Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA?

Wednesday is here, and with it sites around the internet are going under temporary blackout to protest two pieces of legislation currently making their way through the U.S. Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect-IP Act (PIPA). Wikipedia, reddit, the Free Software Foundation, Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, imgur, Mozilla, and many others have all made major changes to their sites or shut down altogether in protest. These sites, as well as technology experts (PDF) around the world and everyone here at Slashdot, think SOPA and PIPA pose unacceptable risks to freedom of speech and the uncensored nature of the internet. The purpose of the protests is to educate people — to let them know this legislation will damage websites you use and enjoy every day, despite being unrelated to the stated purpose of both bills. So, we ask you: what can you do to stop SOPA and PIPA? You may have heard the House has shelved SOPA, and that President Obama has pledged not to pass it as-is, but the MPAA and SOPA-sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) are trying to brush off the protests as a stunt, and Smith has announced markup for the bill will resume in February. Meanwhile, PIPA is still present in the Senate, and it remains a threat. Read on for more about why these bills are bad news, and how to contact your representative to let them know it.

Note: This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA. Why is it bad?

The Stop Online Piracy Act is H.R.3261, and the Protect-IP Act is S.968.

The intent of both pieces of legislation is to combat online piracy, giving the Attorney General and the Department of Justice power to block domain name services and demand that links be stripped from sites not involved in piracy. The problem is that the legislation, as written, is vague and overly-broad. For one thing, it classifies internet sites as "foreign" or "domestic" based entirely on their domain name. A site hosted abroad like Wikileaks.org could be classified as "domestic" because the .org TLD is registered through a U.S. authority. By defining it as "domestic," Wikileaks would then fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. Other provisions are worded even more poorly: in Section 103, SOPA lays out the definition for a "foreign infringing site" as one where "the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under [provisions relating to counterfeiting and copyright infringement]." The problematic word is facilitating, as it opens the door to condemning sites that simply link to other sites.

The most obvious implication of this is that search engines would suddenly be responsible for monitoring and policing everything they index. Google indexed its trillionth concurrent URL in 2008. Can you imagine how many people it would take to double check all of them for infringing content? But the job wouldn't end at simply looking at them — Google would have to continually monitor them. Google would also have to somehow keep track of the billions of new sites that spring up daily, many of which would be trying to avoid close scrutiny. Of course, it's an impossible task, so there would need to be automated solutions. Automation being imperfect, it would leave us with false positives. Or perhaps sites would need to be "approved" to be listed. Either way, we'd then be dealing with censorship on a massive scale, and the infringing sites themselves would continue to pop up.

But the problems don't end there; in fact, SOPA defines "Internet search engine" as a service that "searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet" and links to them. That's pretty much what we do here at Slashdot. It's also something the fine folks at Wikipedia and reddit do on a regular basis. The strength of all three sites is that they're heavily dependent on user-generated content. Every day at Slashdot, readers deposit hundreds and hundreds of links into our submissions bin. Thousands of comments are made daily. We have a system to surface the good content, but the chaff still exists. If we suddenly had a mandate to retroactively filter out all the links to potentially copyright-infringing sites in our database, we wouldn't have many options. We're talking about reviewing hundreds of thousands of submissions, and every comment on 117,000+ stories. And we're far from the biggest site around — imagine social networks needing to police their content, and all the privacy issues that would raise.

Small sites and new sites would be hurt, too. A website isn't a single, discrete entity that exists on its own. A new company starting up a site would have to worry about its webhost, registrar, content provider, ISP, etc. The legislation would also raise significant financial obstacles. New companies need investments, and that would be much less likely (PDF) if the company could be held liable for content uploaded by users. On top of that, if the site was unable to live up to the vague standards set by the government and the entertainment industry, they could be on the receiving end of a lawsuit, which would be expensive to fight even if they won (and such laws would never, ever be abused). It's hard to conceptualize the internet without noting its unrivaled growth, and SOPA/PIPA would surely stifle it.

This legislation hits near and dear to the hearts of many Slashdotters; if SOPA/PIPA pass, IT staff for companies small and large are going to have their hands full making sure they aren't opening themselves to legal action or government intervention. Mailing lists, used commonly and extensively among open source software projects, would be endangered. Code repositories would need be scoured for infringing content; the bill allows for the strangling of revenue sources if its anti-infringement rules aren't being met. VPN and proxy services become only questionably legal. The very nature of the open source community — as the EFF puts it, "decentralized, voluntary, international" — is not compatible with the burdens placed on internet sites by SOPA and PIPA.

What can we do?

So, what can we do about it? There are two big things: contact your representative, and spread the word. Slashdot readers, on the whole, are more technically-minded than the average internet user, so you're all in a position to share your wisdom with the less internet-savvy people in your life, and get them to contact their representative, too. Here's some useful information for doing so:

Propublica has a list of all SOPA/PIPA supporters and opponents.
Here is the Senate contact list and the House contact list.
You can also use the EFF's form-letter, the Stop American Censorship form-letter, or sign Google's petition.
If you don't live in the U.S., you can petition the State Department. (And yes, you have a dog in this fight.)
SOPAStrike has a list of companies participating in the protest, and this crowd-sourced Google Doc tracks companies that support the legislation. Tell those companies what you think.

Further reading: Wikipedia has left their SOPA and PIPA pages up. The EFF has a series of articles explaining in more depth what is wrong with the bills. Here are some protest letters written to Congress from human rights groups, law professors, and internet companies.

Go forth and educate.

1,002 comments

  1. Spread the word by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Making sure that everyone knows what is happening and what is at stake is probably the most useful thing anyone can do.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Spread the word by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Making sure that everyone knows what is happening and what is at stake is probably the most useful thing anyone can do.

      Going offline is a good tactic to reach the general audience of Wikipedia. There probably aren't that many subscribers at /. that aren't aware of SOPA and what it means.

      The thing to do now is make it known everywhere you hang out and try to get people to care. A tough row to hoe, but if we all do it, it will have an effect.

    2. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      New shill account?

      You are becoming pretty transparent, maybe coming up with an original name would help.

      If Google didn't care, they wouldn't put the link there. I suppose it could have been bigger, but it's not like there is much else on a Google page.

    3. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ???? Google's entire logo today is about SOPA and takes you directly to a petition to sign. The logo is on the main page, and every single search page.

      Maybe we should have actually gone to google first before complaining?

      Now, I agree, had they shut their service down it would have had even more effect. But having a "whole page for it" would be worthless with google, because no one goes to google to "browse google" they go to search. And every search today has the blacked-out google logo right on the page.

    4. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blacked-out Google logo wasn't enough?

    5. Re:Spread the word by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's ridiculous is that Google only put it in small text on their homepage

      That, and the giant black box over their name. Honestly, the Google link seems to be getting passed around people on Facebook like wildfire. And I'm loving it because the people I'm seeing spread it around are not my nerd friends, but the "average joes" who don't keep up on tech rights and such. Google's approach may not be as drastic as others, but it's definitely getting attention.

    6. Re:Spread the word by TechGZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not for me. Maybe it's only for US users, but I think everyone in the world should be aware of this.

    7. Re:Spread the word by TechGZ · · Score: 1

      Just the usual Google logo for me, and no link. I'm not in the US though.

    8. Re:Spread the word by modernzombie · · Score: 2

      I see the link but not the logo. I'm in Canada.

    9. Re:Spread the word by Denogh · · Score: 1

      Hey, it got a doodle! And the doodle points to... "a whole page for it". But no, it's cool. Reality can wait for your silly Google-hate.

    10. Re:Spread the word by PT_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, same here; it's seems to be only showing the logo to US visitors.

    11. Re:Spread the word by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One of our morning talk show hosts -- who's about as conservative as they come -- devoted most of his program to SOPA and PIPA this morming. As a result, a lot of people who'd never heard of it are now very annoyed and are expressing their displeasure toward their Congress Critters. :)

      Heh. Heh, heh.

      I'm actually feeling pretty encouraged this morning. It has been a while since I felt that way.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    12. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed. There were several people I was talking to, today about the wikipedia outage, who wanted to know what the big deal was (one even tried to defend SOPA). My general comparison was similar to the patriot act, but instead of dismantling checks and balance within the government some tenuous terrorism issues, it's dismantling checks on certain abusive businesses over piracy (which will be only minimally mitigated, at the cost of, probably billions, to other companies and individuals).

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    13. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Really?

      Funny, almost as many people I talked to noticed Google as noticed Wikipedia. They all had the same questions - wtf is SOAP and why do I care. I helped inform them as to what and why they cared, if they valued a useable internet, amongst other potential financial issues from SOPA.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    14. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Eh. As much as I hate piracy (and anyone who recognizes my name or sig will know I usually stand on the anti-piracy side of the argument), I have to say, until SOPA/PIPA/etc. are dead as a doornail, they can't blow their horns hard enough.

      Oh, and it's blowhards, typically, not blowhorns.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    15. Re:Spread the word by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is they all bask in this zero effort activism and then will ignore it when SOPA has a name change and is passed attached to the "its bad to smash puppies and kittens with a club" Act of 2012

      They will simply change it's name and slide it quieter next time because the public will stop paying attention in about 5 days.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:Spread the word by fnj · · Score: 2

      I think so too. The world should be enraged at this power grab.

    17. Re:Spread the word by GreenLED · · Score: 0

      Most of us are heavily opposed to both these bills -- when a second offensive attack with other bills comes our way, your emotions may not respond the same way, you may not care as much the second time or the third time around. The point is this, take a stand and plant your steak in the ground. Harden yourself because we all don't contribute the time will come when we will not care anymore. Now that the lines have been CLEARLY drawn, view this as (THE ONLY) opportunity you have to make your stand, because that's exactly what this is. Discount your emotional reaction - emotions can die over time, beliefs don't. Don't blow with the wind, stay very strong my (truly) tech brothers.

      The time is short.
      The time is now.

      https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

    18. Re:Spread the word by fnj · · Score: 2

      The old divisions which were fostered by the establishment are breaking down. I'll welcome allies where I find them.

    19. Re:Spread the word by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      'sup SharkLaser.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re:Spread the word by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also am curious if you are aware of the back story,that is who started distributing downloading software in the first place and who profited from it? If not,I would suggest you watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkC9qg9hxxg

    21. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      Funny, almost as many people I talked to noticed Google as noticed Wikipedia. They all had the same questions - wtf is SOAP and why do I care. I helped inform them as to what and why they cared, if they valued a useable internet, amongst other potential financial issues from SOPA.

      Question is, how did that go over? Did you get any sense of actual understanding from those friends and not a general "I'll agree with whatever you nerds say if it'll get you to shut up"? How about any sense of any actionable behavior? Is anyone writing to anyone's congresscritters? Was anyone perhaps inspired to run for house/senate positions on third-party tickets in an attempt to throw the bums out and get things back on track? Is anyone going to DO anything, or are we just going to scream into the void?

      Oh. So... you decided to scream into the void, then. That's... nice. How'd that work out for the DMCA? We still have that, you know. And we did pretty well the exact same thing to try to combat it. We screamed into the void of apathy that is the majority of the US, and surprisingly, that didn't stop anything. How is this one any different? I mean, this time around, we've got people from congress who are explicitly BRAGGING that they don't follow what happens on the internet and don't even CARE. Not paying attention to us is considered a BADGE OF HONOR to them.

      Does anyone have any better ideas?

    22. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish google other leading tech companies would threaten to move operations as much as possible to put a dollar sign behind their threats. Then maybe washington would start to listen.

      How come the govt is supposed to rep the people but I dont know anyone who supports these bills?

    23. Re:Spread the word by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm actually feeling pretty encouraged this morning. It has been a while since I felt that way.

      Won't make any difference...it'll just resurface in 2012 attached to the back of the "True Patriotic Americans against Pedophiles and Terrorists" bill.

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You know, I'm surprised at you people.

      This is slashdot, supposedly home for geeks. You want to talk about it and yell at your congresscritter how they're wrong, well there are plenty of other people doing that, and it's obviously useless.
      So, you the geeks, why don't you do something else instead? Make an internet that can't be controlled, something different, something better? You claim to have the smarts, and a lot of you claim to have the experience. Why aren't you doing something that will actually get results?

      PIPA, SOPA, whatever, even if they fail, the fact remains, the internet can be controlled and killed by a central authority, like a government, it needs to change, and change fast, are you going to wait until they require a retinal and DNA scan to check your email account, or the signs aren't obvious enough?

      The internet as it is, was started by a handful of people, open source communities can go up to thousands, WTF???

    25. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Well, most of the people I talked to were rather intelligent, so yes, they didn't have trouble understanding it. Except for the older individual (also very intelligent), who still seemed to want to try to defend that waste of paper and electrons.

      Given that I don't stalk these people, I don't know what they'll do. It was hardly screaming into the void. Never did that with the DMCA, but then again, there wasn't this much effort put against the DMCA either.

      Or are you trying to be defeatist in hopes of getting people to give up to help your pet bills get through. Maybe *you* are screaming into the void then.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    26. Re:Spread the word by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To me, not censoring the free content is more important than all the copyrighted content in existence.

      That is, if I had to choose between censorship and deleting all copyrighted content from existence, I would choose to delete the copyrighted material.

      --
      ...
    27. Re:Spread the word by Synerg1y · · Score: 0

      Even so, it's unfortunate the social networks we all have come to love, don't much care...

      http://www.firstpost.com/tech/twitter-facebook-say-no-to-internet-blackout-over-sopa-185851.html

      thnx Zutterfag, ALL THE SOCCER MOMS that vote dumbass senators like the ones trying to pass sopa ONLY have a fb account, but they don't get to feel the pain, instead its the intellectuals who use wikipedia.

    28. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Really?

      wtf is SOAP.

      this is a problem many slashdotters have

    29. Re:Spread the word by jupiter126 · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of the major problem is that the problem is mostly known by english speaking people. Here's a translation to french of an essai on SOPA by the Stanford Law Review, please pass it on to your french-speaking contacts: http://www.openskill.lu/ensopa-concernedfrsopa-tout-monde-est-concern/

    30. Re:Spread the word by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It won't make the slightest difference to piracy.

      Piracy will continue unabated so long as binary data can be transferred between people's computers.

      --
      No sig today...
    31. Re:Spread the word by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Making sure that everyone knows what is happening and what is at stake is probably the most useful thing anyone can do.

      But that's not (completely) what people are doing. When I see a corporation defending my rights, especially when they have a record of violating them, I have to ask why they would do that. What's in it for them? Just because they appear on the surface agree with you, doesn't mean they have the same reasons or goals as you or your interests at heart.
       
      When you look at Google for example, you have to think of YouTube and the terabytes of copyright violations that they derive ad revenue from. You also have to think of Google Books and their attempts to violate authors rights by forcing them to opt-out if they don't want their material illegally (under current law) served up by Google.
       
      So no, I don't think Google (for just one example) is indulging in their minor protest out of the goodness of their hearts... They're doing it out for their bottom line and for the PR it generates.

    32. Re:Spread the word by hexadecimate · · Score: 5, Informative

      A useful link [techdirt] to send to anyone defending or even ambivalent about SOPA. It's legislation designed by a lobby group to service their agenda, and damn any unforeseen consequences. If you think the RIAA and MPAA give a shit about the free speech and due process of *others* balanced against their desire to maximize profits, you've been asleep for the last twenty years.

    33. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      LOL. yey for typos.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    34. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I don't know where you're at or how you're represented, but man it would be great if your governments got vocal about it.

    35. Re:Spread the word by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      One of our morning talk show hosts -- who's about as conservative as they come -- devoted most of his program to SOPA and PIPA this morming. As a result, a lot of people who'd never heard of it are now very annoyed and are expressing their displeasure toward their Congress Critters.

      And the Congress critters are making meaningless noises of sympathy because it's good PR. But tomorrow, they'll be back to business as usual because Congress knows full well that when folks head to the polls in November, they'll (aided by decades of gerrymandering) send the same rascals right back to Capitol Hill.
       

      I'm actually feeling pretty encouraged this morning. It has been a while since I felt that way.

      That's because you, like so many, delude yourself into thinking that this kind of one-off stunt has accomplished anything. It'll be back to business as usual for you (the generic you, not the poster to whom I'm replying) tomorrow too. You'll go back to your stupid forwards and banners and "post this to your [status|signature line]" in the false belief that a few talking heads pretending for the moment to agree to with you means you've actually accomplished something. But, as I said above, in November, in aggregate, you'll just vote for the same rascals and go back to whining when they (predictably to anyone with an IQ over room temperature) behave as they always have.

    36. Re:Spread the word by rbarreira · · Score: 4, Funny

      but they don't get to feel the pain, instead its the intellectuals who use wikipedia.

      If you think wikipedia is only visited by a bunch of intellectuals you must be from another planet...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    37. Re:Spread the word by uncanny · · Score: 2

      dont tread on my right to bash puppies and kittens!

    38. Re:Spread the word by steelfood · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should explain that the big deal for Wikipedia is that if one of these bills were passed, someone (or some company) can claim one of Wikipedia's pages is infringing on said entity's copyrights and have Wikipedia temporarily taken down without presenting any actual evidence of that infringement. As Wikipedia has many pages, its content is user-generated, and the full history of each page is maintained, not only can this inadvertently be true, but it can be repeated over and over again until the people running Wikipedia either quits out of frustration or becomes irrelevant due to the continuous downtime.

      You can also add that while Wikipedia may have the legal resources to fight such claims, it is firstly resources better off used to maintain and grow their services instead of fighting potentially frivilous but immediately damaging claims, and secondly that the individual blogger, personal sites, and sites run by smaller organizations will not have access to such legal resources, and will be forced to shut down indefinitely without recourse. If your acquaintance has a personal site or blog, you can point out that an infringement claim can come from anyone, especially from competitors looking to steal page views from your acquaintance's blog, or from enemies your acquaintance may have made by writing something offensive to that individual, or even (though it's a stretch) from mobs like Anonymous who may just do it for the lulz.

      The only winners of this are the entities who don't have an internet presence, and don't care to.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    39. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The black box was not visible worldwide. I really had to research to find out more because even when I chose to specifically view the .com version it only had a tiny bit of text and no logo change.

    40. Re:Spread the word by shish · · Score: 2

      if google shut down completely, how would people google for information on how to stop these acts? :-P

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    41. Re:Spread the word by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The UK particularly, since apparently we're bound by US copyright laws now...

    42. Re:Spread the word by swillden · · Score: 2

      Problem is they all bask in this zero effort activism and then will ignore it when SOPA has a name change and is passed attached to the "its bad to smash puppies and kittens with a club" Act of 2012

      They will simply change it's name and slide it quieter next time because the public will stop paying attention in about 5 days.

      Google isn't going to stop paying attention to it, and neither are the other big sites protesting it today. If need be, the PIPA/SOPA opponents can just repeat this as long as the legislators want, and it'll get easier to explain to people every time "Oh, Congress is just trying to do that SOPA thing again, trying to slide it past us under a different name."

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    43. Re:Spread the word by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of our morning talk show hosts -- who's about as conservative as they come -- devoted most of his program to SOPA and PIPA this morming. As a result, a lot of people who'd never heard of it are now very annoyed and are expressing their displeasure toward their Congress Critters. :)

      Heh. Heh, heh.

      I'm actually feeling pretty encouraged this morning. It has been a while since I felt that way.

      I noticed that one of my two Senators' web sites is down this morning. The site of the one who has been publicly opposing PIPA (Mark Udall) is chugging along just fine, but I think the other one (Michael Bennett) has gotten hammered. :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    44. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Problem with Google going down, is that it would make it harder to research the bills. Before I write my congress critters, I like to do some research so I don't sound like an idiot. It was annoying enough to do research with Wikipedia down. Though, their block is easy enough to circumvent. Wander if that was intentional? Give a break to us tech types who are by and large, already aware of the issue.

    45. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS. I did contact two, but I can't get to Ben Cardin's website, as he is a co-sponser, and is getting bombarded.

    46. Re:Spread the word by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Funny

      long as binary data can be transferred between people's computers.

      Don't give them ideas.

    47. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      . They all had the same questions - wtf is SOAP and why do I care..

      Stinks that they dont know yet.

    48. Re:Spread the word by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not for me. Maybe it's only for US users, but I think everyone in the world should be aware of this.

      And what precisely are non-US citizens supposed to do about an impending piece of US legislation? Email Barack Obama?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re:Spread the word by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      To me, not censoring the free content is more important than all the copyrighted content in existence.

      That is, if I had to choose between censorship and deleting all copyrighted content from existence, I would choose to delete the copyrighted material.

      Yeah, that's the sort of calm, balanced argument that will win people over.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    50. Re:Spread the word by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      take a stand and plant your steak in the ground

      Fucking vegetarians..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:Spread the word by abigor · · Score: 1

      Let me guess - China?

    52. Re:Spread the word by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The new rules, it is all about public awareness and votes. Whether the internet by social activism can beat out billions spent on the idiot box.

      The corporate crony politicians are under threat and regardless of their bluster know their days are numbered, once public awareness kicks in, no amount of corporate campaign dollars will win that election.

      In fact we are seeing the same old, same old, from the far right, don't speak out nobody listens, don't vote it doesn't count, give up corporations always win, get back down their and polishing the shoes of your betters.

      So who will get the votes, the internet or the idiot box?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    53. Re:Spread the word by Rostin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe be aware of it so that they won't be taken by surprise when their own leaders attempt something similar, perhaps at the behest of the US State Department, which has a history of meddling in the laws of other nations regarding precisely this issue?

    54. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not in the US, nor are you a US citizen, our congress varmints could care less what you have to say. At least if you're a citizen, they want to look like they're listening.

    55. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I have an idea. Let's make sure that foreign slashdotters know that this issue is pertinent to their interests by using an American idiom! :)

    56. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what it is worth, if you are running nginx with lots of sites, you can do something like

                  redirect ^.*? https://blacklists.eff.org/ redirect;

      to redirect page requests from your site to the EFF blacklist site. (If you are using "include" syntax for a directory of subsite configuration files, you might want to also comment that line out.)

    57. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      wtf is SOAP.

      this is a problem many slashdotters have

      Liar. Everybody on Slashdot should know about Simple Object Access Protocol! DUH!

      (Yes, this is a joke, no woosh for you)

    58. Re:Spread the word by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The nice thing is that Facebook allows you to rope them into the protest.

      Just do the following:

      • In your favorite image editor, create an all-black JPEG image.

      • Change your Facebook profile picture to that image.

      • Upload the all-black photo to Facebook to post on your wall. In the description, type the following (or similar):

        If SOPA/PIPA pass, the Internet will look like this. Write your congresspeople. https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

        (This post has been censored due to copyright claim.)

      That's it. Now you've helped take the protest to Facebook. Spread the word.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    59. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do what the subject line says. Spread the word. No, you cannot influence it, but it WILL have an effect on you. A lot of the pages you ("you" being here the people you should inform, not you per se) use are hosted in the US, including Facebook, Twitter and so many other pages where you "have" a page that you WILL be fully responsible for. You think your government will not extradite you over petty crap like copyright? Think again! Richard O'Dwyer might tell you a different story.

      Pages that you "own" but didn't check for years? Well, maybe you should check your guestbook again. Maybe someone posted a link that infringes on someone's copyright, and you will be held liable for it. Yes, you there in Sweden, Australia or South Africa.

      But hey, let's look on the bright side, it's never been easier to get rid of a rival. Hack his page, or just fill his FB page with half the pirate bay links while he's on vacation. He'll win another one. All expenses paid.

      This and so much more is in it for you, dear non-citizen of the US.

      And yes, I find it highly ironic that a law like that comes from a country whose people started a revolution over having no say in the regulations and laws that affect them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    60. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends on the number of idiots that go and vote. Sadly, most people are easier to motivate with emotional crap than with facts.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    61. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, I consider that quite calm and balanced. No call to nuke the Big Five from orbit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    62. Re:Spread the word by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Or... wikipedia moves hosting and blocks the United States dropping web traffic significantly, but remember wikipedia is free.

    63. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they really don't care since our tax dollars aren't enough of a payoff to them.

    64. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you actually read their explanation page, then you'd know that yes, it was intentional that it's easy to circumvent. Allow me to quote the relevant portion of the page so you are not weighed down with the task of reading a full screen of text:

      "Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?
      Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by "(go find out yourself...)", as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    65. Re:Spread the word by s73v3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bing?

    66. Re:Spread the word by JWW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, you were doing so good, right up until that "far right" part.

      If you fight the "far right" and remove them from office, you're going to be really surprised when the moderates and those on the left ram this thing through anyway.

      There are some big names on the left side of the aisle supporting this too.

      The message needs to be crystal clear ANYONE supporting this is due to be voted out, no matter what party they are in.

      One real interesting thing I've noticed here is this:

      The internet was built on technology that enabled it to route around damage and obstacles and continue functioning.

      but...

      Is the internet now such a powerful force that is has acquired the ability to route around potential damage to it in the off line world as well?

      I guess we'll find out if this is true pretty soon.

    67. Re:Spread the word by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      well there are plenty of other people doing that, and it's obviously useless.

      Considering Cantor had SOPA shelved, it's not entirely useless.

      You know what is useless? Your defeatist attitude.

    68. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hear New Zealand and Australia trade representatives have already expressed concerns. Maybe contact your own government and express your concerns so they can be aware of the issue and work the appropriate channels - if that's safe to do in your country, of course.

    69. Re:Spread the word by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I hate piracy too. I feel that those who pirate are simply assholes who want (nay, demand) access to other people's hard work for free. However, shit like SOPA/PIPA is NOT the answer.

    70. Re:Spread the word by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      they'll (aided by decades of gerrymandering) send the same rascals right back to Capitol Hill.

      You don't suppose that's in the least bit helped by the fact that most people feel that their representation is actually doing a good job for them?

    71. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but you can actually take Wikipedia down yourself that way. Hire a shill, have him enter "forbidden" links somewhere in Wikipedia and claim they're infringing. Good luck finding what's infringing, it's on a page that has been visited last time a few years ago, probably by the person creating it because he's the only one with this pet topic.

      This is the end of user generated content. No page could possibly survive such an assault. In other words, if I had FB shares I'd dump them. Now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    72. Re:Spread the word by pclminion · · Score: 1

      They might be able to sneak it in, but now that people know about the terrible consequences of such a law, when they actually see those consequences start happening they will know who to throw out of office: the entire Congress. It's too bad Facebook didn't have any balls, we'd have an armed revolt going on this morning.

    73. Re:Spread the word by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      It's the difference between personalized homepage and the google homepage. Classic vs iGoogle makes no difference, it's whether you're signed in or not.

      This is slashdot! Aren't we supposed to be more predisposed to figuring these things out on our own before starting an argument and spreading false information?

      --
      -
    74. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOAP: Symbolic Optimum Assembly Program -- assembler from the IBM 650. Drum memory and vacuum tube based computers from the 1950's. I still have the manual.

    75. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's easy to find out who supports them. Just check the sponsors of the bill, then check their sponsors...

      Yes, they're supposed to represent you. But face it, you're not paying enough.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    76. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The internet as it is was started by the DOD. Gimme that funding and I'll create you another one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    77. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      timeo danaos et dona ferentes

      I can't help, it's just been too long since anything good came from that corner of the political spectrum.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    78. Re:Spread the word by orasio · · Score: 2

      More censorship and surveillance in the US might force the "free" internet out of US control.
      That is not necessarily a bad thing for people outside the US.
      Yesterday I was explaining to a coworker how DNS censorship in the US was not such a bad thing, but it might result in better DNS for everybody, by bringing attention to the risks of US centric infrastructure.

    79. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why bother? People are up in arms about foreclosure and defaulting, you think they care about liberties? Throw them a bone and a chance to get out of their debt and they'll accept if you locked them up behind bars.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    80. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, maaaaaybe he noticed that his position is no longer in good esteem and it might be less of a PR meltdown if he just went offline...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    81. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm not emotionally attached to the problem. It's logical to oppose that bill. Now and ever. It makes no sense to NOT oppose it. It is not about emotions or beliefs, it's simply a matter of logic. If this bill passes, the internet has become what it was never supposed to be: a single direction medium. Nobody could possibly allow anyone else to create content and put it on their page. Anything where user created content is vital, from YouTube to Facebook, is gone.

      This is also why opposition is so strong this time. This time, the targets are pretty high profile. I dare say, on par with the attackers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    82. Re:Spread the word by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I have yet to hear anyone mention anything about how much of SOPA is an anti-drug bill. This tells me that, yet again, people are protesting a bill they haven't read. This was essentially my argument about the NDAA protests also.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    83. Re:Spread the word by fishbowl · · Score: 0

      The UK should have thought about that when it insisted on signing the Berne Convention! You make your choices. Accept the consequences.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    84. Re:Spread the word by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      It's already a drug law masquerading as an anti-piracy law. It's shocking how few people who are protesting seem to have actually read the bill.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    85. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Odd. SOPA actually pretty much died (or at least went into cardiac arrest) in the last couple days. All the talk up to now has already done something, this is just making it a bigger deal.

      PIPA is still out, but with all this, for how long?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    86. Re:Spread the word by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      So, you the geeks, why don't you do something else instead? Make an internet that can't be controlled, something different, something better?

      a.) They're already doing that.

      b.) Geeks can't write code that generates copper wire across a country over three thousand miles wide.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    87. Re:Spread the word by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I wish you were wrong, but some how, I think you are fairly close to the truth :-(

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    88. Re:Spread the word by niftydude · · Score: 1

      It won't make the slightest difference to piracy.

      Piracy will continue unabated so long as binary data can be transferred between people's computers.

      Or even ascii data. Anyone else here old enough to remember uuencoding?

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    89. Re:Spread the word by mbrod · · Score: 2

      I think this is accurate for Wikipedia and many other sites. The people with the deepest pockets and best lawyers would control what is on the Internet. U.S. Congress's undying support of the 1% in action.

    90. Re:Spread the word by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I keep hoping that all this draconian copyright legislation has the following unintended consequences:

      1. Creative works of independent origin become far more common, eclipsing the corpus of work that is represented by "mainstream media publishing".

      2. The same draconian laws that are meant to protect corporate publishers, put an extremely powerful weapon into the hands of independent authors.

      Imagine if stuff like the $5,000,000 fine provisions of a law like SOPA could be applied to enforce compliance with Creative Commons licensing terms.

      Stop consuming the stuff "They" want you to consume. Everybody should be making their own stuff already, totally making "Them" irrelevant. Do it for profit, do it for fun, do it just because you can, but for goodness sake, do it. Take photos with these great cameras we have today, and publish them. Write songs, and set them to music with these awesome music making tools we have. Make your own films. Don't do it in terms of "competing with the industry." Do it *in spite* of "the industry." Make it so that there's so much media of independent origin that the media corporations have to work to compete with the public. And when someone takes your copyrighted work and publishes it as their own, use the weapon that copyright law provides. This alone could end up bringing down the media cartels.

      But nobody really wants to be creative just because they can, do they?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    91. Re:Spread the word by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      My general comparison was similar to the patriot act, but instead of dismantling checks and balance within the government some tenuous terrorism issues, it's dismantling checks on certain abusive businesses over piracy

      Good job. By whining/lying about the Patriot Act, you immediately loose a sizeable chunk of the population which might otherwise oppose SOPA. That's a winning strategy.

    92. Re:Spread the word by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      "if I had FB shares I'd dump them. Now."

      You do realize that if you had FaceBook shares, it means you're an insider in a privately owned institution, and there's no place to "dump" them.... right?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    93. Re:Spread the word by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      Few protestors actually say what their specific problem with the bill is. Mine comes from reading the bill (something that few seem willing or able to do!), and my objection to it is mostly due to the fact that SOPA is an anti-drug law as much as it is an internet piracy law. In the stuff about "counterfeit drugs" you will find an oblique escalation of the drug war.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    94. Re:Spread the word by SethThresher · · Score: 2

      I'd link you guys to the Wikipedia article so you can read up on the subject but it looks like the site's down for some reason. I guess they didn't meet their fundraising goals or something. Quite a shame really.

    95. Re:Spread the word by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Udall must be prepping his website for the bill's eventual passing, and is showing the world what a PIPA-compliant website looks like.

      Internet will be a ghost-town if they pass it. Given the amount of graphics that Digital Media folks filch from Google Images, I expect all small business's to be destroyed by the end of the year.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    96. Re:Spread the word by forkfail · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And even then. Lock it ALL down? Back to sneaker nets.

      --
      Check your premises.
    97. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Per the summary, you can petition the state department. Do your part and use the link.

      Also, get on your own (presumably representative) government to stop bending over for disproportionately influential US corporate interests. We sure make a mess of things over here at times. And when we do, it tends to really screw things up for everyone else.

      It's a global network, this matters to everyone.

    98. Re:Spread the word by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm honestly not quite sure if you're joking or not... damn internets broke my sarcasm detector.

      In either case, there's a rather stark gap between the Berne convention's "We'll agree to harmonise our laws such they respect other countries' copyrights" and the link above's judgement of "It occurred solely in the UK, it was deemed not to be a crime in the UK, but fuck it, let's extradite him anyway and the US courts can take a shot".

    99. Re:Spread the word by swillden · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Udall must be prepping his website for the bill's eventual passing, and is showing the world what a PIPA-compliant website looks like.

      s/Udall/Bennett, but yes.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    100. Re:Spread the word by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Sadly, too many people just want to lay back and be entertained.

      What bugs me is that for the most part 'online piracy' amounts to people shuffling the same bit patterns back and fourth, round and round forever. Because of how things are now, the same collection of however- many-thousand sound and video files get shuffled around, like the Pokemon cards at a swap-meet. Every 'song' gets shuffled around thousands and thousands of times using lower than optimal means to do so. What a waste, even when torrent protocols are being used.

    101. Re:Spread the word by forkfail · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed - even with the extremely visible 'net protests - that they're covering it.

      Because as of a week ago, absolutely no MSN prime time news broadcasts had.

      --
      Check your premises.
    102. Re:Spread the word by Splab · · Score: 1

      Actually it will be attached to CIPA, but spot on on the subject of the bill.

    103. Re:Spread the word by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Yes this is one of the more discouraging parts of our Gov't. If something doesn't pass the first time just try it again in a few years when no one is looking.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    104. Re:Spread the word by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Yes it would, it would send it further underground, making it harder for the common folk to get at it. The paranoia generated by the lawsuits is evidence of this. What everybody's complaining about is that it...

      1. allows the USA to police websites in a shoot first ask later kind of manner, as well as the audacity to say the US can police foreign websites.

      2. Moves the responsibility of prosecution from the RIAA/MPAA to the DOJ aka tax payer dollars and from civil to criminal.

      3. Makes the web admin responsible for user generated content, so if i post a link to tpb, slashdot can get taken down by the doj. This poses a problem morally and legally if my link is to a linux distro as opposed to pirated material.

      Know thy enemy.

    105. Re:Spread the word by abigor · · Score: 1

      You're in the wrong place. Most (though not all) people who post here are "geeks" in the sense that they know some terminology and are mostly engaged in technology on a political level (from "walled gardens!" to privacy issues to copyright issues). The actual programmers have departed for greener pastures - even CmdrTaco posts at Hacker News now.

    106. Re:Spread the word by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      Agreed...And they have been planning this takeover for years...Observe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkC9qg9hxxg

    107. Re:Spread the word by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      We are outraged by this power grab...Stopping them is going to be way harder as they have worked on this for years and paid off a lot of people are are determined to get their way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkC9qg9hxxg

    108. Re:Spread the word by xombo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. It worked out so well for net neutrality when Google got involved.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal

      It's a good thing Google doesn't have any entangling business relations with media companies, like they did with carriers.

      Oh wait.

      Go ahead, sign the petition on the Google homepage. Just remember: It will be used to show populist support of the more "Google-friendly" verbiage of the exact same legislation.

    109. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excuse me! censorship is the most 'animal farm' there is! my right is greater than your right because I say so! KGB all around. who will watch the watch dogs? you?!

    110. Re:Spread the word by element-o.p. · · Score: 1
      From TFS:

      If you don't live in the U.S., you can petition the State Department.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    111. Re:Spread the word by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's using the term in a very relativist fashion. While many of the regular users of Wikipedia probably aren't "intellectuals" compared to the crowd that spends all their time reading scientific journals or whatever, compared to the vapid Twitter users that refuse to read anything longer than 140 characters they are.

    112. Re:Spread the word by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with the U.S. government is that it's virtually impossible for it to get vocal when it's collective mouths are full of Corporate Kielbasa. Over the last 30 years we've had a dramatic shift of power away from the people and towards corporation. Politics has always demanded a certain level of whoring, if for nothing else, to keep both ones adversaries and ones own party at bay. However, today we have an elected body that has for all intents and purposes perfected the art of felating our corporate leaders, truth in advertising would suggest that all pictures of the legislature include knee pads. The supreme court, stuffed with neo-fascist ass hats by 30 years of neo-fascist presidents, has all but paved the way for the corporate take-over of the Federal Government. Our "Bill of Rights" hangs in tatters, while corporate leaders proudly proclaim on national television "We don't particularly like democracy, it just gets in the way." Sadly we now have the best government money can buy.

    113. Re:Spread the word by smpoole7 · · Score: 3

      > The old divisions

      Which is why I keep saying: forget about Republican or Democrat. Or if you insist, work the primaries to get sensible people nominated for November. That way, you can still vote for your choice of party, but feel like you're voting for something at least half-useful.

      Senators are little more difficult, because they're statewide, but if you raise enough stink in your district, you'll be surprised what you can accomplish re: your Representative in the House.

      One primary to watch here in Alabama is Spencer Bacchus'. I think he's going to be badly surprised and disappointed come primary time in a few months. There are a LOT of people angry in his district. :)

      Personally, I don't care what label they wear, as long as they'll quit trying to do an end run around that "pesky" Bill of Rights-thing.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    114. Re:Spread the word by yurik · · Score: 1

      In the latest news, Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V are to be outlawed in the new law against piracy.
      Promoted by RIAA & MPAA, the bill named Pirates-Copy-Paste (PCP) will help fight piracy by not allowing pirates to create a perfect digital replica of the original. Disabling copy/paste will also teach kids early on that if you create something, it should be fully yours, and not based on works of others...

    115. Re:Spread the word by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Political parties are a dishonest idea, anyway. Ring in the new generation.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    116. Re:Spread the word by Rary · · Score: 1

      If (well, when) that happens, all of those who are blacking out today simply need to do it again. And again. And again. Eventually, people will start to get really annoyed with the politicians writing bills that keep blacking out the interwebs, and those politicians will start worrying about their reelection prospects.

      Activism is like dieting. If you just try it once, then continue living your life the way you were before, nothing will change. All of those who are serious about stopping SOPA need to stay serious about it.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    117. Re:Spread the word by ifrag · · Score: 1

      You can also add that while Wikipedia may have the legal resources to fight such claims.

      Unless Wkipedia has just been trolling us every year with the begging campaign, I don't think they actually have the financial resources to do anything about it. Or is this implying lawyers are willing to take it on pro bono? I'd say either way, Wikipedia feels threatened.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    118. Re:Spread the word by Jammer6502 · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. If this were just the big guy vs. the little guy absolutely, but it is the old big guy vs. the new big guy so you can bet your ass that google and friends will be watching this issue like a hawk and we all know google has money to burn when it comes to this issue.

    119. Re:Spread the word by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Why bother?

      Because we're good citizens living in a democratic nation and we need to self-police our laws.
      Your cynicism will end up giving you an ulcer at this rate. Chin up.

    120. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of Wikipedia, I can access it just fine.

    121. Re:Spread the word by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I have three or four ways I use Google, none of them have the SOPA blackout - it's mostly themes that are not getting overridden.

    122. Re:Spread the word by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      You were still 100% wrong about Google not caring at all, though. They have an entire freaking website about it and have put more money and lobbying (what really gets things done in US politics) into stopping it than most other companies.

      https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

    123. Re:Spread the word by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But for international users, Google would need to not link to the representative contact page. To do so otherwise would sour the protest results as illegitimate (can't have EU visitors calling local US reps). That's exactly what the congress critters in favor of these bills want; an excuse.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    124. Re:Spread the word by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Problem is they all bask in this zero effort activism and then will ignore it when SOPA has a name change and is passed attached to the "its bad to smash puppies and kittens with a club" Act of 2012

      This is, I think the plan B that the guys who pushed SOPA were counting on. This seems to be going wrong; Reddit have started to campaign against politicians who are staying neutral (which mostly means, following the money but keeping quite about it). This is beginning to get some traction and a number of them are coming out and declaring against SOPA and PIPA. With this kind of trend, not just this particular bill, but it's proponents and any future versions can become toxic.

      Importantly, though, other politicians aren't declaring. These guys make great targets. This is a really good chance to flex a bit of political muscle and make sure that where those politicians have an opponent who has declared against both pieces of legislation, that candidate has full support. Politicians who are voted out do not get political "donations". Groups which manage to make that happen get remembered and left alone at all times in future from the point where they have proven an ability to do that at will.

      What's now needed:

      • A list of politicians who have not declared against PIPA and/or SOPA to campaign against.
      • An ordered list of donors to those politicians as secondary targets.
      • A list of opponents to support.

      Does anyone have a place to get that information? This can make the difference between a campaign which achieves nothing and one which is remembered with horror in the minds of the politicians who supported SOPA.

      Now, what could we reasonably ask for that people like the sponsors of SOPA wouldn't like? here's a shopping list of ideas, some of which I don't even agree with myself, but which might give people inspiration.

      • break up News International and Time Warner as dangerously large anti-free market threats to free speech.
      • copyright terms reduced to 5 years or the lifetime of the author + 2 years; whichever is shorter.
      • reinstate the need give a copy of a work to a "copyright library" for copyright protection of any work delivered in more than 5000 separate sales
      • a product may be protected with either copyright or patent protection; not both.
      • DRM not allowed on TV broadcasts
      • copyright not valid on DRM protected works.
      • no more than one TV station or newspaper per company (not both)
      • no TV station to cover more than one state
      • source code for all proprietary software to be put into escrow on release
      • massive strengthening of US anti-monopoly legislation and anti-monopoly law enforcement
      • automatic loss of IP protection for any company attempting to enforce anti-grey import laws anywhere in the world
      • automatic patent licenses for open standards and all other standards treated as illegal cartels

      If these clauses start turning up as amendments to future copyright bills, suddenly political action will become much less popular with the groups which currently support SOPA and/or PIPA.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    125. Re:Spread the word by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      With all of that impressive grammar, bizarre capitalization, and gay slurs in one sentence I think you should probably apologize to your mom and thank her for the selfless chore of driving you from Jr. high to soccer practice every day.

    126. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course they did show the rest of the world in which case I'm sure you'd be complaining that they were being too U.S. centric.

    127. Re:Spread the word by Dainsanefh · · Score: 1

      DEATH TO THE JEW WORLD ORDER

      --
      Twitter: @dainsanefh
    128. Re:Spread the word by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Yes this is one of the more discouraging parts of our Gov't. If something doesn't pass the first time just try it again in a few years when no one is looking.

      Indeed

      The obvious solution? NEVER STOP LOOKING.

      They can't pass legislation behind our backs (and, by extension, stick knives in them) if we refuse to turn around.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    129. Re:Spread the word by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      A useful link [techdirt] to send to anyone defending or even ambivalent about SOPA. It's legislation designed by a lobby group to service their agenda, and damn any unforeseen consequences. If you think the RIAA and MPAA give a shit about the free speech and due process of *others* balanced against their desire to maximize profits, you've been asleep for the last twenty years.

      Actually there is another group who stand to benefit enormously from both these bills: The legal services industry.

      You can be damn sure the lawyers who drafted this crap are not worried about any "unforeseen consequences" as they have long since foreseen them and are looking forward to them as it generates them more business. Companies like Google and Facebook who have deep pockets but not very litigious will be forced to defend themselves from ever more lawsuits. That means more money spent on defence lawyers and that in turn benefits the whole legal industry as it pushes up demand.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    130. Re:Spread the word by Synerg1y · · Score: 0

      Rofl, you sound new. No thanks to your mom for bringing another dumbshit into this world. Welcome to the internet, now gtfo.

    131. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TechGZ,

      aka bonch, cmdrpony, Overly critical guy, insightin140bytes, SharkLaser, InterestingFella

      the new anti-Google marketing shill that infects slashdot. This account has just been registered just to spew venom on Google from this anti-SOPA, anti-PIPA campaign.

    132. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be online piracy now would it.

    133. Re:Spread the word by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "There are some big names on the left side of the aisle supporting this too."

      Really? Ralph Nader supports it? Bernie sanders does? Noam Chomsky?

      Or by left do you mean "american democrat", which hopefully you are aware is no where near a left wing viewpoint. There are very few public officials in the US who have actual left wing views. The democrats are the exact same as republicans when it comes to putting corporations above people. You need more people like mr sanders.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    134. Re:Spread the word by GreenLED · · Score: 0

      You are correct to say that this is about logic. HOWEVER, consider that the majority of the general public cares little (and sometimes rightly so) about the "logic" of the matter. The proponents of the bill figured "they'll want to stop piracy, WHO DOESN'T?". So, they use the general public's logic against them, and THAT is cause for an emotional involvement in the matter. Like I said in my previous post, emotions are fleeting and certainly logic should override emotions, so you're not always swaying back and forth, but to be honest, how many issues do you know that involve pure logic and no emotions. The sum total I believe is none. Having said all this, I agree that the logical argument is what people should stick to, but lawmakers as we know them today care little about what seems logical to us. They care only about what seems logical to them. As long as they reach their political goals, they could care less about ours. Therefore, emotions will inevitably come to fruition. I think I've been very logical in all of this :).

      No arguments on your post, well written.

    135. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 2

      No man is an island.

      Contact your representative and ask them to send a message to the US. Contrary to current opinion, the US does understand there is a whole world out there, and we work with each other. Other countries sending displeasure through diplomatic means will help.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    136. Re:Spread the word by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see. Let's fix the problem of a corrupt government by giving it more power - that'll work for sure! Why, there's even a popular saying about it: power cures corruption, and absolute power absolutly cures corruption. I can see no flaws in this plan.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    137. Re:Spread the word by drussell · · Score: 1

      I see the link but not the logo. I'm in Canada.

      Yes, the link only on google.com for me as well (Canada) but no logo... Nothing at all on google.ca

      Wierd....

    138. Re:Spread the word by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      When you look at Google for example, you have to think of YouTube and the terabytes of copyright violations that they derive ad revenue from. You also have to think of Google Books and their attempts to violate authors rights by forcing them to opt-out if they don't want their material illegally (under current law) served up by Google.

      So no, I don't think Google (for just one example) is indulging in their minor protest out of the goodness of their hearts... They're doing it out for their bottom line and for the PR it generates.

      I don't think Google is doing this to preserve the advertising dollars the get from serving infringing videos. I'm sure, if they could remove, with 100% accuracy, all of the material that actually violates someone's copyright, they would, and that their business would suffer little from that.

      The problem is identifying infringing material. Currently, that identification is made in court by an impartial judge, with both parties allowed to make their arguments. Under SOPA/PIPA, infringing material is identified by private citizens or private organizations, and enforcement is administered by a public servant. If the claimant is wrong - or lying - he suffers no penalty. Copyrights should be honored, but SOPA/PIPA implements a system with no checks or balances and that would be trivial to maliciously abuse. With a few emails, I - or you - could get YouTube, Wikipedia, Amazon, or the Washington Post thrown off the internet, at least temporarily. Actions with consequences like that need to be carefully considered and adjudicated. Not subject to arbitrary and capricious behavior of private interests.

    139. Re:Spread the word by lgw · · Score: 2

      The difference now is that canhazcheeseburger is also dark, so now grandma will notice. Real political shifts happen when nosy busybodies with too much time on their hands take an interest, and the overlap between that rowd and humorous pictures of cats is large.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    140. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Do you know there are fewer jobs for lawyers every year?

      Maybe you opinion on the law industry is wrong?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    141. Re:Spread the word by symbolset · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jimmy Wales just announced on twitter that the entire House of Representatives system is down. They appear to be having technical difficulty keeping up with the response.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    142. Re:Spread the word by modernzombie · · Score: 1

      Just checked and Wikipedia only says "The English Wikipedia is currently locked for the SOPA/PIPA blackout" when viewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page from Canada also. These sites should be doing a full blackout in all countries.

    143. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's right! Only the rightful copyright holder should make a buck, no, be guaranteed a profit, off the fruits of dead people's labors, at everyone else's expense, decades or centuries after their demise!

      Sheesh, I feel sorry for the small fry photographers, publishers, etc. on the pro-sopa list being used as dupes and tools of the giant media cartels and patent portfolio moguls.

      Trademark I have some sympathy for, much less so for copyright and patent. It has always been up to the IP holder to go to court to enforce their rights, though, not have policing by fiat at taxparyer expense, and certainly not as a censorious tax on other people's production.

      Far cry from the day when all copyright meant was you could publish something, period. As the original creator even. Totally inverted now. Sucks.
       

