You have to pay for attorneys and experts to prove that you are innocent.
One way in which the system attempts to fix this is to have the opposing counsel pay for attorney's fees if they lose. More often than not, a successful plaintiff will get this luxury, but a successful defendant may not due to stricter requirements for the defendant. In order for a defendant to have their attorney's fees paid by the plaintiff, they must show that the claim was "vexatious, frivolous, or brought to harass or embarrass the defendant."
If a claim is truly "bogus," then the defendant can have their attorney's fees reimbursed under rules that we already have. Granted, this is often left up to the discretion of the judge, but the rule is there.
I don't think that requiring a plaintiff to pay X amount of money in order to simply bring a suit is the correct solution. Access to the judicial system is already costly enough, and this deters many people from being able to bring suits when they have the right to do so; adding additional costs to bring a suit is just going to make it worse.
-
We wrote a detailed post about the latest Veoh ruling, in which Universal Music lost (again) in claiming that Veoh violated copyright law with its YouTube-like service. Of course, as we pointed out, the "victory" for Veoh is pretty meaningless because Veoh is dead. The cost of the lawsuit itself killed it. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, when you see stories like the federal government shutting down Dajaz1 for over a year, without having an actual case for infringement, and the similar case in Japan, in which the developer of a software program, Winny, had to battle in courts for more than five years, before the court declared that he was totally innocent.
As far as Veoh is concerned, the main issue in that suit, and the reason Universal took them to court was because Universal had supposedly sent repeated notices for Veoh to remove copyrighted content, and they did not fully comply (according to Universal). Universal contended that Veoh was akin to services like the original Napster, that encouraged copyright infingement by lacking the proper checks and balances to verify content is not otherwise copyrighted by a 3rd party. They also argued whether or not Veoh was protected under certain statutes.
And with Winny, well, we don't live in Japan. You're talking about a suit filed in Japan by the Recording Industry Association of Japan, which is not a branch or division of our RIAA. For that matter, we're talking about statutes that already exist and are not part of the new proposed law. Anybody can take anybody to court. I can take you to small claims court right now over whatever bullshit I make up, and you have to show up and defend yourself, or I win by default. What you pasted above doesn't really have anything to do with what is proposed, since it already exists.
The harm done to legitimate businesses by totally bogus copyright claims seems like it should be a big deal. If the government is really concerned about jobs, rather than passing something like SOPA, shouldn't it be ramping up the punishment for bogus copyright claims that cause so much real harm to businesses? Eric Goldman, in discussing the Veoh ruling makes a similar point and puts forth an interesting suggestion for SOPA, to force companies filing such claims to put up a bond to pay, if they turn out to be wrong:
Veoh could have sued Universal, or could have been awarded damages, if a court found it to be a totally frivolous lawsuit that had no basis or merit whatsoever. But it wasn't that type of lawsuit. It was like alot of lawsuits of this nature, where it is a matter of interpretation.
A partial fix to SOPA/PROTECT-IP would make rightsowners bear the cost of their overclaiming. Make them put up a $1 billion bond for the privilege of sending cutoff notices; and pay liberally out of that bond if the rightsowners get the law or facts wrong. Write checks to the investors and employees whose economic expectations are disrupted when rightsowners get it wrong. Write checks to the payment service providers and ad networks who turn down money from legally legit businesses based solely on rightsowner accusations. Heck, write checks to the users of those legit services who are treated as inconsequential pawns in this chess match. Sure, a $1B bond obligation with liberal payouts would turn cutoff notices into a sport of kings that only the richest rightsowners could afford, but perhaps that’s the way it should be. A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah.
Total bullshit. This is like saying only people who make $200,000 or more a year are allowed to file police reports for theft. It doesn't matter who you are; if somebody stole your property, whether tangible or intellectual, there should be reasonable recourse for that. Here you are complaining about how some innocent sites might get shut down in a dragnet of blocking IP resolution, but you seem to support the notion that it's just tough luck that "the little guy" won't have reasonable access to protect a copyright.
The supporters of the bill, of course, would reject such a suggestion out of hand, noting that it would be unfair and would make it harder for them to "enforce their rights." But that ignores the other side of the equation. If enforcing their rights involves completely destroying someone else's company, then, as Goldman notes, shouldn't it be difficult?
When YouTube decided to do what they do, they knew there were risks involved. As time went by and more and more laws were passed in regards to copyright, pirating, etc, they knew the risks they continued to take. You live by the sword, and you die by the sword. It is no different than all of the businesses in Alabama that are based solely on the hispanic population. It was great before the immigration laws came about. But now that there is law and there customer bases are moving away, well now it's not fair. They're the ones that chose the business model that they did. When you create a business geared towards a super specific customer, or where you can be held liable for the actions of others, well, that's your problem. If I open a bar and my bartender served this guy way past when he should have been cut off, and that drunk goes and plows down a family of 5 and kills them, then that's my ass as the owner of that bar. Etc, etc, etc.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY#)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY#)
I assume you are posting that about yourself. Because if you think what I'm saying is unreasonable, then you live in an alternate universe and don't understand how the world works.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/ (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/)
I just read the article linked above, where basically Facebook, Google, etc are mulling the option of blacking out their domains for a day and posting information about contacting politicians to voice your displeasure over the bill. Honestly, all this amounts to is using people who are pissed off about not being able to access Facebook that day to try to help you with a cause. The majority of them probably won't know what the hell is what. It will more than likely be a Chicken Little message such as the one conveyed by Chizad, that the internet will come to an end, the world is done, etc.
I mean, they can do what they want with their domains. In my opinion, I just personally don't agree with scare tactics and Chicken Little tactics to misinform people to support a specific cause. Especially when Facebook, etc aren't concerned because of the user; they're concerned about their bottom line.
-
I assume you are posting that about yourself. Because if you think what I'm saying is unreasonable, then you live in an alternate universe and don't understand how the world works.
You're a dumbass...
First of all, you realize I didn't write that article, right? I'm not proposing anything. Nor did I suggest it is directly related to the SOPA/PIPA legislation.
