SOPA/Protect IP act.

[redblooded]

This is something that isn't getting enough press and everyone on the internet should start realizing what these people (congress and the senate) are trying to get passed into law, quickly, and under the radar.

 

 

http://americancenso...nfographic.html

[Excel]

I question the constitutional legality and the feasibility of enforcement of any such laws. But really, the internet is just one of the many signs of the future for Humanity, we're quickly becoming a world without borders...take Occupy Wall Street for example. Try to avoid making a political appraisal of the movement but rather just look at it as a social movement...within a matter of weeks we had similar protests inspired by the original in Zucotti Park encompassing thousands of people across a wide range of nations seemingly independent of the type of economy, language etc....thats just what I'm talking about. These "issues" are not ones that a single state can tackle and it shouldn't even be attempted, just like economic policies its an almost futile endeavor. Oh and also, if this kind of legislation isn't further proof of the influence of corporations on congress I don't know what is...I mean show me the group of citizens calling for this....it doesn't exist. I'd imagine a vast majority of the public if educated on the issue would be against it.

 

If copyright holders want to curb infringement they need to look more to their business model for the problem rather than consumers. Itunes illustrates this well, charging a fair price for their product greatly curbed illegal downloading...so yea...there will always be people that steal but sh#t I'm rambiling....

 

Those are my ignorant, misinformed and assorted thoughts on the issue....

[redblooded]

I question the constitutional legality and the feasibility of enforcement of any such laws. But really, the internet is just one of the many signs of the future for Humanity, we're quickly becoming a world without borders...take Occupy Wall Street for example. Try to avoid making a political appraisal of the movement but rather just look at it as a social movement...within a matter of weeks we had similar protests inspired by the original in Zucotti Park encompassing thousands of people across a wide range of nations seemingly independent of the type of economy, language etc....thats just what I'm talking about. These "issues" are not ones that a single state can tackle and it shouldn't even be attempted, just like economic policies its an almost futile endeavor. Oh and also, if this kind of legislation isn't further proof of the influence of corporations on congress I don't know what is...I mean show me the group of citizens calling for this....it doesn't exist. I'd imagine a vast majority of the public if educated on the issue would be against it.

 

If copyright holders want to curb infringement they need to look more to their business model for the problem rather than consumers. Itunes illustrates this well, charging a fair price for their product greatly curbed illegal downloading...so yea...there will always be people that steal but sh#t I'm rambiling....

 

Those are my ignorant, misinformed and assorted thoughts on the issue....

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

Also as far as the curbing of illegal downloading, well it's been curbed as it ever will be. What these companies don't realize is that they aren't missing sales, as the people that download the most have had studies showing they also spend the most on entertainment. The people that download illegally and never buy stuff simply won't ever buy. While people that do buy things like dvds or earlier itunes music have to deal with bullcrap DRM which prevents them from using their bought media as they want or on other devices in other regions, etc... Leaving piracy a cheaper and more convenient option. Getting more abusive laws passed won't change that.

 

It's actually not time to just stop things like SOPA/Protect-IP, it's time to start repealing things like the outlawing of reverse engineering DRM in the DMCA.

 

I mean show me the group of citizens calling for this....it doesn't exist. I'd imagine a vast majority of the public if educated on the issue would be against it.

 

They've gone out of their way to make sure hearings on it won't have much meaningful opposition: http://arstechnica.c...rate-google.ars

 

The video describes what will happen if these laws are passed is pretty well except that technically savvy people will route around it, creating an entirely new DNS and basically breaking off from the existing internet domain system. There are already several projects working on this to remove control from corporations that answer to the governments and browser add-ons to route around the DHS/ICE seizures that are already taking place. It'll also drive innovation on the web to countries that don't have to deal with insane IP/Copyright enforcement laws.

[Excel]

You're obviously more educated on this than I...how does this play into those ideas we were hearing from ISP's not long ago where they were going to charge customers to view individual sites rather than allowing for free browsing? The way I understood it they would work it kind of like cable where you'd pay for certain packages so if I wanted the ability to go to say...Sports Illustrated that'd be 50 cents a month or something...

 

Are they still trying to get that going or has that pretty much been squashed?

 

 

Also as far as the curbing of illegal downloading, well it's been curbed as it ever will be. What these companies don't realize is that they aren't missing sales, as the people that download the most have had studies showing they also spend the most on entertainment. The people that download illegally and never buy stuff simply won't ever buy.

