Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out On SOPA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out On SOPA

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 19, 2012 @07:18AM from the everyone's-a-critic dept.

natecochrane writes "Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA, laws he says violate human rights and are unfit for a democratic country. Sir Tim's condemnation came on the day an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to U.S. interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."

188 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The Joke's on Them by Aladrin · 2012-01-19 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

"an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to US interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
The laws were written specifically for that purpose. They have clauses that (supposedly) prevent them being used on US sites and site owners. What's left? The rest of the world!
That's why it disgusted me every time I saw someone overseas saying to get this junk off their news sites because it didn't apply to them.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
1. Re:The Joke's on Them by AgeOfEmpires · 2012-01-19 07:26 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  GreatBunzinni has been posting anonymous accusations listing a whole bunch of Slashdot accounts as being part of a marketing campaign for Microsoft, without any evidence. GreatBunzinni has accidentally outed himself as this anonymous poster. Half the accounts he attacks don't even post pro-Microsoft rhetoric. The one thing they appear to have in common is that they have been critical of Google in the past. GreatBunzinni has been using multiple accounts to post these "shill" accusations, such as Galestar, NicknameOne, and flurp.
  That's not the problem. The problem is that moderators gave him +5 Informative and are now modding down the accused, even for legitimate posts. Metamoderation is supposed to address this by filtering out the bad moderators, but clearly it's not working.
  This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop. It's restricting a variety of viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.
  Signed by, Several old school Slashdot users
2. Re:The Joke's on Them by ledow · 2012-01-19 07:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It doesn't apply to me. If the US block access to my site from the US, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. They could block access from the US to every site in my country as far as I'm concerned. Now, maybe it affects *someone* (I'm sure some companies would lose US import monies, but I'm equally sure the US would lose just as much in reverse), but until the EU even begin to consider similar laws that I get a say in, there's nothing I can do for you at all. I can agree with you or not. It makes no difference. Holding your service/data to ransom until you've rammed it down my throat doesn't help your cause.
  So that's why *I've* complained about sites doing stupid SOPA blackouts - they've denied me access to content I want to see because of some political motive that I have no control over at all, and that I have to find ways to bypass. Sound much like SOPA itself?
  Just because your country are doing something stupid doesn't mean that somehow involving me or assuming I'll just agree with you will make me feel strongly enough to take up your cause. SOPA is a stupid idea. But it's not MY stupid idea. And it won't affect me or my sites or my use of the Internet or my income in any way whatsoever.
  In actual fact, the SOPA blackouts just made me find alternate sites and avenues to the content I would normally use. They actually *helped* me not be reliant on people who think their service is there to push their own political agenda instead of being a service. As soon as you "personalise" the service that much, I lose interest in it because it's more about personality and your beliefs than anything to do with the service they are providing.
  Also, I don't need politics (especially foreign politics) spoon-fed to me by websites who assume I don't understand and that I'll just agree with them because they have inconvenienced me. Whether or not I do understand or even sympathise, that's one way to royally piss me off.
  I equate the SOPA blackouts with the London Tube strikes - I may or may not agree with the underlying cause, but inconveniencing me and holding me to blackmail until I agree with you will make me NOT agree with you just out of principle. The DMCA was similarly fucking stupid, but nobody protested then and if you had, I'd have had the same opinion - I don't care because it doesn't affect me or my country, and I can't affect a foreign political system in any way (Fuck, I can barely affect my own!).
  Sure, we have our own versions of some laws and THAT'S worth my interest but even people/sites/organisations in my own country trying to enforce their opinion on me through such actions is extremely counter-productive. I'm not stupid and, I'm afraid, I knew of ten times more important laws that got passed silently without any protest but I knew about them and they didn't get made public. Even those where people tried to make them public, the general populous had no concept of them and they were hidden in the news under celebrities being pregnant and politicians revealing details of their sex lives.
  Publicity stunts to raise awareness are one thing but this is no more worth it than, say, the fact the US is still keeping prisoners in captivity without charge a decade after their arrest, in inhumane conditions and subjecting them to torture. SOPA, in comparison, is like preaching to a heart surgeon in the middle of an operation that hospital waiting rooms sometimes have chewing gum stuck to the bottom of their seats.
  Don't shove your politics down my throat. And don't interrupt my productivity for the sake of "awareness" when I was aware of it before and am more concerned about a lot more important things than whether the US turns itself into a country like China. In some ways, it may do us all a favour if the US just forces itself off the net entirely by misusing these powers and making other countries build replacement, non-US, infrastructure.
3. Re:The Joke's on Them by ljw1004 · 2012-01-19 08:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The SOPA was written to address "US-based interests", i.e. it specifically claims to go after only US-directed foreign websites, to prevent US-based people from seeing those foreign websites.
  (Defn: "US-directed" means that the site hasn't taken steps to prevent US people from seeing the website, or other nonspecified reasons. "Foreign website" means a domain name which is registered by a non-US registrar, or an IP address which comes from a non-US block).
  But the US doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign domains/websites. So, in that absence, it's US-based companies who have to act:
  * US-based ISPs have to take measures to prevent their customers from "accessing" those websites 5 days. It's not clear what measures must be taken, but they include at a minimum blocking DNS lookups.
  * US-based search engines have to remove hyperlinks to those foreign domains/websites within 5 days
  * US-based ad brokers have to cease serving ads to those foreign domains/websites within 5 days
  * US-based payment companies have to cease processing payments for those foreign domains/websites with 5 days
  Moreover, any US-based service which bypasses this censorship -- TOR, Mafiaafire, free and open DNS servers -- will be shut down by the courts.
4. Re:The Joke's on Them by Ice+Tiger · 2012-01-19 08:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except when the blocking mechanism is to remove say slashdot.org from DNS.
  