It was posted to illustrate that what you suggested earlier in this thread is fallacious. That these poor victimized copyright owners would never arbitrarily bully a someone that isn't actually in violation of copyright laws. To hear you say it, these copyright owners are only concerned about massive file sharing servers, right? And to further illustrate the harm that even the current copyright laws can do to thwart upstarts before they can even get started. Cause that's what we need. Less tech jobs.
No one in their right mind, outside of Big Hollywood could possibly support this bill. You're just doing what you do. Arguing with a brick wall. I'm becoming a brick wall now. Kthxbye.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/ (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/)
I just read the article linked above, where basically Facebook, Google, etc are mulling the option of blacking out their domains for a day and posting information about contacting politicians to voice your displeasure over the bill. Honestly, all this amounts to is using people who are pissed off about not being able to access Facebook that day to try to help you with a cause. The majority of them probably won't know what the hell is what. It will more than likely be a Chicken Little message such as the one conveyed by Chizad, that the internet will come to an end, the world is done, etc.
I mean, they can do what they want with their domains. In my opinion, I just personally don't agree with scare tactics and Chicken Little tactics to misinform people to support a specific cause. Especially when Facebook, etc aren't concerned because of the user; they're concerned about their bottom line.
You're a dumbass.
You disagree with it because I brought it up on TigersX.com.
-
And regarding that article, you're probably right.
Every one of the most popular internet destinations from Amazon to Google to Facebook to Wikipedia to YouTube to eBay to AOL, etc. are probably just being babies. They probably just want to literally black out the entire internet, losing tons of profits, just to be drama queens. They probably don't understand quite like you do when they say things like "these bills so fundamentally change the way the Internet works." Just a bunch of ruffiant thugs trying to destroy the livelihoods of these poor copyright owners. The cofounder of Google's probably just talking out his ass when he says "While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world."
How much more obtuse can you possibly be? I'm sure I'll find out.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/ (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/)
I just read the article linked above, where basically Facebook, Google, etc are mulling the option of blacking out their domains for a day and posting information about contacting politicians to voice your displeasure over the bill. Honestly, all this amounts to is using people who are pissed off about not being able to access Facebook that day to try to help you with a cause. The majority of them probably won't know what the hell is what. It will more than likely be a Chicken Little message such as the one conveyed by Chizad, that the internet will come to an end, the world is done, etc.
I mean, they can do what they want with their domains. In my opinion, I just personally don't agree with scare tactics and Chicken Little tactics to misinform people to support a specific cause. Especially when Facebook, etc aren't concerned because of the user; they're concerned about their bottom line.
Fuck Facebook. That is all.
-
Fuck Facebook. That is all.
And Drew Brees.
And LED lighting.
-
And Drew Brees.
And LED lighting.
And Denise Milani....
No seriously. I would like to. Now.
-
You're a dumbass...
First of all, you realize I didn't write that article, right? I'm not proposing anything. Nor did I suggest it is directly related to the SOPA/PIPA legislation.
It was posted to illustrate that what you suggested earlier in this thread is fallacious. That these poor victimized copyright owners would never arbitrarily bully a someone that isn't actually in violation of copyright laws. To hear you say it, these copyright owners are only concerned about massive file sharing servers, right? And to further illustrate the harm that even the current copyright laws can do to thwart upstarts before they can even get started. Cause that's what we need. Less tech jobs.
No one in their right mind, outside of Big Hollywood could possibly support this bill. You're just doing what you do. Arguing with a brick wall. I'm becoming a brick wall now. Kthxbye.
I realize you didn't write it. But apparently you agree with it in it's entirety, because you posted it to support your point, and I didn't see where you put that you disagreed with any particular part of it. Generally when I'm trying to make a point, I would post something that supports my point. Which is what I assume you intended.
If you actually checked into the Veoh lawsuit, you would find that Veoh actually DID contain some content owned by Universal. The majority of the lawsuit was based on Universal saying that while Veoh actually did remove some of the content requested, that they didn't delete other content requested. Universal contended that since Veoh, in Universal's eyes did not properly respond to their requests to remove the other content, and based upon the argument that they were not eligible for certain protections that were created for sites such as YouTube, etc, that respond to requests to remove content. And for that matter, it wasn't the government that sued Veoh. If anything, the government FOUND IN FAVOR OF Veoh because they were considered protected under a 2005 Supreme Court decision. A decision that would not be magically undone due to the new law.
This wasn't even a case of a company going after a million posters on the internet, or even the people that supposedly posted the copyrighted content to Veoh. It was a company suing another company in civil court.
You're the one that posted this for debate. My points are fairly on target and on topic, it's just a matter of you don't agree with it so you're going to get all pissed off and pull the "you're just doing this because it's an AU message board" card. You're entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't have said anything different if we were on an Alabama, LSU, Baylor, or Oregon board. I don't care what team you like. I just don't agree with your position on the matter. You don't agree with my position. You're the only one that seems to have a problem with that.
If you don't like debate, don't post things in a political forum.
-
I realize you didn't write it. But apparently you agree with it in it's entirety, because you posted it to support your point, and I didn't see where you put that you disagreed with any particular part of it. Generally when I'm trying to make a point, I would post something that supports my point. Which is what I assume you intended.
If you actually checked into the Veoh lawsuit, you would find that Veoh actually DID contain some content owned by Universal. The majority of the lawsuit was based on Universal saying that while Veoh actually did remove some of the content requested, that they didn't delete other content requested. Universal contended that since Veoh, in Universal's eyes did not properly respond to their requests to remove the other content, that based upon that they were not eligible for certain protections that were created for sites such as YouTube, etc, that respond to requests to remove content. And for that matter, it wasn't the government that sued Veoh. If anything, the government FOUND IN FAVOR OF Veoh because they were considered protected under a 2005 Supreme Court decision. A decision that would not be magically undone due to the new law.
This wasn't even a case of a company going after a million posters on the internet, or even the people that supposedly posted the copyrighted content to Veoh. It was a company suing another company in civil court.
You're the one that posted this for debate. My points are fairly on target and on topic, it's just a matter of you don't agree with it so you're going to get all pissed off and pull the "you're just doing this because it's an AU message board" card. You're entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't have said anything different if we were on an Alabama, LSU, Baylor, or Oregon board. I don't care what team you like. I just don't agree with your position on the matter. You don't agree with my position. You're the only one that seems to have a problem with that.