 

I agree and that echoes what I read in a recent article the NYT did about copyright infringement of adult content on the internet. They interviewed one of the owners of some large conglomerate of pay sites and asked him how he felt about it....he basically said he didn't care...the people that have always bought smut and such, whether in magazines, tapes or whatever are still going to pay for that content online and that the people that are "stealing" it online are not the kind of people that would ever consume no matter how low the price...they didn't pay for it before the rise of the internet and they're not going to after. I think that holds true for many types of media.

[redblooded]

You're obviously more educated on this than I...how does this play into those ideas we were hearing from ISP's not long ago where they were going to charge customers to view individual sites rather than allowing for free browsing? The way I understood it they would work it kind of like cable where you'd pay for certain packages so if I wanted the ability to go to say...Sports Illustrated that'd be 50 cents a month or something...

 

Are they still trying to get that going or has that pretty much been squashed?

 

That's pretty much network neutrality and it's still very much contested. You better believe that cable monopolies who also own the content production (like nbc/comcast) would love to be able to block competition or increase prices for competitors and consumers and protect the monopolies they've been granted. They've got huge amounts of money and lobbyists and they've already sued to challenge the somewhat weak regulations the FCC put in place. The argument seems to boil down to "we'll do it anyways so regulation isn't necessary, trust us."

 

http://arstechnica.c...ality-rules.ars

 

Which would really be all fine and good, but the lines are subsidized by taxpayers and usually granted local monopolies so you won't get an option of going to a competitor in most places even if they do decide to screw with the internet traffic.

[Landlord]

From what I've read, this is losing steam daily. The main backers behind it are showing a bit of apprehension. I just can't imagine it ever becoming what they're claiming.

[VectorVictor]

From what I've read, this is losing steam daily. The main backers behind it are showing a bit of apprehension. I just can't imagine it ever becoming what they're claiming.

 

Problem is, even though we can't rationally see it becoming that, the law is so open-ended that it *could* very easily become our worst nightmare, along with the anti-internet "Net Neutrality" bill. The bill, simply, needs to be killed with fire.

 

The 'tubes are fine the way they are, thank you. If anything, take all this energy spent on this legislature and put it into the creation and support of a national "cyberarmy" to defend our interests from what appears to be a rising tide of North Korean, Chinese, and Iranian (ironic...) hackers. We have something similar in place currently, but with little effort or money behind it.

[Landlord]

From what I've read, this is losing steam daily. The main backers behind it are showing a bit of apprehension. I just can't imagine it ever becoming what they're claiming.

 

Problem is, even though we can't rationally see it becoming that, the law is so open-ended that it *could* very easily become our worst nightmare, along with the anti-internet "Net Neutrality" bill. The bill, simply, needs to be killed with fire.

 

The 'tubes are fine the way they are, thank you. If anything, take all this energy spent on this legislature and put it into the creation and support of a national "cyberarmy" to defend our interests from what appears to be a rising tide of North Korean, Chinese, and Iranian (ironic...) hackers. We have something similar in place currently, but with little effort or money behind it.

 

 

I honestly don't know if I agree with this. The internet is...unbelievably profound in how it has changed the world, and I can't help but think of a lot of really, really terrible and awful ways that has happened. So much of the damage it does isn't measurable - socially crippling people by letting them find identity in their blogs or facebook, making pornographic or vile imagery and video so readily available, taking away people's accountability behind what they say to other people, etc.

 

I'm not responding in the context of the bill, because that bill won't fix these things either - just in general, I don't know how I really feel about the internet. I think it's more selfish desires to keep my sites and resources that is making me oppose this.

[VectorVictor]

From what I've read, this is losing steam daily. The main backers behind it are showing a bit of apprehension. I just can't imagine it ever becoming what they're claiming.

 

Problem is, even though we can't rationally see it becoming that, the law is so open-ended that it *could* very easily become our worst nightmare, along with the anti-internet "Net Neutrality" bill. The bill, simply, needs to be killed with fire.

 

The 'tubes are fine the way they are, thank you. If anything, take all this energy spent on this legislature and put it into the creation and support of a national "cyberarmy" to defend our interests from what appears to be a rising tide of North Korean, Chinese, and Iranian (ironic...) hackers. We have something similar in place currently, but with little effort or money behind it.

