SOPA/ACTA Watch

[The Tom]

I had a look at the list of names and organisations that oppose this bill. It's really long.

I live in the UK anyway, and my impression of UK law so far is that the powers that be don't seem as bothered about internet-based copyright issues, or at least know that a load of middle-aged men in suits really cannot try and regulate the internet. I suppose it's because Hollywood and most of the major music producers are American. My main fear is that if this bill passes then Britain will decide that a similar one is in order for us lot, and that I could not take.

I won't offer any other opinions on the issue because you can find all my thoughts much more neatly summed up on the SOPA Wikipedia page. You know Wikipedia are planning a 'knowledge blackout' as a protest? They want to take the site offline for a while to demonstrate what might happen if the bill passes. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Biggsydaboss]

The Tom even better then that check out my first post on this thread. The government want more freedom to share things, not less. Truly we are blessed to be British lol my backside we are lol

[The Tom]

Jebus, I didn't realise it bent that far back. I never really looked into British copyright laws because I wasn't too interested in them (architects really don't have much to do with lawyers - oh wait, they do. All the freakin' time). Now I am!

[leroybrown]

For everyone that doesn't want to read everything I'm about to write, in short, I hope this doesn't get passed.


- This isn't an American issue, this is a world wide issue. We all get screwed if this gets passed.

- There is virtually no real comparison in lobbying power; the entertainment industry consistently outspends the technology industry 10 to 1

- My biggest fear is power abuse. If this bill passes there is a disgusting opportunity for a market power shift (for lack of a better term). This is dirty, dirty, business and I mean gangster Al Capone style.

Sales were up $8 billion this year. This bill can chop this number down fast. It's not just shutting down websites, it's 'screwing with the infrastructure' that will be a major problem. One thing some folks (morons) don't see (or care about, most likely) is that profits will shift into the hands of the entertainment industry. Then when these folks just lined their pockets with a few mil, the common man is down again and the US just went back in time 15 years; our internet market would be in comparison to China's. Oh, except they have those gold farmer dudes in WOW, so China wins. Damn.

Seriously though, like I said this is a world issue. It would effect everyone's market, though ours (US) would be hit the hardest by far. Other countries could recover in a year or two by coordinating with countries that don't have old greedy lobbyists. Lobbyists are American terrorists.

The idea behind it is okay, but the reality is absurd. The bill suggests anyone suspected of piracy may be shut down instantly. If this were to pass you'd have to get used to seeing a message akin to an error message; "This site has been removed due to an pending investigation."

[The Tom]

I thought the whole deal was that the US could use a DNS filter to block people from visiting websites in their own country, and take down any websites whose servers are in America. If you're abroad, visiting a non-American website, you're fine, aren't you? Admittedly, yes, many websites are based in the US. But some will relocate abroad, right?

[leroybrown]

I thought the whole deal was that the US could use a DNS filter to block people from visiting websites in their own country, and take down any websites whose servers are in America. If you're abroad, visiting a non-American website, you're fine, aren't you?

Well, there's more to it than that. That's 1 part of it though, yes.

You're right that non-American sites won't be directly affected, but they will be indirectly. That's what I meant by "screwing with the infrastructure" in my earlier post.

Say you have an architecture website set up. It's called "Britain's best buildings.com" or whatever. You put work into it, and a few years into it you're making $80 per day of passive income.

Your monetization models consist of Google adsense, selling eBooks, and commission money via tourism affiliates.

If this bill is in place, all of these models have the potential to be shut down. That 'money faucet' could be shut off overnight. This isn't just a 'what if' scenario, this is everyone's marketing game plan across the world. Even if you didn't use paypal or google in internet marketing (madness), Americans (US specifically) are the #1 consumers online, so you're screwed out of the majority of your clients.

EDIT:Oh, I didn't really address your question did I? Here's what the NY times said:
"The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar."

[Veck]

I would oppose this bill simply because it serves the interest of groups such as the RIAA. Conspiracy theorists are looking at the wrong embodiment of evil. It's not running the country, it's destroying the media.

[The Tom]

EDIT:Oh, I didn't really address your question did I?

No no, you said enough, and you're right, of course. I was thinking that you can block websites, but you can't remove the content (ie China) - unless, of course, you can, which is what this bill demands. All arms of a company like Google could be shut down because one part of it provide links to 'infringing' content. Now that you say it, I can't really think of anything that will be safe.