  --
  "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
5. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's why it disgusted me every time I saw someone overseas saying to get this junk off their news sites because it didn't apply to them.
  It doesn't apply to them in the same way that China's web censorship of foreign content doesn't apply to those outside China. People outside of China aren't that outraged that China is blocking them, for some reason. Why is it so different now that the US is threatening to block foreign sites? Is it because the general feeling is that it's par for the course for China? I'm not trying to troll, I'm just curious.
6. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So the blackouts affected your productivity? Then you might be interested in the fact that if those websites get taken down with SOPA or PIPA, it will likewise affect your productivity, therefore these laws *do* affect you, and your whole logic breaks down.
  > In actual fact, the SOPA blackouts just made me find alternate sites and avenues to the content I would normally use.
  Yes, I am afraid that's exactly what non-US people will have to do. So I guess the blackouts pushed you towards doing what needs to be done ;)
  > They actually *helped* me not be reliant on people who think their service is there to push their own political agenda instead of being a service.
  Actually, the "service" e.g. Wikipedia offers centers around a highly political cause itself, namely free access to knowledge. You like to treat "service" and "politics" as different things, but in this case, they aren't.
7. Re:The Joke's on Them by ShieldW0lf · 2012-01-19 08:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Mesh networking is a proven technology that has no central point of failure. This is a site full of outraged nerds.
  So... get off your ass and help render the Internet obsolete. The problem isn't the politics. The problem is the infrastructure, and the solution is ready, waiting to be deployed.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
8. Re:The Joke's on Them by Cyberax · 2012-01-19 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Would you like your site to be removed from Google Search?
  Google is a US-based company, you know.
9. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  I really want to make a reasonable response here that address your remarkably self-centered, isolationist view of the world, but I just keep typing "you are a moron." But here goes.
  I think it's great that your site(s) have zero US based users of which a DNS block wouldn't affect in the slightest. And I'm glad that in your tiny world no one has the right to try to make a positive political change and that they should really be more aware of your feelings when they want to consider this a potential course of action in the future.
  And then you mention foreign policy and the US detention/rendition policies. Wow. Very relevant here. And an award winning simile. You can shove your displease of America and all of our sites that make you 'productive' up your ass.
10. Re:The Joke's on Them by Darinbob · 2012-01-19 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  That's the part that just makes me mad. They're counting on the "it's only those dirty foreigners!" clause to keep voters from being annoyed, with the idiotic assertion that rights of foreigners are worth less.
11. Re:The Joke's on Them by Phrogman · 2012-01-19 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  China doesn't control the key DNS servers used by everyone everywhere though. It doesn't control the .com registry - if someone loses their domain name then they have to be removed from the DNS listings don't they?
  I know the US operates on a double standard - they insist on the rule of law inside the US (although thats debatable these days I suppose) but they also insist on applying US law to citizens of other countries who violated no law in their own country but did violate a US law. Worse yet other countries seem willing to extradite those people to the US, or at least consider it.
  Still it could be worse, at least its currently unlikely that the SOPA legislation when passed will ever be combined with the NDAA to permit the MAFIAA to arbitrarily have someone arrested and held indefinitely without being charged or tried. That would be a frightening combo :P
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
12. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Except when your country bows to US pressure, and decides to extradite your ass, from your sovereign country, to the US for breaking US laws.
  No, that could never happen.
  Think it will get better, with SOPA, PIPA, or even OPEN Act?
13. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  How exactly would they stop TOR?
14. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Let me get this straight: you say no one should care about SOPA because of the US government's crimes against humanity, then go on to complain that you are being terribly inconvenienced, and it's just oh so horrible.
  There's so many things wrong with this, but the simplest is assuming the internet cares or should care about your inconvenience over people doing things with their own websites. You sound like a self-obsessed child.
15. Re:The Joke's on Them by GumphMaster · 2012-01-19 09:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It sure as hell applies to me. I run a (very) small software business online in Australia under a .au domain name. If a US company decides that my software infringes a patent they claim to hold then they can get my site removed from any US-based searching index and my site blocked by name or IP. That is not catastrophic as my software is not useful in the US, and reasonably well supported by word-of-mouth anyway.
  However, under these abominations of law, they can also force any company with a presence in the US to cease any payment related service to my company. Mastercard, Visa, American Express, and Diners will remove their merchant accounts, PayPal is not an alternative etc. Any non-US payment processor accepting Mastercard, Visa etc. will be contractually obliged by the US companies, protecting their own legal arses, to refuse payment services also. This is a death sentence to any online business. The only recourse is to fight a legal battle in US courts, a death sentence to any small company.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
16. Re:The Joke's on Them by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure the passage of SOPA would accelerate that deployment.
17. Re:The Joke's on Them by ArhcAngel · 2012-01-19 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Just one more reason for US based businesses to relocate to Switzerland.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
18. Re:The Joke's on Them by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  That violation of US law includes committing a crime on US territory. The analogy to historical events is firing a gun across a border.
  Such events are always responded to by international actions including extradition.
19. Re:The Joke's on Them by HyperQuantum · 2012-01-19 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  And that is what's wrong with this world: "I only care about myself!"
  
  --
  I am not really here right now.
20. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Your web site accepts donations via PayPal, a US company. Your site is listed in Google, a US company. You post regularly on slashdot, a US website. Odds are that if you use the Internet, you rely on US-based Internet companies, and thus SOPA / PIPA will affect you.
  
  Sorry for the bad news.
21. Re:The Joke's on Them by Cley+Faye · 2012-01-19 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  Easy: block every unknown/encrypted data stream in the backbone of internet. Tada, no more TOR, problem solved.
  I'm joking of course, but wouldn't be surprised if some people where thinking about it.
22. Re:The Joke's on Them by flanders123 · 2012-01-19 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  Your web site accepts donations via PayPal, a US company. Your site is listed in Google, a US company. You post regularly on slashdot, a US website. Odds are that if you use the Internet, you rely on US-based Internet companies, and thus SOPA / PIPA will affect you. Sorry for the bad news.
23. Re:The Joke's on Them by ozmanjusri · 2012-01-19 10:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For now, they are.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
24. Re:The Joke's on Them by froggymana · 2012-01-19 10:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Except when the blocking mechanism is to remove say slashdot.org from DNS.
  Simple solution. Just memorize the IPs to all of your favorite sites!
  
  --
  "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
25. Re:The Joke's on Them by amorsen · 2012-01-19 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The way China does it is rather effective.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
26. Re:The Joke's on Them by amorsen · 2012-01-19 10:43 · Score: 2
  
  but until the EU even begin to consider similar laws that I get a say in, there's nothing I can do for you at all.
  Such laws are not only considered but in full force already. E.g. the Pirate Bay is blocked in several countries already via DNS blacklisting. The technology was pioneered by the telecoms for stopping child pornography, so it was easy for the courts to require the ISP's to implement the blocking. The tools were already in place after all.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
27. Re:The Joke's on Them by Pi1grim · 2012-01-19 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah. Sure it is. Untill mesh networks are made illegal. If you cave in every time someone tries to deprive you of your rights — there soon be no rights at all. The polititians must be educated about the concequences of their action for both public and them personally (the latter even more important) or we will end up with a chinese style firewall and laws that outlaw any kind of encrypted connection.
28. Re:The Joke's on Them by MechaStreisand · 2012-01-19 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that people operating a website that runs afoul of US law in some way committed a crime on US territory themselves, then you deserve to spend some time in a US prison so you can see what it's like.
  
  --
  Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
29. Re:The Joke's on Them by Cyberax · 2012-01-19 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. Guess what would Google do if a US government comes and says something like this: "That's a nice search engine you got here. It'd be shame if it was unavailable in the US. Oh, and by the way, we're transferring your domain name to Bing". I bet Google would remove offending content faster than you can say "subsidiary company".
30. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Your do realize the basis or your argument is that ultimately the US is more valuable to Google than the rest of the world?
  You guys are so ridiculous...
31. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Right! Because DNS just dumb-downed the internet anyway! Lets go back to IP address and host files. The way the net was meant to be.
32. Re:The Joke's on Them by reub2000 · 2012-01-19 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  That assumes that Google can only serve the US or the rest of the world. Google would like to serve both.
33. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think mesh networking is the solved problem you think it is. Anyway, decentralized DNS certainly isn't, and DNS is the actual problem here.
34. Re:The Joke's on Them by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  Oh? And in what cases have people running websites outside the US been extradited to the US?
35. Re:The Joke's on Them by RockDoctor · 2012-01-19 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  So use a different DNS.
  Being more precise, use a DNS provider that looks very carefully at the updates it receives (particularly ones from known-bad sources, like America) and only applies them if it's been approved by the owners through some other reliable source of DNS.
  What ? Some TLDs are run by American organisations? Well whoopy-dee. Use a different TLD. That was difficult, wasn't it? Oh, and get your .com, .org etc domain data duplicated with someone outside the US, so other people can find you if America tries to turn you off.
  What? DNS is a single, globally-coherent system? Well, it was. Then this sort of shennigans started being tried. And now that is changing.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
36. Re:The Joke's on Them by mgblst · 2012-01-19 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, this is one the dumbest comments I have ever heard. If people from around the world can't see your website, whats the point? How ignorant and foolish.
37. Re:The Joke's on Them by Cyberax · 2012-01-19 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  In the first approximation you should be correct.
  US is the biggest market for Google by far. And killing off some content even if it might piss someone in Slovakia or Turkey? Google could probably care less.
38. Re:The Joke's on Them by Aladrin · 2012-01-20 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  I find this to be a common issue these days. People are held without trial or rights because they aren't citizens. They aren't enemy combatants either, so they aren't covered by any war treaties. The government then claims these people have no rights...
  And that's exactly the opposite of what this country was founded on. The Declaration specifically says the rights are inalienable. It says nothing about nationality when it says so.
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
39. Re:The Joke's on Them by JohhnyTHM · 2012-01-20 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sometime I wish mod points went up to 11.
40. Re:The Joke's on Them by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  The EU will fork DNS before that happens. It has threatened to in the past and this is just the final push it needs to do it.
  The internet is a vital resource for our economies. And yeah, we invented the web, the bit if you the US wants to block. So we won't stand for this.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
41. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anguirel · 2012-01-20 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  You must have missed this one - it was posted to /. a couple days ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9013961/Piracy-student-Richard-ODwyer-loses-extradition-case-over-TVShack-website.html
  Still in process, but unless the extradition trial gets overturned on appeal, it will happen.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
42. Re:The Joke's on Them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  "they've denied me access to content I want to see because of some political motive" yes well, quick news flash for you. It is their content, NOT yours. Your whining would certainly cause me to want to actively block you from ever seeing my site again. Does the internet really need more people that think they are OWED quality content ? probably not. It's not about you all the time, even if people changing what you expect "royally pisses you off" - We don't care what pisses you off frankly.
43. Re:The Joke's on Them by ShieldW0lf · 2012-01-25 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  If they can't enforce a law, it doesn't exist.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
"Sir" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:23 · Score: -1