    144. Re:Spread the word by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, if you look at what the 5 media giants (Disney, GE, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom) really want the Internet to become, it's a return to a broadcast-focused system where users can download or stream "content" helpfully provided by those same companies, but can't interact peer-to-peer.

      For these kind of jerks, the idea that ordinary people can use the Internet to communicate with each other directly is considered a serious problem. For instance, they might use it to create alternate media sources that aren't tied to the same corporate advertisers as those 5 media companies. Or they might organize political protests that cause problems for these company's allies in Washington DC. Or they might spread information about ideas that these companies would rather suppress. Or they might organize workers in an industry and demand higher wages.

      It's all about controlling the information and entertainment that us peons are allowed to experience and use to make decisions. And the danger extends beyond media companies - if regular people have created alternate forms of entertaining and informing each other, then they won't be bombarded with commercials, which means they won't buy the new useless kitchen gadgets and won't vote for the candidate who's picked up the most campaign cash. This ordinary-people-talking-to-each-other thing could be the force that *destroys America* (at least as the corporate and business guys see it).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    145. Re:Spread the word by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think that is not their goal? The end game here is to turn the Internet into a fancy cable TV system, where the leaf nodes cannot communicate with each other.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    146. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "simply assholes who want..."
      that may be true*, but looking at the numbers, they actually help sales.

      Why I pirate:
      1) Consumers have had pretty much all their rights removed when it comes to software. I will download software, If it is something I like, I will buy it.. This is something I have done many times. In fact, I jsut did it with guitar pro. IT turns out to be nice software, so I will be purchasing.

      2) Availability - cant get something even at a cost. For example, I may miss a few weeks od a show, so I will down'load a copy if it's not available through HULU or netflix.

      3) It's a more convenient way to get a digital copy of something I already have. For example, I have Star Wars on Blu-Ray. I will most likely download an HD version for my computer instead of ripping because it's just easier.

      I have never demanded anyone put it online.

      Reality is more complex then your view of pirates, and people need to understand that.

      You mention 'Hard Work' what about work where th creators are dead? How much 'Hard Work' did the people who control the Copyright do?

      *it's not

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    147. Re:Spread the word by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The only winners of this are the entities who don't have an internet presence, and don't care to.

      Actually, I think you meant to say, "The only winners of this are lawyers", who will make an absolute fortune in bullshit takedown claims and takedown defenses.

      The really sad part of this is, the people writing the legislation know this, and talked about it. They (Lamar Smith et al) *want* it to flood the court system with frivolous lawsuits.

      Source: I watched the SOPA hearings, and nearly cried when they struck down various amendments that would stop the flood of lawsuits - such as forcing the loser to pay if their claims were total bullshit. The only amendment they approved was loser pays if the lawsuit was bullshit AND they can prove malice. Which they'll probably never be able to do.

      Chaffetz, Issa, and the gentlelady from San Jose are heroes on this issue.

    148. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Have a group of people with similar goals is dishonest? wtf?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    149. Re:Spread the word by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You didn't follow his link. The issue isn't the Berne Convention, it's forcing British citizens to obey US laws while in Britain.

      Just so that you know: We didn't make that choice. We're fighting against the consequences. Follow his link for a full discussion on the matter.

    150. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Send Bennett an email praising him for supporting the SOPA/PIPA blackout. heh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    151. Re:Spread the word by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's more Wikipedia's name recognition that works in their favour. Having the cunts at ICE, or whoever would administer these seizures, shutting down very well known and mainstream sites would attract a lot of negative publicity. That would certainly hurt Congressmen and Senators who haven't made trousered enough bribes, or arranged a comfy job to slip in to, if they should find themselves booted out of office.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    152. Re:Spread the word by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine Anonymous people spamming the system with false accusations, whether for laughs or out of a sense of protest.

    153. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 1

      not true. Media matters has gone to hell.

      December:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45797223/ns/business-press_releases/t/dreamhost-denounces-sopa-sticks-it/#.Txc1baUS22U

      I wish MSNBC had better archival searching. I thought they had an article last oct.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    154. Re:Spread the word by samzenpus · · Score: 1

      That's our intent today. Instead of "going black" we're leaving this post up all day to inform on the potential implications if these laws were passed, and how to contact your elected official.

    155. Re:Spread the word by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, the well structured and properly spelled comment is the dumb shit, not you, the homophobic poster who thinks he is an intellectual for using wikipedia.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    156. Re:Spread the word by trolman · · Score: 1

      One of our morning talk show hosts -- who's about as conservative as they come -- devoted most of his program to SOPA and PIPA this morming. As a result, a lot of people who'd never heard of it are now very annoyed and are expressing their displeasure toward their Congress Critters.

      And the Congress critters are making meaningless noises of sympathy because it's good PR. But tomorrow, they'll be back to business as usual because Congress knows full well that when folks head to the polls in November, they'll (aided by decades of gerrymandering) send the same rascals right back to Capitol Hill.

      I'm actually feeling pretty encouraged this morning. It has been a while since I felt that way.

      That's because you, like so many, delude yourself into thinking that this kind of one-off stunt has accomplished anything. It'll be back to business as usual for you (the generic you, not the poster to whom I'm replying) tomorrow too. You'll go back to your stupid forwards and banners and "post this to your [status|signature line]" in the false belief that a few talking heads pretending for the moment to agree to with you means you've actually accomplished something. But, as I said above, in November, in aggregate, you'll just vote for the same rascals and go back to whining when they (predictably to anyone with an IQ over room temperature) behave as they always have.

      This should be the top post today. I might add that in most districts, example Lamar Smith's TX21, the primary is the election. November is just a formality. GO VOTE.

    157. Re:Spread the word by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      The real trick is top stop electing the crap-weasels that are putting forward these lobbyist's legislations. They're quite obviously for sale.

    158. Re:Spread the word by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      And what precisely are non-US citizens supposed to do about an impending piece of US legislation? Email Barack Obama?

      Sure, you could, but it'd probably be more effective to e-mail your own representatives. It'd be even better to write or print a letter, sign it, and physically mail it to them like I did to both my U.S. senators and my House representative today. It'd be even better to call them (which I'm going to do soon). It'd be best to talk to them in person if feasible.

      If enough people bring it up to their government, then their government will bring it up to America via diplomatic channels. "Hey, so... our citizens are kinda pissed on this whole SOPA/PIPA thing since it could kill the Internet for everyone, not just Americans. Maybe you'd like to, you know, veto that piece of shit?"

    159. Re:Spread the word by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      wtf is SOAP

      Soap's the guy in Modern Warfare 3 that died.

      See? If SOPA were around, my post wouldn't have spoiled the ending of the game!

    160. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > someone (or some company) can claim one of Wikipedia's pages is infringing on said entity's copyrights and have Wikipedia temporarily taken down without
      > presenting any actual evidence of that infringement.

      This is not accurate. Both SOPA and PIPA explicitly require a court order to blacklist any website in the DNS. No judge should be signing such an order without evidence of infringement. The bills do not require a court order to remove *links* to suspected infringing sites or content, but that is a separate issue.

    161. Re:Spread the word by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

      long as binary data can be transferred between people's computers.

      Listen to 0100010001010011, he knows what he's talking about!

    162. Re:Spread the word by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Yes it will, but the only reason that we will be unable to do something about it is because we don't want to.

      The Internet has seriously shifted the balance of power in OUR FAVOR. Open Secrets. Project VoteSmart. Wikileaks. Since (by law) all voting actions and whatnot are public record, we can literally find everything we want to relating to government. If it passes, it is in every respect our fault.

      If things are really this bad, then we need to start forming political parties and either get these guys voted out or start putting up our own candidates. For the first time in human history we can truly make sure that our politicians are accountable to the people. They cannot hide anything anymore, at least in America. Even if they ram some legislation through we will find out about it after the fact.

      This is a fight that we can win if we just put a little effort into it. Don't be such a pussy.

    163. Re:Spread the word by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      So no, I don't think Google (for just one example) is indulging in their minor protest out of the goodness of their hearts... They're doing it out for their bottom line and for the PR it generates.

      Well yeah, that's pretty obvious. But I ain't exactly gonna knock a special interest when it works in our favor. Enough of them work against the American public as it is.

    164. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      piracy predated the use of binary data. In the early 80s in the UK it was common place for games to be pirated as they came on audio cassette and therefore it was a trivial task to do so. The manufacturers fought back - they introduced trick loaders (which didn't work reliably with an original tape, let alone a clone, thereby stalling the pirates, but punishing the consumers) and various other tricks. At one point I was in school and the kids behind me spent a double lesson carefully converting a "use this chart to start the game" colour leaflet into letters, so it could be photocopied, as the colour one couldn't. Result? Virtually every single person in that year had a copy of it.

      Copying has gone on for a long time, of music, then games and films, and it won't stop, it'll merely change form.

    165. Re:Spread the word by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Unless you're Morgan Stanley, and are able to set up a fund for very rich people to trade in equities that are tied to private FB stock.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    166. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      wtf is SOAP.

      this is a problem many slashdotters have

      Particularly considering how effective use of the Simple Object Access Protocol isn't really simple anymore, what with security extensions and things like that...

    167. Re:Spread the word by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Noscript enabled? To ensure that Wikipedia "remains available in an emergency", they implemented their blackout in Javascript and do not do it on the Mobile sites.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    168. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name's not sexy enough. Please select one or more words from the following list:

      Defence
      Protection
      Terror
      Loyalty
      Patriot
      America
      Acting
      Action
      God
      Eagle
      Children

      Double points if the quest for a clever acronym results in a contrived and almost nonsensical name.

      Defence and protection are my personal favorites, and even more so when they're used in bills that purport to protect against imaginary threats. The Defense of Marriage Act was a good one, and nicely named as the national guard was going to be ring fencing marital beds, to save these marriages from attack by assault rifle wielding homosexuals.

      If it ever becomes possible to die of shame, then please can Smith and Leahy blaze a trail for the many other congressmen and senators who've become whores of their paymasters. Really, Smith and Leahy would do a lot to restore faith in human morality if they'd gargle some buckshot mouthwash on the steps of the Capitol, and right now America could do with having some faith restored in the political system and humanity in general.

    169. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't even notice wikipedia was offline because of noscript.

    170. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in the bill there is no portion that says that search engines must remove the infringing website from their blacklists after the court order. Given this, it is safer to keep websites on blacklists regardless of if the infringement claim was legitimate or not.

    171. Re:Spread the word by petsounds · · Score: 1

      Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

      Wikipedia: the United Nations of SOPA sanctions.

    172. Re:Spread the word by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      One only needs to look at the EU to see examples of the left and far left to see exactly what they believe. That's stripping away whole sovereignty of nations, and controlling them without any process at all, removing elected presidents and primeministers(see italy and greece). And attempting to directly gain control of each individual EU member nations budgets forever, and being able to withdraw funds on demand without being libel or subject to any law, treaty, stipulation, or ever being held accountable to it.

      Don't be naive, and stop being ignorant of the world around you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    173. Re:Spread the word by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      It's actually not too far off. Far better to let a hundred scoundrels go free than to lock up one innocent... (butchered, paraphrased, un-cited... I'm bad at quotes).

      --
      +1 Disagree
    174. Re:Spread the word by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Perhaps dishonest is the wrong word for it. Let's look at what political parties do in practice, however, shall we?

      1. Devolve into two-party (or one-party systems.)
      2. Force members to vote in line with the group.
      3. (Via 1 and 2) create obstacles for representatives not belonging to a major party when election time comes.
      4. Create a single target for lobbying.

      As far as my limited knowledge of such things goes, political systems with more parties that are less powerful tend to be more effective democracies. Perhaps that doesn't mean they should be eliminated, but certainly as they approach successfulness they become more problematic to the democratic process, by creating conformity in representatives that does not reflect the diversity of voters.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    175. Re:Spread the word by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... and on that note, this is something you might want to look into then:
      We the People, Not We the Corporations

      The amendment:

      Move to Amend 28th Amendment

      Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

      The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

      Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

      The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

      Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

      Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

      Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

      The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

      Section 3

      Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

      Some background (because yes, corporations are made of people, but this does not make them people):

      1. Corporate Personhood in a Nutshell

      There are two conceptions of corporate personhood. The first simply bestows upon corporations the ability to engage in many legal actions (e.g. enter into contracts, sue, be sued, etc). This is widely accepted and we do not object to this. However, corporate personhood also commonly refers to the Supreme Court - created precedent of corporations enjoying constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. We believe this form of corporate personhood corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution ever mention corporations, which were rare entities at our nation’s founding. But thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted privileges that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance. For example, the Supreme Court has:


      • prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. (Marshall v Barlow’s, 1978)

      • struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy, [pdf] 1996), thus creating “negative free speech rights” for corporations and preventing us from knowing what’s in our food.

      • prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee,
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    176. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's better than that.

      Intellectuals don't use Wikipedia - it's considered too unreliable. They all work off of Journals and the like.

      So the poster was right, except for the bit about non-intellectuals not using wikipedia, and the bit about intellectuals using it.

    177. Re:Spread the word by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      But, as I said above, in November, in aggregate, you'll just vote for the same rascals and go back to whining when they (predictably to anyone with an IQ over room temperature) behave as they always have.

      What, you'd rather we let the wrong rascals in!?!?!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    178. Re:Spread the word by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Balanced? Balanced?! Get a clue about just how bad this whole SOPA and PIPA thing is. Or are you the kind of guy who thinks he got a balanced and fair deal if you persuade a rapist to use a condom when he anal rapes you?

      These stupid bastards are doing nothing less than threatening the Internet. And not even intentionally, but only as collateral damage towards a goal that cannot be reached. I agree with the GP. Should this become law, there is not a single legitimate website that will be able to stay online when the flood of accusations starts. This is not a matter for calm deliberation, this is a clear and present danger to the livelihood of everyone in the IT business.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    179. Re:Spread the word by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I'm in Texas. Cornyn's site is also struggling. I managed to send him a note telling him to stop supporting PIPA.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    180. Re:Spread the word by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      >>Sadly, too many people just want to lay back and be entertained. I think prostitutes have the market cornered on that one...

    181. Re:Spread the word by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia's FAQ talks about disabling Javascript, etc. I just found it easier today to hit the "stop" button on my browser once the page is (mostly) loaded, but before the banner script kicks in. A few images may not fully load depending on my timing, but it's a trivial workaround.

      What scares me is that I think I may have just broadcast a method of circumventing a protection system, if some bonehead media company decided to use something like this as a paywall. Combine the DMCA with SOPA/PIPA (I'm mostly thinking of the Canadian equivalents here) and I might be breaking the law by clicking "stop", and telling others to do it.

      Sheer madness.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    182. Re:Spread the word by DarKnyht · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My way of explaining it to people is this: SOPA/PIPA is like building a Death Star to kill the three rebels hiding in the population of a small planet.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    183. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, over here sharpies became almost illegal when it became common knowledge that you could thwart CD-Rom copyright protection with them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    184. Re:Spread the word by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Awesome, thanks for that. Started sharing it around.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    185. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You assume I'm a good citizen and that this is a democratic nation.

      That's a lot of assumptions for such a short sentence.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    186. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      OMFG, if I had known that you can bring the House to its knees that easily, I'd have done it ages ago!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    187. Re:Spread the word by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      GE is no longer a media giant. They sold it to Comcast. And then one of the FCC people who approved the merger got a sweet position at Comcast before the end of the year.

    188. Re:Spread the word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "they'll want to stop piracy, WHO DOESN'T?"

      I don't. Not "for any price".

      That's what people fail to see, or they just can't fathom that there's more than black or white. Do you want security? YAY! Ok, please enter this cell and lock it, then throw away the key. You want to keep kids safe from parental abuse? YAY! Ok, take them all away from their parents and put the kids in homes where their custodians are constantly under peer-review scrutiny and 24/ CCTV.

      The price is the key whether I want it or not. As it should be for any sensible person, if you ask me. The world is not black and white, and there is very rarely an absolute that's actually desirable. The key word is "reasonable" here. It's reasonable to tell people to lock their homes to protect themselves from burglars. It is not 100% secure, but telling them that they should put steel bars in front of every window, replace their walls with armored concrete and put three-factor locks into your steel doors is insanity.

      And we're way beyond insanity levels with this law.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    189. Re:Spread the word by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your premise, that Google is doing this out of self-interest more than altruism, I disagree with some of your assertions.

      While YouTube may or may not be violating copyrights (there are methods for dealing with that, many of which came under heavy criticism here on /. when the DMCA was signed into law), I would argue that's more a problem with copyright law than with Google. In fact, the DMCA already gives the media companies too much power over what's on the internet (example: mgoblog.com - the DMCA was used to hinder their fair use of media). Most copyright legislation was written without the internet in mind, and the bits of it that do have it in mind are written by media conglomerate lobbyists - DMCA and the proposed SOPA and PIPA bills.

      Same goes with Google Books. Your claim that it's an "attempt to violate authors' rights" lacks merit. Do libraries violate authors' rights? You're right that this may be illegal under current law (or may just be fair use), but rights in a generic sense aren't about the law. Violating one's legal protections is not necessarily a violation of one's rights. The 'right' in 'copyright' is not the same 'right' in 'human rights.' In the sense of copyright it's a legal right, in the sense of human rights it's a moral right (generic usage - the way you used it). Even if Google may be violating the legal rights of certain individuals, it's questionable whether there is any moral transgression or if current copyright legislation is worthy of respect.

      Overall, "right" is a murky term and any claim to any right can probably be validly contested. So when you make the claim that Google has "a record of violating them" I would argue that's probably not the case. There are a lot of shady tech companies who do a lot of immoral things, but I can't think of a single case of a tech company violating my rights. It's really a matter of how you define rights - negative, positive; broad, limited; static, evolving. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Google's only enhanced those three for me.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    190. Re:Spread the word by mc10 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there are too many people that still do not understand what SOPA/PIPA are about, and simply complain about the loss of Wikipedia. See, for instance, #herpderpedia, listing reactions by many clueless teens. It's disappointing how none of them spend the time to actually read the notice. Washington Post has an interesting article about the Wikipedia blackout.

    191. Re:Spread the word by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      See, for instance, #herpderpedia, listing reactions by many clueless teens.

      Clueless? I'll say. Maybe I'm prejudiced (I certainly am) but my kids seem a lot more intelligent than your basic tweeting teenager suffering wikipedia denial.
      I'm also reminded why I don't use Twitter. Does every tweet have the word "gay" in it?

      Washington Post has an interesting article about the Wikipedia blackout.

      Thanks. The article is amusing and insightful.

      This is one of those days when we realize how little we know.
      We have spent our lives figuring out where to get the information we
      require (without really absorbing that information). Now, for a moment,
      we’re left alone with the contents of our own heads, and the pickings
      are slim.

    192. Re:Spread the word by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Id mark that "best explanation regarding Occupy Wall Street movement"
      IMO of course.

    193. Re:Spread the word by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Yep, your op missed the point entirely, thus the lack of response. My point is you'd reach different people via social network sites like fb via a blackout than you would via Wikipedia. Probably more too. And... it would have a drastic and noticeable effect on people urging them to take action to avoid the inconvenience, as some of those can't live without fb for 1/2 a day.

    194. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you fight the "far right" and remove them from office, you're going to be really surprised when the moderates and those on the left ram this thing through anyway.

      I don't know what you are up to, but moderates are by their very nature not extremists, they are moderate!. And in the United States (like most of the world), there is no left (except for a contrived straw man). The same type of people who talk about the left are the same type of people who talked about the danger of witches during the Salem years of the 17th century.

      There are some big names on the left side of the aisle supporting this too.

      You mean there is another party in the United States besides the Democratic/Republican Party? Or is this just another example of a false dichotomy? Just because there is an official opposition, does not mean that they are opposed to each other. Both sides of the aisle worship the same dollar. Anything else is communism.

    195. Re:Spread the word by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Actually, in one of the other SOPA items on here, someone already flagged the 2011 pedophile bill that's currently under edit where it would fit quite nicely....

    196. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One only needs to look at the EU to see examples of the left and far left to see exactly what they believe.

      First off there is no far left in the EU. There is a far Right in the EU however, one can see this in Hungary for example with there anti-democratic laws that were recently introduced... noticed too how these Right Wing politicians demonize their opposition by calling them "socialists").

      I will assume that you are not naive and that you are deliberately lying and attempting to conflate the issue.

      First off, the topic is about America, and the GP correctly stated that there is no left in America. Why you brought up the EU is a mystery, though I suspect there are Right Wing propaganda reasons for this.

      Let's talk about the Right Wing in the United States, and let's talk about how dangerous they are. Did you know that the Right Wing in the United States funded hit squads to commit genocide in places like El Salvador and Guatemala? Do you know that the same Right Wing people in the United States claimed that they were merely fighting communism? (which was a lie of course. Anybody with any education will tell you that the Right Wing and their supporters were merely supporting the corporations who supported the fascist dictatorships of those countries).

      So maybe if you were honest you would talk about how dangerous the Right Wing is, instead of making up a pretend straw man to shoot down.

      For every Right Wing shill there is a person like me to set the record straight.

    197. Re:Spread the word by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      I take the opportunity of answering your post to mention in passing that I love your sig.

      More to the point, I think most people don't quite realize that IP rights aren't fundamental rights. They are instrumental rights based on a compromise.

      Since I'm French, I'll make a distinction between patrimonial rights and moral right. In France, and in most European countries, IP rights are divided between two distinct sets. Patrimonial rights, which set the base of the rules about how the use of works of the mind should be remunerated: thanks to Disney, these rights apply in France until 70 years after the death of the author. And then there's the moral right of an author, which is inalienable and eternal. It implies that, in their lifetime, authors may oppose the use of their works in fashions they deem inappropriate. Like, having it used in meetings of a party they despise or hate. (Tell me if I'm wrong, but from my side of the Pond, it seems that in the USA an author has no right to complain about the use of his works as long as he's got properly paid).

      On top of that, there are related rights, which complicate the matter.

      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Which form and wording are based on the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" - the draft of which, put out by La Fayette, was strongly influenced by Virginia''s constitution - copying rules!) mentions intellectual property rights, in a wording aimed to protect the authors; but quite unspecific about the remuneration scheme.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    198. Re:Spread the word by jwhitener · · Score: 2

      People need to keep saying what you are saying: the last 30 years has seen a big shift of power away from people and towards corporations. Citizens United unlimited funding of super pacs is close to the last layer of icing on the cake.

      The Tea Party and OWS are symptoms that some people are beginning to realize that something is wrong but most of them can't quite figure out what exactly, so they default to moving to a more extreme version of whatever they believed before.

    199. Re:Spread the word by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      How about you propose bills which;

      • abolishes the right of the government or courts to enforce copyright (or patents etc.)
      • limits patents to inventions which have been physically provided to the patent office
      • take away the right of the government to interfere in reverse engineering
      • take away the right of the government to protect companies monopolies over various things
        • no protection of monopolies on frequencies
        • no protection of monopolies on cables in public areas
      • take away the right of the government to stop grey imports
      • take away the right of the government to protect the property of companies larger than 10 million dollars

      These are all ways of reducing the government's power which will also annoy SOPA supporters.

      This time round, I can say that I personally am opposed to some of the above... But you might find them a useful thing to start with..

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    200. Re:Spread the word by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the inspirational message. I hope a few more consumers turn into creators after having read it. Still I think distribution networks need to be designed and set up for the independent model.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    201. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't make any difference...it'll just resurface in 2012 attached to the back of the "True Patriotic Americans against Pedophiles and Terrorists" bill.

      Isn't that the better fight for the US people to rally and fight against? Why are unrelated laws allowed to be tacked onto other laws and passed as a lump? Shooting down individual bad laws as they fly at you is great in the short term, but as you suggest the systemic problem of laws being passed via the backdoor undermines everything.

    202. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who Cares? Really? All SOPA does is cost legitimate corporations lots of time and money--just like every other idiotic law congress has passed lately. Why should they be rational now? I don't think they've done anything useful since the 1980's. So the endgame on SOPA is the "Googles" of the world will have to waste hundreds of millions of dollars in time and money while the game of hiding gets more fun for the people SOPA is meant to address. Piracy will find a way like it always has, and the average user won't notice much difference except the hit to their tech stock portfolio and increased costs passed on to them. It's life--that's how America works with jerks (aka politicians) who want to tell everyone else how to live, what websites to visit, what to eat, what kind of light bulbs to use, and what insurance to buy. Who cares? We're all screwed until the establishment is booted out--and I mean everyone; you know Obama is full of crap with his whole "I dont' like SOPA." He doesn't understand it any more than the rest of them, but it looks like something that would benefit him to oppose, so he does. He's a scammer like the rest of the bums.

    203. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress: "OMIGOSH! Everyone's blacking out their sites and complaining about SOPA and PIPA!!! We're SOOOO SCARED!!! We'd better all vote SOPA and PIPA down RIGHT AWAY!!! ...nnnnaaaww!

      Ha ha! What a bunch of useless whiners!"

      Who's got the balls to vote the incumbents out and purge DC of these elitist - uh, "representatives"?

      Where's the Will of the People?

      Anyone?

      Hello?

      Where'd everyone go?

      nuts.

    204. Re:Spread the word by anubi · · Score: 1

      Making sure that everyone knows what is happening and what is at stake is probably the most useful thing anyone can do.

      Absolutely!

      I am not that much into politics, but this mess they are making is forcing me to watch them, as I would watch a car mechanic who slits radiator hoses while checking tires.

      Who is maintaining a list as to what congresscritters vote what on these issues. For now, everyone is complaining the pool reeks of urine - what I want to know is just who is peeing in the pool and get them out of here. I know this Lamar Smith fellow stinks to all high heaven. Its time the "99%" take their concerns to the polling place instead of the park.

      And I do not mean "repuglican" or "dimmercrat", I mean write-in! Someone not bought and paid for by Washington Whoring.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    205. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Wikipedia wasn't offline. It wasn't even hard to figure out, it was just a page redirect. Although the protest page seemed to be asking for zip codes to show information any regular search engine would show about notifying their congressmen (and it would be interesting to see how many fell for it since they effectively just sneaked in a reader survey as part of their protest)--the site was quite accessible. With scripts enabled, it was just finding the timing when the page finished loading before the redirect page. Miss the timing? Just refresh the page and try again. With scripts off--or even better putting both *.wikipedia.com and *.wikipedia.org in the highest security zone (e.g., Restricted Sites zone in MSIE), the site was quite accessible and usable without any redirects.

      Craigslist also tried a protest page before showing the main content, but their workaround was easier than having to click the link on the doorway page, it was just entering [whatever city].craigslist.org/h in the browser address window would easily bypass the doorway page. The trick there was not to click the back button, or the protest page would appear again. So to go back to the main page, it was just a workaround of [whatever city].craigslist.org/h in the browser address window once again.

      Therefore, both of those sites just put up sort of a doorway page protesting SOPA and PIPA--none of the content was truly inaccessible at all. I wonder how many users actually supported SOPA and PIPA after being frustrated by those sites trying to act broken when they were not?

      But I could easily imagine a world without Wikipedia and Craigslist and such. There are still printed book encyclopedias and others on optical discs. There are still the classified ads for posting and replying to job listings or buying and selling items of worth.

      Also, many other sites were more sensible and functional, just used a black background or blackened their site logo. Just a couple of examples: Google wasn't broken, they sensibly only put a black rectangle over their logo but the entire search was fully functional, and Wired also censored themselves with a black background and white text, also limited most of the articles to being about SOPA and PIPA, but was still functional.

    206. Re:Spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the far right wing talk show hosts around here came out against it as well. Its a far overreach of the power of the US federal government and any true conservative should be against it. I am taking the policy of not voting for anyone that takes sopas side. ss.

    207. Re:Spread the word by r4rushabh · · Score: 1

      In India the govt is trying to censor the net in the name of Social harmony infact the reality is it wants to silence the critics of government "http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/14/1257223/india-oks-censoring-facebook-google-microsoft-yahoo"

    208. Re:Spread the word by priceslasher · · Score: 1

      This is a nice thought but independent authors will never be able to compete legally and that's a shame.

    209. Re:Spread the word by Alsee · · Score: 1

      (Tell me if I'm wrong, but from my side of the Pond, it seems that in the USA an author has no right to complain about the use of his works as long as he's got properly paid).

      Maybe I'm nitpicking your wording, but someone cannot merely throw money at an unwilling copyright holder and do as they please with the work.

      In general when a copyright holder agrees to payment for a license or sale then the terms are set at at that time. There is no "moral right" for a copyright holder to later renege on a properly agreed license or sale. If you license your music to a convention hall, and you don't want it played during a hated-political-party's convention, then you need to mention that in the original contract.

      Copyright holders also receive no rights at all regarding Fair Use of a work. Fair Use is a complicated subject, but it largely covers "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research", partial quotations and many kinds of personal use such as using a VCR to time-shift a TV show. All rights to such activities are completely retained by the public.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    210. Re:Spread the word by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Bing??
      It's a tough call, but I think I'd rather use a SOPAized Google.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    211. Re:Spread the word by Alsee · · Score: 1

      it'll just resurface in 2012 attached to the back of the "True Patriotic Americans against Pedophiles and Terrorists" bill.

      TPAPT?
      I doubt many congress critters even know what a palindrome is, and even fewer who can pronounce what appears to be Vulcan language.

      .

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    212. Re:Spread the word by Alsee · · Score: 1

      That shouldn't come as any surprise. The House and Senate have been blowing media executives for decades.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    213. Re:Spread the word by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Simply rule change to get more voters, Saturday elections.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    214. Re:Spread the word by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      You forget about the american shiny thing syndrome. Things abhorrent today are commonplace tomorrow due to the shades of grey. Corporations have a longer memory than american citizens. We have a hard enough time remembering what happened last year or thinking of what we are going to do in 5. The only entity that has a longer memory than corporations are Religious institutions, particularly Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. So unless we catch their radar, we will be fighting a losing battle. We may be able to enact some legislation that protects Freedom of information but how long is that going to last?

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    215. Re:Spread the word by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I agree wholeheartedly.

      One of the things that I think the Tea Party has done, to some effectiveness, is shake up the established Republican party, which has gradually drifted away from many of its supporters, sometimes without them realizing it. The result of this drift is, as you said, forcing members to vote in line with the group (for fear of the "wrong" group getting into power), when they don't really agree with many of the candidates selected to represent that group.

      This drift is somewhat natural and almost unavoidable. The Democratic party has also been drifting - it is not the Democrat party of Andrew Jackson any more - but no real threat from within has raised its head so far, not to the effect that the Tea Party has shaken the Republican party anyway. Perhaps one of the more socially-liberal parties such as the Green or Libertarian party will grow into those shoes.

      And I'm not attempting to say that the drift is itself a bad thing, either. A party, or person, should always be willing to learn, and opinions will almost inevitably change over time as a natural result of the learning process. What is bad is when the party has become powerful enough to drift significantly distant from its base. A weak party can't drift very far away from its base, so its positions will better reflect the represented.

    216. Re:Spread the word by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, one ugly thing about drift in this case is that the Democrats are far more socially conservative than their core voting base. (I'd say "and fiscally conservative" too, but who are we kidding: American politics is a thinly-veiled pork-eating contest.) It's too bad Occupy Wallstreet wasn't started by grown-ups; there might then be a hope to reform the donkey party, just as Gingrich appears to be carrying the Tea Party flag.

      Still, I view it as only a matter of time that such a thing will occur for the Democrats. I really think the voter base in the US is going to become drastically more liberal in the next ten to twenty years. I just hope the candidates that end up being tendered are a little more mature than the average OWSer—but then again, this happened in the sixties, too.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  2. Make a campaign contribution by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Include a big campaign contribution with your letter if you want to make sure it's not just thrown in the trash or just added to the pile.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Make a campaign contribution by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Include a big campaign contribution with your letter if you want to make sure it's not just thrown in the trash or just added to the pile.

      That works best for 'invisible' issues... I think the best chance of killing PIPA is making it very very visible, so that "the pile" looks big enough to threaten re-election.

    2. Re:Make a campaign contribution by berashith · · Score: 1

      That wouldnt even help me with my senator. I live in one of the few zip codes in Georgia that has both black people and gay people in it. I am sure that just postmarking a letter gets it binned instantly.

    3. Re:Make a campaign contribution by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bet most of the reps taking point on cramming this down our throats already have their campaign contributions safely tucked away in their bank accounts, along with cushy jobs waiting for them in the private sector.

    4. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems that actions like this do generate a response. The few time I have gotten a response from a representative, other than from my senator to the state senate, was when I made it clear that I would be supporting their challenger in the primary or general election and that they would not be receiving my support in any form because of certain issues. It gets really uncomfortable for them when they are going door to door glad handing and get hit with an informed voter (I did this to my previous representative to the state house who I was not pleased with). This seems to work better for local politicians than for national level ones but with enough people writing and calling it would probably still work.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Try mailing it from a different post office, in a more conservative wealthy area.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Make a campaign contribution by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You don't make contributions when you want something done, it looks like bribery. You make your contributions when they are running for office. Then they look up who gave them money on sites like Open Secrets, and pay attention to those donors.

      You don't just send a check to the politician. Everyone who complains about money in politics seems to not get this, or have a completely wrong understanding of how it works. You supported them in the past, and they do not want to lose support, so they go with the big money. A politician is not for sale on particular issues, he is for sale to the highest bidder. Then the highest bidder tells him what to do on the issues.

      If you want to take a step back and say maybe they are only partly corrupt, then the lobbyist who represents big money gets to spend time educating the Congress Critter, while the opposition gets a handshake and a nod and a form letter.

      The game has rules, if you want to play you have to understand them. "Send money with your letter" is not helpful advice unless you just want a population too jaded to even bother voting or contacting their Representative Rodent or Senatorial Snake.

    7. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      But not the votes. Votes sometimes do matter oddly enough.

    8. Re:Make a campaign contribution by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      As someone living in Madison, WI, sometimes I feel the same way...I'm sure they just file my letters under the "Pinko Soshulist" heading upon receipt.

    9. Re:Make a campaign contribution by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You don't make contributions when you want something done, it looks like bribery. You make your contributions when they are running for office.

      Exactly. If you want to bribe a politician, it works better to give money to their personal account. You can do this in several way, give them insider stock information, give them IPO stock, help them make good land deals.

      The reason campaign finance reform always has bipartisan support is because it helps distract from bribe reform. Which is much more serious.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the average voter? They generally know which party their voting for, and half of those who don't base their choice on the last three days of TV ads.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    11. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game has rules, if you want to play you have to understand them.

      Very true, but it all boils down to the fact that if you have exactly as much representation as you can afford.

    12. Re:Make a campaign contribution by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This seems to work better for local politicians than for national level ones but with enough people writing and calling it would probably still work.

      This is why most of the power in the US is supposed to reside with the states and not the Feds.

      Your state and local governments are the people that are more sensitive and responsive to the needs of you and your fellow state citizens.

      Think of it on a broader scale...what is good for someone in CA is not necessarily in the best interests of those living in LA. The geographic differences alone merit a great deal of that, not to mention culture.....seen many drive through daquiri shops or cities without open container laws in San Diego lately? Plenty of them to be seen in New Orleans. Different needs and wants of the people in different states.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Make a campaign contribution by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      seen many drive through daquiri shops or cities without open container laws in San Diego lately?

      Objection, Your Honor! A drive-through daiquiri shop isn't covered by open container laws, since the anti-spill cap on the daiquiri makes it a closed container.

      And if you think I'm joking about that, c'mon down to N'Awlins, and visit one of our many fine drive-through daiquiri shops. There's one by the drug store near my home....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Make a campaign contribution by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      And most of those "average voters" don't vote in primaries. Those who care do. So make sure these assholes have a strong primary challenge.

    15. Re:Make a campaign contribution by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      The thing with the "States Rights" argument is that most people take it way too far, and even decide that people's Civil Rights should be left up to the states. And we all know what kind of a record the states have on protecting Civil Rights.

    16. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That works for the here and now, but as long as nothing changes, they'll keep trying to cram stuff like this down our throats until one of the attempts doesn't draw a ton of attention. The only lasting solution is to vote for candidates that don't have a (D) or a (R) in front of their names. If we don't take back our government from the corporate interest that control it, PIPA will be the least of our worries.

      SOPA/PIPA aren't remarkable for the effect/harm they would have or the degree to which it represents small monied interests over those of the public. What's been remarkable here is the degree to which elected officials have snubbed their noses at the public. They're on record as saying that they don't understand the technical aspects of the bill and that they don't care if they break the internet. They're no longer offering us the common courtesy to pretend like they're representing us.

    17. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Rary · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think a lot of politicians these days are bought on a "try before you buy" basis. The way it works is that the politician does the bidding of a particular organization while he's in power, then when he's no longer in power, he finds a really nice high-pay/low-work executive job waiting for him at, coincidentally, that same organization.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    18. Re:Make a campaign contribution by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      This is why most of the power in the US is supposed to reside with the states and not the Feds.

      Your state and local governments are the people that are more sensitive and responsive to the needs of you and your fellow state citizens.

      Distributing power will only distribute lobbyists. That might be a minor inconvenience, but the increased cost of lobbying will come out of citizen/consumer pockets one way or another.

      Meanwhile, centralized lobbying efforts will be matched up against much more easily (and quietly) banboozled and/or corrupted local-yocals. "Sensitivity" and "responsiveness" are double edged.

    19. Re:Make a campaign contribution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They know exactly what party they are voting for, just not why.
      Does it have an R by the name? then check the box! more then one R? check the box of the person who looks most like you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Make a campaign contribution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Specific power reside in specific places, not 'More' power in one place or another. That's a childish view of the constitution. Did you study the constitution and it history at all after the 6th grade?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Make a campaign contribution by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      My state and local governments are WAY more corrupt than the federal government. If you think they're going to be any better, you are laughably mistaken.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:Make a campaign contribution by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it'd be cheaper for us in the long run to pay politicians a pension for 10 years and making it illegal for them to hold a job of any sort after leaving office.

    23. Re:Make a campaign contribution by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      My congressman is a master of politely telling me to go fuck myself. He'll always respond to my letters, never with form letters, but each time he's told me the same old, "well, you've given me a lot to consider, I love hearing from my constituents, but I disagree with you and your quaint opinion."

      When he announced that he wasn't running for reelection I gave up on him. Now I just bug the senators.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    24. Re:Make a campaign contribution by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      In fairness, it was a joke. Nice analysis, though.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    25. Re:Make a campaign contribution by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I know..I live here too.

      I was referring to open containers on the streets...like the Quarter and downtown, etc.

      Yep...I know the daiquiri shop thing....that's a reason they don't put a straw in it when getting through the drive through.

      It was only just before Katrina that the open container law in the car was more liberal...only applied to the driver...in that if you were getting pulled over, you just handed your drink to the passenger.

      *sigh*...I miss those days.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    26. Re:Make a campaign contribution by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Man...that is so FAR back in the past, it really isn't an applicable argument nowadays.

      For things like that...then yes...the Feds do get to step in for the most part.

      But really, that argument is such old history, I wish people would quite trying to still keep using it...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:Make a campaign contribution by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      My state and local governments are WAY more corrupt than the federal government. If you think they're going to be any better, you are laughably mistaken.

      Move out of Chicago then...

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is slashdot ignoring the blackout?
    With so many links to questionable content, this illegal news source seems like a hive of crime.

    1. Re:Not Blacked Out? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is slashdot ignoring the blackout?
      With so many links to questionable content, this illegal news source seems like a hive of crime.

      Get it right, it's not "a hive of crime," it's "a wretched hive of scum and villany."

    2. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Thiez · · Score: 5, Informative

      The point of the blackout seems to be to raise awareness. Since it's quite likely most /. readers will be aware of SOPA and PIPA (if only because there have been so many articles about them already, there is very little awareness to gain by having a blackout.

    3. Re:Not Blacked Out? by 0racle · · Score: 0

      If Slashdot went black today with everyone else, where would I waste my time? I'd .... I'd .... I'd have to do work, and no one wants that.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why is slashdot ignoring the blackout? With so many links to questionable content, this illegal news source seems like a hive of crime.

      Get it right, it's not "a hive of crime," it's "a wretched hive of scum and villany."

      A filthy hole in the wall frequented by anarchists, atheists, hackers, and Microsoft haters who would like nothing more than to bring about the fall of democracy and ruin denobug's slashdot experience.

    5. Re:Not Blacked Out? by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          They've done the right thing by carrying this story.

          On my site, http://freeinternetpress.com/ , we've redirected our home page and every article to our SOPA page http://freeinternetpress.com/sopa.php.

          It's up to the owners of each site to make their own decisions on how to support it. It could be a simple warning. Google chose to censor their logo and link to an information page. We chose to replace the site with a warning, and are carrying stories and links related to SOPA. Some may consider us "not blacked out", but as we've censored almost 9 years worth of articles, we are "blacked out".

          Many sites need to support their users, and can't simply shut down. Unfortunately, if SOPA does become law, their users will find out the hard way that the blackout can become a reality.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    6. Re:Not Blacked Out? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hey, Questionable Content is pseudo-blacked out.

      I know you're trolling, but for the sake of anyone else asking: who is Slashdot going to clue in? We've all been hearing about it for months, we know it's bad and (more or less) why, and we're not going to enlighten the trolls or the irrational authoritarian dickbags who think it's right because it's USGov doing it...

      So really, why would slashdot need to black out.

      I'm more curious how "The Escapist" is going to respond to the "Call to Arms" that the Extra Credits/LRR and Firefall guys put out at 3AM (EST)...

    7. Re:Not Blacked Out? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Well they could have changed the color scheme from the hideous green to black for the day.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    8. Re:Not Blacked Out? by gajop · · Score: 5, Funny

      )
      I agree.

    9. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Get it right, it's not "a hive of crime," it's "a wretched hive of scum and villany.""

      That is the most accurate description of the United states congress I have ever seen here on slashdot.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Thiez · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, I see you've found my right parenthesis. If you would kindly use it to replace the comma in my previous post I would be much obliged :p

    11. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the nice Yellow and Black of wildcat bbs v1.0

      But we also /. 'ers know this is just a publicity stunt. Profit will have these sites lit tomorrow, and just like denying sex, the masses will flock back the next day.

      Real Adults if they look deep enough will put their websites down in dark mode right now, it's straight up dangerous to have a web presence until the US Constitution is restored.

      pipa sopa e-parasite acta dmca + patriot act 1,2,3 ndaa, monetary terrorists = victims, bankrupcy, debt slaves, lights out, drones, targeted individuals, propaganda, eugenics, war, and lawlessness.

      Do the research, Do the Logic, Connect the dots, Look at the History, there's nothing left but to presume these globalists do have it in for us. Look the fuck around!

    12. Re:Not Blacked Out? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Actually I recently patented the replacement of commas with parentheses. Since you are clearly conspiring to violate my patent, the government will now shut down slashdot.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    13. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough I tried going to songmeanings.net just a minute ago to look up the lyrics to a Miley Cyrus song I downloaded on bit torrent (just kidding)...also blacked out for the SOPA/PIPA from 8am to 8pm with a video directly on the site discussing and a link to the strike sopa site.

      Prettying interesting a website like songmeanings.net joined the good fight. That should help reach a very wide range audience, or atleast other Miley Cyrus fans that just downloaded her stuff on bit torrent (just kidding again)

    14. Re:Not Blacked Out? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is slashdot ignoring the blackout?

      Because blacking out sites like reddit and Slashdot, where 99.9% of the userbase is already aware and opposed to SOPA, is a completely useless waste of time, page views and bandwidth.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    15. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awareness is not all but solidarity matters too. That's the problem with the man on the street today, they don't know how to get their heads together with others who might not benefit from the same actions in the same way so they're at odds with one another when they have common goals. The American two party system needs this kind of schism to keep itself alive and profitable.
       
      So, yes, Slashdot should have joined the blackout even *if* most of the users here are informed. And I really don't think they're as informed as you think they are.

    16. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been much less coverage on /. as there has been on Reddit and 4chan. This is just an indicator Timothy would rather push his personal agendas with the waning power of influence this site holds than the rights of netizens as a whole.

    17. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a related note, Planet Zebeth is also blacked out, despite him being in Canada. There any other webcomics that decided to take part in this? One would think these rulings would affect them (or at least the video-game or pop culture based ones) pretty directly.

    18. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a 403 error in.

      filename .htaccess 13 bytes.

      echo "DENY FROM ALL" >.htaccess
      cp .htaccess to each directory in your tree .Rename your original/real .ht first (in case the US Constutution is restored)
      hit F2 save.

      loop()

      That's a real protest!
      Otherwise, This shit is publicity in the face of Fascism, Globalism, Monetary terror, Unconstitutional and in the end lights out slowly one by one, using Problem Reaction Solution.

      So I am getting ready to rm -rf my tree next.
      Then there just wont be anything at all.

      Enjoy the apathy and lateness t!

    19. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Hentes · · Score: 2

      Having articles detailing the problem is maybe even better than a blackout.

    20. Re:Not Blacked Out? by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      The editors have not posted any new stories since this Ask Slashdot entry. I suspect that is how they are "blacking out" /..

    21. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Soulskill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Everybody at Slashdot was in favor of a blackout to protest these pieces of legislation. That said, we're part of a publicly-traded company, and we don't just get to shut down the site when we want to.

      We did, however, get full support for these anti-SOPA/PIPA posts, which will be remaining at the top of the page for the day in lieu of new stories.

    22. Re:Not Blacked Out? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

          Thanks for the heads up. I added them to my list of participating sites.

          I won't ask why you're looking up Miley Cyrus songs. :)

          And we all know you're kidding about BT. :) Actually, there was an interesting story recently that CD and DVD sales are *up*. They were down, because they were producing crap, their prices were too high, etc. I honestly don't know whats in the stores now, because the music I listen to is on the radio. It's not worth my time to hunt down good new artists, buy their CDs or MP3s, filter through what's crap and what's not, just to fill up a rack with disks. Bootleg materials were the minority, and even those, I went out and bought the ones I liked. I had a good record and cassette collection when I was a kid, and started buying CDs when they became popular and the equipment was readily available (i.e., CD player in all new-ish cars). As you get older, you realize that there are more important things to do with your life and money. Most of my collection has been given to friends, or stolen by ex-friends. Do I want to buy a $20 CD isn't really worth it when it can be damaged or stolen pretty easily. Not really. So I listen to a few good radio stations when I want music. They may have a playlist of 100 songs, but they rotate songs in and out so I get a good variety, and newer stuff on a regular basis.

          I guess when they outlaw growing old, and radio, I'll have to consider other options. :) Luckily, SOPA will prevent me from hearing about new stuff, so I won't be inclined to buy it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    23. Re:Not Blacked Out? by belgianguy · · Score: 1

      Too bad Slashdot had the will to blackout but not the permission. So much overlap with critical areas of SOPA/PIPA and all they're doing is acting Fair and Balanced. If even Fark of all sites can white-out, it's a sad day to see Slashdot isn't allowed to.

      To me, that just nudged Slashdot into the "trustworthy if other sites confirm the story"-category. Parent-company bias is the last thing someone needs on a tech news reporting site. I was under the impression that Slashdot was fairly independent of this meddling behavior. To my dismay I notice that this is not the case.

      While I'm trying to see a useful reason in Slashdot's stance, it just looks like they cannot truthfully represent their own best interests. And that's a red flag for me.

      I've always been a big fan, and I'll probably still return, but I can't help but feel disappointed.

    24. Re:Not Blacked Out? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I totally agree. I switched my site over to a static(ish) page with articles relating to SOPA. Slashdot's published articles today are on SOPA. That's better than just being down.

          Not everyone has the time nor knowledge to put up informative stories on it, so it's understandable that they'd just participate in the blackout For news sites like Slashdot, it's better this way.

          It's funny watching my logs. There are many places that have us linked for news articles. All of our articles are redirecting to the SOPA page. The sad truth is, if SOPA goes through, they wouldn't even get the SOPA message. We'd just disappear from the Internet, as if we just shut down.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    25. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi. Slashdot has made this their only story of the day past 8:00a. I think that is the BEST way they could support this.

    26. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also nothing new. Read Twain's comments about 19th century Congress. ...I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman.

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

      It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.

    27. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I patented the ability to shutdown /. so the government will have to shut themselves down and cut off their funding (by shutting down the RIAA too).

    28. Re:Not Blacked Out? by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Bah. You should have petitioned your clients to see who was against SOPA / PIPA, then charged them for prominent placement on /. today. Made a little list of people worth buying from, for /.ers to peruse.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    29. Re:Not Blacked Out? by fredan · · Score: 1

      Soulskill,

      If the argument is that you must show ads I can say that I never seen a ad in about two or three years now from your site(s).

      I think you instead should let us fans of slashdot pay an annual fee of 10 euro (dollar is of no use!) to use your site without any ads. (so we don't have to use noads, noscript whatever to not see it.).

      Also, and this is just a suggestion so there is no obligation from your part, we users would be (every) happy if you could take some of those annual money to hire an editor that can spell. And also hire someone to check the spell the editor spelled.

      Ok?

      Great!

      Thanks,

      The Internet.

    30. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Nathanbp · · Score: 1

      Dinosaur Comics, xkcd, and SMBC are all blacked out as well.