If you don't like debate, don't post things in a political forum.
Seriously, though. We are now discussing LEDs, Football and having sex with Denise Milani and her delicious jugs. No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?
-
No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?
Thought your intent was to stop them from talking about it?
-
And regarding that article, you're probably right.
Every one of the most popular internet destinations from Amazon to Google to Facebook to Wikipedia to YouTube to eBay to AOL, etc. are probably just being babies. They probably just want to literally black out the entire internet, losing tons of profits, just to be drama queens. They probably don't understand quite like you do when they say things like "these bills so fundamentally change the way the Internet works." Just a bunch of ruffiant thugs trying to destroy the livelihoods of these poor copyright owners. The cofounder of Google's probably just talking out his ass when he says "While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world."
How much more obtuse can you possibly be? I'm sure I'll find out.
At the end of the day, they're pissed because the new bill could potentially cost them money. Way more money than blacking out for a day. Is that just a totally crazy concept? Do you think it is even possible that maybe, even a teeny weeny bit, that might be why they don't support it? At all?
-
Thought your intent was to stop them from talking about it?
Well, now I'm just all kinds of confused.....
-
Seriously, though. We are now discussing LEDs, Football and having sex with Denise Milani and her delicious jugs. No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?
I'd fuck Denise Milani under the exquisite glow of LED lighting while James Franklin recorded the whole thing.
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/10300517237/lamar-smith-out-touch-with-internet-still-thinks-its-just-google-that-opposes-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/10300517237/lamar-smith-out-touch-with-internet-still-thinks-its-just-google-that-opposes-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
-
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/10300517237/lamar-smith-out-touch-with-internet-still-thinks-its-just-google-that-opposes-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/10300517237/lamar-smith-out-touch-with-internet-still-thinks-its-just-google-that-opposes-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
I don't really know much about that guy, his research, or anything like that. But I will say that if he is falsifying research or anything just to make people support his point, I don't agree with it any more than I agree with the other side scare mongering. Something in that article that did jump out at me, though.....
The government telling internet sites that they have to block access to other websites is -- undeniably -- censorship
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government not already tell sites to block access to sites, such as those that host child pornography, by going to court and obtaining an order to do so? Under the broad statement made in that article, isn't the example I just gave considered censorship? I don't see these guys complaining about that. I mean, defeating censorship IS what the opposition to the bill is all about, right? So, is some censorship OK, while other is bad?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government not already tell sites to block access to sites, such as those that host child pornography, by going to court and obtaining an order to do so? Under the broad statement made in that article, isn't the example I just gave considered censorship? I don't see these guys complaining about that. I mean, defeating censorship IS what the opposition to the bill is all about, right? So, is some censorship OK, while other is bad?
You're wrong.
There is no government mandate to block links to child pornography. Google and such just does so on their own volition. Because I think it's a pretty uncontroversial stance that child pornography is a bad thing.
But yeah, I totally see your point that a potential copyright violation = child pornography.
-
You're wrong.
There is no government mandate to block links to child pornography. Google and such just does so on their own volition. Because I think it's a pretty uncontroversial stance that child pornography is a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure that the government gets a court order and actually goes a step further by not simply blocking a link, but having the hosting provider shut the site down completely (Vandy Vol, or other lawyer types, might be able to answer this definitively). I understand that everybody agrees that child pornography is a bad thing. But that's my point. That article says that government censorship is bad. So you're saying censorship is OK as long as everybody agrees with it, but not OK if certain people disagree? We're going to pick and choose which crimes should be censored, and which ones shouldn't be? And it's only not OK when certain corporations, bloggers, etc disagree with the censorship? I mean, where does that line get drawn?
But yeah, I totally see your point that a potential copyright violation = child pornography.
You're totally missing the point.
-
I'm pretty sure that the government gets a court order and actually goes a step further by not simply blocking a link, but having the hosting provider shut the site down completely (Vandy Vol, or other lawyer types, might be able to answer this definitively).
The government can and does shut down websites in the United States which host child pornography. Google does not legally have to block links to child porn. This is because, as a search engine, they sort of get an exemption; they're just reporting what's out there on the internet by maintaining a cache database of sites.
If Google were just a random website, and they specifically placed a link on their site to a child pornography site, then they could likely be charged with distributing child porn, and thus their site would have to be taken down (or at least have the link removed). But because Google or any other search engine simply links to websites based upon user input in the form of a search, it's not like they're actively promoting a child porn site with a static link.
Essentially, my understanding is that Google (rightfully) gets an exemption due to the nature of its website, but that any other website located in the U.S. hosting and/or linking to child porn will have its owners prosecuted criminally and the site itself will be shut down.
-
Seriously, though. We are now discussing LEDs, Football and having sex with Denise Milani and her delicious jugs. No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?
Thought your intent was to stop them from talking about it?
Is it time for the AWK/VV are fags and Snaggle lost his balls jokes, or do we first need several movie quotes, including a couple out of order or incorrect? Can Kaos get out his face paint and distract them with some mimng?
-
The government can and does shut down websites in the United States which host child pornography. Google does not legally have to block links to child porn. This is because, as a search engine, they sort of get ...
^^^This guy knows...
-
I don't think that requiring a plaintiff to pay X amount of money in order to simply bring a suit is the correct solution. Access to the judicial system is already costly enough, and this deters many people from being able to bring suits when they have the right to do so; adding additional costs to bring a suit is just going to make it worse.
A "loser pays" system seems like a good solution...
-
Is it time for the AWK/VV [and AUJIZZAD] are fags... jokes?
Who is joking?
-
A "loser pays" system seems like a good solution...
Not sure since there are so many losers.
-
Well, if the government is dead set on forcing us to use LED....wait, this isn't the light bulb thread? 6 pages in I just thought....
-
Well, if the government is dead set on forcing us to use LED....wait, this isn't the light bulb thread? 6 pages in I just thought....
Congress has temporarily overturned the ban on incandescent bulbs... So, to hell with all of the tree-huggers and ignorant twirps!!!
-
A "loser pays" system seems like a good solution...