"Sir" Tim Berners-Lee - if he were a REAL "sir" he'd be a musician, reality TV star or an actor - not some dipshit techie!
Let's not denigrate the meaning of a knighthood!
All somehting or another the Queen!
WHy yes, I've had a few. Why do yo ashk?
It's Still Not a "Right" Per Se... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:24 · Score: 0, Redundant

...but SOPA is still bad.
Internet access is somewhere between telephone service, and freedom of press. It's not entirely a "human right"
Additionally access to private networks is not precisely anything that private organizations or individuals should be forced to share. nor should htey be prevented from connecting. ..in the end, answer me this, is flipping a light switch a human right? who's switch is it?
Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by frovingslosh · 2012-01-19 07:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Father of the web? Wait 'till Al Gore hears about hears about this poser!

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by johanwanderer · 2012-01-19 07:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Father of the web? Wait 'till Al Gore hears about hears about this poser!
  Web != internet
2. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by elrous0 · 2012-01-19 07:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I hear if you say his name three times into a mirror, you get a 25Mbps fiber-optic connection.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  I tried it and it didn't work. I tried it more than once and it still didn't work.
4. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by toastar · 2012-01-19 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  I tried it and it didn't work. I tried it more than once and it still didn't work.
  
  Ahh but that's because you didn't do it in a starbucks.... on the summer equinox...
5. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Tastecicles · 2012-01-19 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  I tried it and turned into Michael Keaton.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
6. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  I better not do it then, I'd hate to lose half my bandwidth.
7. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by stanlyb · 2012-01-19 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sir Tim Berners-Lee...Sir Tim Berners-Lee...Sir Tim Berners-Lee...
  Sir Tim Berners-Lee...Sir Tim Berners-Lee...Sir Tim Berners-Lee...
  Where is my 50Mbps connection?
8. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  With what othe rmammal did he mate with to father the web?
9. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Merls+the+Sneaky · 2012-01-19 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  You have it, what no one told you? You have to share it with everyone else who said it.
10. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by toastar · 2012-01-19 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  pfft... you don't have a failover router, What type of geek are you?
11. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  That's not what Congress thinks.
12. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by elrous0 · 2012-01-19 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, that reminds me, I forgot to mention that if you say it six times you just get herpes.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
13. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-19 10:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Congress thinks?!
14. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by sjames · 2012-01-19 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Did you do it by the light from status LEDs and make sure to turn around in a full circle after saying his name?
15. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  Father of the web? Wait 'till Al Gore hears about hears about this poser!
  Web != internet
  He knows, he knows, he knows...
16. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  You Sir are a jockstrap
17. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by dkf · 2012-01-19 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Congress thinks?!
  Yes. Of course they do. About how to get more money for themselves usually.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
18. Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  individually some of them are surely quite clever, but collectively, well, think a particularly retarded Borg Collective :)
Sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:25 · Score: 4, Funny

I hope it does pass, I waste far too much time on the Internet.
Violates human rights? by glrotate · 2012-01-19 07:27 · Score: -1

Let's have a little perspective, shall we?
1. Re:Violates human rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Right to a fair trial, etc. More like legal rights than human rights, but still important.
2. Re:Violates human rights? by Kenja · 2012-01-19 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Freedom of communication, speech, association, congregation are not human rights?
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:Violates human rights? by RobertLTux · 2012-01-19 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is The Internet is rapidly becoming the best way to get The Word out.
  i can see in our lifetimes as different government services go online it becoming almost impossible to do anything of real value without being online somehow.
  we are even now seeing places that have job applications only online and some jobs also require you to already have a phone with text messaging.
  wanna be forced offline (because you have been blackballed due to being a dirty thieving pirate) in a world where business offices either 1 have 5 hour lines just to see anybody 2 are only open Mon-Wed from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (with a semi random 45 minute Lunch) 3 some combo of both
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
4. Re:Violates human rights? by Osgeld · 2012-01-19 07:42 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  you don't loose those rights if the internet or heck even telephone / paper / radio disappear today, though I have the ability to distinguish between rights and methods of exercising them
5. Re:Violates human rights? by Kenja · 2012-01-19 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A limitation on the means of exercising a right is a limitation on the right. Saying you have the right to free speech, but not the right to exercise that right is silly.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
6. Re:Violates human rights? by Osgeld · 2012-01-19 07:51 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  no I am saying SOMEHOW the citizens of the united states exercised their right to free speech without the internet, the interinet is a tool, a method, not a right
  quit being an alarmist
7. Re:Violates human rights? by Nadaka · 2012-01-19 07:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice. It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, and in concept all devices and methods of spreading speech. That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
8. Re:Violates human rights? by MrEricSir · 2012-01-19 07:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why *shouldn't* the internet be a right? Is there some compelling reason we should restrict our civil liberties instead of expanding them to meet the reality of today's world?
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
9. Re:Violates human rights? by na1led · 2012-01-19 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  So is the News Paper, or a Cell Phone! If you limit some people from using these tools, while allowing others, your limiting people's free speech! The Government doesn't own the Internet, no more than they own my Computer, so they need to get their greesy hands off!
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
10. Re:Violates human rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Then spending money is tantamount to speech.
  IF you declare it to be a sacred ritualistic sacrement, building nuclear bombs is a form of expression and therefore a protected right.
  Detonating a nuclear bomb sends a message. Let's not curtail free-speech, shall we?
  The right to bear arms has more to do with the right to defend one's self, than to own guns. By that logic, I deserve a B-52 stratofortress, a fleet of drones, a stealth bomber, and a nuclear submarine, all under my individual sovereign command. How else can I defend myself from the private corporations that manufacture these objects? They can possess them (at least ostensibly, in whole or in part, prior to transferring ownership to other organizations at the time of purchase), so why can't I?
11. Re:Violates human rights? by Kenja · 2012-01-19 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Your rights end where mine begin is why you can declare nukes free speech. What's more, money was deemed to be speech by the supreme court. That's why PACs can collect and spend as much as they want on campaign adds etc.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
12. Re:Violates human rights? by Osgeld · 2012-01-19 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  ok your right, the basic human right to not be a child sex salve while also being mutilated or in mass genocide based on race or religion is equal to not being able to watch spoony riff a movie
  apparently you people dont know the difference between human rights and rights of citizens
13. Re:Violates human rights? by alendit · 2012-01-19 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?"
  No rights were violated, they just took the means to exercise them...
14. Re:Violates human rights? by smartr · 2012-01-19 08:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So if we shut down television, radio, and all digital networks - we haven't violated free speech, because people can still speak. If we ban printing presses, we haven't violated free speech because people can still speak. If we ban all writing and recordings, because recorded information allows piracy, we haven't violated free speech because people can still speak. If we ban words and ideas, we haven't violated free speech, because people can still speak. If we ban speech entirely, we haven't violated free speech, because we can still use grunts and gestures. We don't need to be more advanced than dolphins, that's why we should only use grunts and gestures.
15. Re:Violates human rights? by na1led · 2012-01-19 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Do I have the right to THINK? I mean, what's the point in Free Speech if you can express yourself freely. If the Government Censors the Internet, we might as well be living in Iran. Isn't this why our Founders created the Bill of Rights? If the Government could have limited the Internet, they would have done it Long Ago! It's obvious they are looking for loopholes to get around this.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
16. Re:Violates human rights? by sirlark · 2012-01-19 09:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So as long as you have one method of exercising a right, all others can be removed? Then I can deny you the use of a specific method of communication, and not have that considered a limitation of your right to free speech and/or association. What's to stop me throwing you into solitary confinement. That's not an infringement of the right to free speech, as long as you are allowed to scream your protests ... where no one will hear. Sorry, but you not only need to be free from interference in exercising your rights, but also in exercising them effectively, i.e. you have to be allowed to scream where others can hear you. In the modern age, that means the right to publish on the internet. I too am not saying internet access is a right. But I am saying that selective or discriminatory limitation of access to the internet is a violation of the right to free speech.
17. Re:Violates human rights? by Obfuscant · 2012-01-19 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice.
  