    31. Re:Not Blacked Out? by bledri · · Score: 1

      Why is slashdot ignoring the blackout? With so many links to questionable content, this illegal news source seems like a hive of crime.

      From the summary:

      Note: This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    32. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. The irony is blinding.

    33. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that, but I'll bet samzenpus told everyone he wasn't just to troll them.

    34. Re:Not Blacked Out? by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Well... right now is showing a black ribbon.

    35. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Rary · · Score: 1

      Why is slashdot ignoring the blackout?
      With so many links to questionable content, this illegal news source seems like a hive of crime.

      Get it right, it's not "a hive of crime," it's "a wretched hive of scum and villany."

      A filthy hole in the wall frequented by anarchists, atheists, hackers, and Microsoft haters who would like nothing more than to bring about the fall of democracy and ruin denobug's slashdot experience.

      I see it as more of a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.

      There's also a negative side.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    36. Re:Not Blacked Out? by fredan · · Score: 1

      You are welcome!

    37. Re:Not Blacked Out? by sootman · · Score: 2

      "We did, however, get full support for these anti-SOPA/PIPA posts, which will be remaining at the top of the page for the day in lieu of new stories."

      Then can you maybe post some dupes? :-) There's nothing to read today, anywhere. Seriously, I am *this close* to going out into the big blue room.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    38. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Reason58 · · Score: 1

      Only a small percentage of the population at reddit have a basic understanding of SOPA and PIPA. Reddit is for cat pictures and memes.

    39. Re:Not Blacked Out? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Hey, Questionable Content is pseudo-blacked out.

      So is xkcd.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    40. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      twokinds.keenspot.com is also "blacked out" (in bright red).

    41. Re:Not Blacked Out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I see you've found my right parenthesis

      Finally! My PhD CS thesis written in Lisp is finished.

    42. Re:Not Blacked Out? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      And 816 comments on this one, and 236 on the earlier SOPA/PIPA posting and counting would suggest that this topic is getting some pretty serious traffic.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    43. Re:Not Blacked Out? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Umm...subscription has been around for a while. Hasn't done much for the spelling though.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    44. Re:Not Blacked Out? by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
      Except that wikipedia doesn't fall into that category, and they essentially *followed* reddit into the blackout. http://techland.time.com/2012/01/12/sopa-reddit-confirms-january-18-blackout-wikipedia-and-others-may-follow/

      Fanatics are always the early adopters in everything.

    45. Re:Not Blacked Out? by fredan · · Score: 1

      that's per page views. not annual.

  4. One other thing... by jholyhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...work on ways to bypass SOPA and PIPA. Congress doesn't care that it will censor the internet, because they're the ones who will be doing the censoring. Censorship always makes perfect sense to the censors

    Creating undetectable breaches of such unenforceable laws is the way out of this mess and those workarounds might just work in China too. So you'll be saving the internet and advancing human rights in China all at the same time.

    1. Re:One other thing... by WankersRevenge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's like mailing Genghis Kahn some arrows in protest of his pillaging campaign.

    2. Re:One other thing... by jholyhead · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to explain that analogy - you've lost me.

    3. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I quickly read the texts in SOPA & PIPA and yes: if they get voted, it would mean that American companies would be able to bully any website anywhere in the world for almost no reason at all - even the mention of a simple brand name could be enough cause to convince a US judge to get a domain name blacklisted...

      However there is a small caveat in both proposals: US citizens have to be able to use those sites. So one international implicationn could be that non-US websites would simply ask US-users not to use those sites anymore, or even ban users with IP addresses that geo-locate to the US...

      Now that would be a very interesting development, wouldn't it?

      Another possible outcome would be that non-US countries can start an "alternative" internet with their own DNS servers and entries, completely bypassing most of the SOPA/PIPA measures...

    4. Re:One other thing... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're partially right in that this is definitely A way to go, but as with all campaigns against an evil (percieved or otherwise) a multi-pronged approach is always best.

      Lobby, raise awareness, campaign, write, make art, make jokes, converse, code. Do all these things and more.

      The chances are this issue will re-surface. Even if SOPA and PIPA are killed stone dead, they're just the fruiting bodies of a root system that spreads far and wide and has much influence. That's also where we need to focus - the self-interested parties who will burn the earth so long as they have a fire with which to warm their hands. And the tame politicians who engage in mutual backscratching with these creatures.

      SOPA/PIPA is a skirmish, and one which the opposing army will walk away from largely intact.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of delivering them straight to his knees?

    6. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I fear that the way it will be bypassed is a return to professional piracy.

      In the era when the internet was just taking off, I remember people selling CDs of software, movies, music and games. Many people could not download, or did not have a fast connection, so others stepped in, providing a service for a price. People with racks of CDs at car boot sales, or selling the under the counter, or in the pub. It cost a little, but still massivly cheaper than buying in a shop.

      If it becomes difficult for the average person to pirate, then that service becomes valuable again. Piracy will not be reduced, but the middle men will start making money again.

      As a musician, I'd rather people downloaded for free than were buying my music from professional pirates.

    7. Re:One other thing... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Informative

      ...even the mention of a simple brand name could be enough cause to convince a US judge to get a domain name blacklisted...

      Huh? What judge? With SOPA & PIPA, there's no due process to follow or judge to convince; the bully companies get to play judge, jury and executioner themselves!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:One other thing... by Pope · · Score: 1

      I'm in the arrow making business, you insensitive clod!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    9. Re:One other thing... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? What judge? With SOPA & PIPA, there's no due process to follow or judge to convince; the bully companies get to play judge, jury and executioner themselves!

      Umm, no.

      SOPA requires a Court Order to do anything. Read the Bill.

      And yes, you have to convince a Judge to get a Court Order.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:One other thing... by gibbsjoh · · Score: 2

      I thought of this a few days ago, basically we can all help out friends/relatives (and strangers) by setting up DNS servers, VPN servers etc. Helps if you have a static IP but there's ways around everything. I blogged about it at the time (shameless link: http://blogwithoutportfolio.dyndns.org/blog/?p=21) but forgot to add anything about Tor.

      It's a sad day when we have to help people in the US get around web censorship. I really really hope this mess doesn't get passed.

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    11. Re:One other thing... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      In the era when the internet was just taking off, I remember people selling CDs of software, movies, music and games. Many people could not download, or did not have a fast connection, so others stepped in, providing a service for a price.

      I made a decent amount of money in high school selling mix discs to people back in the late 90's before the war on Napster. My customers were not just my peers, but their parents and even authority figures, such as my teachers. Nobody gave a fuck about the piracy aspect. They just wanted to buy a CD with the songs they wanted on it, and since there was no way to do so legally, they came to me...

      Blank CD's weren't cheap in those days (nor was high-speed internet), but I made enough profit to not have to work my senior year...and it certainly beat flipping fucking burgers or cashiering at Food Lion.

    12. Re:One other thing... by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      I do always appreciate donations.

    13. Re:One other thing... by demonbug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Huh? What judge? With SOPA & PIPA, there's no due process to follow or judge to convince; the bully companies get to play judge, jury and executioner themselves!

      Umm, no.

      SOPA requires a Court Order to do anything. Read the Bill.

      And yes, you have to convince a Judge to get a Court Order.

      Of course, that hasn't always been a very high bar to pass.

    14. Re:One other thing... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      In terms of the economics of your operation, you were monetizing something scarce: the ability to burn CDs. Had everyone at your school had CD burners, I suspect that your business would have died pretty fast -- people would have just made copies for their friends and not bothered to pay you.

      Of course, nobody would have shown any sympathy for your inability to sell "pirate" CDs. Yet we are expected to feel sympathy for the recording studios.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    15. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recording studios have people who work hard to produce art that others enjoy.
      I have no problem feeling sympathy for them. Piracy is effortless by comparison.

      Don't confuse the misuse of copyright with the legitimate expectation of renumeration.

    16. Re:One other thing... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      True, I don't think anyone else had a CD burner at that point; my step-father got it through his employer for work purposes (they were $300 retail), but I used it far more than he ever did. Then again, pretty much everyone else was on dial-up as well (it was the late 90's, after all), so the fact that it took them 10+ minutes to download a 3MB 128k song file, compared to my ~30 seconds, probably had something to do with it as well...

      I was long out of the "business" when burners and hi-speed internet became ubiquitous; within a couple years I wasn't even making music CD's for myself anymore...

    17. Re:One other thing... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Of course, nobody would have shown any sympathy for your inability to sell "pirate" CDs. Yet we are expected to feel sympathy for the recording studios.

      Part of that is he's not doing any work. The artists and engineers that actually work on the CDs are.

    18. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if they were sent airmail-special delivery to Genghis Khan? With an old fashioned return receipt requested (head in bag, box or on platter)?

      Captcha: recoil

      additionally

      The intent of both pieces of legislation is to combat online piracy,

      perhaps that should read stated intent in the summary? Wording is so treacherous, especially when lawyers and politicians abuse them.

    19. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a pretty literal analogy; he is saying that it would be giving the censors ammo.

    20. Re:One other thing... by SchMoops · · Score: 1

      But the artists are making fractions of a percent on CD sales, and paying for their advances from that net payment... Many end up in debt, even after a fairly decent hit. And the engineers usually work for hire - they get paid once for the work and make no royalties for sales.

      So the middlemen are screwing the artists (thousands, all but the top dozen or two per year, lose money) and grabbing all the cash from CD sales. Meanwhile, the engineers already made their livable but modest salary and get nothing (except possibly reputation) if a record goes multi-platinum.

      These bastards are trying to save their own gravy train by claiming that the piracy is harming the artists. They are being disingenuous.

      Piracy does sometimes harm artists, but it's not a black-and-white situation. Some piracy harms, but some piracy helps due to publicity. Personally, I'd rather become popular by giving good stuff away and letting people voluntarily pay for it - look at Jonathan Coulton's business model.

    21. Re:One other thing... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That would be great if they didn't have a history of being able to get court orders for specious claims

      Use DMCA
      Then claim SOPA. It got taken down down under DMCA, so CLEARLY their claim is legit.
      Now they have court order...with Jane Dow so they ca apply it against anyone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Renumeration?

      #define 1 2
      #define 3 4
      #define 5 6 ...
      ?

    23. Re:One other thing... by hob42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly what internet poker sites have done following similarly harsh legislation and DoJ actions against the major companies (including taking over their .com/.net/etc domains). They block you from playing real money games if you've listed a US address or log in from an IP geolocated in the US, to avoid getting into any more trouble with the DoJ.

    24. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull@#$@. Look at Subsection 103b of HR 3261 as introduced. This subsection set up a written notification scheme that does not require court involvement.

      It was subsequently removed in the "Manager's Amendment" (a first rewrite of the bill in response to criticisms) but it WAS in there originally.

      Irony of my day: working on a SOPA memo for a Member of Congress and not being able to access wikipedia's page summarizing copyright length in different countries.

        --- Congressional staffer and slashdot reader

    25. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that people don't have the same concerns about poorly paid workers in other industries.

      No one stopped buying chocolate because the Cocoa pickers get paid nothing. Being worried about the artists in the music industry seems like a convenient excuse, as no one has to give up anything to pirate. Giving up chocolate would be a much more difficult prospect.

    26. Re:One other thing... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Actually, you make a good point. The majority of common English nursery rhymes were actually written to lambaste specific English politicians and gentry. We need to start writing such memorable ditties about the *people* actively in support of such legislation and post them to youtube and the like. Some of those songs will easily outlast their political careers, and the legislation they've pushed.

      Any takers? All it takes is a satirist, a poet and a musician....

    27. Re:One other thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, nobody would have shown any sympathy for your inability to sell "pirate" CDs. Yet we are expected to feel sympathy for the recording studios.

      Part of that is he's not doing any work. The artists and engineers that actually work on the CDs are.

      You have a very strange idea of "not doing any work".

      He's working in a black market, it may not be honest work but it is still work. [time=money, the software and equipment and playlists didn't set up themselves; the CDs didn't transport themselves around]

    28. Re:One other thing... by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      But only the advocate of taking down a site is heard. That takes away due process because you have no chance to defend yourself

  5. Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://xkcd.com/865/

    Stop SOPA and PIPA now!!!

    1. Re:Oblig XKCD by jholyhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course you can be pro-Copyright and Anti-SOPA.

      I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid for your efforts, and that if someone steals that work and is caught doing it, that they should be punished in proportion to the crime. I don't think they should be allowed to cripple the internet trying to achieve that, though and I don't think you should be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars over a $2 piece of music.

    2. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid for your efforts

      - and you should follow the link in my comment and then leave your comments there, where I explained why this is an untenable position.

      Generating content is not different from any other business, and since other businesses that do not necessarily generate content do not get this preferential treatment by government (nor should they), neither should content generating businesses get this preferential treatment.

      Saying that you must have government standing on your side for some reason and protecting your business model is ridiculous on its face, when no other businesses (except those who own the government, so big banks, big insurance, bigt pharma, big energy, big food, military and such) get the same treatment.

      So a restaurant owner does not get bailed out, nor does car mechanic, nor should they. Nobody should be in a position to use government to subsidise their business model.

      As to getting paid - you only get paid for your businesses by willing participants, and just as people may not go to your new restaurant, no matter how much of your life's savings or other people's savings you put into that business, same people may not buy your stuff from you.

      As to others using your material freely (as in beer) and putting it on torrent or even selling it at lower price - set the right price. I have an example there, Louis C.K., who is not going after torrents and other sites sharing his show, but he priced it properly and the revenue is over 1 million USD and counting.

      Nobody should be in a position to subsidise their businesses and risks that they take when they choose a business model with government money and power.

    3. Re:Oblig XKCD by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      The alt text actually made me smile, and I think I'll be joining him.

    4. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody should be in a position to use government to subsidise their business model.

      How many times has Wall Street been rescued to save it from itself and they have never learned the lesson?#

      Textbook definition of Moral Hazard.

    5. Re:Oblig XKCD by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying that you must have government standing on your side for some reason and protecting your business model is ridiculous on its face, when no other businesses

      Actually, every business gets government protection in various forms. I can't, for example, go and steal my competitors product and sell it as my own. If Walmart went and stole Target's stuff from their stores, that would be illegal, and for good reason. That is exactly the same protection that the content generating companies expect, and should, receive.

      It should have nothing to do with "protecting against failure." Failure for the content generators would be people not buying their product. Copyright doesn't protect against that. It only does what a door-lock and the police do against thefts of physical merchandise: protect against other people profiting against your own work. Or would you honestly say the police should also not track down theft? One cannot maintain your position (that copyright should not be enforced because it is the government insuring against failure) and that the police should also enforce physical property rights of companies against thieves, yet that is what you are saying.

      SOPA, however, goes beyond that. Way, way beyond that. It does help insure content generators against failure: which is why one can most certainly be pro-copyright and anti-SOPA.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Oblig XKCD by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't think one can be pro-copyright and anti-SOPA, anti-PIPA and not be a hypocrite at the same time.

      So... I don't buy the slippery slope argument. You can have copyright without having SOPA. That's what we have now.

    7. Re:Oblig XKCD by archen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are almost different issues though aren't they? Copying music and movies is already illegal. This is like giving a cop an AK47 and telling him to open fire on a crowded street every time there's a purse snatching, instead of having him do his job in a reasonable manner.

    8. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, every business gets government protection in various forms.

      - you are missing my point. My point is that no business should be able to claim any protection from government, and when it happens it is wrong.

      I can't, for example, go and steal my competitors product and sell it as my own.

      - what's called 'property rights'. Tangible property, but you would be actually surprised with my stance on it - I am against government police being used for this as well, I am pretty much against government meddling in these affairs, it's a private matter. Do you understand my position? Theft is a private matter, not a matter for public protectionism.

      Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.

      My position is that government is inherently evil, but it must exist to occupy the space where otherwise the evil would exist that didn't have public legitimacy on its side.

      The point of government is to exist to occupy space of where the inherent evil lives and to protect the individuals from the inherent evil that occupies that space. Now, whether it is realistic to expect some entity to occupy space of evil and not turn evil itself ... (and my argument goes further, but I am not going there in this discussion), but basically government exists to protect people FROM ITSELF.

      It is the government force that we are all vulnerable to. Other individuals and companies - that's a private matter.

      Now governments failed people completely, including the court system, the Supreme Court in USA as well, so this just shows how inherent the evil is and how it permeates into whatever entity that is occupying that space.

      But the Constitution is law above government, and government broke that law long ago and it continues to brake it every day. Government protecting people from government does not mean that government must protect people from other people.

      I think this is very important and this is where the theory of government and understanding of government is so completely flawed.

      The system that exists to supposedly protect people from crime should not be the same and must not be conspiring with the system that exists to occupy the space of evil government power.

      Once you mix together the system of government, which is supposed to provide you with freedoms from itself, and you mix it with system that may be set up to provide you with security from other individuals, you end up with a government system that has the tools and the will to destroy your liberties.

      The separation of power (legislative, judicial, executive) in government is not done correctly and that's where the fault in current government theory shows itself.

      Thus your presumption that government must protect you from EITHER copyright violations OR theft is wrong, because NONE of those things are supposed to be done by government force.

    9. Re:Oblig XKCD by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Copyright is actually much less about getting paid, regardless of what many people seem to believe, and more about exclusivity on who else has the right to copy a work... it just so happens to be the case that the exclusivity is rather easily monetizable for content that happens to be in demand. Copyright, after all, can still apply just as strongly to things that the creator chose to make freely distributable.

      I don't think you should be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars over a $2 piece of music

      You appear to be under the impression that damages awarded are in some way supposed to be about the price of each copy. They are not. It is about how the unauthorized copying compromises the copyright holder's exclusivity to copy the work. And in particular, since exclusivity by definition means that nobody else is doing it, that compromise is effectively permanent The damage to this exclusivity actually affects all copyright holders, not merely the one whose copyright is infringed upon, since by violating a copyright, the incentives that the exclusivity that it offers to creators of works to utilize it in the future is weakened (since copyright is failing to do its job effectively, which is to offer its holders exclusivity on the right to decide who else may copy the work). How much value this exclusivity actually has can be an argument of considerable subjectivity, but that does not mean its value should necessarily be very little, nor should the price of any individual copy of the work be a factor in that.

    10. Re:Oblig XKCD by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      not be a hypocrite at the same time

      Sure they can. Hypocrisy means "not doing what they say", not "not doing what you say". If they say "I am comfortable with government intervention up to this level" and then complain about government intervention over that level, they are not a hypocrite just because your level of comfort is different than theirs.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re:Oblig XKCD by Spykk · · Score: 3, Funny

      So a restaurant owner does not get bailed out

      If Jesus bought a plate of fish and chips from your restaurant and then stood out front handing copies of it away to passersby for free then you might have a point.

    12. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to others using your material freely (as in beer) and putting it on torrent or even selling it at lower price - set the right price.
       
      And what price beats free? The bottom line, no matter how you like to sugar coat the issue, is that if you don't pay for it then don't take it. If the price is too high and enough people go elsewhere for a like-product than either the producer will go out of business or lower their price.
       
      Copyright violation is not a valid form of protest. The sooner people realize this the easier it will be to combat laws like SOPA. Those using lame excuses like "the price is too high" are fueling the fire that keeps SOPA alive.

    13. Re:Oblig XKCD by artor3 · · Score: 2

      This right here is why we're in danger of losing this fight. You anti-copyright extremists are so f'in adamant in your beliefs that you'll argue against people who are on your side for no reason.

      Develop some social skills, and learn to know when unity is more important than proving yourself right on every little thing.

    14. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roman, I've been reading your posts for months and here's my humble opinion. Shut off the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh and learn how to think for yourself.

      In this universe there is always a grey area between black and white. Those who take extremes almost always have a profit motive in mind (the rest are happy with just having their ego massaged).

      The business model is to attract as many folks as possible to their extreme. Create a snowball effect where the followers are an advertising vehicle to further the leader's income. Yes Virginia, it's just like a cult.

      But ultimately it's solely your decision whether to drink the Koolaid or to embrace the grey area, rationality. It's a catch 22 but you seem like a somewhat smart guy and could handle the transition. Simply quit cold turkey for a few days and break away.

      Live free. Think about it.

    15. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is pretty simple why creative works enjoy copyright protection and things like restaurant food do not.

      The work is in the original creation of the copyrighted work, while the duplication is vastly easier. Copies are made and sold to recover the cost of the original creation. If there was no copyright then the work could easily be duplicated immediately after it was sold and the duplicators could undercut the author since they do not have to worry about the costs related to the original creation.

      In a restaurant the work is in the materials and preparation of the meal. That work still exists even if you get the recipe. So if you made a restaurant that exactly duplicated the menu of another then your costs are similar to the original restaurant.

      Copyright also has been used to recognize the original author of works.

    16. Re:Oblig XKCD by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 1

      if you produce something you should be paid for your efforts

      Then housewives should be getting salaries. Humanity and society is much too complex for your simplistic notion to be true, that monetary compensation inevitably follows work.

      if someone steals that work and is caught doing it

      Careful now. The choice of words does matter a lot. No one can steal a song.No one can steal an e-book. These things may be copied without the necessary authorisation for example, but information is never stolen.

      I don't think you should be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars over a $2 piece of music

      I personally agree, but that is highly subjective and therefore adds nothing to the discussion. Rockefeller might have thought Beethoven's fifth was worth at least a thousand dollars, easily. I might pay 2 dollars for a song I think is OK (maybe 10 for one I really like a lot).

      --
      Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    17. Re:Oblig XKCD by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's not merely untenable. It's ridiculous, irrespective of copyright.

      Content gets produced. If somebody wants to pay for its consumption, they will pay for it. If they don't, they won't. Even with government-sanctioned monopolies, there's no guarantee that the creation of content itself will automatically produce value. It doesn't. Value is ascribed to the content by the people consuming it.

      For example, I'm producing content right now by writing this. But nobody's going to want to pay to read it. Hell, some people might demand that I pay them because it was such a waste of their time. I have as much a right to make money from this content, as companies have a right to make money from their products. Which is to say, I will make money if someone's willing to pay for it, and I will not if they're not so inclined.

      Like everything else, content is only worth as much as someone's willing to pay for it. To think that content is somehow automatically valuable is not just ignorant and naive, it's an outright denial of reality.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    18. Re:Oblig XKCD by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Then housewives should be getting salaries.

      Yes, they should.

      And they should be charged room and board also....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Oblig XKCD by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      - what's called 'property rights'. Tangible property, but you would be actually surprised with my stance on it - I am against government police being used for this as well, I am pretty much against government meddling in these affairs, it's a private matter. Do you understand my position? Theft is a private matter, not a matter for public protectionism.

      Ok, then who would be responsible for dealing with the Walmart stealing from Target scenario? It would need to be a neutral third party, as we can't have Target police fighting Walmart police in an "it said-it said" scenario.

      If someone stole from my house, who would I call?

      You might respond "non-government funded (NGF) police", so I'll attempt to respond to that preemptively. I would imagine NGF police would be funded by a separate tax, so in addition to State and Federal taxes, I would pay a Police tax. Since Police probably aren't the only thing you'd want to be NGF, I could see a NGF Center for Disease Control tax, a NGF Fire tax, a NGF DPW tax... basically instead of paying two or three lump sums in taxes, I'd be paying taxes to several dozen organizations. I'd need to think about that. It makes tax time much harder, but there'd be less concern that the organization would get "financial advice" (e.g. Do this or see your budget get cut) from the government. That's not something I have a big concern about though.

    20. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure you're absolutely full of shit. One can completely be in favor of copyright (maybe feeling that current copyright terms are too long), and still be anti SOPA. It's not hypocritical at all.

    21. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. Restaurant owners DO have government standing on their side. If you dine and dash, they can and will call the cops on you.

      Your Louis C.K. example doesn't show anything; I'm sure he still enjoys copyright on his performance.

    22. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      No, you are wrong. Saying "no business should be able to claim any protection from government, and when it happens it is wrong." is absolutely stupid. You're basically saying that no business should enjoy police protection. That if someone breaks into a store and steals merchandise, that store should not be able to call the cops. This position is entirely asinine.

      Further, your bullshit "property rights" comment? You would have no "property rights" if it wasn't for government enforcing them.

    23. Re:Oblig XKCD by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid for your efforts, and that if someone steals that work and is caught doing it, that they should be punished in proportion to the crime.

      Very true. Where many people blow it is confusing "in proportion to the crime" with "in proportion to the retail price of the thing". If you want to say that the penalty for illegally downloading somebody's 99 cent song should be comparable to the penalty for stealing a pack of gum, I could go along with that. Yes, I know copyright violation is not stealing, let's not rehash that. When people say the penalty should be 99 cents, they're off their rocker as there is plainly zero disincentive to follow the law. In fact, there's a net incentive in the amount of 99 cents * the probability you won't get caught.

    24. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Care to cite me where Fox news thinks that content should be free?
       
      You need to think for *yourself*. This automagic response of "It's teh faux news!!!onehundreeleven!!” is not only worn out but it's normally wrong too. But I guess if you just want to use a buzz word to give your so-called ideas relevance I guess that's the way you're going to do it when you fail to think.

    25. Re:Oblig XKCD by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      This++.

      Copyright seems to be quite poorly understood, even by activists.

      Think about something like Creative Commons. The author reserves all rights conferred by Copyright Law, but also expressly intends for his work to be copied and distributed freely. Copyright law is a poor weapon if one's intent is to stop distribution, but it is an excellent and powerful weapon against situations such as someone taking your copyrighted work, publishing it as his own, and then suing YOU for infringement. But that is a pro-independent-producer position, and is not often considered in this debate.

      Right now it's all about the media companies and the whole upside down relationship between producers and consumers. The best thing the public could possibly do at this point is to wean themselves off of mainstream media, and start trending more toward independent producing. That's right, I'm saying you should buy a damn guitar. There should be a piano in the space where your TV is. That really good digital camera you got so cheaply should be put to use. You shouldn't be "going to the movies", you should be "making a documentary." There is no reason in this day and age to be a consumer of media, and in fact, it's irresponsible and as it turns out, destructive to democracy.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    26. Re:Oblig XKCD by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      Be creative and think of ways that this anti-consumer legislation can be twisted into unintended consequences and used against the people it is supposed to protect. Remember that even GPL and Creative Commons licenses derive from Copyright Law. Imagine someone getting a $5,000,000 fine for a GPL violation due to SOPA.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    27. Re:Oblig XKCD by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Here is where Copyright Law is a powerful weapon: A publisher takes your copyrighted work and publishes it, claiming it as their own work, and then sues YOU for infringement. Protection from that scenario is copyright's primary function. Few people seem willing to accept that, since they really want it to be a weapon that can be used to rigidly control a distribution method.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    28. Re:Oblig XKCD by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Copyright and commercial interest in copyright are and should be distinct. How aggressively will SOPA protect a Creative Commons license, for example?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    29. Re:Oblig XKCD by ahodgson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your argument is just stupid. In a free country government is the means by which we organize to protect ourselves against other people, and get other things done that make sense to do collectively. Just because you call it government doesn't make it automatically evil. Protecting property rights is an essential basic bedrock means of creating a free country in the first place.

      If we didn't have government we'd have security companies with so many subscribers that they would essentially be governments, only we wouldn't be able to vote for who runs them. The last time we tried that on a large scale we called it the Middle Ages. Turns out the security companies found it amusing to constantly make war on other security companies, and kill a lot of their subscribers in the process. And they weren't big on the voluntary part of signing up. No more than government is today, of course.

      I'd like to see federal and state(/provincial) governments do a LOT less, but the things that municipal governments tend to be good at still need to get done, and it makes a lot more sense to do it in a non-profit everyone-contributes kind of way than through other mechanisms.

      As for copyright ... it used to make sense. For a limited time, to genuinely encourage the creation of new works, it makes sense. To pass to giant corporations and be extended forever, definitely not. I really don't think Disney would stop making movies if they only had copyright on the works for 10 or 20 years. Their payback period is much less. And gaining the power to arbitrarily shut down Internet sites without due process will just break a lot of things, not stop the theft anyway. So it's all stupid.

    30. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Walmart went and stole Target's stuff from their stores, that would be illegal, and for good reason.

      That would be awesome too.

    31. Re:Oblig XKCD by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      "Nobody should be in a position to subsidise their businesses and risks that they take when they choose a business model with government money and power." Agreed... Quoting Heinlein: "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." From Life-Line by "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." From Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein (1967) (1967)

    32. Re:Oblig XKCD by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      http://xkcd.com/865/

      Stop SOPA and PIPA now!!!

      Although, with all due respect, Munroe doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. In his message, he says that under SOPA and PIPA, people wouldn't be able to freely share his work... but he also publishes under the Creative Commons license, which explicitly gives people rights to freely share his work. SOPA and PIPA wouldn't abolish the CC license, or copyleft, or the GPL, or any other license.

    33. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.

      That has got to be the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone say. Who the fuck else is there to protect your liberties and freedoms against if not other civilians? Are you saying the only reason government exists is to protect you from itself?

      That line of thinking is absolutely pants on head retarded.

    34. Re:Oblig XKCD by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's roman_mir (125474). If I'm responsible for half the shit that came out of that, then my whole political platform is fucked.
      It's the little clear circle next to his name. Click it, trust me.

    35. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      All governments are automatically evil, not even the entities, but the space that they occupy in society gives them legitimacy in overpowering individuals, and AFAIC individual liberty is paramount, of-course individual liberty does not include harming other individuals, but this function of protecting individuals against other individuals must not be power given to government.

      Protection of individuals against other individuals is a private matter (and it's de facto true today anyway).

      Government has legitimacy, it has the law and power on its side, but we give it power so that it can protect us, but not from other individuals.

      The point of government that is set democratically is to prevent itself - government - from taking away individual liberties. If you don't understand it yet, think about royalty or dictators or systems that the former USSR was. Citizens needed protection FROM government there. That's what the point of US Constitution was - to have government that would be denied power to abuse individual rights and denied power to take over power that would allow it to deny individual.

      Of-course the system is broken, because there was not enough understanding that the primary evil that the government is supposed to protect individuals is government (and the /. replies to my comments display that the misunderstanding is still very strong and unfortunately embedded into the people's thinking).

      The theory needs to be revamped, the government needs to be reset, the laws must be abolished and Constitution needs a thorough review, but the government MUST follow the Constitution, and it does not do that today.

      Obama passed NDAA, he killed US citizens and he is imprisoning people without trial or access to lawyers. When Romney was asked in the last debate if he would sign NDAA and do the same, he said - absolutely. Wars are started without declaration and nobody bothers with the Congress and the law - Constitution is abolished.

      This is the consequence of government that has taken over all sorts of powers and can no longer be stopped with just lawsuits, nothing can be done now, it has gone too far.

      The reason for this is again - misunderstanding of what government's role is and ignorance of the people of why they even have government and why they even put up with it and take it for granted (just because you were brought up a 'law abiding citizen' should not automatically mean that you give up your power to critical thinking and it shouldn't mean that you give up your freedoms so easily to an entity YOU DID NOT SET UP).

      As to who should be looking after private property, and what are property rights - as I said, government is there to protect you from itself ( from government) and if that is no longer happening, then you won't have property rights.

      US citizens lost property rights to many different sorts of laws, for example EPA passes laws, but also things like "Civil Rights Act" or "Disabilities", whatever - any type of entitlement and obligations law that is passed reduces your rights to private property. Same with property taxes, by the way.

      Who is supposed to protect your private property? There are plenty of companies specialising in private security, people have security systems installed in their homes as an example.

      Saying that something is "just stupid" is easy. Actually using that object sitting on top of your shoulders for more than just hat wearing and food intake is not.

    36. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely NOTHING in SOPA and PIPA (or the current DMCA, for that matter), which requires someone making an accusation to actually prove they hold the copyright on the item. A competitor to his could easily issue takedowns, and now the material has to be off the web.

    37. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Then housewives should be getting salaries

      Who's to say they don't? There's more ways to be paid than with money. However, it should be the option of the person doing the work how they get paid.

    38. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Of course you can be pro-Copyright and Anti-SOPA.

      - oh, people can build in all sorts of justifications into their mental models as to why their intellectual dishonesty is OK, but it does not mean it's a tenable position and not a contradictory one.

      SOPA and PIPA are just copyright law taken to extreme on the Internet, but the principle is BASED on copyright law itself, and who is to say what is the correct extent that the copyright can be taken to, after all, it's very long now and it's getting longer, so saying that it's a slippery slope" doesn't work, because it is exactly what is happening in reality. Copyright is constantly being extended in a way that really means it is forever (for all people who are alive today, and that is all that matters).

      SOPA and PIPA are just somebody else's limits to which they are comfortable taking the law to, so you don't agree with it, but you agree with the principle - then YOU ARE ON THE SAME SIDE. You differ in the degree of where it must stop, but that's the only difference?

      It reminds me of a joke, I think Churchill asked a lady he knew if she would sleep with him for 1,000,000 pounds and she said, -Yes. Then he asked her if she would sleep with him for 5 pounds, and she said: -What kind of a woman do you think I am?

      His response was: -Lady, we already have established what kind of a woman you are, now we are just arguing over price.

    39. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Content gets produced. If somebody wants to pay for its consumption, they will pay for it. If they don't, they won't.

      The problem is, many people seem to think that, even if they don't want to pay for it, they should still be entitled for the content. If you're not willing to pay what the author is asking, then you should do without. Plain and simple.

    40. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      All governments are automatically evil

      No, they're not. And it's bullshit like this which is why no one really takes libertarianism seriously.

    41. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      of-course individual liberty does not include harming other individuals, but this function of protecting individuals against other individuals must not be power given to government.

      No. You've just said that everything should be survival of the strongest. If someone with more guns and muscle comes up to me and takes my car, that should be his right according to you.

      Government exists to protect our rights against other citizens. Otherwise, there is absolutely no purpose in government.

      And to think you're actually trying to tell other people to think?

    42. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of companies specialising in private security, people have security systems installed in their homes as an example.

      So only the rich should have property rights then, is what you're saying.

    43. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You're basically saying that no business should enjoy police protection

      - no, I am saying that police protection of individuals and businesses is not government's business, it's a private matter. Today there are plenty of ways to ensure private security, and many if not all businesses do it already. Many people have private security in their homes, and it's a direct link to a command centre of some sort and it monitors their house, etc., and if something happens private security can be dispatched.

      Of-course they can call cops, etc., but that's the way system is set up (broken) now, but it doesn't need to be, and it doesn't mean at all that businesses and people cannot have protection, etc.

      My point is again - people have set up a trial type government in USA, different from UK or France or Spain or Russia or China, etc., based on the fact that people wanted to get away from those types of dictatorial/feudal/royalty based systems, and since we know that government power is the most important type of power because of legitimacy and supremacy over individuals, we want to set the law above government power (Constitution), that would prevent government from violating individual rights - what we really want is the kind of government that can protect people from the evil that the governments have ALWAYS BEEN inherently. There are no good governments, there are no non-corrupt governments, there are no governments that do not overstep boundaries and do not take away people's rights, property, freedom, liberty, all that stuff. If you want that, you have to set up a government that can protect individuals against the government becoming one that will take away all your freedoms, it's about government protecting people from what governments have always been.

      Protecting people from governments is the most important function of government under the Constitution.

      Property rights - again, you don't understand the concept of rights. A right is your right not to be abused BY GOVERNMENT. It has nothing to do with other PRIVATE individuals and businesses.

      Rights only matter in that they are protecting the individual against the legitimacy of government power.

    44. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If a restaurant owner could serve his meals over the Internet to a global audience, you might have had a point.

    45. Re:Oblig XKCD by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      It is about how the unauthorized copying compromises the copyright holder's exclusivity to copy the work. And in particular, since exclusivity by definition means that nobody else is doing it, that compromise is effectively permanent

      Bzzzzt! While you make a well reasoned argument, this is where I start worrying. Your argument makes sense in a way, but you can only have ONE permanent compromise. So if you take a stand that someone had illegally copied your song/film/etc they have compromised it forever (enabling secondary distribution), then arbitrary punitive damages make sense. However, then you can't sue anyone else, because your work has been irreversibly damaged already.
      Plus the damages are at up to 125K (or such) per song. It would make sense to force the accuser to provide their (substantiated) estimates of how many copies you have enabled and charge you for each one. However, trying to pin secondary distribution or permanent copyright damage on the accused is ridiculous.

    46. Re:Oblig XKCD by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely NOTHING in SOPA and PIPA (or the current DMCA, for that matter), which requires someone making an accusation to actually prove they hold the copyright on the item. A competitor to his could easily issue takedowns, and now the material has to be off the web.

      Huh. Perhaps you should actually read SOPA and PIPA. See, under SOPA, the person making the accusation has to prove they are "a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof." So the person has to hold the copyright. And under PIPA, the person making the accusation has to prove they are "an owner of an intellectual property right, or one authorized to enforce such right, harmed by the activities of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities occurring on that Internet site." So, either they have to hold the copyright or be explicitly authorized by the owner.

      So, yeah... Contrary to your assertion, BOTH SOPA and PIPA require someone making an accusation to prove their status. Stop spreading FUD, particularly FUD so easily disproven by the actual text of the bills.

    47. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Your problem is you think that the society must somehow protect you and your business model against itself for some reason.

      You think that you are special, that you are producing something of value that is greater than value of any other business that does not enjoy copyright or patent like protection, like any small store or a mechanic shop or a woodshop etc.etc. You think you are entitled to the government ensuring your business model.

      You think anybody should give a shit about the content that you might have produced and should care about your license or any other type of nonsense that you want.

      Well, I have news for you - nobody gives a shit. The most important part is that people that matter don't give a shit - the productive part of the population on this planet, the Chinese don't give a shit. Nobody else does, but people who actually produce something do not, and if you cannot incite them in any way actually to pay you for your content through your distribution channel, then you are fucked, because you can't stop them from violating whatever you think your copyright is supposed to protect anyway.

      The stupid thing of-course is that this really is what is hurting countries that do have strong copyright policing by the government, this hurts those societies, not those who don't give a shit.

      You are not special.
      Whatever content you make is not special.
      Nobody gives a shit about you.
      Once the economy that exists around you implodes due to too much government regulations and other neat things, like taxes and laws and destruction of competition, etc., nobody will be there protecting your copyrights anyway and you'll end up in a poor society that also won't care about your copyrights.

      Copyrights and patents are part of the problem that lead to the economic disaster, and at the end, the economic disaster will flush all those nonsensical ideas away and there won't be patents and copyrights and wage laws, and labour laws and any special protections to unions or business models, banks, whatever.

    48. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I believe that you are leaving about 60% of the responses on this topic, interesting.

      Government is not there to protect you against your neighbour, that's not even possible. If you want that kind of protection you will have to hire private security anyway, if you don't, cops can collect your corpse later on and start an investigation, but that has nothing to do with protecting you, it has to do with protecting the power of government to maintain a police force that can put pepper spray into your face when you start protesting against government corruption as an example.

      As to 'rich being protected' only - with demand comes more competition, and today enough middle class houses have security intercoms with connection to some form of private security force. Besides, there are other ways people protect their property - good doors and locks is one of those things.

      If you think that people should not have to PAY for protection against other people, then what do you call taxes that go towards cops anyway (because you are under the false assumption that you are getting government protection against other individuals, but cops are supposed to be paid with taxes).

      Again, with enough demand there is enough supply and where there is a buck to be made, there is competition (as long as government stays out from creating monopolies in that market.)

      But I have replied to too many of your comments.

    49. Re:Oblig XKCD by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except no copyright holder has ever been able to prove they have been hurt. In fact, the data says piracy helped.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    50. Re:Oblig XKCD by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How to steal digital works:

      use mv instead of cp.

      heh

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    51. Re:Oblig XKCD by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I never suggested that compromising the exclusivity was ever an all-or-nothing deal... the compromise is permanent, but the overall damage to it by any single unauthorized copy does not completely negate any remaining merit of it unless those unauthorized copies were actually distributed to every person on the planet (at which point the exclusivity is truly worthless). In practice, since the entire world population is rarely involved, the value of the exclusivity merely asymptotically approaches zero the more people actually copy the work without authorization.

      However, the overall actual damage to exclusivity caused by any single unauthorized copy, even the first such one, is actually negligible. But a significant problem comes when you take that otherwise negligible damage and multiply it by the distribution scale offered by today's communication infrastructure, and you can end up with something quite sizable.

    52. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you've basically just said that government only exists to protect people from government. Which is a laughably absurd idea. Government exists to protect people from other people.

      There are no good governments

      Completely subjective statement.

    53. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Your problem is that you think that people don't deserve protection. You think that only the rich deserve to have their property rights enforced, as well.

      Further, you think that, just because you don't like the terms I've put my content out under, that allows you to simply ignore those terms, and enjoy the fruits of my labor anyway. Essentially, you are in favor of slavery.

    54. Re:Oblig XKCD by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How were they hurt? Their exclusivity on choosing who else was allowed to copy the work was compromised... this exclusivity is something that they were supposed to be promised (indeed, "copyright" literally means "right to copy") in exchange for an incentive to publish the work in the first place, where they otherwise might have wanted to simply keep it to themselves, or share it only with a very restricted audience, so that they would not have to worry about somebody copying it without their permission.

      Now obviously, not every creator really needs such an incentive to publish their works... but there are clearly many that do (if that were not the case, a majority of material that creators release for free would tend to be immediately released into the public domain, but this is not what happens... such creators choose to retain the control that comes with having a copyright).

      As I said above, however, the actual damage to the copyright holder when their exclusivity is compromised by unauthorized copying is a matter of considerable subjective debate. That there appears to be no objective standard by which to measure that damage does not mean that it has no real value, especially since it is, in fact, clearly valued greatly by copyright holders

    55. Re:Oblig XKCD by Commontwist · · Score: 1

      Here's a funny comic from DA:
      http://fav.me/d4mrb78

    56. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Think about what you're saying for just a second. You've essentially said that I can come over to your house and take all your stuff, and as long as I have more guns and muscle, I should be completely allowed to. It should be my right, even. Because you have nothing to protect your property.

      And you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that "private security" would 1). Actually be affordable to most people, especially because you also apparently believe that government should not protect people from abuses by employers, or 2). That they would actually protect the people, and not abuse their power themselves. You only have, "Well, I really hope this would happen!"
       

    57. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I don't think you should be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars over a $2 piece of music.

      That cost upwards of MILLION(S) of dollars to produce (when all the costs to record and promote the [big label] music).

      Hence, the 'ridiculously' large fine amounts for (commercial) copyright infringement.

    58. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid for your efforts...

      --However, you will only be paid something if someone wants to pay, even if they don't try to pirate. Most copyrighted material has no commercial value at all. Much of the rest is now overpriced because of access to free material. Even if piracy went away, the price of commercial copyrighted material is tending to zero. This is what content sellers are most afraid of. Their goal is ultimately to eliminate competition, and/or, as in Europe, tax everyone to gain back lost revenue.

    59. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short periods of exclusivity is an unnatural right, granted for the benefit of the public domain. Natural rights being things like due process and freedom of expression. Natural rights are necessary for any modern civilization (unless divine right of kings is where you want to go). At no time should unnatural rights be given priority over natural rights. Further more, these excessively long periods of exclusivity undermine the public domain to support corporate welfare and create copyright issues where they should be none.

    60. Re:Oblig XKCD by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      I will concede that you are making a reasonable argument and that the damage from song-copying will exceed it's market value of 99c at iTunes. However, you seem to also imply that the damage is proportional to scale of distribution and I take an issue with that. I could believe that damage is proportional to how many people I distribute the song to directly. Beyond that I don't give them permission and it is their responsibility if they choose to distribute a song further
      Your talk of "multiply it by the distribution scale" is how MPAA/RIAA are claiming 6 gadzillion dollars of damage every day. Assume that 1 person can reach 1million downloaders (directly and indirectly), then consider 1000 people and you have 1 billion downloads. And if you sue 10,000 people you can claim 10billion downloads. It works in linear progression!

    61. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah; he could make his own fish to feed multitudes instead .What a prick!

      Unless you meant that Hispanic guy who sits a couple of cubes over from me and sings showtunes out loud when they play on his iPod...

    62. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid for your efforts...

      Not everyone who produces something, wants to be paid for it. You make it sound like all creative efforts should be mandated to recieve monetary compensation regardless of the creators wishes.

      It's that kind of thinking that propels this kind of legislation forward, whether you realize it or not.

    63. Re:Oblig XKCD by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      He may be referring to the chilling effect that SOPA and PIPA would have. Although content may be CC or GPL licensed, SOPA and PIPA would very likely encourage sites to be far less open to user posted content.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    64. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You come to my house to rob me, I must do what I can to stop you, this includes having home security of one kind or another. For some people it may mean paying a private security company, to others it may mean having a gun handy and to me maybe it means both.

      Now, if you thought for a second, you would have realised that what you set up as a hypothetical is in reality a completely normal situation - people get robbed, even at gun point all the time. There are certainly LAWS on the books that say - robbery is a criminal offence, but so what?

      What does that do to protect you against a robbery? A 911 call is just a phone number, it can as well be a private security call from your phone or home security communicator, whatever. Some security communicators are better than others, and they all go to private security firms anyway.

      The difference from what I am saying and what you keep misunderstanding (and you have an agenda, you wouldn't be leaving over half of the comments in this thread and other threads I have on this topic) is that when government gets itself all powers - from legislative, to judicial, it takes over your rights completely by these branches of government eventually coordinating the attack upon your liberties, and that is what happened in US (and many other countries).

      As to your last points there - AFAIC the government in USA creates much more destruction that eventually causes much more insecurity for people, because it grows and destroys liberty and thus destroys businesses and the economy, and it is a racist system, that leads the War on Drugs and all other various wars, like wars on Muslims or just 'brown people' around the world, and this is what makes the country much less secure.

      War on drugs creates much more crime than it ever stops, it creates criminals out of non-violent drug users. It creates opportunity for drug gang violence and other types of violence.

      Wars with other countries create hatred for Americans and create terrorism.

      Timothy McVeigh was a product of US government system, everything, from his involvement in the military to the incident that drove him to the Oklahoma bombing (Waco Siege, with FBI agents destroying a compound of individuals, thus taking away all of their rights - property, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom and lives. No just cause but just because it's government and it must ensure its dominance).

      911 was an attack on USA that was brewing in the minds of people who saw US invasion of holly lands as an offending act of foreign occupants. This is US foreign policy in action. So government - from domestic to foreign policy is NOT making you safe in any way.

      And it's not going to be there to protect you against some home invasion either.

    65. Re:Oblig XKCD by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      - what's called 'property rights'. Tangible property, but you would be actually surprised with my stance on it - I am against government police being used for this as well, I am pretty much against government meddling in these affairs, it's a private matter. Do you understand my position? Theft is a private matter, not a matter for public protectionism.

      I am not surprised that this is your stance, given the rest of your opinions here. However, I do want to hear you explain your position. How do you propose we privately settle matters of theft? If somebody moves into my house when I step out for a cup of coffee, it's now my job to drag them out of there or shoot them dead and bury the body somewhere? What if they moved in with a few buddies and are armed? Now I need to go get more buddies and more guns because theft of property is a "private matter." I suppose it truly is an anarchist point of view, but I don't see how it is possible to have a civil society and a government that can protect our liberties and freedoms when you don't allow it to protect our property.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    66. Re:Oblig XKCD by SpanglerIsAGod · · Score: 1

      I think you could simplify that by saying Communism. Eliminating property rights fits in there.

      --
      War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
    67. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      RIGHTS are not what you think they are.

      Rights are your protections against government force, not against other fellow individual citizens or even businesses. There you have contracts and you have private security.

      With government you have rights - as in protections FROM government force. Communism is quite different, but I am not going to bother, as your comment was not a serious attempt at a discourse.

    68. Re:Oblig XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't think Disney would stop making movies if they only had copyright on the works for 10 or 20 years.

      They'd end up making more, actually, or they'd starve and some other smart company would start making them to fill in the hole.

      I fucking HATE seeing Beauty and the Beast or Snow White or Pinnochio "Pulled from the vault, just for you, and just for a limited time only!!! Act now, because we don't know when we'll open the fault next time!!" every 5 years.

      They don't even have to be sneaky about what they're doing anymore - they're straight up TELLING you they control when and where you get access to the source of this media, and that they dictate your ability to purchase. How long is a fair amount time for a single entity to control all supply in order to artificially increase demand whenever the shareholders get the fidgets?

      It'd be SO nice to see new content instead of rehashed gold or platinum or freecashfordisnium editions of the same old stories and animation.

    69. Re:Oblig XKCD by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      You come to my house to rob me, I must do what I can to stop you, this includes having home security of one kind or another. For some people it may mean paying a private security company, to others it may mean having a gun handy and to me maybe it means both.

      And if I have more guns, and more muscle? Does that mean that not only am I in the right to take your stuff, but that you have no recourse?

      What does that do to protect you against a robbery? A 911 call is just a phone number, it can as well be a private security call from your phone or home security communicator, whatever. Some security communicators are better than others, and they all go to private security firms anyway.

      And if I can't afford private security? What happens then?

