SOPA Goes Back To the Drawing Board, PIPA Postponed

Santorum by vencs · 2012-01-20 08:16 · Score: 0

was not entirely dismissing the idea or thats' what I felt.

Re:Santorum by AliasMarlowe · 2012-01-20 08:48 · Score: 4, Informative

was not entirely dismissing the idea or thats' what I felt.
Santorum was just mouthing his usual santorum.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:Santorum by ravenspear · 2012-01-20 11:13 · Score: 0

I know this was marked troll, but my vote would have been insightful.
Santorum has been so consistently wrong on every single issue imo, I don't know how you can have a worse candidate. He is for big spending government entitlement programs and social authoritarianism.
Re:Santorum by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 20:39 · Score: 1

I know nothing of this man so I don't pretend I'm in the position to comment on his record but what you mean by social authoritarianism. that's the issue here and think it's about the people being able to govern and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and will always be wrong is handing your liberties over in the name of safety or the few when the masses have the authority and rightfully so if you are against This you have no right to call yourself an American please explain.

Likely answer... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-20 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

The most likely answer is this: too many people knew what was being planned. We can't have people knowing about the laws that attack their rights and freedoms, can we?

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Likely answer... by kaellinn18 · 2012-01-20 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's the scariest thing I've read: Lamar Smith is also the sponsor of H.R. 1981 Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&). What someone on Reddit suggested might happen (and I see as all too plausible) is that they will modify the text of SOPA/PIPA a bit and tack it on to this bill. If that happens, it is going to pass in a landslide because no one wants to be seen as supporting child pornography. They will pass this bill without even reading it. We HAVE to keep on top of this and make sure that they don't try to sneak one by us. This is just the beginning, and it is going to get very ugly.

--

--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:24 · Score: 1

Exactly. The new version (see identical) will be buried in some defence appropriation bill that must pass so the lot can say "I didn't want to vote in favor, but we have to protect ourselves from the terrorists."
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is just the beginning, and it is going to get very ugly.
Where have you been? Because it's hardly the beginning. But there is a long hard road ahead of us.
Re:Likely answer... by SJHillman · 2012-01-20 08:28 · Score: 5, Funny

"no one wants to be seen as supporting child pornography"
Well, there's always 4chan...
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:31 · Score: 1

Yeah... I can't see anyone jumping on Facebook to shout, "Stop this anti-kiddie-porn bill! Freeeeedooooom!"

Clever. And Evil.
Re:Likely answer... by poetmatt · 2012-01-20 08:31 · Score: 2

Dont' think for a second the internet won't outrage if SOPA/PIPA is attached to *Anything*. In fact, I suspect them doing this as soon as the media stops trying to stifle the issue (as Time Warner owns CNN for example - see the article with Lamar smith that says "Editor's note: Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is among the industry supporters of the legislation.").
However, people will absolutely mobilize again.
Re:Likely answer... by elrous0 · 2012-01-20 08:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

They'll just attach a quiet rider to the next appropriations bill in the middle of the night. Then everyone can pull that phoney Obama "Well, I didn't *want* to support it--but since it was tied to that really important appropriations bill, I felt I *had* to vote for it/not veto it" shit.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Likely answer... by hedwards · 2012-01-20 08:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Child porn laws themselves aren't the problem, the problem is that they're selectively enforced and don't require any knowledge or intent on the part of the accused to be prosecuted that is the problem.
What I want to know is why none of the FBI agents working on those cases hasn't been prosecuted. If any of the rest of us were caught with the stuff on our machines for any reason we would be prosecuted.
Re:Likely answer... by Lundse · 2012-01-20 08:36 · Score: 1

http://blog.windfluechter.net/archives/988-Johan-Schlueter-Child-pornography-is-great.html

--
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
Re:Likely answer... by ArhcAngel · 2012-01-20 08:41 · Score: 5, Informative

That's basically what former senator Chris Dodd (Now MPAA Chairman) said in a statement he made. My favorite part was "Dodd blames the bills' reduced support on a slow timeline that allowed opposition to mobilize" which translates to "Congress should have just proposed/voted/passed the bill before anybody could get a look at it".

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Likely answer... by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-01-20 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is you can't keep people enraged, shocked and surprised by any significant amount of time. So they will vote again, again and again, and once we stop making such a ruckus (because, frankly we have other things to do), it will pass. Even if we never yield, a new generation of internet users will come that, if not supportive, is already used to the idea of internet control, so they will not be shocked enough to voice their concerns so loudly. That's how these things almost always go and how society gradually changes its most ingrained values, for better or for worse.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Next time the ACTA approach: secret international negotiations, participants to sign non disclosure agreements and once a treaty is signed national parliament only have to ratify and not renegotiate.
Re:Likely answer... by X0563511 · 2012-01-20 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fuck Chris Dodd with a baseball bat wrapped in constantine wire.
Legislature is not a military maneuver, you WANT to give the opposition time to "mobilize"

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Likely answer... by firewrought · 2012-01-20 08:56 · Score: 1

Is it possible to plan a counteroffensive? You know... get a constitutional amendment going or something that would swing the attack the other way? The MPAA/RIAA has no incentive to back down and say "oh shucks you're right, we were trying to break the internet to protect our business model at the expense of the public good and civil liberties... sorry about that, we won't try it again".

"Holding out" the firestorm isn't enought... if we don't take it the other way, all this talk of "balance" will ultimately mean... big business and big government win.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Likely answer... by hairyfeet · 2012-01-20 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

All we can do is keeping riding our reps as hard as we can and make it clear ANY that vote yes better be ready to find a new job PERIOD. I was surprised i got an actual email back from my senator saying he had taken his name off the bill and promising to vote against it so he must have got enough nasty hate mail to get spooked as you usually just get a standard "Please vote for me!" bullshit chain letter begging for more cash. of course it may be that our senator had run for about a dozen years before finally getting elected this last round and is scared shitless of being a one termer who knows, but i found it surprising to actually get something addressing the complaint instead of the usual "vote for me/cut me a check' bullshit. The fact that they weren't able to simply buy their way through congress though gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, we can use the fear of a massive firing to keep their asses in line on this single issue at least.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:06 · Score: 5, Funny
no one wants to be seen as supporting child pornography.
There's really no defense against lies and mischaracterization, other than to honestly explain things, and that doesn't fit in a soundbite.
But two can play that game. Introduce this bill: The Anti Puppy Shredding Act, which states this:
1. No person shall shred a conscious, live puppy..
2. No person shall shred a live, conscious human child between the ages of 2 years ago 16 years
3. Title 17 Section 1201 of US Code is repealed
4. No person shall force a human child to suck the penis of a puppy, whether the puppy is live or dead, in front of videocameras
Are you for shredding puppies, Lamar? Then we can all count on your vote for this bill.
Re:Likely answer... by flimflammer · 2012-01-20 09:14 · Score: 3, Funny

What about when video cameras are off?
Re:Likely answer... by Wolfling1 · 2012-01-20 09:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Selective enforcement is a major issue for most countries at the moment. The 'policing forces' have too much power, and too much discriminatory use of that power. It results in significant police corruption, and waters down the prosecution of real crime.

SOPA and PIPA are just part of the ongoing battle between the authoritarians and the libertarians. That battle is not one that will easily go away, and nor should it. It is through this path that our society achieves balance in its legal system.
Re:Likely answer... by jesseck · 2012-01-20 09:21 · Score: 2

I was surprised i got an actual email back from my senator saying he had taken his name off the bill and promising to vote against it so he must have got enough nasty hate mail to get spooked as you usually just get a standard "Please vote for me!" bullshit chain letter begging for more cash.

I heard back from my House Representative first, with a form letter reply that didn't address my specific concerns with SOPA. My reaction was to reply to the email, and the message has not been able to clear my outbox. I'm pissed at him, and am seriously considering running against him.
I heard back from one Senator, with another form letter. He also failed to address my specific concerns, but it took him 3 days to respond and he didn't support PIPA in then end (for now). For him... I'll just vote for someone else. He's lost my vote.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:26 · Score: 1

Fuck Chris Dodd with a baseball bat wrapped in constantine wire.
Pedant alert: I think you meant concertina wire. Also, what'd the poor baseball bat do to deserve such mistreatment? :)

Legislature is not a military maneuver, you WANT to give the opposition time to "mobilize"
I agree that it shouldn't be, but viewed from the standpoitn of the lobbyist-legislator industry it most certainly is.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:29 · Score: 0

Fuck Chris Dodd with a baseball bat wrapped in constantine wire.
While that does sound interesting, I do believe that a baseball bat wrapped in concertina wire would be far more effective.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:30 · Score: 0

is it bad you just turned me on?
Re:Likely answer... by Kjella · 2012-01-20 09:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if we never yield, a new generation of internet users will come that, if not supportive, is already used to the idea of internet control, so they will not be shocked enough to voice their concerns so loudly. That's how these things almost always go and how society gradually changes its most ingrained values, for better or for worse.
Or maybe it's a new generation that take those freedoms as natural and essential. I'm still in my early 30s and yet when I grew up, we didn't have Internet until in my teens. Up until 1990 Norway had a total of one TV station, unless you had a satellite dish or was close to the Swedish border. I didn't have a cell phone until my late teens and calling out of the country - anything an American would call long distance - was expensive as hell. Yes you might say it was the Computer Age when PCs became common but it was in no way the Information Age that came later. Even if the Internet is a little less wild west than it was in the beginning, there's some 50 years worth of people older than me that never expected there to be an Internet at all. And if we count the voting population then only about 15 years of younger voters. We're very far from reaching a balance so even if those who join now are less radical than before I strongly doubt the Internet population as a whole is growing more conservative. Quite the opposite.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:35 · Score: 0

That is fine. They can also do it with the video cameras on if they are being used as actors, which can do their own stunts.
Re:Likely answer... by slick7 · 2012-01-20 09:40 · Score: 1

The most likely answer is this: too many people knew what was being planned. We can't have people knowing about the laws that attack their rights and freedoms, can we?
Exactly, the bought dogs of consgress will wait and in the middle of the night pass it like they did the federal reserve act.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Likely answer... by swb · 2012-01-20 09:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your translation is right. Dodd is lots of bad things but one thing he is not is an unskilled politician.
He knows that if you want to pass legislation that might gain opposition, you want to do it quickly and without giving your opposition an opportunity to rally against it.
You want to introduce a bill, let people know it's simple, keeps jobs in America, protects children from harm and should be passed right away.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:51 · Score: 0

Once they combine these two legislations into one the real kicker will be when you get caught downloading a copyrighted movie you'll also have to register as a sex offender.
Re:Likely answer... by icebike · 2012-01-20 09:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

SOPA and PIPA are just part of the ongoing battle between the authoritarians and the libertarians.
Its not that simple, and never has been much of an ideological battle along traditional party lines. This is a money grab, pure and simple.
The problem is the copyright laws have been extended to the breaking point, and the breaking is happening before our very eyes.
Duration of copyright for things written today is 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. All benefit to society has been lost.
Society is in general revolt over the current copyright law terms. The man in the street realizes the media giants have gone too far, but some how congress can't see it yet. Maybe they are just starting to see there is a problem.
But by and large most in congress won't see the real problem. They are blinded by the money. Until we convince enough people to stop voting the same clowns into office each time they stand for election. Term limits puts an end to this nonsense.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Likely answer... by Creepy · 2012-01-20 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not that SOPA/PIPA is a bad idea in intention, it just is worded so broadly that it can easily be applied to many things it wasn't intended. Lamar Smith says Wikipedia has nothing to fear from SOPA and it will not censor the internet, but he is wrong and he is not listening. In fact, I can prove it will even with his interpretation of it. Take IMSLP, a library of musical scores that are in the public domain somewhere, but not necessarily everywhere. Some of these are still copyrighted in the US, some in Europe and Canada, some elsewhere, but all are in the public domain somewhere. This is a foreign site (with a US subsidiary for scores in the public domain in the US but not elsewhere due to differences in law) since it is based in Canada. It holds US copyrighted material that is legally public domain in Canada. By SOPA/PIPA, the US can delist IMSLP from DNS (and it is .org, so managed in the US), force no advertising from the US to go to it, and force Wikipedia (and Google and anyone else) to remove all references to it. While foreign DNS servers can add it back in on download, American DNS servers cannot because circumvention is illegal (though Americans can use a foreign DNS server, which is not illegal...).
Is it censorship? Yes. Does it stop piracy? No.
In fact, no part of SOPA/PIPA actually stops piracy, though the counterfeiting measures may hurt counterfeiters (to be honest, I just skimmed that section). US companies can hire foreign companies to do their advertising, and they won't have control over the sites the ads are placed on, so they have no way of shutting them down (ever heard of how spam emails work?). Pirates can still get DNS using foreign servers or just use IPs directly.
Ergo, all parts of this can easily and legally be circumvented by pirates and we lose legal parts of the internet in the process.
Re:Likely answer... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-20 10:05 · Score: 1

It's too bad that ordinary citizens cannot introduce legislation; apparently, only media companies can. :(

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:14 · Score: 1

You are so wrong. In 2 or 3 decades our generation (those who grew up with the promise of a societal revolution that free and unlimited exchange of information could have brought) will be seen as quaintly naive idealists, just like the hippies are regarded today.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:22 · Score: 1

My reaction was to reply to the email, and the message has not been able to clear my outbox.
Say what?
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:28 · Score: 1

So, I can shred a unconscious, live puppy? Guess my fetish is safe!
Re:Likely answer... by bertok · 2012-01-20 10:30 · Score: 2

What I don't understand is how the US political system has survived this long with this insane ability to throw anything into a proposed bill and go along for the ride, no matter how unrelated to the original topic.
If I could get elected to a position like where that's possible, I would do nothing other than attach the following clause to every bill that's proposed: "Pay the sum of one million US dollars to annually."
Of course, I'd add some clauses for avoiding taxes, ensure that upon my death the monies are paid to my estate, increase the amount to match inflation, grant myself immunity to prosecution, etc...
Sooner or later one of two things will happen:
- I will fail to be re-elected, but I'll be filthy rich for the rest of my life, so I really won't care.
- Somebody will wake the fuck up and realise that arbitrary attachments to bills are insane, and stop the madness.
Re:Likely answer... by mrchaotica · 2012-01-20 10:42 · Score: 1

It's not that SOPA/PIPA is a bad idea in intention
The Hell it isn't!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Likely answer... by mrchaotica · 2012-01-20 10:49 · Score: 1

SOPA and PIPA are just part of the ongoing battle between the authoritarians and the libertarians.
Its not that simple, and never has been much of an ideological battle along traditional party lines. This is a money grab, pure and simple.
I don't understand why you think the GP was talking about "party lines." It is an ongoing battle between authoritarians and libertarians, but both the Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian so they both support it. (This is also, by the way, why so many folks feel disenfranchised or that neither party represents them.)