  Incorrect. Freedom of the press was guaranteed because a responsible press is a requirement for an informed electorate. They were intended to be a watchdog on the government that the remainder of the document created. This is why they are sometimes refered to as "The Fourth Column". The first three being the three official branches of the government.
  
  It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, ...
  No, it doesn't. It refers to "freedom of ... the press". "The press" is not a reference to a specific device, it is a reference to the job and function of those who report the news. It makes no distinction at all regarding the physical medium that is used by the press to communicate.
  
  That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
  Since the first amendment has nothing to do with any specific medium, this argument is false. "The press" is not the same as "medium of mass communication". You're using the wrong clauses to argue your case.
18. Re:Violates human rights? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, the press was viewed as an institution, not a device. Freedom of the press applies to dissemination of original thought expressing opinion and fact.
  This is why freedom of the press applies to TV, radio, printed word, internet, etc.
  However there is no such thing as an absolute freedom. Publication of content created by others is subject to copyright. There are also restrictions on slander, libel, child porn and so forth.
19. Re:Violates human rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  "Responsible" is not a term that most people would use to describe the press around the time of the passage of the Constitution. Most papers would have put Rupert Murdoch to shame. Journalistic ethics was a phenomenon which primarily arose in the mid 20th century, and which has since waned. That's not to say that we're not better off with a strong sense of journalistic integrity, but don't project your modern notions on historical figures in a nationalistic appeal to the supposed sagacity of the Founding Fathers.
  The idea of "Free Speech" was likely a very opaque and ill-formed notion in the 18th century, much like we stumble to describe the privileges and rights which we think inhere to Internet access. We know it's a good idea, but it's hard to articulate why, and to differentiate and discount the alternatives. Instead we fall back to broad, non-specific language and hope the listener is on the same wavelength.
20. Re:Violates human rights? by Osgeld · 2012-01-19 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  HUMAN RIGHTS not the CONSTITUTION
21. Re:Violates human rights? by melikamp · 2012-01-19 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Internet is but a passing technology. It shouldn't be a right any more than other communication tools such as megaphones or banners. Your rights to free expression and association should be sufficient to allow you to use Internet in productive ways, for politics as well as for business. This is not to say that we cannot demand a state to provide us with cheap and neutral Internet access, but this would just be pragmatism, not an ethical imperative. States should subsidize Internet just like they subsidize other critical aspects of the society: roads and other means of transportation, energy production, general health. And they should do it just in case if the end results are better (cheaper, more fair) than what we would have in a pure capitalist utopia. As indeed they are.
22. Re:Violates human rights? by Obfuscant · 2012-01-19 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Responsible" is not a term that most people would use to describe the press around the time of the passage of the Constitution.
  Then it is a good thing I wasn't trying to describe any specific instance of the press. This does not change the fact that the founding fathers had a notion of what was required to have oversight on the federal system they were creating, and something with constitutional guarantees of freedom to do that job is what they intended.
  
  ...but don't project your modern notions on historical figures in a nationalistic appeal to the supposed sagacity of the Founding Fathers.
  No projection necessary. They were pretty smart folks. Smarter than modern whippersnappers want to give them credit for.
  
  and rights which we think inhere to Internet access. We know it's a good idea, ...
  You think it's a good idea. Don't project your opinions onto others.
23. Re:Violates human rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  But you still have the right to own a megaphone or a banner and use them to your hearts content so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
  The internet should be a right, that does not mean you don't still have to pay for it. I honestly think anyone who actually agrees with the SOPA or PIPA are selling out their children's future, whether they realize it or not. So to quote Mod Flanders, "Will someone please think of the children!", do you really want to sell out their future with some knee jerk reactions brought on by lack of thought, a few flashy catch lines and ignorance?
  Captcha: Factual
24. Re:Violates human rights? by Anguirel · 2012-01-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'd forgotten about that for a moment. That would also challenge the SOPA clauses regarding stopping payments, as Congress can make no laws infringing on free speech, and as money is free speech, they can now make no law abridging the usage of money. Clearly we next need to challenge the IRS on First Amendment grounds...
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
25. Re:Violates human rights? by melikamp · 2012-01-20 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  So to quote Mod Flanders, "Will someone please think of the children!"
  Helen Lovejoy, Moe once. I don't think Maude ever said that.
Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:29 · Score: -1

GreatBunzinni has been posting anonymous accusations listing a whole bunch of Slashdot accounts as being part of a marketing campaign for Microsoft, without any evidence. GreatBunzinni has accidentally outed himself as this anonymous poster. Half the accounts he attacks don't even post pro-Microsoft rhetoric. The one thing they appear to have in common is that they have been critical of Google in the past. GreatBunzinni has been using multiple accounts to post these "shill" accusations, such as Galestar, NicknameOne, and flurp.
That's not the problem. The problem is that moderators gave him +5 Informative and are now modding down the accused, even for legitimate posts. Metamoderation is supposed to address this by filtering out the bad moderators, but clearly it's not working.
This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop. It's restricting a variety of viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.
1. Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks AgeOfEmpires
And yet... by echo_kmem · 2012-01-19 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

All these voices coming out against these Bills, yet the Congress and Senate still push as if they really have a shot.
1. Re:And yet... by Kenja · 2012-01-19 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They do "have a shot". We the people get no real say in what bills get passed or not. Best we can do is vote the current person out of office, at which point they get a cushy job in the industry they represented and a new industry spokesperson takes their place.
  
  So long as corporations are "people" (which if they are, wouldn't buying stocks be slavery?) and money is "free speech" there's not much we can do about it.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
2. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean? It isn't like protesting actually affects the laws that get passed.
  It isn't like that people will stop voting for these "representatives".
3. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  People in positions of power is incredibly quick to dismiss "the lower people" if that fits their interests. They don't have a shot, they have all of them.
4. Re:And yet... by jesseck · 2012-01-19 07:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  That's how the House and Senate currently work- they intoxicate themselves with money, so that they are sufficiently blinded to consequences. It's pretty similar to beer goggles.
  Analogy:
  A lobbyist and Congressman are out at a bar. The lobbyist sees a girl he wants to bang, but her ugly friend is with her. To get the good looking girl, the lobbyist buys the Congressman drinks until beer goggles are worn. After that, the lobbyist gets his way.
  
  Beer = money
  Good looking girl = SOPA (favorable to his interests / pocketbook)
  Ugly girl = us getting fucked by our representatives
5. Re:And yet... by Jeng · 2012-01-19 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Best we can do is vote the current person out of office
  