      The difference from what I am saying and what you keep misunderstanding (and you have an agenda, you wouldn't be leaving over half of the comments in this thread and other threads I have on this topic) is that when government gets itself all powers - from legislative, to judicial, it takes over your rights completely by these branches of government eventually coordinating the attack upon your liberties, and that is what happened in US (and many other countries).

      I'm not misunderstanding it at all. I'm simply not buying your bullshit.

      And I like how you answer the fact that you have no way to prove that private security would actually be affordable by going of on random tangents about McVeigh and other unrelated, conspiratorial bullshit.

      The fact of the matter is, you are completely wrong regarding your views on government. But you know what? If you believe in them that much, why don't you go somewhere and put those views into action? Why don't you prove us all wrong. Clearly, according to your posts, such a country would rise to being an economic superpower within a very short time. It's a far, far better course of action than forcing all of the rest of us to go along with your bullshit.

    70. Re:Oblig XKCD by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Your system sounds great. I'd love to pop around to your house and stab you to death sometime, since according to you, government has no business working to keep society orderly and your death is a private matter. I'm sure your family will be happy to spend thousands of dollars ... no wait, government has no business getting involved in private matters so there's no money either. Hmm. I can't see how this will work.

      (Hint, it won't work. Your idea is a crackpot theory spouted by Ron Paul supporting luddites who have no business participating society, since they loathe it so much. Even Ron Paul himself is not crazy enough to support your insane plan, and he's pretty crazy).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    71. Re:Oblig XKCD by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I don't see how "the internet" is relevant here. Spykk is right - anti-copyright advocates say that only physical property deserves protection because taking it deprives someone of something, but the only thing stopping people from rampantly copying physical products is the physical impossibility. And the only thing that makes physical objects so cheap is that it's not hugely risky to make them (i.e. there isn't a 99% chance someone will copy it and give it to everyone for free). If it were possible to simply "copy" physical objects, would you then declare that OK too? Even though it would result in less companies and individuals producing physical objects, and exponential increase in pricing due to the significantly higher risk that you will not be able to recoup the investment in raw materials.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    72. Re:Oblig XKCD by artifactual · · Score: 1

      Actually, every business gets government protection in various forms. I can't, for example, go and steal my competitors product and sell it as my own. If Walmart went and stole Target's stuff from their stores, that would be illegal, and for good reason. That is exactly the same protection that the content generating companies expect, and should, receive....

      No it's not exactly the same, and this is easy to prove, no matter how many times you or other copyright proponents try to conflate the two:

      A simple thought experiment: Two shops, side by side. A restaurant and a music shop.
      - In the restaurant: The chef makes up all his own recipes. Two customers come in and order the same meal. One eats it and leaves without paying, the other eats it and enjoys it so much they pay careful attention to the ingredients and tastes, and they pay for their meal, go home and attempt to replicate it in their own kitchen. They make the meal when they have friends over, and write down their recipe and put it on their blog.

      - In the music shop: the owner writes, records and sells all his own music. Two customers come in and ask for a copy of the same CD, one runs out without paying, the other one pays, listens to it, and likes it so much they go home and try to play the music themselves. They play it for their friends and put a recording of their own performance up on their blog.

      The shop owners try to take action against all four customers. Which customer is legally the safest, and why?

    73. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      too much of the same stuff has been written, so I just link to it now

    74. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      and more on that here

    75. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I gave the real answer here

      It's none of gov'ts business to protect either property or intellectual property, that's not what gov't is for.

      Thus a restaurant should have as much protection from theft as a music author would have from copyright violation - none from the government. All of this is a private matter.

    76. Re:Oblig XKCD by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      to simply "copy" physical objects, would you then declare that OK too?

      - oh, it would be fantastic, not just OK.

      You think economy is about work, no, economy is about satisfying the needs of people regardless of how it's done. We are trying very hard to do as little as possible to get as much out of it as possible and we should want that, that's the goal.

      Copying physical objects is an excellent way to do that, and whether the original content/object creator should get paid is purely a function of people deciding whether they want to subsidise this author so that he could do more of that in the future. The gov't is not here to protect business models.

      I gave a more thorough here to the same question

      here is what gov't is about

    77. Re:Oblig XKCD by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As to others using your material freely (as in beer) and putting it on torrent or even selling it at lower price - set the right price.

      It's hard to compete on price with free, genius.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    78. Re:Oblig XKCD by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Tangible property, but you would be actually surprised with my stance on it - I am against government police being used for this as well, I am pretty much against government meddling in these affairs, it's a private matter. Do you understand my position? Theft is a private matter, not a matter for public protectionism.

      Your position is that of extreme libertarianism, and no one who has read any of your previous posts would be surprised at all.

      The only purely private matters are the ones inside your head, once you start involving other people you are part of society, however much this may grate on your anti-democratic nerves. Property rights do not come written on stone tablets by god, they are entirely inventions of culture and society.

      But of course for people like you we would return to the paradise of Eden, if we only got rid of teh evil government. Your naivete would be amusing if it wasn't so horriffic when applied to the real world.

      Short version: I don't want my life controlled entirely by rich morons with no hope of justice other than by using violence. That is not freedom, however theoretically possible it is for me to build my super-mousetrap and have the world flocking to my door.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    79. Re:Oblig XKCD by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Dude, in the interest of your own sanity, just give it up. Roman_mir is so far out of his tree these days that the squirrels are sending out search parties. Going for the whole "police is not a legitimate government function" just marks the transition from simply batshit crazy to stark raving lunatic.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    80. Re:Oblig XKCD by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I know, but sometimes it's fun to poke the crazy people with sticks just to see what comes out.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    81. Re:Oblig XKCD by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I know exactly where you're coming from. You want a world where justice is at the barrel of a gun, because that is exactly what happens when there is no *enforced* rule of law. People who can't afford the best security get robbed by those who can. "Security firm" becomes another term for "warlord." We go back to banding tribes, and lose our laws, our infrastructure, and our civilization. If you want to live in a world like that, there are plenty of places around the world that you can go. Of course, they typically have high crime and low life expectancy, but if you're into that...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    82. Re:Oblig XKCD by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well, no... it's not linear. And it's also inevitably very subjective, because it amounts to how much the copyright holder really values whatever measure of exclusivity that they have lost by the infringement (even though the amount of exclusivity lost may not be very much for a single infringement, it might still have great value to the copyright holder).

      Still, though, infringing on copyright still weakens the very premise of copyright, which affects all copyright holders everywhere. If copyright is good for society, then it follows that infringing on copyright is bad for that same society. A reasonable argument exists that if the monetary settlements that could be awarded to a copyright holder for winning a copyright infringement case were not substantial, then even many copyright holders themselves might not actively try to press charges against infringers. It would be a largely self-destructive choice, but even worse, it would only serve to reduce the merits of copyright for everybody. So from a certain perspective, the large awards really do make a lot of sense.

    83. Re:Oblig XKCD by artifactual · · Score: 1

      How should one deal with theft if it's a "private matter"? Let's say they know (or think they know) who the culprit is. Should they be allowed to steal in return, or to use force or intimidation? Should they set up their own private court and hire private police to bring the thief in and be told his sentence? Or should they be satisfied with a strongly worded letter to the thief telling them what they did was wrong.

      If you have to take action against thieves yourself, then what's to stop the strongest band of thieves getting away with it all the time? Without public enforcement of property laws I don't see how you could avoid producing an economy openly and destructively run by violent gangs. Most people would then have to join and pay tax to one of these gangs without having a vote (or a say of any kind) in who runs them. If they didn't join, their property would be regularly stolen or destroyed and what could they do about it?

      But maybe I've missed something and you can enlighten me.

  6. Why not slashdot? by xtracto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There was a time when Slashdot was at the forefront of such kind of fights against "the man" (e.g., Sony Rootkit fiasco).

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:Why not slashdot? by jholyhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only value these blackouts have is in bringing SOPA and PIPA to the attention of people who otherwise wouldn't know what SOPA and PIPA are. If you're reading Slashdot, you should already know what is going on.

    2. Re:Why not slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they have blocked idle then?

    3. Re:Why not slashdot? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Because then work would get done, and we don't want our bosses to know how long things really take to get done. They will expect that in the future as well.

    4. Re:Why not slashdot? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Well, that and giving the shills a chance to go outside and be vaporized by the sun.

    5. Re:Why not slashdot? by SystemicPlural · · Score: 1

      Not the only purpose. Reddit committing to going black set the ball rolling, encouraging other sites to follow suit. Also it encourages the visitors to actually do something - such as ring their representative. There are always many more lurkers than active participants.

      Thankfully I did all that before I checked slashdot.

    6. Re:Why not slashdot? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I still don't see very much awareness of how much of SOPA is a new drug law.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Why not slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Of curse, people not reading the articles, that remains the same.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. What you can do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Disabling Javascript on en.wikipedia.org is a good start.

    1. Re:What you can do by crymeph0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks, troll. I actually had the opposite problem - I was wondering if they chickened out on the blackout. I guess they figure anyone savvy enough to use NoScript is already aware of these bills.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    2. Re:What you can do by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Troll?

      Anyway, you don't even need to do that. All you need to do is hit Esc before it redirects to the blackout page. Simples.

      Wikipedia is NOT down...

  8. bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by Speare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This morning on NPR's Marketplace Morning Report, there was a footnote similar to a few other mass media articles I've seen. They pointed out that if necessary, you could use Google's "cached copy" of a site like Wikipedia, if you are otherwise blocked by the SOPA front page. It's like a digital scab on the picket line.

    Then it struck me: isn't this advice a sort of inducement to piracy, and therefore a strong statement about SOPA's odious nature? If a site blocks its own publication of data, say, Sony/EMG/WarnerBros takes down its own webpage, isn't relying on a third party copy to get that content without their authorization just another form of "stealing" in their eyes? Wikipedia content is under some copyleft premise, but I don't think that changes the point: there are times that everyday reasonable activities can be construed as piracy in ways that a law or a technology can never adequately distinguish.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you use the Google cache when you can just follow Wikimedia's own instructions on how to get past the blockade?

    2. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by cornicefire · · Score: 1

      Yup. Google is sending O'Reilly and No Starch searchers to the torrent sites. http://wayner.org/node/80

    3. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by xrtvxrt · · Score: 1

      Noscript also seems to bypass Wikipedia's blackout page

    4. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia states on its "blackout" page (on the "learn more" section) that articles can be accessed through mobile devices and by turning Javascript off.

      The point is to get people to read the propaganda, and to protest, and to inconvenience (for a short time), but they do not have anything against people who bypass their very weak form of DRM. For people who bother to educate themselves; they will be rewarded.

    5. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      They did that on purpose.

      Editing is disallowed. You're censored. However, technical users can find ways around it, and quite easily, to actually get the content that's already out there, much like virtually any other online censorship. Censorship is usually it's a lot of strong words and a half-assed attempt and "there we fixed it...and pray do not make us fix it further".

    6. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      there are times that everyday reasonable activities can be construed as piracy in ways that a law or a technology can never adequately distinguish.

      The law can distinguish, but the lobbyists and industry insiders who wrote the law want it to be as broad as possible.

      And the legislators reviewing the bill are either
      A. ignorant of the implications of these overly broad clauses or
      B. convinced by lobbyists that overly broad language is good and necessary

      The worst part of all this is that the efforts to kill the bill are futile.
      Even the President, who has spoken up against this bill, thinks some kind of post-DMCA copyright legislation should be passed.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a few cases on the iPhone where the only way to get a working version of an app that I legally bought was to pirate the older version that still worked on my particular OS.

    8. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean turning off javascript to access wikipedia is circumventing technical protection measures?

      because that works.

    9. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this advice a sort of inducement to piracy, and therefore a strong statement about SOPA's odious nature?

      No, it's a strong statement about how NPR (especially it's financial reporting arm) is the bitch of big business and the rest of the establishment power base in this country.

      --
      That is all.
    10. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      And if a censor could kindly find a way to get that unnecessary "it's" out of my previous comment, I'd be obliged.

    11. Re:bypassing SOPA blockades: piracy? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      The idea is not to prevent visitors from seeing a SOPA protesting site, but to make visitors very *aware* of the issue.

      As the Wikipedia FAQ states, "Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message." [1]

      As all Wikipedia content is Copyleft, circumventing their message isn't stealing, that goes for and is relative to each site in protest.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

  9. I'm not in America! by duguk · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about for the rest of us who aren't in America?
    I'd really like to help, since if this passes it's only a matter of time before it's in the UK too.

    What can we non-US citizens do to help?

    1. Re:I'm not in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Liberate us. The US does have oil, after all.

    2. Re:I'm not in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    3. Re:I'm not in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "If you don't live in the U.S., you can petition the State Department." http://americancensorship.org/#petition-state-department

    4. Re:I'm not in America! by Sharkus · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is from the wikipedia page on SOPA:

      If you're not in the US:

      If you live outside the United States, contact your State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and want the internet to remain open and free.
      The decision for a global blackout was made in view of concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

    5. Re:I'm not in America! by coogan · · Score: 1

      I see www.google.co.uk is also still standard as is www.google.co.za What a bunch of idiots - this WILL affect EVERYONE eventually. Makes me wonder if behind the facade, Google is more interested in commercial interests than actually taking a stand!

    6. Re:I'm not in America! by duguk · · Score: 1

      I see www.google.co.uk is also still standard as is www.google.co.za What a bunch of idiots - this WILL affect EVERYONE eventually. Makes me wonder if behind the facade, Google is more interested in commercial interests than actually taking a stand!

      It is, but many people are already aware of it - especially because we've had the Digital Economy Act already tried to be thrust upon us.

      While I completely agree with you, I can see why google.co.uk haven't affected people in the UK - as my original question said; what can we do about it? I've signed the petition, and can write to a foreign affairs department, but it's not going to have the same impact as it would from US citizens.

      It's clear if the USA passes this law, it will be very difficult to stop it coming here too. But what can we do to help?

    7. Re:I'm not in America! by SystemicPlural · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you are in Europe then contact your MEP about ACTA. Which has similar problems to SOPA and PIPA.
      If you are in the UK you can do so easily at writetothem.com.
      More info here and here.

    8. Re:I'm not in America! by mr_stark · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to help, since if this passes it's only a matter of time before it's in the UK too.

      If you are based in the UK there is the E-petitions website:

      http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/search?q=sopa

      --
      I can't think of anything witty right now
    9. Re:I'm not in America! by Timmmm · · Score: 2

      Yeah this is kind of pointless, and frankly I'm kind of pissed off the wikipedia actually blocked their site outside the US. What's the point? I'm already aware of it, and I can't really contact my congressman. A clickthrough would have been fine and would have spread the word just as well.

      Fortunately they didn't truely block the site. You can get around it with the bookmarklet on this page: http://concentriclivers.com/?p=I%20don't%20live%20in%20America%20and%20can't%20do%20anything%20about%20SOPA%20Wikipedia

    10. Re:I'm not in America! by WilyCoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one welcome (the return of) our not-so-new European overlords!

    11. Re:I'm not in America! by duguk · · Score: 1

      Yeah this is kind of pointless, and frankly I'm kind of pissed off the wikipedia actually blocked their site outside the US. What's the point? I'm already aware of it, and I can't really contact my congressman. A clickthrough would have been fine and would have spread the word just as well.

      Fortunately they didn't truely block the site. You can get around it with the bookmarklet on this page: http://concentriclivers.com/?p=I%20don't%20live%20in%20America%20and%20can't%20do%20anything%20about%20SOPA%20Wikipedia

      Very handy! Thank you! =D

    12. Re:I'm not in America! by nbauman · · Score: 2

      We'll greet you with flowers!

    13. Re:I'm not in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do like David Icke. I think that's the best road for you in the UK, and CANADA.
      Ultimately if the population reduction succeeds then only this attitude will survive.

      One thing I like to do is talk shit about Tepco and Co. etc. That's a good way. Expose their drooling psychopathic flaws, shy that, design a way to put that fukushima fire out. Fix if for all of us. Seriously.

      Now that (just like I said) you got dusted (as long as you are a human in the northern hemisphere.) Man el reg, and other .co.uk sites were wrong on fukushima vs california, we got dusted they quite angered me actually. our fearless leaders pelosi, feinstein, matsui they ain't talkin. cept to focus on destroying more little people, with health bill, this bill that bill. There ya go. I guess the next thing will be water wars in california. or epa+agenda 21/UN/IPCC/IJudicialCC? e.g. Teh AG21green tards again now the water is going to be privatized? god help us, we'll be a desert like australia in no time flat. Sure you can have your hexachromium floride strontium plutonium water locally....yum I can't wait to use my long term storage bisquick's and this new wonderful water. Spring soon, I bet they got money from cafr for the water meter and smart meter installations. Enjoy months of construction noise and all the rest of it, smaller water pipe, and a new RF device on your property.

      Don't fly. Until the DHS goes away. ;o_

      Spread the word on US law vs sovereign man + knowledge (don't mix your ministers and style of government with the local stuff we actually HAVE here, if we try that shit we will be on our face.) So That's good advice, and good mind stimulation, it makes people at least understand what;s possible and good, and good for them, and maybe in the end when the drafting of what keeps all this corruption out of the US Constitution in the end, it will be useful as defense to prevent such nonsense psychopathic un constitutional gunk to even be placed for consideration, and indeed the source checked for sanity prior to having the blessing by the public to be placed for consideration.

      Let's see um, voting. electronics = NO.
      it can't be electronic. I can disrupt it, and I am a nobody. It doesn't matter the chips or system, they all behave the same.

      ELECTIONS MUST
      Be out in the Daylight/Sunlight, paper ballots, 100% public oversight, no law enforcement or other interference, counted by hand by the public no official results travel by wire or transmission. Face to face 100% public oversight, whole way through, until final numbers are WRITTEN BY HAND with the public oversight as the authority. No electoral college interference of validated popular vote totals. No media anything except the facts of who is connected to which foreign and corporate organizations in the campaigns, and right there on the ballot you vote on. They can take a PICTURE of the written by hand agreed upon results. No more official PDF file crap of local or federal election shit. or tiff scanned cafr files. If it's going to be a final official result it needs to be in plain fucking ascii and in one place and validated by everyone with no disputes. (at this point though everything is transparent and all amount of transparency traffic to validify the numbers is allowed until all is satisfied will the numbers be allowed to be officially published online. I am not saying don't use common sense.) All papers and everything got to have the same numbers, for a digital number to be believed, it has to be able to be looked up on PAPER. The crap the presidents and candidates spew and promise must be written contract. Something we can read and charge they broke when they break it. The rest of the bs the corporate media says is unofficial and entertainment.

      A reverse thought: I heard a dead teenager showed up on the queen's lawn (2012 recently.) What up with thaat bbc leg crossers! ?

      what to do, what to do
      Expose agenda 21
      Expose haarp technologies (more than one, and in more than one country)
      Expose nato (and others) aerial spraying over the USA
      Expose the dots and connection to/from local city councils to/from the globalist carbon tax / eugenics / monetary agenda
      that would help ameriCans.

    14. Re:I'm not in America! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Could you please paste a copy of the letter that you wrote to your own country's State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or whatever your own country calls its diplomacy agency?

    15. Re:I'm not in America! by tool462 · · Score: 2

      Seriously.

      Germany, I know you were itching for some Lebensraum a few years back. Well, have you seen how much room we have over here? You could stretch your legs from here to eternity! And many of us are of German descent, so you could play that angle too!

      Danke,
      --Desparately-Seeking-New-Vaterland

    16. Re:I'm not in America! by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 2

      Yes,help us please!

    17. Re:I'm not in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can start working on an Internet which isn't controlled by the US.

    18. Re:I'm not in America! by duguk · · Score: 1

      I think we can start working on an world which isn't controlled by the US.

      This is a US law that'll affect the rest of the world; so I FTFY.

    19. Re:I'm not in America! by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Check your own government. The media cartels are trying to pass similar laws around the world. I know of the UK, Spain, and Australia off the top of my head, and probably other places.

    20. Re:I'm not in America! by duguk · · Score: 1

      Check your own government. The media cartels are trying to pass similar laws around the world. I know of the UK, Spain, and Australia off the top of my head, and probably other places.

      The UK tried to pass similar laws in 2010, but it thankfully failed. Since then, there has been some ISP forced to block some sites. I assume to bring this back, the UK Government are waiting to see what the US does; hence the question of how to help.

    21. Re:I'm not in America! by AzN_DJ · · Score: 1

      I am an Australian citizen, and while I find that the blackout is inconvenient to *some* extent, I think it highlights a point - that the legislation of one country has too much power to affect the internet. To companies with such a large international base, I see this as to why you should not host everything in one country only, especially the US. Your whole operations could be brought down because of the laws of one country. However, this is why mirrors should be introduced across the globe. If the legislations in the US shut down a web page in the US, it does not effect the other 99.95% of the world trying to access the internet.

    22. Re:I'm not in America! by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      How about for the rest of us who aren't in America?
      I'd really like to help, since if this passes it's only a matter of time before it's in the UK too.

      What can we non-US citizens do to help?

      Boycott the companies that support SOPA/PIPA, like Universal, Adidas etc.

      I plan on buying products from competing companies that do not support SOPA, and post a picture of it on the social networks I frequent.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    23. Re:I'm not in America! by mapuche · · Score: 1

      We mexicans face a similar thread right now. The "Dorinng initiative" is being discussed at the congress (lnk in Spanish):

      http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=2&sm=2&id=12788

    24. Re:I'm not in America! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You could also get around it by following the link on Wikipedia's mainpage and following the instructions ;)

    25. Re:I'm not in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if our government has already bent us over and lubed us up for the corporations

    26. Re:I'm not in America! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1
    27. Re:I'm not in America! by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Goddamit, and it HAD to be sponsored by a corporate slut Senator from the PAN (National Action Party).
      Another link in Spanish, very good summary about this young privileged asshole and his proposed legislation:
      http://www.animalpolitico.com/blogueros-blog-invitado/2011/12/20/ley-doring-o-las-leyes-contra-las-personas-impipolicial/

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  10. Why is slashdot not participating? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would have expected the tech-savvy slashdot to do something similar to what google and reddit have done in protest. Why not?

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by airfoobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the people here already know.

    2. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Protesting to the informed would serve no purpose whatsoever.
      It's the general sheeple that need to be informed.

    3. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by DeathMagnetic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it that in every story about this, someone feels the need to question why /. isn't shutting down? These blackouts, in and of themselves, will not stop SOPA/PIPA. The purpose is to raise awareness and mobilize people who would otherwise be unaware or apathetic to the cause. /. readers are already well aware and united in their opposition, and frankly, stories such as this on the front page will so more good than a simple blackout to that audience. The blackout of Wikipedia, on the other hand, reaches a vastly wider audience, including millions who have never even heard of this legislation. The inconvenience of not having access to one of their most useful sites will hopefully serve as a wake-up call to these people and spark action from a much larger base. Think for a moment about why one size doesn't fit all when it comes to how sites can best raise awareness of the issue.

    4. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A majority of people will find out about this blackout today, not by visiting Wikipedia but by their traditional news outlets telling their audience about the acts of these websites. In todays world, we do not find out about protests in the streets of Cairo by being there. We find out by the news reports. In this protest, Slashdot and it's parent company chose to be silent.

    5. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does anyone on /. need their awareness raised about SOPA?

      Google could have done more, but as a matter of probability they are doing a good job -- if 1% of their users notice the big black rectangle over their logo, that amounts of millions of people who will be informed. I like Wikipedia's approach, although it is understandable that a business like Google cannot afford to shut down their operations for an entire day (especially when their competitors are not doing so -- even if Wikipedia were a business, what competitors can you think of?).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Do you want us to "protest", or do you want us to actually find something to do that might be useful and noticed by those with power to change things?

      If it's the latter, I suggest you go here... wait, you did. That's enough.

    7. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by samzenpus · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure we've only posted two stories about sites going black to protest SOPA. The first was about Reddit using this an an opportunity to educate people on the issue. The second was yesterday about wikipedia. You a correct in that we didn't mention Reddit in that story.

    8. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      All the people here already know, but how many of them have already called their representative?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you good money that many of "the informed" understand this matter just about as much as "the general sheeple."
       
      but if you want to live in a fantasy land where you think your average Slashtard is hip to understaninding this you can just stay asleep. Thanks for being on of the sheeple.

    10. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Why is it that in every story about this, someone feels the need to question why /. isn't shutting down?

      Unplugging the server is a bit drastic, yes. It's a numbers game however and any way to show support or solidarity is what increases the "head count" on the evening news. It's a crappy cat and mouse game but whether it's lobbyist money, participating websites, or informed public, the numbers are all that matter in politics.

      Pleased to see /. decided to do something in the end.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    11. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by EricX2 · · Score: 1

      They are.

      What does this mean?

      Note: This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA.

      Blackout isn't the only method of protest.

    12. Re:Why is slashdot not participating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's the general sheeple that need to be informed.

      What an incredibly elitist statement. Fuck you.

  11. I thought this too by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    But I think a dark /. would be a good solidarity statement anyway. Geeks who weren't planning to do anything special in protest today might put some extra effort in.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But I think a dark /. would be a good solidarity statement anyway. Geeks who weren't planning to do anything special in protest today might put some extra effort in.

      Indeed. I for one would put extra effort into dispelling the myths people keep coming up with. Like how the proposed DNS filtering system breaks DNSSEC, despite the fact DNS resolvers would use the response code REFUSED (see RFC 1035) for A/AAAA/CNAME related queries which would tell the DNSSEC client that the resolver refused to resolve it's request, not fake it. This doesn't break the DNSSEC zone chains and doesn't prevent DNSSEC validation regardless.

      Or how people completely misrepresent the purpose of the DNS filter, which is to stop copyright infringing websites from posing as legitimate sites and charging customers for advertising time or trick them into paying for a product that isn't actually genuine.

      It is not intended to be a magic stop all for all piracy like people who are trying to stop PIPA and SOPA are claiming. It's meant to make the line between genuine and non-genuine content much easier to see.

      Not to mention these anti PIPA and SOPA advocates conveniently forget to note that a lot of the take down issues are more of a problem when it comes to the already existing DMCA because there is ZERO validation by a judge.

      The only additionally area (talking about the scope in take downs) that the DMCA does not particularly cover where SOPA and PIPA are intended to deal with is a loop hole that sites like the pirate bay exploit. Where they are not handling copyright infringing content directly and by doing so, they are in a loop hole of US law where the domain cannot be closed despite the fact there is 100%, absolute clear intent in their assistance of doing copyright infringement.

      Now, there are definitely issues with SOPA and PIPA, mainly the lack of evidence requirement before a judge should be a changed (although I expect that many judges will want to see some evidence regardless - They didn't get into their position by screwing people, despite what people think). Yes, there will be abuses, all laws will get abused at some point or another. But when you compare the abuses to current existing laws, there isn't actually that much more it could do.

      And before someone makes the argument that they can make a website poof, if you actually read the legislation, that is a last measure when there has been no cooperation with the people involved in the matter. The decisions can be challenged in court just fine, there is nothing that says you cannot do that, just like with the DMCA.

      It pisses me off so many people get their information from a 3rd party sources and don't even bother verifying the information. You're on the Internet, you can get access to the original legislation as well as many related documents - Why are people advocating something that is blatantly lying about many things, didn't anyone learn in school to verify facts at all?

      People are lying worse than the politicians right now. I am appalled by so many people who represent themselves as someone knowledgeable in the tech industry.

      FYI: I am against SOPA and PIPA as I feel that the legislation should require more evidence on the copyright holder before they can get a judge to issue a take down request, but a lot of the other crap people are talking about is just complete utter bullshit to me.

      I don't want to associate with the anti SOPA and PIPA crowd.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:I thought this too by Jiro · · Score: 1

      And before someone makes the argument that they can make a website poof, if you actually read the legislation, that is a last measure when there has been no cooperation with the people involved in the matter. The decisions can be challenged in court just fine,

      This is not true, because of what the EFF calls the "vigilante provision". They just tell your service provider to cut you off. The service provider gets absolute immunity for doing so whether a trial would find you innocent or not.

    3. Re:I thought this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue isn't so much a literal breaking of DNS. Its the fragmentation such actions would cause between our Internet and the rest of the world. Once the censorship starts will the common person ever even realize they are inside a walled garden? This is the risk to the infrastructure. It isn't that it will literally break it, its that it will fragment it. Once fragmented, its a slippery slope down until we reach the point where our Internet no longer reflects reality. Will it happen right away? No, of course not. But I am not so naive that I believe the government won't abuse their new powers. This administration might not be so bad about it, but what about the next, or the one after that? The government almost never relinquishes powers; the reach and power of government only expands until it hits a point where the people are sick of it.

    4. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 0

      This is not true, because of what the EFF calls the "vigilante provision". They just tell your service provider to cut you off. The service provider gets absolute immunity for doing so whether a trial would find you innocent or not.

      What court refused to let a provider restore access when still fighting in court over the matter until it was resolved? I can't think of any.

      I can think of instances where they did let them do so, such as with the court cases that involved megaupload.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't so much a literal breaking of DNS.

      I'm sorry, but I read the information being used to counter the legislation and they did focus on literal breaking of DNS.

      Once the censorship starts will the common person ever even realize they are inside a walled garden?

      Although anecdotal... Considering people tell me the government is censoring websites when the sites go out from heavy traffic, no. The common man appears to be plenty paranoid.

      But I am not so naive that I believe the government won't abuse their new powers.

      Under this logic, we should get rid of DNS, because of how centralized it is and can be potentially abused by governments. I prefer to draw the line when there is abuse.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    6. Re:I thought this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like how the proposed DNS filtering system breaks DNSSEC, despite the fact DNS resolvers would use the response code REFUSED

      REFUSED won't work. Paul Vixie himself has come out criticising that proposal. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120111_refusing_refused_for_sopa_pipa/

      Or how people completely misrepresent the purpose of the DNS filter, which is to stop copyright infringing websites from posing as legitimate sites and charging customers for advertising time or trick them into paying for a product that isn't actually genuine.

      Sorry, but I don't give a FUCK about what it's "intended" to be used for, just what it WILL be used for. Just like the DMCA before it, it will be abused to give the copyright industry more control over the internet economy -- and worse.

      The only additionally area (talking about the scope in take downs) that the DMCA does not particularly cover where SOPA and PIPA are intended to deal with is a loop hole that sites like the pirate bay exploit.

      Funnily enough, TPB is immune to the provisions of this bill as it's currently written. You claim you've read the bill, right? Here's the short version: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/04205617341/if-sopas-main-target-is-pirate-bay-its-worth-pointing-out-that-thepiratebayorg-is-immune-sopa.shtml

      Now, there are definitely issues with SOPA and PIPA, mainly the lack of evidence requirement before a judge should be a changed (although I expect that many judges will want to see some evidence regardless - They didn't get into their position by screwing people, despite what people think).

      Sounds like you have no problem making streaming, DNS anti-circumvention and and linking criminal offenses... which this bill would do.

      And before someone makes the argument that they can make a website poof, if you actually read the legislation, that is a last measure when there has been no cooperation with the people involved in the matter.

      Yeah, just like ICE has been doing for the past year.

      It pisses me off so many people get their information from a 3rd party sources and don't even bother verifying the information.

      Were you referring to someone in particular? The person you were replying to, perhaps? Or was that a moment of self-reflection?

      People are lying worse than the politicians right now. I am appalled by so many people who represent themselves as someone knowledgeable in the tech industry.

      No they aren't, you're just wrong.

      FYI: I am against SOPA and PIPA as I feel that the legislation should require more evidence on the copyright holder before they can get a judge to issue a take down request, but a lot of the other crap people are talking about is just complete utter bullshit to me.

      Here's an idea about "evidence": how about those exalted "copyright holders" show some evidence that their already draconian monopoly needs more draconian measures. Let's see them show even a modicum of proof that more of ANY aspect of copyright is a good thing for the economy or for culture.

      I don't want to associate with the anti SOPA and PIPA crowd.

      They love you too.

    7. Re:I thought this too by MimeticLie · · Score: 2

      And before someone makes the argument that they can make a website poof, if you actually read the legislation, that is a last measure when there has been no cooperation with the people involved in the matter. The decisions can be challenged in court just fine, there is nothing that says you cannot do that, just like with the DMCA.

      You get 5 days to contest it before payment processors are barred from doing business with you and search engines must stop acknowledging your existence. That alone is alarming to me.

      Even worse, however, is the provision that gives immunity to those who take that action with just reasonable belief of infringement, i.e. the same requirement placed on DMCA takedowns. Know of anyone who's ever gotten even a slap on the wrist for sending out abusive takedowns? Yeah, me neither.

      DMCA is already abusive as hell in that fraudulent claims can be made and the only recourse the attacked individual has is a counter-claim that might not even get the content reinstated. There is no mechanism for holding those who abuse the system accountable. These bills would give this already broken system even more teeth. In the face of all that, what about the response seems hyperbolic to you?

    8. Re:I thought this too by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This is not true, because of what the EFF calls the "vigilante provision". They just tell your service provider to cut you off.

      I am assuming that when you use "They", you mean the Court? Because SOPA requires a Court Order to accomplish anything.

      The "Vigilante provision" you're referring to is in the section about obligations under a Court Order.

      Note, by the way, that the same provision protects the ISP/Search-Engine/whatever if they do NOT cut you off, though ignoring the Court Order is a bad idea.

      Note also that the ONLY power granted to the Attorney General by SOPA is the power to get a Court Order requiring ISPs/Search-Engines/whatever to stop doing whatever it was that offends.

      Also note the Affirmative Defense clause included in SOPA. It's a nice Get Out of Jail Free card for anyone who wants to use it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:I thought this too by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is, you have to go to court simply to RESTORE your access. Not to protect it in the first place.

      In the mean time, you could be down for days or weeks.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    10. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You get 5 days to contest it before payment processors are barred from doing business with you and search engines must stop acknowledging your existence. That alone is alarming to me.

      Which is a provision after a take down notice had been ignored if you read the SOPA legislation.

      Even worse, however, is the provision that gives immunity to those who take that action with just reasonable belief of infringement

      I have mentioned this in my own post that I am not happy with lack of evidence required to process such requirements. However, I did already note it was slightly better in the way that it requires a judge to approve the action.

      now of anyone who's ever gotten even a slap on the wrist for sending out abusive takedowns?

      I have seen counter actions (sample1, sample2), in summary, yes.

      DMCA is already abusive as hell in that fraudulent claims can be made and the only recourse the attacked individual has is a counter-claim that might not even get the content reinstated.

      Which is not always the fault of the law it self. Content hosting providers such as Youtube do choose not to host content for some people after receiving complaints, regardless of legitimacy involved - people agree to these terms when they signed up for the service. This is a different matter, it's not the law preventing the content to be returned at this point.

      There is no mechanism for holding those who abuse the system accountable.

      Apparently there is, because I linked some examples.

      In the face of all that, what about the response seems hyperbolic to you?

      Only thing I found annoying about your post is completely ignoring the good the DMCA has given, portraying it in a purely negative fashion.

      It has been used to protect copyright holders, even GPL software. It has given small companies and individuals an out to deal with issues that would otherwise require very costly lawyers for very legitimate issues that without would have only been achievable if they were a large firm with deep pockets.

      I feel these are genuine issues that need to be resolved, that said, I still don't agree with PIPA or SOPA legislation's methods and I still don't agree with what many are regurgitating (mainly misrepresenting what is intends to do and then going about saying it doesn't do that, then further blatantly lying about how certain things won't work).

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    11. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you have to go to court simply to RESTORE your access.

      In my example, this happened because megaupload was completely ignoring take down notices (not even countering), so they were cut off at a service provider level.

      In the mean time, you could be down for days or weeks.

      So, they should have just let it fly because they ignored genuine take downs?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    12. Re:I thought this too by Chas · · Score: 2

      Honestly, if they're in violation, take them to court. Have their access revoked THERE. Via court order.

      Doing "Shoot first and ask questions later" is ridiculous.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    13. Re:I thought this too by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You get 5 days [pcworld.com] to contest it before payment processors are barred from doing business with you and search engines must stop acknowledging your existence. That alone is alarming to me.

      No, the payment processors/etc have five days "or within such time as the court may order" to obey the Court Order.

      Note that they may contest the Court Order at any time at all. Note that they may ignore the Court Order, which will require the Attorney General to get a new Court Order (that's all he's allowed to do under this Bill).

      Note that disobeying a Court Order is Contempt of Court, and not to be done lightly.

      Note that demonstrating that "the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. " is sufficient to establish an affirmative defense against any action under this Bill.

      Key words above are "unreasonable economic burden". Nice thing about it is that once you've done the paperwork to present to the Courts the unreasonable economic burden, you can just forward a new copy to the Courts every time you get such an order.

      What's "unreasonable"? Well, that's why Google and Paypal have lawyers, right?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      REFUSED won't work. Paul Vixie himself has come out criticising that proposal. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120111_refusing_refused_for_sopa_pipa/

      I wasn't aware of how clients reacted to this and it certainly wasn't documented in DNS RFCs I read. Paul Vixie has a point. That said, one could use alternatively Paul Vixie's DNS RPZ system, which apparently existing DNS servers and DNSSEC implementations support for blocking even though it's not officially standardized and may need future development to function appropriately as he noted himself.

      Sorry, but I don't give a FUCK about what it's "intended" to be used for,

      Then why are you raising this point? My argument was against the fact that people raise a fake intent and then shoot that down intent, making the legislation look like it fails at what it was intended to do, when in actual fact it was intending to do something else.

      Funnily enough, TPB is immune to the provisions of this bill as it's currently written. You claim you've read the bill, right?

      See the section on facilitating copyright infringement in the legislation.

      Sounds like you have no problem making streaming, DNS anti-circumvention and and linking criminal offenses... which this bill would do.

      Sounds like you're an ass who didn't read my entire post when I said I don't support the bill.

      Were you referring to someone in particular? The person you were replying to, perhaps? Or was that a moment of self-reflection?

      I went ahead and read the legislation proposed, I also went and read a lot of RFCs on the matter. I consider myself to have done a fair good amount of research. Because everyone who kept telling me about SOPA couldn't even describe how DNSSEC worked to begin with, but told me it was going to break it. I even have doubts you read the legislation to begin with since you come to some conclusions referenced in articles that were taken out of context from the legislation.

      No they aren't, you're just wrong.

      You dismissed my previous point where people are misrepresenting the intent of the legislation. Sorry, you're wrong.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    15. Re:I thought this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS isn't a law, or even under the control of the US government. That is the point. Once they do actually control DNS, then yes, DNS ceases to be a reliable way to resolve domain names and we need to get rid of it. My point wasn't that having a centralized structure is the problem, its worked well enough for many years; it's constant expansion of government powers that create the slippery slope.

    16. Re:I thought this too by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Reddit is already dark today. I need something to occupy my time at work.

    17. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      DNS isn't a law, or even under the control of the US government. That is the point. Once they do actually control DNS, then yes, DNS ceases to be a reliable way to resolve domain names and we need to get rid of it. My point wasn't that having a centralized structure is the problem, its worked well enough for many years; it's constant expansion of government powers that create the slippery slope.

      I concede to your point.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    18. Re:I thought this too by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      This is not true, because of what the EFF calls the "vigilante provision". They just tell your service provider to cut you off. The service provider gets absolute immunity for doing so whether a trial would find you innocent or not.

      What court refused to let a provider restore access when still fighting in court over the matter until it was resolved? I can't think of any.

      I can think of instances where they did let them do so, such as with the court cases that involved megaupload.

      So basically you think that it is OK for your site to be arbitrarily shut down, if you can go and get a lawyer, appear before a judge, and get it turned back on?

      Sounds like a pretty solid violation of rights to me.

    19. Re:I thought this too by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Also released under the title "Presumed guilty until proven innocent."

    20. Re:I thought this too by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Guilty until proven innocent. We have that in Mexico, please do not let the USA get into that.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    21. Re:I thought this too by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if they're in violation, take them to court. Have their access revoked THERE. Via court order.

      Did you even read the legislation? A court order is required to revoke the access to begin with.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    22. Re:I thought this too by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      You talk as if the guilt of sites such as The Pirate Bay is beyond doubt, and as if there's no question that copying is a vile crime. Your choice of language is poor. "Loop hole"? "Exploit"? No, that is not the way to characterize what they do. Do search engines also "exploit loop holes" whenever copyrighted material appears in their search results? Of course not!

      People are lying? Everyone is a liar, except you, huh? And you're "shocked, I tell you, shocked!" Your world view needs some major revising if you seriously think that most people are lying, cheating scum. We didn't set out to engage in crime. Special interests twisted the law to make most of us into criminals. That's a problem with the law, not our morals. Those interests are the criminals, not the public. It used to be a crime to criticize the king. Today, we have the right to Free Speech. Some day, copying will not be a crime, and then what will you say? Just like that, we're not lying, thieving criminals any more.

      You shouldn't have to rush into court to stop your website from poofing. We have a long tradition of "innocent until proven guilty". No, the onus and burden should be on the accuser. Do you really not understand why? A website such as Wikipedia would be buried in accusations. There is no way they could possibly respond to every accusation in a timely fashion, and we'd very quickly reach that "last measure" because they didn't "cooperate". No one has to prove that they didn't commit a crime, or we'd never have time for anything else.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  12. I get the concerns by thepainguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    God knows, I don't know how many times a sales guy, or some piece of legislation, proposed something that would have been awesome in theory but that was just totally unmanageable in practice. On more than a few occasions I have seen these features go into production over my protests, only to see them die a rapid death when management realized how much time it was taking to keep them up.

    Having said that, I'm also an author and copyright owner and my book can be found on multiple pirate and other sites around the Internet. I would love the ability to press a button or fill out a form and have the link removed from every index.

    To be honest, I don't know how many sales this is costing me, but not knowing isn't a particularly comfortable feeling. Maybe the big boys can just blow off a certain amount of piracy, but I'm still very small and every sale, or lost sale, makes a difference.

    1. Re:I get the concerns by Kidbro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be honest, I don't know how many sales this is costing me, but not knowing isn't a particularly comfortable feeling.

      Do you know how many sales it is giving you?

    2. Re:I get the concerns by thepainguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Valid point.

      I guess I'd be more comfortable with/less bothered by this if I had a story that I could point to where a sale was driven by a download of pirated copy, but I don't have one yet (which of course doesn't mean it hasn't happened).

      I also think this may work better for authors with multiple works; they hook people with pirated copies and then make their money by selling them their new stuff. Many people seem to do this on the Apple eBook store. Of course, that could make an argument for breaking books up into smaller pieces (e.g. turn a three-section book into three separate books) so that this approach can be used.

    3. Re:I get the concerns by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real question is, how many sales does piracy cost you compared to how many sales it gains you by spreading awareness of your existence?

      I'm sure you're smart enough not to make the "pirated copy = lost sale" mistake, so think about it in this context; I typically "pirate" two classes of books, those which I already own as a physical copy and those which aren't available officially as a digital copy & that I need in that format for them to be practical (typically reference books). In neither case are there any lost sales involved - I won't re-buy books I already own on principle and there's no point in buying reference books that are never going to be used because they're too bulky to carry around with me - so even if you were able to magically take down all the links to pirated copies of them, it still wouldn't result in any additional sales. The same argument can be made for people who pirate because they genuinely can't afford to buy and people who pirate because they download *everything* they can get their hands on and then never look at it.

      Ultimately, the only group who are causing losses are those who pirate because they don't want to pay for something, which I have no doubt is a fair number, but even then, while this is obviously a huge problem for the people whose works are being pirated, it still doesn't impact the economy in the way that the MPAA/RIAA always claim because oddly enough, the money they're not spending on movies, games, books and music gets spent on other things instead.

      So, from what I can see of your book, it's Unavilable on Amazon and only available as a DRM'd PDF from your website in terms of digital formats; I don't trust Paypal as far as I can throw them, which means I can't buy a copy direct from you, so even if I wanted to I couldn't buy your book in a way that's convenient to me. That's when people get frustrated and think "sod it, I'll just download the damn thing" (For the record, that's not what I'm going to do).

    4. Re:I get the concerns by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Having said that, I'm also an author and copyright owner and my book can be found on multiple pirate and other sites around the Internet. I would love the ability to press a button or fill out a form and have the link removed from every index.

      Alas, for all the hype about SOPA/PIPA, it won't be that easy.

      Any action under SOPA/PIPA requires a Court Order. Which you won't get by pressing a button and filling out a form.

      Plus the Court Order has to be properly delivered to whoever it is. Not by you, mind, but getting an officer of the Court to go to East Bumfuckistan to deliver a court order and get a signed receipt for same is going to be interesting.

      And, of course, the Court Order can be challenged (yes, there's a provision for that in both bills), which would pretty much hold it in abeyance until the Court considered the case.

      After the wife came home last night bitching about the Bills in question, I went to the trouble of reading the actual texts of the SOPA and PIPA. They're remarkably alike, really, and neither is the bogeyman they''re being made out to be. Requirements for Court actions for pretty much everything means that they're less of a nuisance than the DMCA, when all is said and sifted.

      Oh, and they have a clause about prior restraint of the First Amendment - so no, you won't have to worry that you might be linking to a site that does that nasty ol' piracy thing.

      Actually, you won't have to worry about it in any case, unless your site is based outside the USA, and you're not a US resident. In either of those cases, current law allows legal relief, and SOPA/PIPA don't deal with you at all....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:I get the concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a link to your product? I know you were being polite by not including it, but now I'm interested in what you write and I *love* reading.

      Let's have it now.....

    6. Re:I get the concerns by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      The book is called "Elevator Pitch Essentials" and it talks about how to go about introducing and explaining complicated ideas to ordinary people. It grew out of work I do with scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs at Washington University in St. Louis.

    7. Re:I get the concerns by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      I do the same thing.

      I hate to buy books unseen and found "The Talent Code" on the Internet in PDF format -- it's top-10, which has to make me think that may be a strategy -- and read it and then paid for it by buying the eBook version through the Apple store. I think that's what many/most people will do. They won't begrudge your charging a reasonable price (e.g. $5 or $10). I know I don't. Also, $5 or $10 is a LOT more per copy than you're going to make versus going through a traditional publisher.

      But it's harder to do/takes balls when you're on the seller side.

      There's also the issue of having enough server capacity in case you get /.ed.

    8. Re:I get the concerns by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, one other person here that doesn't fall into the "copyright violation = lost sale" trap.

      So do you agree with these comments and the reasoning behind them?

    9. Re:I get the concerns by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real question is, how many sales does piracy cost you compared to how many sales it gains you by spreading awareness of your existence?

      That is the real question for copyright holders to rationally support SOPA, and I agree with your implication that it may be shaky ground. Rational societal support of SOPA is even more conservative than that.

      Society's balancing point is at delta copyright profit versus total cost of copyright enforcement. Your formula above, lost sales versus gained sales, is one of the factors in calculating delta profit. If that value is positive, copyright holders would support SOPA. But that is not enough for society to benefit from SOPA. For society to support it, delta profit must exceed total cost of enforcement. (if you are a pure economist -- libertarians would require still more justification for government enforcement) (authoritarians might require less, but authoritarians have no just standing in This Grand Experiment)

      That is how it is with all legislation and enforcement. If the cost of jaywalking is not very high at a particular intersection (very few car versus pedestrian incidents), you don't have to enforce the law too strictly. If a particular stretch of highway out in the desert is sufficiently desolate, you don't have to invest as much in enforcing the speed limit. Heck, we even have limits on murder enforcement -- if we didn't, there would be no such thing as a cold case file.

      We are acting as though we cannot stop writing more copyright law until infringement ceases to exist. As you rightly point out, this is not necessarily in the rational interests of the protected class. And beyond that is the rational interests of society, which are far more conservative regarding copyright enforcement.

      Considered in this coldly rational light, it is hard to think that we are anywhere but far beyond the rational societal balancing point of copyright grants and enforcement.

    10. Re:I get the concerns by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Many years ago I wrote a shareware HTML editor. It won awards and was featured on the cover CD of PC World magazine. Shortly after that a German pirate group released a crack for it (the application was not limited, the unregistered version just had a nag screen which the crack removed). Millions of downloads, no registrations as a direct result. For almost a decade, searching Google etc for the application would result in the first several pages being links to the crack. This pissed me off to no end, and in fact I still get people trying to request support on a cracked copy.

      However, the idea that I would hold Google responsable is just stupid, and that is what these bills do.

      I am staunchly against piracy. I write software for a living and it would be hypocritical of me to be otherwise. I am very much pro copyright as I do not want large companies like Microsoft taking my work and claiming it as their own. But the current laws, which put the onus of reporting copyright violations on the copyright holds, are more then adequate.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    11. Re:I get the concerns by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      "While this is obviously a huge problem for the people whose works are being pirated," Is it? I don't think so. Avatar was one of the top pirated movies ever produced and look how much it made. I think their real agenda is something very different than stopping piracy,I really do. Also,watch the video in my sig..It's a real eye opener as to how this got started in the first place. It's all about a power grab and they started the whole thing for their own greedy,megalomaniac reasons.