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:57 · Score: 1

Term limits puts an end to this nonsense.
I don't agree. With term limits, all we get is the "Hey, if you do what we ask, we'll have a nice cushy job when you get out in 4 years", perhaps even more so. While I think term limits might be a good idea in general, it's not for that reason.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:20 · Score: 0

That's why he added "Title 17 Section 1201 of US Code is repealed"
Re:Likely answer... by EdgeCreeper · 2012-01-20 11:49 · Score: 2

Society is in general revolt over the current copyright law terms. The man in the street realizes the media giants have gone too far, but some how congress can't see it yet. Maybe they are just starting to see there is a problem.
In my experience it is completely mixed. A lot of people think that it is the law, so it must be good. The techs where I work first heard about SOPA when I went to a wikipedia page in front of them during the blackout (not deliberately, actually was trying to look something up); they didn't much care, and since I knew about it I believe they thought I used the internet too much. The close relatives I have mentioned it to (once) didn't know what it is either, probably because they are informed by TV news and newspapers, which never mentioned it at all, at least before the blackout. It is not something I would particularly want to talk about face to face, simply because it is not 'cool', and that matters.
Maybe your experience is different.
Re:Likely answer... by SteveFoerster · 2012-01-20 12:08 · Score: 2

Indeed. Those who want to oppose this might do well to consider using the current rare positive momentum to take the offensive. Get some respected pro-freedom groups to come up jointly with suggested legislation that moves the ball a little in the other direction for a change and call it the "Internet Freedom Restoration Act" or something.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Re:Likely answer... by SecurityGuy · 2012-01-20 12:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

And more seriously, what people SHOULD be willing to do is come out publicly and say, "Yes, I voted against the Prevent Child Porn Act of 2012 because Senator So and So and Rep Wasserface pulled a sleazy move and tacked COMPLETELY UNRELATED legislation on to it. It's regrettable that So and So and Wasserface compromised a good bill like the PCP act by tacking trash onto it. I'll happily vote for a trash free bill."
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 12:43 · Score: 0

It's just too bad we can't fight fire with fire...If only We the People could start requesting some laws and regulations (and getting them passed) into Hollywood accounting practices.
This will serve a couple of purposes:
It would highlight the true "pirates" of media.. Get Hollywood to start reporting actual profits in a clear concise manner and make sure that artists are being compensated fairly for their works *BY THE INDUSTRY* and not just forced into vampiric contracts that only benefit the middle men.
This in turn would reduce the revenue for the increasingly irrelevant middlemen in the new media business model which would also take away their ability to keep lobbying for these "old-guard" protectionist laws.
The cost of media would probably also begin to drop (as middle men would likely shift to quantity to make up for the revenue loss). Fair assessments could then be made as to the true cost of piracy on our economy.. other than these inflated lies we keep hearing from the industry.
Finally, let's return copyright to reasonable limits and more flexible Fair Use laws. It is wholly unfair for these companies to have benefited from the public domain to get where they are today and then use anti-competitive laws to prevent new media from doing the same thing they did.
Mash-ups and Parodies should be relished instead of vilified.
Re:Likely answer... by jamstar7 · 2012-01-20 13:02 · Score: 2

Fuck Chris Dodd with a baseball bat wrapped in constantine wire.
Tonight on Pay-Per-View!

Tomorrow, on P2P!!

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 13:02 · Score: 0

It's not that SOPA/PIPA is a bad idea in intention, it just is worded so broadly that it can easily be applied to many things it wasn't intended.
I have an incredibly hard time believing that any instance of a "unintentionally too broadly worded law" is anything but intentional. Take the things that a politician says are unintentional and won't get used in a specific way X, and then you can assume precisely that the only one part of the law in question that that politician cares about at all is exactly to do X as early and often as possible - the rest of the law is a pretense to sneak X in. Either that, or the politician has been duped by lobbyists who suggested the innocuous-seeming but cleverly worded passages of the law that allow X. It's not like politicians are banned from asking the people that a law will affect if there will be unfortunate consequences of it.
Re:Likely answer... by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-01-20 13:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd argue the amount of liberals and conservatives tends to always be about the same. The reference point moves, though. Let me try to come up with am example to illustrate what I mean.
Gay rights: gay marriage is being discussed today. Liberals are for it, conservatives think they should just shut up and have their diabolic gay sex extramaritally. A few decades ago, sodomy laws banning gay sex were common. Liberals were for their abolition, conservatives thought they should shut up and stop wanting legalize perversions. Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in 1778 that demanded castration for homossexual men. Liberals were for it, conservatives wanted them to just shut up and let gays take the already existent penalty, death, like the girlish men they were.
See? There was always pressure on both sides, but the reference point changed a lot. It's hard to find conservatives today that'd want gay men to be killed by the state. And that's what will happen to the internet, given time. If you doubt it, think about the Patriot Act. It would never fly in the 90s, even most conservatives of the time would find it baffling. I may be a bit too optimistic here, but I think there would be, at least, lots of marches and vocal oppositors. But once 9/11 happened and, in a nationwide panic, it became institutionalized, then the reference point moved. And now you don't see a lot of people trying to repeal it, because they're used to it. The frog has been slowly boiled.
So, SOPA/PIPA. They will pass it, through either the exploitation of a scary event or sheer insistence, and then the debate will shift from "should we give those companies absolute, instantaneous power over the internet?" to "which companies should wield such absolute, instantaneous power over the internet?".
Re:Likely answer... by hairyfeet · 2012-01-20 13:40 · Score: 1

Well like I said our current senator ran for that job for 12 years straight before finally getting elected and its his first term so he's probably more likely to listen to the folks than many of them. in fact one of the things that got the last one punted like a 30 yard field return was she'd always just shoot out a standard "vote for me/give me money!" form letter while completely ignoring the people time and time again. If it was something big business cut a check for she was all over that buddy,didn't matter if it screwed the people one little bit. She thought she didn't have to worry about it because she had the soccer moms but she found out that even the soccer moms get tired of total bullshit after awhile.
So i give credit where credit is due, the new guy actually seems to be listening and so far I've gotten three replies back, some I agreed with, some i didn't, but each one was addressed to that issue and ONLY that issue and he laid out his reasons, unlike the chain letter BS I'd always get from the last one. The SOPA one said we needed to find a way to fight piracy without trampling on free speech or stifling innovation, which is fine, i personally think the answer is to accept piracy and offer a better product like the Valve Steam model. Make it so I can just go to Amazon, click on a movie, whip out my CC and get it in whatever format i want, easy peasy. Look at the music industry that is making insane profits by selling bog standard plays anywhere MP3s. I don't see why the movie industry can't do the same with .AVI and .MKV and make it just as easy to buy their product, make it easy, make it cheap, make it simple.
But I think the key to winning this thing is to appeal to things both parties rally to easily. With the Dems free speech and protecting the little guy, with the reps it would be smaller government and letting the free market handle it. This way we appeal to the core beliefs of both while still getting what we want, which is SOPA/PIPA killed very very dead. But I'm sorry you are getting the standard chain letter, I guess being a first termer makes mine a little more likely to pay attention.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 13:47 · Score: 0

You assume it's actually designed to combat piracy. Rather than being designed to enable censorship of the net in both the US and US allied states. Given all the chickenhawks beating the drum for war with Iran and a high probability of a global war (cold at first perhaps) as a result of that and given the existant lack of doorkeepers of knowledge we currently have. Propaganda would be nearly impossible to spread, the truth will out.
While this is arguably the case already, it's not as relevant as most people just don't care. Case in point the reaction here and elsewhere to Occupy protesters. However when you can no longer fool the people into thinking that the world loves you for your freedom, rather than hates you for your oppression, questions will be asked and the answers recieved will depend on the sources of information people have available.
Short of a true world revolution I can't see this issue going away, and even with a world revolution the states that our corrupted governments target and percieve as the enemy still stand as the problem in reaching a consensus on such matters.
So my conclusion as much as I hate to reach it is that it will almost certainly result in less suffering overall to support the status quo than it will to overthrow it. That's not to say that pointing out the flaws in it is a bad thing, we're only where we are (better than the past) due to people that pointed out the problems in the status quo. Indeed failure to do so can be summed up with the following exchange:
"My husband beats me, things are bad"
"That's not bad at all! My husband beat me so hard I lost all my teeth, a child I was carrying and I very nearly died."
"Well then I can see I don't have a problem at all, beating is as it should be, I guess I deserved it."
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 13:57 · Score: 0

SOPA consumes, you've tried and FAILED, let there be no doubt, CORRUPTION PREVAILED! /sadface
Re:Likely answer... by Richard.Tao · 2012-01-20 16:03 · Score: 1

I think you are completely right when it comes to issues of personal freedoms, but completely wrong when it pertains to things companies care about.
Congressmen need money to be elected, corporations provide that. The "win" we saw for civil liberties was only because facebook, google, and wikipedia spoke out against it. If this issue just limited our rights for the benefit of all those corporations, I'm sure we'd see a different result.
Re:Likely answer... by rtb61 · 2012-01-20 16:31 · Score: 1

Get active in the primaries, put up alternate candidates who will change the laws. It is as simple as that and that is exactly how the minority used their money against the interests of the majority.
They backed down this time, specifically because they believed if they did not, they would be challenged in the next primary and lose.
They already crossed the line, they are just trying to push the vote beyond the next primary to suck everyone in.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 17:15 · Score: 0

lamar smith gets anally violated by furries.
given that creepy fuck smile of his, it's already in effect.
Re:Likely answer... by Legion303 · 2012-01-20 17:27 · Score: 1

"I guess being a first termer makes mine a little more likely to pay attention."
They'll bludgeon that "pays attention to constituents" thing out of him in no time.
Re:Likely answer... by Gr8Apes · 2012-01-20 17:43 · Score: 1

Here's the scariest thing I've read: Lamar Smith is also the sponsor of H.R. 1981 Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR01981:@@@L&summ2=m&). What someone on Reddit suggested might happen (and I see as all too plausible) is that they will modify the text of SOPA/PIPA a bit and tack it on to this bill.
He's already slipping in the kiddie porn card. Read his response.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Likely answer... by TangoMargarine · 2012-01-20 17:49 · Score: 1

Unfortunately there's the question whether views of the Internet will "normalize/level out/whatever" before it's been emasculated.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Likely answer... by sjames · 2012-01-20 17:51 · Score: 1

No, it's Senator So and So willfully endangered children everywhere to advance his unAmerican agenda.
Re:Likely answer... by bzipitidoo · 2012-01-20 18:37 · Score: 1

Nice idea. Since copyright is enshrined in the Constitution, it could take an amendment to fix matters. IANAL, but I tried to write just such an amendment. Not easy. Found myself throwing in statements to counter every weasel that I could think of. There was also a problem of scope. Should it forbid much of what is in a typical EULA? What should it change in patent law? Trademark law? An elementary dodge is playing around with language. Gets tough to nail things down when there is so much disagreement over simple definitions. You could outlaw copyright, and find that it still exists and is practiced, with the only change being to the names, to get around the law. So I started with a section of definitions. When the whole thing got rather long, I went back and ripped out redundancies.
Think anyone would be interested in reading it? I haven't posted it anywhere. I don't know. Even if it could be passed, it just doesn't seem that any amendment can stop the campaign against the Age of Information. Time and generational changes will eventually stop that, not government fiat. After that we can see about an amendment. Slavery was amended out of the constitution after the Civil War, not during or before.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:Likely answer... by kheldan · 2012-01-20 19:34 · Score: 1

Fuck Chris Dodd sideways with a rusty chainsaw, then. What a cocksucking asshole.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 20:58 · Score: 0

How about "I voted against the Prevent Child Porn Act of 2012" because I don't believe in thought crime"?
Re:Likely answer... by Ihmhi · 2012-01-20 21:00 · Score: 1

Nah man, you'd get censured or taken to court if they ever found out. Half the politicians would be mad that you were so blatant about it, and the other half would be mad that they didn't have the balls to do it first.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Likely answer... by Ihmhi · 2012-01-20 21:06 · Score: 1

I believe he is saying that he wrote something that can only be described as a tirade of epic proportions and that he ultimately elected not to send it.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Likely answer... by Ihmhi · 2012-01-20 21:08 · Score: 1

Right, because none of us know what ACTA is! That approach sure worked well.
Maybe it'll be sent over super-secret diplomatic cables that never get out!
The politicians are rapidly losing the power to do anything in secret without breaking a huge amount of laws. We have a HUGE advantage on our side and we really have to be careful not to waste it.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-21 00:08 · Score: 0

In the same vien will posting on slashdot be akin to taking LSD or engaging in an orgy?
Re:Likely answer... by Kjella · 2012-01-21 01:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, you can rephrase the same argument I made relative to a reference point, I'd still argue that the new generation is pulling the Internet towards more free exchange of information than where it is today.