  Naw, we can also shoot them, if you do so you may end up dead or in prison, but yea, we can also shoot them.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
6. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's because they're already as good as passed. At best, the blackout thing will force them to change the name. There's an anti-"child pornography" bill coming up. If SOPA fails, or only passes without the DNS provisions, they'll just be added to the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act. Except rather than calling it "copyright infringement" they'll call it "protecting our children."
  The battle's already as good as lost. About all the blackout did was piss people off. So now instead of being mad about SOPA, they're mad about not being able to access the Wikipedia for a day, and they're mad at "a bunch of nerds who are upset about laws that will stop them from stealing stuff."
  Did you watch any of the news about the Wikipedia blackout? All of it put SOPA in a positive light and accused Wikipedia of being "too political."
  The battle's lost. The people don't care. They're just mad at the websites that went on strike, NOT the law they went on strike over.
7. Re:And yet... by Kenja · 2012-01-19 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't solve anything as the next one will be just as bad. The system breeds corruption, punishing the corrupt is addressing the symptom and not the cause.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
8. Re:And yet... by MalleusEBHC · 2012-01-19 07:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't be so quick to resort to the usual (and frankly, warranted) pessimism. Yesterday may have been a pivotal moment when the power of the technical community was finally realized. Multiple senators dropped their sponsorship of PIPA. My senators' phone lines were busy all day long. While it's certainly a possibility that everything will return to business as usual, we finally saw a glimmer of the numbers of the masses overwhelming the influence of the money of the few. We have so few other avenues left, so we might as well see if this can effect real change.
9. Re:And yet... by rmstar · 2012-01-19 07:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They do "have a shot". We the people get no real say in what bills get passed or not. Best we can do is vote the current person out of office, at which point they get a cushy job in the industry they represented and a new industry spokesperson takes their place.
  I do not think that is correct. We the people do get a say in what bills get passed or not. Please do not underestimate it. Defeatism and apathy are the best allies of those that want to take away our freedoms.
  We the people do have power. Not absolute, but we have it, and when we use it we end up having an influence. Voting is one part of exercising power, and protest (like the blackouts) another. Raising consciousness of the issues and our power is another.
10. Re:And yet... by Kenja · 2012-01-19 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We'll know next week when it gets voted on. But even if the bill's get defeated, they will just be tweaked and resubmitted. This will be an ongoing issue that will require massive amounts of vigilance. Many bills are not even read before being voted on. If SOPA/PIPA get renamed "the blankets and apple pie for war orphans" bills we may be in trouble.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
11. Re:And yet... by Karlb · 2012-01-19 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed. It's almost impossible to fight corruption with common sense and logic, hopefully, collectively, we can seek to threaten the wallets of those who propel the state (I don't specifically mean just the USA).
  I see the frist stage of the campaign against these bills as awareness, then potentially a subsequent stage being boycotts of the products which pro-sopa companies produce. Whether even this would be enough remains to be seen, combined with other strategies though it could well be.
  
  --
  When all else fails, you've won.
12. Re:And yet... by Anne+Thwacks · 2012-01-19 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost impossible to fight corruption with common sense and logic
  OTOH, there are always Rocket Propelled Grenades or ...
  Chuck Norris!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
13. Re:And yet... by Kenja · 2012-01-19 08:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Bad news. Chuck Norris is a christian fundamentalist & republican.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
14. Re:And yet... by nurb432 · 2012-01-19 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  "have a shot"?
  I hate to break this to you, but they can create any legislation they want. What you ( or I ) want is really not relevant, nor do we have any control over what they do. Even if they cross Constitutional lines in the process and the president signs it, the law still stands until the supreme court feels like hearing it, and if they strike it down.
  Sure, we can try to vote them out, after the damage has been done..
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
15. Re:And yet... by LordLimecat · 2012-01-19 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Your pessimism and apathy does LOADS to fix a percieved issue. Way to discourage people from trying to make a difference. I suppose instead of writing to congress, youd feel better writing to Google and Wikipedia to tell them that they wasted their time yesterday during the blackout.
  All this, of course, ignores that Congress and the whitehouse have ALREADY backpedeled on SOPA and that its sounding dead in the water at this point. But yea, the people can make no difference at all, keep telling yourself that.
16. Re:And yet... by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-19 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't solve anything if it were a one-off occurrence. If shooting corrupt politicians happened all of the time, then politicians would at the very least try not to appear corrupt. Arresting and imprisoning them would probably work just as well.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
17. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Best we can do is vote the current person out of office, at which point they get a cushy job in the industry they represented and a new industry spokesperson takes their place.
  Unfortunately. If things go as usual a whole lot will be voted right back in because it is always the 'other' representatives voted by 'other misinformed' voters that are the problem. If anyone wants anything to change you have to look at specifically you who voted for in the last election.
18. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  You don't just say 'no' to lobbying dollars. The lobbyists are like patrons of a massage parlor and politicians got paid for a happy ending.
19. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  More bad news. You're an idiot for thinking that matters.
20. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  All this, of course, ignores that Congress and the whitehouse have ALREADY backpedeled on SOPA and that its sounding dead in the water at this point. But yea, the people can make no difference at all, keep telling yourself that.
  Dead bills don't get more hearings. We're being placated.
21. Re:And yet... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-19 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  And yet such people can still be teamed up with for the sake of a common goal; you just need to explain it to them in such terms that'll make them more likely to listen.
  E.g.: "SOPA is a law that establishes filtering infrastructure that can be used for arbitrary censorship by the government; for example, liberals could use it to censor dissenting opinions on the so-called 'global warming' and 'evolution'".
22. Re:And yet... by tool462 · 2012-01-19 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This will be an ongoing issue that will require massive amounts of vigilance.
  I thought this was one of the very basic requirements of democracy. You don't EVER get to sit back and let the thing run itself. It requires constant vigilance on the part of the people to make it work. Maybe things have been too good for too long and people forgot this fact.
  There's nothing wrong with a little self-satisfaction when you're able to make your voice heard. The victories show you the system can work. Use it to give you the energy for the next fight.
23. Re:And yet... by owlnation · 2012-01-19 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  All these voices coming out against these Bills, yet the Congress and Senate still push as if they really have a shot.
  Perhaps it will become more subtle, but it will not stop so long as those "voices" are targeting the puppets -- and not the puppet-masters.
  
  And that's why the logical next step for anti-sopa action is to hit the puppet-masters. A day of global boycott of media companies would send them a clear message.
  
  It is possible to completely end sopa once and for all -- all we have to do is stop buying media products until it completely goes away. Targeting government is irrelevant*, it's the pockets of the CEO's of media companies who own them and control them, that need to be targeted.
  
  (*assuming that we cannot get lobbying recognized for what it really is -- sedition. And acting on lobbying, treason. If lobbying was the serious criminal offense that it should be, then targeting Government could work, of itself.)
24. Re:And yet... by sjames · 2012-01-19 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  We'd have to burn DC while we're at it so the heads can't grow back.
25. Re:And yet... by rust627 · 2012-01-19 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  you should all know by now that not only does voting encourage them, the only result of voting is that a politician will get in to office.......
  
  --
  da da da dum indeed.
26. Re:And yet... by silentcoder · 2012-01-19 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  >then potentially a subsequent stage being boycotts of the products which pro-sopa companies produce
  Doesn't work - these companies think they have a legal right to profit, and the government thinks it has a duty to protect them "when they suffer losses" (as per the politicians supporting the bill). If you boycott them - they will suffer even greater losses, which they'll blame on piracy and use as proof they need even MORE draconian laws.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
27. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  That's the best analogy I've ever read in my whole life.
Lobying money by future+assassin · 2012-01-19 07:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