They pretty much have that now, it's just that it's easier for a successful plaintiff to get their fees reimbursed than it is for a successful defendant.
I can see why the defendant is saddled with the burden of proving that the claim was frivolous; why punish a plaintiff who had a legitimate claim which needed to be decided by a court? Then again, I can also see the other side of the coin.
I'm not really opposed to a pure "loser pays" system in which it's just as easy for the prevailing defendant to have their fees reimbursed by the losing plaintiff, but I can see the reasons for the current system as well.
-
Tim Berners-Lee (the actual inventor of the web (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee), sorry Al) probably doesn't know shit about this subject.
https://twitter.com/# (https://twitter.com/#)!/timberners_lee/status/156391382938951681
Pls RT: @senatorreid @chuckschumer @mcconnellpress We need u to stand w the Internet and kill #PIPA http://act.demandprogress.org/act/pipa_tweet/?referring_akid=.194196.pE4I30&source=typ-tw (http://act.demandprogress.org/act/pipa_tweet/?referring_akid=.194196.pE4I30&source=typ-tw) via @demandprogress
MC Hammer, once the most popular musician in the world, who famously lost it all and filed for bankruptcy, certainly would be opposed to something that would steal from artists' pockets, right?
https://twitter.com/# (https://twitter.com/#)!/MCHammer/status/156681982389133314
Join me & change your profile picture to protest SOPA: http://www.BlackoutSOPA.org/ (http://www.BlackoutSOPA.org/) #BlackoutSOPA
https://twitter.com/# (https://twitter.com/#)!/MCHammer/status/156781813363245057
Terrible bill for writers, vloggers, artists, and musicians! #BlackoutSOPA
-
Those dumbass whiny punks at Wikipedia will be taking the site offline on Wednesday.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout)
English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout
To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012
Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate—that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.
This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:
It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.
Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.
On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.
In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.
But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.
Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.
That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place—many do!—but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.
My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA –and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States– don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation seeking to regulate the Internet in other ways while hurting our online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.
Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
-
You don't see Encyclopedia Britannica doing this cause they are a source.
-
Those dumbass whiny punks at Wikipedia will be taking the site offline on Wednesday.
THE WORLD WILL CRUMBLEEEEE!!!! OH NOOOOEEEEESSSSS!!!!
Just think of the stories we will be able to tell our grandchildren. "Oh Johnny, it was a terrible day. Wikipedia was down. The world stood still."
Again, you fail to see exactly WHY these companies are more than likely against this. For some reason, you can't even begin to fathom the concept. It's all about the $$$, and what it may cost they to enforce the law where they would not be held liable for any possible infractions. While Wikipedia is a non-profit, it will cost them money to implement some sort of system to verify content; whether that be technology, manpower, or whatever. The bill isn't that insane. It is basically a modification to existing laws to help combat the foreign based sites that serve up content to users that infringes upon copyrights here in the US. And for that to happen, an order has to be obtained through a court to take any action on blocking the resolution of a site. The same thing happens with existing laws. There is a due process.
The whole "THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT IS OOOVVVEEERRRRRR!!!" shit is a bunch of hyperbole.
-
You don't see Encyclopedia Britannica doing this cause they are a source.
It doesn't matter what Encyclopedia Britannica thinks. They're not a popular website. Only people who run popular websites are smart and can see that this new bill is clearly evil, and the end of the internet. Except the people who run GoDaddy. They're not smart.
-
THE WORLD WILL CRUMBLEEEEE!!!! OH NOOOOEEEEESSSSS!!!!
Just think of the stories we will be able to tell our grandchildren. "Oh Johnny, it was a terrible day. Wikipedia was down. The world stood still."
Again, you fail to see exactly WHY these companies are more than likely against this. For some reason, you can't even begin to fathom the concept. It's all about the $$$, and what it may cost they to enforce the law where they would not be held liable for any possible infractions. While Wikipedia is a non-profit, it will cost them money to implement some sort of system to verify content; whether that be technology, manpower, or whatever. The bill isn't that insane. It is basically a modification to existing laws to help combat the foreign based sites that serve up content to users that infringes upon copyrights here in the US. And for that to happen, an order has to be obtained through a court to take any action on blocking the resolution of a site. The same thing happens with existing laws. There is a due process.
The whole "THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT IS OOOVVVEEERRRRRR!!!" shit is a bunch of hyperbole.
You're a dumbass...
So a nonprofit is against it for reasons of greed, but the multibillion dollar entertainment industry is altruistic in its cause. Got it. :taunt:
It doesn't matter what Encyclopedia Britannica thinks. They're not a popular website. Only people who run popular websites are smart and can see that this new bill is clearly evil, and the end of the internet. Except the people who run GoDaddy. They're not smart.
You're a dumbass...
Saniflush was joking. But now that I'm forced to address it, as I've mentioned numerous times, trying to argue that Wikipedia is inferior to the Encyclopedia Britannica is like trying to argue that an 8-track player is better than a top of the line iPod. Whatever you wanna believe, fuddy duddy.
It's been over six years since Wikipedia was proven to be equally as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm), and since then, has only become more accurate (http://devicegadget.com/resources/encylopedia-britannica-vs-wikipedia/4113/), and most professional researchers agree that Wikipedia is the most accurate encyclopedia available (http://www.quakercampus.com/content/wikipedia-more-accurate-more-current-encyclopedia). Let alone the obvious fact that it is infinitely more complete and current. Is there an Encyclopedia Britannica entry about the 1978 Washington State Cougars football team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Washington_State_Cougars_football_team) or the 1977 EP from The Buzzcocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Scratch_%28EP%29)? Does it list your new OC Doug Nussmeier as your OC? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Nussmeier) Of course not.
Now, with all that said...you're a dumbass...
I bet Encyclopedia Britannica would love to break the internet. Free flow of knowledge has put a damper on sales of those $700 sets. Not that even they have vocally come out in support of SOPA. It was meant as a joke.
Also...you're a dumbass...
-
You're a dumbass...
So a nonprofit is against it for reasons of greed, but the multibillion dollar entertainment industry is altruistic in its cause. Got it. :taunt:
You're a dumbass...