And that's what will happen to the internet, given time. If you doubt it, think about the Patriot Act. It would never fly in the 90s, even most conservatives of the time would find it baffling. I may be a bit too optimistic here, but I think there would be, at least, lots of marches and vocal oppositors. But once 9/11 happened and, in a nationwide panic, it became institutionalized, then the reference point moved. And now you don't see a lot of people trying to repeal it, because they're used to it. The frog has been slowly boiled.
I think you're very selectively choosing the data to fit your theory. If at any time during the Cold War communist supporters had staged and launched an attack on the leading centers of commerce and government killing 3000 people, you'd see something far, far worse than the Patriot Act. Possibly even a WWIII no matter if it was authorized by the Soviet Union or not, probably internment camps like the US hadn't seen since they put Japanese people in them during WWII and massive new government powers that'd make McCarthyism look like a footnote. The 90s were a period of extreme dominance where the US seemed to have no significant enemies, foreign or domestic. Yes, 9/11 did move the reference point far back towards the US having enemies that they must defend against and that fear may linger a bit even though it's more than a decade ago and Osama bin Laden is dead, but as a slippery slope argument that the US has now taken one big step backwards when it comes to civil liberties so now it is doomed to take all the other steps until it falls into a full blown totalitarian nightmare is a very weak argument.
Let's face it, the Internet has totally changed the picture of information exchange. We're now moving towards a system where we can mass duplicate and send staggering amounts of data over encrypted, untraceable communication lines that are totally immune to warrants. Pretty much every restriction there has been on speech, be it libel, slander, threats, pump&dump stock scams, copyright, kiddie porn, every balance struck between privacy and rule of law through use of warrants and wiretaps is cracking up. I think in the end it will come down to a showdown that either everything must be traced, recorded and tracked or none of it is. That we're either headed for information anarchy or totalitarianism and technology is imposing that we make a choice. Now I predicted this years ago (really, I did) and it hasn't come down to it yet, but I keep seeing there are skirmishes and battle lines being drawn. Take down MegaUpload, take down TPB (conjecture), force the masses into the deep undercurrents of the Internet and maybe it'll come.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Likely answer... by drinkypoo · 2012-01-21 02:47 · Score: 1

Yes, you have it precisely. You have to hammer on the "think of the children" button, people don't care about the "unrelated rider" button.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-21 03:32 · Score: 0

It is funny you make conservatives seem like the bad guy, this is a bill with a huge support from the left. Why did Hollywood boycott Obama after he did not come out and tell congress to support his bill? Look at where Hollywood donates its money, it is the Democratic Party. On top of a true conservative would say we already have the laws, we just need to enforce them, so we don't need new ones.
Your example confuse some one who is social conservative and conservative. Here is the core difference between liberals and conservatives, liberals want more laws and conservatives want less. Things like social issue cloud this spare because you are getting in the realm of personal believes. How can any call Thomas Jefferson conservative?
Re:Likely answer... by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 05:31 · Score: 1

ever ask yourself why they're so selective selectivity is subject to those who wield the power laws are enforced when it suits them because they're in power power corrupts class dismissed.
Re:Likely answer... by surd1618 · 2012-01-21 05:37 · Score: 1

How about 12 year term limit for Senate and House, and then watch how it is taken advantage of, and respond accordingly? I think that having 1 year in 12 a chance to vote in a combination of reps and senators would be healthy.
Re:Likely answer... by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 05:49 · Score: 1

here's a thought have we failed our children so badly that they don't get The concept of absolute freedom I think not but to be sure we should be talking to our children and explain to them the cost of freedom as I've said before due diligence are the dues we pay for freedom let us keep record and place these records before the next generation from then on all we can do is hope
Re:Likely answer... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-01-21 08:43 · Score: 0

If at any time during the Cold War Jewish or US spies had staged and launched a false flag attack on the leading centers of commerce and government killing 3000 people and blaming communist supporters

There. That's a more accurate analogy.

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Re:Likely answer... by hairyfeet · 2012-01-21 12:21 · Score: 1

I think he's trying to say they sent him a standard "do not reply to this" email so that any attempt he tried to answer the blatant shilling just got bounced back. that was what the last senator that we punt kicked like a 30 yard field return would do, no matter what you wrote her on you'd get a standard "Vote for me!" reply with a non functional bounce back email address, real douchebag behavior IMHO.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Likely answer... by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 20:33 · Score: 1

let's hope the American people aren't so stupid. "child pornography" is a whole nother subject this is the perfect example of bad lazy politicians always grouping one issue in with another instead of handling " issue by issue" if they argue they can't do that then we should get somebody in office and in our branches of government that can if they are such simpletons like they have Been in the past most of them have no good claim to the office/position they hold. the American people need to wake up and demand the service they are paying for we were warned in the past of career politicians someone somewhere said In their infinite wisdom politicians and diapers should be changed regularly for the same reason. using one issue to leverage for another which is why nothing ever gets done of any importance. In an expedient manner in Washington DC. not to mention the Deception that follows. As you mentioned the American people need to understand they have the right to demand that this sort of Deceptive practice wouldn't be tolerated. And if you believe for one minute that something as important as child pornography on the Internet couldn't have been addressed "years ago" Then you're just as gullible as the next man. This is a selective enforcement agency. there are already laws in place . And if the truth was known the American people would probably storm DC and trample it beneath their feet. The child pornography laws are used To discredit those who would stand up for themselves.And use like a weapon and used to deceive the American people just another example of why no more ignorant laws like these should come down the pipe in the direction of the American people Until the American people have had time to examine it themselves.And let's face it if you took a really hard look at the politicians that support this bill you would realize that they're probably not much better than the pedophiles child pornography panders to.I would daresay that most of them are just as creepy and disgusting.given the chance to befriend one of them you would eventually see that for yourself. Nasty little Globalists Who mean to sell America downriver.dissolve our borders and hand all of our rights over to the World Bank .this was an afterthought the child pornography laws in this country are aimed directly at the American people in because it was such a touchy subject the American people ignored the fact that they could be accused of being a pedophile and would have no way to get out of the consequences of a crime they never committed. That whole thing needs to be rethought but like I said that is a whole other issue and they haven't addressed it because no one has made Them and the reason for that is the American people do not want to take any chances on letting some nasty pedophile rome loose I wish they would take the same attitude toward the people who use laws like PIPA and SOPA to steal from them.Meaning their liberties that is.
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 06:15 · Score: 0

And what the fuck right do they have to be screwing with a child porn bill anyway? Surely you could argue that THEY ARE SUPPORTING CHILD PORN by damaging the bills that regulate it?
Re:Likely answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 10:52 · Score: 0

Concertina wire?!? *puzzled by the MASSIVE amount of spelling mistakes and grammar issues in Slashdot over the weekend*
Re:Likely answer... by X0563511 · 2012-01-23 06:46 · Score: 1

Concertina wire is a local term. Eat a dick. You all know what I meant.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Likely answer... by Coren22 · 2012-01-23 07:21 · Score: 1

This already happens, it is called pork barrel spending.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Likely answer... by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-01-23 20:36 · Score: 1

but as a slippery slope argument that the US has now taken one big step backwards when it comes to civil liberties so now it is doomed to take all the other steps until it falls into a full blown totalitarian nightmare is a very weak argument.
That's not what I was arguing at all. The reference point moves back and forth all the time, and takes some time to so it, that's what I was saying. In regard to civil liberties, EO 9066 is a good example. It was atrociously signed on the 40s. But in the 60s, there were massive political protests, big public mobilizations, the U.S. (the world, really) made a great leap in the other direction during that period, and EO 9066 was eventually repealed. All I'm saying is the Patriot Act (and let's not forget Guantanamo bay) is one of the signs of a massive step back. One that the US still hasn't recovered from, and I don't think it's about to right now, before PIPA and SOPA pass.

Let's face it, the Internet has totally changed the picture of information exchange. [...] Pretty much every restriction there has been on speech, be it libel, slander, threats, pump&dump stock scams, copyright, kiddie porn, every balance struck between privacy and rule of law through use of warrants and wiretaps is cracking up. I think in the end it will come down to a showdown that either everything must be traced, recorded and tracked or none of it is.
Well, the internet is sort of an enourmous, universal poorly lit back alley. Historically, though, it's difficult to talk about outcomes, since everything is always transitioning and we can't really tell the difference between and end and a hiatus in present time. But we are definitely moving towards all things online being more monitored and regulated right now. Not that I think we'll ever get to a period in which everything is monitored. The amount of information is just so big that it isn't really feasible. A great deal of everything can be logged, though, and if that's what you meant, we're in agreement. What may also happen, I think, is that a lot of common web habits can be legally prohibited. And when normal, socially accepted behavior is prohibited and easy to investigate, one of two things can to happen: either is ceases to be prohibited, because imprisioning of fining almost everyone almost everyday is highly idiotic and isn't sustainable behavior in any moderately democratic society like ours, or selective law enforcement begins to take place. Which is the worst case scenario I envision. SOPA, however, is something else entirely, something I could never see coming. It isn't regulation, it's... well, it's akin to a parent saying "I've had it with you kids bothering me with your bickering. From now on, you sort it out among yourselves. And so you won't reach an impass and come to bother me every time you disagree, I'm going to give one of you a submachine gun. That's bound to solve all your problems really quickly without any need for me to intervene. Ever. Now scram." Then again, if the internet becomes too constrictive, alternative networks like Netsukuku might get more traction and become a new standard. Or the end of all standards, with us having to choose nets like we used to choose IRC servers.

We don't need legislation by Deathnerd · 2012-01-20 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

We need innovation from the media companies; they need to embrace the digital platform and build distribution systems around it. Piracy will drop drastically if they make the media easy and cheap to buy.

Re:We don't need legislation by LordNimon · 2012-01-20 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't just about media. The bill is also meant to target counterfeit manufactured goods, like fake Prada handbags shipped directly from China. Allowing companies to quickly block the Chinese web sites would curtail counterfeiting, but as many have said, the bill is too broad and too easy to abuse.
It used to be that you had to go to China, or some secret dinky store in Chinatown, to buy fake Chinese-made goods. Thanks to e-commerce, you can do that from the comfort of your own home. Perhaps SOPA needs to apply to credit card companies instead of web sites. Imagine if Prada could just tell Visa to block payments to fake-prada-handbags.cn without going through law enforcement. I bet Visa would hate that, because then Visa would be have to deal with abuses, instead of dozens of small ISPs.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Re:We don't need legislation by Deathnerd · 2012-01-20 08:32 · Score: 2

This isn't just about media. The bill is also meant to target counterfeit manufactured goods, like fake Prada handbags shipped directly from China. Allowing companies to quickly block the Chinese web sites would curtail counterfeiting, but as many have said, the bill is too broad and too easy to abuse.
It used to be that you had to go to China, or some secret dinky store in Chinatown, to buy fake Chinese-made goods. Thanks to e-commerce, you can do that from the comfort of your own home. Perhaps SOPA needs to apply to credit card companies instead of web sites. Imagine if Prada could just tell Visa to block payments to fake-prada-handbags.cn without going through law enforcement. I bet Visa would hate that, because then Visa would be have to deal with abuses, instead of dozens of small ISPs .
I hadn't thought of that. Are you running for office anytime soon?
Re:We don't need legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:33 · Score: 0

Honestly, who the fuck cares abut fake handbags?
Re:We don't need legislation by swb · 2012-01-20 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

My sense is that what they're fighting for isn't an "end to piracy" but a way to legislate their profit margins.
It seems obvious to me that for $20 a month for unlimited viewing subscriptions of all titles or $5 per title to own (via download) they could really put a crimp in piracy, but they would have to accept a permanently reduced profit margin.
That doesn't build beach houses in Malibu, mansions in Bel-Air, private jet airfare or put Bentley Continentals in a lot of driveways.
By re-defining piracy as "any act of copyrighted content consumption without a license for the specific act of consumption" they will be able to finally achieve per per consumption, legislated in law, which will in turn allow them to guarantee margins by controlling the price.
Re:We don't need legislation by scubamage · 2012-01-20 08:39 · Score: 1

Prada's owners and employees, most likely.
Re:We don't need legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:04 · Score: 0

I guess they need to reconsider their business plan, if they are so concerned.
Re:We don't need legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:07 · Score: 0

Isn't Prada Italian?
Re:We don't need legislation by Nemyst · 2012-01-20 09:10 · Score: 1

If they cared so much, they could start by targeting all those street vendors selling fake Prada stuff. Tourists seem to love these things even when they know they're being ripped off.
As a bonus, it'd clean up the vistas of some of the most beautiful cities in the world.
Re:We don't need legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:11 · Score: 0

Maybe people should just not buy Prada branded handbags. Then they wouldn't be duped into buying a shitty handbag by either Prada or the Chinese OEM.
Re:We don't need legislation by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 09:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

This kind of plays into the whole ethical/lawful debate. From what it appears, the majority don't have a big ethical problem with buying a handbag designed to look like someone else's. What does that mean, and what really causes the most benefit vs harm?

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:We don't need legislation by D'Sphitz · 2012-01-20 09:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, because things people like suck. Way to tell society how it is.
Re:We don't need legislation by compro01 · 2012-01-20 09:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Perhaps SOPA needs to apply to credit card companies instead of web sites.
It does. Read section 103.
Pertinent part:

Denying U.S. Financial Support of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property-
(1) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS- Except in the case of an effective counter notification pursuant to paragraph (5), a payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after delivery of a notification under paragraph (4), that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:We don't need legislation by misexistentialist · 2012-01-20 09:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Luxury goods providers do not merit the attention of a democratic government, certainly not the intrusive intervention into the affairs of the masses.
Re:We don't need legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Trademarks are meant to protect the good name of a company - to stop consumers from buying a shoddy knock-off, and blaming the original company when it falls apart. If the consumers buying fake Prada handbags from China know that they're fake, is there really a problem?
Re:We don't need legislation by sincewhen · 2012-01-20 10:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Good question, and one that may be expanded to the entire "piracy" debate. If the point of copyright was to promote art and science for the overall benefit of society, then at what point do you take into account that most people seem to be happy with some low to mid level of copyright infringement?
If you keep introducing new laws which interfere with the daily lives of the populace, aren't you swimming against the tide?

--
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Re:We don't need legislation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:41 · Score: 0

THe legislators already thought of it too. Thats EXACTLY what they did when they wanted to crack down on online gambling and online poker. But they get money from banks so its just easier to target small ISPs when that is an option.
Re:We don't need legislation by jamstar7 · 2012-01-20 13:06 · Score: 1

We need innovation from the media companies; they need to embrace the digital platform and build distribution systems around it. Piracy will drop drastically if they make the media easy and cheap to buy.
Netflix. Movies on demand.

The technology and distribution system is in place. However, the distribution system breaks their business plan. The *AAs want expensive media sales, it's better for their bottom lines. Thus, the attempts to shut down the internet to protect their business plan.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:We don't need legislation by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 06:09 · Score: 1

counterfeiting will never go away so therefore no measures you will ever take that step on the Rights of others i mean the majority in the name of this cause could ever be excusable. Therefore I say if those who fear for their Means and ways. let them Innovate ways to protect their own property and leave us to our own. But let them not whine about the situation but come up with what would be considered Innovative legal solutions on their own and stop looking to the government to solve their problems either that or stop publishing their works if that doesn't seem fair Sorry that his life and If it is goods that these folks are counterfeiting the Internet has nothing to do with it so the case you Make is shoddy at best. Any time someone comes up with a good idea overnight You can bet that some jackass will try and plagiarize It then argue he done nothing wrong why should the rest of us suffer.as Kennedy would say asked not what your government can do for you but what can you do for your government.and the fair market is what you seek then you will seek your entire life because there is no such animal in this zoo or any other.
Re:We don't need legislation by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 06:42 · Score: 1

I agree with everything you've said here which is why no one here should be sympathetic To these bills or any other like it if you put profit before people you deserve nothing more than to be treated like a rabid animal and put out of your misery because you are just not geared right. Being fiscally responsible and flat out greedy are two different things. when you go into business for yourself you have to go into it with the understanding that some things are just going to slip through the cracks because the system at hand may be broken but it is the only one we have and we shouldn't seek to make it worse over a bunch of whiny silver spoon fed Third generation millionaires who are so far removed from the reality of real work .you could spend the rest of your life trying to convince them of it.the concept of real work I mean.their sense of entitlement would never allow them to believe that getting dirt and whatnot underneath your fingernails is a badge of honor. And not a horrific way to make a living. let me add it is people like this that the government keeps handing our rights over to for the right price. Meanwhile Joe Down at the cornered Jiffy Lube and his kids and maybe even their kids no matter their efforts will ever know what it's like to sit behind a desk Pushing pencils and pens and papers around for a living. Unless one of them ends up a manager at Wal-Mart.but more than likely most of them will get real familiar with standing in the unemployment line.