All that money spent on paying of politicians says one thing to me. We don't want to give people access to movies and music. If this wasn't the case the movie studios and music companies would have used that money to develop online distribution websites. How hard would it have been to take all the works you have copyrights to and set up a site where people can buy them and download them.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Re:Lobying money by Anrego · 2012-01-19 07:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Indeed.
  But that's how it goes with dinosaurs. They are way too big and have way too much invested in the way they've always done things, that when times change their first instinct isn't to adapt, but instead to send out the lawyers and lobbyists and stop it.
  Rather than find new ways to profit in the new reality of media and data, they've stuck with their mindset of media as a physical thing that one person at a time owns.
  Most importantly, I think there is a lack of rational viewpoints and thinking. No one is trying to come up with a solution that accomodates all needs. Both sides are full of extremists and it's getting us nowhere.
  Personally I think people have the right to make money off their product. The fact that a copy of something "costs nothing" doesn't mean anything if the first copy cost several million dollars and you are "sharing" it with several thousand strangers. I also tend to disagree with this entitled "if I can't have it the way I want at a price I want, I'll steal it" attitude.
  That said, I think the media industry goes way too far. They want to control what you view, how you view it, what you view it on... and they abuse the law as a standard practice. They want to inhibit all progress in how we use media because the old way is so damn profitable. They want to sell us something and include a list of unreasonable restrictions. If I buy something, I should own it and be allowed to do whatever I want with it.
2. Re:Lobying money by Brain-Fu · 2012-01-19 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Such distribution sites DO exist for music (the iTunes store, Amazon.com, and others). You even get some choices for the format, and non-DRM-encumbered MP3 is an option.
  Such sites don't exist for movies mainly because the industry controllers don't want movies to ever exist in a non-DRM-encumbered format. They don't mind streaming movies so long as the data gets deleted as it is being watched...though even then they refuse to relax their grip on the copyrights, each studio requiring special contracts with any provider rather than just subletting to whoever is willing to pay.
  By maintaining control of a desired commodity, they can make more money in the long run. So we have the eternal push for copyrights that never expire and draconian enforcement measures....paid for by us...to protect them.
  It is not fair, just, or even reasonable. But artificial scarcity rarely is.
3. Re:Lobying money by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-19 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  The company that I rent DVDs from just switched its streaming service over to Silverlight from Flash 'to prevent piracy' because the movie studios required this as a condition of making their work available. This means that I can no longer use it on the machine connected to my projector (running FreeBSD, but could easily be running one of the embedded Linux distributions that various media centres use), nor can I watch it on my TouchPad. I could, however, download pretty much anything that they have available on their streaming service from various illegal sources, without DRM, and watch them online (e.g. copy them to my TouchPad to watch while on the train).
  They have lowered the value of the service that they offer me, for no benefit. Want to fix the system? Pass a law that says DRM XOR Copyright. If you, or your authorised distributors, use DRM, then you don't get any protection from copyright.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
4. Re:Lobying money by Obfuscant · 2012-01-19 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  They have lowered the value of the service that they offer me, for no benefit.
  
  For no benefit to you.
  They see a great deal of benefit. It fulfills the contractual conditions required for them to be able to sell the movie studio's products.
  Which is worse -- for them? Not being able to sell a new blockbuster movie to anyone, or being able to sell it to everyone and YOU can't watch it? We know what you think, but there are two parties to every contract, and their thoughts on the matter do count.
  
  Pass a law that says DRM XOR Copyright. If you, or your authorised distributors, use DRM, then you don't get any protection from copyright.
  So then there is no legal remedy for them if they use DRM and someone cracks it and starts handing out their product for free, and no effective legal remedy if they don't even try to stop copying? Plus they get the a **AA kind of reputation if they don't do DRM but do try to chase down copyright violations? You're trying to force content providers into a lose-lose situation.
  If you object to them using DRM, don't buy their product.
5. Re:Lobying money by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-19 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  They see a great deal of benefit. It fulfills the contractual conditions required for them to be able to sell the movie studio's products.
  And their costs go up because they need to completely redevelop their entire customer-facing software stack. And, because Silverlight is not really portable, they then have to spend more money on apps for various mobile platforms. This is less money that they have to pay the content providers, so the content providers also lose. The only winners are Microsoft, who get to push their crap on everyone else. Oh, except that Silverlight isn't going to work in the Metro environment in Windows 8 (but HTML 5 video will)...
  
  So then there is no legal remedy for them if they use DRM and someone cracks it and starts handing out their product for free,
  Correct.
  
  and no effective legal remedy if they don't even try to stop copying?
  Huh? Books that I write are available in a DRM-free format, but they are covered by copyright. If someone is distributing them without my permission (or my publisher's permission) then they are committing copyright infringement. In the USA, they are liable for large statutory fines. The fact that is no DRM does not prevent me from seeking legal remedies.
  
  Plus they get the a **AA kind of reputation if they don't do DRM but do try to chase down copyright violations?
  
  You mean suing individuals for hundreds of times their actual damages? If they do that, they get the reputation that they deserve.
  
  If you object to them using DRM, don't buy their product.
  I pay for the service to rent DVDs (which don't have DRM - at least none that isn't so completely cracked that it may as well not exist), the streaming service is bundled with it. I do avoid buying any products that come with DRM.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
6. Re:Lobying money by __aasdno7518 · 2012-01-19 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed.
  I think the media industry goes way too far. They want to control what you view, how you view it, what you view it on... and they abuse the law as a standard practice. They want to inhibit all progress in how we use media because the old way is so damn profitable. They want to sell us something and include a list of unreasonable restrictions. If I buy something, I should own it and be allowed to do whatever I want with it.
  I agree...They want us to consume their content the way they tell us..NO sharing,NO fair use. I also think it's really not about pirating at all but about power,control and pure,never ending greed. Check out this informative Ted Talk...They have been behaving this way for years. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
7. Re:Lobying money by Obfuscant · 2012-01-19 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  In the USA, they are liable for large statutory fines. The fact that is no DRM does not prevent me from seeking legal remedies.
  If this was an effective legal remedy, then it would be enough to deal with the problem. **AA would be suing a lot of people for copyright infringement using this remedy and be making lots of money. The problem is that "exists" and "effective" are two different words.
8. Re:Lobying money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  Personally I think people have the right to make money off their product.
  The horse buggy whip manufacturers will be so pleased.
9. Re:Lobying money by sjames · 2012-01-19 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, they stream them all the time. It's called cable TV.
  When I record a movie that way, I have to wonder, other than the bizarro legal technicalities, why is it so different if I get it from TPB rather than AMC.
only solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:35 · Score: 0

the only is for IT companies move out from USA. hey, you can evade taxes all around the world! not sure if the hollywood accounting is possible everywhere but i doubt it would take long for the entertainment industry to find a way to make no profit.
Again democratic != liberal democratic by Compaqt · 2012-01-19 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Increasingly, "democracies" are passing all sorts of stuff which is repugnant the tradition of liberty:
-Panopticon street cameras in England
-Patriot Act in the US
-Web censorship and the RIM affair in India
What's needed is an emphasis on "liberal democracies", democracies that promote (classical) liberal values.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Again democratic != liberal democratic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that idea in a country where the majority think "liberal" means "God-hating gun-banning mandatory-abortionist communist who will force men to marry other men".
2. Re:Again democratic != liberal democratic by goldspider · 2012-01-19 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  You'll find there are plenty of self-described "liberals" in Congress who support these bills.
  
  --
  "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
3. Re:Again democratic != liberal democratic by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Calling one self a liberal is not the same thing as actually being a liberal.
Meanwhile, on FOX... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:38 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, Fox network stations were spinning the blackout to make it sound as if SOPA protesters were "misinformed".
1. Re:Meanwhile, on FOX... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Considering Fox is a major proponent of SOPA, they're hardly unbiased on the matter.
2. Re:Meanwhile, on FOX... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the thousands of site owners... arguably all knowledgeable in the internet due to the fact that they HAVE a website... and including such ridiculously massive, technological sites such as google and wikipedia... were all misinformed. As were the (literally!) millions of people who supported it and used those links to email their representatives.
  But... thousands or millions that we may be, we're still small apples compared to the rest of the proles, who will vote for or believe whoever has the biggest presence on TV. Thus, whoever has the most money and controls the media that the proles watch. Thus, not us.
  Honestly, it's debatable whether all of this outrage and backlash even delayed it, or whether it was delayed for unrelated reasons.
  Don't kid yourself... this IS going through, no matter what. The only question is how to route around the damage after the fact.
Unfit for a Democratic County by MoldySpore · 2012-01-19 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is an extremely fitting description of why the bill shouldn't passed, considering that it will put us under the same umbrella as Iran, China, and Syria...at least when it comes to the DNS blocking part of the bills and internet censorship in general if SOPA/PIPA are passed

--
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
1. Re:Unfit for a Democratic County by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  it will put us under the same umbrella as Iran, China, and Syria Well that would be two things the USA and Syria have in common: censoring the Internet, and murdering people for crimes they commit as a child. What an exclusive club.
2. Re:Unfit for a Democratic County by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  As far as I am concerned, you stepped under that umbrella the same time the patriot-act was passed.
Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by SonicSpike · 2012-01-19 07:42 · Score: 4, Informative

This just came out yesterday......
"For the past several months, Sen. Rand Paul has opposed and led the charge against both the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yesterday, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
"The Internet, as we know it, has had a profound impact on job creation, the global economy and prosperity. It has accelerated wealth creation and facilitated a more connected world. But the Internet's development is based on the free flow of information, innovation, and ideas, not central government control," Senator Paul said.
"Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet. These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws. While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else's problems."
Sen. Paul concluded, "I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet.""