At least the entertainment industry is being truthful in why they support it. They wish to protect the property that they own. That's what all of this boils down to. The basic rights of ownership over something. Just because something is wildly popular doesn't mean that it is OK to trample all over rights of ownership. Just because the people, or corporation, that owns something has money doesn't make them less entitled to it. It doesn't matter if they are doing it to be dicks, doing it to protect their profit, or whatever. It doesn't matter. They own certain things, and have rights to it.
Don't get me wrong, I have MP3s, I've watched videos online, etc etc. But I can still understand the basic rights of ownership.
-
In case you haven't noticed there will be no wikipedia today. My facts will be 2/3s or roughly 28% more wrong than normal.
Also Google, Firefox, and several other sites have blacked out logos as anti-sopa reminders.
People are finally taking notice.
-
In case you haven't noticed there will be no wikipedia today. My facts will be 2/3s or roughly 28% more wrong than normal.
Also Google, Firefox, and several other sites have blacked out logos as anti-sopa reminders.
People are finally taking notice.
Because of their insolence I started using Yahoo.
-
I was going to look this stuff up today to get informed, but for some reason wikipedia is down.
-
Anyone tried to get on the Wiki's today? I'm having trouble. Probably the server here at work.
-
Because of their insolence I started using Yahoo.
How are you going to expect the members of this board to know what "insolence" means if they can't look it up?
-
How are you going to expect the members of this board to know what "insolence" means if they can't look it up?
http://dictionary.reference.com/ (http://dictionary.reference.com/)
-
Yeah but just how reliable is that?
-
I was going to look this stuff up today to get informed, but for some reason wikipedia is down.
Vandy must be extraordinarily useless today...
-
Yeah but just how reliable is that?
bastante fiables, siempre y cuando usted no quiere otro idioma.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/ (http://dictionary.reference.com/)
We would have also accepted all non-wiki sources but yes we will accept dictionary.
Sani, you have the board.
-
We would have also accepted all non-wiki sources but yes we will accept dictionary.
Sani, you have the board.
What is donkey punch Alex.
-
In a pinch?
When you go to a wikipedia page, hit ESC right as the blackout page is coming up.
-
Do they have Auburns new OC listed yet?
-
https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia
-
Vandy must be extraordinarily useless today...
You are correct; I am completely useless. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're busy fixing laptops with LEDs from the 1960's...
-
In a pinch?
When you go to a wikipedia page, hit ESC right as the blackout page is coming up.
Or you can just go to the cache site.
-
Or you can just go to the cache site.
Or use a mobile device.
-
You are correct; I am completely useless. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're busy fixing laptops with LEDs from the 1960's...
LEDs are dangerous (http://today.uci.edu/news/2011/02/nr_LED_110210.php)...
-
LEDs are dangerous (http://today.uci.edu/news/2011/02/nr_LED_110210.php)...
Indeed, so your Commodore 64 that used them back in the 70's is deadly as fuck.
-
Indeed, so your Commodore 64 that used them back in the 70's is deadly as fuck.
That was a TI-99 wiff a tape drive, BITCH!
-
So can I get some cliffs ITT?
I have it like this but may be off.
Chizad is against SOPA as should any other red blooded American anytime shitty legislation is introduced, especially legislation that is vague and could allow for the Gov't to overstep its bounds?
RWS is for it, or is at least being a dumbass and arguing for it b/c we should trust the Gov't to do the right thing and these whiney ass companies are mad b/c it will cut into their profits? How dare they want to make as much money as possible?
GH and simp want Chizad to take blood pressure med and to smoke some weed?
Uncle Sani drops some jokes?
Garman hasn't really stated a position, but him and VV are talking about LED's again?
Chizad still hasn't gone to federal pound me in ass prison for all his Internet Tom Foolery?
-
So can I get some cliffs ITT?
I have it like this but may be off.
Chizad is against SOPA as should any other red blooded American anytime shitty legislation is introduced, especially legislation that is vague and could allow for the Gov't to overstep its bounds?
RWS is for it, or is at least being a dumbass and arguing for it b/c we should trust the Gov't to do the right thing and these whiney ass companies are mad b/c it will cut into their profits? How dare they want to make as much money as possible?
GH and simp want Chizad to take blood pressure med and to smoke some weed?
Uncle Sani drops some jokes?
Garman hasn't really stated a position, but him and VV are talking about LED's again?
Chizad still hasn't gone to federal pound me in ass prison for all his Internet Tom Foolery?
Pretty much.
RWS agrees with "Hollyweird".
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/ (http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/)
-
Pretty much.
RWS agrees with "Hollyweird".
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/ (http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-because-of-administrations-piracy-stand/)
I am actually with you on this. I am very against both of these bills. They are dangerous.
I'm just not going to have to jump on Xanax because of it. Harry Reid is who is really trying to pull a lot of strings to ram this bill in (just like he did with Healthcare).
-
For the record, PIPA and SOPA are complete crap and deserve to be defeated. The government has no place in this. Co-sponsors are dropping pretty fast, so it's only a matter of time.
Meanwhile...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html)
Be on the lookout for brownshirts and other gubm'et orcs.
-
That was a TI-99 wiff a tape drive, BITCH!
TI-99? I thought that was this?
(http://plasmapool.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/T1000.jpg)
-
The war has begun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html?_r=1)
(http://Indictment Charges Megaupload Site With PiracyBy BEN SISARIO
Published: January 19, 2012
The federal authorities on Thursday announced that they had charged seven people connected to the Web site Megaupload, including its founder, with running an international criminal enterprise centered on copyright infringement on the Internet.
According to a grand jury indictment, Megaupload — one of the most popular “locker” services on the Internet, which lets users anonymously transfer large files — generated $175 million in income for its operators through subscription fees and advertising, while causing $500 million in damages to copyright holders.
Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder Kim Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz, have been arrested in New Zealand, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Thursday; the three others remain at large. The seven — who a grand jury indictment calls part of a “Mega Conspiracy” — have been charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy, the authorities said.
The charges, which the government agencies said represented “among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States,” come at a charged time, a day after online protests against a pair of antipiracy bills being considered by Congress — the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the House, and the Protect I.P. Act, or PIPA, in the Senate.
The indictment was handed down by a grand jury in Virginia two weeks ago, but was unsealed on Thursday, and stems from a federal investigation that began two years ago.