All this... by Synerg1y · 2012-01-20 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Over movies & music.

Check this out...

http://imgur.com/pPDak

It's not enough to kill them (the world would be a much better place w/o the riaa & mpaa), but it might roll some heads, the kind that need rolling.

Re:All this... by Deathnerd · 2012-01-20 08:23 · Score: 1

This won't work. They'll just spin the decreased sales as a spike in piracy, thus strengthening their case.
Re:All this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:35 · Score: 1

Except if they do that, then people can just keep it going. They're not going to last very long if a ton of people take part into the movement. The latter is hard to achieve.
Re:All this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Speaking of killing, some food for thought, you'd get a lesser sentence by murdering one of those guys than you would being imprisoned due to their silly laws. (and probably get more done)
Copying some bits is more punishable than terminating the existence of someone. What a fantastic world we live in, eh?
Re:All this... by dissy · 2012-01-20 09:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

All this... Over movies & music.
This coincidential yahoo news screen shot shows two facts together that really puts the whole music and movie thing into perspective...
http://i44.tinypic.com/vpwbht.jpg
The two headlines are:
- Jury awards $80,000 per download
- Air France to give $24,000 to families of crash victims
1 illegal download == 3.3 dead relatives
Your life is only worth a third of a Metallica song
Re:All this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:36 · Score: 0

People used to trot out the three box progression, "Soap, Ballot, Ammo" line fairly often, but I haven't seen it here in months. What happened?
Re:All this... by arobatino · 2012-01-20 14:10 · Score: 1

The actual second headline is
- Air France to give $24,000 advance to families of crash victims
As I understand it the investigation is still ongoing. (Though I agree that $80,000 per download is absurd.)
Re:All this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 23:50 · Score: 0

I've seen it a few times, but not since Christmas. Apparently, nobody's willing to go to the ammo box.
Re:All this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-21 01:01 · Score: 0

That's way too broad. I *will* continue buying video games, from companies that don't support SOPA such as a myriad of indie devs and big comapnies like Valve, Bethesda and surprisingly Activision (+Blizzard).
I won't buy games from Ubisoft, EA and the likes.
It would really be quite simple, since they generally make crappy rehashed games with crazy DRM.
Re:All this... by ex0duz · 2012-01-22 20:56 · Score: 1

It's only an advance payment, which leads me to believe that they will probably get more(the rest) later on.. but yeah. Agree with your point that it's ridiculous($80,000 for an mp3 etc)

--
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..
Re:All this... by Synerg1y · 2012-01-23 04:55 · Score: 1

IT pay too much at the moment? :P

It got too hot in the kitchen by KiltedKnight · 2012-01-20 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

So Congress backed out until things cool down and they can try again... whether it's by reintroducing this same stuff or by attaching it, piece by piece, as riders to other bills.

We cannot turn down the heat. If we do, we will find this legislation passed before we can do anything about it.

--
OCO is Loco

Re:It got too hot in the kitchen by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 08:37 · Score: 2

It sounds like our current congress requires constant pressure to listen to the people.
I wouldn't put up with an employee that required constant oversight to do what I ask him; why is it tolerated with the public servants of our country - of the people?

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:It got too hot in the kitchen by smelch · 2012-01-20 09:03 · Score: 2

Because we have a strong sense of anti-federalism, it's very hard to get rid of the politicians that do what offends you because they are not in your district and you can not vote them out. Meanwhile everything the government does is at the federal level and applies to everybody.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:It got too hot in the kitchen by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 09:17 · Score: 1

I see your point - although I wanted to point out that censorship goes well beyond 'offending' me - sort of like I would be "offended" if you stabbed me :)

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:It got too hot in the kitchen by smelch · 2012-01-20 09:45 · Score: 1

Right, "offends" is a bad choice of words. "Oppresses" might have fit better there.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:It got too hot in the kitchen by Roger+Wilcox · 2012-01-20 11:05 · Score: 1

The US Constitution was designed to prevent people from being subject to the whims of lawmakers a thousand miles away. Powers not specifically delineated therein are to be delegated to the states. This is why the federal government should not be doing 90% of what they do.
Re:It got too hot in the kitchen by smelch · 2012-01-20 11:36 · Score: 1

Of course, but if you explain that to people they no longer agree with that view of how government should be run. Of course a strong federal government ruins our electoral system and results in people being upset over the electoral college, leads to an unresponsive federal government and causes general apathy to the whole process because it's "too corrupt". Really, if you don't agree with states' rights you need to reform the congress and how our representatives are elected.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.

Obviously! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of COURSE all four candidates at the GOP debate spoke against it. It's election season. Don't worry though, their tune will change back to normal as soon as elections are over.

lol: captcha - citizen. As if citizens have a say in anything.

Re:Obviously! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why was this modded troll? It IS election season, and every politician is going to say anything they can right now that makes people not hate them, whether they believe it or not.
Re:Obviously! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:22 · Score: 1

Three of the four anyway. One of the four has a 30 year record of opposing thins kind of crap.

Enjoy it for a moment by Anubis+IV · 2012-01-20 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

We all know how politics work. We all know that stuff like this will keep coming up. We all know that we can't reasonably turn out with the same show of opposition every time this sort of thing happens. But, at least for a moment, I'm going to enjoy the fact that things went well for once in politics.

And even if we can't get that level of support every time this sort of thing comes around, I'm not going to worry about that. I'm just going to worry about the next time, because that's the one that matters right now.

Re:Enjoy it for a moment by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 08:29 · Score: 1

these corporations are trying to make it criminal to plagiarize or otherwise Counterfeit intellectual property goods so on and so forth. at best these are civil suits nothing more it is their problem not ours but they're trying to make it our problem. just like when the banks put out bad loans and cried when the people couldn't pay it back. and because they were the "BANKS" they got their way and passed a bunch of silly laws that tilted the scales in their favor, in our history not so far in the past is repeating itself I'd really like to know When people are going to wake up out of the zombie like state they seem to be walking around in.and please don't forget again this was all done by design. they knew exactly what they were doing they were banking on the fact that if there was a real catastrophe America would be forced to bail them out for them it was a win-win situation and now as a citizen of America if you make a really bad banking mistake you can sit in prison the rest of your life or maybe just a few years but your life will still be ruined when the Banks are Through with you and now corporations have seen what the banks have done And are now following marching orders.can anyone here see what's wrong with this picture?these crybabies want to shirk their responsibilities in The courts with never-ending civil suits like the rest of us would have to do if the shoe was on the other foot always forever seeking special treatment I don't what else to say about it you can't call it anything else I'm sorry if they don't want to have to deal with due process but what makes them so special? Let them go after the people Who committed the offense and if this turns out to be an impossibility because a country province so on and so forth doesn't Recognized their views too damn bad.those are the breaks .do you think Joe blow starting a business who made $30,000 last year on the job and thought he caught a break when he came up with a good idea and then Kim Jong. Plagiarized That idea and drove him out of business And put him back on the unemployment line .anyone would raise an eyebrow? I mean really come on. can anyone see how far out of whack that is.when are we going to stop putting corporations before people the strongest economy we could ever enjoy would be if there was figuratively speaking and entrepreneurship system where there was a mom-and-pop shop on every corner of the Internet that if this was the case you wouldn't even need corporations.and this is exactly what they're afraid of.They're trying to legislate/manufacture America's dependency on them. its just another power grab that the Internet grew in the direction that was ideal for the people they would cease to exist and they damn well know it. All you have to do is look back at GeoCities and see what AT&T did to those folks and see why they're trying to jam this in Joe blows hind end. and if we fall asleep they'll get it done. There shelving the bills for now. It's not enough that we defeat this but we undo the things they've accomplished so far and gear the Internet up for mom and dad and little sister and brother.tell the Warburgs de Rothschilds and Rockefellers of the World to go straight to hell. please America.when is enough enough.?Level the playing field already.at this point who cares what they want no matter what it is? Their filthy stinking Vulgarly rich and you are not. This should be reason enough for you. And as long as they exist your chances of being wealthy our little to none.Oh yeah one more thing the folks at GeoCities Filed suit and were claiming. creative rights so on and so forth To keep GeoCities opened for those wonderful people to do business the way they seen fit and because it was in direct conflict of AT&T which is why they acquired it anyway the government Flat let AT&T off the hook does anybody see what's wrong with this.they are in no way interested in anything that's fair. Get that through your head.

Keep the momentum going by gsaraber · 2012-01-20 08:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

So now is the time to get Smith and Leahy out of office in the next election cycle, I plan to donate to their competitors campaign funds and to let them know why I'm doing so.

Re:Keep the momentum going by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Good luck, Lamar Smith has been in office since the mid-80's, he hasn't even had to run against anyone in over a decade to keep it.

aren't there already laws in place they can use? by liquidsin · 2012-01-20 08:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

if current copyright legislation such as the DMCA isn't performing as expected, perhaps they could take it off the books before piling new laws on top?

--
do not read this line twice.

Why must we always fight the same fight by denis-The-menace · 2012-01-20 08:24 · Score: 1

We all know that when SOPA 2.0 will come out and it will be good for the greedy that paid for it.

Why can't we get a "bill of rights [on the computer]"?

Does it have to do with the report that says 20% of Americans should be seeing a shrink?

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration

Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by SirGarlon · 2012-01-20 08:28 · Score: 1

I think it has to do with the fact that in a democracy there is always a big chunk of the population that is just wrong on something basic and important. Capital punishment. Abortion. Gun control/gun rights. I can see copyright/censorship going the same way and becoming a "wedge issue."

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by Applekid · 2012-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1

Why can't we get a "bill of rights [on the computer]"?
Because no one is willing to literally die or kill for it. Compare to the actual Bill of Rights.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by Toonol · 2012-01-20 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our current bill of rights doesn't contain an 'except on a computer' clause, so it is sufficient. Specifically, the clauses about free speech and unreasonable search.

We don't need a new one; we just need to remind our legislators that the bill of rights still exists.
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-20 12:11 · Score: 1

Legislators who already decided that only US Citizens are "people" and that you can only be a US Citizen if you don't violate certain US laws?
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by Shajenko42 · 2012-01-20 16:05 · Score: 1

The Bill of Rights was only proposed six years after the end of the Revolutionary War. Who killed or died for it specifically?
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by TangoMargarine · 2012-01-20 18:08 · Score: 1

Sure, except for the part where there is an objectively right viewpoint for capital punishment, abortion, and gun rights.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by Applekid · 2012-01-21 05:12 · Score: 1

Those in the Revolutionary War. Granted the Bill of Rights was intended to counter the arguments that the Constitution paved the way for an oppressive government, as it was to replace the comparatively weaker Articles of Confederation (for which there was all actual fighting in the war), but the point is that it never would have happened if there was no independence, and the Kingdom of Great Britain was not (neither The Crown nor the Parliament) was about to give up her colonies on her own accord.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by bugger41 · 2012-01-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Our current bill of rights doesn't contain an 'except on a computer' clause, so it is sufficient. Specifically, the clauses about free speech and unreasonable search. We don't need a new one; we just need to remind our legislators that the bill of rights still exists.
simple answer for Friend. if I may call you that? Freedom isn't free and it's paid for In due's and to go on to that club dues are Diligence freedom is not automatic but guarded treasure sorry I don't make the rules.
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by SirGarlon · 2012-01-22 15:08 · Score: 1

Well of course they're not objectively wrong. But they're wrong! Wrong, I say! :-)

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:Why must we always fight the same fight by Coren22 · 2012-01-23 08:00 · Score: 1

Yes, there is.
Capital punishment and abortion are murder.
Guns for the people are included in the constitution.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

we dont need sopa or pipa by luther349 · 2012-01-20 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

look what they managed to do to megaupload without any bills. all they want to do with these bills is skip the need to acully go threw the normal channels to make that happen. and i think that's what put the death nail in these bills anyways.

Re:we dont need sopa or pipa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:36 · Score: 0

SOPA/PIPA have sweet fuck all to do with copyright protection.

We yield! You win forever internet! by blattin · 2012-01-20 08:28 · Score: 1

aka "We'll just attach it to to the next defense spending bill or give it a label such as Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act."

Small victory by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-01-20 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

But now isn't the time to rest, this crap will come back around, always does. Keep watch on any major "must not fail, do it for the Children/Military", type bills. If it can't make it on its own it'll show up as a rider on one of those.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

No. Don't go back to the drawing board by sakdoctor · 2012-01-20 08:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Round up all the supporters into camps. Exterminate them, remove the skulls, and bury the other bits in a mass grave.
On top, build a 100 meter statue of Wikipe-tan dancing on the crushed skulls. Generations from more enlightened times can look back on the the pivotal moment, where internet freedom almost got fucked.

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:No. Don't go back to the drawing board by jamstar7 · 2012-01-20 13:34 · Score: 1

Nononono.

Nuke the sites from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smith by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe the problem is having a business model that is incompatible with sharing of information.

From the inception of the information revolution, information became easy to copy. It will be that way until you take away all computers and networks.

The real question - is there something we can do to reduce the damages these powerful industries do, while kicking and screaming on their way to irrelevance?

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by Kenja · 2012-01-20 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, you see the DMCA makes it the copyright holders job to go after offenders. That clearly isn't aceptable. So these new bills make it Google and other like serves responsable for blocking entire sections of the internet that have been deemed as naughty. Much less effort on the part of the media conglomerates, even if it is an unreasonable request to make of search engines, forums, etc.

For example, it would become the responsibility of SlashDot to prevent all posts that link to or mention the Pirate Bay. That's much easier then having to admit that our laws dont have effect in Norway.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Why don't we fix SOPA for them? by ddxexex · 2012-01-20 08:32 · Score: 1

I know most people here could find a bazillion problems with SOPA, but in order to prevent a repeat of the bill, shouldn't we find a way to reduce piracy online that doesn't destroy the internet and/or or freedoms? That way only the people benefiting from counterfeit goods/blatant copyright infringement are negatively impacted, which I think most people can agree to a certain degree, probably needed to be cracked down on anyways. I don't think the RIAA/MPAA deliberately wants to destroy our freedoms, they just don't want to have people profiting from their work.