--
Libertas in infinitum
1. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, so they'll just pass it during one of the Republican debates.
  At least they have a time table on when to pass it, they just need to wait until some time before Ron Paul drops out of the race or the pointless debates.
  So they've safely got until Super Tuesday to quietly pass PIPA while Ron Paul is busy campaigning.
2. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by CRCulver · 2012-01-19 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  Rand Paul != Ron Paul.
3. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by mjr167 · 2012-01-19 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Rand != Ron. They are two different senators.
4. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by Fned · 2012-01-19 08:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That's just what people who read a lot of Ayn Ron want you to believe.
5. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Actually one is a representative, the other is a senator.
6. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Is he allowed to primary out Mitch McConnell? That way he would hold both Kentucky Senate seats and get two votes.
7. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry to be the cynic, but I am truly surprised that a senator knows the words due process. It has been trampled on by the US and a lot of other countries(not to exclude anyone) for more than a decade in all aspects of the law.
8. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by SonicSpike · 2012-01-19 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  You should get to know the family. Ron and Rand Paul are the two most principled people in the United States government! Don't take my word for it, start with YouTube.
  
  --
  Libertas in infinitum
9. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/venn-ron-paul
  Ron Paul is not an ally worth having.
10. Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-19 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  No. The family as you say too narrowly interprets the Constitution. And they are not shy about taking positions that conflict with that narrow interpretation when they suit their political needs.
  For example:
  Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000 and 2003.
His thinking the US is a democratic country... by spagthorpe · 2012-01-19 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

...is his first mistake. Once you realize that the country is run by corporate overlords, it all makes perfect sense.
I expect this round of the bill will get shot down. Then someone will attach it as a rider to some BS terrorist or child pr0n bill later in the year with little media coverage.

--
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
1. Re:His thinking the US is a democratic country... by modernzombie · 2012-01-19 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Sad truth
2. Re:His thinking the US is a democratic country... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  Quite correct. The USA is NOT a democracy and I'm sick to death of everyone, including news media morons, calling the US a democracy. In a democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy/ we would ALL vote on the issues and laws.
  The USA is a republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic/: senators and representatives vote instead of us. Well, they vote for whoever speaks the loudest- the lobbies. We need a people's lobby. That might fix it.
Lamar Smith steals images by LateStarter · 2012-01-19 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative

http://weknowmemes.com/2012/01/lamar-smith-is-a-copyright-violator/ that man is ridiculous
The brothers MacManus solution by RobertLTux · 2012-01-19 08:04 · Score: 1

So all you would have to do is begin hunting each and every one of them down (while keeping out of the hands of every TLA in the world since the FBI CIA DOD BSA ARC and their international counterparts would all be looking very hard for you).
Bonus points if you do some sort of prayer before you "redact" one of the critters.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Democratic? by stanlyb · 2012-01-19 08:05 · Score: 1

Who said USA is democratic country?
Last time i checked, actually in the only legal document that has the right to do it, the Constitution, it says REPUBLIC.
1. Re:Democratic? by styrotech · 2012-01-19 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Republic has all kinds of definitions. one of the broadest/loosest definitions just means a country not headed by a monarch. Which is orthogonal to whether a country is democratic or not.
  eg there are totalitarian undemocratic republics as well as democratic republics, and democratic countries than aren't republics.
  And for another example the debate for Australia becoming a republic is centered around not having a monarch as head of state any more. That mostly symbolic change would have very little effect on the actual structure and workings of the existing Australian democratic system.
Of course the result would be by Ice+Tiger · 2012-01-19 08:09 · Score: 1

The .com, .orgs etc will get moved out of US control.
Let them block .us all they want.

--
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
They want to "DRM" or "Steam" the Entire Internet by dryriver · 2012-01-19 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

People who continously argued over the years that game DRM services like Steam (or SecuROM, or EA newcomer "Origin") were "harmless" anti-piracy measures or even - gasp - "just great, so easy to use!" can now rejoice. Once SOPA/PIPA, and then SOPA/PIPA 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 get passed, using the ENTIRE INTERNET will VERY MUCH become like being permantently trapped in a walled garden like Steam, or iTunes. Today's "wild" internet will then, over the years, become a distant memory, like 8 track tapes or Polaroid film. Of course 50% or so of the internet's population will then walk away from the NET entirely, because there's nothing interesting on it anymore. And content companies/dotcoms/stock markets will now PANIC that people are LEAVING the internet. But that shouldn't stop a nice bill like SOPA or PIPA and EVEN STRICTER LEGISLATION THAT WILL ALMOST SURELY FOLLOW THEM. Go on. Pass these stupid bills. See what happens to the Internet as a result.

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Carrots by HalAtWork · 2012-01-19 08:21 · Score: 1

They just want a very expensive, very desirable carrot, when each time it lands in your hands it can be snatched away. They want this carrot to be so desirable that you want to try and get it again anyway. It doesn't matter what this particular carrot represents, music, TV, whatever. Even if your favorite indie production became massively popular overnight, someone would pop up and try to exploit it. Once something becomes popular enough, someone will try and turn it into such a carrot.

It's easier to buy up the content producer's rights than try and control the content producer, and it's easier/cheaper to do that than to put time, effort, and thought into coming up with something people will want. It's just clear that this method of making money is reaching an extreme point.

If you just wanted to set up a content directory and distribution medium, where any of the content could disappear and show up on a competitor's directory and distribution medium if they didn't like the terms, then they would have to be truly competitive. If they can perpetually retain some exclusivity on popular content, then it's a much more stable profit bearing resource.

--
Twinstiq, game news
So now the celebrities are weighing in... by DerekLyons · 2012-01-19 08:41 · Score: -1, Troll

"Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA
So, now that the day of the grassroots astroturf campaign has passed, the celebrities start jumping on the bandwagon. Who will be next? Sally Field? Anthony Bourdain?
1. Re:So now the celebrities are weighing in... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh... I really hope this was meant sarcastically. Sir Tim Berners-Lee is not a "celebrity". He is the current director of the W3C. He works as a professor at MIT and he was the first to get HTTP protocol to deliver documents across servers on the internet (i.e. the "world wide web".) Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
inevitable...? by amoeba1911 · 2012-01-19 08:43 · Score: 2

This SOPA/PIPA is only a symptom of a deeper underlying problem we have in the world today. There is a massive disconnect between the people who pass the laws and the people they're supposed to represent. They have been bought many times over by the private interests who changed the laws for their selfish benefit at the expense of the people.
Sure, I am against SOPA as much as you are, but SOPA is only a symptom. SOPA isn't what will kill you: it's the underlying disease that's ravaging your world. The disease is eroding your freedoms and soon you will be too weak to fight back.
1. Re:inevitable...? by MightyMartian · 2012-01-19 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's only a disconnect insofar as Congress has discarded even the appearances of being part of a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and has basically declared itself interested only in what large corporate interests want. I think we're only a few decades away from a legislative branch about as functionally useful as China's National People's Congress, a rubber stamp for whatever the board rooms of Corporate America tell it to enact.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:inevitable...? by __aasdno7518 · 2012-01-19 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  This SOPA/PIPA is only a symptom of a deeper underlying problem we have in the world today. There is a massive disconnect between the people who pass the laws and the people they're supposed to represent. They have been bought many times over by the private interests who changed the laws for their selfish benefit at the expense of the people.
  .
  So true.They don't give a sparrow fart about us or what we think...All they care about is money,power and control.
Re:They want to "DRM" or "Steam" the Entire Intern by webheaded · 2012-01-19 08:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm sorry but I don't think I'd group Steam in with SecuROM on the scale of things that people thought were harmless anti-piracy measures. Even Origin, which is shitty, is basically a copy of Steam with shitty customer service. SecuROM is a shitcake topped with diarrhea. Ubisoft always on is shit. Steam and Origin are actually pretty fair compromises. I get to download my games anywhere, I can share my Steam account with trusted friends for them to try out games, and all I have to do is get online once in a while to activate the games (it has offline mode if you need it).