Well, now that I have the time to read about things other than for school- and university-related subjects, I'll go and do some more in-depth reading on this bill and fall asleep in absolute terror. 'Night.

[Fiar]

This bill won't die in committee, it has too many big names behind it that won't let it happen

Lulz.

Big names don't mean a single damn thing in Washington. If all of the other representatives disagree with you or if none of them can agree on how to word this bill, then no corporate bribe, intimate favor, or whining on Earth will ever get it passed. This is the country that makes the word compromise a controversy.

You miss the point of why I say big companies. Big names mean they have more lobbying power (which usually means they have the funds to fund them), more voices to speak in favor of this one thing.

As for the rest of this, perhaps you may be right..If you aren't and they decide on this bill, and it's still the same threat it currently is, then what now? It goes back to my first point.

Edit: leroybrown has already gotten to the technical details, so I see no need to expand this. My post I mean.

[Dark Lord Cam]

Lobbying is strong, yes, but no bill will ever pass if no one can agree on it.

[Fiar]

Lobbying is strong, yes, but no bill will ever pass if no one can agree on it.

I see your point. I guess we'll simply have to wait and see won't we?

Though I do hope you are right that it'll die before it can get off the ground.

[Dark Lord Cam]

I'm being cautiously optimistic.

[Fiar]

I admit to being pessimistic, when I am an optimist myself normally. It's just that I don't have faith in my government to do the right thing and see this for what it is. And I'd also rather not downplay this in my head.

I can see why you take your stance though. You'd rather not act until you know it's necessary.

[Dark Lord Cam]

It is my absolute belief that our government is not evil. It's not good, either. It's just gray. They make decisions based upon what they know, not because of a need to oppress and to harass, but because they think it will be beneficial to us all in some way. Of course, like any group of human beings, they make mistakes. I'm cautious because I know they can make what we perceive to be the wrong choice, but I'm also optimistic because they can also make what we perceive is the right choice.

It's not about trust, it's about patience.

[Fiar]

I'm not actually a, "Down with the system", type of person. I do acknowledge our government tries, and what they do certainly isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. My bias of their ability to choose comes from stuff in the past. Though when it comes to their ability to protect us from threats abroad, they do a fine job I feel. Whether the reason is sound or not, that isn't here nor there though.

I do know that if this bill does get into the phase where it is voted upon by our representatives/senators, it all will come down to the amount of strength from those in favor and those against. It's also why I feel it's wise to make people aware. Cause lord knows soo many bills come and go, it's hard to find those that need to truly get the attention when it applies to the masses of our country, or the world (which is rare that one of our bills would).

[Velothi]

It is my absolute belief that our government is not evil. It's not good, either. It's just gray. They make decisions based upon what they know, not because of a need to oppress and to harass, but because they think it will be beneficial to us all in some way. Of course, like any group of human beings, they make mistakes. I'm cautious because I know they can make what we perceive to be the wrong choice, but I'm also optimistic because they can also make what we perceive is the right choice.

It's not about trust, it's about patience.

So - killing the native Americans, invading all those who seemed to have a left-leaning position even if placed by the US, supporting terrorists and generally being an oppressive Imperial power is for our general interest?

But in any case - SOPA will most likely not passed.

The United States is already in a terrible position with its Imperialist hegemony failing, and about 97.3 million people being described as 'low income' personas; a raito of which 1 out of 2 are classified in.

Whilst they already have protests concerning Wall Street they are trying to silence, along with Wikileaks and other things. (I am personally being amused at their demanding Iran should return something that was violating their airspace.)

Trying to, persay, "shutdown" the Internet? Not only can it not be done - but it'll work against the general idea of the Internet. Plus US can't take much more at the moment.

[Velothi]

The comment of "based on what they know" is what got me - insinuating that somehow the US didn't know enough about the natives and yet fully using them against each others or committing a 'Final Solution' of such proportions that it would make the Eugenics cheer for joy.

And we still conquer others for territories and resources - Iraq, Libya, soon to be Iran and Afghanistan.

The only difference is they decided to expand the privileges - though now they're being taken away to save the bourgeois.