Re:Why don't we fix SOPA for them? by robot256 · 2012-01-20 08:47 · Score: 1

I don't think the RIAA/MPAA deliberately wants to destroy our freedoms, they just don't want to have people profiting from their work.
Tell me how sharing songs on Kazaa or bittorrent for free constitutes "profiting from their work". If that were the case, then they would ONLY have sued the providers of the services (that get ad revenue when people use them), not the users themselves. But you are right, they don't want to destroy our freedoms per se, they just want to take our money by whatever means possible.
Re:Why don't we fix SOPA for them? by brainzach · 2012-01-20 08:59 · Score: 1

The problem is the RIAA/MPAA want complete control over everything.
I think if the RIAA/MPAA want to increase enforcement of copyright protection, they need to give something up and expand the fair use of copyrighted works. There is a lot of middle ground that can be achieved with the issue.
Re:Why don't we fix SOPA for them? by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-20 12:24 · Score: 1

From your message title, I thought you had something completely different in mind... rewriting SOPA to actively prevent legislators from a) shoehorning legislation into bills with a misleading title or summary (the equivalent of labelling laws for Senate/Congress) and b) making corporate funding of politicians illegal.
These two things would probably fix the piracy problem overnight.
The third would be to change corporate copyright terms to 15 years and personal copyright to 25 years. Suddenly, piracy's not as much of an issue, is it?
Re:Why don't we fix SOPA for them? by Rennt · 2012-01-20 20:46 · Score: 1

That way only the people benefiting from counterfeit goods/blatant copyright infringement are negatively impacted, which I think most people can agree to a certain degree, probably needed to be cracked down on anyways.
It hasn't actually been shown that copyright infringement is doing any damage AT ALL. We only have the "interests" who stand to gain from erosion of our rights telling us it is so.
So no, I don't think the copyright cartel needs to be thrown a bone at all. They already ate all the meat!

It's easy to reduce piracy... by msauve · 2012-01-20 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

just put the copyright terms back to the length thought fair by our founding fathers: 28 years after publication.

Doing so would eliminate a lot of piracy, overnight, and at no cost to the taxpayer.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-20 08:42 · Score: 1

Right, because most of the stuff being pirated is 28 years and 1 day old. There's no reasonable time limit to copyright that would satisfy pirates (0 days) and copyright cartels (forever - 1 day) as they have different views of the information ("I shouldn't pay for it", "you should _always_ pay for it, per view, in every format possible, and maybe just for the right for it to exist in the first place!").
I'm guessing a quick scan of pirate bay would show the most popular stuff is 10 years old.
I really think this is a distribution/price problem, not a technical problem and certainly not a legal one. You won't stop it with either of the latter, but you'd make a whole lot more money by fixing the former.
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-20 08:43 · Score: 2

^ "is under 10 years old"
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 08:55 · Score: 2

Maybe piracy evolved to be as prevalent as it is today _because_ of market forces balancing out the effect of a general perception of "unfair" copyright terms.
In economics we speak in terms of equity; i.e. "fairness", and that capitalism, for all it's strneghts, does not gaurantee equity.
Perhaps the invisible hand of the market does, in fact, cover equity as well, it just manifests itself as piracy.

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by CelticWhisper · 2012-01-20 09:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's okay, though, because we're (ostensibly) not out to satisfy either pirates or copyright cartels. 28-year copyright would serve to benefit the individual creators of the works in question and still create an incentive for either their successors, or they themselves later in their lives, to create additional work to continue to profit. Satisfying pirates is a non-starter - they can be written off because they can be assumed to disregard whatever copyright terms are in effect. To slightly twist a meme, "Pirates gonna pirate." Copyright cartels are trickier, as they have at least an air of legitimacy about them despite their rampant exploitation of copyright itself and the legal system that establishes it.
I think the focus should be on up-and-coming artists. Get them to eschew "Big Copyright" and maybe use the OWS rhetoric (1%/99%) to do so.

--
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by msauve · 2012-01-20 09:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd agree with that. If copyright holders don't respect the rights of users (via DRM, validation keys, EULAs, etc. and copyright extensions for existing works), why should users respect the rights of copyright holders?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 09:27 · Score: 2

...or bootlegging albums (like in a famous recent case in Canada), sending DMCA requests for works they don't own, chargin royalties on blank media, etc. It does make me chuckle - in a disgusted sort of way - whenever that industry attempts anything like an ethical argument.

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-01-20 10:20 · Score: 1

Ok, but my response was to "It's easy to reduce piracy...just put the copyright terms back to the length thought fair by our founding fathers: 28 years after publication.". The GP was postulating that piracy somehow is related to the length of copyright. I don't think the two relate.
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:24 · Score: 0

Sure it is. If copyright lasted only 28 years, then copyright infringement of works more than 28 years old would drop dramatically.
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-20 12:35 · Score: 1

Ok, but my response was to "It's easy to reduce piracy...just put the copyright terms back to the length thought fair by our founding fathers: 28 years after publication.". The GP was postulating that piracy somehow is related to the length of copyright. I don't think the two relate.
I do. The reason we're seeing a steady increase in piracy is that there is increasingly less culturally applicable material in the public domain.
If we could at least freely share and build upon the intellectual property of the previous generation, there would be less demand from people for megacorps producing "the biggest and best ever" blockbuster flop over and over again. Culture would thrive, and the stuff that made it to the big screen or to audio production would be the stuff that rose to the top and was re-produced as a squeaky-clean version of something that already existed with bells and whistles added.
Right now we have the opposite: artists who have signed all generative content away for the rest of the foreseeable future, in the hope of being heard and making a buck.
Of course, we'll still have *some* piracy. But that type will be culturally unacceptable, which means society will put a damper on it even without legislation. Nobody will want to be accused of ripping off the latest song, as that will be a shameful thing to do (no need, as there's lots of other good stuff available for the using). This kind of piracy will be taken care of by a) exposing the infringer and b) reparation to the victim (possibly by helping produce something new?).
To fix copyright infringement in its current expanding state, what we need is to reintroduce society into the equation, instead of leaving it all in the control of the stock market elite like we do today.
Re:It's easy to reduce piracy... by Rennt · 2012-01-20 20:52 · Score: 1

Very well said, Sir/Madam.

Newt on SOPA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:34 · Score: 1

Newt was at least amusing on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuVAw2mLmPo

Grit your teeth; it's kind of funny.

What we really need is... by Tha_Big_Guy23 · 2012-01-20 08:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

the US government to stop thinking they can police the world.

If overseas pirating operations are what's causing all the ruckus, I don't see what passing stringent laws within the US borders will do to accomplish this task. It could just be me, but it seems that what the plan is with both of these acts is to try and police what happens on the internet worldwide. The United States has no business regulating the internet internationally. If they want to regulate it within their borders, that's the government's realm. Outside of the US, there's not one damn thing the US should be doing other than cooperating with other global governments to begin their own enforcement policies.

Not that I'm advocating internet regulation here, it just seems that the reasoning behind the acts is flawed, as is most of the data. I, myself, have created several copyrighted works, which found their way stolen and posted here and there. Sure it pissed me off, but as the person who owned the copyrights, it was my job to do the foot work responsible for making sure that either the content was taken down, or I was given appropriate attribution.

Going back to my primary point in posting, the US government, and US-based corporations needs to stop thinking that the US government is responsible for policing the world on any level.

That's just my $0.02.

--
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.

Re:What we really need is... by rickb928 · 2012-01-20 09:09 · Score: 3, Informative

It's not about the US government trying to police the world. It's about corporations (from any nation or region) trying to use legislation to preserve their businesses, to squash threats, and provide them more and more profitmaking opportunities, be those opportunities the result of monopolies, oligopolies, patents, or copyrights.
And it's about the relative ease of suppressing content on the Internet. Just get the government to agree with you, and it's moving a few bits around. Done.
And we need to break the connection between our Legislature and corporations. the connection is money and insider trading. And it's currently legal.
This must change.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:What we really need is... by Rumtis · 2012-01-20 09:16 · Score: 1

Problem is that they are trying to do this within the confines of US borders by going after the man-in-the-middle that has nothing to do with the copyrighted material in the first place.

If bad site A is in Russia, but it has to go through ISP B, that is in the US, to get to you, they want to be able to shut down ISP B in order to "stop piracy". If ISP B has to resort to deep packet inspection to cover their as...butt, now we are one step away from the government say "well, you already have to look at what comes through anyway, so let's see what so-and-so is up to..."

They are not trying to police the world. They are trying to get the ability to shut down US companies that they can get to, privacy be damned.

Solutions to online piracy by future+assassin · 2012-01-20 08:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

let the old business model die. With all the free market touting these old farts sure like to prop up failing business models.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by Colonel+Korn · 2012-01-20 08:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Maybe the problem is having a business model that is incompatible with sharing of information.

From the inception of the information revolution, information became easy to copy. It will be that way until you take away all computers and networks.

The real question - is there something we can do to reduce the damages these powerful industries do, while kicking and screaming on their way to irrelevance?

I'm sorry, if you want Congressman Smith to listen to you please insert $100k to his campaign every other year like the entertainment industry does: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2008&type=C&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20

--
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:42 · Score: 0

Stop taking their content either by legal or illegal means.

My problem with this is that so many people out there act like if they can't have The Best of Lady Caca at a price point that they can "afford"* that culture is going to collapse. This simply isn't true. I don't side with SOPA either. I'm just as against people feeling that if they can see it or hear it out there that they have a right to have it and do with it whatever they want with no compensation to the artist.

* If you own a computer and have an internet connection you can't come off like you're poverty stricken. Media really isn't that expensive at this point. Get off your high horse about who makes how much for actually creating something while most sit there and leach their works.

Wikipedia is Evil by Mordermi · 2012-01-20 08:48 · Score: 1

They misinformed the public about this legislation. How dare they. This is a lovely piece of legislation that will only help legitimate sites such as Wikipedia, and in no way would affect social media sites or anything of the sort.

Oh wait.. That doesn't seem right. I don't think that I believe you Mr. Smith. Google opposing it is "self-serving"? But isn't it self-serving for you to support it?

Seems to me that the approach is all wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

The biggest problems with SOPA and PIPA is that they focus heavily on enforcement and punishment measures rather than addressing the causes of piracy.

If things like "competition" and "capitalism" are supposed to drive supply and demand, it seems to me that the "demand" side of the equation is saying a couple things to media companies:

1) Your product is too expensive
2) Your product is too inconvenient to use

Remember when CDs came out back in the late 80's/early 90s? Duplication costs were said to be lower, so the cost of music was supposed to go down. But it didn't - it went up. Profit margins soared. Consumers noticed.

eBooks are going through the same thing now. If I buy an eBook for my Nook from B&N, say Lee Child's "Die Trying", I pay as much for the eBook as I do for the paperback. But the paperback actually costs more to produce, with manufacturing costs, shipping costs, etc.

So a price adjustment is needed - and maybe, just maybe, those writing the laws should look at writing something to address price fixing instead.

Similarly, if I purchase "Die Trying", it's convenient to download to my device. It's inconvenient to put on my wife's Nook - but if we had the paperback version on our bookshelf, we could each pick it up and read it when we want. B&N allows you to lend a book to an individual exactly *once* for a fixed period of time, and then never again. So if we both liked it and wanted to have it available, we have to pay for it twice.

Congress needs to address causes, not effects, when they write laws. SOPA and PIPA are bad largely because they address the effects of piracy and focus heavily on punishment and enforcement rather than addressing the underlying causes.

Re:Seems to me that the approach is all wrong by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 08:50 · Score: 1

Interesting. I think your point is both insightful and brings up a good point, and yet you posted AC. My paradigm just broke.

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:Seems to me that the approach is all wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:14 · Score: 0

Congress should butt out and let the market adjust. People who give a damn will find some kind of digital or other signing method to get top quality goods from legit sources. People who don't can't be forced to do so without breaking so many other things as to be not worth the effort.
Re:Seems to me that the approach is all wrong by trolman · 2012-01-20 10:43 · Score: 1

Back in the old days this was called protectionism. The weaklings of business protect themselves with laws that punish everyone else, especially the competition. These people are typically bullies that cannot make it on their own. There product is defective but not so much that they fail outright. So they hire a Chris Dodd and get a few laws passed. Right now free speech is at risk. These bullies will not be deterred. Eternal vigilance is required.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by brainzach · 2012-01-20 08:49 · Score: 1

The current laws are easy to circumvent because the US can't go after foreign websites like the Pirate Bay.

What did you expect? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-20 08:49 · Score: 1

The SOPA issue was raised at the recent GOP debate, and all four candidates spoke against it.

They are pandering for votes. Why would they admit to being for something that is currently getting a lot of negative press? Especially when he can come up with a "valid rational reason" to reconsider after he is elected. They flip-flopped on every topic so far, why should this one be any different?

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

Waste of Congress' Time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:49 · Score: 0

Why don't they worry about solutions to our sinking economy, high unemployment, and high taxes - rather than spend their time trying to help content makers deal with business model issues?

Re:Waste of Congress' Time by jamstar7 · 2012-01-20 13:46 · Score: 1

Because it's an election year and the *AAs are financing their reelection campaigns. Silly citizen, you thought you had free elections or something???

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Next likely House Bill? How about HR 1981 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:51 · Score: 1

For those of you who are wondering when the next piece of legislation will come up with SOPA/PIPA type measures in it for battling copyright, be aware that it likely already exists.

Take a look at H.R. 1981. Being that this is an election year, there are two things that politicians can't look weak on: Terrorism and Child Pornography. H.R. 1981 goes after C.P. and you can bet the **AA's are still hungry to shoehorn SOPA/PIPA type legislation through by any means necessary. Is it beyond them to lump it into that type of legislation? No way. A simple copy and text paste from parts of SOPA/PIPA into H.R. 1981 and we're back to pre blackout stage. Has it been inserted in that bill yet? No. But I'm watching it like a hawk.

Overheard in the capitol building... by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-20 08:51 · Score: 2

"OK, the bill the industry wrote for us won't pass mustard, so we've got to come up with a new strategy to package this s**t sandwich. Renaming worked for Blackwater. Too bad we already used the name "Patriot Act". Hmmm, can we tie this into child rape and terrorism somehow? Think people, there are billions in campaign donations and post-Congress salaries on the line!"

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:Overheard in the capitol building... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-20 10:15 · Score: 1

won't pass mustard
I think I've done that before. At least, that's what it looked like. (Term is "won't pass muster"... Although I did like how you tied it in with "sandwich".)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Overheard in the capitol building... by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-20 10:38 · Score: 1

Thanks for the correction. NO thanks for the visual lol

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Overheard in the capitol building... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-20 10:54 · Score: 1

Heh. You're welcome. :) (I will not share the story, but I read something decades ago on alt.tasteless that I wish I could scrub from my brain. So, consider yourself lucky. :)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Overheard in the capitol building... by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-20 12:45 · Score: 1

I've got it! Let's call it H.R. 1981!