The Megaupload case touches on many of the most controversial aspects of the antipiracy debate.
Megaupload and similar locker sites, like Rapidshare and Mediafire, are often promoted as being convenient ways to legitimately transfer large files — a recent promotional video had major stars like Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas singing Megaupload’s praises. But they have become notorious among media companies, who see them as abetting copyright infringement on a large scale by giving people easy, but unauthorized, access to movies, music and other content.
Megaupload is currently engaged in a lawsuit with Universal over the promotional video and Universal’s efforts to have it removed from YouTube.
As part of the crackdown on Megaupload, 20 search warrants were executed in nine countries, including the United States. About $50 million in assets were also seized, as well as a number of servers and 18 domain names, the authorities said.
Ira P. Rothken, a lawyer for Megaupload, said in a phone interview on Thursday afternoon that he had not yet seen the indictment, but he added: “Clearly we have due process concerns. This was done without a hearing.”)
-
Wow...look at the balls on the FBI!
"We'll see your voluntary day of internet blackout and raise you a permanent lifetime of Megaupload blackout. Your move, Internet."
Is it me, or does this action prove that SOPA means nothing and that the government will do whatever they want?
-
Wow...look at the balls on the FBI!
"We'll see your voluntary day of internet blackout and raise you a permanent lifetime of Megaupload blackout. Your move, Internet."
Is it me, or does this action prove that SOPA means nothing and that the government will do whatever they want?
In all fairness, the investigation against them began two years ago. But yes, the timing of the indictment itself is definitely a "fuck you."
-
In all fairness, the investigation against them began two years ago. But yes, the timing of the indictment itself is definitely a "fuck you."
The timing is still most likely coincidental. However, you know the FBI had their troll face on when this went down.
-
The timing is still most likely coincidental. However, you know the FBI had their troll face on when this went down.
Most definitely; if I were the FBI, I would have it on.
And I'm sure Megaupload's response will be to point at Mediafire and other similar sites and ask:
(http://www.techdigest.tv/troll-tash.jpg)
-
Wow...look at the balls on the FBI!
"We'll see your voluntary day of internet blackout and raise you a permanent lifetime of Megaupload blackout. Your move, Internet."
Is it me, or does this action prove that SOPA means nothing and that the government will do whatever they want?
It's just more evidence to what RWS fails to grasp, which is this was never about simply protecting copyright violations. They can do that now, even as heavy-handedly as this.
-
The InterWebz War continues...
https://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-sopa-235/ (https://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-sopa-235/)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/anonymous-hackers-claim-to-take-down-justice-department-website-in-retaliation/ (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/anonymous-hackers-claim-to-take-down-justice-department-website-in-retaliation/)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/19/technology/megaupload_shutdown/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/19/technology/megaupload_shutdown/index.htm)
-
The Anonymous cyber-punks are just playing into SOPA's hands.
"See how dangerous we can be if you fuck with our internet?"
"Yeah. Did you remember that you aren't fucking with fellow pimple-faced dweebs? Oh you didn't? Here. Let me take your internet from you."
-
12/21/12, here we come.
-
RWS is for it, or is at least being a dumbass and arguing for it b/c we should trust the Gov't to do the right thing and these whiney ass companies are mad b/c it will cut into their profits? How dare they want to make as much money as possible?
Like I said in previous posts, I'm not saying that this is the best bill EVAR EVAR written. Sure, there are parts that are a little murky and open ended. But when you're dealing with the internet, you almost have to be somewhat open ended. Is that a sign that the government is going to regulate the internet like we're the new Iran? Maybe. But I doubt it. I just don't see how you can make finely worded statutes when you're dealing with piracy on the internet. The second you make some absolutes, you've got a million folks around the world working non-stop to come up with a workaround the next day.
Your post above opens a can of worms. Where does that mentality end? Is it OK to steal TVs from Wal-Mart because they already make huge profits? Is it OK to steal laptops from Best Buy because they make money? Should Microsoft be forced to hand out copies of Windows for free because Bill Gates is a rich bastard? Should I be able to steal groceries from the grocery store because I think that particular chain is too profitable? Can I steal some guy's Maserati because he must have money? Can I break into your house and steal your shit because it's a really nice house? Where do we draw the line with that thinking? Is it only OK to steal shit that is popular and available on the internet? It's OK to commit property crimes on the internet, but just not on the streets?
One of my problems with the opposition is how they are using hyperbole and scare tactics. It sort of reminds me of how American civilization as we knew it was coming to an end due to the Patriot Act. Now, I'm not saying that it is the best piece of legislation that has ever been passed either. Maybe the FBI has secret cameras in my house. Maybe they are listening to every call I make or receive. Maybe they follow me when I drop my kids off at school. I don't know. But honestly, I couldn't give two shits less if they are. I'm not doing anything illegal, so if they want to watch my boring ass life, then that's their problem. If that makes me less of an American, then I'm sorry. It just hasn't negatively affected me in any way at all. I would go as far as saying it probably hasn't negatively affected a good bit of Americans. I don't really have any way to quantify that, so maybe I'm wrong. I just think the hyperbole was a bit much over the top, much like with SOPA. It certainly may not be the best bill ever written, but I highly doubt it is the "end of the internet".
I would like to see what ideas companies that are against SOPA, such as Google, have in the fold to suggest in SOPA's place. I believe it was Google's CEO that said there are better ways to go about it. If there is a much more effective way to fight this problem, I think they should band together and lay out that solution to lawmakers. Maybe they have and I just don't know about it. I'm not talking about a self-serving solution that basically has no teeth. I mean a real, viable solution.
-
Like I said in previous posts, I'm not saying that this is the best bill EVAR EVAR written. Sure, there are parts that are a little murky and open ended. But when you're dealing with the internet, you almost have to be somewhat open ended. Is that a sign that the government is going to regulate the internet like we're the new Iran? Maybe. But I doubt it. I just don't see how you can make finely worded statutes when you're dealing with piracy on the internet. The second you make some absolutes, you've got a million folks around the world working non-stop to come up with a workaround the next day.