    12. Re:I get the concerns by Tsingi · · Score: 1
    13. Re:I get the concerns by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I guess I'd be more comfortable with/less bothered by this if I had a story that I could point to where a sale was driven by a download of pirated copy, but I don't have one yet (which of course doesn't mean it hasn't happened).

      Start pirating. You'll find yourself buying more.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:I get the concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I write software for a living too, though in my case it's tied to hardware. But I wrote a crack once for an old version of a popular Windows IRC client which also removed the shareware nag screen. I'd like to say fuck copyright. It benefits me more to be participate in free sharing of data than to collect copy license fees.

      I agree with you on the sentiment that companies should not be able to exploit your work without compensation. That's why I still support commercial copyright, but am completely against non-commercial, personal use copyright.

    15. Re:I get the concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more than likely not going to read your book, but if you tell me what book it is, I can download it a thousand times, put it on a flash drive, and send that flash drive to your mother.

    16. Re:I get the concerns by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      I can't buy a copy direct from you, so even if I wanted to I couldn't buy your book in a way that's convenient to me.

      Hear, hear! That's my favorite one, and I hope any book authors/content providers/etc here will listen up. You release your product in some manner where I find it difficult to impossible to buy it, and then you wonder about bad sales, rampant piracy, etc, etc.
      There are plenty of honest people who would buy your product, but if you release a DRM-ed PDF, or an e-book only edition (happened with a website I frequent), then people without e-book readers WILL NOT BUY IT. Similarly (as discussed recently on slashdot) if you release a game that will mess with my drivers and require constant internet connection for single-player, I will not buy it. It isn't even the principle so much (as the OP). I don't trust paypal, but I have a paypal account. However, I also don't have an e-reader and I don't always have internet connection. So products that deliberatly ignore my situation are really of very little use to me.

    17. Re:I get the concerns by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      Been there done that with music.

      The difference, though, is how many times do you listen to the same piece of music (thousands) versus watch the same movie (maybe 10 times except for Top Gun ;-)) versus read the same book (twice?).

      When people talk about this, I'm not sure they are always comparing apples and apples.

    18. Re:I get the concerns by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Windows. Any DeFacto standard for that matter.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    19. Re:I get the concerns by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Any action under SOPA/PIPA requires a Court Order. Which you won't get by pressing a button and filling out a form.

      You can't just read a bill and assume the words of it mean anything. Bills apply to reality. You must account for all aspects of human nature and chains of possible effects when determining whether a bill is good or bad.

      Section 104 and 105 give immunity to people who act to block sites, funds, products, transactions...etc they themselves think are infringing with no due process consequences be damned. No way that will ever be abused by competitors or provide legal cover for actions against outfits like wikileaks.

      Actually, you won't have to worry about it in any case, unless your site is based outside the USA, and you're not a US resident. In either of those cases, current law allows legal relief, and SOPA/PIPA don't deal with you at all....

      Section 201 makes you a criminal for performing "happy birthday" if the cost the copyright owner sets per ear exceeds 1k. If you record someone singing the whole thing good luck with getting a court of law to deem this anything other than willfull infringement.

    20. Re:I get the concerns by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily that you buy what you pirated. Even if you don't buy what you pirate, you're more likely to buy other works by the same people, or you're more likely to talk other people into buying the work. When viewed in aggregate, it all averages out anyway. Don't focus on individual purchases. If piracy leads people to increase their entertainment budget, than piracy is good for the entertainment industry as a whole.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    21. Re:I get the concerns by darnkitten · · Score: 1
      Now, can you put some retail copies on amazon?

      I understand you don't get as good a deal selling there as on your site, but seeing the cheapest copy going for over $90 ensures that anyone searching for your book will at least consider pirating it.

    22. Re:I get the concerns by thepainguy · · Score: 1

      They are on the way. Evidently, a shipment went missing.

    23. Re:I get the concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I'd be more comfortable with/less bothered by this if I had a story that I could point to where a sale was driven by a download of pirated copy, but I don't have one yet (which of course doesn't mean it hasn't happened).

      I'll give you a few. One of my friends pirated Black Books, and english comedy. He gave me a copy, and then bought his own copy on DVD. I then bought a copy on DVD.

      I read about this show called Dead Like Me, where a girl was killed by a toilet seat that fell off the MIR space station. She became a reaper. My friend (who pirated Black Books) pirated Dead Like Me. He now owns the box sets, and the DVD movie. I also now own the box sets, and the DVD movie.

      We both also pirated every season of Stargate SG-1, and Stargate Atlantis, and own those.

      I also pirated every episode of Battlestar Galactica. I now own those in both BRD and DVD.

      I could go on for a while (I have a large number of DVDs and couple of dozen BRDs) but I think that should be enough for you.

  13. Just tried to sign the form on the Reddit page... by Tomsk70 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and got a response saying that the link did not complete because the site was down in protest over SOPA.

    Isn't that shooting yourself in the foot a bit?

  14. Congressional Dead Enders by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I listened to a clip of senate hearings on NPR this morning. After a stream of warnings by PIPA opponents, Patrick Leahy (D) said something to the effect of "If this bill is as bad as you say, it won't get five votes. If it protects content providers from piracy, it will pass easily."

    Way to ignore the point. He is admitting the rest of the country can burn as long as content industries are happy. That is the definition of special interest control.

    1. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If this bill is as bad as you say, it won't get five votes."

      He's assuming his colleagues will read it before voting on it. He should know better.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The irony being that SOPA/PIPA *doesn't* protect content providers from piracy any more than the DMCA did, DRM does or any other failed attempts to legislate their way out of this mess have done.

      Ultimately, there is no technical or legal measure that will prevent piracy. The *only* way you will stop piracy from being a problem is to make it a more attractive proposition to buy a legitimate copy than to download a pirated one which requires Speed (Don't make me wait 6 weeks after the DVD is released to download the movie), Flexibility (Give me the option of several formats and let me move between platforms, don't time limit it), Choice (Old stuff, obscure stuff - it barely costs anything extra to have it available as well as the brand new shiny things) & Sensible Pricing (*LESS* than the physical copy).

    3. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

      It sounds, from his comment, like even he hasn't read it. "If this bill is as bad as you say..." - wtf? He either didn't read it, or can't articulate the benefits - both very, very bad for the supposed author.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping for unintended consequences that come from the fact that the *vast* majority of copyrighted work is not owned or produced by corporations, but by individuals. If a law like SOPA is a powerful weapon, it's being placed into unintended hands. If you want to suggest that individuals and small producers won't be able to wield it, I will assert that the law would fail on Equal Protection grounds.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      "If this bill is as bad as you say, it won't get five votes."

      He's assuming his colleagues will read it before voting on it. He should know better.

      If people actually read these things we probably wouldn't have any free trade agreements. At least not the draconian ones we have today.

    6. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the spaghetti style (throw something at the wall, and see if it sticks) form of government: "Anything we manage to pass that doesn't have the masses revolt is a good law."

      And they wonder why the tech community has broken out the torches and pitchforks. Wouldn't want to brother the congressman from his important job of raising money for his next campaign, reading the bills before voting on them just consume valuable time.

      And he's not alone...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Those of us who read Slashdot understand that digital data is just a string of 1's and 0's. So ANY means of transferring data can be used for illicit purposes. To really stop copying, you would have to eliminate email, wifi, removable disks and drives, and every file protocol in existence, not just mess with the DNS lookup for some websites. The trick is getting the general public and legislators to understand this point.

      Commercial pirates and counterfeiters you can catch by "following the money". It has to get into their hands somehow, so trace the payments and you can catch them. Places like iTunes, NetFlix, and Steam show that if you provide good service at a reasonable price, most people are happy to use them. The other people who won't pay for anything and just want it free were never going to be your customers anyway. The best way to deal with that is make deals with the ISPs to carry your content, cause someone has to pay for that connection, and you might as well get a cut.

    8. Re:Congressional Dead Enders by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sensible Pricing (*LESS* than the physical copy).

      That part might not make sense. The vast majority of the costs for anything likely to be copyrighted is the preparation costs - the actual content creation costs, and the costs to format appropriately for the medium. If the physical format is old (and thus those fixed costs have already be spread across many sales) but the digital format is new, it can very well cost more per unit at first.

      This is true even for physical books vs ebooks (something like 85% of the cost of a book is the fixed costs, the physical printing and shipping and such is cheap - imagine how much cheaper DVDs must be). Charlie Stross has written about this at length. But the net is: don't expect it costs less to make just because there's no physical copy (though if you include paying for shipping then it's a better argument).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  15. It hit me this morning by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That when the radio was talking about companies like Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia protesting legislation put to Congress by the Motion Picture Industry that there is nothing that I can do. US government isn't much about people anymore. I have no clue how SOPA got this far.

    1. Re:It hit me this morning by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only actual power you have is your vote. However your senator and U.S. representative (and president, or presidential wannabe) need your vote. Do not forget this: money in politics is only a means to secure your vote, and your vote is what decides elections. So what you can do is write to your elected representative and/or opposition candidate(s). Tell them that your support is contingent on their promotion of Internet freedom. If enough people say that, succinctly, they will listen. If you can get ten or fifty or a hundred friends who live in the same district to sign the letter, so much the better.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:It hit me this morning by hrvatska · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SOPA and PIPA got this far because their supporters were rushing them through hoping they could pass before opposition against them coalesced. US senators and representatives are rethinking their support for PIPA and SOPA because they're getting flooded by emails and phone calls from their constituents who are opposed these pieces of legislation. Money certainly does speak loudly, but politicians do listen to their constituents if enough of them send a strongly worded messages of support or opposition on an important issue. Don't be so defeatist. Let your representatives know how you feel on issues and vote. It doesn't always make a difference, but you'd be surprised at how often it does.

    3. Re:It hit me this morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only actual power you have is your vote. However your senator and U.S. representative (and president, or presidential wannabe) need your vote.

      Since when? The only votes they need are those of the teeming masses of apathetic voters. The ones who just don't care.

    4. Re:It hit me this morning by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      My point was that I didn't vote for Facebook, Google or Wikipedia nor for the MPIAA, et al that proposed such a thing. Who can I vote for? US government is not about the people. I have no problem with the opposition, but the position was not posited by a government official, but rather private enterprise, and this is not how I learned that the US government worked.

    5. Re:It hit me this morning by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      idealism

      its so cute its stupid

      by the time you reach those levels in politics you have another 2 dozen like minded drones to fall in line behind them to salute the XYorZ party and rake in as much cash as you can. Most of these people don't even care about their own career anymore, they just want in long enough to make friends, get a fuckton of kickbacks and stock options and scout for their next position in megacorp while they sit back and constantly roll over favors till they die.

    6. Re:It hit me this morning by Tom · · Score: 1

      I have no clue how SOPA got this far.

      Money

      Ok, the longer, more formally correct and complete version would be a bit more complex, maybe slightly above the comprehension abilities of the average Fox News watcher, but this is /., so here's the complex, nuanced and correct long version:

      Money and corruption

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:It hit me this morning by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not quite as hopeless as it sounds. Part of the problem is that we're all mobilizing at once for SOPA and PIPA, when this is really an issue that should generate constant feedback. The internet community has gotten involved in the lawmaking process after it's become political. It's easy for people in Congress to dismiss hundreds of callers when they've already taken a stance on something. But before there's a call to action, hardly anybody actually takes the time to contact their representatives these days.

      The unfortunate fact is that most lawmakers lag behind in understanding of technical issues. You can assign blame for that how you will, but part of it is that their constituency often doesn't do a good enough job of informing them on the ramifications of policy before something like SOPA comes along.

    8. Re:It hit me this morning by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      This is actually not true. The apathetic don't vote at all. What you have to worry about are the pathetic voters. Those who care enough to go throw a ballot in the box, but do unwise or ill-informed things with them.

    9. Re:It hit me this morning by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      US government IS about people. It's just not about ALL people. It's about people who can exert influence on the government and elections are in the bottom on the list of types of influences.

      Any consolidated group (financially, ideologically, etc) with resources will automatically make every member of that group more important than you, an average ./ slacker. They are force, because they are a group with important similarities, interests, beliefs that keep them together and makes them work in socially cohesive manner.

      Industries, ethnical groups, foreign government PACs - that's the people US government is about.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    10. Re:It hit me this morning by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Have you seen many primary races with candidates that are actually pro-consumer though? Your vote means nothing if, even in a primary, it is between corporatist candidate A and corporatist candidate B.

      (I don't have that problem in Oregon. Our Congress folks are generally pretty 'pro-average-person').

  16. In a democratic country.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can do nothing. The US is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Rich People Inc (tm). If not SOPA and PIPA then some other stupid bill later on or, more likely, a whole bunch of little amendments slipped in here and there that do the same thing. We are screwed. I would suggest you invest heavily in Bros. Jack & Jim, their buddy Weiser and great big baggie of Mexico's finest, crawl into a dark, dark hole and weep for what could have been. It is all over but the shouting.

    1. Re:In a democratic country.... by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could, you know, grow a set of balls and engage with the political system to make the country better.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:In a democratic country.... by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      to do that, he has to be rich. to be rich, he has to play along. noone can put on a lifelong masquerade to hide his/her true intentions of eventually fighting against the rich, whereas playing along with them. you have to be one of them in heart and soul to play along.

    3. Re:In a democratic country.... by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      By "engage" I didn't mean run for office. I meant first and foremost to cast an informed vote; to write to one's representatives, perhaps to join advocacy groups like, for this issue, the EFF or EPIC; maybe march in protests, that sort of thing. Those do require some time and commitment but they certainly don't require wealth.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:In a democratic country.... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      I meant first and foremost to cast an informed vote; to write to one's representatives, perhaps to join advocacy groups like, for this issue, the EFF or EPIC; maybe march in protests, that sort of thing.

      and none of them will matter. they will still get their payment from the media corporations, and then just do what they ask them to do. even if they do not get elected next term, it doesnt matter - they will be sitting on a well placed position in those companies. on top of cash in their banks.

    5. Re:In a democratic country.... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      That doesn't take balls. It takes brains. Kinda the point.

    6. Re:In a democratic country.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder whether voting is really legitimate action when candidates on both sides are vetted by powerful parties with a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

    7. Re:In a democratic country.... by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Who said you have to vote for the powerful parties?

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  17. Craigslist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Craigslist the Ron Paul of anti-SOPA websites participating today?

    Top 100 website. Top 50 even maybe.

  18. Head in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By defining it as "domestic," Wikileaks would then fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws.

    That's not a matter of definition. The domain wikileaks.org is, de facto, under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, now. The .org top level domain is assigned to and operated by an American company under the jurisdiction of American law. Country code top level domains exist so that every country can establish its own rules regarding their part of the domain namespace.

  19. Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only correct thing to do is to abolish all copyrights and patents and to prevent complete decay and decline of the political and economic systems.

    more
    comments
    on this same
    topic

    I am posting the links to the comments here, because they apply to each and every situation and you can follow those threads if you are wondering as to how /. crowd responds to the idea, and it's not favourable here.

    The reason why /. crowd doesn't like the idea of abolishing copyrights and patents is due to high degree of hypocrisy. How many people want to see government picking up the bills for other types of failing businesses, like stores, manufacturers, miners, medical clinics, transport companies, telecoms, banks, insurance, etc.etc.?

    The point is that copyrights and patents are standing on the way of innovation and invention and economic progress rather than helping it in any way.

    In one of the threads I mentioned the case of Louis C.K. - he didn't need the copyright laws to protect him from anything, he is not going after people downloading his show for free, but he is offering to download his show from his site for $5 a pop and he made over million bucks by now. In that thread people argued that copyright still applies to Louis C.K. work, but they missed the point - he specifically offered a non-DRMed version and he said that he understood that people would be sharing his show on torrents and download sites, and it didn't bother him, it was a business risk he was willing to take.

    Just like a new restaurant owner takes a business risk of opening his business in some specific location, sinking his capital into it (or borrowed capital) and risking losing the investment and time it took to build up that investment capital. Same thing with somebody writing a book or a play or a song or a shooting a movie or a show or painting a picture, whatever, it takes time to build up capital to open a restaurant, it takes time to write a book, it takes time (money) to make a show.

    It does not matter to the market how you do it - you shouldn't be protected from failure in the market by government, nobody should be protected that way, it distorts the market, and just like with protections of money (default on gold promise in 1971), protection of mortgages (insurance by FHA, F&F,) FDIC, any type of protection by government, it all turns sour and goes bad and hurts the economy.

    The only correct way is to let the market function, those who can rely on trade secrets should do so, but this encourages competition if there is no government protection against failure.

    If Louis C.K. sucked and his shows weren't popular, he would have lost his investment. SO WHAT? Instead he proved that his shows are worth paying $5 for even with many people downloading the shows for free he still made enough money to continue working that way. His business model is sound, the people who believe their business model must be protected by government regulations are wrong and the government shouldn't be serving any company. Government for the people, by the people, of the people, right?

    So it's hight of hypocrisy to be PRO-copyright and PRO-patent while complaining about bank bailouts also with public money! After all, the copyright police (FBI and such), that's also public money. The prison system where people can go for violation of copyright also is public money.

    Many don't see the problem with their hypocrisy, but they also do not want SOPA and PIPA.

    Well you can't have copyrights and patents and NOT have SOPA and PIPA eventually.

    Just like you can't have abolition of the Cons

    1. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by rujholla · · Score: 1

      ridiculous

    2. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      hypocrite

    3. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Oh, you are SO insightful. NOT.

    4. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      hypocrite.

    5. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Now I am not sure if I replied to you without a good reason, the comment threads on /. are not exactly user friendly.

      If your comment was to mine, then my previous comment stays, if not, sorry.

    6. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by fnj · · Score: 1

      I suggest clicking "Parent" to see who I am responding to. It's certainly not you. And I understand perfectly that it is hard to follow threads. This presentation of threads on /. is pathetic. It used to be far better. You know, when slashdot's performance was actually fine before they ruined it.

    7. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

    8. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by brainzach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you write your own book, do you want a big business to copy and selling your work without giving you a dime?

    9. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      How do you manage to be wrong on EVERY subject?

      You could - maybe - make an argument for abolishing patents on creative work. Even there I would say it's a bad idea, but let's pretend for a second that it's not. Your argument is still ludicrous when we consider patents on technology that requires hundreds of millions in development costs. If your goal was to bring the industrial world to a screeching halt, you couldn't have designed a better plan.

    10. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      I agree we should abolish patents. They're state-sponsored monopolies and in the modern world are given out regularly for things that are obvious and should not be patent-able. Its an arms race, and creativity loses. As soon as European developers went on the record saying "I would love to serve America, but given the law over there, I will have to refuse to sell to the United States." When it costs nearly nothing to distribute your product (virutal) and you still turn down sales, something is VERY, very wrong. We're crippling ourselves.

      However, I'm not sure we should completely abolish copyright. Open source permissive licences require copyright, in reality, to work. Without copyright, you don't need open source licences as much, but at the same time, you can't require that other people who modify your software also release theirs open source. People are free to use you software and modify it and sell it but keep it closed-source. That is a concern. Also, artists could easily be ripped off. People would start selling books they didn't write, even though I absolutely HATE patents, I feel like works should be protected.

      The solution is not to abandon copyright, but reform it. It should be limited to the original term (30 years?) only, and extensions SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. As the dissenting voice on the supreme court case said (who was it? Ginsberg?) allowing extensions to the copyright again and again effectively allows for an infinite copyright, which was directly banned in the original law. That is the problem we have now, is the infinite copyright that lobbyists have bought themselves. Disney just keeps throwing money at congress to protect them. Ironic since all of Disney's early works took advantage of public works! Also, disgusting. As they said, the idea that an artist would make a work purely because his children's children could profit from it is beyond insane. Artists should be protected to create and profit from their ideas, but only for their lifetimes at most. Their wealth can pass to their children, but not the copyright.

      The difference is that patents, especially software patents, are over logic and math and science; things innate to our world, that anyone could discover. Artistic works are unique and created by the artist, one in infinity, and it is very likely that had the artist not made that work, NOBODY would have ever made that work. Similar, yes, but not the same. On the other hand, patents would generally be discovered by someone else, INEVITABLY. Its just a matter of time and resources and demand, or possibly just luck. That luck shouldn't be rewarded with a monopoly. But a single author should be rewarded with protection for their unique work.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    11. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Nope. One can believe in copyright, but oppose draconian measures like SOPA.

    12. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      There must be no government standing in the way of anybody doing so, correct. Of-course your name is on the book, and with today's distribution channels over the Internet it's not difficult to set up your own distribution channels if you already went through all of the work needed to create your product.

    13. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you honestly buy a (recent) book if you knew they author would be getting no compensation for your purchase? It's one thing to pirate something and willingly not compensate the author, but to pay money for a work and not compensate the author... who would do such a thing unless the price for compensating the author was absurd?

    14. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Again, I already wrote too many comments on this topic, so I'll just redirect you to where I answered this same question (if you care to read.)

    15. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that bothered Shakespear and Mozart

    16. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      I agree with a lot you said, but I feel like with books and certain digital works that it would be too easy for another company to copy and produce the product (with a work like a book, you can buy one copy, and then scan all the text, and start making copies yourself. It isn't like a hot dog company where in order to steal your hot dogs, I'd have to buy them and then sell them, so you still win. Or I have to steal them, in which case it is theft. This isn't theft, people REALLY need to stop saying that, but there is a reason why we protect against copyright infringement. It should only apply to commercial use, fair use needs to be GREATLY reinforced to apply to a great many more things. Anything nonprofit should be exempt from copyright infringement.)

      Definitely, Piracy is a problem with perceived market value not matching the ONLY price you can get a product for. Here in the west, we don't believe in haggling, which is a huge failure of the business model. Somebody paying you $40 is better than paying you $0, so really you should get past your $50 sticker price if they don't have that much. With older products, trying to make a profit margin, it wasn't quite the same. But with digital products, your price is entirely in R&D, and there's practically 0 manufacturing and distribution cost, so it costs you nothing to sell at a lower price to additional customers.

      Valve's Gabe Newell is saying the same thing, Russia always has lots of videogame pirates and everybody says its a huge problem, you should just ignore Russia. But its BECAUSE they ignore Russia, as soon as Valve started releasing games localized to Russia on the same day they release the other versions, BOOM, Russian sales of their games exploded, and continue to be over 3x what the market says they should be. They tried those huge steam sales, and WHAM, games sold like CRAZY. Ends up if you charge a reasonable price, FAR more gamers will be able to afford your product, and you'll end up making tons more money in the long run. They've been doing sale after sale after sale since then, and they STILL can't believe how much the games on sale are selling. Every possible metric valve has used has been WAY off, so they're completely reformulating the business strategy of video games right now.

      But again, what do you say to what I said about open-source? You can't have an open-source copyright licence if there's no copyright. Somebody can steal your work, add to it, and then sell his work, WITHOUT giving you credit and WITHOUT publishing his source code. He profits from you, but nobody can profit from him. Open-source REQUIRES copyright law.

      And Louis CK was able to sell direct because his fans know him, they trust him, and they would rather work through him.

      What about an author who hasn't been published before? He works out an agreement with a publisher, they sell his book... And some other publisher who is very well known copies the book and prints it themselves, undercutting the first publisher. By mass production and by having leagues of people who trust them, they are able to sell other people's books more than those people themselves. And if it isn't a well known author, then people won't think about "hm, maybe I should go check out this guy's web site and see if I can buy it direct?", maybe they'll go for convenience and buy whichever version is at Wal-Mart. Hell, there's nothing saying that the ripoff version even has to include his name if there's no copyright law, so they can totally attribute it to themselves, and people shopping would see the book and have literally NO idea that it was somebody else's work, and that they're not helping that person.

      If all citizens were very intelligent, even-tempered, open-minded, and had lots of free time to look up everything, I'd totally agree with you.
      But they don't. So we need some protection for authors. We really do. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

      The only way I can see around government copyright protections is some kind of Consumer Repo

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    17. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by brainzach · · Score: 2

      It is much easier for a big publisher to delete your name from the book and use its existing distribution channels to out compete you.

    18. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Forget entitlement. If information was free then we'd work on physical goods manufacturing and have stable production skills (not law-based for their existence). The government would invest in public research. Programming would focus around robotics of manufacture. GPL open source would exist via contract law. We'd be headed in a much more positive situation (after a transition period).

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    19. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr - No, I'm not voting for Ron Paul.

    20. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Well actually who is going to stop a publisher from doing it right now? You think copyright laws can stop a publisher from doing that same trick? You are mistaken. You give your book to a publisher, they can just as well do that same thing, and you won't be able to do anything about it in current system, after all, publisher is likely bigger than you and has more lawyers.

      It's your word against publisher's word that you were the one who wrote it.

      OTOH if you submit your manuscript to the government copyright office, then there is a record that you were first.

      However this means little with good lawyers, anything can be construed against you, and publisher may have much deeper ties to government structure than you do, and if past performances are any indication of future, then the US copyright office officials may just be found doing coke off the toaster ovens and fucking publisher employees.

      The point is that if it is useful to have some form of a RECORD that you were first to submit a manuscript (for example), then a private firm can occupy that niche just as much, and at least in the private sector there is possibility to have competition, which doesn't exist in government, so if there was demand for such a service, you could choose one.

      Of-course today, with the way we do business, you could encrypt your book, sign it with a key, post it on an open forum like slashdot and the dates on your comment would then prove your precedence.

      OTOH, what is the point for a publisher to do what you just suggested? Why would authors work with a publisher with such a track record, and when the word got out that the publisher did this (even once), it could not be hidden from the public record again, just look at the ridiculous attacks against Ron Paul based on old newsletters that James B. Powell wrote. And that's a guy who wants to end the most racist policies that US government has - War on Drugs, War on various brown people and Muslims all around the world.

      --
      A publisher wants to keep a good name.

      Authors want to work with publishers that have a good name.

      Consumers want to buy books from actual authors (as the Louis C.K. experiment has shown)

      Consumers also have the easiest way to do research about whatever product they want to buy ever with the Internet and search engines, etc.

      And the very last point - if you provide a good product, people will buy from you even if others buy through channels that you do not control, again as Louis C.K. has shown - people download his books for free from torrents, etc., yet he had enough revenue that he donated a quarter of it already to various charities.

      Stop with the government based protectionism, the consequences of it are too awful to want to keep the insignificant benefits.

    21. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      A guy in this thread made a similar point, I have a comment there, it's same exact thing that I replied with already, so thus the link.

    22. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      There are some fairly good arguments there, but I reject that you would have no legal recourse in the current system. Even if you couldn't afford lawyers and they have a trained team of attack dogs from Harvard Law, if you've got an original draft and damning information, some lawyer is going to be willing to go at them with you for a chance at a percentage of the profits.

      Regardless, You still haven't answered my first question: What about Open-Source? It needs copyright law to be enforceable.

      And, I predicted your argument about having a neutral agency (see what I said about a possible Consumer Reports) and offered counterarguments. Please read and refute them. only some of what you say in the other link applies to what I said. Other places, I considered those responses and provided potential flaws already.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    23. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Also as to the open source - GPL is just as much a violation based on the copyright as the copyright itself.

      If there were no copyrights in the first place, GPL would not exist even. There is OpenBSD, and once again - nobody owes anybody to support their business model through government force. And I also have a comment concerning that situation (relying on the supposed benefits of the government force and the consequences of it, while really getting the shaft with the actual and not the 'intended' consequences).

      and here is what I think about people reconciling there incongruent views on copyright and SOPA, and it's not flattering.

    24. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Consumer Reports which informs you who the original author of each product is and who you SHOULD pay for it.

      - you assume people will ever pay for your material, what if you are wrong? What if Louis C.K. was wrong and he wasn't as good as he thought and people would just go in majority to torrents?

      It means this: it's not a viable business model.

      Same thing happens to other businesses all the time. Majority of new restaurants close within 6 months of opening. So they failed, they sunk investments and time into it.

      During the Internet bubble all sorts of people lost all sorts of money on all sorts of weird 'business' schemes, so what? It's a private problem, private capital and private risk.

      The reward may be huge for those who make it, thus Louis C.K.'s million and counting.

      But we cannot as a society assume to pick up the tab for every failing business, we don't need businesses that are failing to be around (and that's why bank bail outs were wrong, and all other bailouts, and it's a bigger question than copyrights and patents, it's the function of the government).

      But even then, what if the person who ripps of the author provides a better product in some other way? Its cheaper, its got better paper, I don't know. But what do you do? If you're stuck between buying it for $5 from the evil corporation, or $15 from the author, which do you take?

      - AFAIC the consumer must do what is best for CONSUMER, not for the author.

      If the consumer decided that this book (based on Internet reviews for example) is worth the time and he was willing to try it out and paid less amount of money (say got it for FREE, just like Louis C.K.'s experiment had - he was competing against his own show on torrent, and you can hardly beat a 0 price, can you? Well, unless you provide the free book and a blow job I guess), then the consumer could decide to SUBSIDISE THE BUSINESS MODEL because he VOLUNTEERED to do so.

      Do you not see that it is the MARKET that sets the tone at the end of the day. Failing businesses must fail, and those who are not failing are not failing not because of government intervention (we KNOW what government intervention leads to eventually - complete and utter collapse and disaster), but the succeeding businesses succeed because they actually provide the customer with the best value and the customer is a willing participant in the transaction.

      And no, you are absolutely not guaranteed an income from your effort. Majority of businesses fail, they weren't 'bailed out'. So what? They restructured, got back to work, tried again. It's not like I came up with this, it's how the world actually works.

    25. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      So you agreed that GPL would not exist without copyrights. Yes, THAT WAS MY POINT. There's no GPL. So there's no open-source. Now, could you please consider that?

      Up until this point, I thought you were a very well-spoken man with some very valid libertarian views.

      But those links you just sent me to changed my mind somewhat. In the first, you argue that copyright is wrong because... people can ignore laws. Also, the US Government does a lot of bad stuff.

      Uh, agreed, but how does that have anything to do with copyright? It doesn't. You're arguing for banning of government and the ending of all law. Thats rather extreme, I know lots of complete anarchists as well (sorry, I know anarchy is a loaded word these days, trust me I don't consider it to just be rioting in the streets, I'll give the idea some merit) but regardless we are arguing about changing COPYRIGHT law, in the EXISTING government. You want to start advocating absolutely no government, fine, but that is a completely different discussion. You're coming out of nowhere here, and your logic does not follow.

      Then on the second one, you also get very extreme and make the argument that ANY copyright INEVITABLY MUST become INFINITE COPYRIGHT. I completely reject this argument, and you haven't provided anything to support it other than that YOU FEEL THAT WAY. Well, sure, thats a possibility, and I'm really sorry you feel that way, but you are treating these as verifiable, proven facts, when they are instead YOUR INKLING.

      I like that joke too, Not sure if it was Churchill, I've heard it attributed to lots of people. But not sure at ALL what that joke has to do with anything.

      You chastise someone else for making the slippery slope argument, but that was YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT as well.

      In my VERY FIRST post I presented the option : what if copyright were restricted to the original term (30 years?).
      What if Eldred v. Ashcroft had gone the other way, and SCOTUS had gone with Breyer's dissention that it allowed for indefinite copyright which was unconstitutional?

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    26. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 1

      How would a business (or anyone) truly sell my work in a world without copyrights? Even if a business did take my creation and try to resell it as their own, their first customer would turn around and put it up on the internet for all to have freely.

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    27. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree that business' should live or die based on the free market. I absolutely agree they shouldn't be bailed out, and we as a society shouldn't pick up the tab for failing businesses. Not just we shouldn't have to, but we shouldn't even do it at all, because the results are disastrous. If you reward failure, you change the survival heuristic and we will tend towards worse and worse. Agreed.

      But like I said, "If all citizens were very intelligent, even-tempered, open-minded, and had lots of free time to look up everything, I'd totally agree with you. But they don't. "

      Louis CK is already famous. He has lots of money from working with the existing system, so he was able to self-finance this experiment. He wasn't going to starve if it failed.
      What if people just didn't hear about it enough? What if he couldn't afford the web hosting? What if.. a million other possible scenarios.

      Consider Lugaru on iPhone. It was released open source, and somebody took the source, went against the licence rules, and put it up on the iTunes store for $1 instead of $10. So it started selling more than the legal version did.
      Because the owner of Lugaru had an open-source contract restricting commercial use, he was able to file with Apple and got the knockoff taken down from the store, eventually. But Apple was a huge pain in the ass, and almost ignored him because he was indie. They only finally complied with him because he had a legal right, and he could sue otherwise.

      But Apple represents a free market company! If they handled this internally, and the owner of Lugaru was able to just declare the licence, then we don't need a government anywhere involved!

      But what if Apple hadn't caved? What if they only relented because their lawyers realized they would lose in court?

      What if a company put out a product like the Kindle, and then started releasing everybody else's books for free on their Kindle product. What do you do? You go to the company, they say sorry, but this is how we're doing our business. You can't even somehow try to compete, because the ONLY version available on that product is their copy. You can't do anything but try to peddle your book yourself, while sales of the e-book version push the Kindle device worldwide. You're indie, so maybe everybody ignores you. Maybe somebody listens, and you get Consumer Reports to say "boo to the Kindle", does that stop people?

      You seem to say yourself, that whoever offers the most value to the consumer wins. The consumer does what is best for the consumer.

      But people do not know what is best for themselves, we are not omnipotent after all, and we can't always plan for the long run. Buying the Kindle device is cheaper since you don't have to pay for books, so the consumers all flock to it. Then the writers all get different jobs since their books aren't selling, so now there aren't any good books on the Kindle device because they don't have anything to copy. New writers get hired to churn out replacements and the entire industry suffers. Art suffers.

      You argue that people would volunteer the money. That works for things online, but how are people going to know that I wrote this book if the book is being sold halfway across the planet and I don't even know that my own book is being stolen? And if I find out, how do I inform all these people?

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    28. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Its not like it was advertised "here's the legal $10 lugaru, and here's the $1 knockoff lugaru you shouldn't download because it was pirated"

      They sat next to each other in the app store, looking very similar. They both described the same game, with slightly different icon art. (but both the art being taken from the same game, just different places, they both seemed entirely legitimate).

      TONS of people bought the $1 version thinking it was a sale, or a mistake on the owner's part, or just not caring enough to investigate the issue.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    29. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      There's no GPL. So there's no open-source. Now, could you please consider that?

      - not true at all, people don't write open source code just because there is GPL.

      BSD, Apache, and tons of other licenses exist, but actually all of them do use copyright NOW, because that's what everybody is doing. Without copyright nobody prevents people from building free software, what cannot be done is EULAs and Licenses WITHOUT CONTRACTS cannot be expected to mean anything in terms of government protections, that's the difference, and it does not follow at all that any of the code wouldn't be there, in fact I do absolutely think that copyright PREVENTS code from getting into public domain, because without any copyrights and patents the code would still exist, but any of the code that was ever created could be immediately used by anybody who got their hands on it and there wouldn't be GPL, but it wouldn't need to exist!

      None of the Unix legal battles would exist. We would have much more code in public domain right now without copyrights and without licenses, so much code that was lost in so many products and projects would be in public space, probably hundreds if not thousands of times more projects would be in public domain.

      You're arguing for banning of government and the ending of all law.

      - then you didn't understand what I wrote.

      I am completely for restoring of the law - the most important law, the law that constraints the government, the law, without which there are no protections against government power, there are no freedoms, there are no rights - the Constitution is the law that prevents government from abusing your rights.

      You don't understand it? Well, it's time for me to go to bed, I can't do more here.

    30. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by brainzach · · Score: 1

      Copyright laws prevent publishers from doing it now. It wouldn't be hard finding a lawyer because it would be easy case and there is lots of money to be made.

      There is a reason why publishers first get permission from authors before selling their work instead of just stealing the material.

    31. Re:Abolish copyrights and patents. by brainzach · · Score: 1

      That can exists with current copyright laws.

      If you want to publish your material using GPL, then you have every right to do so. The government can fund more money for public research and require that its work be GPL too without interfering with copyright laws.

  20. can we go back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we go back to the good old days of using IP numbers instead of text string that goes thru a DNS server.
    I think it might be harder for governments to censor that.

    1. Re:can we go back by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          Most likely, no.

          If a site was censored because of SOPA, several things could happen. They could be cut off from any electronic financial transactions. No online sales or donations. No ad revenue. They couldn't afford to stay up, unless people started mailing cash and checks. Even still, they could lose their bank accounts, therefor being unable to even cash the checks.

          The IP, or even the whole ISP could be blackholed by the US Gov't. That would stop anyone who's network traffic transits the United States from reaching the site anywhere in the world. Blackholing the ISP would mean that every site hosted there would disappear. No amount of circumventing DNS would help you.

          Any cooperative nation can do the same thing. I would suspect several European nations would pick it up fairly quickly. As it expands, I would not be surprised to see them start blocking large swaths of the Internet as "illegal" and "untrustworthy". Those "untrustworthy" areas would be countries that don't cooperate with the US.

          I would expect that Slashdot would be taken down fairly quickly. They illegally copy story content. It's legal under "Fair Use" right now. It wouldn't be after SOPA. What people put in the comments are definitely illegal. That would result in Geeknet being entirely blocked. So enjoy Slashdot while you can.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:can we go back by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Please, no. If we do that, they'll be forced to find a way to.

      Let's just continue to pretend it doesn't exist so that their half-assed censorship attempts can also pretend it doesn't exist.

    3. Re:can we go back by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, bitcoins would become less of a joke if people bought something other than weed and botnet time with them. I'm not sure that currency would really hold up, but there's always a black market for a desired good if normal payment is outlawed - it's just a question of what new form the financial transfer would take.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:can we go back by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          In an internationally accepted fashion that wouldn't have a high risk of interception? Probably cash mailed to mail drops. That'd probably be Euros, as the US Dollar has been ... well ... not so strong.

          As anyone who has dealt with drugs to non-locals in the US knows, ship by UPS or FedEx. The gov't can tie crimes to transferring anything related to a "crime" via USPS, but that doesn't apply to courier services.

          Back to the good old mail order days. Oh how we are progressing. If the gov't gets their way, we'll be back to print catalogs, and printed newsletters mailed to interested parties. Talk about dropping a nuke on the information superhighway.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:can we go back by lgw · · Score: 1

      That'd probably be Euros, as the US Dollar has been ... well ... not so strong.

      Not following international finance? The dollar is increasing seen as the least crazy currency, as the financial meltdown of the EU continues (S&P really laid into euorpean soveriegn debt this week). The only reason the markets aren't betting on the dissolution of the Euro is that there's no actual mechanism for that - much as Greece et al need to return to currencies thay can print like crazy, no one has an actual plan for how Greece could return the the Drachma.

      Back to the good old mail order days. Oh how we are progressing. If the gov't gets their way, we'll be back to print catalogs, and printed newsletters mailed to interested parties. Talk about dropping a nuke on the information superhighway.

      Yeah, I can see that as the SOPA-enabled future (though perhaps Freenet might actually take off in that case).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  21. There are two big things: contact your representat by mapkinase · · Score: 2

    No. Instead of being reactive, we need to be active.

    Reactive is to fight laws. Active is to change laws and constitution, so SOPAs won't be possible in the future.

    Businesses should not be taken down, harmed, punished, etc other than by court decision.

    One does not have a right to go to police and shut down the business without court order. It started long time ago when health inspectors were given a right to shut down businesses (remember Friends episode?) and people let it be in the same name of security and safety.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  22. Get People to Panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA?

    Take SOPA/PIPA seriously. By that I mean if YOU, or a company is going to protest, then do more than have a small link at the bottom of your screen (like Google). Or do absolutely NOTHING, like Slashdot. Yes I know the majority of people who read Slashdot are aware of the issues, but to anybody who pays attention it looks as if (companies like) Slashdot don't care; because they don't even have a banner add voicing their opposition to aggressive Internet police states. I read Slashdot everyday and I haven't heard anything from Management about any opposition.

    The power here lies not with businesses, but with the individual (i.e. People Power); if religious fanatics can get companies to stop advertising the reality TV show All American Muslim, then certainly the majority of normal people can get companies to stop supporting Internet censorship and an Internet police state.

    People need to take this seriously. People usually panic after it is already too late. As a recent example; the crew of the Italian cruise liner that sank only told people to abandon ship after about an hour after it started sinking and after the ship already started to keel over. Of course I could point out Nazi Germany; most people didn't complain because most people weren't effected until the allies started bombing residential neighborhoods in Berlin. Sometimes it takes a kick in the ass to get people to realize that their government's policies are evil.

    Ordinary people need to email their friends and families about this issue, and they need to include links to their representatives telling them to oppose these overwhelmingly evil measures. They need to use Facebook, instant messaging and anything else to communicate the urgency of the issue. Also as important people need to remind the public NOT TO BELIEVE WHAT GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ARE SAYING. This is important. People are continually told that repressive measures are only for the good of the country. This is a lie and people need to be exposed to the fact that they are being lied to.

    People need to be told that this is NOT a copyright issue, but an excuse where governments and large corporations can have unprecedented control over YOUR communications. They need to be told that this measure is used to enforce corporate power and greed, and that ordinary artists, like usual will not be the benefactors of "copyright" enforcement, but only the people who actually own and control the copyrights (which is usually a corporate entity) will benefit. These measures will further erode copyright by giving the companies with access to lawyers and politicians an unfair advantage over smaller companies and the consumer. They need to be told not to believe Rupert Murdock because he is not trustworthy. They need to be told not to believe Sony because they are not trustworthy. They need to be told not to believe the Big Lie that congress is being paid big money to support:

    Reddit Founder Alexis Ohanian on CNBC: "Why is it that when Republicans and Democrats need to solve the budget and the deficit, there's deadlock, but when Hollywood lobbyists pay them $94 million dollars to write legislation, people from both sides of the aisle line up to co-sponsor it?"

    Reference:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ol56z/reddit_founder_alexis_ohanian_on_cnbc_why_is_it/

    1. Re:Get People to Panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISP's need to stop resolving DNS for all MPAA member sites. How ironic would that be?

    2. Re:Get People to Panic by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You cannot take SOPA and PIPA seriously without first admitting being hypocrites and starting with yourselves ( I don't mean the OP here, it's a general statement, just look at the reply comments to the suggestion of abolishing copyrights and patents to fix the real underlying problem).

    3. Re:Get People to Panic by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      I read Slashdot everyday and I haven't heard anything from Management about any opposition.

      That assumes that The Management is Slashdot. I think that is false. We are Slashdot. What tells you more about how Slashdot feels about SOPA -- a post from Cmdr Taco, or this discussion by We The Slashdotters?

      Or do absolutely NOTHING, like Slashdot.

      I think you may have missed this story and this story. Note that those were both posted by Slashdot poobahs.

      Much like Ars Technica, Slashdot is playing to their strengths as their way of protesting. Wikipedia does not have a mechanism for having a front-page discussion about SOPA among the tech elite. Slashdot does. The best Wikipedia could do (and it is greatly appreciated) was to black out. Slashdot can do more. Here we are.

      It's actually pretty cool.

      People need to be told that this is NOT a copyright issue, but an excuse where governments and large corporations can have unprecedented control over YOUR communications.

      Abso-Friggin-Lutely!

    4. Re:Get People to Panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm worn out with panicking. Political activists are always telling me to panic. If it's not the economy, it's the climate. If it's not "the 1%", it's the Internet. If it isn't Israel, it's Libya, or god in a textbook, or any one of a million other world-ending crises that somehow justify blind panic. And if I'm not occupying Wall Street with a cup of Starbucks and an iPhone in order to Do Something About It and Raise Awareness, then I might as well not even call myself a human being.

      Panic mongers, i.e. you, have completely worn me out by crying wolf again and again and again. It may be that SOPA is the one time that I should actually be listening to you. But it is too late now, because all the bullshit panic I heard before has made me stop listening.

      Troll mod, if you want, but there it is. That's why I don't care. Maybe it's also why nobody else cares.

    5. Re:Get People to Panic by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I think you may have missed this story [slashdot.org] and this story [slashdot.org]. Note that those were both posted by Slashdot poobahs.

      And after half a day they're still the only stories posted so far.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Get People to Panic by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      What Can You Do About SOPA and PIPA?

      NOT TO BELIEVE WHAT GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ARE SAYING. This is important. People are continually told that repressive measures are only for the good of the country. This is a lie and people need to be exposed to the fact that they are being lied to.

      People need to be told that this is NOT a copyright issue, but an excuse where governments and large corporations can have unprecedented control over YOUR communications. They need to be told that this measure is used to enforce corporate power and greed, and that ordinary artists, like usual will not be the benefactors of "copyright" enforcement, but only the people who actually own and control the copyrights (which is usually a corporate entity) will benefit. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ol56z/reddit_founder_alexis_ohanian_on_cnbc_why_is_it/

      Agreed...And they have been planning this for a very long time..Watch the video in my sig to see how they started this: The terms they use are just scare words like "terrorist" used to manipulate others into doing their dirty work for them and giving them the power and control they desire. They are not being hurt by piracy in my way of thinking. Their end goal is to control the Internet the same way they control mass media. Once they control the net,it's game over for the 99%.

    7. Re:Get People to Panic by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Panic mongers, i.e. you, have completely worn me out by crying wolf again and again and again. It may be that SOPA is the one time that I should actually be listening to you. But it is too late now, because all the bullshit panic I heard before has made me stop listening.

      That's how they win, by making you think that resistance is futile. A self fulfilling prophecy. It is futile only if you believe it to be so, otherwise it isn't.

  23. What can you do? Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vote for Ron Paul. Register Republican so you can vote for him in the primaries. You can unregister afterward if you want.

    Ron Paul: Tells The Dangers Of SOPA And PIPA

    Ron Paul on SOPA: They Want to Take Over the Internet!

    Why's The Media Shafting Ron Paul, And Ignoring NDAA & SOPA Dangers?

    Or just DuckDuckGo "Ron Paul SOPA" to get many, many more examples.

    1. Re:What can you do? Simple. by Jawnn · · Score: 0, Troll

      Vote for Ron Paul.

      No. Voting for a racist, radical nut-job like Paul, just because he is on the right side of this issue, is not the answer any more than voting for this or that Democrat or Republican is the answer. The answer is removing corporate money from politics. Public campaign financing, a constitutional amendment removing, once and for all, the horrific notion of "corporate personhood" from our system of law and government, and instant runoff elections are the things we need in order to return control of our government to the citizens it was created to serve.

    2. Re:What can you do? Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist, radical nut-job?

      You are projecting your own personality on Dr. Paul.

    3. Re:What can you do? Simple. by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      He is the best choice among all the other Republican out of touch fuck-knobs.

      You know the party is screwed when Ron Paul looks like the most sane person up there.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:What can you do? Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's been told by the TV to think that about Paul, so he does. He's just part of the problem that is so typical in the US.

    5. Re:What can you do? Simple. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul has some arguably insane views, but so long as he agrees that it is NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY to enforce these positions on others, then I am fine with him holding those positions. He's entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, most people who seek power seek to wield it over others rather than exercise restraint. Only time would tell if Ron Paul is capable of such restraint, should he actually obtain the power he seeks.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    6. Re:What can you do? Simple. by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Public campaign financing, a constitutional amendment removing, once and for all, the horrific notion of "corporate personhood" from our system of law and government, and instant runoff elections are the things we need in order to return control of our government to the citizens it was created to serve.

      And you intend to get these things from bought-and-paid-for "mainstream" candidates that get the bulk of their funding from their corporate overlords? You'd have a FAR more successful time achieving almost any of the above under a Paul presidency. But go ahead and believe what the media tells you to believe about a Paul presidency -- change is the last thing our partisan politicians and their media puppets want to happen.

  24. My Congressman and his Constituents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last week my congresscritter held a public information session, which I attended. He is hard-core Tea Party. During the q&a I told him that SOPA was a mistake and should be stopped. He seemed to appreciate the problems with SOPA and gave a very similar reply to the one from the White House.

    I think is is important that more people visibly communicate with their representatives that they are opposed to such laws, and that the people are closely watching Congress.

    The really sad part was the reaction of the majority of the audience, average age estimated in the 60's. They either had no clue at all, or felt it was a good thing that the government was controlling the internet.

    An elderly gentleman accosted me afterwards and said that he had been "hacked" and that if I were ever hacked I would support the government clamping down in the internet. I tried to explain SOPA to him, but it was a lost cause.

    1. Re:My Congressman and his Constituents by HBI · · Score: 3, Funny

      An elderly gentleman accosted me afterwards and said that he had been "hacked" and that if I were ever hacked I would support the government clamping down in the internet. I tried to explain SOPA to him, but it was a lost cause.

      And THIS is why the eternal september was a bad thing. Giving network connected computers to functional retards results in censorship. Thanks, AOL and company. Time to start a new network, I guess.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:My Congressman and his Constituents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An elderly gentleman accosted me afterwards and said that he had been "hacked" and that if I were ever hacked I would support the government clamping down in the internet. I tried to explain SOPA to him, but it was a lost cause.

      Just tell them SOPA makes us more like commies. You'll do fine.