You know what scares me... by flogger · 2012-01-20 08:53 · Score: 0

Google. This was the first time that I have actively "seen" them get involved and asked the masses to get involved in a political agenda. I know, Every corporation has agendas and will lobby, but with their "Black-out" nearly everyone saw it. If I run for president or if I am going to sponsor a law, I am going to go to bed with Google and get my picture on their front page. Imagine what will happen when Google wants to actively run this country.

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor

Re:You know what scares me... by flogger · 2012-01-20 09:35 · Score: 1

Karen? Is that you? I know it was rough, but geez. Give it a break. :-)

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:53 · Score: 0

Why doesn't someone just copyright laws that protect copyright?

So called 'representatives'. Abolish copyrights. by roman_mir · 2012-01-20 08:55 · Score: 1

And to think that people are still arguing over the fact that government is inherently evil and the primary function of the government that was set up in the USA was to protect people's freedoms and liberties .... from the government itself

The same answer applies - copyrights and patents must be abolished.

No business must be in a position to get a subsidy or any other type of preferential treatment from a government (for the people, of the people, by the people, yes?)

Individuals, citizens, consumers - they are supposed to be the constituents of their governments, not businesses, companies, corporations.

Of-course businesses, companies, corporations are also 'people', as in there are people behind them - owners, shareholders, whatever. But they as groups must not be able to get more preferential treatment than individuals (and not group must be able to have that,) but also as a group they must not be punished in ways that undermines rights of individuals that run those businesses.

The correct answer is to get government out of business, finance, money, regulations and subsidies and this also means abolishing copyrights and patents.

Copyrights and patents are preferential treatment to a subgroup of businesses that rely on those instruments to get a subsidy of special type of protection by government, and this must not be accepted by individuals.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by liquidweaver · 2012-01-20 08:59 · Score: 1

I've often thought that a good balance for news laws would be to either pass them with a huge majority or "pay for them" by sacrificing a different law, to try and prevent a huge mass of largely ineffective laws from taking place.

Of course, there is always the consideration that passing laws left and right is just to mkae everyone guilty, and then using selective enforcement as a form of unilateral control while "only punishing lawbreakers".

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h

Waffles for Dinner? by JoeMerchant · 2012-01-20 09:02 · Score: 1

Dear Mr. Merchant,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet piracy legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns on this important issue.

As you may be aware, on May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) introduced the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP/ PIPA, S. 968), which is meant to curb the online theft of intellectual property, much of which is occurring through rogue websites overseas in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs. It was with this in mind that I was previously a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act. I believe it's important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy. However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and can promote new technologies.

Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill unanimously and without controversy. Since then, I've heard from a number of Floridians who have raised legitimate concerns about the impact this bill could have on Internet access, as well as a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's authority to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.

Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the PROTECT IP Act. Furthermore, I have encouraged Majority Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet. Please know that I will remain mindful of your concerns should this, or similar legislation, such as the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261), come before the Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. It is an honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida. If I can be of any further help to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R).

I would be curious to know... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:02 · Score: 0

Has there been any study that looks at the losses these copyright and trademark holders claim they lost. When I see Lamar Smith throw around 100 billion in losses, what is that based off of?

Isn't it possible that a good number of the people who watch or listen to pirated content or buy fake Prada bags would never buy the album, go to see the move, or don't care about a REAL brand name anyways? How is that lost revenue?

Microsoft turned a blind eye to pirated versions of their software for years and look what happened.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by Ilex · 2012-01-20 09:03 · Score: 1

The current laws are easy to circumvent because the US can't go after foreign websites like the Pirate Bay.

Tell that to the guys who ran Megaupload.com

We've won the battle, by CanHasDIY · 2012-01-20 09:03 · Score: 1

Time to prepare for War.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-20 09:08 · Score: 1

Yes and we all know what a travesty it is that US laws do not apply everywhere in the entire world.

--
Palm trees and 8

It cuts both ways... by tlhIngan · 2012-01-20 09:11 · Score: 1

The SOPA issue was raised at the recent GOP debate, and all four candidates spoke against it.

Actually, the reason why is the major conservative think-tanks made it a major issue. They realized that all it would take would be a left-wing liberal hippie to go and claim copyright infringement and knock them off the 'net, which to them is quite dangerous.

So they made it a priority to oppose the bill and told all the GOP candidates that yes, it really does matter to them.

It's isn't just about piracy, it's about censorship, and you can bet there's going to be a LOT of people wanting ot misuse the power to censor people they don't like.

Source.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-20 09:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

The DMCA is performing exactly as expected. You cannot even post a link to a foreign website that provides decss.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by brainzach · 2012-01-20 09:16 · Score: 1

Megaupload had servers in the US and New Zealand agreed to extradite them.

The US would love to shut down the Pirate Bay, but they have no way of doing it.

What really happened is... by 3seas · 2012-01-20 09:17 · Score: 1

They tried using a bigger knife to widdle down our rights with and everyone noticed.

But apparently what they failed to notice is the contents of the Declaration of Independence.

Megauploads.com is Proof Tools Already Exist by El+Fantasmo · 2012-01-20 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

How on god's green earth did megauploads.com get shutdown yesterday without SOPA and PIPA as laws? Seems to me, there are already systems in place to take sites offline in the US when they MAYBE break US copyright laws.

Re:So called 'representatives'. Abolish copyrights by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-20 09:24 · Score: 2

Copyrights and Patents are issued to PEOPLE, not corporations. The problem is that corporations are allowed to purchase or establish conditions of employment that automatically transfer ownership of the Patent or Copyright to the corporation.

This is what needs to be changed.

Our declaration of independence by Okian+Warrior · 2012-01-20 09:28 · Score: 2

This is the turning point in the battle between the forces of freedom and subjugation.

If the mobilized forces of the internet cannot prevent SOPA-style legislation, then it will be unarguably clear that working within the system will not work. It's the final last-ditch effort of the people to try to prevent oppression using lawful means.

When people tell us that we should "write our congressman", we can point to this incident.

When people tell us that we should "use the power of the vote", we can point to this incident.

When people tell us that we should not break the law or otherwise ignore the rules, we can point to this incident.

This incident will have far-reaching effects on the actions people take in the future. It's our "declaration of independence" moment. The results of this incident will determine whether in the future, people should simply ignore the government and feel good about it.

It'll be fun to watch.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-20 09:33 · Score: 1

The Megaupload guys made the mistake of locating servers in a country where their business model is illegal.

Re:So called 'representatives'. Abolish copyrights by roman_mir · 2012-01-20 09:36 · Score: 1

There is no difference, as patents and copyrights can be moved from person to person by signing away the rights, so that's a primitive loophole right there to ensure that a corporation could hold copyrights / patents.

But that makes no sense either, all copyrights and patents must be abolished, because that's subsidy by government and resources must be spent by government to protect somebody's copyright/patent, and this hurts the public.

If a private individual does not want to have his materials being passed around, the simple thing is not to RELEASE the information and hold it to himself.

The reason patents/copyrights exist is to subsidise somebody by government force to give them monopoly on the distribution channels as if that benefits the public - it does not.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Many FOSS advocates do not understand the world by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:42 · Score: 0

I believe many in the GNU world do not understand the world, and their political opinions should be ignored.

Linux exists today in its large and efficient form, mostly from the work of professional programmers at large tech companies, like IBM, Red Hat, and HP. These large tech companies unintentionally banded together to get an operating system for large scale computers and web servers. It was largely an implemention of the well known Unix system. Were these large companies interested enough in making a shared Desktop Environment to commit the resources?
Did they expend the manpower to produce good APIs for video, sound, webcams, printers, scanners, wifi, bluetooth, dialup modems, and other things? No. Microsoft did, and Windows is superior for the Desktop. They just needed to control mighty, headless machines, that is all.

The GNU zealots insisted on trying, and failed, to make a Desktop Environment comparable to Windows or OS X, much less an operating system kernel (Hurd). They chose or made bad APIs, like X11, gtk, and ALSA. They floundered, against the professionally designed Windows Desktop Environment, just as many professional programmers speculated they would.

The general populace lies, is apathetic to piracy and does not create worthwhile content. Most of the populace is ignorant about computers. The average parent is incapable of supervision their children on piracy. How can we then expect to hit the parents with giant piracy fines or prison sentences for the actions of their lying or evasive children? At least with corporate software piracy, the offenders are capable of understanding their actions, and can pay the consequences. SOPA is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem, and should be made better, but Congress has money and can hire talented people to write legislation. Net Neutrality didn't pass, but AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are not blocking commercial websites left and right that do not pay giant sums of money in order to reach the end user. I wanted to see SOPA and PIPA pass, just to see what would really happen. Congress can always turn around and eliminate laws in the future, if SOPA caused major problems for example.

Looks like Maddox was right after all by blind+biker · 2012-01-20 09:45 · Score: 2

http://maddox.xmission.com/

Citing Maddox:

The problem isn't this shitty bill, it's the people who sponsored it. So we protest this bill today, bang enough pots and pans to shame a few backers into not letting this bill pass, then what? Those same dipshits who wrote this legislation still have jobs. They're going to try again, and again, and again until some mutation of this legislation passes. They'll sneak it into an appropriation bill while nobody's looking during recess, because there's too much lobbyist money at stake for them not to. We defeat SOPA today, only to face it again tomorrow. It's like trying to stop a cold by blowing your nose. It's time we go after the virus.

He's right. All the anti-SOPA/PIPA efforts are defensive and basically flawed. I did a lot to participate in the anti-SOPA activities, but even I can see that it's ultimately futile - until the head of the dragon is severed.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.

Re:Looks like Maddox was right after all by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:54 · Score: 0

Speaking of the head of the dragon, instead of dying out, I would love to see energy instead redirected to end corporate personhood.
Re:Looks like Maddox was right after all by Em+Adespoton · 2012-01-20 12:54 · Score: 1

You know what? I wonder if any of these politicians has ever stopped to ponder lobby money.
Who is the lobby going to lob more cash at? Someone who does their every bidding today, or someone who needs a lot of convincing?
Seems to me that they'd get MORE money by just sitting on the proposals from the lobbies, and putting forward their own "sanitized" versions to the floor for markup/debate. Then the lobby has to donate more often just to keep them "in line". Come election time, they might ponder a lobby's proposal without modification... or they might not.
Why is it that none of these politicians have thought of that yet? Do the lobbies have some other power over them that will prevent them from getting re-elected? This method should also result in voters having a higher opinion of them, whether merited or not.

I made the front page!?! by rivin2e · 2012-01-20 09:45 · Score: 2

wow... who knew that things that i was doing for a research paper would get me to the front page. Anyways as i had said in the story, Hopefully the next draft of this bill will create a better foundation to stop piracy and not just assert control over the internet. As for megaupload, i need to read up on that.

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by tnk1 · 2012-01-20 09:52 · Score: 1

I agree with you... to a point. When I stop seeing recording artists and movie stars making millions and going to gala events, along with their producers and hangers-on, I will start being worried about people feeling entitled to music.

The fact is, they have already demonstrated that they can make these movies/videos/music, pay the techs and crew union scale to do it, make a tidy profit, and also pay a few individuals a metric fuckton of money all the while piracy is happening at an unprecedented level. I understand that, logically, *someone* has to buy this stuff, but at the same time, someone *did* buy the stuff that was pirated.

I do, however, draw the line at things like that X-Men workprint that was pirated even before the studio had a chance to finish it, let alone make an honest profit on it. I consider that to be plain theft. And that's almost as vile as the movie itself was.

I just think that piracy is a natural reaction to being overcharged for a product. It's true that no one *needs* that mp3 or movie, but it isn't hurting anyone either. In fact, in many cases, it's free publicity for said media.

Just make a national firewall and be done by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 09:58 · Score: 0

Everything I've heard about the "goal" of the these laws is to extend blocking the importation of counterfeit goods into the USA to include intellectual property. Just as a cargo container filled with knock off handbags from China would be stopped by customs a website would be prevented from spewing TB of copyrighted data into the USA.

They should have just written the law to put up a national firewall and filtering out all content from blacklisted international sites. Then made sure there was a fair process for putting sites on the blacklist, regularly reviewing sites on the blacklist for removal, and allow patrons of said sites to challenge the blacklisting in court. This would be simpler and more analogues to the real world (seriously congress, digital != different). I think this would accomplish all the goals of SOAP/PIPA and not piss everyone off as follows:
1.) Citizens of the USA wouldn't be able to access content illegally from international sources.
2.) Infringing sources inside the USA would be handled adequately by existing copyright law.
3.) Search engines would de-list blacklisted sites to avoid dead links in their results or their crawlers would find they are unreachable.
4.) The USA branches of payment processing companies wouldn't have any money to send to the infringing sites.
5.) If an infringing site became compliant posts could be made on other websites to encourage petition for review without the informative sites needing to worry about being shut down.

Ideally I would like free and open access to the global internet to continue and the movie industry to innovate its way out of the piracy problem. However, copyright owning organizations have a lot of money to throw at getting legislation through, and lucrative industries with a high cost of entry have little incentive to innovate as they have little to worry about from the equally unmotivated competition.

We brought this on ourselves by suso · 2012-01-20 09:58 · Score: 1

You can read my thoughts here about this:

http://www.climagic.org/txt/anti-sopa-protest.html

If we're going to fix this problem, we need to stop acting like we're not at fault.

Re:We brought this on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:17 · Score: 1

Repeat after me...
Copyright Infringement Is Not Theft.
You know how I know? Because nobody has been charged with theft, even though the MAFIAAs have sued everyone and their dog for copyright infringement.
Say it again, loud and proud. Copyright Infringement Is Not Theft.
Re:We brought this on ourselves by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-20 10:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Before we had PCs and the Internet, most people never gave copyrights a moment's though, unless they were lawyers or were employed in an industry where copyrights matter. Back in those days, copyrights were a regulation on industry; people did not violate them because they did not have the industrial equipment needed to violate them.

Things are different now. You do not need industrial equipment to copy things, everyone has all the equipment they need right in their own home. It is not that people have lost respect for copyrights, it is that people are now in a position where whether or not they respect copyrights matters -- and they never really cared about copyrights to begin with. There was never any reason to expect the majority of people to respect copyrights, and there is no way that copyrights could ever be enforced when the majority of people have the equipment needed to violate copyrights (there are far too many people for the justice system to actually determine if a particular violation of a copyright was fair use -- copyrights were designed to be handled by lawyers in courts).