Sure - things were 'different' in terms of regional politics (south wanted a slaveocracy whilst the North wanted full blown Capitalism) - still doesn't mean I can not compare the actions to the same regime. Or how if we can not describe our regime as evil but a 'grey' then we can do such for any Empire. Even the one with the swastika.


EDIT: Also people are overassuming of the SOPA in general. That it will get passed no matter what and all 'freedom' will be lost when the Internet goes 'poof'.

[Dark Lord Cam]

I like how you ignore the part where I said, "Of course, like any group of human beings, they make mistakes."

Anyhow, this discussion is offtopic, so knock it off.

[Biggsydaboss]

Cam you suggest that what was done in the past in lamentable, but past is past. This is an idea I can get behind completely. We all make mistakes & we all have the right to be forgiven. The exception is of course if whoever seeks forgiveness carries on committing the same mistakes. Do you believe the the American government continues to make the mistake of having a foreign or domestic policy that curtails other people's human rights. You see the world believes that's the case & the British government is complicit, or worse actively involved.

[Stendarr]

For everyone that doesn't want to read everything I'm about to write, in short, I hope this doesn't get passed.


- This isn't an American issue, this is a world wide issue. We all get screwed if this gets passed.

- There is virtually no real comparison in lobbying power; the entertainment industry consistently outspends the technology industry 10 to 1

- My biggest fear is power abuse. If this bill passes there is a disgusting opportunity for a market power shift (for lack of a better term). This is dirty, dirty, business and I mean gangster Al Capone style.

Sales were up $8 billion this year. This bill can chop this number down fast. It's not just shutting down websites, it's 'screwing with the infrastructure' that will be a major problem. One thing some folks (morons) don't see (or care about, most likely) is that profits will shift into the hands of the entertainment industry. Then when these folks just lined their pockets with a few mil, the common man is down again and the US just went back in time 15 years; our internet market would be in comparison to China's. Oh, except they have those gold farmer dudes in WOW, so China wins. Damn.

Seriously though, like I said this is a world issue. It would effect everyone's market, though ours (US) would be hit the hardest by far. Other countries could recover in a year or two by coordinating with countries that don't have old greedy lobbyists. Lobbyists are American terrorists.

The idea behind it is okay, but the reality is absurd. The bill suggests anyone suspected of piracy may be shut down instantly. If this were to pass you'd have to get used to seeing a message akin to an error message; "This site has been removed due to an pending investigation."

Agreed. And personally, I think the entertainment industry abuse the copyright thing. I think even "happy birthday to you" is copyrighted and you are not allowed to sing it without paying for the rights. Some bands copyrighted songs or riffs which were blatantly ripped off from lesser known artists. The idea behind the copyrights is a good one, but in practice, it's a money-making device, it's not meant to protect the artist. Usually most, if not all, of the money doesn't even go into the pockets of the artists. In fact, a lot of copyrights "protect" artists who don't even need it.

[videogmer314]

I think even "happy birthday to you" is copyrighted and you are not allowed to sing it without paying for the rights.

It is copyrighted.

I'm kind of surprised the government hasn't investigated groups like the RIAA for monopolization, and once their "outlaw the Internet" bill gets shot down, I really hope they are investigated.

[Sloady]

Anyone who thinks SOPA is gone should look here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/ ... o-thi.html

[Kerr]

Down with this sort of thing!

[The Dog Whisperer]

[&@%!]' Greeks.

[The Tom]

So I've been reading some more about this whole thing and I reckon I'm more confused than I was before I knew all the intimate details. I've got no idea about these things:

- Does Obama have the executive power to veto this bill? It seems to me that Congress and the Senate are made up mostly of people who themselves admit that they do not use the internet, and that the President is perhaps more 'in touch' with the opposition to the bill and is more likely to listen.

- Why are the proponents saying that there has been no real opposition to the bill, that there is no basis in fact for any disagreement? What the hell do they think Wikipedia are doing with their planned 'knowledge blackout'?

- Another thing I don't get is how much ignorance there is over the reach of this act. Surely it can't be the case that if a user posts a link to a copyrighted picture on, say, whitehouse.gov, then that website is under threat simply because it 'hosts' a link to illegal material? The White House's own site?

Welp, I'm still scared that this thing will pass. There are probably ways around the filter, and some companies will probably move abroad, but still, the fact that this thing could really go ahead is frightening.