I Guess Everyone Knows What SOPA Is Right?

It's the Stop Online Piracy Act that's being proposed. Just do a Bing or Google on it.

Basically it's censorship of the internet. Not by the government but by Hollywood and the RIAA. It would bascially kill Youtube among other things so I think the Youtube community alone could kill this bill.

However, the lobbyists for it have spent over $100 million on it so far. CBS being the biggest player.

Which is ironic and hypocritical. The most popular file sharing tools (Kazaa, LimeWire, BitTorrent) and DRM strippers were all invested in, promoted and distributed by...CBS owned affiliates like CNET. In fact there are editorials on CNET praising and comparing the various tools when testing them on copyrighted MP3's.

So CBS for the better part of a decade has done everything they could to encourage software piracy and now they want to control the internet as a means of stopping it. Shame on you CBS. Shame.

I'd have to see the actual proposed legislation.

I'm against piracy of owned materials. Copying games, cds, etc because you don't want to pay for them is the same as stealing to me.

Using someone's song in a youtube video that you make no money from doesn't seem like it should be considered piracy. But then, it's not MY song, so who am I to say it's okay to use it? I think that the individual artists should be able to raise a fuss if it's their materials being used. Generally on YouTube if someone uses a song that the artist fusses over, YouTube will remove the audio from the video. So why shoudl there be additional legislation to 'regulate' that?

So it all depends on what the legislation actually states. Does it say you can't use owned materials? Or does it say "we can remove whateve we want"? If I make a video of me handling a python and I'm wearing one of a band's shirts, should I get tagged with "piracy" because I don't own the band? Would that be covered?

It seems there's tons of opinions on what the legislation will entail with no real facts presented to support the opinions.

Here you go: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

I'd have to see the actual proposed legislation.

I'm against piracy of owned materials. Copying games, cds, etc because you don't want to pay for them is the same as stealing to me.

Using someone's song in a youtube video that you make no money from doesn't seem like it should be considered piracy. But then, it's not MY song, so who am I to say it's okay to use it? I think that the individual artists should be able to raise a fuss if it's their materials being used. Generally on YouTube if someone uses a song that the artist fusses over, YouTube will remove the audio from the video. So why shoudl there be additional legislation to 'regulate' that?

So it all depends on what the legislation actually states. Does it say you can't use owned materials? Or does it say "we can remove whateve we want"? If I make a video of me handling a python and I'm wearing one of a band's shirts, should I get tagged with "piracy" because I don't own the band? Would that be covered?

It seems there's tons of opinions on what the legislation will entail with no real facts presented to support the opinions.

---

I agree that legit piracy is wrong. But what this entails is that if I sing a kareoke of some song and put it on Youtube and the copyright holder doesn't approve they can not only take it down but charge me with a felony. Or say I am at a sporting event recording with my own camera and a copyrighted song is playing in the background and I upload that somewhere. Same thing. Or say I link to a site that has copyrighted material, even if I don't directly have any, I could be charged. Even if you are a citizen of another country they will seek to extradite you to the US to face charges. They are actually try that now on a british teenager under current laws but it's not illegal in the UK.

People like Grayson Chance and (as much as I hate to support his talentless butt) Justin Bieber would have been criminals under SOPA since they started on youtube covering other peoples songs.

Mike Mozart on youtube has a wonderful video on all this and says it much better than me and provides external references. I think his channel is Jeepers Media. I am at work so I can't check for sure.

Anyways, while I am for efforts to fight piracy, this isn't the way to do it.

I get mad at bp.net
I post a link to a mp3 owned by me
bp.net can now be charged
I actually haven't read it, but i'm under the impression this is what it allows?

Here's the youtube video I mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuY...feature=relmfu

Okay, what I see in the text of the actual bill is a lot of what they can or can't do to the people behind the "crime" but little to nothing about what the crime is.

"the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site."


So what I see it saying is that if the people are committing the crime (I can't find what the definition of the crime is anywhere yet) then the US government can basically deal with them as if they've committed the crime via any other mainstream media.

In short, reading it over quickly in the legalese, I THINK it's stating that people on the internet will be held to the same standards as all other media, i.e. if a newspaper printed a copywritten picture without permission, they could be charged... so now if a internet site posts a copywritten picture, they can be charged the same as that newspaper.

Again, I have yet to see what the definition of the "internet crime" is, nor do I see anything about half the stuff people are ranting on.

The guy ranting in the video isn't really giving any sort of facts from the legislation. instead, he's ranting that companies that made/offered methods that were used to bypass copyright laws are now behind the proposed legislation. Honestly, his ranting sounds a lot like someone saying that MP3 players are responsible for someone downloading a pirated copy of a song. If they are doing "XX" now, then it's ALREADY legal, not proposed legislation. Again, nothing I see in the actual legislation is saying "makes XX a felony when it's been legal before".