    3. Re:My Congressman and his Constituents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I strongly disagree. I like the new Internet. Wikipedia, streaming movies, broadband speeds, and online banking/shopping all exist in their current forms because of eternal September. Yes indeed, we also get people afraid of the Internet and they will try to do bad things. I don't believe the answer to that is to cower in a corner away from them, though. We should have rebuilt the World Trade Center only taller, and we should definitely keep this Internet and fight for it.

    4. Re:My Congressman and his Constituents by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      He seemed to appreciate the problems with SOPA and gave a very similar reply to the one from the White House.

      You seem to think this is ok for some reason! Congressmen should read the damn legislation (I know, I know, but a man can dream...). If they can't read it, they should have a staff member or two summarize it, not just the lobbyist. The bill may be technical, but the problem is rather simple from what I understand - website shutdown comes before judicial review or even presenting reasonable evidence of accusation.

      The really sad part was the reaction of the majority of the audience, average age estimated in the 60's.

      I believe that the myth of "old geezers who don't know internet" is starting to get stale. I suspect most congressmen know full well the damaging consequences and the payoffs they get (even if they are missing all the fine technical details). Problem is not they don't understand, but that they are willing to sell their services.

    5. Re:My Congressman and his Constituents by HBI · · Score: 1

      What, so people like the aforementioned guy who got 'hacked' can happily pull levers for politicians who believe in censorship? How exactly are you going to educate them?

      It was better to be under the radar.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  25. Why not make a super-PAC? by dasunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm being serious. Make a super-PAC and use it in the next election season against people who introduce or push bills like SOPA and PIPA. Attack politicians where it hurts: Election year.

  26. the copyright industry facilitates piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the entertainment industry didn't make music, movies, games and so on, and put them under copyright, it would not be possible to infringe the copyright on them. Therefore since piracy is ONLY possible because of their actions, they are facilitating that piracy.

    Bang 'em in jail!

  27. Ars story on how to protest by jbrodkin · · Score: 1

    I wrote a story for Ars on this theme if anyone wants to check it out: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/protesting-sopa-what-you-can-do.ars Good luck! I also love the idea of an anti-SOPA Super PAC.

  28. WRITE your Congressman by Port1080 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's easy to end an e-mail letter, but those aren't as effective as a personally written letter. In order of effectiveness, petitions are the lowest, followed by e-mail form letters, followed by personally written e-mails, followed by mailed form letters, followed by phone calls, followed by personally written mailed letters. Personally visiting your Congressman's office is also highly effective (this is probably less possible with your Senator, unless you live in a small population state, but Representatives often have offices that the public can easily visit and offer feedback). The most effective thing to do, if you don't have a lot of money (large cash donations are VERY effective), is to become a volunteer (assuming your Rep is someone that you can get behind on most issues and you'd like to see reelected) and get plugged in. It's not as difficult as you'd think. Once your Rep knows you by name, and potentially respects your opinion, you can slip some info in about tech issues from time to time. Of course, this does take a lot of effort and time commitment, which is why most people won't be doing it - but if you've got the time, and want to make a difference, it's definitely something you can do.

    --
    Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
    1. Re:WRITE your Congressman by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt that "become a volunteer " is the same as become a lobbyist. As far as I know, the job of a volunteer is to do as politician tells him, not the other way around.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:WRITE your Congressman by Froggels · · Score: 1

      We are all taught that this is the best way to let our voices be heard by government, but unfortunately unless your name happens to be listed on a major stock exchange your voice will just be ignored. It's naive to think that writing your congress(wo)man or senator will have any affect and it hasn't for decades. If your write to one of these people your letter will be processed by an intern and if you are lucky you will receive a form letter reply after having your name and address entered into a database associated with the issue at hand. Here is an interesting take on the issue from the inside: Write your congressman? Don't even bother / His signature is phony, so is his interest
      http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-01-11/opinion/17406204_1_beltway-signature-smudge
      Here is an excerpt from the above link:
      Letters written by people who will vote for or against the congressman in the next election receive the following treatment: 1. The letter is scanned by an intern for the central issue. 2. The letter is labeled with the issue. 3. The writer's address is entered into a database. 4. The address is married to the issue's form response found in another database. 5. The response is printed and fed into the signature machine (when it's working). 6. The response is stuffed into the envelope printed with the matching address. 7. The response is mailed. If this sounds like a worthwhile process, then you should go ahead and send that letter on solar energy you've been working on so hard. I
      It's sad that that's what things have come to.

    3. Re:WRITE your Congressman by Kenja · · Score: 2

      Better yet, go to your Congressman's web page and post to their Twitter feed etc. Post a link to the Pirate Bay and explain that the Congressman's web site is now in violation of SOPA and would be shut down under the law.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:WRITE your Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order of effectiveness, petitions are the lowest, followed by e-mail form letters, followed by personally written e-mails, followed by mailed form letters, followed by phone calls, followed by personally written mailed letters. Personally visiting your Congressman's office is also highly effective

      Unless CA$H is involved or THOUSANDS of people camp out outside the White House or House Of Representatives, career politicians will take little or no notice of your efforts to bring an issue to their attention.... :(

  29. Eternal vigilance. by niktemadur · · Score: 1

    The MPAA and SOPA-sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) are trying to brush off the protests as a stunt, and Smith has announced markup for the bill will resume in February.

    Cynical corporate sluts in positions of political power are tenacious, to say the least.

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  30. They don't care by trolman · · Score: 2

    I can tell you that Lamar Smith does not care what you think. Congress has been paid $96,000,000,000 dollars by the MSM and Hollywood to enact this censorship. Money talks, the other thing walks.

    1. Re:They don't care by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's really lovely when you consider that given the 22,000 percent ROI on lobbying, this is basically a feedback loop that keeps everyone else too poor to compete with their own "campaign contributions"

    2. Re:They don't care by shentino · · Score: 2

      And with a 22000 percent ROI in the form of tax breaks, that gravy train is pretty much hauling its own coal.

      A convenient side effect is that their control of the media makes sure their lobbying efforts dodge any competition.

    3. Re:They don't care by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Congress has been paid $96,000,000,000 dollars by the MSM and Hollywood to enact this censorship.

      Citation?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:They don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did anyone come up with $96 billion dollars?

    5. Re:They don't care by trolman · · Score: 1

      My data comes from thin air, just like facts from hollywood. BTW it was really $96M not $96B Techdirt had the story but they are ... um.... off line at the moment.

  31. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trying....Seems my Senator can't even keep his own website running....

  32. Thank You Wikipedia! by na1led · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see someone is doing something about this! I only wish others like Google would join in.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  33. Moratorium and Research, or War by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am an advocate of copyright. I feel it is a very effective mechanism for channeling revenue to those who advance science and the useful arts.

    We have overstepped the bounds of cost effective copyright grants and enforcement. We have exceeded the efficient level of enforcement, and I suspect we have exceeded the efficient level of revenue channeling. We have passed more copyright legislation in the past fifteen years than at any other time in our history. More than during the advent of the printing press, the radio, the cassette tape, or any other disruptive technology. We are not balancing the potential value of new technology against the perceived cost of adapting copyright to the new reality. Moreover, the legislation is not working. It is not significantly inhibiting copyright, but it is harming the progress of new business models and entrepreneurship. It is not rational to pass ever more extreme legislation when what has gone before is not working.

    We are channeling a lot of revenue into copyright holders, and that money is coming back in lobbying. That cycle is self-catalyzing, and it has gone beyond what is cost effective. It is harming our ability to compete in the global marketplace, and is a cycle that is hostile to our national economic interests.

    It is time to demand a moratorium on new copyright law, coupled with a serious research effort on the cost effectiveness of copyright enforcement. That research should have the explicit objective of answering the question: "How much can we reduce government interference in the market while still advancing the progress of science and the useful arts?"

    Failure to do so should be seen as an act of aggression against our economy by those who are benefiting from this government fiat monopoly, and should be met with total opposition.

    1. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am an advocate of copyright. I feel it is a very effective mechanism for channeling revenue to those who advance science and the useful arts.

      At least when it comes to science, this statement is a fucking lie. Me and my colleagues in science, have no love for copyrights, because it is *always* a gun pointed against our work. It is a means for private journals to make money, nothing else. Most scientists would love for the results of their scientific research to reach as wide an audience as possible, and see copyrights as the main obstacle in that.

      Even those scientists that don't look at science quite so altruistically, hate copyrights because it makes citing other works a total pain in the arse (try writing a document review or a textbook, and see how much you enjoy filling those forms asking for permissions from each copyrights holder, for each picture you would like to include in your book or document review).

      Sorry, maybe this is too long and confusing. In brief, scientists view on the issue is FUCK COPYRIGHTS, WITH A RAKE!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    2. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by IMightB · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that Congress Critters and their Corporate Overlords are Economic Terrorists? 'Cause if you are, I'm in agreement with you. Copyright/left is a good thing, when it is time limited. Right now, copyrights are effectively eternal... Before anyone tries to correct me about eternal copyrights, what do you think will happen the next time Mickey Mouse is due to be released to the public domain?

    3. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by Commontwist · · Score: 1

      Copyright is like medicine; too little is ineffective, too much will kill you, and an incompetent doctor will kill you no matter how much you take.

    4. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by lgw · · Score: 1

      Stop publishing in current journals then. Problem solved. Your enemy isn't copyright, it's your stubborn insistance on not taking other publication approaches seriously. It's the refereeing, peer review, and eventually citation that gives credibility to published work, no? Not the name on the cover? Make it so.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Transferable copy rights and lobbying corporations are incompatible.
      Copy rights are a corporate cause they are willing to buy laws to encourage.
      Are copy rights a sliding scale or a slippery slope?
      Even without lobbying, copyrights are likely to accumulate in corporations without other rules in place. Then it's an individual against a mega-corporation every time.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    6. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      When a scientific paper from the 60s or 70s is still behind a paywall, then yes, my enemy IS copyrights. Moving to open-access journals is just one facet of the solution, because I still have to access non-open-access publications to do my work.

      Killing copyrights completely is simplest and most complete solution to all the problems I mentioned.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:Moratorium and Research, or War by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, you make a good point - it often seems like I have free access to all of human knowledge except academic papers (which should be embarassing in academe). Killing copyrights would be a far broader solution than is needed here though.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  34. Win the War on Language by MxTxL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The bills are massively unpopular on the internet but we are still losing the spin war on this. The blackouts are being covered on main stream media in droves (a good thing!), but every MSM reference that i have seen describes the bills as the 'anti-piracy' SOPA/PIPA bills. Lots of people, even many of us on this site, might support bills that are just anti-piracy... in the head of many, anti-piracy is a good thing.

    We can lose hearts and minds if these bills are seen as anti-piracy. Get the word out that we don't object to these bills because they are anti-piracy, we object to these bills because they are anti-internet!

    The internet breaks with these bills. Great firewall of America type broken. That is what we are against! Go spread the word.

    1. Re:Win the War on Language by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bills are massively unpopular on the internet but we are still losing the spin war on this. The blackouts are being covered on main stream media in droves (a good thing!), but every MSM reference that i have seen describes the bills as the 'anti-piracy' SOPA/PIPA bills.

      We can't win in the mainstream media: they are the enemy. Not in some figurative or symbolic sense, but quite literally. Those behind the bills own the mainstream media.

      We also probably can't do anything about SOPA/PIPA. They're going to pass them, by hook or by crook. We can protest all we want, black out web pages, complain to representatives, what have you. Doesn't matter. The other side has more power (being the mainstream media); that's all there is to it.

    2. Re:Win the War on Language by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Yea, it's kinda like in the abortion debate where the sides changed the language from the negatives 'anti-abortion' and 'baby killers' to the affirmatives 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    3. Re:Win the War on Language by unity100 · · Score: 1

      We also probably can't do anything about SOPA/PIPA. They're going to pass them, by hook or by crook. We can protest all we want, black out web pages, complain to representatives, what have you. Doesn't matter. The other side has more power (being the mainstream media); that's all there is to it.

      not if you start buying your own congressmen.

    4. Re:Win the War on Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. The single only reason SOPA didn't pass is because it's an election year. Just wait until the elections are over.

    5. Re:Win the War on Language by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Or you could do enough damage to movie stocks to make the MPAA freak out every time they consider a bill of a similar vein.

      Hit 'em where it hurts, the pocket book. Make it so their actors are uninsurable. Make it so for every hour Lindsay Lohan is puking up last night's debauchery, the company bleeds red.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:Win the War on Language by unity100 · · Score: 1

      their pocket books are deep enough to last them over a century and buy themselves an entire constitution-full of bills.

      the whole 'hit them in their wallets' farce in a capitalist market economy only works during initial, frontier stages of a market when the profitmaking interests are actually many and in small sizes. once a hierarchy of megacorporations and interconnected shareholderships come to being in later stages, it doesnt matter zit - if you hit them in one field, they will just keep making money in another field they have shareholdership.

      only option as of now is to buy congressmen. i would say whores, but the respectability of whoring profession is much higher than where congressmen stand at as of this moment.

    7. Re:Win the War on Language by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. While their pocketbooks may be deep, they aren't deep enough to cover a few blunders. Hollywood puts out a few stinkers, under the right conditions, and it'll sink their ship.

      Plus, it's not like the insurance industry needs a reason to add a few zeros to the cost of someone's premiums.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:Win the War on Language by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Would be interesting to start a metaphorical "hat" of sorts circling around the internet so that people can donate to buy a few congressmen. I'd certainly toss in a few bucks, though I imagine it's going to take more then that.

      Maybe if we all took the money we would be spending on media and spent it on the "buy a congressman" donation fund we'd get further, since we'd also be depriving the MPAA/RIAA of that money for their own fund.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  35. Too bad the pirate sites aren't going along by cornicefire · · Score: 1

    It looks like O'Reilly and No Starch-- two sites that went dark-- get to watch Google send the traffic to the torrent sites. http://wayner.org/node/80

  36. Anyone else feel like this is the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or at least the beginning of the end?

    Even if SOPA/PIPA are stopped, the next few bills will do essentially the same thing without being so obvious about it; a freedom lost here, a restriction applied there. If you try to boil a crab alive, it will protest and attempt to escape. But if you turn the heat up on the crab gradually, it will boil without ever realizing its peril.

    I don't have any faith in the ability of the little guy anymore; if the corporations want it, they will get it, and it's only a matter of time. We have seen this time and time again.

    Please tell me I'm wrong, and this nightmare will not come to be. I don't want my Internet broken, but I don't have billions of dollars to give to politicians to make them listen to me. What can I do against the likes of multinational companies that have more rights and power than I can ever hope to have?

    1. Re:Anyone else feel like this is the end? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you try to boil a crab alive, it will protest and attempt to escape. But if you turn the heat up on the crab gradually, it will boil without ever realizing its peril.

      I thought it was a frog, but while it's a good metaphor, in the case of the frog it turns out it's not actually true, the frog will jump out if it gets too hot. I wonder if it's literally true with crabs, I understand they have relatively simple nervous systems so it's possible.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Anyone else feel like this is the end? by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a frog, but while it's a good metaphor, in the case of the frog it turns out it's not actually true, the frog will jump out if it gets too hot. I wonder if it's literally true with crabs, I understand they have relatively simple nervous systems so it's possible.

      Yes.

  37. Nothing you can do by alexo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing you can do against the likes of these laws that harm the public in order to cater to short-term special interests is to ensure that your elective representatives answer to you and only you (plural), so you could easily kick them out of office AND INTO PRISON when they begin to contemplate such shenanigans.

    To achieve that you have to first vote out all the D's and the R's and replace them with people that are willing to criminalize corruption to an extent that will make premeditated murder look like jaywalking in comparison, revoke corporate personhood, make corporate executives personally responsible for the actions of the respective corporations and in general restore sanity to all branches of government.

    In other words: it will never happen.

    1. Re:Nothing you can do by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.

      Otherwise you'll be kicking out Representatives every year.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:Nothing you can do by alexo · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.

      And pray tell who is going to limit government power? The government? Yes, your solution makes much more sense...

      Otherwise you'll be kicking out Representatives every year.

      Representatives, like diapers, should be replaced regularly and often, and for the very same reason.

    3. Re:Nothing you can do by fnj · · Score: 1

      Given that corruption sets in progressively over time, that the newly elected are as a rule the least corrupt and the most responsive to the electorate, and the establishment lifers are the most corrupt and the least responsive to the electorate ...

      ... Given all this, I ask you, what is wrong with kicking the fucking bastards out every year?

    4. Re:Nothing you can do by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      And that would be a problem because?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Nothing you can do by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.

      And pray tell who is going to limit government power? The government? Yes, your solution makes much more sense...

      Properly speaking, in the USA, the Constitution does that.

      Alas, generations of people who think that, as an example, "Health Insurance is a Right", have been pushing the government well beyond its Constitutional limits.

      To the point where many (most?) people think that the solution to every problem is a new federal law.

      Hint: the Tenth Amendment exists for a reason. We've been holding our ears and going "lalalala" for a long time whenever someone suggests that the Tenth didn't allow something we dearly wanted, and now we have to live with the fact that giving YOU everything YOU want also means giving THEM everything THEY want....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Nothing you can do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.

      Otherwise you'll be kicking out Representatives every year.

      Maybe if we had some document explicitly stating what authority the federal governent has, and furthur explicitly stating that 'all powers not listed belong to the states and citizens'...

    7. Re:Nothing you can do by alexo · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.

      And pray tell who is going to limit government power? The government? Yes, your solution makes much more sense...

      Properly speaking, in the USA, the Constitution does that.

      Two observations:

      1) Your constitution does not enforce itself. Your constitution does not punish those that circumvent or ignore it (and, as far as I know, it does not even contain a provision for sanctioning unconstitutional acts, no matter how blatant).

      2) The constitution you refer to tries to limit the power of FEDERAL government and does nothing to prevent STATE governments from selling their souls and your rights to the highest bidder.

      Hint: the Tenth Amendment exists for a reason.

      Counter-hint: for all practical purposes the Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment.

    8. Re:Nothing you can do by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Counter-hint: for all practical purposes the Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment.

      Hmm, the Commerce clause gained its awesome power because a President threatened to add enough Supreme Court Justices to guarantee himself an absolute majority in the Court no matter what he proposed.

      Then, having cowed the Supremes, he proceeded to spend the next 13 years doing unconstitutional things.

      Including that neat little ruling that said that growing feed for your own livestock on your own land was something that the Feds had the power to restrict under the Commerce Clause....

      Segue to the present. The Congress passes a law at the behest of the President. The States sue to overturn the law. The general public spends a lot of time shouting that the people who oppose the law are evil incarnate.

      Note that I'm talking about a law making it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

      Seems the homeowners (among many others) who lived near schools objected to losing their Second Amendment Rights.

      Long story short, the Supremes ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't actually universally applicable and can't be used to override the rest of the Constitution.

      Hopefully, they'll remember that this year when the same thing comes up for Obamacare (no, the fact that I CAN buy something does NOT make it possible for the Feds to decree that I MUST buy it, even if not buying it affects interstate commerce).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Nothing you can do by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Representatives, like diapers, should be replaced regularly and often, and for the very same reason

      That makes no sense, I only replace diapers when they are full of sh*t, but....oh wait...I see what you did there!

    10. Re:Nothing you can do by alexo · · Score: 1

      Segue to the present. The Congress passes a law at the behest of the President. The States sue to overturn the law. The general public spends a lot of time shouting that the people who oppose the law are evil incarnate.

      Note that I'm talking about a law making it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

      Seems the homeowners (among many others) who lived near schools objected to losing their Second Amendment Rights.

      Long story short, the Supremes ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't actually universally applicable and can't be used to override the rest of the Constitution.

      Note that you're talking about a 1995 case (United States v. Lopez) while conveniently ignoring a 2005 case (Gonzales v. Raich).
      We have a different definition of "the present".

  38. Cost them an election by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best way to get the attention of congress is to have one of the IP stooges lose an election.

    Identify one of the prominent supporters of SOPA/PIPA who is weak in his district and support his challenger in the next primary and general election.

    When a congressman loses a seat for taking on a third-rail issue, the surviving congressmen remember that for decades.

    That's what AIPAC does. You don't see any congressmen criticizing Israel, do you?

    Strategically, it would be best to attack somebody who is a jerk on other issues too; in other words, an all-around jerk.

    The only problem is that it's hard in this country to defeat a well-financed incumbent, no matter how much he sells out the interests of his constituents.

    But it does happen. I give democracy about 50% odds.

    1. Re:Cost them an election by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Strategically, it would be best to attack somebody who is a jerk on other issues too; in other words, an all-around jerk.

      Man, that gives us a lot of targets!

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Cost them an election by Tom · · Score: 1

      Absolutely do this. This is way, way more important than anything else. Unless someone loses their comfy seat and effortless income over this, there will be no deterence whatsoever to not try again next year, next election or just when the shitstorm has calmed down.

      The more of the jerks lose their jobs over this, the longer it will take before they try again.

      And - make sure that everyone knows why he lost his seat.

      This is the only way to guard against the future.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  39. Go And Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahaha... you will all die of cancer because you are trolled so easily.. even by the government

  40. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    One does not have a right to go to police and shut down the business without court order.

    Interesting that you should say that, since SOPA/PIPA require Court Orders to do anything.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  41. Dissapointed with Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have liked to have seen Google take a bigger blackout step. C'mon, Changing their logo? That's the same thing they do every third day for so-and-so's birthday. Doesn't web censorship merit a larger display of opposition?

  42. Implementing it in stages by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    As it basically means blocking all the search engines and anything with user interactions, implement it in 2 stages: first block for the families, known people, IP ranges, etc to anything related to the companies/corporations/politicians behind SOPA/PIPA (or that supports them) and later (anything between 10 years and 10 millenium later) to the rest of the internet. If you support it, well you can taste what it really mean before everyone else, and your family/employees/etc could give some helpful input giving some perspective to them

    It could be done from the top or from the bottom, just removing from search engines results, and any kind social sites any reference to the politicians, political parties, companies, musical records and so on (hey, could eventually violate some copyright, better be safe than sorry) could make them have a hint on what would be the world with those laws they are pursuing.

  43. I know this is more or less a troll... by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but I agree with the sentiment. Right now I'm waiting for my kid to finish getting ready to school, so I've got time to post to /. . After that it's off to my day job for 9 hours. Right now a lobbyist for SOPA is doing the same thing, but he's going to spend 9 hours fighting for it. Oh, at the end of my 9 hour shift I'm going to study programming in hopes of getting a better job.

    If I'm going to fight SOPA, PIPA or any of the other horrid things the 1% has in store for me, then I need more leisure time. That's what the rich were talking about in the 1800s when they said 'Idle hands are the devil's plaything'. That said, the 1% are working hard to make sure I don't get it. They're busing Unions, dividing Americans against one another based on race, creed & sexual orientation. They're scaring us with terrorists. They're fighting on multiple fronts, and I can't get the time to fight on one. This, folks, is why I'm a socialist in favor of 'Basic Income' (google it when wikipedia comes back up).

    I guess one of the really big problems is, SOPA is just a symptom of a larger, more complex problem. Americans are big on simple answers to complex problems. That's why George Bush jr resonated so well with them. How are we suppose to fight when we don't even know there's a war going on?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      This, folks, is why I'm a socialist in favor of 'Basic Income'

      From who? That sounds simple, but it would cause a lot of complex problems. All Greece tried to do was shorten the work life and let people have a decent retirement, and it bankrupted the country in 20 years.

      Americans are big on simple answers to complex problems.

      Hmm... Uh ... too obvious.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      stupefying to see someone on slashdot who understands the source of all the problems that are afflicting the society in all that clarity.

    3. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The bigger problem has a really simple solution: get corporate and other organizational money out of politics *ENTIRELY*. The whole super-PAC fiasco has made the situation even worse than it was. Implementing the solution will be difficult because *all* the politicians and parties are on the take, but the solution itself is pretty damn clear: limits. If that impinges on free speech (as the supreme court recently ruled), then it's time for a constitutional amendment that places limits on campaign financing and other political donations before money destroys the entire principle of one person one vote. When someone or some organization can buy a million times more influence than an average voter, then something needs to be done.

      Solve the problem of money in politics and there is some hope of addressing all the other issues you talk about. Fail to solve it and the effort is almost futile.

    4. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      All Greece tried to do was shorten the work life and let people have a decent retirement, and it bankrupted the country in 20 years.

      Greece's current problems has less to do with that than with the mistake of basing a large portion (18.2% of their GDP and 19% of their workforce) of their economy on tourism, which made them incredibly sensitive to economic downturns in other countries.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    5. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      All Greece tried to do was shorten the work life and let people have a decent retirement, and it bankrupted the country in 20 years.

      Greece's current problems has less to do with that than with the mistake of basing a large portion (18.2% of their GDP and 19% of their workforce) of their economy on tourism, which made them incredibly sensitive to economic downturns in other countries.

      You're just focusing on a symptom instead of the root causes. Central planners always fail, because they can't control or predict human behavior. When individuals make their own economic decisions, it only affects them instead of the entire country's economy. When central planners start offering guarantees of payments into the future based on a (usually wrong) guess of future revenues, it means eventually the creditors will control the country instead of the citizens.

      Besides, your description of the issue is way too simplistic. An economic downturn doesn't turn into an economic crisis overnight - Greece was already so overextended that they simply had nothing left to ride out the recession. And it's not the first time for them. They had the same issues in the early 1990's, so they just printed more money until the drachma was so weak they were able to pay the debt and export more. They can't do that with the Euro because they don't control its value. The long and short is that the government simply spends irresponsibly, and has for many years.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only persons dividing Americans based on race and money are Demotards and a Socialist President

    7. Re:I know this is more or less a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr. Could you simplify?

  44. A beautiful mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that most of the supporters in the Congress made their decision based on the fact that M. Bachmann is against SOPA.

  45. Replace candidates by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

    The companies that WILL be hurt by these laws should unite and back candidates as replacements for the supporters of these bills. Media has always been a significant part of U.S. policies. It is time for the new media to take an active role. It is a duty of an American to oppose an individual entering into an elected position if they know the individual is misrepresenting Americas best interest. Unfortunately, when there is no other candidate opposition is fruitless. Presenting a candidate to replace these people degrading freedom, padding their re-election trove, and making corporate desires the priority of American policy, does not have to cost lots of money. If the large media sites on the web were to find and support replacement candidates the public would rally to vote them into office. Put online polls to real use. Use them to find the right people to run. Put banners to real use. Promote those people.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  46. maybe the bill should pass as it is. by valugi · · Score: 0

    I see good things in it. This way people will understand that their opinion does not worth much in the eyes of their leaders. They will also see a need for new internet system that is not under US jurisdiction (nor others).

  47. If rule by corporations bothers you by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Informative

    As others have said, there is one major presidential candidate who is against SOPA: Ron Paul. I don't personally support Mr. Paul because of unrelated issues, but it's a fact he is opposed to SOPA, to the point of joining the blackout.

    Slightly off-topic but if you are asking "what can I do" and you want to get at the root cause, not the symptom, you might want to check out the Move to Amend.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Slightly off-topic but if you are asking "what can I do" and you want to get at the root cause, not the symptom, you might want to check out the Move to Amend [movetoamend.org].

      When they come up with a text for their proposed Amendment, I might take them more seriously.

      But it's not too likely.

      Any attempt to limit campaign spending will just hand more political clout to...Big Media.

      After all, they've already got the First Amendment on their side. Silence every corporation except Big Media, and just how much do you think you'd have heard about SOPA?

      And how much influence would anyone other than Big Media have in Congress, if ONLY Big Media was allowed to freely donate to Congress? And DO keep in mind that favourable (or unfavourable) articles in the news are effectively "donations in kind", and impossible to prevent, absent repeal of the First Amendment.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      When they come up with a text for their proposed Amendment, I might take them more seriously.

      What did you do, stop reading after 10 words? They have a link to the full text of the amendment on the front page in bold red type. It's right above the map.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      No, I stopped reading when I didn't see the text on the first page.

      Now that I've read the text, I'm opposed to their proposed Amendment.

      1) The first section is fine.

      2) But then there's the second section...

      As written, it basically restricts ALL political speech (that nasty First Amendment again) except that of the "press".

      So, who defines the "press"? Because whoever gets to define the "press" gets to pick the people who have the Right to talk about politics.

      If the government can restrict MY ability to buy an advertisement saying "Obama Stinks" or "Gingrich is an Ass" or whatever, the First Amendment becomes meaningless.

      If they can't restrict me, they can't restrict anyone else either, and so nothing changes.

      Given that they can so restrict me, they have relegated ALL political speech to the "press". Which has to be defined.

      If the definition of the "press" is loose enough, then any corporation that wants to make political noise just needs to start a newspaper/TV station/radio station/whatever-qualifies-as-the-Press to be heard.

      If it's tight enough to prevent that, it effectively gives the Media absolute control over political debate in the country, by virtue of the fact that they get to pick and choose what they report about any particular politician or Bill.

      In a /. article bitching about giving the Media too much control, arguing that we should give them even more control might not play as well as you might expect....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 1

      Slightly off-topic but if you are asking "what can I do" and you want to get at the root cause, not the symptom, you might want to check out the Move to Amend.

      Do you realize if the "Move to Amend" passed, then what Google/Amazon/etc are doing could and would be illegal! Heck, this very Slashdot post would be illegal since it could be construed to influence an election and a forum could be argued as not meeting the criteria as "press".

    5. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by istartedi · · Score: 1, Informative

      According to the Daily Paul, it's not affiliated with Ron Paul.

      That said, I would be surprised if Paul supported SOPA/PIPA. Unfortunately I too find the bad outweighs the good with Ron Paul. I think a lot of his ideas are like spice. We need a dash of Ron Paul in the system; but I can't stomach a plate full of pepper.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      It is nice that dailypaul.com has participated in the blackout, but Ron Paul doesn't actually run that site.

      From the sites footer:

      Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.

      It's worth pointing out though that he does oppose SOPA, which is a good thing.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    7. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.

    8. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is seriously OT, but ...

      Thanks to the text censored out at dailypaul, the most prominent ads on the page are those of "mutt for president" ..

    9. Re:If rule by corporations bothers you by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I too find the bad outweighs the good with Ron Paul. I think a lot of his ideas are like spice. We need a dash of Ron Paul in the system; but I can't stomach a plate full of pepper.

      That's what Congress is for. To keep it to a dash. I don't know why people believe a Ron Paul presidency would suddenly have gobs of success and have the government turning on a dime or something, especially when bitching in the same breath about the degree of obstructionism there is right now with our current President/Congress/government.

  48. Just amazin... by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16612628
    Or from the article: ".........."Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging," said Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America......."
    So, just to summarize it, after their total refusal to sit on the table and resolve the issues of the SOPA/PIPA bill, they actually what? This funny senator blames them that they don't sit on the table!!! WTF?

  49. Why not block government based IP addresses? by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Why not after the day of scaring the public that these sites simply block IP addresses known to serve US government interests. That way if those people want to use the resources of the web they can do so at home.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Why not block government based IP addresses? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they've got a thing against hypocracy. Or they know that the government isn't some monolithic entity that unilaterally agrees with any bill currently being considered in Congress.

  50. political groups working against SOPA/PIPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supporting this group will help against SOPA/PIPA http://www.the99declaration.org/

  51. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Thanks. You are right, somehow I got misinformed via second hand re-tellers of the story.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  52. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You do now. Actually, I'll give you two.

    The runner up story is Susan Boyle. When Wikipedia comes off blackout, go look her up and check the sales records - some such highest selling new artist in X years.

    But let's do your story.

    If you're gutsy, you'll post a link to your book and dedicate it "A gift to protest SOPA". Pick a CC license, I suggest "Attribution Only" (So that people can't replace your name, but all told, people are usually pretty good at keeping original artist names on their copies.) Put a rider in "Since this copy originated on a special post, please let me know if this copy inspires you to buy it". Give us an address to send checks/payments to, etc.

    Or, if you are still a little squeamish, send *me* all that info which I won't re-share, but I'll report my results. My email is "not obfuscated" so send it along!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  53. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by mapkinase · · Score: 2

    Example of how third party website interpret SOPA and PIPA:

    http://www.infowars.com/why-we-must-stop-sopa/

    The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  54. Wikipedia not down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anonymously because I also moderated...

    I just visited the English site for Wikipedia and it worked for me. I looked up several different things, and they all displayed normally.

    And I'm in the US, in the Mountain Time Zone. Its 8:14am here. I thought it was going to be blacked out during this time?

    1. Re:Wikipedia not down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here, fellow AC. I went to Wikipedia from the US (no proxies or anything - just my local comcast) hoping to see the blackout, but it's working just fine for me at 10:03.

      There's a small text blurb at the top of the page saying the "page is locked", but it actually is working perfectly fine. Nobody is going to bother to read that text - it's almost hard to spot unless you specifically look for it, and it's not even on the sub-pages, where you get to if you go from a search engine. For example:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhound_Lines

      Works fine for me, and doesn't even have any mention of SOPA.

      Looks too toothless to matter. A single blurb on wikipedia's front page will not get the attention of the masses :(.

  55. Research Works Act by Guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

    While we're on the general topic, I'd like to remind folks about another bill being considered, the Research Works Act. Previously covered on Slashdot here, the act is being pushed by the journal industry, and would reverse the current requirement that papers resulting from federally funded research be freely available to the public.

  56. Wikipedia works just fine with no-script enabled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing ahead that wikipedia would be blacked out, I was surprised to see that I could get full access to the site today. Apparently no-script was blocking the black-out, allowing to surf unimpeded.

  57. One Has to Ask by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    What does SOPA-sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) profit from this closed minded attack on the 1st Amendment? I think an investigation into this issue would be, telling. And when all is said, and done; disclosing to the public that information on this "For Profit" congressman might begin a trend.

    1. Re:One Has to Ask by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Buttloads of money donated to his campaign and the superPAC that he has working for him.

      If you can get so much money you enjoy wiping your ass with $100 bills who cares if you do more damage to american than any terrorist has.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:One Has to Ask by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      How can it be shown to the judges of the Supreme Court that granting businesses the right to interact with politics is the same as allowing one person to have more than one vote?

  58. I KNEW IT! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can we go back to the good old days of using IP numbers instead of text string that goes thru a DNS server. I think it might be harder for governments to censor that.

    I'm sure APK is unaffected by all this...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:I KNEW IT! by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

      Don't wake the troll you fool! Leave it be.

      --
      Here we go again!
    2. Re:I KNEW IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, Alexander Peter Kowalski is not actually a troll. He really does believe his own bullshit. Or more accurately, he desperately wants to believe it because his narcissistic personality disorder will not let him believe the truth, and his low intelligence prevents him from inventing a more believable alternative.

      Did I mention that this is regarding Alexander Peter Kowalski, the inept fraud and malware author? Because it totally is. Alexander Peter Kowalski is a fraud and a malware author.

  59. if it passes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this legislation passes the most likely result is that sites would migrate their services to non-domestic providers with non-domestic TLDs so that they can continue to operate outside of the influence of these new laws.
    Gradually smaller and smaller sites would do the same and the entire internet would just vacate the US all together.
    essentially this legislation pushes the internet outside of the US, as least as far as content providers.

  60. NoScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering why Wikipedia was working and completely visible; it turns out that NoScript completely bypasses the blackout.

  61. Uh... Wikipedia works if you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Block wikipedia.org java scripts.

    Oh the irony... Where to start?

  62. that was deliberate on WP's part. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    From their page on SOPA

    Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?

            Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

    1. Re:that was deliberate on WP's part. by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      I think the ability to view wikipedia without javascript is kinda half assed. I dont allow javascript by default to any site unless I feel it is needed to view something from a safe site. Because of all the known and yet to know security and phishing holes associated with it. So when I went to wikipedia and saw it was working as normal I was disappointed. I had to turn on javascript just to be blocked. I dont think wikipedia should allow access at all if they really wanted to take a stand here. Anyhow... I think it is kind of a weak point that wikipedia is making.

    2. Re:that was deliberate on WP's part. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was half-assed on their part. However, see my previous comment for why that half-assed attempt was actually a deliberate oversight.

      I'll add to it the fact that Wikipedia's owners know that technical users, the ones likely to be surfing with NoScript, are more than likely already going to know about the legislation. They just want to get the message out, and they would be preaching to the crowd by blocking these users.

  63. The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Proponents of SOPA have a 10-word sound byte saying why SOPA is "great:" "this bill will stop online piracy." What we need is a 10-word statement of why the whole idea of SOPA, PIPA, and the like is disastrous. How about:

    This bill gives law-enforcement powers to Big Media.

    I am sure someone can improve on that. Please, do.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This bill gives law-enforcement powers to Big Media.

      Except that this Bill does nothing of the kind. DMCA allowed them to do fun things with takedown notices. SOPA/PIPA require Court Orders for everything. And getting Court Orders is expensive...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by oursland · · Score: 1

      How expensive? $94 million dollars has already passed from Hollywood to campaign coffers for this legislation. If it doesn't come close to that for the court orders, then it really isn't all that expensive.

    3. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      If that's true then the EFF is being misleading in their One-Page Guide to SOPA, which says in part:

      Under SOPA, corporations could send notice to a site's payment providers, requiring those partners to cut the site off ...

      So perhaps I'm misinterpreting the EFF's guide but it looks like this is similar to the take-down notice, direct from copyright holder to payment provider without passing through a court and due process and all that.

      Could you give a reference to what in SOPA requires a court order? I'd like to read it.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by ultraexactzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. SOPA and PIPA authorize the Department of Justice to issue court orders. There is no hearing until after the orders have been executed, and no recourse until the entire website is already removed from the internet. The process is entirely administrative - the first notice a site owner receives is the letter they get after their site is gone.

      So, unless you're lucky, you're now fighting a big media company in Federal Court with your source of funds (your website) shut down. This isn't tenable for the vast majority of site owners.

      --
      Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
    5. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There is a more memorable one that I've seen going around non-tech-savvy groups, but you're not going to like it. Here it is:

      End Piracy, Not Liberty!

      See? It seems most people in the US are ok with stopping piracy. So ultimately there will be a bill that passes against piracy, even if not this one. Because most people are ok with that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If that's true then the EFF is being misleading in their One-Page Guide to SOPA, which says in part:

      Under SOPA, corporations could send notice to a site's payment providers, requiring those partners to cut the site off ...

      So perhaps I'm misinterpreting the EFF's guide but it looks like this is similar to the take-down notice, direct from copyright holder to payment provider without passing through a court and due process and all that.

      The EFF is being misleading. Rather deliberately so, it looks like.

      Could you give a reference to what in SOPA requires a court order? I'd like to read it.

      Check Stop Online Piracy Act on thomas.gov for the text of SOPA. I'd give you a link, but Thomas is annoying about giving you search timeouts if you use an old link.

      It allows for the Attorney General to send notice to people that he's begun legal action. And it allows the Courts to order people to take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to block access to foreign sites against which legal action has been begun.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Umm, no.

      the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--

      This is what SOPA allows the Attorney General to do - send a notice that he's about to initiate legal proceedings.

      And then...

      On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.

      is the next step. Note the Court Order.

      After that, people start having a legal obligation to do something. The Attorney General can send notices till doomsday, and incur no legal obligation on anyone involved.

      Other interesting bits from the actual text:

      BLOCKQUOTE>(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

      and...

      BLOCKQUOTE>(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

      Which, among other things, means that someone so served will not have to make an ongoing effort to block access to a site. If the site reappears elsewhere under a new name, that means absolutely nothing as far as imposing any obligations on an ISP/payment-service/etc.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOPA and PIPA make the corporations the cops.

      And if you want the think of the children angle:

      SOPA and PIPA turns children and adults alike into corporate slaves.

      When someone asks how you are enslaved, remind them that allowing the companies to take your livelihood, your freedom, and even your children away from you is the very definition of becoming their slave. And I, for one, have no doubt that corporations, beholden to their shareholders and profits, would hesitate to go after the children. These are the same companies that have blanked sued everyone from disabled children to comupter-less grandmothers in their pursuit of profits.

    9. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOPA is to the Internet what "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" is to the Legal System.

      Making Hollywood the TSA of the Internet.

      Any more?

    10. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, their sound byte isn't true. Why should ours be?

      This bill will kill everyone in the United States.

    11. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, "This bill implements online piracy at taxpayer expense and on the backs of business."

      Don't validate their premises, turn them right back around on the real guilty parties.

      "Anonymous Copyright Holder",
      Constituent of Johnny Isakson

    12. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      End Piracy, not Liberty!

      You're right, I don't like it. I don't think "piracy" is a real problem, and people who use that word for anything that doesn't involve actual ships tend to be on the wrong side of the copyright debate.

      I prefer Kitten BBQ = bad!.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    13. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more than 10 words!

    14. Re:The problem with SOPA in 10 words or less by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      no, the court orders are forwarded to the registrars/site owners, and they have 5 days to "react" to it.
      very short time period.. but that reaction could be from the site owner.. going to court to challenge the order, or by the registrar/host by turning off the lights on the site. No action within 5 days, poof or face further legal action. Of course if I were a host, I'd shut down and ask questions later, since i'm immune from any damages it makes the most business sense.

      it doesn't outline exactly what the reaction should be within that 5 day period. but it's pretty clear about AFTER the 5 day period.

      of course.. I only read SOPA.. haven't looked at PIPA yet

  64. Hit them in the wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best way to harm any business interest is to ruin their profit stream.

    Stop watching TV, whether it be free, internet, or cable. Don't buy tickets to movies from MPAA studios. Don't buy music from RIAA companies. Encourage other people to do the same.

    If you somehow think you can't live without those things, I'd say you need to check yourself. In addition to thousands of free books, songs, and other art out there on the internet either in the public domain or given away for free by the creators, there's an entire world out there. Go on a nature walk, pick a sport and join a local amateur team, attend an art show, go see a local band, whatever.

    The people pushing this can only push this because they have money. Want to stop them? Boycott their product, and things will change.

  65. Permaban sponsors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the protest. But if these people want the sponsors to understand a world without free information, then the blackout should continue for those originating from RIAA, MPAA and the like. Surely the internet has the resources to collect the IP ranges of said individuals so that webmasters can make a simple config change, right?

  66. Honestly by redemtionboy · · Score: 1, Troll

    I half expect /. to go dark in like 3 days since that's how long it normally takes the news to show up here.

  67. Alt. contact information for Senator Mark Warner? by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 1

    I've been trying to contact all of my legislators, but the web page containing Virginia Senator Mark Warner's official contact form seems to be dead (see http://warner.senate.gov). Does anyone know of a good alternative way to get messages to him?

  68. Hmm, i can see wikipedia just fine with noscript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing ahead that wikipedia would be blacked out, I was surprised to see that I could get full access to the site today. Apparently no-script was blocking the black-out, allowing me to surf unimpeded.

    That said, it defeats the purpose of the whole blockade, so I will not use wikipedia for today.

  69. whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we care and pretend it matters? They will publicly drop the bill to much fanfare. Tons will claim they were a voice of reason during sessions to help themselves get reelected. Then in 6 months they will stick the law in a new bill called "puppies for orphans" that will pass by a landslide... because PUPPIES FOR ORPHANS.

    Now get back to work you fucking proles!

  70. Rackspace CEO's Anti-SOPA Statement by tomweeks · · Score: 0

    Our CEO was asked to go to DC to tell the legislators why SOPA/PIPA is such a bad idea:
              Sink the Pirates, Not the Internet
              http://www.rackspace.com/blog/?p=2741

    Tweeks

    1. Re:Rackspace CEO's Anti-SOPA Statement by resalecentre · · Score: 1

      This is the common-sense approach, something of which the US government seem to not understand! Past a law that enables the government to shut down pirate sites.

  71. We should be recreating our most popular effect.. by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    By slashdotting Congress.

  72. Start with stopping being hypocrites. by roman_mir · · Score: 0
  73. Re:Hmm, i can see wikipedia just fine with noscrip by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Same here, but it was more like you used No-Script to block the 'personal appeals' and blocked WikiMedia like I did, thus preventing a blackout of Wikipedia. Check your No-Script permissions.

  74. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    This doesn't really surprise me.

    One of the most interesting things about the interwebs getting excited about any pending legislation is how few people bother to read the actual text of the bills they're complaining about.

    Thomas.gov will have the complete text of any pending legislation, plus modifications and annotations as it moves through the legislative process. Including little notes like "this is the version sent to the President for signature"...

    The search function isn't too friendly with acronyms (searching for SOPA yields nothing), but if you can type out the popular name of the bill (Stop Online Piracy Act), you'll go right to it.

    For that matter, if you know that the first word of the name is "Stop", you should be able to find it (that's how I did it last night - amazing the number of Bills with "Stop" as the first word in the name).

    And SOPA is neither long nor complicated. You can read the entire text in two minutes.

    So WHY CAN'T THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT AT LEAST READ IT FIRST AND MAKE VALID COMPLAINTS? Instead of that sort of idiocy...

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  75. Should first require a "whois" of copyright owners by dasspunk · · Score: 2

    The first step in ANY copyright infringement discussion should be for the owners to offer a way to automate the checking of their copyrights. Perhaps a "whois" of copyright owners... maybe "whoowns"; whatever. Short of this, I see these bills and their kin as nonstarters.

    Instead of bribing our elected officials, spend that money creating a database of registered copyright owners, their content, dates covered, etc... and guilt these companies into checking against it. As a bonus to the rest of us, it would also be nice to see what content is no longer under copyright.

  76. Wiki Workaround by scotchyscotch · · Score: 1

    Do your wikipedia search (you'll see what you want for a second, then you'll get the black splash page), then View > Page Source, select all, copy to notepad, save as x.html, then open. Voila!

  77. We're dark by VermontJ · · Score: 1

    COLDSTOR Data went dark this morning at 12:01. As a confidential digital archive we believe that we are particularly vulnerable to the potential mischief encouraged by SOPA/PIPA. Moreover, as a developer of "Chain of Custody" and other, physically unalterable proofs of ownership and authenticity, we do not want our technology hijacked in order to force clients to pre-emptively "prove" they own what they store. No one should be allowed to poke around in other people's data whether it is to look for essays by a Chinese dissident or someone's "personal use" copy of Baby's Got Back. We have already jumped through enough hoops to ensure our client's data archives can't be considered a "library" (and vulnerable to Patriot Act excesses) and to ensure that email we store for more than 6 months can't be considered "abandoned property" (via a loophole in the Electronic Privacy Communication Act). Enough is enough. We support the efforts of Richard Stallman, the EFF and Senator Wyden to derail what is just one more poorly thought-out, lobbyist driven, technically illiterate piece of legislation, We encourage slashdotters to call Senator Pat Leahy, the principal sponsor of the Senate bill at (202) 224-4242. We've also posted a list of co-sponsors on our website. Call them/write them/visit them. Jack Bryar COLDSTOR Data http://www.coldstordata.com/

    1. Re:We're dark by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Get your people on this, if you want to address the root of this fucking problem:
      Move to Amend

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  78. Use the 2nd ammendment! by feastyuk · · Score: 1

    Don't you guys have guns for such an occasion?

    1. Re:Use the 2nd ammendment! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      yea but your not allowed to go "huntin fer stupids"

  79. first thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a start stop electing stupids.

  80. SOPA Comic by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    Here's a SOPA comic for your enjoyment. Figured it was fitting, for today.

  81. I sent letters to my representatives by haxordan · · Score: 2

    ***** START RANT *****
    I sent letters to my representatives over a month ago. Two never replied, and one of my senators replied with a canned response stating that she is a supported of PIPA and that despite my concerns, she knows what's best for me and the economy, even if that involves compromising the infrastructure of the Internet, negatively impacting security, and infringing on the rights of United States citizens. So, to paraphrase, we need a lobby with lots of money, or we can go p*ss up a rope.
    ***** END RANT *****

    --
    -h
    1. Re:I sent letters to my representatives by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, and I hope the next time she runs, you're out there demonstrating this very thing that happened to you.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  82. Military tactic? by 3seas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    constrain communications of those your consider enemies?

    The Declaration of Independence expresses a feedback loop "Of the People, By the People, For the People". The founders recognized it is the people right and DUTY to keep their government in check. But they also foresaw the probability of government to deteriorate and fail the people. And they provided the people with instructions to follow in doing their duty as U.S. Citizens, to put off the current government and replace it with governance that will follow the feedback loop the founders intended.

    For this feedback loop to work, the people need information about what their government is doing. Bradley Manning showed intent to make such information available to the people. Wikileaks made similar information available to the people and the Occupy movement is providing the government with feedback from the people.

    There is plenty evidence the government is violating the founders intended feedback loop. When any system requiring a feedback loop for verification on staying on course, fails... lost and in this case its clear skerd happens.

    The government lives in its own world, has its own laws, even Washington DC is separated from the Union, its own country more or less (like Vatican City, separate from Italy, and London separate from England). The Government has its own benefits, retirement, medical, etc...all different than The People that are supposed to be a part "Of the People, By the People, For the People".

    Addiction and what the addicted will do in denial and to maintain their addiction, and regarding the government, military command is certainly included.

    So yeah, military tactic of constraining free communication of the enemy......they have been identifying as "The People."

    The Founders of the United States gave us, the people, instructions to follow in doing our duty. See the Declaration of Independence for it.

