I Guess Everyone Knows What SOPA Is Right?

[MasonC2K]

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.

[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.

[babyknees]

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

[MasonC2K]

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.

[OhhWatALoser]

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?

[MasonC2K]

Here's the youtube video I mentioned.

[wolfy-hound]

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.

[sgath92]

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!

[Raptor]

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.

[jbean7916]

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