The guy who posted tons of TV shows and movies for people to watch was wrong, just like any other pirate posting copywritten material. I mean, if you take the time and effort to create a film, you want people to pay you to watch it... then they instead make tons of copies of the DVD and give them away or sell them, that's piracy. Just because instead of making a hard copy, you post them on your website... why is it then okay?

Again, if there's some text somewhere that shows how this is anything but enforcing the existing copyright type laws on the internet just like they currently enforce the existing copyright laws on older forms of media, I would like to see it. I like to be fully informed.

This is a huge deviation from the DMCA. Under the DMCA if someone puts content under copyright on a website [in a manner that's infringing] the specific individual is the one considered responsible and the website they used to put the information on is given some degree of immunity.

Ex: Jon Doe uploads a music video to youtube, without permission from the band's label. The band's label then sends youtube a cease & desist letter. Youtube has to pull the video. If the label wanted to proceed further they can take action against Jon Doe. If youtube refuses to pull the content, only then do they become liable.

But with SOPA, which happens is a bit different. The band's label goes to the feds. Says "John Doe posted one of our songs without permission on youtube!" Now the feds get what amounts to basically a special court order, sends that to the ISP youtube hosts their website on. If this ISP is an American ISP the website then gets permanently taken down. No more youtube. All because of 1 person who uploaded something under copyright.

It doesn't stop there however. This also extends to all websites that "link to" infringing material. So not only would youtube be potentially deleted from the internets; The feds would have the legal authority to shut down every website hosted in the US which has ever "linked to" youtube. Bye bye basically every American internet forum, google, blogs, newspaper websites, etc.

If I posted a link on BP to a blog article written Jan 1st, and that blog had posted part of a news story under copyright three weeks later: theoretically BP could be permanently shut down by the feds even though it never actually linked to the offending material. Just to the website that had offending material on it.

Another dangerious idea they had considered with this bill was criminalizing the act of downloading content. This is dangerous because people unintentionally download infringing material every day. if you click on a link do you KNOW before hand whether the website uses any pictures under copyright? Do you know if it will have any news stories under copyright cut & pasted onto the webpage? You don't know until after you click on the link [thereby downloading the content]! If I post an image that is copyrighted on page 27 of a 50 page thread: everyone who clicks on page 27 while reading the thread will "technically" have downloaded copyrighten material!

They also aren't required to get court permission to take down a website, either. That was one of the things they voted on, and it was turned down.

This bill also has the ability to impact colleges. My english instructor scanned part of a book in order for us to analyze the essay. She uploaded the picture to the course website. Under this law, that would have gotten the college website taken down.

This would also affect people who post screenshots of games. I.E someone takes a screenshot of a game and posts it, that could get the website taken down. The bill is much too broad and the people trying to push it through know nothing about the internet.

Any website that relies on user generated content is at risk under this bill. Reddit, facebook, twitter youtube and every forum out there. Basically it puts the site owner liable for all content and no one wants that liability. There just wont be those types of sites anymore.

sent from my EVO

i have looked at this bill loosely. I am a Canadian so it has some effect on my but not much. The real issue is as pointed out it isn't a single post it is everything the whole ISP if one user was to post an avetar they did not own CLEAR copyright to the whole site goes away. Or worse you belong to a site like RFUK the uk reptiles and the US gov can block any person in the US from visiting. Or say web sites hosted in any country that has different copyright laws than the USA does, like say Canada? Asia?, Europe? It has huge implications, how many sites do you visit and like use whatever are not hosted in the USA? 10% 50% ?? The continued access could be in jeopardy.

The beautiful thing of the internet is it is a HUGE soap box for anyone whom has the desire to climb on it. I can voice my opinions to anyone whom wishes to read them. Freedom of speech, and exchange of ideas. Yes there are going to be some whom abuse it as with everything else ever created, that is not a reason to censure free thought.

Didn't Syria do this and strike a special police force to enforce it... Syrian Electronic Army? It feels a little to close for my taste.

Well, it could effect you since facebook, youtube, etc are all hosted in the US.

I am not sure about where they are hosted but I suspect rather than give up millions of dollars they would simply move to somewhere else. I would just not have my american friends :(

It is still unbelievable to me that it has got as far as it has without massive out cry. So far the biggest out cry is from godaddy which only is opposing because so many big clients said they would pull services if they supported it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

This bill also has the ability to impact colleges. My english instructor scanned part of a book in order for us to analyze the essay. She uploaded the picture to the course website. Under this law, that would have gotten the college website taken down.