We live in a post-copyright age, there is no sense in denying that. I use the example of bottled water. Everyone can drink their tap water, yet bottled water companies manage to turn a profit without regulations that forbid the drinking of tap water. Computers are nearly as common as faucets at this point, and copying things with computers is as easy as drinking tap water.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:We brought this on ourselves by Roger+Wilcox · 2012-01-20 10:58 · Score: 1

You have a valid point--that SOPA has come about in part because millions of individuals willfully disregard the law and disrespect copyright. I can get behind you on this point. However, you must also remember that there is a fundamental difference between stealing something and copying it. Theft involves taking something away from someone else. When you steal an item, the original owner loses possession of that item, and he can no longer gain the benefit of that item's utility. When you copy an item, the owner retains ownership of his copy and can continue to utilize it. In this way, infringing copyright is not the same as stealing. Equating copyright infringement with theft confuses the issue by drawing a parallel which is not entirely valid.
Re:We brought this on ourselves by russotto · 2012-01-20 14:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

If we're going to fix this problem, we need to stop acting like we're not at fault.
We're not. And I'm sorry your secret out-of-court settlement with the RIAA requires you to say we are.
This began no later than 1976, when Universal sued Sony to try to ban the VCR. They failed there, but they successfully destroyed home use of digital audio tape with the Audio Home Recording Act. They attempted to ban the MP3 player in 1998. And then there was the DMCA, also 1998. Were you violating copyright before 1976? Even Napster came after the DMCA. These laws were not reactions to mass copyright infringement; they could not be, because they _preceded_ such infringement. SOPA/PIPA are just the next salvo.
From your website:

We have to remind ourselves that copyright is a real valid agreement in society and that we have to either honor it, or decide to dismantle it.
If copyright ever was an "agreement", it has been violated, over and over again, by the other side. Not just with the laws above, but by interminable copyright extension and the re-copyrighting of out-of-copyright works. In fact, however, it's not an agreement at all; it's just an exercise of power. There's no dishonor in violating it.
Re:We brought this on ourselves by zeugma-amp · 2012-01-20 17:24 · Score: 1

If copyright ever was an "agreement", it has been violated, over and over again, by the other side. Not just with the laws above, but by interminable copyright extension and the re-copyrighting of out-of-copyright works. In fact, however, it's not an agreement at all; it's just an exercise of power. There's no dishonor in violating it.
Worth repeating.
Big Media has bought enough congresscritters to make sure that copyright terms will eventually be the heat-death of the universe minus one day, so as to fall under the concept of "limited time" as specified in the constitution. I long ago lost all respect for copyright and the organizations that push it well beyond its intended terms. There is no logical reason why the entire beatles catalog should not currently exist in the public domain, which is its rightful place.
The only good news I see on the horizon is that a lot of youger folk have a similar lack of faith in copyright or the legislooters who seem to think perpetual copyright is beneficial to society.
The supreme Court of the U.S. recently made (IMO) a pretty bad ruling regarding the extension of copyright to works previously in the public domain. Slashdotters might be interested in reading the Opinion. I think the dissent is much better argued.

--
This is an ex-parrot!

"Burn down the village to save it" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 10:04 · Score: 1

Look, if you want to stop online piracy, that's fine. I agree with the principle of copyright (albeit with shorter terms) and that online violation of copyright is a problem worth trying to address *somehow*. However:

A) for !#$!&%'s sake ask people who know something about the technical aspects of any proposed implementation;
B) don't burn down some of the greatest benefits of having the Internet at all in order to address piracy;
C) don't rely PRIMARILY on the so-called "victims" of on-line piracy to characterize the problem or propose the solution, most of which are rich media companies rather than the artists;
and,
D) get an independent assessment of how bad the problem really is and how much the solution is going to cost before accepting the copyright holder's claims that it amounts to billions and billions of dollars damage and won't be an issue to foist the implementation costs on other companies.

If all you did was talk to ship owners a couple hundred years ago, then they're going to tell you that you should go in force to the home port of the so-called pirates and sink every ship and burn everything else to the ground as an acceptable "solution" to the rampant piracy in a region. That doesn't mean it's an appropriate solution if you care about the innocent people trying to make a living or simply relax on their boat in the same harbor. But if you have nothing to lose by a draconian solution that might not even be effective and won't have any negative repercussions for you, then I guess it might make sense in the same way that SOPA and PIPA made sense to the media companies supporting it.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by DM9290 · 2012-01-20 10:17 · Score: 1

It makes no real difference to most of the indictment if megaupload physically had servers in the US. The servers are not the ones being charged with an offense. Human beings are. whether servers or merely data was in the US is not material.

As long as you or anyone inside the US is engaged in a willful transaction with you, and you are willing to do that transaction with a person in the US, then you are having a transaction under the jurisdiction of US law, and you can be charged if that transaction is illegal in the US. But more so, certain data signals were definitely inside the US regardless of where the server was because the client computers are in the US carrying signals transmitted from megaupload.
(at least that is the allegation).

the only way having servers outside the US can really take you totally out of US jurisdiction, is if the servers are not accessible except from outside the US.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by Thing+1 · 2012-01-20 10:28 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, if you want Congressman Smith to listen to you please insert $100k to his campaign every other year like the entertainment industry does: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2008&type=C&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20

Reading that link was actually rather heartening! "TV/Movies/Music" now ranks second; "Computers/Internet" is first! Not by a large margin (Pee Wee's Big Adventure is now resonating) but still, it's now greater in all three categories (total, individuals, PACs) -- and, we can continue to talk to our bosses and convince our employers to contribute. Yeah, it sucks that we have to waste resources in order to protect liberty, but every action in life has friction associated with it, and should be accounted for in one's "master plans".

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Depenalize piracy by jprupp · 2012-01-20 10:31 · Score: 1

And then remove patents and copyrights from legislation.

This seems to be the only sincere thing to do. We are all pirates. Everyone's crime is nobody's. Th Internet will only achieve its full potential without these dinosaurs that leech on everyone.

Sometimes it seems that I'm the only sincere pirate out there. All of you guys are just hypocrites. You all either infringed or currently infringe copyrights, and for some reason still think that you should be punished for it. You feel like if you were doing evil. You all live inside the fucking Matrix.

Wake up and share. It's moral and good.

Lamar's response was a joke. by Lose · 2012-01-20 10:45 · Score: 1

Its basically the same canned response everyone else receives from SOPA/PIPA supporting senators and representatives. Give reasons but never any backing. Declare everything else to be bullshit but never explain why it is bullshit. I really hope the regular CNN readers don't take this bait verbatim and analyze it for what it is. With all the information provided about *why* this bill is bad everywhere else, information which actually goes into depth regarding all implications, I can only hope that will be enough of a counterweight to this statement for people to see the holes in what Smith is saying.

Of course, I will do my part in explaining to friends why his statement is bull, and offer more than a thesis.

But, hey, at least CNN had the decency to declare their slant on the issue at the bottom of the page.

politicians are evil bastards by Tom · 2012-01-20 10:49 · Score: 1

Hopefully the next draft of this bill will create a better foundation to stop piracy and not just assert control over the internet.

You haven't been paying attention for politics for the past decades, have you?

Here's one of the games they play with us:

Come up with something you want.
Propose a law on the issue, but make it so ridiculously overbroad that you don't believe it would ever pass
Watch the opposition carefully. Admit a few mistakes, be open to compromises. If it's a shitstorm, appear to "cave in" to "key demands". Ignore anything that touches upon your real core issues.
Withdraw the law, rewrite it, this time be realistic, but include everything you actually wanted from the start
You appear to offer a compromise now, and have "given in" on several fronts. This will erode opposition to the point where you can get the law passed and get everything you wanted in step 1
Profit

I am dead serious. This game is being played over and over and over again. There are variations - if the pushers are unsure about a topic, they won't try a law immediately, they will let some backwater guy talk to the media about it - then if the shitstorm is much bigger than they think they can manage, they will call him crazy, point out it was just an idea and none of the leading figures of the party would seriously entertain such a stupid approach (silence the fallguy with money, comfy positions or guaranteed re-election spots, depending on your election system).

As long as SOPA and all its variants, brothers, cousins and bastard offspring aren't dead and buried and someone has lost his seat over it, we have not won.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:politicians are evil bastards by Tom · 2012-01-20 10:51 · Score: 1

Oh great. since when has /. stopped properly showing ordered lists? That's an ol up there. Sorry for the problem, haven't had uses ol on /. for a while, and the "allowed html" still lists them.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:politicians are evil bastards by Commontwist · 2012-01-20 10:52 · Score: 1

This guy seems to disagree with you that SOPA was bad. lol.
http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-your-kids-were-taught-to-hate-sopa.html
Re:politicians are evil bastards by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-20 11:11 · Score: 1

Sounds like a pretty decent description of the political process as practiced in a Representative Democracy.
Now what is the problem?
Re:politicians are evil bastards by Tom · 2012-01-22 22:03 · Score: 1

Now what is the problem?
You Are Being Lied To
The book is so-so, but the title is excellent. And that is the problem. One of the basic assumptions of democracy is an informed population. Mis-information is a direct attack on the foundations of the system. As a matter of fact, I believe lying to the public (i.e. press, etc.) should be criminal offense for politicians, two to five years of prison. Unfortunately, our mental model is that of capitalism, where marketing is pretty much accepted to be a discipline of lies.
I don't care if you think you have good intentions, or it is necessary for the greater good. Politicians should not be allowed to lie to their people, end of story. They are our representatives. Think about other people who you pay to represent you - your lawyer maybe - would you accept him lying to you even on a minor detail? No, you would consider trust violated and would get rid of him and get yourself a new one.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

I have to disagree by Lewis+Daggart · 2012-01-20 10:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I really have to disagree. These laws were made with bad intentions. Hear me out for a moment.

Murder is wrong. Murder is against the law. Murder still happens. Even assuming the intention was good in broad strokes, which I will dispute in a moment, the idea that we will continue piling laws up against murder until it goes away entirely is inherently abusive toward our liberties and impossible to actually enforce. Murder is illegal and penalized with incarceration or death depending on where you live. Nobody likes murder, but we arent clammoring to make it *more* illegal.

Likewise, copyright infringement is already illegal under the relevent codes. Making it *more* illegal simply blurs public perception about what crime is being committed. If the law simply made it more illegal, it's already in the wrong, but it does worse than that.

Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.

Re:I have to disagree by jamstar7 · 2012-01-20 12:52 · Score: 1

Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.
Thing is, when the government does the beating, it's not vigilanteism. What SOPA is doing is, elevating the *AAs up to a government department without oversight and hijacking the law enforcement agencies of the government to do their dirty work.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:I have to disagree by Gr8Apes · 2012-01-20 17:53 · Score: 1

Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.
Thing is, when the government does the beating, it's not vigilanteism. What SOPA is doing is, elevating the *AAs up to a government department without oversight and hijacking the law enforcement agencies of the government to do their dirty work.
Not exactly, what it really does it give the various law enforcement agencies new headmasters who give orders that have no accountability, no recourse of action to their victims, and essentially has the taxpayers foot the bill for it so many times over I can't count them.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.

Re:So called 'representatives'. Abolish copyrights by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-01-20 11:03 · Score: 1

You are wrong in so many ways.

Corporations are not the same as people. They operate under very different principles.

Subsidies are not necessarily a bad thing. Even The Founders in their near transcendental wisdom realized that creativity is something that needs to be encouraged by a social structure.

Encouraging people to keep new ideas secret is exactly what we DON'T want. Guilds and tradesmen prior to the institution of patents did exactly that. You should consider the fact that the Industrial Revolution started at about the time patents were instituted in England. This economic explosion led to the greatest period of human progress in the history of the species. Going back to the old ways is exactly what we don't want because that restricts the dissemination of ideas.

Patents and Copyrights don't monopolize distribution channels. Patent and Copyrights don't need to be owned by the distributors. What they do is grant a limited monopoly on an implementation or expression of ideas in exchange for full disclosure and eventual public ownership.

If you can suggest something else besides the ridiculous idea that inventors keep their inventions secret, go ahead. But your suggestion is ludicrous.

"Why we need a law against online piracy" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:14 · Score: 0

Just wow! Almost everything said in this article is either misleading, manipulative, false, or some offensive combination. Here I mention my "favourite" bits.

"The online blackout that occurred this week, which included Wikipedia, was also misleading. Wikipedia has nothing to fear from SOPA. It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information knowingly offered misinformation about the bill. SOPA will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites."

Everything here is completely false, even with all DNS provisions stricken from the bill.

"It only targets activity that is already illegal..."

Oh, that's ok then. I'm looking to sponsor the passing of a bill bringing the death penalty without trial to litter bugs.

Ok, that was a very bad analogy. My point of course is that the real problem with the bill is not with what it declares illegal but how it empowers enforcement.

"I respect the First Amendment and believe that any legislation passed by Congress must protect and defend our constitutional rights. But illegal and criminal activity is not protected by the First Amendment simply because it takes place online. For example, there is no First Amendment right to view, distribute or download child pornography over the Internet. Like child pornography, the theft of intellectual property is also illegal in the United States."

This is so manipulative! Leaving "theft" of intellectual property aside I seriously doubt Mr. Smith cannot find a better analogy than distribution of child pornography.

Also, of course the opponents of this bill understand that the First Amendment does not protect movie pirates from copyright law. While there are individuals who post on sites like this and might make an ignorant claim to the contrary the more "official" statements coming from groups such as the EFF are far more intelligent, sophisticated, and rational. The fact that this statement was even made causes me to dread that perhaps 80% of the content of these "official" statements have been lost on the law makers. I'm happy we all understand that the law makers are not experts on the technical aspects of the web and so can gain from counsel with such engineers but I'd hope to be able to trust their understanding and passion for law, governance, morality, and human rights.

"I realize some people are nervous because of the misinformation surrounding this bill..."

You know, I wasn't really until I read this drivel.