    1. Re:Military tactic? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      People could start by voting for third party candidates and rejecting the Demopublican Superparty. Imagine a Congress filled with people with no strong party affiliation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Military tactic? by 3seas · · Score: 1

      How about "We the People" start telling government how to spend our taxes, as we certainly pay more in taxes than corporations pay in taxes and the politicians pockets they line with lobbyist kickbacks or insider trading information.

    3. Re:Military tactic? by CodeManBob · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your sentiment and applaud your zeal, the phrase "Of the People, By the People, For the People" comes from the Gettysburg Address that was three score and sixteen years after the Constitution.

  83. Media blackout by aztrailerpunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information use their services.

    The full response from MPAA makes fill with the rage of a thousand suns. I finally saw some media coverage on SOPA. It was on CNN, it stated that wikipedia was having a blackout in protest of Sopa but was immediately followed up with Time Warner who owns CNN support this bill. It took her less than 10 seconds to report and then she quickly moved on to the next subject.

    --
    Foot placed squarely in mouth since 1983.
  84. Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the current political attitude towards technology and those with knowledge of and appreciation for it, and also realizing that it'll get much, much worse before it gets better, what I plan to do is to contribute as little to society as possible, while increasingly nurturing my nerdy interests in private as a means of not getting entirely sick of it all. Call me cynical, but I doubt that any improvement will ever come. Following the development of it all sure has caused me to turn increasingly bitter.

  85. Why Didn't Slashdot blackout? by Beachhouse · · Score: 1

    They have as much to lose as reddit and Wikipedia. It seem hypocritical to me.

    1. Re:Why Didn't Slashdot blackout? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I suppose you missed the blacked out logo, and this bit from the very story you just replied to:

      Note: This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  86. What can you do? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Move offshore.

    Find a few free speech friendly jurisdictions. Register your domain name and host your web site there. Open a foreign bank account and use the services of foreign payment processors. It will probably be necessary to spread your business around between several jurisdictions. That way, a subpoena served on your hosting site (for example) will have no authority where your bank account resides and vice versa.

    Even if our legislature drops the SOPA/PIPA legislation effort, I'd move offshore anyway. US politicians have demonstrated an irresistible addiction to the sort of infulence that causes this sort of BS. And it will happen again. But perhaps hidden in other legislation. So, until our politicians can demonstrate an ability to stand up in the face of such pressure, perhaps for a probationary period of 50 or 75 years, I'd keep my business offshore.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:What can you do? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      What you're recommending is (a) to have a domain name that is under a country-code TLD, (b) potentially not be indexed by major search engines, (c) not accept payment through credit cards / PayPal / Amazon, and (d) be blocked to any users in the US.

      While this is technically possible, this is a rather inconvenient way of doing business.

    2. Re:What can you do? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      So, do you want to just give up on .com, .net, .org and a bunch of other TLDs? Because what you want requires that.

      This shit is too naively worded. You have domestic companies with foreign domains, foreign companies with domestic domains... it just doesn't fit into an A and B listing.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:What can you do? by PPH · · Score: 1

      What you're recommending is (a) to have a domain name that is under a country-code TLD,

      Or take the exclusive registration of .com, .net, .org, .mil, .edu away from the USA and its minions.

      (b) potentially not be indexed by major search engines,

      If US search engines' results start becoming incomplete, people will switch to foreign sites. Hosted in countries that respond to US injunctions with a Bronx cheer.

      (c) not accept payment through credit cards / PayPal / Amazon, and

      Oh, I'll take their money. And anyone else's as well. Visa/MasterCard aren't the only game in the world.

      (d) be blocked to any users in the US.

      1) This isn't China. Yet.
      2) There are other markets out there. Foreign companies seem to survive quite well without the Almighty US market. And when Americans' standard of living starts to decline because people just won't be bothered with their BS to want to sell to them anymore, trouble will ensue.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:What can you do? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, like I said, using only non-US search engines, avoiding all the major payment processors, and not doing business in the US is possible. It's just a very inconvenient way of doing business. It's unlikely to have the effect you claim, though, because most of your competition doesn't care about the regulations nearly as much as they care about having that much more market share, so they'll go along with the regulations, even if they disagree with them.

  87. HAHAHAHA by unity100 · · Score: 1

    The answer is removing corporate money from politics

    good luck with that.

    all they will need to do to have the same thing will be to guarantee an employment for the representative in backroom dealings.

    they already use it for bureaucrats - they couldnt donate, gift or do anything to fcc chairwoman. but, she screwed everything up for the sake of content industry, and what happened ? she resigned, and immediately got a juicy job at that industry.

    you can be sure that she wouldnt screw up things, if she was not guaranteed employment beforehand.

    you cant remove the power of wealth on politics. you need to remove wealth from life, OR, you need to make everyone equally wealthy so that noone can undo the other. this is what we do in politics by the way - by mandating that everyone has one, equal vote. but that doesnt prevent from who can be elected with that vote from getting bought. now, if everyone was equally wealthy however, or equally poor depending on how you put it, then noone would be able to wrest the representative to their side, and the participation would have to be democratic.

    we are not living in democracies.

  88. I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Please find another example. A lot of people don't agree with or support Wikileaks. I know Slashdot has an agenda, but please let it go for once if this issue is important enough.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    1. Re:I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So....because a website mentions something (wikileaks) you don't agree with, you can't support the main focus of the article?

      This has nothing to do with wikileaks, why even bring that up when EVERYONE here knows the issue we are talking about it SOPA/PIPA.

      To "stop reading" at the mere mention of the word is astoundingly closed minded. But, I guess you won't have read past the 7th word of this comment either. So I'm talking to nothing.

    2. Re:I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what you agree with or support, when it comes to free speech.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 0

      Citing Wikileaks as free speech is clouding the issue. A lot of people don't consider what they're doing to be "Freedom of Speech". I'm just saying, the article poster should have put away his agenda long enough to cite an example that everybody could identify with.

      If that's the best example, then maybe these new laws aren't that bad after all.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    4. Re:I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you did (partially) read TFS? How quaint.

      I stopped reading at "Wednesday".

    5. Re:I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by hymie! · · Score: 1

      That's kind of the whole point. You can't claim to be in favor of "free speech" if what you really mean is "free speech for me and those who agree with my views."

    6. Re:I stopped reading at "Wikileaks" by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      I think you're part of a very small minority around here. Most /.ers tend to support Wikileaks even if they're not a big fan of Assange. It kind of goes in line with that Voltaire quote: Though I may disagree with what you say I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

      The idea that not even the internet is a safe place for whistleblowers is truly frightening to me. I don't buy any argument that justifies censorship for national security. Thomas Jefferson gutted the army/navy at a time when warfare and invasions were common, when there were enough Native Americans to sack and destroy every American city, and when pirates sailed the seas (he did send some ships to deal with the pirates - but it's noteworthy that he didn't overreact and build a grand navy). I'll paraphrase this quote as Wikipedia is protesting: "We must never sacrifice our liberty for security."

      I have yet to hear an anti-Wikileaks argument that doesn't amount to sacrificing liberty for security. Don't live in fear, especially of information.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  89. Why People hate PIPA and SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know greople do not like PIPA and SOPA but it's mainly that they don't go far enough, soon enough. I have been working to bring legislation seemlier to that in Kanada and other qulaces where there is a blank media tax. I prose a webpage tax of a modest 1/10th of cent per webpage for pages under 2 mb. and a 1/100th of cent for per mb for larger downloads. Which in my view is quite reasonable. This tax would go to a konsutium for media companies to offest the effects of piracy. Also, but unrelated, I have stop taking me meds.

  90. Re:Just tried to sign the form on the Reddit page. by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    For the first few minutes, the Wikipedia block page had a "Learn more" link that went to a page on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that page was also blocked. They did fix it soon enough.

  91. WRITE your SENATOR by lophophore · · Score: 2

    PIPA is still alive.

    40 (FORTY!) senators are co-sponsors of PIPA, the last time I checked.

    Write them. Don't email them. Don't waste your time on online petitions. Write a letter, and then send it by **FAX** to your senator.

    Why fax? because snail-mail gets quarantined, email is too easy to ignore, but an old-fashioned piece of paper is something bureaucrats understand.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  92. Something else we can do about these laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can defy them using all non-violent methods available to us, for they are nothing but tyranny.

  93. Re:Just tried to sign the form on the Reddit page. by Tomsk70 · · Score: 0

    Oooo....in whihc case, I will give it a whirl again in a little while.

    And whaddaknow? My score now rises to 2. Not sure this has ever happened before...

  94. Obligatory XKCD incoming by hedwards · · Score: 2

    They don't need to go completely black. Duckduckgo.com has a prominent link and XKCD did something as well.

    And XKCD currently only shows one panel unless you go to a specific one. Unfortunately I can't figure out what number it is for posterity.

    1. Re:Obligatory XKCD incoming by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's 1005. It's one panel, but you need good eyes and a monitor with good contrast to see BHG in the background.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:Obligatory XKCD incoming by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      What's BHG? Tanks!

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    3. Re:Obligatory XKCD incoming by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Black Hat Guy.

      Alternatively, open the image in an editor and fill the background with white and you'll see him.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  95. This is how it it supposed to work by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Way to go! Seriously, this is exactly what the blackouts are about: getting people to talk about the issue. Not just tech geeks, but laypeople as well. The fact that you're talking to them and informing them is more meaningful than just reading some web site put up by anonymous people and companies that might have an agenda. So keep right on informing; THAT is how these bills will be defeated.

    1. Re:This is how it it supposed to work by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      Not just tech geeks, but laypeople as well.

      Oh dear oh dear, delusions of grandeur. Have we not been taking our medication again?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  96. EFF Is getting hammered right now by BMOC · · Score: 1

    That's a good sign.

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
  97. Oh dear, this is why copyright SUCKS by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope that you just wanted to post quickly without thinking about what you said:

    I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid...

    I just produced this post, pay me.

    A lot of "art" is produced with claimed values without anybody at any time offering to pay any amount at all for it. Statue goes missing with a value in the hundred thousands because that is what the "artist" claimed so that is what the value must be...

    In the real world the model is very different, you get paid, so you produce something. There is a direct link between labor and pay and it is not for person doing the labor to just do the labor and claim the pay they want. A plumber does not get to claim a magic number for his work that he did without someone asking him to do it.

    A lot of MPAA/RIAA problem is that artist have gotten used to being payed insane amounts for not doing very much and they want more of it. Money for every blank CD found because some might contain their content. What about where I bought their CD and made a copy of it for my own use only as a back-up? I still got to pay extra?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Oh dear, this is why copyright SUCKS by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      No, that's just stupid. Yes, if you produce something, and someone else decides to use it, then if you desire to get paid, then you should get paid for it. No one should be able to use something for free just because they don't want to pay for it. Don't feel the work is worth what the author is charging for it? Go without. It's that simple.

    2. Re:Oh dear, this is why copyright SUCKS by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      A lot of "art" is produced with claimed values without anybody at any time offering to pay any amount at all for it.

      To be fair, none of that "art" is up for debate. The laws may be draconian, copyright length might be unreasonable, but we are talking about things people want. Or do you mean that if people are downloading things but don't want to pay for it at all, then it means the price is a "claimed", irrelevant value? You have twisted OP's words. he most certainly meant "I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid, [when others want and are somehow getting that produced content]"

    3. Re:Oh dear, this is why copyright SUCKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point doesn't mean you should be paid for your post, or any other efforts people aren't willing to pay for.

      His point was if anybody is paid for your post, it should be you, and not somebody pretending to be you. In fact, the "payment" even have to be currency. Nobody except you should receive that nifty "5" your post received. I shouldn't, and neither jholyhead. If we get our own super-awesome "5"s it's because our own posts were worth it, and we were paid accordingly.

      The above concept is simple and solid. It's been around for thousands of years, too, as: "I verbed this noun. If you want some noun give me some of your verbed noun in return."

      What is insanely wrong is the huge 3 ring circus of corporations and lawsuits and *PAAs and senators and gubmits and trademarks and patents and what-the-fuck-ever else people come up with to exert control in an ever expanding sphere, that grew (that WE allowed to grow?) out of that simple concept.

    4. Re:Oh dear, this is why copyright SUCKS by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      A lot of MPAA/RIAA problem is that a small group of record labels have gotten used to being payed insane amounts for not doing very much and they want more of it. Money for every blank CD found because some might contain their content. What about where I bought their CD and made a copy of it for my own use only as a back-up? I still got to pay extra?

      FTFY.

      Personally, I don't mind the blank CD tariff; as a result, copying music (under certain circumstances) is free for me... and since I only buy DVD-Rs and MP3 players rarely, I don't mind paying the $12 or so extra per decade there. I just wish the motion picture industry had backed that one as well....

      For people who never listen to new music, I can see how this could suck. For artists who plan to make a profit, I can see how this can suck (they lose out on the CD sales AND never see the tariff revenue).

    5. Re:Oh dear, this is why copyright SUCKS by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I totally believe that if you produce something you should be paid...

      I just produced this post, pay me.

      No, by posting it on slashdot you have agreed that people can read it for free, so fuck off with the stupid analogy.

      A lot of "art" is produced with claimed values without anybody at any time offering to pay any amount at all for it. Statue goes missing with a value in the hundred thousands because that is what the "artist" claimed so that is what the value must be...

      You are not only a philistine, you're also a clown. A statue will only be valued at hundreds of thousands if someone has paid that much for it. I can't draw a cartoon then lose it and claim a million pounds on my insurance because that's what I think it's worth. But if I had bought a sketch by Picasso for a million and someone stole it, then yes it is worth a million.

      In the real world the model is very different, you get paid, so you produce something. There is a direct link between labor and pay and it is not for person doing the labor to just do the labor and claim the pay they want. A plumber does not get to claim a magic number for his work that he did without someone asking him to do it.

      The link between labour and pay for an artist is that they have spent their time and labour on something that people want to see/listen to/read. No one is saying artists should be paid just because they have produced something, merely that if someone has been given the benefit of that piece of art then the artist is due some recompense. Unfortunately we live in a society where you have to earn money to survive.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  98. P2P is anti-semitism in action, stealing jewish IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    > SOPA and PIPA pose unacceptable risks to freedom of speech

    The right to private property is more basic and more sanctosanct. SOPA would properly protect jews and jewish property from plundering by the antisemitic goyim people, who use P2P to steal the 99% jewish-created and jewish-financed literature, music, movies and TV programmes without ever paying for the entertainment value.

    The US government duly recognizes that America owes its very existence to jewish wisemen, who gave the world masonic ideals of liberty (check the pyramid eye on the dollar bill) and specifically gave the USA those A-bombs to defeat Japan and Hitler. Furthermore, all we have in modern life, telecomm, IT, international business, higher education, financing, abundance of consumer produce and general human longevity, we owe all of that to the ingenuity of jewish people: investors, medical doctors, scientists, literary authors, teachers and merchants. There is nothing of significance that ever came from non-jewish minds, besides alcoholic drinks and linen pants.

    It is only proper and right that other nations, the goyim, pay the jews what's due when enjoying or consuming jewish-generated tangible and intellectual goods. Do you steal matzeh from the booth? If not, then why do you steal from Hollywood? The jews who run the movie industry, well, their grandfather arriveds to american shore with a bag of carpets on their back, literally, then made their fortune starting from nil. Do you think they should not have that fortune? Come forward and say so loudly, don't be a coward of a thief!

    P2P is not about piracy, it is about anti-semitism. That is why the scandinavian nazi party association is such an ardent supporter of the Piraty Bay torrent website. The Capitol Hill elite should not be shy to point out that SOPA is essentially about SHOAH not to happen ever, or as the isreali people use to say: "Massada must not fall again!"

  99. This just makes me bitter about my government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All around the internet we're spreading awareness of the issue to millions. Other than spreading the word around, the only other weapon We the People have in our arsenal is to call up our local representative and do what amounts to nothing more than beg that they ignore the wads of money being shoveled into their office and actually consider the issue rather than just slap the approval stamp on it. Of course, any negative PR can easily be cleared up just in time for re-election thanks to our short-term memory or pure ignorance of the issues.

    Why is this? Why is it that once someone has been put into a position of power, be it through false promises, lies, or just lots and lots of cash, that we have no means to kick them out before their time is up. For issues specifically like this, why cant we threaten to kick them out of office before their term is up? Better yet, why can't we take these people to court when they fail to represent the people and our interests? If a representative had to risk losing their job, losing a large percentage of their wealth or even going to prison over a bill, I guarantee you they would be more hesitant to vote on such bills. Representatives should be afraid of misrepresentation and should always be reaching out ensuring that they have the people's interest at hand. This should not be a job for the super rich and powerful, it should be a job that people hate to perform but know it's the responsible thing to do.

    I'm just bitter things have gotten this way with our government and it just doesn't seem to stop. SOPA and PIPA will be passed in some form or another. If they don't make it through this round, they will be renamed and tucked away in a completely unrelated bill. How far will it go?

  100. Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's why this is a particularly good time (right now, not November) to strike back at the people who are most responsible for it, rather than just the bills. It'll only be about one third as effective in the Senate, but for the House, every one of them needs to lose their party's nomination and not be on the ballots in November (unless they want to run as independents). This is something Democrats and Republicans can work together on, as such a cleanup would effect both of them about equally and doesn't really have any sort of partisan ideological component.

    If we establish a rule that pushing this kind of nonsense can only be done by sacrificing the next election, it'll help a lot. And eventually the revolving list of supporters will all be junior reps without important committee positions to make it happen. SOPA only got as far as it did, because its top dog has so much seniority (since 1987!!?! WTF is wrong with you, TX-21?).

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Dripdry · · Score: 2

      "Thought" is the operative word there, buster. Also, if you're not a U.S. citizen (and it sounds like you might be), he's a United States Citizen. It's a right, written in the Constitution, to object to the representatives and act to remove them if he/she so chooses, regardless of district.

      So, I think this person is merely encouraging people to do what many people see is the right course of action. After all it's the internet PLUS the united states. That's 2x the Freedom Cleaning Power of popular Political Systems! :)

      --
      -
    2. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by s73v3r · · Score: 0

      No, he's not. He's criticizing the people of that district for making their choice on who to represent them. Again, who is he to say that the people of the 21st district of Texas cannot choose the person they feel best represents them in Congress?

      It's a right, written in the Constitution, to object to the representatives and act to remove them if he/she so chooses, regardless of district.

      Citation, please. Especially the "regardless of district" part.

    3. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      This clinches it. Looking at the map, I see whole cluster of SOPA sponsors around the LA area in California, but none around the Silicon Valley area. When the US breaks up in a few years, California needs to split up, because obviously the southern half is toxic to the northern half's interests.

    4. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOPA all boils down to money. Not politics.

      Politicians will be politicians. Even if SOPA, is it now stands, is shut down, the politicians will just spin this whole event as if they are the protectors of the internet. Meanwhile, you can bet that they will be drawing up plans to roll SOPA into another bill (or bills) when nobody is paying attention. The existence of SOPA is more attributed towards the corporations who are driving the bill. They are the TRUE source of this bill and it is those Corporations at which these efforts should be directed.

      To make things like SOPA go away, there needs to be an environment where it costs SOPA supporters more money then they stand to gain. By using all of this awareness that has been generated, groups/sites could be created to help organize focused and meaningful boycotts of each of the financial supporters of SOPA (one at a time until they remove their support). The reaction that GoDaddy received was very quick and very effective. The same pressure could be applied to others. I found this link of SOPA supporters though I am sure there is a more accurate list out there somewhere: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of%20SOPA%20Supporters.pdf

    5. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (since 1987!!?! WTF is wrong with you, TX-21?).

      I live in TX-21, a gerrymandered slice of Austin. Austin is the most liberal part of Texas ("a blue island in a red state"), but redistricting keeps most of the votes safely marginalized. Our local congresscritter, Lamar Smith, won't have an opponent in the general election, and may not even have one in the primary. Yay for lifetime politicians!

    6. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with TX-21?

      Its that TX part.

    7. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Austin is also a major film and music capitol of the US. Specifically the South by Southwest (SXSW) annual events. It's not Hollywood or Tennessee, but closer than you think.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by geekoid · · Score: 2

      He didn't say that, he just implied they were stupid for doing so.

      Why can't you see the difference?

      Who are you to say he can't?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "When the US breaks up in a few years, "
      you're an idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      A nice even mix of R and D I see there. They may disagree on a few things, but they both know who pays for the campaigning.

    11. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's someone who's articulating why their choice is bad. It's, you know, one of those "free speech" things, using his words to highlight some other group's stupidity, and also maybe attempting to persuade them a little.

      Did you really need that cleared up for you, or are you being thick on someone's dime?

    12. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure a bunch of Soviet people said the same thing to people predicting the breakup of the Soviet Union back in 1988.

    13. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union was a federation of many different states, many of which had past histories as independent countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, etc) but had all been conquered by a political movement or prior to that, the Russian Empire.

      The current states that make up the United States only have two which had a history as independent countries, Texas, and Hawaii. The California Republic was in existence for around 25 days.

      The Confederate States of America, which existed from spring 1861 to spring 1865 wasn't nearly as different to the United States of America as say Georgia is to Turkmenistan. So its very difficult to see a great schism splitting the United States as easy as one split the Soviet Union. And remember that the core of the Soviet Union, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, retained it's territorial boundaries in the successor state, the Russian Federation.

      Americans are generally Americans first and loyal to their state or region second.

    14. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Americans may not have had the long past histories as independent countries that other have had, but they also have a strong sense of independence that those other don't have; that independent spirit is probably one big factor in why we had such a bloody civil war. That same independent spirit, I think, will make Americans want to split up the country to regain some of that independence, because what we have now with this federal government is the complete opposite.

    15. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      If we establish a rule that pushing this kind of nonsense can only be done by sacrificing the next election, it'll help a lot. And eventually the revolving list of supporters will all be junior reps without important committee positions to make it happen. SOPA only got as far as it did, because its top dog has so much seniority (since 1987!!?! WTF is wrong with you, TX-21?).

      The letter I wrote to my senators and representative today state exactly this. If they vote for SOPA, then I will dedicate every minute of my free time to making sure that they don't get re-elected.

    16. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      The bloody US Civil War ended without the reprisals and mass killings that punctuate other civil wars.

      The English Civil War cost England suffered a 3.7% loss of population, Scotland a loss of 6%, while Ireland suffered a loss of 41% of its population.

      The Russian Civil War through 1923 cost 4.4% to 5% of the Russian population

      The current Afghan Civil War has cost roughly 9-10% of the Afghan population

      The US Civil War cost 2.2% of of the population based on the 1860 Census including the civilian deaths.

    17. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest problem is... who the fuck wants to run for office? It takes a special kind of narcissistic sycophant to relentlessly pursue office like that. I know lots of people who want to (and do) make a positive difference, and none of them consider running for office to do it. Most of them don't even want the publicity and attention that would go along with it. People who are ethical, rational, and truthful are filtered out through the election process, and then we're surprised (or at least disappointed) by what's left. So I think the most useful question is that of either A) how to get the most competent people into office, or B) how to change the legislative process entirely.

    18. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      the problem isn't really the people, but the fact that dipshits can be in office that long. that is one of the major problems with our government. naysayers tend to argue:
      A) there are some good people that should be lifers. well then, let's have no term limits for anything then, right? comptroller for life, dawg!
      or
      B) it takes them awhile to learn how things are done. bullshit. they should know exactly how the job works before getting on the ballot. how fucking hard is it to read/write bills and vote on them? oh, they have to learn how to be corrupt. i get it.

      --
      ...
    19. Re:Go after the scumbags, not the bill by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "The Soviet Union was a federation of many different states, many of which had past histories as independent countries"

      Yeah that's nothing like the united States of America.

      Texas threatens to leave the union almost monthly. California was ran as itos own country for a very long time. Etc.. Do you know nothing about american history? Almost every state initially was technically it's own country until it joined the union.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  101. Social networking and links by forkfail · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah, I know. Facebook sucks and all that. But - if you do have a Facebook account, posting a little blurb that tells your friends in your own words why SOPA/PIPA are evil, then letting them know that even a few sentence email to their congress critters goes into the balance and counts, along with the links to get hold of them helps.

    To contact your representative:

    https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

    To contact your senator:

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    --
    Check your premises.
  102. I think it's working by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sen. Chuck Schumer's phone line is jammed. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's phone line is jammed, and her contact page is offline. On her Facebook page, the line of comments on the issue is endless and they're 100% opposed to PIPA/SOPA.

    As somebody that's watched this country go off the rails the last 30 years in a row, though, in my heart I think the American people need to send a much stronger message to DC, like by burning that town to the ground and salting the earth afterward.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:I think it's working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning down a town where the majority of the population does not work for the federal government, let alone the portion of the federal government that you disagree with, seems counter productive. Especially because the residents of that down do not get a congressional vote in regards the legislation that we are upset about, or a vote in any congressional legislation for that matter.

    2. Re:I think it's working by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, things'd be much better if the weak gruel we working-class plebes get out of washington was just eliminated completely. (/sarcasm) -- Oh, lookie: Goldman Sachs made a billion dollars this quarter!

  103. !Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say that calling something a stunt is the most misleading argument on the planet. Almost everything we do is a stunt by that observation. A lot these of sites make a lot of money and this "stunt" is their way of saying this bill will shut them down. If the people in congress are trying to brush this off they truly are not interested in reasonable argument. This has never happened before on this scale for any bill. Something is seriously wrong here.

  104. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I might suffer from a case of idiocy as well, but in this case I blame my ADD.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  105. Re:P2P is anti-semitism in action, stealing jewish by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    What is next? The invention of the wheel?

  106. fundamentals by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    Fundamental questions:
    Why is it always the USA that comes up with these stupid ass legislations?
    Be it (C) related (DMCA?), 'terror' (NDAA), or otherwise? It always has to be extreme and oh so right while we forget the recent history that led to these laws. SOPA/PIPA: did we notice that the (C) terms are extended and extended each time beyond reasonable without a doubt?
    Do we notice that the (C) cartels want this? Not the people?
    Same for the so called anti-terror police state laws: no real benefit except for enslaving the people in the fiat money, two party system that paints the outside world as less than what they call themselves.
    Ever thought why the USA has to police the world?
    Ever thought where the 'socialist' europeans get their money from? (taxes!)
    Ever thought about socialism for the rich? (it is called a bailout)
    Ever thought about how all this happens?

    1. Re:fundamentals by plopez · · Score: 1

      Ron is that you?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:fundamentals by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Because the USA as the biggest "intellectual property" content producers has the most to lose from that content being uncontrollably disseminated.

      It's as simple as that. With the general decline of manufacturing and other tangible economic output, US political leaders are betting hard on the only real global competitive advantage we have left: ideas, media, content, and other forms of intellectual property.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  107. Most important yhing to remember is by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Stop Online Piracy Act will stop online piracy exactly as much as Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 did: NOT AT ALL.

    But it will be even more disruptive to innovation and legitimate business than DMCA.

  108. "Copyright Term Reduction Act" by Animats · · Score: 1

    It's time for some serious pushback. The computer industry needs to propose the "Copyright Term Harmonization Act", which would bring US copyright law into conformance with the WTO TRIPS agreement. The TRIPS agreement only requires WTO members to offer a 50 year copyright term. The US goes beyond that. It's time to cut back to 50 years from first publication. That would deal with most of the "orphan works" problem.

    The MPAA wouldn't care all that much. Revenue from 50 year old movies is tiny. (Except for Disney, but even there, they're mostly pushing remakes now, not re-releases of their original Cinderella.) The RIAA would scream. All the 50s and 60s music would go public domain, and record companies are still making money from 60s recordings.

    Also, the FTC should be directed to resume their antitrust inquiry into record company pricing and payola.

    1. Re:"Copyright Term Reduction Act" by plopez · · Score: 1

      50 years? How about the life of the creator? How do you "incetivize" dead people in the first place?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  109. Re:There are two big things: contact your represen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One of the most interesting things about the interwebs getting excited about any pending legislation is how few people bother to read the actual text of the bills they're complaining about."

    They are just doing what their congressmen are doing. Not one of those assholes in Congress has read the text of the Bills they are debating or talking about.

    Want to reform this crap? require a law that any congressman or woman that votes on a law without reading it completely themselves are out in federal maximum security prison in general population for 1 year.

    Nothing fixes a lazy rich asshole than an ass raping by a 6th offense violent criminal.

  110. Today I'm Proud to be American! by na1led · · Score: 1

    When I see all these websites going Black, and posting how Bad SOPA is, it makes me really proud that we American's can Stand Up to Totalitarian Rule!

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  111. TODO: Pierce the PR veil: "MPAA == Disney" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give credit where it's due. When the MPAA does slimey things, and supports insane public policy, don't just say "MPAA". Say "Disney and Sony and NewsCorp". Nothing MPAA does is without the funding and approval of Disney. So give them credit. So far they have managed to avoid accountability and PR backsplatter from their actions. There's no need for us to continue to help them with that.

    For some audiences, using the organization name they know, rather than the corporation, might be more effective. As with "MTV isn't cool, they're trying to censor the internet". Also WB, etc. A lot has been invested in these brands' reputations. Where they doesn't match reality, let's use that.

    1. Re:TODO: Pierce the PR veil: "MPAA == Disney" by plopez · · Score: 1

      Correct. Let's take back the language. George Orwell's main point, if you *really* read his work (not just one or two books and only look at the surface details.) is that those who control the language control thought. So start speaking plainly. Here are some ideas for substitutions:

      Issues == problems
      private security contractors == mercenaries
      incetivize == subsidize
      cloud computing == remote client/server

      etc.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  112. Yeah. by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It turns out eternal vigilance is actually pretty hard.

    1. Re:Yeah. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nobody said liberty is cheap. But it's worth it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Yeah. by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      True, but sometimes it needs a hard reboot, as the founders knew.

    3. Re:Yeah. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Liberty and holding onto it with eternal vigilance is a lot like hanging off a cliff with one hand. It can be done. You will stay alive this way. But, you will also get tired to the point of giving up. Complacency and fatigue are the #1 killers of democracy and freedom. It's only a question of time before a nation falls and some point afterward is reborn. Revolution is cyclical. Despite all our knowledge and technology, I don't see the fundamentals behind human nature changing anytime soon. Buy by all means, please prove me wrong. I encourage it.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy by all means

      The perfect Freudian slip for a fascist society characterized by consumerism.

    5. Re:Yeah. by identity0 · · Score: 1

      You know, I wish people would use the blue ribbons from the 1990s campaigns against DMCA and CDA to remind us that the fight against internet censorship is eternal, and not just something that started yesterday.

  113. That's not what bankrupted Greece by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    trying to follow an American style system of finances. The basics of the scam are you borrow money to buy up properties, use those properties as collateral to borrow more money, and pay yourself huge sums of money in management an consulting fees. Then when whole house of cards collapses you just get bailed out by the tax payer buy using a fraction of your ill gotten gains to buy off the gov't. See Bain Capital for the classic example of this, but they're hardly the only one. The other major component to this are financial vampires like Goldman Sachs who do billions of micro trades a day to siphon money off the top. No actual investment goes on, they're just pocketing money from other investors.

    If you're noticing a pattern here, it's a wealth transfer from the middle and lower classes up to the 1%. Trickle up economics. The middle class goes away, and without them the economy crashes. You know American isn't in a recession, right? But do you know why? It's because the 1% are making so much money that they skew the numbers. Take them out and large sections of the US economy are in depression, let alone recession.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's not what bankrupted Greece by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I think you articulated the scam pretty well - but Bain Capital is more of a counter-example, as they never used treasury funds and they didn't get any of their losses socialized. This is all enabled by central planning and debt-based fiat currency courtesy of the Federal Reserve and the massive market intervention of the Federal Government. Of course there are bad actors rigging the system, quite simply because the American people have been asleep at the wheel and letting their government turn into an aristocracy.

      That isn't an issue of rich people being too rich (most of those 3.6 million people you want to vilify actually work very hard for their money and earn it by serving consumers), it's an issue of too many rich people gaining wealth via government largess, no-bid contracts, corruption and control over high-level federal administrators.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:That's not what bankrupted Greece by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Sorry, once again I'm jumbling terms. That gets back to what I said about it being a complex issue, after all. It's difficult to articulate, especially in an early morning /. post :).

      Anyway, strictly speaking it's not a scam so much as a philosophy of doing business. This philosophy includes Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital and the entire mortgage & securities industry circa 2005. It comes down to one thing: finding clever ways to capture large amounts of our civilization's output without producing anything. Financial Vampirism.

      Here's a good question to illustrate my point: we often talk about how many months a year you work for the gov't, but have you ever thought how many of those month's you work for the 1%? Even a conservative/ right wing estimate says they have 50% of all wealth in their hands. It stands to reason you're spending 6 months every year toiling for someone else.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  114. International law enforcement - there isn't any by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The key problem with the Internet today is law enforcement. It has taken 15 years, since the dawn of the web age, to get international agreement on clamping down on exploitation of children for sex. For the most part, it has only been in the last few years that some of the last countries have signed on to this. This is not something controversial - pretty much everyone agrees that selling a six-year-old for sex is wrong and selling movies of a six-year-old being raped isn't much better. And yet it took 15 years.

    There has been international agreement with most countries about extraditiion for murder for perhaps 100 years. And yet, there are still havens to which a murderer can flee from which there will be no extradition. And how long has most of the world recognized murder as a crime?

    Today anyone can find themselves or their business being attacked from foreign locations. If your business is the selling of creative works digitally you can be completely put out of business by web sites offering your materials for free or at low, low cost. Even if you are sellling physical goods, you can find your business impacted severely by someone selling look-alikes at 1/10th of your price. Sure, they are fake but how does anyone know until they hold it in their hand that the quality is low? Today, in the Internet age price rules the marketplace and quality has little or no part in things because you can "see" the price but the quality is invisible. As it is with customer service - if you don't need any service, you will never find out it is bad.

    Today the selling of pirated or fake goods cannot be stopped. All it takes is to base the business in a place that just doesn't care and there are many. If the purpose is clearly to separate comparatively rich Americans from their money there are many supposedly lawful places that will make it easy for scammers to operate simply because the current government agrees with ripping off Americans. Same goes for Western Europe. Yes, the scammers are breaking the local laws but the local law enforcement isn't interested. Trying to recoup money through a lawsuit will simply be a waste of time - again, the deck is stacked against foreigners in their courts.

    So for all the clamoring of "due process" there can be no due process for these scammers. The countries they are based in have no "due process" of any sort for foreigners against their people and they do not recognize any laws against anything done "virtually" - because it is all virtual. Sure, maybe in 50 years they will catch up to the Internet age - but it could just as easily take 500 years. Anything that is going to be done is going to be very unilateral without any cooperation from a foreign government or foreign law enforcement.

    Yes, SOPA and PIPA have major flaws. But the Internet isn't going to exist as a law-free zone for the lucky ones that can operate from law-free havens much longer. The alternative to law enforcement from US and Western Europe on a unilateral basis will be enforcement from Master Card, Visa and Sony. Their way will be quite different but the effect will be two Internets - one for crime and one for entertainment. Locked down, supervised entertainment. And you can be that no Apple device will access the "crime" Internet at all. Neither will your US-based ISP support such access. It isn't going to take much to have the corporations figure out how to implement this and do it in spite of government wishes to the contrary.

    So we can either figure out unilateral law enforcement against scammers and crooks or we can let the corporations do it for us. Failure to choose will be choosing the latter.

  115. Yes. by Brain-Fu · · Score: 1

    When proposed legislation pisses off enough powerful corporate executives, awareness-raising is easy!

  116. From my Senator by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dear Mr.[redacted],

    Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

    On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.

    On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.

    Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.

    The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.

    Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov./ Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

    Sincerely,
    Maria Cantwell
    United States Senator

    For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
    http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

  117. Obama doesn't oppose SOPA/PIPA by zidium · · Score: 1

    That the White House is against SOPA/PIPA is *such* a joke since it alone could veto both bills. Do you really think both houses have the 66% plurality to override the President? I sure don’t! Not in an election year with such horrible pieces of legislation!

    Obama could end it now just by saying, affirmatively, that he’d veto it.

    Instead he pussyfoots around enough that every libtard believes he’s “against” it. No, he’s not really against it. And if the recent legislation is any guide, he doesn’t like it because it doesn’t let him unilaterally shut down sites himself.

    --
    Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    1. Re:Obama doesn't oppose SOPA/PIPA by uncanny · · Score: 1

      Do you really think both houses have the 66% plurality to override the President?!

      Obama could end it now just by saying, affirmatively, that he’d veto it.

      That works great unless republicans win the next election, then they can do whatever they want. It's best to squash this idea altogether now and get it through their heads that we dont want this. not now, not ever. If the president just veto's it and it's over, then they will just play it down as politics and keep it on a backburner.

  118. Reverse Robocall by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    Reverse Robocall them if you can afford it.

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  119. Block the offenders IPs? by plopez · · Score: 1

    Prevent any organization who supports it from your website for 24 hrs. Block their IPs. Or perhaps redirect them to a page about the legislation and why it is bad.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  120. Re:solution by plopez · · Score: 1

    Too late. The US dominates the globe. They have become the "The Borg" in a sense.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  121. "Useful arts"? by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

    ...useful arts

    LOL. What the heck is "useful arts"? And what has it to do with copyright? So, not-so-useful arts get no copyrights?

    1. Re:"Useful arts"? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      LOL. What the heck is "useful arts"? And what has it to do with copyright? So, not-so-useful arts get no copyrights?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts

      Useful arts (also called technics) are concerned with the skills and methods of practical subjects such as manufacture and craftsmanship. The word has now gone out of fashion, but it was used during the Victorian era and earlier as an antonym to the performing arts and the fine arts.

      The term "useful Arts" is used in the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 8 which is the basis of United States patent and copyright law:

              "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;â¦"

      In the clause, the phrase "useful Arts" is meant to reference inventions, while "Science" is meant to reference human knowledge, including that which is encompassed in literature and the "fine arts".

      In his dissenting opinion in In re Bilski,[2] Judge Mayer criticized the majority for not addressing the preliminary issue of whether the claimed invention was within the useful arts. In Mayer's view this should have been dispositive, because he considered the claimed business method not to be within the useful arts. In the same case, Judge Dyk filed a concurring opinion to similar effect.

    2. Re:"Useful arts"? by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I learned something today (even while Wikipedia is blacked out).
      Legal language != intuitive (used) language

    3. Re:"Useful arts"? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Yeah -- weird that literature comes under "science", eh?

  122. Simplify the message for mass-distribution by goldspider · · Score: 1

    Proponents of bills like this are particularly dangerous because they can express their support in single-line sound-bytes that the less-initiated can easily digest (think PATRIOT Act).

    What we need to do is simplify the explanation of why this is so bad, in the most specific terms possible. Joe Sixpack doesn't understand (or care) that SOPA/PIPA = censorship and restriction of free speech; for him, those are little more than abstract concepts. Joe Sixpack needs to understand how this can and will directly affect him, even if we find some of those things trivial.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  123. I'm tired of screaming at the US government by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Regarding SOPA and PIPA:

    Everyone knows my opinion on US interference with ANY nation's right to use the internet according to THEIR laws, and to require the US media conglomerates to pursue "pirates" and counterfeiters according to the laws of their home nations.

    I just don't feel like repeating myself, so just hit up my Facebook "Wall" or my Slashdot user page and scroll through the history instead.

    I'm TIRED of screaming at brain-dead US government policies that are CLEARLY dictated by special-interest lobbyists, not the will of the American PEOPLE.

    "By the People, For The People" -- not "the Corporations." Corporations are NOT people until you can execute one or put it in jail.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  124. TODO: Show groupthink idiocy using their own words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people happily say stupid things in public. Let's collect and use that.

    These legislation are created by a small community that thinks it has a clue. These people don't avoid debate (embed policy in uneditable trade treaties, etc) because they believe they are *wrong*, or even realpolitik. They think they are informed insiders beset by the uninformed masses and craven internet companies. And given the little and credulous press attention they've historically gotten, and the degree of US regulatory capture, their public statements been under little selection pressure.

    So they are quite happy to say batshit crazy stuff. So let's collect and draw attention to it.

    Sony CEO Lynton's "nothing good had come from the internet. Period." http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090526/1159125014.shtml
    http://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch
    US VP Biden parroting absurd MPAA "costs billions and billions of dollars" numbers,
    and so on.

  125. PAY your Congressman by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

    Hear, Hear. I am so tired of citizens being ignorant of what they need to do to participate in American politics. It is so easy. All you have to do is,

    1. Found a company.
    2. Grow that company to be a leader in a billion dollar industry.
    3. Get your employee count up to at least 3000.
    4. Donate $200,000 to $1,000,000 dollars to your local politician.

    That's it. Now, get off your lazy asses and let your voice be heard!

    :)

  126. What to do: contact your representatives? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    If anyone finds a working Contact form or e-mail address for Matt Blunt, share it. I ended up sending an e-mail to MATTBLUNT.COM@domainsbyproxy.com because it's the only thing that didn't bounce back with "sorry loser, we don't care. p.s. that address we gave you was bogus." I expect to probably get a form letter back sometime today from that one.

    1. Re:What to do: contact your representatives? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Oh, and [admin|webmaster|abuse]@mattblunt.com were all tried. They bounce.

  127. how about caring about piracy by Twillerror · · Score: 1

    I imagine that most of the people reading this has used napster back in the day or has pirated music\movies in some fashion. I certainly did years ago.

    As long as the internet itself just shrugs this off we will continue to get these crappy laws.

    The congress has a responsibility to enforce copyright law...like it or not. Is it any different then them not enforcing it?. We are not only talking about mega corps, but plenty of other smaller content people. Even if it was only mega corps they still have a write to be protected. Walmart gets police support at their locations as much as a small hardware store.

    Congress will always get it wrong. There is simply no way to write this law...so make the law unnecessary.

    Is Brittany Spears starving because of piracy, no, but it is simply not an excuse. If I stole a box of cookies from Walmart the CEO would not starve, but I still can't steal cookies.

    Smaller fines like speeding tickets maybe part of the solution, but ultimately how do you enforce it without the support of ISPs, etc.

    Come on open source community, write some scanning tools that help Youtube, etc detect piracy...let them rank it. Let the end user watching some illegally uploaded video know they are getting the content in an improper fashion. Share ad revenue with the content. Do something!

    Finally pirate bay has to get shutdown. They are simply profiting off of piracy. If you were writing the law how would you go about blocking them?

    Lastly, Wikipedia is still up if you disable javascript or hit the mobile site. I love the idea of blacking out the site, but I can't help feeling as a donator that they should have just had a link to turn off the black screen for the average user. Imagine if someone who looked up CPR today ends up not getting the info in time...

     

  128. Wikipedia English Still Accessible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, you can still use Google's cached version of the English article. But you can still access the current page (I'm using Firefox I haven't tested others). When you click on a link to an article, then you are directed to the article before you are redirected to the black screen. To access the current article, simply stop the browser from loading before you are redirected. If you don't like needing to have your mouse hover over the stop button every time you go to a different article, I suggest you download the Greasemonkey or iOpus Macros add-ons so you can script this behavior.

  129. Proposal;Create a p2p Distributed DNSSEC by hAckz0r · · Score: 3, Interesting
    By using the same peer to peer technology that has been attacked by the big Media companies we could invent a distributed DNSSEC tool set (e.g. client proxy, dynamic servers ) so that there is no centralized root domains to be quashed or lobotomized by any Government, domestic or foreign. A web site with its own signing key could create and send out a broadcast packet containing its hosts IP information, complete with a signed token which can be verified by any server or peer, and would include a time stamp and to live indicator in the packet to aid in self revocation. Any local peers which intercept the initial announcement packet could pass that information on to seed the any p2p DNS community at large, via a large and dynamic but voluntary set of DNSSEC seed trackers. Any DNSSEC information which is not cryptographically verifiable would not be accepted or forwarded at the seeder/tracker level, as only verifiable addresses would be added to the p2p distributed database, and newer packets always supersede older packets.

    .
    When an Internet client connects to the Internet it puts out a request to locate any local seeder/trackers, and then requests from them any addresses that the client requires. The dynamic seeder/trackers split up the domain information to organize the domain data efficiently, as to ensure the proper data replication in case of network partitioning or link failures. The client request is returned if found in its cache, otherwise it is forwarded based on the current domain mapping between servers. Before trusting the returned DNS record the client would first need to verify that DNS record via the sites published PKI public key.

    Without a single centralized point of control there would be no way to 'take a domain down' once the information is published to the cloud. The weakest link would be at the ISP's Internet connection, but then the initial DNS injection point need not be at the same location, as any client even on a dialup connection could inject the initial announcement packets if it contains the properly signed data.

    Yes, I realize there have been some p2p efforts in the past, but its now time to take this seriously.

    1. Re:Proposal;Create a p2p Distributed DNSSEC by blueg3 · · Score: 0

      So, in your system, who holds the top-level certificates for the TLDs, and why aren't they subject to US laws?

    2. Re:Proposal;Create a p2p Distributed DNSSEC by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
      Two very excellent questions. To the second question I would say that any Government can only control what is owned by its own corporations, and also only control that which is also controllable by current technology. Yes, there are legal agreements with foreign countries, but then controlling this technology may just be harder than you think.

      Ok, to the first question I would say that there is no top level domains in a truly distributed system, at least that would be the goal. Every site that wants to be listed in the distributed PKI would need to cross sign keys with several other organizations with whom they would verify and attest to their partners authenticity. Only a few organizations would have to be signed by entities with a normal DNSSEC certificate to anchor the chain of trust. When a client receives a certificate for a site for the first time it would take some additional time to do the initial verification, by walking the p2p chain of trusts until it leads to a certificate that the user has trusted and cached, or finds a regular DNSSEC record that matches their p2p records. Because of the extra overhead getting started is the biggest problem, but once you have a trusted certificate it only helps you authenticate the next one faster. Think of it this way, with the 'Six degrees of Keven Bacon' scenario if you are into one type of hobby, business, or media (e.g. Gaming software) then the rest of that similar kind of media (e.g. Computer software) is not very far away by the rules of graph theory. There will likely be a quick path between the two, and you only need spend that additional time researching that chain the first time around if you cache your own certificates. Idealistically you would cache your favorite sites and toss the ones you don't use (LRU algorithm).

      If any Justice department or Government tries to force one entity to revoke their own signing certificate it only would affect the targeted site if all its cross signings were simultaniously revoked. A revocation actually doesn't have to affect the site that is being targeted since the targeted sites certificate was physically modified when it was signed and thus its signature is indelible. The chain of trust might tell you the certificate was revoked, but you could choose to ignore that if you wish providing you still trust their server. As long as there is a path through the certificate chain of trust to someone you know and trust, then you will always know you are talking to the site you wanted to.

      This cross signing method does leave the system open to the general PKI social engineering tricks, such as someone posing as an individual from some company they don't belong to, therefore that authentication step needs to be factored into the signing agreements somehow. The client should be made aware of any changes to certificates so that the user can choose what they want to do. The web site can always find new organizations to cross sign with if the need should arise, so when that happens the client should see that the chain of trust be checked again.

  130. Dramatic! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    The whole thing is becoming quite the SOPA opera.

    I'm terribly, terribly sorry, and deserve whatever PUNishment is forth coming.

  131. The Power of the Consumer - Boycott by s.petry · · Score: 1

    As a consumer, you not only have the right to be a customer but a you have the right to boycott. Live it, and Love it! I have for years boycotted all Microsoft products, and continue to do so. If we all give up something to make the point we can make changes for the better. This is the power of the consumer in our Economy.

    Take this or something similar, and send it to those that back SOPA and PIPA. Be Vocal, make noise! A boycott is not simply you stopping a money exchange, but persuading others to stop exchanging money also.

    Dear Business,

    For years I have been a customer of yours. As a customer, I provide free advertising to family, friends and acquaintances of your goods and services. This free advertising has gained you additional customers, increased your sales, and allowed you to maintain your business.

    Since you are backing legislation that disregards my rights as granted by the Constitution and Law of the United States of America that ends today! The legislation you are backing is known as SOPA and PIPA.

    As of today, I am boycotting your business and will continue to boycott your business until such time as you stop pushing for legislation that damages my rights and liberties as granted under the US Constitution and Laws of the United States of America.

    A boycott is not just me refusing to purchase your goods and services. A boycott is also me requesting to my family, friends and acquaintances that they no longer purchase your goods and services.

    In the past I have helped your business as a customer, I will now harm your business with boycott. This is my right as a consumer, and I choose to exercise that right to the fullest of my abilities.

    Sincerely,

    -your-name-

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  132. All that is required... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to chat on slashdot.

    Get a gun, learn to use it.

  133. /jk, really... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    time to get stabby!

    hey, I've been advocating that for years! I can't get anyone to listen.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  134. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This awareness-raising isn't a victory over the corporations by the people. It is, at best, a victory of some corporations over others.

    Though ostensibly a constitutional republic, we really are a fascism. And when Google is the most effective defender of the people's interests....we are in some serious trouble.

  135. Boycott? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    I would think that a boycott of new movies and music would work. I am sick of entertainment industry running Washington; my protest will take the form or no more movies for me. I won't miss them...