Your post above opens a can of worms. Where does that mentality end? Is it OK to steal TVs from Wal-Mart because they already make huge profits? Is it OK to steal laptops from Best Buy because they make money? Should Microsoft be forced to hand out copies of Windows for free because Bill Gates is a rich bastard? Should I be able to steal groceries from the grocery store because I think that particular chain is too profitable? Can I steal some guy's Maserati because he must have money? Can I break into your house and steal your shit because it's a really nice house? Where do we draw the line with that thinking? Is it only OK to steal shit that is popular and available on the internet? It's OK to commit property crimes on the internet, but just not on the streets?
One of my problems with the opposition is how they are using hyperbole and scare tactics. It sort of reminds me of how American civilization as we knew it was coming to an end due to the Patriot Act. Now, I'm not saying that it is the best piece of legislation that has ever been passed either. Maybe the FBI has secret cameras in my house. Maybe they are listening to every call I make or receive. Maybe they follow me when I drop my kids off at school. I don't know. But honestly, I couldn't give two shits less if they are. I'm not doing anything illegal, so if they want to watch my boring ass life, then that's their problem. If that makes me less of an American, then I'm sorry. It just hasn't negatively affected me in any way at all. I would go as far as saying it probably hasn't negatively affected a good bit of Americans. I don't really have any way to quantify that, so maybe I'm wrong. I just think the hyperbole was a bit much over the top, much like with SOPA. It certainly may not be the best bill ever written, but I highly doubt it is the "end of the internet".
I would like to see what ideas companies that are against SOPA, such as Google, have in the fold to suggest in SOPA's place. I believe it was Google's CEO that said there are better ways to go about it. If there is a much more effective way to fight this problem, I think they should band together and lay out that solution to lawmakers. Maybe they have and I just don't know about it. I'm not talking about a self-serving solution that basically has no teeth. I mean a real, viable solution.
You do know there are existing copyright and pirating laws in place now, right? A simple modification needs to be done. The overzealous lawmakers like Reid are using this as an excuse to regulate and control anything they can get their hands on. When generic language is used to write a bill, it can lead to interpretation by a judge and a slippery slope occurs. Pelosi has tried the same crap with supplements attempting to define anything that helps an ailment as a "Drug". Yes, they have made Cheerios take verbiage off their box saying they can lower Cholesterol. Vitamin C and Orange Juice containers can't say anything about helping the immune system. If it does, it will be considered a "drug" and by regulated/controlled prescription only. Ridicilous eh? This is the type of thing that will happen with SOPA as well. Again, slippery slope. Do not be naive here.
The fact that Chad, GarMan, VV, THS, myself and probably a few others oppose this should tell you something. When the hell has that ever happened involving something political? Fuck the entertainment industry.
-
Like I said in previous posts, I'm not saying that this is the best bill EVAR EVAR written. Sure, there are parts that are a little murky and open ended. But when you're dealing with the internet, you almost have to be somewhat open ended. Is that a sign that the government is going to regulate the internet like we're the new Iran? Maybe. But I doubt it. I just don't see how you can make finely worded statutes when you're dealing with piracy on the internet. The second you make some absolutes, you've got a million folks around the world working non-stop to come up with a workaround the next day.
Keep the government out of the Internet. Historically speaking, virtually everything the government forces its way into becomes more of a problem than the original issue they were trying to resolve. In this particular case, there is no need for the government to create any new legislation to protect copyrights or prevent piracy. They have enough authority already. Personally, I would rather the individual copyright holders protect their own IP rather than empowering some thug government with new regulatory controls and authority over things they do not understand.
-
The Anonymous cyber-punks are just playing into SOPA's hands.
"See how dangerous we can be if you fuck with our internet?"
"Yeah. Did you remember that you aren't fucking with fellow pimple-faced dweebs? Oh you didn't? Here. Let me take your internet from you."
Yeah... I sort of agree. Personally, I find the retaliatory action quite humorous, but it could be used to support the goons trying to impose these controls and regulations over the Internet. I think the voluntary blackout had greater impact. They should do it for an entire week...
-
Keep the government out of the Internet. Historically speaking, virtually everything the government forces its way into becomes more of a problem than the original issue they were trying to resolve. In this particular case, there is no need for the government to create any new legislation to protect copyrights or prevent piracy. They have enough authority already. Personally, I would rather the individual copyright holders protect their own IP rather than empowering some thug government with new regulatory controls and authority over things they do not understand.
^^^THIS^^^ If you already own the rights to something and someone rips you off...it's up to you to go after them for recovery. You can also have the authorities go after them criminally. The laws are already in place.
-
Keep the government out of the Internet. Historically speaking, virtually everything the government forces its way into becomes more of a problem than the original issue they were trying to resolve. In this particular case, there is no need for the government to create any new legislation to protect copyrights or prevent piracy. They have enough authority already. Personally, I would rather the individual copyright holders protect their own IP rather than empowering some thug government with new regulatory controls and authority over things they do not understand.
:kimclap:
-
I think they're getting the message...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57362783-17/sopa-halted-in-house/?part=rss&subj=latest-news&tag=title (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57362783-17/sopa-halted-in-house/?part=rss&subj=latest-news&tag=title)
-
Yep... They got the message.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technology/SOPA_PIPA_postponed/ (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technology/SOPA_PIPA_postponed/)
-
There are a lot of things that don't add up about this... on both sides of this mess.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089954/Megaupload-founder-Kim-Dotcom-sprang-electronic-locks-Bond-villain-lair-police-swooped.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089954/Megaupload-founder-Kim-Dotcom-sprang-electronic-locks-Bond-villain-lair-police-swooped.html)
-
I found this article interesting.
I have the album cover in question autographed by the band.
Joe Escalante is infamous in the punk rock community for being one of the few conservatives in the genre.
I met The Vandals after a show one time, about ten years ago. At the time, a popular shirt at these punk festivals had an unflattering picture of Bush and text that read "Not My President". Being the contrarian that I am, I made a shirt in the same style, but with Bush Smiling and the text read "Is My President". The singer tapped Joe and said "Hey Joe, look at this kid's shirt". He gave me a thumbs up and told me he was glad to see "that not all these kids are brainwashed."
Anyway, that's my personal connection.