---

That would depend on whether or not they change the feds' definitions on "fair use."

It is 100% legal for schools to copy & distribute parts of books under fair use [currently]. They do not have to ask the publisher for permission first. This has been true since the 70s. Something to think about the next time your school forces you to buy all these expensive textbooks [why to schools do that? because most of them are in the publishing industry themselves and either have a textbook press facility, or require their teachers to publish periodically in addition to teaching]. It would be easy for a college level course to give you one textbook excerpt as a hand out, then a different one the next week, etc. They just don't like the idea.

Well, they will never stop me. I will always find a way.

This bill will destroy web design, 90% of everything web designers use to build any website has been copyrighted. Even the text that we are typing in. There is only so many designs/ art that one can create before there are multiple sites using the same designs.
This bill takes it way beyond just copyrighted content. It is worded extremely loose to the point they can censor anything they dislike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdouglas

This bill will destroy web design, 90% of everything web designers use to build any website has been copyrighted. Even the text that we are typing in. There is only so many designs/ art that one can create before there are multiple sites using the same designs.
This bill takes it way beyond just copyrighted content. It is worded extremely loose to the point they can censor anything they dislike.

---

And then since the NDAA was signed into law on the 31st, all they have to do is call you a terrorist suspect and they can lock you up forever. No trial, charges, nothing. They just grab you & you disappear.

As Forbes put it:

Quote:

---

“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgath92

Something to think about the next time your school forces you to buy all these expensive textbooks [why to schools do that? because most of them are in the publishing industry themselves and either have a textbook press facility, or require their teachers to publish periodically in addition to teaching]. It would be easy for a college level course to give you one textbook excerpt as a hand out, then a different one the next week, etc. They just don't like the idea.

---

Erm. Not sure where you get the idea that the majority of colleges are in the publishing industry. There's only a handful of companies that publish books. The biggest one is Pearson. Additionally, a lot of colleges are nonprofit and so the only way they can make money is via the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Erm. Not sure where you get the idea that the majority of colleges are in the publishing industry. There's only a handful of companies that publish books. The biggest one is Pearson. Additionally, a lot of colleges are nonprofit and so the only way they can make money is via the books.

---

That's only part of it. They also want their faculty to publish [often have this in their contracts in fact], and put a lot of emphasis on this part of their resumes. This breeds an environment where letting poor college students save money on textbooks by using more handouts is discouraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgath92

That's only part of it. They also want their faculty to publish [often have this in their contracts in fact], and put a lot of emphasis on this part of their resumes. This breeds an environment where letting poor college students save money on textbooks by using more handouts is discouraged.

---

In higher level courses, handouts don't really cut it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitedemon

I am not sure about where they are hosted but I suspect rather than give up millions of dollars they would simply move to somewhere else. I would just not have my american friends :(

It is still unbelievable to me that it has got as far as it has without massive out cry. So far the biggest out cry is from godaddy which only is opposing because so many big clients said they would pull services if they supported it.

---

go daddy as far as i know is not opposing the bill. They were supporting it but retracted that after losing 70,000 domains (mine being one of them) and I know wikipedia was threating to move their domain also, I don't know if they actually did it though. Their outcry was for people to stop leaving them, nothing about the bill.

Biggest thing I've seen was the potential "nuke the Internet" day, where big companies cut off their services to protest the bill. nothing is set in stone but their talking about it. Big players that are part of the movement...AOL, eBay, Etsy, Facebook, Foursquare, Google, IAC, LinkedIn, Mozilla, OpenDNS ,PayPal, Twitter, Yahoo, Zynga. Just between paypal, google and facebook it would put a stop to so much going on, one hell of a way to send a message if you ask me.

I hope they do it. It'd send a major message, especially if instead of their website, every page has something explaining about SOPA and what not.

I don't see what everyone is getting so upset about..I mean for the first time in a long time Our government and it's leader is holding true to what they said they would..Embrace it America, enjoy it, relish in it, this country is getting what it wanted full bore. Stop whining and remember we as a country voted for
http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/p...nge_poster.jpg

obvious troll is obvious....

look at it this way, I posted an image here, my image my copyright. It has found its way to facebook. (true this has happened, but I take it for the flattery it was and although not happy I am not going to complain either) under the proposed law that is enough to either close or block this site for everyone in the USA. Rather than go after the single infraction they would shut down or black list the whole site. It is rather extreme, if you have one fight in a school locking up all the students because they are all violent is silly.

I thought I read that after Godaddy was looking at a massive loss of client base they changed their mind and actively opposed the proposal? I may have mis read that as I said just loosely paying attention.

I think GoDaddy is talking out both sides of their mouths on SOPA right now

sent from my EVO