The only bumps I've hit usually have nothing to do with Steam and have everything to do with the shit that the publisher puts there on TOP of Steam...such as *cringe* Games for Windows Live or...hey...SecuROM.

--
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Aristocratic Titles by Ossifer · 2012-01-19 09:01 · Score: 0

Aristocratic titles are also unfit for a democratic country, Mr. Berners-Lee.
1. Re:Aristocratic Titles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Unless his title gives him an extra vote, I'd say it has no more bearing on a democratic country than, say, a Congressional Medal of Honor.
2. Re:Aristocratic Titles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  But President to denote your god-king is fine?
3. Re:Aristocratic Titles by Ossifer · 2012-01-19 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Don't have a god-king... (you're probably assuming I'm American)...
Democratic, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:11 · Score: 1

People keep referring to the USA as a democratic country. Sure, you've got a president 'n' all, but with things like DMCA, FTA and now SOPA and PIPA ... when will you admit that it's nothing more than a commercial oligarchy?
Basically American politicians are idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:12 · Score: 0

While the America might be good at technology, the American politicians are complete idiots and can't be trusted to make thoughtful decisions. They are throwing their weight around and endangering the Internet for everyone. With the Internet in the hands of idiots, we should use our tech skills to:
1) re-engineer the DNS system / domain name system to make it distributed and peer to peer.
2) make an international body (which can't be bullied by America) to oversea the domain names.
Or if that can't be done - we should start a new Internet completely.
TED talk about SOPA history and effects... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 09:20 · Score: 0

I think some people need to see this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LEb_D2SD3k
1. Re:TED talk about SOPA history and effects... by wtfamidoinghere · 2012-01-19 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Great video, thanx for the info!
Need a better fact-checker Sir! by Mitsoid · 2012-01-19 10:12 · Score: 0

"violate human rights and unfit for a democratic country"
He needs to get better fact-checkers. The United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy.
A message from Senator Feinstein by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-01-19 10:19 · Score: 2

Ugh, I just got my email response back from senator Dianne Feinstein (CA-D). She was apparently un-phased by her email and phone line being utterly crippled with traffic yesterday in opposition to SOPA/PIPA. The train wreck watcher in me half wants this thing to actually pass. We would have solid proof and precedent that we are not in the least bit represented. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people screaming at congress and they just don't care, the money's already in the bank.
If SOPA/PIPA were put to a national referendum, would it pass? If not then does that mean that we have hard proof that congress' actions no longer represent the will of the people? If that's true, then could we actually get popular support for a political revolution? Would we do a recall in every state and completely clean out the government? If we do that we could end up just installing V2.0 of we currently have in place. Could we get popular support for radical changes in the way the officials are elected and the way the government is ran? A lot of people scoff at the idea of such changes. They tell you to "get a life" or to take the tin-foil hat off. At what point do even those people say, "Okay. What. The. Fuck."?
For those who are interested here is the contents of senator Feinstein's email that I assume she mass sent out this morning:
Dear Mr. Didn't Give a Campaign Contribution:
I received your letter expressing opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.
The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.
The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.
America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.
I understand you have concerns about the "PROTECT IP Act." While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others. I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.
On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" for consideration by the full Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation. As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Wishing you a happy 2012.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
1. Re:A message from Senator Feinstein by wtfamidoinghere · 2012-01-19 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  "because copyright piracy is not speech."
  Copyright piracy ... never heard this one before.
For the last time... by l0ungeb0y · 2012-01-19 17:09 · Score: 0

America is NOT a democracy, it's a Representative Republic -- the "representation" being concerned with helping the Corporate Persons keep the population of serfs in check.
For fuck's sakes... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 19:04 · Score: 0

So the giant film, music and media companies have your American senators on their pay. Where are the other giant corporations such as Google, Amazon, IBM, etc? Surely they can fight it dollar for dollar? Or am I being naive?
Custom HOSTS files "route around" that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-19 23:24 · Score: 0

Just "hardcode in" any sites (including /. subdomains) in it you wish and no DNSBL (DNS block list) can stop you from reaching them when you use custom HOSTS files this way...
In fact, I rather strongly wager that this is a LARGE part of WHY the SOPA politicians 'turned away' from that portion of it (filtering @ the DNS level) - too EASY to BLOW PAST IT!
TOR's another alternative too.
* Nicest part of this is that you resolve hosts-domain names to their IP address a LOT faster (especially after the HOSTS file itself is cached).
APK
P.S.=> When they start using Deep Packet Inspection though? Nothing's really truly safe (assuming you're breaking their laws that is though in the 1st place - if you're NOT doing that? NO PROBLEM either way!)...
... apk
Good DNSBL filtering DNS servers 4 security by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 00:22 · Score: 0

That actually use "DNSBL filtered 'secured'" DNS servers for the purposes of security online:
A.) Norton DNS (198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50/198.153.192.40 and 198.153.194.40/198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60) -> http://nortondns.com/ & you can even see how it updates every few minutes vs. known malicious sites-servers, here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz as well as get a GOOD read on how/why it works, etc.- et al, here https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/faq.do
It filters vs. MANY threats online & IS UP TO DATE as is possible I'd imaging (see those links, you'll understand WHY I state that). It's part of WHY I use it as my PRIMARY DNS here...
---
B.) ScrubIT DNS (67.138.54.100 and 207.225.209.66 ) -> http://www.scrubit.com/ & here is a good read on how/why it works via its FAQ's as well -> http://www.scrubit.com/index.cfm?page=faq
---
& of course
C.) Open DNS (208.67.222.222 or 208.67.220.220) -> https://store.opendns.com/get/home-free
---
EACH IS FREE, & WORKS vs. threats online of MANY kinds, doubtless via a form of DNSBL they use for filtering those threats out!
(E.G.-> Phishing/Spamming, Malware hosting sites/servers, Maliciously scripted hosts-domains etc./et al & more...)
* I use ALL 3 of them (mostly as "failovers" for one another, in case my primary can't resolve a host/domain name to an IP address, & w/ Norton DNS as primary)!
(I do so, in a "layered triumvirate formation" in BOTH my IP stack DNS settings in Windows (software-side), as well as in my LinkSys/CISCO router here (hardware-side))...
APK
P.S.=> DNS has issues though, period - it needs SOMEKIND of "Revision" for IPv4 @ least: Especially if DNS servers are set into "recursive mode", as I am SURE YOU OF ALL PEOPLE REALIZE! DNS's VERY susceptible to DNS redirection poisoning (over port 53 via UDP/TCP, iirc)...
HOWEVER?
DNS' better than trying to say, lol, hardcode in EVERY hosts-domain to IP address possible in a custom HOSTS file for example (keeping up with the changes would be the problem as far as "hardcoding in" the equation records). HOSTS are better used for doing a small group of "favorites" (sort of a 'little black book' of girls' phone #'s basically instead of looking through the ENTIRE phonebook each time etc.) &/or BLOCKING OUT known malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains + adbanners (for speed & yes, even security, because banner ads have had their share of malicious script code in them also over time as well).
The way that I use them in layered/phalanx style defensive formation noted above helps for security, bigtime & especially by using ALL of them in "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" style I noted above in BOTH hardware &/or software setups of the IP stack + router level security... in combination simultaneously, along with other means (like I use in a custom HOSTS file, + AdBlock/NoScript/IE9 TPL's, Opera urlfilter.ini, IE restricted zones, etc., vs. online threats mostly))
... apk
Don't ignore the real threat by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-01-20 00:35 · Score: 1

A bill still wending it's way through the corrupt halls of Congress would require anyone registering (and I bet renewing) a domain to provide a real, meatspace-verified identity so they can be easily found by the MAFIAA and the State's security organs (some duplication here).

You can't have a free society without privacy and we're still on track to prove it.
remove and replace by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-01-20 00:43 · Score: 1

Freedom of communication, speech, association, congregation are corporate rights.
Thanks, Ameicans by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:02 · Score: 0

I'd just like to thank the US citizens who try to spread news about SOPA and PIPA to people all over the world. It's something that concerns us all.