 

 

I honestly don't know if I agree with this. The internet is...unbelievably profound in how it has changed the world, and I can't help but think of a lot of really, really terrible and awful ways that has happened. So much of the damage it does isn't measurable - socially crippling people by letting them find identity in their blogs or facebook, making pornographic or vile imagery and video so readily available, taking away people's accountability behind what they say to other people, etc.

 

I'm not responding in the context of the bill, because that bill won't fix these things either - just in general, I don't know how I really feel about the internet. I think it's more selfish desires to keep my sites and resources that is making me oppose this.

 

Ahh, I think what we're not seeing eye-to-eye on with this is the physical infrastructure and routing of the 'tubes versus content , privacy, and free speech concerns on the 'tubes. I should have clarified--sorry about that.

 

The irony behind the "net neutrality" bill is that it was anything but--it proposed allowing ISPs the ability to relegate speeds and throttle traffic to sites--instead of just providing roads, the ISPs (e.g. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, AT&T) could set up slow, moderate, and fast lanes (as an example) for specific sites (not *all* traffic on your connection as it is now), *and* ISPs could go to content providers (like HuskerBoard.com) and say 'if you want your users to still access you quickly, you'll have to pay $X to us monthly from now on.

 

If anything, the "Net Neutrality" bill was an exercise in Orwellian Double-Speak at the most banal of levels, but it was still more than enough to confuse people that didn't follow this stuff day-to-day or confuse the blue-hairs that are simply happy if they are able to see Lawrence Welk at the scheduled time (I kid...somewhat).

 

The bill that started this thread was a combination of censorship and Net Neutrality--it was going to allow the Federal (and eventually, state) Governments the ability to set up a nationwide firewall that would prevent you from visiting sites they did not approve of (e.g. PirateBay.org, offshore gambling sites). This, too, flies in the face of what the WWW was set up for, and the Government should not have any business telling people what sites they can and can't visit.

 

But, I would agree with you that there are significant privacy concerns that should be dealt with at both a local (Federal) and Global level for some of the same reasons you mentioned.

 

But ultimately these bills dealt with the basic infrastructure of the WWW. That is, that all traffic is created equal, and that providers or the government do not have the right to throttle or block based on packet origin (your PC versus a big business PC) or destination (someone to Fox News having a higher priority of traffic versus someone else going to Huskerboard.com).

[Enhance]

The most ridiculous thing about this entire bill is when I signed an online petition, I started getting bi-weekly emails from Ben Nelson about political BS I couldn't care less about. I'm very apathetic about politics, unless it's something that really gets to me (like the ridiculous SOPA bill).

[redblooded]

The most ridiculous thing about this entire bill is when I signed an online petition, I started getting bi-weekly emails from Ben Nelson about political BS I couldn't care less about. I'm very apathetic about politics, unless it's something that really gets to me (like the ridiculous SOPA bill).

 

Well Ben Nelson, and every other politician a-hole in this country sees even that little bit of political awareness you have as a way to try and steer you towards his side as a candidate like the rest of the "voters" on the lists they buy and target through their ads.

 

Be pissed at him, because he's a twat, but still support the causes you are interested in... Letting these jackasses discourage the general population is the reason we have things like the law that lets them detain American citizens they want to call terrorists indefinitely. It's definitely time for internet activism to start taking it to all of our politicians. We can always BIN, (/dev/null), automatically Trash, or whatever their annoying self aggrandizing propaganda they send us, but they cant ignore us anymore since we are now the key towards them getting another paycheck. Internet users aren't just the nerds they used to ridicule, take for granted, and take pride in not understanding at this point.

 

Which some of them have realized, but they still don't see this as anything but more then an instant post office. They don't realize that views evolve faster then they can flip flop and that even them being annoying can sway that. Nor do they understand that these issues, like SOPA/Protect IP, can be boiled down so even children can understand them and why they suck.

[redblooded]

Want to see how your congressmen and senators are going to vote.

 

http://sopatrack.com/

 

Also figures that scumbag Lee Terry is a co-sponsor.

[Sub-Husker]

Here is a list of the co-sponsors of SOPA:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show

[The Maudfather]

Wikipedia will be shutting down on Wednesday in protest of SOPA/PIPA, along with a few other websites.

 

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 B****** 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 PROTECT IP 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.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

[strigori]

At least its a step in the right direction, they removed the DSN blocking from the bill. Now they just need to scrap the rest of it.