Here's his article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-escalante/sopa-copyright_b_1222058.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-escalante/sopa-copyright_b_1222058.html)
Joe Escalante
Does Daily Variety Validate SOPA Fears?
Posted: 01/23/2012 4:05 pm
It's hard to find anyone these days who will actually say "Hi! I'm for SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act, or the Senate's PIPA). But at first, I admit, I thought it was the right thing to do. I own a small catalog of music releases, films, and some publishing interests. I would see a spike in sales if SOPA passed. Of that I am convinced.
I found the hysteria regarding what "might" happen if this bill passed to be way over the top. Until, however, while fighting a lawsuit myself against a large media company, I had an epiphany that instantly transformed me to the other side of this issue.
I am now against it. I've seen the beast' face to face. I have first hand knowledge of what the large media companies think of the Internet. They will never like it until they can control it 100%; of course ruining it in the process.
I host a weekly intellectual property themed legal advice radio show (sexy, I know) and my "flip flop" (why not call it what it is?) came while explaining to one of the callers what the lawyers for the large Dutch media company Reed Elsevier, Inc. were doing on behalf of its Daily Variety Magazine in a lawsuit filed against the rather obscure punk band The Vandals (full disclosure: I'm the bassist; more disclosure, Reed owns Lexis Nexis, who profit from any litigation, abusive as well as non-abusive.)
First filed in 2004, the case is now set for trial in Federal Court on April 3, 2012 where the Daily Variety will claim in front of a jury, presumably with a straight face, that mere "links" to a site that posted artwork from a discontinued CD displaying an "infringing parody" should result in the four members of the Vandals paying Daily Variety and their lawyers at Fulbright & Jaworski upwards of a million dollars.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-01-23-HPC_Variety_Mag.jpg)
One only has to observe the Plaintiff's behavior and legal theories propounded in Reed Elsevier, Inc. vs. Escalante, et al (as it is known on the Federal docket), to get a glimpse of how the media companies would transform the Internet if SOPA or PIPA ever pass close to their present form.
If the fear is that under SOPA, the media companies will take advantage of a legal anomaly that will permit them to shut down entire web sites, with the burden of proving innocence placed on the defendant, based on trumped up claims and theories, I can tell you, it's not paranoia. It is a real world certainty.
My conservative nature resisted the notion these apparent threats to the First Amendment outweighed the need to punish I.P. thieves. However, my epiphany occurred while sharing with my audience an outrageous comment made to me during a deposition in the Variety case. Variety's lawyer from the 900 member firm of Fulbright and Jaworsky accused me of having an image of the Vandals album depicting the notorious "infringing parody" of Variety's logo on the Vandals' Myspace page.
When it was pointed out to him that it was part of News Corp's mp3 retail store and outside the control of the Vandals he signaled the theory he will present at trial to squash us. "If you had no control over the image in the retail store, why didn't you shut down your entire Myspace Page immediately so that no one could see the infringing parody?"
I laughed out loud, but then realized he was serious. This evidently passes as logical in a giant law firm representing a giant media company with 30,000 plus employees. He didn't care about this country's treasured protections provided by the First Amendment for artistic speech. He didn't care about the Copyright Act's "Fair Use Doctrine" which protects punk bands' parodies as it does every parody created on Saturday Night Live or Mad Magazine. He didn't care that if he won his case, four musicians would lose their homes, and everything they'd worked for during their modest 30-year career as a band. He only cared about scorched earth litigation to get his way.
However misguided, it was fascinating to me because he was showing us our future under SOPA. In Reed v. Escalante, et al, Variety is using burdensome litigation threats to deprive artists of due process. With SOPA, the media companies don't need that threat anymore. The law would provide cover. Victims can't strike back until the damage is done. That is a powerful sword to wield and I come from the future to tell you that they will not hesitate to stab anyone in their path with it, if it means making another nickel.
And this is just over a parody. Can you imagine the lengths they will go when it's alleged piracy? It's a hideous thought.
-
I found this article interesting.
I have the album cover in question autographed by the band.
Joe Escalante is infamous in the punk rock community for being one of the few conservatives in the genre.
I met The Vandals after a show one time, about ten years ago. At the time, a popular shirt at these punk festivals had an unflattering picture of Bush and text that read "Not My President". Being the contrarian that I am, I made a shirt in the same style, but with Bush Smiling and the text read "Is My President". The singer tapped Joe and said "Hey Joe, look at this kid's shirt". He gave me a thumbs up and told me he was glad to see "that not all these kids are brainwashed."
Anyway, that's my personal connection.
Here's his article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-escalante/sopa-copyright_b_1222058.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-escalante/sopa-copyright_b_1222058.html)
I'm really shocked the Huff Post would even run this article.
-
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/obama-secretary-state-howard-berman-sopa/
Obama considering prominent SOPA supporter for cabinet
Politics November 13, 2012
Kevin Collier
President Obama is reportedly considering appointing one of the biggest supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) as his new Secretary of State.
Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who represented the Hollywood area in Congress from 1982 until the 2012 election, when he was challenged and defeated by a fellow Democrat, is notorious among activists for his support of SOPA, a bill that was heavily sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and perceived to be so overzealous in shutting down Internet piracy that it was a threat to Internet freedom as a whole. The film industry has a long history of lobbying politicians, and gave $407,260 to Berman the past two years alone, according to Maplight.org.
SOPA never came to a vote when it was brought before Congress in January. A massive Internet strike against the bill, which included scores of Americans calling their representatives in Congress, led to a number of representatives renouncing their co-sponsorship. Berman was both an early supporter of SOPA and one of the remaining co-sponsors of the bill after it became clear it wouldn’t pass. The head of the MPAA, former Sen. Chris Dodd, infamously threatened to cut funding to candidates who didn’t keep supporting the bill.
Activist group Demand Progress recognized the possibility of Obama appointing Berman, and its members have created a petition against Berman getting the job. “If the United States really cares about global Internet freedom, there couldn't be a worse pick for Secretary of State than Berman, who's repeatedly tried to censor the web at Hollywood's behest,†Demand Progress says.
Obama, it bears noting, officially decried SOPA a few days before it was shelved, though he’s not made Internet freedom a priority as of late.
:sad: