House Panel Moving Forward With SOPA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Panel Moving Forward With SOPA

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:08AM from the freedom-is-overrated-anyway dept.

itwbennett writes "The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a debate and vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act for later this week. Representative Lamar Smith, the committee chairman and main sponsor of the bill, will offer an amendment that is meant to address some concerns with the bill. Smith's proposed amendment would clarify that the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement."

206 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

That.
1. Re:Fuck by SleazyRidr · 2011-12-13 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  Shit.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
In other words by gmuslera · 2011-12-13 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

its ok when the US law affect only to other countries? The only Web 2.0 sites in the world can only be from US now?
1. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  They would be a stretch to make it constitutional. As the court has ruled many times that crimes committed not in its jurisdiction are not its responsibility.
  Really is it so hard for law enforcement to make its case? You know amendments 4, 5, and 6.
  The companies could argue under the 8th amendment. As it is unusual to just seize things without a trial or someone writing a warrant for it.
  Even if you are committing a crime you still have rights. That is what number 6 is about.
2. Re:In other words by jythie · 2011-12-13 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that is the idea. I guess they don't want to potentially piss off companies that actually have a local legal presence and standing to challenge applications.
3. Re:In other words by jythie · 2011-12-13 03:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well, part of the modern argument is that only US citizens have rights and that the constitution does not apply to people outside the country.. which kinda goes against the whole 'inalienable rights' concept.
4. Re:In other words by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's trivial to work around. All that need be done is point out that even if a site is hosted outside the US and created by non-US citizens there, then when someone in the US accesses it they are still subject to US law. Thus the SOPA censorship program is only to prevent people from sneakily using the national border to commit crimes on the inside of it.
5. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you'll find nowhere in the constitution does it mention "inalienable rights."
  That would be the declaration of independence, which, while a fine document, has never actually been accepted by any court as a legally binding document.
  CAPTCHA: faking
6. Re:In other words by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, but the Constitution does distinguish between "Citizens" and "Persons". Meaning that it recognizes that, on US Soil at least, everyone, regardless of nationality, is entitled to certain rights.
7. Re:In other words by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they're not subject to US law, but if the content on the site is unlawful in the US, the US would have the right to block it. At least that's the argument.
  The site doesn't have to conform to US law, unless they actually want to do business in the US.
8. Re:In other words by Darinbob · 2011-12-13 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Other countries are full of either godless heathens or socialists. Didn't you pay attention in school?
  Actually, Fox News expressed doubts that Norway was a democracy. They're fair and balanced, right?
9. Re:In other words by SixGunMojo · 2011-12-13 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Fox News expressed doubts that Norway was a democracy.
  Technically they are a constitutional monarchy. So I guess they were right.
10. Re:In other words by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  The 'they' I refered to in the second sentence was not the site, but the person accessing it.
11. Re:In other words by RogerWilco · 2011-12-13 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, they must have figured out that we're not part of their electorate.
  
  --
  RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
DOH! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We will only censor foreign websites, we promise!" does not make the proposal any better. Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet, a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
1. Re:DOH! by betterunixthanunix · 2011-12-13 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet
  Thus explaining why I go to so many Chinese-language websites. The truth is that there most certainly are national borders on the web and on the Internet, but the borders are not as arbitrary as the borders on a world map. Borders on the Internet are formed by the identity of groups of people, who are brought together by common cultures, common languages, common needs, etc.
  
  Otherwise I agree, SOPA is so anti-American that any congressman who votes for it should face impeachment proceedings.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-13 01:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
  "A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated". By your logic, different nations shouldn't exist. It's a nice idea of course, but reality kind of gets in the way.
  If anything the fact that sites are not located in the US should be what makes it impossible for them to do anything - apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall". If they want to stop people using US owned domains then fine, but they'd better not try to start taking down .ru sites etc.
  Note that I don't even agree with Copyright infringment, but neither do I agree with these clowns.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
3. Re:DOH! by Joce640k · 2011-12-13 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how long the "debate" will last....
  
  --
  No sig today...
4. Re:DOH! by imakemusic · 2011-12-13 01:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Borders on the Internet are formed by the identity of groups of people, who are brought together by common cultures, common languages, common needs, etc.
  As opposed to being formed by nationality. This is why me (a Brit) and you (I'm going to guess an American though you might not be and that would help prove my point) are having this conversation.
  
  --
  Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
5. Re:DOH! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  See the only thing the US could do in my point of view is block the content coming into the US, but that would cause why to much uproar. Saying that they are only targetting non US sites makes this legeslation passable for most Americans. Note I am not an American, and so I find this piece of law extremely offensive and this is not the only piece of US law that is extremely offensive to non US citizens.
6. Re:DOH! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  But not the president who signs it.
7. Re:DOH! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  well, a web site can be:
  1. hosted in countries a, b and c (load distribution, you know)
  2. owned by someone from coutry d
  3. have a TLD from country e
8. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-13 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  1. Then under this act they can presumably only block the non-US IPs.
  2. Doesn't matter whatsoever.
  3. They could revoke this.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
9. Re:DOH! by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  When it comes to law though, the borders are more physical. Even up in the Cloud, information has to be stored in an actual hard drive somewhere. Users have a country of residence. The big distinction is the ease of jurisdiction-shopping. If you don't like the laws of your real country, it's a huge hastle and expense to leave and go elsewhere - while on the internet, it isn't hard at all to do the equivilent.
  
  There are some completly lawless places, like Freenet - but this isn't for an legal reason, but simply because they have been designed in such a way as to make laws prohibatively difficult or outright impossible to enforce.
10. Re:DOH! by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  "apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall"."
  
  I think that is the general idea. SOPA isn't so technologically sophisticated, but it's blocking provisions are the type of foundation a Great Firewall would need to be built upon.
11. Re:DOH! by lister+king+of+smeg · 2011-12-13 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet, a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted."
  you obviously have never used the flagfox add-on for Firefox then have you. it shows a small flag of the country that the site site is hosted in at the corner of your address bar and when you click it it shows you its ip address and the approximate location on Google maps, in one case accurate to across the street of the servers that i was ftping one of my projects to. it seems to lose acuracy once you start looking at chinesse sites.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
12. Re:DOH! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  "We will only censor foreign websites, we promise!" does not make the proposal any better. Their are no nationality of a website on the Internet, a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
  How is this "insightful"? It's just plain wrong. Everything falls under the flag of some nation. Even at seas. You might have a libertarian-anarchist fantasy about the internet, but that seriously, it's not happening. At some point the equipment is in a country and that country has laws. The connections between equipment as well. Sure The Internet is a virtual concept, but it's made out of real physical things and those physical things are physically in countries with laws. I can't see how anyone could be so deluded to think otherwise.
13. Re:DOH! by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  If anything the fact that sites are not located in the US should be what makes it impossible for them to do anything - apart from create something akin to China's "Great Firewall". If they want to stop people using US owned domains then fine, but they'd better not try to start taking down .ru sites etc.
  It was my impression that was largely what this was trying to do. If PiratePlace.ru or whatever was found to be an unlawful site, they would block it in the US, meaning you couldn't access it from the US. They would also block US banks and stuff from processing payments to it. I would think you'd still be able to access the site in China, or Europe.
14. Re:DOH! by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  1. Then under this act they can presumably only block the non-US IPs.
  And if there are any US IPs, then they could go after the person who owns that domain for violating US law inside the US.
15. Re:DOH! by rastoboy29 · 2011-12-13 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but I do not wish to be "protected" from foreign ideas.
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
16. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-13 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  a website is a part of the Internet, no matter where it is hosted.
  "A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated".
  Except that when you visit a website on the internet you rarely know where it's hosted, if you visit a place in the real world you're gonna know if it's in another country.
17. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-13 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there aren't any magical markers showing you when you're moving from one country to another (sometimes there will be walls and fences of course, but that's not the point). You can take the time to find out where you are if you are placed in a random location, but likewise you can do a country lookup on the IP of any website you're on. If that site pulls in content remotely then you won't be able to know the source of all of it, but neither do you necessarily know where all the component parts for your computer or clothing have come from originally.
  Anyway, my point was that countries exist, and the location of your server is important legally whether you like it or not.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
18. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-14 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well my point is that where a website is served from doesn't matter, you can move a website from one country to another and it will be exactly the same, but you can't exactly take the swiss alps and put them in dubai.
19. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-14 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Technically I'm sure you could if you had enough money and time ;) People sometimes take houses apart brick by brick, then rebuild them in other places. Houses and mountains don't change properties just because a border has moved past/through them (unless that border is a river..).
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
20. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-14 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Houses and mountains don't change properties just because a border has moved past/through them (unless that border is a river..).
  Actually they do, taking an igloo from the arctic and placing it in dubai sure as hell will change its properties.
21. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-14 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I said if the border moves through it, not vice versa.
  But doing it your way: move permafrost from Alaska to Texas and it will still be in the US, but it will melt because of the change in environment sure. Web servers have different environments too. Move a US website using PHP onto a US server that only has PERL and it will be useless.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
22. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-14 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  But doing it your way: move permafrost from Alaska to Texas and it will still be in the US, but it will melt because of the change in environment sure. Web servers have different environments too. Move a US website using PHP onto a US server that only has PERL and it will be useless.
  For some reason you're trying to create an equality between something that is trivial and something that is nigh on impossible. Installing PHP on a Server or even replacing the whole server is a trivial task, as opposed to setting the environment in Texas to support permafrost which is virtually impossible.
23. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-15 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  And for some reason you're trying to extend the analogy far too far past what we were originally discussing. The point is that it does make a difference which country a site is hosted in. Yes, the site could be hosted in any country in the world, but that doesn't mean they are all the same from a legal standpoint. There is no way you are going to be able to enforce one set of ideals on everyone in the world. Maybe in the future, but I doubt even that. There are all sorts of pseudo-religious and other social factors that affect what people think is right, wrong, acceptable, ignorable, etc. So if you want to host something that may be questionable, you'd better do it in a country where it is legal.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
24. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-15 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  And for some reason you're trying to extend the analogy far too far past what we were originally discussing. The point is that it does make a difference which country a site is hosted in.
  The analogy is wrong because it compares something trivial with something effectively impossible.
  
  When you responded with:
  "A country is part of the world, no matter where it is situated". By your logic, different nations shouldn't exist. It's a nice idea of course, but reality kind of gets in the way.
  You can see that yes you're right reality gets in the way of your attempt at an analogous scenario, it doesn't get in the way of the scenario you're comparing it to because moving the host of a website to another country is trivial. So obviously the analogy fails.
25. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-15 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Forget the analogy, you clearly are missing the point of it. It's just a statement of fact that the geographical location of your website has major significance. Nobody gives a fuck that the site could be hosted on the other side of the world at the press of a button. All that matters is where it currently is hosted, and where the client is. A country can try to block a site if it's content is illegal in that country. And if the site is illegal in its host country, it can be taken offline altogether so that even countries where it is legal can't see it.
  So the point is, the internet is never going to be fully homogenous while we still have varying laws in different countries. It's not really an analogy so much as a perfect 1:1 correspondence.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
26. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-15 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Forget the analogy, you clearly are missing the point of it. It's just a statement of fact that the geographical location of your website has major significance.
  The point the OP was making is that it shouldn't simply because circumventing local laws by putting the exact same website in another country whilst having no effect on the website's audience is trivial, so trying to censor it is pointless, as opposed to moving a physical operation/landmark to another country, which is far from trivial.
27. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-15 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  The is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is. You can't just make yourself immune to the law by claiming you should be. You are currently free to switch your site around if you want, no problem. You still need to find a country where what you want to do is legal though. Why didn't you just set things up there in the first place?
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
28. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-15 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  The is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is.
  Oh that's right nothing ever changes because things should or shouldn't be the way that they are, everything is always the same and always has been and always will be. No-one can have an opinion on what should or should not be, because there is only what is.
  
  You can't just make yourself immune to the law by claiming you should be.
  Thanks captain obvious.
  
  You still need to find a country where what you want to do is legal though. Why didn't you just set things up there in the first place?
  Because, contrary to your claim that 'the [sic] is no should or shouldn't, there is only what is', things do in fact change and 'what is' now won't necessarily be 'what is' tomorrow.
29. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-15 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  If it's so obvious then you really need to talk to yourself more. Just because you can move a site to another country if you want, is absolutely no reason that the current host country - in fact all countries by your reckoning - should remove all legal restrictions on web content. That is quite absurd.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
30. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-15 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  If it's so obvious then you really need to talk to yourself more. Just because you can move a site to another country if you want, is absolutely no reason that the current host country - in fact all countries by your reckoning - should remove all legal restrictions on web content. That is quite absurd.
  It's a pointless thing to try to enforce and a waste of time, because, as i've said, it is trivial to just move the website to a different country and circumvent their local laws whilst having no impact on the people already visiting the site. That's the whole point, the government cannot control the internet, there are always ways around their restrictions.
31. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-15 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Only if there is a country where those restrictions don't exist, that also has a place for you to host your files. And moving your site doesn't retroactively pardon you for any crimes that you have already broken.
  There are ways around most restrictions (laws) in life, but that doesn't mean that there should be no laws. It is not pointless to enforce those laws. Just because you can do something in one country is no reason to let you do it in a place where it's illegal. You are welcome to move back to the other country and do it, but stop complaining that just because you can do something somewhere, you should be free to do it everywhere. Ease of transfer doesn't come into it whether a local government should uphold the law.
  You are crazy if you think for example China, North Korea or any Islamic nations are going to make the internet nodes in their country a free-for-all any time soon. There is probably nowhere in the world that does not have some kind of restriction on what is acceptable to publish.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
32. Re:DOH! by somersault · 2011-12-15 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Hullo, I've thought of a better analogy for you :)
  You like to piss on some guy's front door each time you walk past. He gets annoyed at you and has you arrested, but you try to explain to the Police that you should be allowed to do so, because it would be really easy for you to go to the public urinals right next door to this guy's house, or you could have pissed on his neighbour's door instead (and his neighbour isn't in so the Police wouldn't have been called). That's what you're trying to do here.
  It doesn't matter what you can theoretically do, all that matters is what you actually do, and the wishes of the people who own the resources that you are making use of (in this case IP addresses, DNS servers, etc).
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
33. Re:DOH! by exomondo · 2011-12-19 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  You like to piss on some guy's front door each time you walk past. He gets annoyed at you and has you arrested, but you try to explain to the Police that you should be allowed to do so, because it would be really easy for you to go to the public urinals right next door to this guy's house, or you could have pissed on his neighbour's door instead (and his neighbour isn't in so the Police wouldn't have been called). That's what you're trying to do here.
  What? No-one's talking about committing any crimes here or any kind of retroactively pardoning for crimes that have been committed, if you think that scenario is in any way analogous to this discussion you clearly don't understand the point of the discussion at all.
  
  It doesn't matter what you can theoretically do, all that matters is what you actually do
  As in move a website easily from one country to another, something i can actually do, and do very very easily.
Well that's alright then by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:13 · Score: 1, Funny

I mean, who even goes to those foreigner-operated so-called "websites" anyway?
1. Re:Well that's alright then by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Um, isn't the Pirate Bay technically "foreign"?
  I see the MAFIAAFire redirector plugin gaining a lot of downloads.
Almost guaranteed to pass by dkleinsc · 2011-12-13 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even during an election year, when the bill before Congress gives rights to wealthy corporations and takes them away from citizens, that's a sure way to win overwhelming bipartisan support. It's one of the effects of government by bribery that we currently have.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by Riceballsan · 2011-12-13 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Correction.. Especially during an election year. The largest crowd of voters is the group most easily manipulated by a combination of advertisements and the media. Taking money from said media to get biased news coverage, and applying that money towards your own commercials is getting free votes, The voting population won't know what rights they are giving away, because the media doesn't have to cover it. To top it off, when this bill gets signed, it may also put a huge dent in independent online news. "I suspect that Slashdot is plagiarizing our CNN tech site as they both reported on the same topic". Once that goes on they can start systematically shutting down competing news sources, which in turn lets them mask who is doing it in their normal reporting etc...
2. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by Yvanhoe · 2011-12-13 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that internet is #2 media in elections nowadays, this bill sounds like political suicide.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
3. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by JWW · 2011-12-13 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. I hope that eventually Facebook will replace the page for ever representative that sponsors this bill with a page explaining how they are unfit to serve and need to be removed from congress.
  Facebook is a private company that can approve or deny users at their discretion. I would like to see the SOPA supports denied its benefits when running for office next time....
4. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by Archangel+Michael · 2011-12-13 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment that defines "human rights" do not apply to artificial legal constructs (Corporations and other legal entities)
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  The internet isn't unified. Remember that most people consider the internet a place to keep track of friends on Facebook and look at pictures of cats. They care as little as possible about the politics behind it.
6. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by game+kid · 2011-12-13 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook would sooner court those reps so they can get laws to help them treat their users (and non-users--thank you, Like button) like the shit Facebook thinks they are.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
7. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  It should be noted that there's also a decently sized bipartisan opposition.
8. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  While I would find that amusing, I would much rather Facebook not be wielding that kind of power.
9. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by JWW · 2011-12-13 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  They only have that power if you use their services.
  And the politicians have been sucked in wholesale by Facebook.
10. Re:Almost guaranteed to pass by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Again, I still don't want them to wield that kind of power. I would find it incredibly alarming that they would go in and randomly change someone's profile information like that.
Mandatory Notice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Please note that from this point on, comment direction and moderation in this topic will be managed by a Waggener Edstrom team on behalf of Microsoft. This is simply to ensure a positive and thoughtful discussion of Microsoft activities, and will not impact your Slashdot reading pleasure.
Note also that any further discussion of Waggener Edstrom's efforts on behalf of Microsoft will be moderated to -1.

"Monitoring conversations, including those that take place with social media, is part of our daily routine; our products can be used as early warning systems, helping clients with rapid response and crisis management.
http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach [waggeneredstrom.com]
http://waggeneredstrom.com/clients [waggeneredstrom.com]
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39304/
1. Re:Mandatory Notice by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-13 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, will add this info to my shill-monitoring journal entry.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:Mandatory Notice by PerlJedi · 2011-12-13 02:52 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  I don't know who posted this, but I will point out that who ever it was has no official relationship with Slashdot. No company or external entity has been granted any special authority to moderate discussions on Slashdot.
3. Re:Mandatory Notice by Samantha+Wright · 2011-12-13 03:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm pretty sure that's a troll, since the text of the post has never been used outside of this thread. :)
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
4. Re:Mandatory Notice by FredFredrickson · 2011-12-13 04:10 · Score: 2
  
  I think it's meant to be ironic.
  
  --
  Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
5. Re:Mandatory Notice by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that, in the event something like that happens, they won't be posting AC.
wtf.. by gl4ss · 2011-12-13 01:15 · Score: 2

so only if it's outside us jurisdiction will the laws be applied? well hot damn.
it will only affect sales of .com addresses though.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
1. Re:wtf.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  so only if it's outside us jurisdiction will the laws be applied? well hot damn.
  "Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."
  http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454
  At least we now know what our networking companies were doing selling all that gear over the last decade to build the Great Firewall of China: beta testing.
2. Re:wtf.. by internerdj · 2011-12-13 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  So, the US congress is now making laws that have jurisdiction everywhere except for the US? No wonder we can't find time to pass a budget.
Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:20 · Score: 0

The truth is that it could be found unconstitutional if applied directly on our soil. They are simply trying to avoid having it tossed out in court.
Ironically, the primary economic target is US consumers. They have simply found a run around the constitution by targeting a foreign conduit that has no ability to defend itself, except possibly with war. While unlikely, I wouldn't outright discount war since Putin is very vocal about his dislike of US policies.
1. Re:Just another provocation of war by ledow · 2011-12-13 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, all that will happen is that the US has built exactly what they've been decrying about the Chinese Internet for so long - only the US will be blocked from accessing those sites and they'll carry on being hosted in foreign countries just as before. It's a "Great Firewall of US" instead, that's all. And the feature creep from piracy to other undesirable things is *exactly* what the Chinese do to block sites that disagree with their regime (up to and including Google for mentioning democracy, for example). And who manages those lists? And how hard would it be to put Wikileaks on it, or any site that discloses "secret" details of Guantanamo Bay etc.?
  You still won't be able to shut down anything operating outside the US (hosting, domains, or internet access) and it will still carry on regardless, just that the US won't easily "see" it. It's an all-ways-lose for the US, really, trying to box its citizens off from the real world like China does.
  The US "pirates" won't suffer (they'll just download from somewhere else, or find a way to join the same downloads bypassing the filters, or buy a VPN in China with Bitcoins), the non-US "pirates" won't suffer at all, the "pirate" sites will lose a few users but also a whole lot of hassle (if the US people can't see the sites like AllOfMP3 that worked by having Russian music-industry licenses anyway, then what's to sue over?) and also still can't be brought to stand in court in the US unless something very serious has been done and they are extradited, and the music/movie industries get the law they've always wanted (and still there'll be no change to overall piracy levels).
  The burden of complying will push content providers out of the US (because now they HAVE to filter everything and Google already fled China once because of the cost of that) and that would include everything from international ad networks to search engines to payment methods (you think Paypal.com would be affected if Paypal's EU bank was doing business with SOPA "offenders"? They'd either partition the company, or just stop trading in one or the other, both options of which hurt the business and customer).
  And eventually, someone will realise that they can't go onto site X because it's been added to the list and has nothing to do with piracy (e.g. like the Australian filter list did, where perfectly innocent businesses were filtered for no reason), and that the movie/music industry are STILL claiming the same levels of piracy (so the law did nothing) - like they are in New Zealand at the moment - and that they have similar human rights as regards accessing an Internet as the Chinese do. And then it'll make the news one day, get blown out of all proportion, get thoroughly revoked and never mentioned again and people will carry on their lives.
  I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
2. Re:Just another provocation of war by gmuslera · 2011-12-13 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  American citizens thinks that doing this is wrong, so US will apply it to other people, in other countries, or in outside territories... Torture, or put in prison without trial is ok if done in guantanamo, people that complain against government/stablishment should be protected unless is in US, and only our voters need to have human rights. Heck, how loud are the US complains when other countries filter or censors the internet communication, but this time is ok because the bosses of the ones that are in the government say that their properties are being hurt outside.
3. Re:Just another provocation of war by jpapon · 2011-12-13 01:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
  
  I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
4. Re:Just another provocation of war by CastrTroy · 2011-12-13 02:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Too much hyperbole from the people against this bill. It sounds like the ramblings of a madman, or some conspiracy nut. What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement. It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites. You can twist the words in the law to make that possible, but no judge is going to take down legitimate sites because somebody posted a single copyrighted item on them which was promptly removed.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
5. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'll say it again - the US is one of the least "free" places I've ever been to.
  I don't know where you've been, but this seems like hyperbole to me. What countries have you been to that are so much more "free" than the USA, and what freedoms do you have in them that you don't have in the USA?
  Most of Europe for instance. ;)
6. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I have two words for you: Scope Creep.
  Once the government has access to something, they kind of try and stretch that authority to fill other perceived needs. Sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, but unfortunately, history seems to have vetted this one.
7. Re:Just another provocation of war by jpapon · 2011-12-13 02:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's just nonsense. Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries. You can't carry firearms (without a great deal of hassle, if at all) in most European countries. Some European countries restrict your freedom to wear religious items of clothing. etc etc
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
8. Re:Just another provocation of war by DrgnDancer · 2011-12-13 02:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ok, I'm feeling your angst, but your arguments make little sense. First, SOPA isn't law. It hasn't gotten through committee, let alone gotten to the full House, let alone been passed by both houses and signed into law. There's lots of objections to this law, many from some heavy hitters with lots of lobbyists. Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
  Your assertions that the US is least "free" pace you've ever been indicates a serious lack of travel (I've been to far worse places). Much also depends on how you define "free". For instance: I love Germany. I've been there twice, enjoyed the Hell out it, think the health care system is great, find their attitude on things like sex, food, drink, and body image refreshing. It's also very clearly a "free" country by most reasonable definitions of the word. On the other hand, they have some severe restrictions on certain areas of speech. You practically can't mentions Nazis (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much). Weapons laws are much more restrictive than in the US (Not a big deal for me, but I have friends who would find this onerous). I also recall a recent article about the German Government installing spyware on people's computers as they cross the border.
  Is Germany "more free" than the US? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The thing is, as Americans, we see the problems in our system much more prominently. To an extent, due to the influence of the US on world politics, even non-Americans see those problems more prominently. I'm not saying that the US is the best place to live on Earth; I haven't been everywhere for one thing, and I can't deny that I wouldn't mind living in Europe or Canada for a time at least. On the other hand the US is hardly an awful place to live. There are far far less free places out there, and far far worse situations to be in. Of course, we should fight things like this wherever we can to maintain (or even improve) that situation.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
9. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't want to give the government anymore power than they have now.
  Let me ask you: why do they need this power? If they show a website to be dedicated to offering copyrighted material for download, then can't they already ask a judge to take it down/seize the domain (right now they're just taking them away without any oversight)? What more power do they need? Seriously.
  
  What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement.
  They're humans, not saints. Mistakes happen. Sometimes they're corrupt.
10. Re:Just another provocation of war by jythie · 2011-12-13 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Part of the problem is they are essentially outsourcing the decision making, giving private companies a big piece in the say regarding what a legitimate site is and what is not. It is also structured in such a way that site owners do not have a very good mechanism for challenging a shutdown, in fact they might not even have standing since people in other countries do not always have access to the US legal system. So there is very little reason to apply any real standards to what gets shut down and given how badly abused the DCMA's takedown notice has been it is not that much of a leap to picture this law being used the same way.
  
  So even if the law is well intentioned and billed as being used only against dedicated sites, it can and will be abused due to its low barrier of review and high barrier for defense.
11. Re:Just another provocation of war by Alex+Belits · 2011-12-13 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  Freedom of speech is somewhat restricted in most European countries.
  And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire? Censorship is never directed against disseminating information (this is what secrecy is for), it's used against editorials and placing information in "trustworthy" sources.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
12. Re:Just another provocation of war by Dorkmaster+Flek · 2011-12-13 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who said anything about a judge? That's one of the major problems with this bill. It lets rights holders cut off funding to any site accused of copyright infringement without having to go through the courts. That's exactly what Hollywood wants to avoid. The legal system is actually starting to get wise to the sheer idiocy of their anti-piracy legal cases, so they're going around it.
  
  --
  I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
13. Re:Just another provocation of war by zeroshade · 2011-12-13 03:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The definition of "dedicated" is up to interpretation. Already under the "Operation In Our Sites" that ICE is performing, many legitimate websites have been caught in the crossfire while being claimed as "dedicated" to copyright infringement. Several were accused of copyright infringement and had their websites taken down, only to find out that the videos were given to them by the copyright owners as promotional material.
  We don't give the government right to take down a website without due process, no matter what. Not only that, but even The Pirate Bay has some legitimate, non-infringing content on it.
  The government and big-business do not get to decide what is and is not allowed to be accessed. If the law is being broken, then charge or sue the people who are breaking the law, that is it.
14. Re:Just another provocation of war by jpapon · 2011-12-13 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  And what are you going to accomplish with your freedom of speech if you don't own a media empire?
  
  There is no "right to have other people listen to you".
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
15. Re:Just another provocation of war by Alex+Belits · 2011-12-13 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  And this is why freedom of speech is worthless without access to mass media.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
16. Re:Just another provocation of war by Nugoo · 2011-12-13 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  You can twist the words in the law to make that possible, but no judge is going to take down legitimate sites because somebody posted a single copyrighted item on them which was promptly removed.
  You're joking, right? They already have. Well, I suppose that's not quite right; dajaz1 didn't infringe any copyrights before they were taken down.
  
  --
  I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
17. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Besides, is not as if even under the presence of a judge, sites haven't been taken down.
18. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Who would have believed, ten years ago, that the TSA would be groping people, handing pliers to women to remove their nipple piercings, looking at nude images of passengers, taking off back braces (oops, though it was a money belt!), strip searching grannies, making women taste their own breast milk, and confiscating snow globes?
  As a matter of fact, I was one of the (very) few people who stood against the TSA. I came up with scenarios where the whole 'airport security' thing might turn out badly, and was scoffed at as a crazy person. Well, my worst scenarios aren't even close to the way things are now.
  So, please forgive the rolled eyes as I read your assertion that reasonable predictions (based upon past government performance) are "the ramblings of a madman, or some conspiracy nut". Also forgive the sneer of derision as I read your claim that the government would never over-reach, never use a law for more than it's (supposed) original intent.
  Oh, and a hearty "FUCK YOU!!" for not listening re: the TSA.
19. Re:Just another provocation of war by misexistentialist · 2011-12-13 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  An internet where only corporations are allowed to disseminate information might be something that the people of the world are clamoring for, but judging by the constant "intellectual property" litigation affecting market access of even the most legitimate corporations, it's hard to believe that the law won't disrupt the big corporations internet presence as well.
20. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Does Germany treat all visitors to the country as criminals and fingerprint them? No.
  Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit? No.
  The obsession with carrying a weapon is a very American thing. Even in the USA, the right to do this is limited (cf. laws on concealed weapons, etc)..
  That Germany has placed limits on speech around topics like Nazis is because they've been there and learnt that it does not serve the greater good, much as they've learnt about the need for privacy,
  The USA is yet to learn ab.out why privacy is necessary
21. Re:Just another provocation of war by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.
22. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  No it isn't, because the value of freedom of speech is not measured by how many people you can convince to agree with you. By your logic, freedom of speech is also "worthless" for the unpopular.
23. Re:Just another provocation of war by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-12-13 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit?
  If you are not a citizen of their meta-country (the EU), they do. The only reason you think they don't is because you don't realize that they consider your country to be part of theirs. Germany is a state in the EU the same way that California is a state in the USA.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
24. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  enjoyed the Helles out [of] it
  ftfy.
  Ich auch, mein Freund
25. Re:Just another provocation of war by Alex+Belits · 2011-12-13 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't, because the value of freedom of speech is not measured by how many people you can convince to agree with you.
  What other value can it possibly have? Freedom of speech only applies to public speech, so the purpose of freedom of speech is dissemination of ideas, in other words, access to propaganda.
  
  By your logic, freedom of speech is also "worthless" for the unpopular.
  If they can't use freedom of speech to make their ideas popular -- of course!
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
26. Re:Just another provocation of war by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-13 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone considers the right to carry lethal weapons so sacred.
  But many people know better.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
27. Re:Just another provocation of war by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  The fact of the matter is, you cannot guarantee that. And the second you give the US the power to take down any sites, you've given them the power to take down all sites.
  There is absolutely no justification, nor any reason whatsoever, that the US should be involved in blocking access to any site whatsoever. Allowing them to do so only increases the possibility of abuse by government for the purposes of censorship.
28. Re:Just another provocation of war by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  What other value can it possibly have?
  Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all? I'd far rather have the right to post my video on the internet and have it ignored than to not be able to post it at all.
29. Re:Just another provocation of war by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
  Stuff like that is just begging for this to be passed. We have to come out in full force now. Saying that there's all this stuff still in the way is just asking for people to be apathetic about it until it's too late.
30. Re:Just another provocation of war by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit? No.
  Are you trying to tell me that you don't need a visa to visit Germany from outside the EU?
31. Re:Just another provocation of war by Adrian+Lopez · 2011-12-13 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  . What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement. It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites.
  Who gets to define which sites are legitimate and which are not?
  Keep in mind that SOPA allows for websites to be blocked and denied financial support without so much as a trial. If there's any doubt about a website's involvement in copyright infringement, a trial would resolve that. Under SOPA, however, the government no longer has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a website is guilty of infringement. This makes it a great deal easier for either the government or copyright holders to shut down allegedly infringing websites, the website having little or no opportunity to establish its innocence.
  Would YouTube still exist had SOPA been in effect when Viacom decided YouTube was guilty of copyright infringement?
  
  --
  "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
32. Re:Just another provocation of war by jpapon · 2011-12-13 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary. It is mass media which makes freedom of speech lose its value.
  There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
33. Re:Just another provocation of war by jpapon · 2011-12-13 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's just a right, no more sacred than any other.
  Are you prepared to deny people the right to carry a tool to defend themselves with?
  Seems like the right to defend oneself would be right at the foundation of the pyramid of rights, no?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
34. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anguirel · 2011-12-13 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  And how hard would it be to put Wikileaks on it, or any site that discloses "secret" details of Guantanamo Bay etc.?
  Wikileaks is clearly in violation of the copyright of some of the documents it posts. I'm not sure the U.S. Government can have internally-created material held by copyright against U.S. Citizens, though I suspect not (it seems like public-funding should default to public-domain), but any company's internal memos or other sensitive documents it exposes could legitimately be considered in violation of copyright. Thinking of it now, I'm actually surprised that hasn't succeeded as a shut down method yet. Do they get some sort of safe-harbor under the Freedom-of-the-Press mantle?
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
35. Re:Just another provocation of war by Alex+Belits · 2011-12-13 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Would you rather not be able to disseminate these ideas at all?
  If everyone will ignore them, I would not see a difference as far as public speech is concerned.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
36. Re:Just another provocation of war by Killjoy_NL · 2011-12-13 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Netherlands :)
  I can say what I want, I can smoke weed if I want, I can visit a prostitute if I want, all without fear of being arrested or ticketed.
  In the US prostitution is outlawed here and there if I am not mistaken, marihuana is illegal and we don't have no stupid stinking free speech zones.
  For living normally, the US is fine, no problem and those examples I gave, I don't do them anyway, but I could if I wanted and that's freedom good sir.
  
  --
  This is the sig that says NI (again)
37. Re:Just another provocation of war by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  You must remember that rights can conflict. There are times when the rights of one person are in conflict with those of another, and at that time some form of compromise is unavoidable. Shooting someone dead - even a criminal of obvious guilt - is still an execution without trial.... and that's in the event that it really is self defence. There is another approach: Let the mugger run off with the wallet, then focus on catching them through policing, giving them their fair trial and due process of law, and then throwing them in jail or some other sentence proportionate to the crime.
38. Re:Just another provocation of war by Alex+Belits · 2011-12-13 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary. It is mass media which makes freedom of speech lose its value.
  There are simply too many voices. Free speech will "magically" regain its value in the face of mass media once it acquires a message embraced by an overwhelming plurality.
  More like it's the other way around.
  At the time when all those nice ideas about free speech originated, there were few people capable of writing anything in a manner that anyone would bother reading. A person who went to the trouble of writing a book or newsletter about anything relevant to current events will inevitably reach countless readers in various privileged positions in society, if for no reason then because such speech was rare, and people had no other sources of it. Seeing a somewhat well-argued point would convince many people just by virtue being said and included in those people's experience that they would discuss among themselves while opposing point will not get such luxury until expressed by someone else in a similarly convincing manner -- and even then the opponents will have to change an established opinion because writing and dissemination of it would take weeks if not months.
  Now there is no shortage of opinions expressed in a readable manner. Mass media has the benefit of being the same "shared experience" -- it reaches multiple people simultaneously so they discuss things in a way framed by mass media's expression. However remove mass media, and all you have is many weak voices, all with their own opinions, having no influence, no mechanism for shared discussion, and no advantage over each other. Anything valuable (from whatever point of view) will just drown there, and eventually a new set of "leaders" will be in the position of "mass media" that drowns out everything else. It's pointless to pretend that such situation accomplishes anything comparable with a small bunch of 18th century philosophers being able to publish their then-revolutionary views.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
39. Re:Just another provocation of war by silanea · 2011-12-13 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  [...] It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites. [...]
  You do not spend much time on Slashdot, do you?
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
40. Re:Just another provocation of war by b4dc0d3r · 2011-12-13 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's not going to be used to take down legitimate sites.
  Let me explain how this works. Congress passes a law with very specific wording. They may have a specific intent, but they are not required (allowed?) to state their intent. The wording is what goes into the federal statutes.
  Years later, someone decides to do something. They ask a lawyer if the lawyer can justify their actions based on the wording (not the intent) of the law. Then judges get to decide if the lawyers have made a good case, on one side or the other.
  One problem is the interim, where low level judges basically throw dice to decide what is legal or not. Some good comes of it, some bad.
  Ultimately, the second harm comes when a case makes it to a high enough level that it establishes a citable case which others can reference. Typically, these go with the wording, not the intent, of the law. If it says the government can block sites based on illegal activity, the judge really has no choice but to allow it. I've seen many opinions where the judge clearly disagrees but says that is the way the law is written, so it must be allowed.
  Only at the point where it can be called unconstitutional (at the federal level by the US Supreme Court) or otherwise thrown out (at the state level, if it is a state law), can it be reined in. The harm between the first case and when it is thrown out, including financials incurred by many defendants, is the real crime against individuals.
  Overall, society can work these out. But individuals have to have standing to complain, to fight back, to pay the court costs and lawyer fees to establish the law for the rest of us.
  I guarantee this law, as written, will be misused. That's the problem. If it is worded a bit better, clarified with amendments, maybe these intermediate effects won't happen. Better wording in laws, in the first place, will prevent potential harm. Maybe we will get lucky, and this won't be misused.
  But if anyone sees some advantage in taking this literally, word for word, and can justify their actions with someone who has passed the bar in one state, why wouldn't they take that advantage? Go ahead and ask for examples, I'm sure whoever replies to you will have more than I care to put together.
41. Re:Just another provocation of war by b4dc0d3r · 2011-12-13 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  When I read that the US is the least free country in the world, here's what I compare.
  What does the constitution or equivalent document say, versus what does the country allow?
  If a country chooses to implement Sharia law, in accordance with the votes of their citizens (legitimately, for the sake of argument), are they free? I would argue yes, they decided this is what they wanted. Many would say no, Sharia is very restrictive. The citizens have certain expectations, and as long as they have the same expectations as the government, they feel free.
  The underlying theme of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, writings of the Founding Fathers, and history of the pre-Declaration arrivals, has been "If you have no reason nor proof, then leave me alone."
  Freedom to practice Catholic and/or Reformed Christianity as you wish, instead of bowing to the rules of the Church of England's hybrid methodology is a big sticking point, and has since been expanded to any religion. Unless you are Muslim, then you get profiled and denied rights. Unofficially, and under the guise of safety of course.
  Freedom from search and seizure, a common practice of intimidation of the early British forces. Unless you posess controlled substances, which you might use, and which you might become addicted to, and which may cause you, and small numbers, to commit crimes to be able to purchase. So to prevent all that, the pre-crime DEA will remove your posessions before you actually commit a crime, and put you in jail despite having no proof or reason.
  Freedom of speech, unless someone, without due process, decides you are violating the perpetual copyright. Civil disobedience is not possible, and the fine line between infringement and fair use gets decided not in a court, but in a simple complaint. Currently, the DMCA requires a "good faith" complaint, and the responder has to reply under penalty of perjury, that the original request was mistaken. If I believe it is fair use, but a trial proves otherwise, I do not have a good faith defense. But if I am proven correct, at most I get restoration of my content. The clear incentive is to simply give in, unless you have deep pockets.
  Compared to its goals, USA is very much not a free country at this point. Compared to their goals, other countries are surprisingly permissive. This is the standard to which I hold the country. How closely do you hold to your own stated goals?
42. Re:Just another provocation of war by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why you will never understand free speech. They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there. If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
43. Re:Just another provocation of war by Alex+Belits · 2011-12-13 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why you will never understand free speech.
  If I can't understand it, chances are, most people can't use it, either.
  
  They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there.
  Public speech does not work this way. If it's "out there" but no one listens, it has no effect whatsoever.
  
  If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
  Even if people could make any reasonable decisions about importance and validity, the sheer amount of speech that results from such freedom, will make it impossible to find anything worthy of being analyzed in such manner in the first place. In reality, people listen to mass media that is forced upon them and does not look outrageously wrong, plus some subset of things they find to be most comfortable to listen to. All other "speakers" just cancel each other in noise -- their attempts to out-shout their opponents end up creating more noise, and make them sound less trustworthy.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
44. Re:Just another provocation of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-14 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  True...because there is no judge involved in the process.
Whatever by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:22 · Score: 0

This is so you can get your foot in the door, and over time you will kick it open further. Please, some of us don't believe your lies anymore.
Exercise your right to complain by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can only complain if you've tried to make your voice heard:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/fight-blacklist-toolkit-anti-sopa-activists
How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
1. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by james_van · 2011-12-13 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  I agree whole heartedly with you, but I have to comment on one point- "Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes" - freedom doesnt pay anywhere near as well as lobbyist bribes. Our politicians dont care one bit about freedom, liberty, the constitution, or the people. They care about money. If freedom paid well, we'd be the free-est damn place on Earth.
2. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by fedos · 2011-12-13 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd ... stops supporting liberals
  You fail. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative. The truth is that both liberal and conservative congressional members routinely support draconian copyright laws that give huge amounts of power to large corporations. Snap out of the "small government" brainwashing and realize that the real fight is between those who want to give unlimited power to corporations, who make up almost the entirety of the Republican party plus a good amount of the Democratic party, and those who support protecting consumers from predatory behavior.
3. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's easy, Lamar Smith is a liberal. For today, anyway. Easy peasy when you call anyone who does something you don't like "liberal" and anyone who does something you do like "conservative", even if they're the same person.
4. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by sociocapitalist · 2011-12-13 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals just because they're occasionally expanding an "acceptable" part of government? Give a politician an inch and they'll bend you over and give you 10. The only way to remain free is to slap down anything they don't have the authority to do. If we really need it, then we need an amendment saying so. Otherwise, make them stick to the enumerated powers and made them side with freedom over lobbyist bribes.
  Also, when your favorite politician is advocating some new expansion of government power, ask yourself if you'll be so happy when this new power is wielded by the other side. Listen to our Founding Fathers: the only way to be free is not tempt men with power. Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get.
  You make it sound like only liberals expand government.
  If Ron Paul and the other politicians pretending not to be 'just another republican' get their way then government will be made smaller, perhaps, but it will only be the 'liberal' (aka democrat) programs that get cut. Republican programs will be untouched or expanded.
  So long as politicians are owned by big money, there will be no fundamental change in the way things work in the US.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
5. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  As long as you maintain this ridiculous "only Libruls expand government powers" notion, you'll keep seeing the government powers expand, and nashing your teeth over it, without doing any good. George W massively expanded government powers. Obama seems inclined to do so as well, it's not about GOP vs Dem, its about corporatism vs freedom. You need to realize who your allies really are. An alliance of libertarians and liberals are probably the ones who could truly fight this.
6. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:51 · Score: 0
  Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative.
  
  From looking him up on Wikipedia...
  Evidence that he's conservative:
  He favors letting the states have final say in marijuana prohibition/allowance.
  Evidence he's anti-conservative:
  He's a member of the Republican party
  He favors expanding the role of federal government to include using force against women who want abortions.
  He favors further radicalization of copyright law to make it even less like the traditional view under which billions of dollars have been made, in the form of expanding DMCA.
  One might have reasons to think he's conservative, but the overall weight of the evidence should make anyone's first impression that he's pretty far over on the left.
7. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Maudib · 2011-12-13 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  So I should instead support conservatives that expand governments power to spy and detain citizens and gut the separation of church and state?
  I don't see either side as having clean hands when it comes to respecting the constraints imposed on them by the constitution.
8. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  "unlimited power to corporations" the only way to prevent that from happing is to give less power to hand out, what happens in the US the left will ask for more power to provide service X then the right privatizes this service again, the problem is every time this happens a service go's from the non-politically connected class to to the politically connected class, your party or favorite senators are not the solution the help create the problem.
9. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by jedidiah · 2011-12-13 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Are you trying to suggest that any of the GOP members of my state's congressional delegation are any less Hollywood's bitch? Or less inclined to engage in "social meddling"?
  I think you should watch less Fox News.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
10. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by bky1701 · 2011-12-13 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Liberals might run the government poorly, but conservatives want to give the government to the rich. Personally, I'd rather a system I can at least in theory vote in, over the Social Darwinism championed by libertarians.
  
  "Historically, government is an oppressor and everything it does should be treated with suspicion or you deserve what you get."
  
  Read up on the East India Company. And before telling me it was government-connected, think about how much of a difference that made in how it operated or to the people it oppressed.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
11. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Ya a couple conservatives support this, while if you do the math 78% of its supporters are liberals....22% conservative. And those conservatives are not conservatives if they support this bill. It goes against everything conservatives support.
12. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-13 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Liberal, conservative... those terms are so twisted around, does anyone even know what they mean any more? Because whatever they once meant, they don't now.
13. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  You're right about most of them, but you obviously don't know much about Ron Paul.
14. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by game+kid · 2011-12-13 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Smith's liberal; just the wrong sort of liberal.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
15. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-12-13 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  And this is the problem, those who favor the expansion of government power have distorted the issues so that the divide is between those who want to "conservatively" expand government power and those who want to "liberally" expand government power. Just as in the 50s, those who favored government control of the economy said that the political spectrum extended from the Communists (who wanted to seize all means of production and have bureaucrats run it) on the left to the Fascists (who wanted to let "capitalists" own the means of production, as long as they ran it the way the bureaucrats told them to) on the right.
  This leaves out the majority of people who believe that the government should have strictly limited powers and people should be allowed to make thier own decisions about what to buy and where to work.
  Lamar Smith believes the government is the source of good in this world. The OP appears to share my view that the only thing the government is good for is to punish evil and that when people start to view the government as a source of good, they encourage it to become a source of evil.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
16. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-13 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...and those who support protecting consumers from predatory behavior.
  There's really no such thing anymore. Yes, USDA inspections of meat packing factories was once sorely needed. But there hasn't been a single bit of legislation in the last 50 years termed "consumer protection" that was anything but a rule eliminating some consumer choice.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
17. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-13 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  You fail. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of this bill is a conservative.
  According to who? He's a Republican, but there are lots of Republicans that are far from conservative. "Heritage Action" only gives him a 56% conservative rating.
  I don't really pay attention to party much anyway. To me, you judge a politician only on whether he is working for more government and corporate power or defending liberty for the people.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
18. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". It doesn't matter if it's corporate or government power; both types of power need to be limited, this helps limit the corruption.
  Although free market systems can help limit some corporate corruption, the robber barons of the American 19th century demonstrated that the free market alone isn't enough. Today, corporate power is typically limited by government power. Although unions are just as susceptible to corruption as any other, a labor union is a good example of government power being used to limit corporate power/corruption.
  In the American Bill of Rights, government power is limited by the people. The people have freedom of speech/press, the right to assemble and so on; this allows them to learn about and communicate about the corruption that will inevitably enter into their government. Today, we call this transparency. Furthermore, the people have the right to bear arms (weather you argue that right is limited to militias or open to all individuals). This gives Americans the power to force physical change if their government becomes so corrupted other methods of change (voting, et.al.) become impossible.
19. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government
  Yes, because I totally want a government that doesn't have the power to do shit. Companies would never think of moving in, assimilating that power, and abusing it. Nope, never gonna happen.
20. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  And obviously you don't if you think he's not. I guarantee you that if he were to somehow be elected, come 2-3 years into his Presidency, you would be just as disappointed with him as many on the left are with Obama.
21. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by sartin · 2011-12-13 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  ...gets on board with limited Constitutional government and stops supporting liberals....
  I am unsure how this comment applies here. Lamar Smith (the committee chair and SOPA bill lead sponsor) is a conservative Republican. He supports any strong IP law despite complaints from constituents and rests on such a solid majority in his district that it would take a disaster of epic proportion to unseat him.
22. Re:How long before the Slashdot crowd... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 23:13 · Score: 0
  
  "How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government"
  You do realize that legislating on matters of copyright is actually one of the few things that Congress is doing that is constitutional and in line with limited government, right? Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
New Income Tax Plan . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2011-12-13 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

"I think we should tax the incomes of foreigners living and working abroad!"
That should go down well with domestic voters . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1. Re:New Income Tax Plan . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  What happened to one of the reasons why the US declared independance in the first place?
  "No Taxation without Representation"?
  so it is going to be ok for those pesky aliens to pay taxes (sorry tithes) to Uncle Sam but they can't have a seat in the congress or Senate so that they get represenation.
  Typical of the US today. Sticking its nose into the business of other countries.
2. Re:New Income Tax Plan . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Since there is no Intellectual Property tax (ownership of the rights to a near-century worth of sound recordings goes untaxed), PIPA/SOPA is a fine example of "Representation without Taxation".
3. Re:New Income Tax Plan . . . by SecurityTheatre · 2011-12-13 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  The great irony here is that the United States is the only country in the world that DOES this.
  All US Citizens, regardless of where they live, what other citizenships they hold or what they are doing... are required to pay income tax to the US on all income, worldwide.
  If you are a US Citizen and you move away. If you live in France or China for the REST of your life, you owe Uncle Sam a tax return every year. If you ever set foot in the US again, after living abroad for years, you may be arrested for tax evasion.
  See, every other country in the world taxes based on residency, so if I'm living in France, I pay french taxes.
  If I am French and I am moving to the USA, I stop paying or filing French taxes.
  But an American moving elsewhere has to keep his head under Uncle Sam's watchful eye if he ever intends to return again in his life.
  You can certainly renounce your citizenship, but it is illegal to do so for tax reasons and if you return to the US at some later date and have not filed taxes, you are committing a crime.
  WTF?
4. Re:New Income Tax Plan . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  No! No, what is the word ... *snaps fingers* welcome!
Land of the Free by Tastecicles · 2011-12-13 01:37 · Score: 1

My shiny backside!

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Yes, yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:39 · Score: 1

There's this snooping law that says names of American Citizens[tm] must be blackened out in snooped phone transcripts, but Furriners[tm] do not get such "courtesy". Been there for ages, as have a bunch of others. Victorian Chauvinism with less style and put into law to boot. That's how it treats its allies. You're saying you didn't see that one coming? This empire strikes first.
1. Re:Yes, yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  We all know Greed shot first.
Take action at EFF by Openstandards.net · 2011-12-13 01:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Please take action at the EFF to communicate to your representatives.
I changed the boiler plate text in the email to say the following, which I believe has more of a punch:
_____________________
I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).
In addition to the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation, I am deeply concerned by the risk that these unprecedented assaults on foreign entities will be interpreted as a provocation of war, particularly by leaders who are already hostile towards US policies, such as Putin of Russia. This will be heavily compounded as this inevitably leads to harming sites that many will view as innocent victims of this highly subjective process and clearly biased intent towards increasing corporate profits in Hollywood.
This bill will also re-enforce the image that congress is purchased and own by corporate interests.
Lastly, due to the sweeping level of censorship, this bill will popularize methods of overcoming censorship to the US, technology that is usually reserved for hardship regimes. This will certainly make it difficult for the intelligence community to find real crimes, as their chatter becomes increasingly co-mingled with mainstream on-line anti-censorship technology.
The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
_________________

--

Open Standards Portal
1. Re:Take action at EFF by elrous0 · 2011-12-13 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The 44 cents in postage I would waste would pale in comparison to the $68,000 the media industry donated to my representative last year.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:Take action at EFF by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-12-13 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  You do understand they only want that money so they can get more people to vote for them?
  You writing a letter to your representative isn't going to change much. You and a few thousand other people doing it is going to make them realize that you represent a sufficiently large chunk of their constituency that they'll be losing more votes continuing to support the bill than they can buy back with the Hollywood money.
3. Re:Take action at EFF by Marillion · 2011-12-13 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  I wrote my congressman urging him to oppose HR 3261. I got back a polite letter that gave no sense of how he will vote. But given that he's a staunch Republican in the district next door to Speaker Boehner's district, I doubt there are enough constituents who have expressed enough opinions to sway him from the Party Line.
  Never the less, I got off my ass and DID SOMETHING! You should too.
  https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/388571_10150409971002592_700082591_8990585_787157727_n.jpg
  
  --
  This is a boring sig
4. Re:Take action at EFF by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  A far, far, far better method of action would be to print this out, and actually snail mail it to your representatives. Emails can be ignored, but snail mail tends to command far greater weight.
5. Re:Take action at EFF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  So do faxes. Basically, anything that sucks up paper and time has more impact than email.
6. Re:Take action at EFF by gnawingonfoot · 2011-12-13 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  If only the media industry hadn't gotten that money from us in the first place!
Americans, seriously. by neokushan · 2011-12-13 01:43 · Score: 0

Get with the fucking Programme.
Yours,
-The rest of the world

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Reminds me of Monty Python by tkrotchko · 2011-12-13 01:50 · Score: 1

When some politician firmly stated:
"We will tax all foreigners living abroad!"
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/Taxing.html

--
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
1. Re:Reminds me of Monty Python by dkleinsc · 2011-12-13 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Better than their proposed tax on thingy (not quite SFW)
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
What worries me most. by RivenAleem · 2011-12-13 01:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't know what worries me most, that politicians in America really believe this is good for the country, or that politicians in America are so deep in the pockets of the corporations to push this through.
Really? by CastrTroy · 2011-12-13 01:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

I've heard a lot of bad things about this bill. I don't think it's a good bill, and hope it doesn't pass (even though it most likely will). But I'm hearing so much FUD from the people against this bill that it makes me roll my eyes every time I hear about it . Sites like StackOverflow and the Stack Exchange Network state they their sites could be directly harmed by this bill. PLLEEEAAASE. Get Real. No judge is going to take down a Q and A forum because somebody reports that one of the 8 million questions on the site is infringing on some copyrighted question (can you copyright a single question?) in some way. That isn't going to happen. People complain about the way things are worded, and that it's too broad. But that's what judges are for. Laws have always been broad and judges have always had to interpret them. This is how the legal system works. Otherwise you could argue, "I didn't kill the man, I just locked him in a cage with a lion." There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You just have to look at what has already happened without SOPA - abuse of DCMA for the purpose of censorship by private corporations, takedowns of legitimate websites taking a year for the owners to get them back, presumption of guilt with no recourse to defend oneself, subversion of DNS etc. Roll your eyes as much as you want, but there is real reasons behind what you refer to as FUD.
2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Wow... just, wow.
  Don't worry about the man behind the curtain, huh? Why does this thing even exist then? If it isn't going to be used the way it says it can be used then why does it even bother to say it can be used that way in the first place?
  
  People complain about the way things are worded, and that it's too broad. But that's what judges are for. Laws have always been broad and judges have always had to interpret them. This is how the legal system works.
  
  So, basically, it doesn't matter that it's stupid and dangerous, because someone else might clean up the mess a few years down the road, maybe.
  Well, that's my concerns assuaged! Thanks, d00d.
  This reminds of the stupid overly broad child pornography laws that totally weren't going to be used to prosecute teenagers taking pictures of themselves but were then used to prosecute teenagers taking pictures of themselves. That problem was also foreseen and, like you are doing, hand-waved away; I don't buy your "just ignore it and it will all go away" crap for a second.
3. Re:Really? by HeckRuler · 2011-12-13 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  Dear Stack overflow, every time I try to play this disc it keeps popping up an error. I've narrowed it down to this one component that doesn't seem to do anything other then give me headaches. Help me bypass it.
4. Re:Really? by thisnamestoolong · 2011-12-13 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  It must be nice to be so naive and optimistic. The truth of the matter is that the DMCA is already being abused broadly to silence legitimate speech. Having broad laws and enforcing them selectively ensures that almost anyone is in violation of the law and can simply be grabbed out of the crowd as soon as they say something that you don't like. Whether or not a site in particular is going to be directly taken down, it will harm the whole Internet by providing a chilling effect on all forms of speech.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
5. Re:Really? by Tokolosh · 2011-12-13 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  If the bill passes (and even if it does not), let's all agree to meet again here in five years to assess.
  I'll buy you a steak dinner if your predictions are correct.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
6. Re:Really? by TheWoozle · 2011-12-13 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down
  Sorry, but your basic premise is wrong. There does NOT need to be a way to "take sites like this down", if in fact you could accomplish that in any meaningful way. It's the same basic flaw in any argument for censorship - the idea that if you remove people's access to something you think is undesirable, that it solves the problem. Really, the problem is your own: that you think that the thing you want to censor is undesirable/wrong.
  
  --
  Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
7. Re:Really? by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  PLLEEEAAASE. Get Real. No judge is going to take down a Q and A forum because somebody reports that one of the 8 million questions on the site is infringing on some copyrighted question (can you copyright a single question?) in some way.
  Do you honestly want to take that chance?
  And remember, one of the most egregious things about this bill is that there is NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. The US Attorney General's office is responsible for maintaining a blacklist of sites that ISPs have to filter. There is no court hearing to put a site on that list.
c'mon America by amalek · 2011-12-13 01:57 · Score: 2

Start a revolution already, jeez
1. Re:c'mon America by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  They can not start a revolution, they do not have enough money nor social competency.
  
  As it happens, everyone want to have a revolution but everyone is isolated from each other so no one knows anyone else who also would want to have a revolution. They do not know each other because they do not socialize with each other because they are too exhausted from the 3 works they have that the only thing they can do and afford is to sit down infront of the brainwashing box and eat a slice of pizza.
Re:so deep in the... of the corporations by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:00 · Score: 0

Sure it's the pockets?
Throw the bums out! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:08 · Score: 0

Another dumb "Texas" Republican politician run amock.
Great American Firewall by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 02:10 · Score: 1

Congressman Lamar Smith shows his abysmal ignorance once again by failing to address the real problems with SOPA. Instead he merely re-affirms that it is a pale imitation of what China has already done.
Perhaps Mr Smith should move to China, since he likes their Internet policies so much?
Use ACLU to alert your Representatives by Goboxer · 2011-12-13 02:35 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/good-idea-poor-follow-through-congress-mistakes-sopa
That will take you to a blog post about SOPA and ACLU's opposition to it. The last link in the article is a link to a form where you fill in the blanks and it will send off a letter to your representatives. It is one of the easiest ways to contact your representatives about your concerns. Forget your feelings about the ACLU or other such crap. This bill/legislation/power-grab needs to be stopped, and it is your duty as an American to let your representatives know that you oppose it.
Move to darknet by vlm · 2011-12-13 02:58 · Score: 1

Move to one of many darknets and say goodbye to government regulation of, by, and for the big corporations. I'm not a big corporation, so the government should have no interaction with me... if only it worked that way...
Personally, in my infinite spare time, I'm working (slowly) on a openvpn and quagga based exclusively ipv6 darknet. Don't peer with me, peer with someone already there, preferably far away from your home. An independent project is resurrecting ye olde usenet with a twist... all "peering" done over ssh between individuals instead of hub-spoke with big central providers, all non GPG signed articles in some hierarchies are autocancelbotted, completely new hierarchy structure, dramatically different file length limits segregated by hierarchy (so if you can't afford the BW for .binaries. then its much easier to filter), mandatory utf-8 support, and more, another "don't talk to me, talk to someone far away from yourself who's already peering with me". I'm a network guy so I mostly care about design, but WRT content I'm at least hoping its more like I2P than freenet (freenet seems to be mostly CP, I2P seems to be mostly filetraders)
You can have a lot of fun prototyping stuff like this with a stack of old computers in your basement all running linux and some other stuff...
I suppose islanding the internet into many independent country sized networks would pretty much stop darknets. Maybe only registered multinational corporations with pre-arranged FBI/NSA/MI5 bugging arrangements would be allowed to VPN across the firewall. I suppose we may as well start planning our workarounds for that, too.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What a load of tripe by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
1. Re:What a load of tripe by jpapon · 2011-12-13 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Banks won't let you hide your face and Health and Safety require cleanliness in the clothing for caterers. Both require that some religious clothes are not allowed.
  How about the full Burqua in France?
  
  Whereas the USA has Free Speech Zones.
  
  Of course there are free speech zones. How else could you do it? You can't simply allow people to demonstrate and protest wherever they want... My right to free speech doesn't mean I can stand in the middle of the Holland tunnel and giving a speech (and thereby prevent everyone else from getting to their jobs in New York City).
  
  You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
  
  I'll agree that the do-not-fly list is a rather messed up thing, mainly because it seems to have an utter lack of oversight. But again, hyperbole.... this doesn't prevent you from traveling in the USA, it just prevents you from traveling on an airplane.
  