  136. Now B nice! by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Think about fluffy bunnies.

  137. About 100 emails per hour... by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    Glenn Reynolds, the influential libertarian blogger (who opposes SOPA/PIPA), reports that a staffer for Congressman Tim Johnson emailed: "Glenn, no name please. I work for Congressman Tim Johnson. Just to let you know, we’re getting about a hundred emails an hour opposing SOPA. We were already opposed, but this certainly makes us feel that much better about our opposition."

  138. Rubio Slashdotted? by kodiaktau · · Score: 1

    Apparently the Senator withdrew his support. Trying to link to his site: http://rubio.senate.gov/ shows nothing. He did make a facebook posting withdrawing support https://www.facebook.com/SenatorMarcoRubio/posts/340889625936408#!/SenatorMarcoRubio Interesting times...

  139. Instead of stupid gestures by gelfling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Round up some web billionaires and get them to lobby the hell out of congress. If you can't get the money out of politics then use money as a weapon the same way Hollywood and the Music Industry does. "Going Dark" is insufferably silly because it gives ordinary anonymous slackers the impression they are doing something while in fact it accomplishes nothing. You'd be better off selling ribbon magnets.

    1. Re:Instead of stupid gestures by jyx · · Score: 1

      Round up some web billionaires and get them to lobby the hell out of congress. If you can't get the money out of politics then use money as a weapon the same way Hollywood and the Music Industry does. "Going Dark" is insufferably silly because it gives ordinary anonymous slackers the impression they are doing something while in fact it accomplishes nothing. You'd be better off selling ribbon magnets.

      You can say the same about every 'X' awareness day of the year then. Why buy a pink ribbon cause women are still going to die of breast cancer anyway.

      These campaigns are about getting people informed about stuff they normally wouldn't know shit about. In this case the pure self interested evil of entertainment industry lobbyists and the piss weakness of politicians for hire.

      Paying of the politicians will work up until someone pays them more, and I'm sure I don't need to draw you a diagram of how 'industry money from a pool of money that will grow larger with bad legislation' will outlast 'donated cash from friendly billionaires'

      My hope is this whole debacle is the start of a serious look at the whole entertainment industry, starting with their funny accounting methods that show lord of the rings and the latest #1 pop star star albums as loss makers.

    2. Re:Instead of stupid gestures by gelfling · · Score: 1

      So your solution is to vainly hope that human nature changes in response to your pout? Good luck with that.

    3. Re:Instead of stupid gestures by jyx · · Score: 1

      So your solution is to vainly hope that human nature changes in response to your pout? Good luck with that.

      As opposed to you solution to vainly hope a rich billionaire person will give you money to bribe a politician?

      After today a shit load of people are now more informed about the nasty side of the SOPA and related acts. The pollies dont like the press they are getting and 'things are happening' that *might* (might) get these bills if not killed, then fixed.

      How much money did you get of those billionaires for your idea? How much of a difference have *you* made in getting killing these bills?

      People power is over-rated. Yes, I agree, but sometimes its all we got.

      If you've got a better idea that isn't an unpossible arms crossed 'other people should take the risks I'm not prepared to then I'm all ears. Until then the score is 1-nill and you aint winning.

  140. Already lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The battle for this has already been lost. Property rights are all but gone, parental rights have vanished, the nanny state is in full swing, and suddenly techies are finding the principles of freedom - but only when it affects them. The bill may be delayed, but eventual passage is inevitable. Too many freedoms have been taken away while the apathetic masses allow it to happen. The precedent is set and until all citizens fight for ALL rights equally, we're going down the path of losing them all.

  141. You're better than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were several people I was talking to, today about the wikipedia outage, who wanted to know what the big deal was (one even tried to defend SOPA). My general comparison was similar to the patriot act, but instead of dismantling checks and balance within the government some tenuous terrorism issues, it's dismantling checks on certain abusive businesses over piracy (which will be only minimally mitigated, at the cost of, probably billions, to other companies and individuals).

    I've given up.

    I heard too many times, "If you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about." And when you try to explain that yes, everyone has something to worry about, it goes on deaf ears because as far as they're concerned the auhorities: never make mistakes, are incorruptable, checks and balances always work and if you are aquitted, then you figured out a "loop-hole" and took advantage of the system.

    Thank you for carrying on, but I can't do it anymore.

    1. Re:You're better than me by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Normally I'm in the "If you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about." category, typically because the profit/gain of someone from giving you something to worry about in those cases is negligable.

      Here, the profit/gain is still very small, but some groups pushing for it are known to heavily abuse their power, and do anything for a little gain, even at a massive and unfair cost to others.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:You're better than me by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      So basically you gave up and let them win by default ??

      May I remind you of a few famous quotes:

      All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

      -- mis-attributed to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

      -- Thomas Jefferson

  142. Anon's protesting outsite Lamar Smith's office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Several anons have been protesting with signs and full suits/Guy Fawkes mask getup outside his office in West Lake Hills for the past few days at random hours. The cops are pretty pissed, and Austinites know that WLH/Rollingwood cops are angry bastards as is.

  143. I can't quite believe it... by blind+biker · · Score: 0

    I can't quite believe that Slashdot was too chickenshit to join the protest.

    Slashdot... I am disappoint.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  144. Who to vote for? by pclminion · · Score: 1

    My Congressional district is having an election to replace David Wu (the crazy guy). There are Democrat and Republican candidates -- I won't vote for those, obviously, so my choices are Progressive or Libertarian. While I'm not crazy about a truly Libertarian system, it probably does more good than harm to have at least a few of those voices in the House, so I'm leaning that way. Unless somebody wants to try to sell me on Progressive...

    1. Re:Who to vote for? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Support Ron Paul.

    2. Re:Who to vote for? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Check your brain. I am asking who I should vote for in my local district.

      As far as Ron Paul, I have some problems with him. He's against birthright citizenship, which might harm my family (my sons, born in Oregon to a productive, tax-paying, fully legal permanent resident might have their citizenship stripped). His stance on abortion is a pointless irrelevancy and a distraction. His stance on religious separation is dubious at best.

      The next President must focus on two things only: fixing the fucking job market and putting a tourniquet on the fucking budget. In my opinion, spending a single second on anything else is dereliction of duty.

      He'd have a chance in hell with me if he denounced his Republican status, but he's not going to do that. As long as he carries the card he is beholden to them.

  145. I've Got A GREAT Idea!! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Hey, what say we give the Federal government even *more* revenue, power, and control, and increase it's size and scope even more!

    I mean, just look around!

    That's worked SO well over the last 60-80 years to bring us to the Utopia we have now, hasn't it?

    [crickets]

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  146. TODO: Create a counter-narative of groupthink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears this legislative mess is a groupthink failure. Pointing that out helps people understand what's happening.

    And might alter press coverage. And who knows, it might actually give the group members a clue. Maybe? At least getting to a Tobacco Institute style "we're ignoring all the real academic literature, and thus are lying to you, but do we realize that" seems possible. The "we realize that" would be a notable change.

    There's an EFF post (can anyone find it?) describing their going to a Washington copyright meeting, and being told that "dissenting" voices, like theirs, are almost never present. There's the Wikileaked diplomatic cable http://newsrating.net/?p=4757 talking of http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ and "his acolytes" as they try to reconcile the academic consensus with their own views. When Sony's CEO says "nothing good had come from the internet. Period." it's not that he's kept his views hidden, or colleagues were too cowed by his being a CEO to point out that he's nuts. He just lives in a small community where that's not considered insane.

    So let's collect stuff. Though it's a bit harder than usual to search the web for info today. And then point people at it.

  147. I've done two things today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) I have called and emailed my congresscritter and let him know how I stand. He already came out against SOPA, but it doesn't hurt to reinforce.
    2) I have posted my view on my Facebook page. Although most folks there only have a passing (if any) understanding, I hold a high level IT management position and I think my voice carries a little weight in this area.

    Not a huge deal, but if everyone did the same, it would be a huge deal...

  148. SOPA by hackus · · Score: 1

    I don't understand.

    We have many of our elections being counted in secret.

    We have foreign companies now counting our votes.

    We have voting machines, with no way to track votes counting our votes.

    What is the result?

    A bunch of people that pass Patriot ACT, SOPA and NDAA, TSA. (Sorry the list is too long now...)

    Suprise!

    Only complete idiots would be thinking about how to use a political system that gave them the above to somehow expect the very same system will stop stop these evil people, and I do mean _evil_ people.

    You people are morons, and future generations are going to look back at how Mud Huts everyone is living in got into vogue, and curse you all.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  149. Where is Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't they be engaging in some serious hacktivism right now? You know, replacing with a SOPA disclaimer? DDoSing the supporting companies out of existence?

  150. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Update: The gentleman did in fact email me a copy, so now it's my turn to decide what happens next.

    A couple of notes:

    A Legit issue underneath all the snow-job the **AA is churning out is that there is indeed a longer gestation period for "non-traditional sales" so on purpose I "won't pay today". (Otherwise that's just more of an inverted retail transaction.)

    Also this situation is different because "the clock starts today" whereas the poster's point was that he couldn't figure out the "correlation - causation" link between unknown downloads vs. sales.

    This feels like an important project for me and my stance on copyright, so everyone, watch for further posts later in other threads and we'll see where it all goes. Mr. Author, please pay extra care not to "get impatient" here. I have some ideas but the time passing is in fact part of the point, so that it doesn't just become astroturfing.

    See you all In Another Thread!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  151. how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drag a boat anchor through all the trans oceanic cables and write the Americas off as a lost cause.

    This might annoy the Canadians and South Americans enough to invade and give the US a massive bitchslap but until then if you want to use our internet instead of your broken one you'll have to emigrate to the free world...

  152. as a foreigner, I... by alien9 · · Score: 1

    cannot do very much other than watch while Americans debate whether they will or not allow a bunch of uneducated legislators attempt to destroy the internet as we know it. For the rest of the world, and that includes Americans along, is an opportunity to descentralize the control over the net. I guess this debacle will soon follow the approach of a substitute for the ICANN, and the internet will never be the same again, whatever government should be in control of a central identification system aka DNS.

  153. Keep it up by halivar · · Score: 1

    Some people are listening. Marco Rubio just announced he is withdrawing his co-sponsership of the bill and now opposes it, saying, "Since then, we’ve heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government’s power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences." If enough senators can be swayed by an influx of negative reactions to the bill, we can kill it.

  154. FOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a call from the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) asking for my donation. In the past I've given to them several times a year. Usually about $100 or so in any given single donation, sometimes more during specific charity drives. This time I said "Due to your support of the Stop Online Piracy Act, I will not be donating to you. Furthermore, barring a complete reversal of stance on the part of the FOP, I will never donate so much as a single cent to your organization ever again."

    Thanks for the list of organizations that support SOPA. I'll be making sure I cut off any voluntary funding to as many of these as possible and making it known to them my reason for doing so.

    Already contacted my Congressman and my 2 Senators.

  155. How would this be for a "stunt"? by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Shut down the MPAA.

  156. Important things are important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Censorship is bad, agreed. Still I find it a bit disgusting that you americans manage to gather crowds for opposing a piece of free speech-legislation but fail to gather crowds for opposing murdering sprees all around middle-east and central asia.

  157. Two anti-SOPA major presidential candidates by Dr.+Gamera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is at least one other major presidential candidate who is against SOPA: Barack Obama.

  158. Here's what by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is exactly why we need to support and vote for Ron Paul.
    He's the only politician that stands against crap like this and will reduce the power of the Fed.
    Al the other candidates are just empty suits that will be the bitches of big corps, and who support SOPA and PIPA.

    1. Re:Here's what by mhollis · · Score: 0

      And he would cause the US to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Not our problem.)

      Oh, and that Social Security withholding you have been paying for all along that allows my disabled sister to live? Gone. And the sons and daughters and spouses of soldiers who die in the service of our country—their Social Security checks? Gone. And the healthcare our soldiers get because they served our country with distinction? Gone. The ability of the United States to recover after a disaster like Katrina? Gone.

      Personally, I'm looking forward to an America under Ron Paul, so that half our nation goes hungry. They're all lazy anyway.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    2. Re:Here's what by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I dont want to take anything away from the achievements of our soldiers, but why does the whole country make such a big deal about thanking/rewarding them individually when they are simply doing their jobs? I mean, they chose to be soldiers. If they dont want to be sent into wazones they shouldn't take the job.

      No-one seems to be worried about rewarding the guys that, say drive garbage trucks, for example. And actually I'd guess their job conditions can be worse, and I'm personally more likely to feel the pain when they screw up than from some guy in Bumcrapistan.

  159. fuck off then. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    if you stopped reading at 'wikileaks', just fuck off. we dont need people whose thought process and horizon are triggered on/off with keywords. there are a lot of those in congress and senate.

    1. Re:fuck off then. by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      You really are not helping the cause.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  160. oh by unity100 · · Score: 1

    did you think they care about losing an election ? when they lose it, they will be awarded with an exec position in the content industry, and will get sign up bonuses.

  161. do what you can by sribe · · Score: 1

    I'm really pressed for time, but I found time to move my (piddling 13) domains away from GoDaddy and let them know why. I didn't manage to do it in time for the announced day, but I got it done. Punishing companies that support this garbage is not an immediate solution, but it's good for the long term because reducing corporate support for it eventually gets reflected in lobbying efforts and campaign contributions.

  162. FOX propaganda piece by linebackn · · Score: 1

    Just for kicks, I decided to see what the local broadcast TV news was saying about this if anything.

    The local FOX network noon news actually ran a piece on it surprisingly early on in the program but the spin they gave it - that most viewers would come away believing - was that the people protesting SOPA were "misinformed"!

    Of course, FOX is one of the big media companies.

  163. Decentralize DNS? by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    Why not just decentralize DNS and domain name registration to remove control from the hands of the ISPs. Then the only way they can turn off the internet is to really turn off the internet...

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
    1. Re:Decentralize DNS? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      ISPs don't control DNS, registrars do. Your ISP can control DNS just as much under a decentralized system as they can now. (They run a caching proxy, but you don't have to use it. They can block or steal any DNS queries that don't go to their proxy, but that's stoppable with DNSSEC. The same is true in either system.)

      There's no good, proposed way of decentralizing DNS. DNS is by design a canonical mapping of names to IP addresses, and most decentralized systems don't really support canonical mappings (because nobody is in the position to decide what's canon).

  164. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    noob

  165. HOW TO LOBBY by theNAM666 · · Score: 2

    It's not important just that people KNOW. They much DO SOMETHING.

    The number TWO thing they can do is take up the Staff time of CongressCritters. The number ONE thing they can do, is convince those CongressCritters that they will vote against them (put them out of office)

    The best way to do either of these is to call up the CongressCritters office and demand to talk to the appropriate staffer. Make it clear that you intent to vote against their boss if their boss votes for SOPA. You can even add on, that you'll explain this to all your relatives and friends, and actively campaign against their candidate.

    The squeaky-ist, noisy-ist wheel gets the oil. In reality, a very small organized group can quickly block almost any legislation using such tactics, especially in an era when elections are won by narrow margins.

    As far as organization goes, you've got to actually have it. You can't just post things to the internet and pray. You need lists. You need circles. You need one person, checking on ten people, checking on another ten. You ask, can you get 50 people to call? Who are they? Did you call them to make sure they called?

    Just like in the office, you get things by actually monitoring; a "political machine."

  166. SOPA - PIPA in the US Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An OPEN letter to Senator Kay B. Hutchison of Texas regarding the SOPA / PIPA Legislation in the US House of Representatives and US Senate:

    Dear Senator Hutchison:

    You and I have a long standing relationship going back to 9/11/2001 and flight 93 that went down in Pennsylvania. We have had several communications since then on various issues, but the issue of PIPA / SOPA has direct affect in the industry that I work in (Internet Service Provider).

    I am ashamed that the US Senate and US House of Representatives are considering legislation to provoke unlimited and unfettered controls on internet service companies with regard to piracy outside the United States. There are already mechanisms in place to deal with this issue without taking aim at the US population and internet industry as a whole.

    I do not subscribe to the notion that the US Congress should be involved in this matter at this time without safeguards being put in place to make sure that the US Government does not have an overwhelming desire to also force an "internet kill switch" on internet access in our great Union of States. That type of power given to our leadership that would go unchecked would result in catastrophic chaos within our borders, possibly even forcing the issue of Martial Law to be declared by an "out of control administration" against a population already upset with government intrusion into our daily lives and liberties.

    I am asking that you personally back off from pushing PIPA forward in the US Senate. I personally believe that in allowing this bill to go forward will bring dire consequences to the American people and to Texans like myself who work in the internet industry.

    For the record, I do not personally support the piracy of intellectual property. However, I cannot support the governments indulgence by the Music and Movie industries to take away freedoms we all enjoy for the sake of a dollar.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

  167. Re:Alt. contact information for Senator Mark Warne by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know of a good alternative way to get messages to him?

    A phone? (202) 224-2023.

    --
    That is all.
  168. The Real Problem with SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My two cents, http://thunderfist-podium.blogspot.com/2012/01/real-problem-with-sopa.html

  169. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by Tsingi · · Score: 1

    The runner up story is Susan Boyle. When Wikipedia comes off blackout, go look her up and check the sales records - some such highest selling new artist in X years.

    Or you could turn off Javascript and look it up now. (block wikimedia.org, the only script running)

    My email is "not obfuscated" so send it along!

    Neither is mine, and to my knowledge, it has never been abused.

  170. Protect your own property! by kmansvibes · · Score: 1

    Am I seriously the only consumer who has recognized the blatantly obvious reasons for the current state of rampant piracy? SOPA and it's relatives as a solution is more akin to refusing to put doors on houses relying instead on strategically placed security cameras outfitted with Facebook-searching facial recognition software to catch burglars. Audio CD's were invented in 1982, this technology is most likely older than you. DVD's 1995. Instead of expecting taxpayers to protect your assets, it's time protect your own. We the people of the united nations of earth will not give up our freedoms or right of privacy in order to keep manufacturing costs nice and marginal for such an ungodly lucrative industry. Either change distribution mediums, or give it away for free. Most of us are tired of purchasing such perishable disks anyway. Not to mention the profits from new sales of firmware updatable memory card players. I'd way much rather be punished for the naughtiness of a few by being required to buy a new electronic device then to remove the front door to my house and hope my government doesn't walk in, give me a trusting smile, and rape me.

  171. Re:Just tried to sign the form on the Reddit page. by Tsingi · · Score: 0

    Erm....I listed the problem, and it's considered not very important. So I previous examples of the problem and what actions I have ultimately taken to redress this - if you think the main issue was about getting a crap score, why not read them again, because all that swearing seems to be making you fucking illiterate.

    LOL!

    I commented about getting modded down, and some AC said the same thing to me.

    Stop caring about your nerd-score and get a fucking life. Slashdot moderation has never been fair and gets worse as the place continues to stagnate.

    He may have a point. :)

  172. Light yourself on fire! by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

    Drive to the National Mall in D.C., douse yourself with gasoline, and light yourself on fire!

  173. In Other Copyright news by bkwolter · · Score: 1

    SCOTUS confirmed that Congress also has the right to bring works currently in the public domain back into copyrighted status. So if SOPA/PIPA pass we have to worry about current violations and future unknown violations should Congress decide to re-copyright a work. Next up, the Department of the Interior will relocate us all to caves so we can stare at shadows on the wall and pretend they are real.

  174. ISP = Service Provider, not Service Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an IT manager at a small(ish) ISP, as I understand it, SOPA/PIPA would essentially require me to log every packet from every subscriber every minute of every day and keep those logs for...what? Two weeks? A month? Six months? A year? Indefinitely? All in order to track down and identify potential copyright violators who post something on Facebook, or share a song or movie via BitTorrent. I have a hard enough time dealing with copyright infringement notices. With the size of my subscriber base and how I have to manage IP addresses the infrastructure I would need to maintain and archive those kinds of logs would render me incapable of doing business. With the dynamic nature of DHCP and NAT with private addresses, it is my official policy that an IP address does not constitute Personally Identifiable Information (PII). I know, I know....IPv6 is supposed to fix those problems, but vendor compliance is still 1 or 2 years down the road for most of the gear in my C.O. and outside plant. I am a service provider, not the Internet Police! This may sound a bit radical, but I consider my subscribers innocent until proven guilty.

  175. I called my CongressCritters by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Got a live person with my representative, bad voicemail from Boxer, and Feinstein had her phone off the hook.

  176. Sopaipillas by jonmann3000 · · Score: 1

    I for one will be making sopaipillas for dinner tonight in solidarity

  177. I can access Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem. And as far as missing Slashdot, well I'll just make do with:

    Tweakguides Ghacks Neowin Fudzilla MaximumPC HardwareSecrets StackOverFlow HackADay Instructables GISUser TomsHardware AnandTech Softpedia Infoworld TechNewsWorld GizMag ArsTechnica Phoronix Xbit TechRepublic DigitalTrends TechSpot TechArp LegitReviews OSNews ExtremeTech GuruOf3d HardOCP Engadget Gizmodo
    then...
    Drudgereport Forbes Cnn BusinessWeek WallStreetJournal UPI PBS WorldNews TheEconomist LosAngelesTimes Space AirSpaceMag SpaceFlightNow AmericanScientist SpaceDaily ScienceMag CarAndDriver RoadAndTrack

    What might be helpful is if you tried to elect a candidate for Congress that would represent your interests. Failing that you will not be respected or taken seriously. If you want to take the reigns of control then go learn how and do so. Whats wrong? You chicken? Scared? Can't be bothered to actually engage people who may or may not agree with you? Pft.

  178. Al Franken by programmerar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Al Franken supports. I would've never thought.
    http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

    1. Re:Al Franken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Franken is deep in the pocket of the entertainment industry.

    2. Re:Al Franken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Franken is deep in the pocket of the entertainment industry.

  179. What can we do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contribute to open source software that makes these laws meaningless and/or impossible to enforce.

  180. Let's see the results....but I'm very pesimistic. by snemiro · · Score: 1

    With enough brib^H^H^H^H campaign funds, the politicians will pass any law.

  181. My protest of SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In protest of SOPA, I'm using all of my mod points to mod people in this thread down.

  182. NoScript defeats the blackout anyway by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia is viewable as long as you have NoScript...

  183. stop them by Talwinder · · Score: 1

    Stop SOPA and PIPA
      www.rashdownloads.com
    visit and support

  184. Blocking the concept of sharing by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    The US government should not have this power over internet censorship. As a computer programmer I understand that this bill would not stop the illegal activities it is reporting to fight. What it will do is reduce the ability to share legally. This will effect me and my friends because the channels used to exchange copyrighted material is the same channels I use daily to update my operating system... and applications... legally! To me this looks like a mechanism to rid the Internet of free exchange of information and application sharing so that all traffic is driven through expensive corporate controlled channels. It is my opinion that this is a fight to control the concept of Sharing in general. And sharing is not something that should be stopped. I believe sharing is godly as it is a fundamental aspect of a good person and a real aspect of wat allows humans to express humanity.

  185. Question for US citizens by rsmith · · Score: 2

    Given the legal terror tactics employed by the MPAA and the RIAA, would it be possible to get both organizations labeled and subsequently banned as terrorist organizations?

    --
    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
    1. Re:Question for US citizens by mhollis · · Score: 1

      Mod this up, please! Way up!

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  186. I am taking my ball and going home by gelfling · · Score: 1

    You're gonna be sorry, you're ALL gonna be sorry!!!!1

  187. Couldn't be happier. by Sheetrock · · Score: 1

    As much as some quarters would dismiss today as slacktivism or a cheap stunt, the Internet has needed for a long time now to take the political process seriously.

    There is this sort of mythology that has been embraced regarding the idea that technology can route around misapplication of the legal process; that some combination of steganography, encryption and dark fiber will always allow us to enjoy the freedom we've taken for granted on the Internet. But we're on borrowed time. The abuses of copyright law as it currently stands are myriad, whether it's publicly funded research locked down in private journals, or fair use aggregation and citation of news coming under legal attack, or DMCA takedown notices being inappropriately filed, without repercussion, by "content owners" who don't actually have a right to the content they're taking down.

    Hide inside TOR if you want to, but the fact of the matter is some truly awful precedent is being set and horrible legislation crafted because only one side reliably shows up to this fight. Take solace in the idea that someone will make you a "free Internet", at least until encryption is illegal over cable and airwaves. Enjoy your privacy until it becomes mandatory to provide ID to browse the web -- commercial interests already examine everything you do and put it in your permanent file. At the end of the day, do not expect technology to provide an answer when the law sets the specifications for the Internet.

    I couldn't be happier that the Internet is finally creating a notification and response system for awful legislation. Now it's time to let your representatives know they'll lose your support if they draft, sponsor and pass anti-Internet bills. If they ignore you, vote Rastafarian. Also, consider buying your movies and music used, selling back to the used market, and encouraging your friends to do the same. It's high time to send a fuck you back, because right now everybody thinks we're a joke.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  188. Punish the Legislators by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

    The way to keep these bills from resurfacing like the creature in a bad Hollywood horror film is to punish the senators and congressmen who signed on as supporters. Because you know the big media will be pushing for something new as soon as the hubbub over SOPA and PIPA dies down.

    Punish means voting for their opponents, sending them money, even campaigning for them, and, this is the important part, telling the jerkwads in Congress you are doing it and why. The one thing that outweighs their greed for bribes (campaign donations), is fear of getting voted out entirely, and the gravy train stopping.

    On the other hand, if they come out against these laws, thank them, and say how much you will support them in the future. Make censoring the Net a toxic subject, so the next time the media come knocking (and they will), they get told to get the hell out.

  189. TED: SOPA/PIPA Explained, 14 min, layman's terms by Marble68 · · Score: 1

    http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

    Worth every second it takes to watch it and, more importantly, SHARE IT.

    --
    /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
  190. Yay Slashdot! by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    Thanks slashdot for taking action and joining the blackout. /. is now frozen and this will be the only news story of the day.

    Several of us were wondering why /. wouldn't join in, since the community is so overwhelmingly against SOPA and PIPA.
    The argument that anybody on /. would already know about it is pretty fair, but still. This is Serious.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  191. POPVOX Your Congress Critters by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    The fast easy way to spam your congress critters with your opinion on legislation....

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  192. Please for the love of God... by DRMShill · · Score: 1

    keep your opinions about the validity of the patent system out of this. Yes they are connected. Maybe you have a point. But when you argue against SOPA from the standpoint that piracy is OK all you do in the eyes of the general public is justify the position of SOPA supporters. The most effective thing we can do here is argue against this based on the fact that SOPA is basically martial law for the internet.

    I'm somehow reminded of the episode of South Park where they try to change the state flag.

    1. Re:Please for the love of God... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      keep your opinions about the validity of the patent system out of this ... But when you argue against SOPA from the standpoint that piracy is OK

      1. I never framed the question that way. My point is always that it is wrong for any business to have government subsidies directed at it, and I see it as a societal problem of not understanding what government is for in the first place. It's not about 'piracy being OK', I don't give two hoots. It's about government giving subsidies to businesses NOT being OK.

      2. You can keep your comment to yourself if you are going to ask me to keep my comments to myself.

  193. Film by Xaide · · Score: 1

    When is the SOPA/PIPA movie going to be released? It better not be a made for T.V. movie I can record or an internet indie I can download. Trouble will be had.

    --
    No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
  194. Mr. Durbin by heezer7 · · Score: 0

    As a SOPA/PIPA sponsor I would like to ask why you felt you were allowed to upload to youtube a copyrighted NBC News video? Do you own this video? I think not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXMX7sJ0kUM

  195. Still. I have to congratulate you. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    The reaction and the level of taking action you americans have exhibited in this occasion, both individually and on tech-corporation level, has been much encouraging. For a long time now, i see -at least the more aware - americans sparing effort for something good. i actually was surprised when ows thing had happened recently. but this is icing on the cake.

    maybe hope is not lost for your society yet and you can take it back ....

  196. Glad SOPA hate has huge backers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... like Google and Facebook (wish Zuckerberg weren't such a dick though, as always) who are fully prepared to throw zillions of dollars into lobbying against it. Whether or not our popular votes are holding any sway, you can be sure that the avenues these big boys pursue will. Not loving on the internet's big dons, but glad they can use their pervasive influence and megamillions to fight this bullshit.

    Note to self: personally ensure that every last record and film industry stool pigeon is sent to hell for their crimes against humanity. Every last one.

  197. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has a Website... by bradorsomething · · Score: 1

    And it has a bit of content. Anyone have rights to any of it? Take-down notices, anyone?

    lamarsmith.house.gov

  198. Boycott the lobbying revenue by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    If laws like this p#ss you off, then follow the money.

    Are you still buying DVDs? CDs? Seeing movies in the theater? On Netflix or other streaming service? Renting from a video rental service such as Blockbuster? Watching entertainment on Cable TV?

    If you want to stop corporate-centric laws such as SOPA/PIPA, then you must cut off their lobbying revenue. When you buy entertainment you are contributing to the lobbying warchest. SOPA/PIPA exists because of YOU!

    Hit the **AA where it hurts. Boycott cable TV, boycott DVDs, boycott movie theaters, boycott CDs, boycott any entertainment distribution center.

    I cut off cable TV since 2000, that wasn't hard at all. Now I am going to cut off CDs and DVDs.

    If you're recoiling in horror about how difficult that is, there is a whole other life waiting for you out there.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:Boycott the lobbying revenue by gelfling · · Score: 1

      That's actually pretty childish. Take your ball and go home.

  199. EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never donated to EFF. I was never much for donations.

    Today I made my first donation to EFF and set myself up to make automatic monthly donations.

  200. Extradition Treaty, not Berne Convention by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    The UK should have thought about that when it insisted on signing the Berne Convention!

    While your point is valid the treaty in question is the US-UK extradition treaty, not the Berne Convention. As for "the UK" the only defence we have is that it was the government who signed it and we kicked it out at the last election. With the financial collapse people have been talking about the failure of capitalism but my concern is that this is just a symptom of the underlying failure of western democracy to provide governments that act in the best interests of the people as evidenced by the UK-US extradition treaty, the financial collapse and SOPA/PIPA. At least with the latter you may have caught it in time to do something about it but the overall trend is concerning.

  201. It's fantastic to see! by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    I love it that Slashdot's walking the walk. Good on you!

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  202. ...but a bad effect? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    No, you cannot influence it, but it WILL have an effect on you.

    True, but will it be a bad effect? There is the concern over pressure for copycat legislation but, if that does not happen, then it might be a good thing for non-US people in the long run. If this legislation ham-strings US technology companies it means that non-US tech companies will get a boost. For example if Google search results become unreliable due to censoring what's to stop a non-US search company starting up to fill the void which Google leaves? The huge advantage with the web is that switching to a new search engine is trivially simple - there is no MS-style lock in. Certainly in the short term it will cause problems for everyone but in the long term I do not think it is so clear.

    1. Re:...but a bad effect? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You ... didn't read the comment to the end, did you?

      Even ignoring that copycat legislation is almost a given (you think the US would accept having a self-imposed disadvantage in an international market?), people use US based services, and they will be held liable for copyright infringements they can't even influence, e.g. due to guestbook applications or the ability to write comments to "your" page in some social networking pages.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  203. Can view Wikipedia by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Actually Wikipedia is not really blacked out. If you stop the page loading after the text appears but before the black overlay it is quite readable.

    1. Re:Can view Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just change the url from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopa to m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopa

      and it will work

  204. Isn't there a way to stop this via legal channels? by jonfr · · Score: 1

    Isn't there any way to stop bill like this passing in the U.S via the legal channels ? I know that lawsuits cost a lot of hard money in the U.S. It is also important to stop all this lobbying money going into the U.S congress and politics. As that is nothing but corruption with a nice name on it.

  205. Demographics and Voir Dire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What percentage of the age of majority population falls into one or more of the following categories:

    1. an individual who creates and/or manages intellectual property (from the punk (who go screwed out of college) who records a song to the IP attorney (ironic that he were the former's classmate who did NOT get screwed out of college) who researches to insure uniqueness of said song)
    2. an individual employed by an entity that creates and/or manages intellectual property.
    3. an individual who owns stock in entities that create and/or manage intellectual property.
    4. an individual who invests in vehicles that own stock in entities that create and/or manage intellectual property.
    5. an individual who has relations who belong in one or more of the above (to remove the effects of social penumbras).

    Such people have a vested interest in SOPA/PIPA/DMCA and the like. To empanel the same on a jury in an IP case screams violently for overturn on appeal.

    Replace "an individual who" with "Do you" and that will become part of a bulletproof voir-dire for IP cases civil and criminal.

  206. Blacklist by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Not being from the USA, I am limited in my response. Mine however will be pretty simple. The list of supporting companies was published. I won't buy their products.

    I mean I saw "1-800-CONTACTS" was on the list. They sell contact lenses online. WTF do they have to do with SOPA? I have bought contacts from them before. I will be buying a years supply this month. Guess who won't be getting my business. It is a small thing really, but if more people put their money where their principles are...

  207. Assuming the protest fails by Wolfling1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've burnt out my rage gland now... and have started thinking positively about what the post-SOPA Internet might look like.

    It occurs to me that SOPA relies very heavily on the Domain Name system that the Internet uses so heavily - primarily so that we don't need to remember IP addresses - but also, to a lesser degree, so that we don't need to have fixed IPs.

    Once SOPA is entrenched, and domains start getting blocked - either as legitimate takedowns, witch-hunts, or corporate espionage (I'll be expecting Samsung and Apple to be off the air within days of SOPA's activation) - a more dynamic website that doesn't rely on a DNS, and that has a flexible IP seems to be the logical approach.

    Or perhaps some very powerful proxy servers based outside US soil... will SOPA have the ability to block them when they are transports and not hosts? Perhaps a combination of a proxy server with its own naming/IP translation table?

    One thing I am sure of: People will get what they want from the Internet regardless of what the legislators say.

    The first great cyber-civil war appears to be commencing... how does the right to bear arms relate to that?

  208. One down! by Eloking · · Score: 2

    Senator Marco Rubio just annonced on his Facebook page that he's withdrawing his support for the Protect IP Act. (Credit to Steve from HardOCP.com's forum for the story).

    Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.

    I also agree with Steve from HardOCP, he would have been more credible if he have done this before today

    --
    Elok
    1. Re:One down! by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      NO, let Mr lukewarm milquetoast fossil Reid rush the bill, so it can die the death it deserves right now.

      My god, if only a day like today could have happened back in the day with the (un)Patriot Act.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  209. Vote for the one candidate who opposes SOPA/PIPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guessed it: Ron Paul
    http://twitter.com/#!/RonPaul/status/159747334174019584

  210. Both bills appear to be losing support in congress by fatherjoecode · · Score: 1

    I was heartened to read that some prominent congressmen have withdrawn their support for PIPA/SOPA: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html

  211. In relation to Congressional Primaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a rush to pass this before the Congressional primary elections start, so that punishing said persons who pass this becomes moot with respect to the kickbacks that these will receive after their political careers end. Watch this linger for the lame duck session.

    Will Harry Reid say something like "But we must first pass this so we can find out what's in it..."

    Thoughts?

  212. End Copyright by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

    Are there any representatives out there who are for ending copyright altogether? Those are the reps we should be supporting.

    There is no place for copyright in the future of human society.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  213. It's not about piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about control and a huge cash grab.

    American protectionist at it's usual.

    Who make the USA king of this planet?

    The only thing wrong with the internet is that 1 country can dictate what people can think or say - and that this 1 country can control the planet due to the backbone being in the USA.

    And just wait til people get used to the status quo should this pass - you can be sure you'll end up being charged for simple surfing.

    Homeland Security should be surveilling their own government - a lot less "bad things" would happen on this planet.

    SOPA: Systematically Oppressing People Americanastyle.

  214. extrapolative summation by epine · · Score: 1

    Do you know there are fewer jobs for lawyers every year?

    Never heard of the business cycle, have you? For every action, there's a counter-action. I'm not certain precisely which shell the pea is hiding under, but one of these legislative initiatives should soon have you rebinding your F11 key to proclaim:

    Do you know there are more jobs for lawyers every year?

    Extrapolative summation is one of the worst cherry-picking tactics around. The summation is often shouted loudest around the point of inflection. Furthermore, this is a distraction. Counting lawyers is not the governing variable here. I think this is covert segue back into macroeconomic levernomics. The vacuous poles are always quick to boil any issue down to an employment statistic. The left counts workers, the right counts government workers. I'm not getting sucked into counting lawyers unless it's an Angry Birds expansion pack.

  215. Where was Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nice to see slashdot, craigslist, google and wikipedia fighting against the internet sites being confiscated without due process by the government and corporations. But, where were they when the government decided they could lock up americans indefinitely without due process. or execute them without due process? These situations are identical, and yet, these sites had absolutely no response to american citizens having all of their rights revoked. Tell me which is more drastic, losing your favorite website, or losing your freedom or life? These companies did nothing to oppose our loss of human rights, but when their bottom line is challenged, they all muster to fight. Hypocrisy at it's best. Thanks alot slashdot!

  216. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Or, if you are still a little squeamish, send *me* all that info which I won't re-share, but I'll report my results. My email is "not obfuscated" so

    Sadly, your email is a Yahoo email, so you won't receive it today...

  217. Firs Paost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I get it?

  218. I think my buddy put it succienctly enough: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quoted from: http://blog.blakehartshorn.com/2012/01/urdoinitwrong.html

    I am definitely against SOPA/PIPA/PROTECTIP/COICA and whatever the hell else they'll rename it to when it comes back in 6 months. I think Wikipedia's black out today has been a great way of making a point about internet censorship. However, I'm surprised piracy websites don't see the irony in participating in the black out. I don't think it's helping.

  219. Make False Claims by harl · · Score: 1

    If they really implement a take down system that bypasses the courts I think the best way to deal with it would be massive false claims.

    Start filling out claims for every image on slashdot.org and file them with the upstream ISP.

    A web crawler that harvests web sites and files claims on _every_ resource.

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  220. Texas Kay Bailey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Friend:
              Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

              Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the PROTECT IP Act on May 12, 2011. The legislation is in response to concerns about online copyright infringement and sale of counterfeit goods. The bill would allow the Justice Department to seek federal court injunctions to halt online promotion of illegal activities.

              I believe copyright protection is a foundation for innovation. Intellectual property is the creative core of the information age. Patent and intellectual property ownership laws offer needed protection for the economic and other interests of inventors, entrepreneurs, performers, and other creative thinkers. These protections are also important to future growth and employment in important U.S. industries.

              Protecting intellectual property is more challenging than ever before. Among other things, high speed broadband enables access to the entire catalog of movies, music, books, television, and technology.

              Online promotion of counterfeit goods by foreign entities is also a growing concern. How to protect copyright, patent, and intellectual property rights — and do so without infringing on consumers’ legitimate interests — requires dealing with a complex series of problems.

              The PROTECT IP Act has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although I am not a member of that committee, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this bill or related legislation be reported for action by the full Senate.

              I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

    Sincerely,
    Kay Bailey Hutchison
    United States SenatorDear Friend:
       

  221. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.baen.com/library/intro.asp

  222. Secret URLs + Encryption + email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If SOPA/PIPA becomes law, this is the 'antidote' the media pirates will use.

    There IS always a workaround.

    The only way to be sure would be to abolish the Internet and 'unplug it'.

    That is 'insanely' unlikely in that it is the greatest engine of commerce the world has ever seen.

    Even if that is done, it's back to modems and BBSes like in the days before 1995 when the World Wide Web took off.

    Even if BBSes are outlawed they couldn't stop clandestine 'swap parties' of physical media.

    Any and all recordable media would have to be abolished/destroyed on sight to be sure.

    So much for the 4th Amendmant to USAians if that is done.... :(

  223. Lamar Smith's career in 3 words by torgosan · · Score: 1

    Follow the money.

    --
    "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
  224. Who here feels puzzled by their elected officials? by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 1

    You voted for them, over and over, they have the same comfortable (D) or (R) after their name as you do and that makes you feel good about your "team". But now your teammate is sponsoring SOPA/PIPA... What happened?

    Are you feeling puzzled by this flagrant grab for power?

    The reason you are puzzled is that you have a problem with trust. Or rather, that you trust in your government too much. You're only feeling the sting of that trust being broken because for once, it's your ox that's getting gored.

    I guess my question for you, Mr. and Mrs. Big Government, is: why do you trust "your guy" and demonize the "other guy"? News flash: "your guy" is a DEMON!!

    I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you voted to keep any of the current party leaders in power (don't forget the leadership controls the legislative agenda), or if you've ever voted for any of the original SOPA/PIPA sponsors, then YOU are the problem. YOU let this happen. Don't shrug your shoulders and complain how you didn't know or "why is he/she doing this to me?" YOU empowered these bastards! Shame on YOU! Don't repeat your stupid mistakes again. Your pack of liars that call themselves a political party isn't worth it - it isn't worth saving.

    We're now, finally, playing for the whole kit-and-kaboodle. This is it. We're actually seeing the leading edge of a movement to take away control of our free ability to communicate with each other!

    Oh, you don't think these bills can't possibly pass? Hm, how cute your optimism is! Let's take a quick trip down recent memory lane, shall we? Remember the lost cause of Obamacare and when Scott Brown got elected? It was gonna get the filibuster! Hooray, that obamination of Pelosicare is dead!! But then, suddenly, the Senate didn't matter ... those hogs in congress just waved their greasy, fat little fingers and passed the house bill through the senate with a simple majority via "Reconciliation"! Reconciliation is a device that was only supposed to be used for BUDGET resolutions! Illegal? No, but definitely breaking some established rules. NOT COOL.

    Don't forget: what the people want and demand no longer matters. These bills have big money backing them, they're going to at least come up for a vote. It's possible they could pass - there just need to be the right legislative devices used - deem-and-pass ("demonpass") at midnight if you have to. Do you really think Obama wouldn't rubber stamp just about any bill Harry Reid sends him? C'mon, WAKE UP, O IS A FAILURE!!

    There is only one solution: it's time to primary challenge all these incumbents. You wannabe hippie OWS'ers and all you boring religious nuts and scatterbrains on the tea party side need to come together on this one issue and FLIP THE GODDAMN SWITCH! Every clown on the following two lists must be booted from public office at the next possible election - these are our ENEMIES!

    http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2012/01/12/house-sopa-cosponsors
    http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2012/01/12/senate-pipa-cosponsors

    Dave

    The people are becoming aware that some absurd law scribbled on paper by filthy, sub-human bureaucrats does not carry the same weight as the laws of nature. History shows that when the injustice and oppression of the common citizen becomes too much, they will rise and throw off the shackles. Have a nice day!

  225. The old political dance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Come up with an outrageous bill that everyone opposes
    2) Propose a toned-down bill that sounds good by comparison but is both bad and merely what they wanted in the first place
    3) Bill passes with muted opposition

  226. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a self published kindle author (I'll post AC and won't link my book since this is not about me), I like this guy's style. How can I buy his book? Is it on Amazon? How can I give him some money to read it?

  227. Re:Give the author some money! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Hi AC!

    I'll find out more ways we can give him funds! Stay tuned!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  228. Called my senators today by mhollis · · Score: 1

    I have previously written my Congressman and my Senators, but today I called the office of Senator Joseph Leiberman and found, to my disgust, he is a co-sponsor of the awful PIPA bill (the Senate version of SOPA).

    I told Senator Leiberman's aide, who was handling phones this afternoon, that this bill would run me out of business. I design and build websites and the law is written in such a way that it would cause me to have to police my own clients, including any link they posted on their own websites. Also, any of their competitors could, with a complaint and no due process, demand that their websites were shut down. I also said that if the MPAA and the RIAA, who wrote this awful bill, were to start producing content that was compelling, they would not be experiencing the loss of revenue that they are blaming on the pirates.

    I called Senator Blumenthal's office and found, to my relief, that while he initially was for the bill, he would not vote for it unless it was radically changed. I told the aide on the phone that I was an expert on the Internet, that I design websites and that this law could, effectively, end my business. I also told the aide that I had met the Senator when he was the Attorney General for the State and that I liked him, trusted him and hoped that he would listen to my concerns and never vote for any bill like this.

    In both cases, I gave the Senators' offices my zip code and any other information they requested.

    This kind of telephone call from an intelligent person who actually knows what's in the bill and what kinds of problems it could cause really gets the attention of these people in the Senators' offices and I would encourage all Slashdotters in the United States to do this. Senators are not experts on the Internet. They really need our help to let them know why the law that was written by the record industry and the film industry destroys our freedom.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  229. bu*****t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average person is not technically proficient, nor tied in with warez groups. If the search engines and popular piracy web sites went away, the average person would find the work to pirate too hard. Yes, there is sharing of movies and copying files, but some purchasing is required.

  230. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking forward to hearing more about this.
    An congratulations on doing something constrictive

  231. i'll never ever buy any more RIAA or MPAA shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've previously avoided most of their stuff but broke down and bought a few classics here and there. Never again. Strictly indie or nothing. And I mean REALLY indie not fake indie where the label is indie but the distributor is Sony or Universal.

  232. Re:if I had a story that I could point to by whitehatnetizen · · Score: 1

    If the Author does this like you suggest, I would buy a copy of his book just to congratulate him on principle. I can only speak for myself so here's my anecdote: I prefer physical books over electronic copies however, before I buy a book I always read a portion from somewhere near the beginning to get an idea of whether the authors style appeals to me. If I can't find a physical copy and amazon's preview doesn't apply to that book I would happily and without guilt download a pirated copy, and if the writing style appealed to me, I would then purchase a physical copy. I've also lost count of the number of albums that I've ended up buying after stumbling across an artist I haven't yet heard of on youtube.

  233. The Internet is like America. by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

    squabble squabble ObamaBush squabble squabble envirocorporation squabble squabble **SOPA ALERT** SAY WHAT!?!?!!! STAY AWAY FROM OUR INTERNET OR WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANY MORE!!! Then all of us millions paid attention, thousands mobilized, and the government was afraid of the monster we have made here in cyberspace. The good news is, with millions of us watching over this incredible invention that is us, the government is going to have a hard time giving our Internet to any of its cronies...

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
  234. Should the Internet Censor Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not?

    iptables -I INPUT -s 143.228.0.0/16 -j DROP
    iptables -I INPUT -s 156.33.0.0/16 -j DROP

  235. Silly Idea to ruin SOPA for Corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it a point that the domains of both corporations involved in trademark legal disputes could be taken offline until fully settled. Watch Sony and WB realize that fighting over a single copyrighted IP could result in their entire domain be taken offline and all financial agencies ordered to stop working with them. At least until they comb all their web sites and remove all references to said trademark disputed item... Or have a corporation taken offline for even a day, as the result of Anonymous flooding their forums with copyrighted materials of other corporations, then turn them in for copyright violations.

  236. Re:I would buy a copy of his book by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    "by whitehatnetizen (997645) on 09:55 PM January 18th, 2012 (#38744614)
    If the Author does this like you suggest, I would buy a copy of his book just to congratulate him on principle. I can only speak for myself so here's my anecdote: I prefer physical books over electronic copies however, before I buy a book I always read a portion from somewhere near the beginning to get an idea of whether the authors style appeals to me. If I can't find a physical copy and amazon's preview doesn't apply to that book I would happily and without guilt download a pirated copy, and if the writing style appealed to me, I would then purchase a physical copy. I've also lost count of the number of albums that I've ended up buying after stumbling across an artist I haven't yet heard of on youtube."

    I think at the moment this is only an eBook - so there's that, and I don't know / don't think it's on Amazon. I have an email pending from him about how he'll let me choose distribution promotions.

    So far I've gotten some early good comments from readers glad to see something new developing in the content game.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  237. World Govts are going f#|n Crazy! by echonyne · · Score: 1

    Yo..yo.. if US Govt (& the Indian Govt (is also behaving as a..naive); trying to filter content through Google, Facebook and in total 21 Media websites across India :/ ) can't backoff...then c'mon lets BRING IT.. bring our own hacker grid (n they can keep their BS to themselves)!!! :/ :/

  238. Rip MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MegaUpload exist no more. The website was taken down today by Feds.

    http://underthegunreview.net/2012/01/19/rip-megaupload-2005-2012/

    How coincidence that megaupload was taken down only a day AFTER the black-outs on wendsay, January 18 2012.

    Now it's a forced, and more than likely "permanent" black-out for megaupload. The MPAA has been eyeing megaupload for quiet some time and even took down the MegaUpload video on grinds of false copyright accusations on youtube, supported by known artists and made by these artists.

    This is all due to SOPA and PiPa and now, due to anger of the internet black-outs and anti-sopa support, their taking it up a notch and using the government (as they planned in these bills) to force their way on the internet.

    I am not buying ANY dvd's from Times Warner or Disney. I will not go to the movies either. Complete and total boycott of these draconic greedy companies and their products. First they throw Americans off the jobs in the recession CAUSED by the 1%'s. NOW they are taking American rights and destroying the foundations of what created the internet without due process of law.

    SOPA/PIPA is a DANGER to the internet as we know it. MegaUpload is being used as a sacrificial guinea pig to push SOPA/PIPA.