  And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
  
  This is just plain ol bullshit. You can own and carry a firearm in every state of the USA. Purchasing a firearm in the USA is easier than in any other Western country.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
2. Re:What a load of tripe by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
  Nonsense. That's only flying. You can always drive - it's not like the TSA is sitting around on highways.
  ...Except for the part where they are. But don't worry, you're still safe - they're mainly looking at truck traffic.
  ...For now, comrade.
3. Re:What a load of tripe by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-12-13 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  My right to free speech doesn't mean I can stand in the middle of the Holland tunnel and giving a speech (and thereby prevent everyone else from getting to their jobs in New York City).
  Blocking traffic is not speech. But you sure as hell ought to be allowed to stand on the side of (not in) the road holding a sign so that passing motorists can read it. Or do the same outside of some corrupt politician's event in a way that your signs have some hope of making it into the media coverage, instead of being corralled into some fenced area where you can be conveniently ignored.
4. Re:What a load of tripe by s73v3r · 2011-12-13 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're only allowed to travel in the USA as long as you're not on the travel watchlist which you're not allowed to see or correct.
  Is not a sovereign country permitted to decide who they want to allow to come inside?
  And you don't think Europe has similar provisions? If you don't, why not ask Fred Phelps what a wonderful time he had in the UK.
5. Re:What a load of tripe by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-12-13 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
  Umm, no.
  Shall Issue Concealed Carry is legal in 49 States (Illinois, the home of our Glorious Leader being the one exception), though not in the District of Columbia.
  In other words, prove you don't have a criminal record, take a firearms safety course (which can be done in a weekend in a lot of places), fill out paperwork, get Concealed Carry License.
  Or, just go down to gunstore and buy a gun, if all you want to do is own it, or carry it to/from the range or hunting grounds.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
6. Re:What a load of tripe by Sanction · 2011-12-13 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, umm, no.
  Shall Issue is certainly not in place in 49 states. Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not have shall issue statutes, in addition to Illinois and DC.
  There is currently a bill being proposed that would force those states that allow some kind of permit to recognize permits from other states under the full faith and credit clause, but it has not been voted on yet (as far as I know). States that don't issue permits to anyone will still not have to recognize them.
  Not addressing the whole freedom issue, just a factual correction.
  
  --
  Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
7. Re:What a load of tripe by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-12-14 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Shall Issue is certainly not in place in 49 states. Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not have shall issue statutes, in addition to Illinois and DC.
  My apologies, you are mostly correct. Mostly, because while Vermont doesn't have a Shall Issue Law, it also does not forbid concealed carry (or require any licences whatsoever to possess/carry a firearm).
  It should also be noted that the other States you listed do, in fact, allow Concealed Carry, though a permit is not automatic, as it is in Shall Issue States.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Let the BAAAW-fest begin... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:30 · Score: 0

Let me guess, the nr. 1 advice given here to counteract the policy is "write your congressman and make your voice heard". Bullsh1t, american politics is nothing but the newest form of reality show. It excites people, let them pick sides, fight amongst each other, winner takes all, RED vs. Blue etc. When the FSCK do you guys over there wake up, smell the roses, and notice the hand that goes up the arse of every one of your precious politicians?!
Why the FSCK do you even tolerate and accept the existence of lobbying within your system? ARE YOU SO FSCKING STUPID THAT YOU CAN PROFESS IGNORANCE AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING LAWS AND POLICIES TO BE BOUGHT FOR MONEY?!?!?!
Sorry for being blunt.
Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by SixGunMojo · 2011-12-13 04:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Full page ad in The Wall Street Journal for the passage of PROTECT IP and SOPA to "protect American jobs" signed by
ABC, AFTRA - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFM - American Federation of Musicians, AAP - American Association of Publishers, ASCAP, BMG Chrysalis, BMI, CBS Corporation, Cengage Learning, DGA - Directors guild of America, Disney Publishing Worldwide, EMI Music Publishing, ESPN, Graphic Artists Guild, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Hyperion, IATSE - International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States its Territories and Canada International Brotherhood of Teamsters (WTF), Kaufman Astoria Studios, Macmillan, Major League Baseball, Marvel Entertainment LLC, Mcgraw-Hill Education, MPA - The Association of Magazine Media, NFL - National Football League, National Music Publishers' Association, NBCUniversal, News Corporation, New York Production Alliance, New York State AFL-CIO, Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA) Inc., The Perseus Books Group, Producers Guild of America East, Random House, Reed Elsevier, SAG - Screen Actors Guild, Scholastic, Inc., Silvercup Studios, Simon & Schuster, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Time Warner Inc., United States Tennis Association, Universal Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Viacom, Warner Music Group, W.W. Norton & Company, Wolters Kluwer.
1. Re:Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by bky1701 · 2011-12-13 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nice they made a checklist for companies to never purchase goods from.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
2. Re:Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by misexistentialist · 2011-12-13 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Not surprising since those organizations would support any and all measures to obstruct, molest, harass, or annihilate the internets.
3. Re:Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by dyingtolive · 2011-12-13 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  You think those companies make money from goods?
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
4. Re:Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by game+kid · 2011-12-13 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I can't find any info on that ad (if it exists). That said, should large media conglomerates be allowed to list multiple subsidiaries as supporters of measures in political ads like that? (This is just one of many problems with that sort of ad, but one I quickly noticed.)
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
5. Re:Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by SixGunMojo · 2011-12-13 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  It exists. It is in the print version that gets delivered in the morning, page A14.
6. Re:Full page ad in The Wall Street Jounal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  At least the NBA (National Basketball Association) isn't on that list. They just like to fuck their fans in order to pay their overinflated salaries.
MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:15 · Score: 0

Who modded this down? Was it you, noob PerlJedi? If not, please use your magical slashdud powers to get these boys back up to +5 where they should have been all along!
SOPA violoates the constitution by ZenDragon · 2011-12-13 04:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Interesting article written by a Harvard Law professor detailing specific cases show how SOPA violates the constitution. http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1
1. Re:SOPA violoates the constitution by Dripdry · 2011-12-14 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Call me a little cynical, but wouldn't something like this be gravy for lawyers? release bills that will be locked up in litigation for a decade? That's some tasty dollars they have there.
  
  --
  -
Natural laws of the internet by fireteller2 · 2011-12-13 06:16 · Score: 1

Copying can not be legislated on the internet. Period. Put the laws in place if you like, but it is meaningless. The RIAA and MPAA missed it, but the power has already passed from them to the audience. No longer can they dictate release windows (theatrical, DVD, VOD, etc.) or decided which version are public and which are not (bootlegs, old seasons of TV shows, special 'limited' editions).
Simply put there is no argument that wins, it is now a physical law of the internet. The only way forward that is actually logical and effaceable is accepting the laws of the intent and embracing them. Torrent is a new distribution channel, with a huge number of benefits. Viral marketing, and free bandwidth are just a couple. Innovate or die. The audience has control now, deal with it.
I don't even have to argue the point, and you don't have to agree with me it WILL happen. Unless the RIAA and MPAA change tactics they will die. Apple showed one way to solve the problem, and nearly 10 years later still no one is willing to monetize torrent.
--> How exactly is it my fault if I decided I want to see or listen to something right now that I can have easily but not legally only because the seller refuses to sell it to me? --
The internet changed the game (a long time ago), time to learn the rules.
f
Suggested alternative language for EFF post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 06:31 · Score: 0

I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House).
As a commercial web designer whose responsibilities include copyright enforcement issues, I am acutely aware that SOPA / Protect IP will, if signed into law, be used for malicious and abusive purposes far outside the intended scope of the legislation: The mechanisms it creates are well suited for the restraint of Constitutionally protected speech and expression in the spheres of commerce and politics.
Further, this legislation would only drive "infringing content" into so-called darknets: Encrypted, anonymized networks that you probably do NOT want "everybody" to know about and use. Widespread adoption of darknet technologies would adversely impact legitimate intelligence and law enforcement missions, driving costs up while reducing or eliminating the effectiveness of current surveillance technologies.
The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.
Do you have to do more than find a foreign DNS? by zzyzx · 2011-12-13 06:36 · Score: 1

It looks like this bill just forces ISPs to change their DNS information to not have sites in it. As horrible as that is (and it IS ridiculous), what would stop people from using 206.47.244.61/206.47.244.103 (Those are from Toronto via a quick Google look up. They're perhaps not the best ones available, but it's the kind of thing that you can search for.) or something at which point the Internet is exactly the same? Am I missing something?
Re:Hey NOOB! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 06:38 · Score: 0

And for good measure, barbecue PerlJedi with napalm or something. Or nuke him from space. It's the only way to be sure.
Clarification by Thaelon · 2011-12-13 08:09 · Score: 1

the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement.
Until a new law is passed that "clarifies" this one by allowing it to apply to U.S. sites.

--
Question everything
lube up by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 08:23 · Score: 0

It is just a police state bill.
It could be saved if it said If a take down notice is given and you actually are not the rights holder you lose your right to issues any more take down notices.
Backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 09:35 · Score: 0

the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement.
And how do they expect to force their terms on other nations? I think they have it a little backwards.
Conyers and Berman by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 09:36 · Score: 0

Nothing against Democrats in particular, but over the last several years whenever a bill arises that seems to radically favor corporate interests over the public interest, these two names are on it.
Any bill supported by these two people should be set aside for additional investigation and scrutiny.