Note: My personal stance on communication is so extreme that I reject any laws that dictate what I may not communicate with a mature, consenting person (E.g. copyright and kiddy porn laws) and consequently my thoughts should not be taken as reasonable.

do you know what also helps SOPA pass? by circletimessquare · 2012-01-20 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

defeatist attitudes like yours

the simple fact is that every single one of your rights and freedoms require maintenance, and are always under threat, and can always erode. forever

freedom is not fought for once and then that's the end of the story. you must fight for it. forever. this is a basic truth of existence. is that depressing? well someday you will die too. that's depressing. so you stop trying to live your life, you believe in nothing but gloom and doom? no. likewise, just because the powers of plutocracy are always there trying to rob you of your freedoms you will just give up? then you aren't much of a believer in the value of your freedoms anyway. you give up to easily. you're not a coward, you're just weak

so to counteract your defeatism i submit the the observation that the media dinosaurs sponsoring this bill are losing power and revenue flow and will fade over time. and in a generation, when everyone now who is 20 yo nurtured on an open internet is 50 yo and firmly entrenched in power, and every congresscritter firmly understands the value of a free and open internet, these kinds of attacks on the basic internet functioning by clueless old congresscritters simply won't happen anymore, and will be laughed out of the door

i await the typical tired response to my comment that boils, yet again, to nothing but empty mindless pessimism. you are no aid to the fight for freedom if you give up easily and beleive your freedoms are doomed no matter what. show some backbone or fuck off, we have no time for you

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:do you know what also helps SOPA pass? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-22 14:46 · Score: 0

yes we have to continue to fight, but success is not inevitable. If it were, we'd only need to wait.
Today's fifty year olds might have said the same about fighting censorship and racism in the 1980's.
"Ethnic book ban in Arizona school district includes all books about Mexican-American history, even Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’"
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ethnic-studies-book-ban-arizona-include-shakespeare-tempest-article-1.1007105#ixzz1kFHoWV8W

Here's how I see it: by Roger+Wilcox · 2012-01-20 11:24 · Score: 1

John Doe downloaded a song using Limewire. Obviously it was Limewire's fault for allowing John Doe to acces the music.

CNET hosted downloads of Limewire. Obviously it was CNETs fault for allowing John Doe to access Limewire.

Google linked to CNET. Obviously it was Google's fault for allowing John Doe to access CNET.

AT&T delivered Google to John Doe's house via wire. Obvously it was AT&Ts fault for allowing John Doe to access Google.

BHP Billiton produced the wire that allowed AT&T to connect with John Doe. Obviously is was Billiton's fault for allowing John Doe to access AT&T.

Obviously we stem this at the source and make sure copper producers don't do business with the likes of AT&T. This will be the only real and lasting solution.

Re:So called 'representatives'. Abolish copyrights by roman_mir · 2012-01-20 11:24 · Score: 2

Corporations are not individuals, but they are legally (de-facto actually) given rights that are similar to rights of people, and it's for a reason.

If you start your own news outlet and you want to be able to produce news that are not favoured by the government, then you better have some form of protection against government shutting you down, so that's how corporations gained the 'first amendment' right as an example.

Of-course corporations are not individuals, not humans (not Homo sapiens), but they are de-facto people under the law, even if the law is somehow wrong and it's based on an actual mistake originated about hundred years ago.

Subsidies are not necessarily a bad thing.

- I cannot agree on this, haven't agreed with anybody on this ever.

Founders compromised on many things, including slavery, so I am not holding the original US Constitution and and founders as some infallible beings.

Encouraging people to keep new ideas secret is exactly what we DON'T want.

- yes we do, because the opposite of it is much more evil - copyrights and patents and destruction of liberty through government.

You should consider the fact that the Industrial Revolution started at about the time patents were instituted in England.

- I DID consider this. Without patents the businesses would have still done what they did, they just would have faced much more competition and the profession of lawyers wouldn't be as important in peoples' lives.

Trade secrets are much better than copyrights and patents, trade secrets encourage competition and discovery of different approaches and it creates more investment and jobs in the process (just a side effect of more people looking at how that one company does that one particular thing so well).

This economic explosion led to the greatest period of human progress in the history of the species. Going back to the old ways is exactly what we don't want because that restricts the dissemination of ideas.

- you are mistaken of the cause and effect.

Cause - new capitalists were looking for new ways to grow investment.

Effect - various innovations were looked at with more capital investments and more innovations were built upon previous innovations, driving progress.

More effect - more people decided that innovation was a good way to make money, so they started copying what they saw others do. This of-course BENEFITS the consumers and markets by providing more choices and making things cheaper.

More effect - capitalists and innovators decided that it would be easier to make more money by using the money they already had to buy politicians to pass copyright/patent laws that would create artificial scarcity and would give them a monopoly (even if temporary).

Eventual effect - so much more money was gathered by larger and larger capitalists, that were able to stifle the market with their new found riches, that they decided to buy more politicians to do more to keep their monopolies - rinse and repeat and you get your ACTA and SOPA and PIPA etc.

Why is it possible? Because unfortunately politicians are for sale and so far we haven't had success in preventing them being for sale. But giving them more power over companies to stifle innovation just grows their appetites to be for sale, and it grows gov't, and eventually the economy is destroyed.

--

The correct thing of-course is trade secrets where possible but no patents and copyrights, no gov't in any of businesses, finances, money, subsidies of any type.

Gov't must be forced into a position, where it cannot get out of - to protect population against the evil that government represents, a gov't is a system to keep a check on gov't, not a check on people.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Won't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:25 · Score: 0

I'd like to be the first to say I agree people must be paid for being creative and unlimited unlicensed copying hurt authors and consumers.

But that's not all there is to it: distributors get the lion's share, so even if we find middleground authors won't be that much better off -- as they weren't before the internet. (Don't believe me. just google a little to know what some celebrities say about their golden cages and draw your own conclusions).

And what is worse, if we find that mythical middleground, some exec will appear whose compromise is only with his/her career. Great results in short time and the ecossytem (authors+distributors+consumers) be damned. Then we'll have SOPA2 and then SOPA3 etc. with things going like that while human greed exists.

I mean forever.

I still believe the only way to protect authors and consumers is getting rid of the middlemen. With the upcoming of the internet they outlived their usefulness.

We really need IMHO a "Freedom Art Association" of sorts to license artworks etc. while controlled by public selected personalities.

No problem with private for-profit entities... just not with the sort of power and lack of scruple the current ones demonstrate. It's disgusting.

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by Undead+Waffle · 2012-01-20 11:43 · Score: 1

Uh... look again. It's filtered by year and 2008 was the year linked. If you look at 2010 there was a big spike in payouts from the media companies, and for 2012 the media companies are still on top.

Re:aren't there already laws in place they can use by brainzach · 2012-01-20 11:46 · Score: 1

The Internet is accessible all over the world and the US doesn't have much authority to do anything about it especially if other countries won't cooperate.

If a website is hosted in another country, then what can the US really do about it? They can pressure foreign governments to take down the website or they can block the website in the US.

Filesharing-sites will charge rent to IP owners. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 12:10 · Score: 0

Just imagine the headlines if your site has an account of some Media company that uploaded their content into your storage hold,
and you notify after 1 month that they're rent is due.

What role does MegaUpload have other than a Storage Locker that WILL auction your property off to /dev/null as the high bidder for not paying rent?

Obviously whomever *stored* that property obviously had legal authority to do so because they had a master. Or are we just storing an echo in a torroid-shapped storage locker now?

SOPA, Colossus, Arrow by k6mfw · 2012-01-20 12:30 · Score: 1

Well, looks like got a bit of relief as this bill send back to drawing board. More opportunity to prevent bills like this one. If you all wondering why EFF asks for help and donations, now you know.

Alrighty WTF is this heading all about? This thing about certain people so worried about pirates reminds me of similar situations when a country had a great thing going and they dismantled it out of fear of someone "stealing it." Colossus, an awesome computer designed and built by the Brits decipher German encrypted transmissions during WWII, ok so this thing was big and scary with zillion vacuum tubes and miles of cables but it was (first?) digital computer. But Churchill so worried this technology may fall into the wrong hands (countries behind the Iron Curtain), he had it dismantled and disbanded the team. If not, could UK been a leader computer technology in later years?

And there was the Avro Arrow, the most badass fighter jet of the time that could go really fast and really high. Five prototypes flying before SR71 and the XB70. But (there's of stories floating around) they did have considerable tooling and skills to fabricate titanium structures. But this technology and skill is considered secret. All Arrow jets were destroyed and tooling dismantled when program was cancelled, it seems this was deliberately done to prevent the Soviets from stealing ability to fabricate titanium into high speed jets. At the time Canada was third place in aerospace technology. If not dismantled, could Canada been a more formidable aerospace technology leader in later years?

Now I may have some facts screwed up but you all get what I am leading to. There are some people so worried about pirates they want to implement means to dismantle internet technology that was developed here in USA but in doing so they will place us way down with third world countries.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Let me save you come time, Congress. by SecurityGuy · 2012-01-20 12:36 · Score: 1

You want to create a law in the U.S. that regulates what people in other countries do. You can't do that. You have to quit your job, move there, get elected to THEIR legislature, and change THEIR laws. Hope that helps. Please leave the country now so you can accomplish this.

How I would draw up a new law by jonwil · 2012-01-20 12:49 · Score: 1

What I would do is to go to the heads of the various industries pushing for new anti-piracy laws (so talk to the movie studios, to the record companies, talk to the gaming companies, talk to the software houses etc etc) and ask them a simple question:
What forms of piracy do you wish to target that can't be effectively targeted using current legislation.

That is, I would find out what they wish to be able to do in attacking online piracy but that they cant do under current law.

Re:What we really need is a "basic income" by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-01-20 13:17 · Score: 1

Then we could pass laws against business models based on artificial scarcity? http://artificialscarcity.com/

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Drop in the Bucket by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 13:17 · Score: 0

Smith himself, in the CNN editorial from above, cites the need arising from huge the costs of counterfeiting and piracy: "Illegal counterfeiting and piracy costs the U.S. economy $100 billion and thousands of jobs every year".

Consider the fact that the United States' GDP is $15 trillion. A simple calculation yields that this is a mere (100 billion/15 trillion * 100) = 0.666667 = 2/3 of 1% of the entire national income, approximately.

The congress is willing to censor Americans' first amendment rights in the name of 2/3 of 1% of the national economy (even if it will do nothing to stem piracy), and that alone should be a huge wakeup call to the American people.

The simple fact is congress is more than willing to respond to the needs of a tiny minority to protect a tiny share of national income even if it means the first amendment goes out the window. Think SOPA/PIPA are gone for good? Think again; they're just political suicide at this moment.

Does anyone honestly believe it is a coincidence that days after the White House rejected the bills that the Justice Department has brought down Megaupload? They are appeasing their Hollywood donors, and anyone who sees this maneuver as a political victory is fooling themselves.

This is far from over.

New name by gmuslera · 2012-01-20 13:21 · Score: 1

The new proposal will be called SOFA, Stop Online Freedom Act

Overton window by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 13:41 · Score: 0

Thanks for the example; the concept is also called the Overton window.

Re:So called 'representatives'. Abolish copyrights by bussdriver · 2012-01-20 14:27 · Score: 1

Forbit the signing away of one's rights. CA had something years ago saying employees couldn't sign away fundamental rights in employment contracts, but i forget all the details.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Hollywood Accounting is stealing by Dan667 · 2012-01-20 16:04 · Score: 1

where are the bills on that?

Repudiate ACTA - Its the Next Step by hemo_jr · 2012-01-20 17:16 · Score: 1

Proponents of SOPA & PIPA need to know that its opponents will be ever vigilant to halt bills reincarnating their ideas. They also need to know that advocates of the Hollywood Media Mafia such as Lamar Smith, Harry Reid and the two-faced Al Franken (all for Internet freedom & net neutrality last year, and an unapologetic sponsor of PIPA this year) should fear for their jobs. But the next target needs to be the U.S. administration. The President needs to be persuaded that repudiating ACTA is in the best interests of the country and his re-election campaign. Further, the Commerce Department and the State Department need to stop trying to force feed our allies ACTA.

Response from Dodd by gmhowell · 2012-01-20 22:34 · Score: 1

Chris Dodd was heard to say "If it weren't for those kids and their darned dog, I would have gotten away with it too!"

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

SOPA = Guilty until proven innocent. by master_p · 2012-01-20 22:40 · Score: 1

The most dangerous aspect of SOPA is not the censorship. It is the enforcement of punishment without going to court. SOPA simply says that sites should be blocked without going to court, to allow the site owners to prove their innocence.

This is extremely dangerous. It is esentially the first step towards dictatorship. Citizens will no longer be prosecuted and judged in a court of law; they will be going to prison as soon as someone complains.

Star Trek actually foretold this, in TNG episode 1, where humanity is put on trial in a "court of facts", i.e. a court that, due to facts, one is gulity and must prove his innocence. This was presented as an act of barbarism by humanity. Who could imagine in 1987 that a few years later, people would be considered guilty without even going to court?

Combating Ignorance in the US congress by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-21 00:49 · Score: 0

While we should not be Amazed that we have Fools and Idiots, in the US Congress, we certainly should consider what is required to remedy this problem of representatives, representing anyone and everyone with money enough to get their attention, Congress has forgotten that it is the peoples seat, not Holly-Woods seat, they have forgotten who elects them to the position they occupy.

It is time to remind them of this fact, by Voting them out of office, anyone who supported this bill needs to be voted out of office.

Regardless of them being a democrat or a republican, It does not matter the only thing that does matter is that Congress accepted money from Special Interest groups, and so they failed to represent the people. When you have anyone in Congress that takes money to support a bill in Congress they have become an ineffective leader and need to be removed from office, else they need to return the Salary paid to them by the people.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, yet Congress does...

How long will we allow this corruption to continue?

2012 is the year where you can make a difference, by voting these bought and paid for Jerks out of office beginning with Eric Cantor...

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by Thing+1 · 2012-01-21 04:57 · Score: 1

Oh well. At least I was temporarily heartened. :) The better news is the Y Combinator article which just hit the home page.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Winning the Battle, Losing The War by Asphalt · 2012-01-21 12:01 · Score: 1

While it was heartening to see people come together to protest these bad bills, I believe this article is more in line with reality:

http://www.seattlerex.com/confessions-of-a-newfound-sopa-supporter/

SOPA and PIPA might not pass, but something will, and whatever passes in their place will no doubt be worse. We know the intent of these companies, and we know that they will not give up. Still, we give them our money. We give them our money knowing that they will use that money to try and take away certain freedoms that we hold dear.

Imagine any other industry doing that. Telling their customers to their face that they want to censor them, and expecting those customers to keep patronizing them. For some reason, the big media companies don't seem care, though. They openly sponsor these bills, and they don't fear any retribution from the consumer.

Face it, as long as consumers continue to give these companies their heard-earned cash, these companies will continue funneling that hard-earned cash into lawyers, legislators, and laws designed to benefit them and harm us.

Eventually, they are going to get their way.

in other words by cas2000 · 2012-01-22 10:21 · Score: 1

they're just putting it on the back-burner until AFTER the upcoming US election.

it'll be rail-roaded through your congress and senate shortly after that - and the politicians will be safe in the knowledge that most people have very short memories....and there'll be years worth of distractions to help with that.

Re:Maybe the problem isn't piracy, Congressman Smi by rsborg · 2012-01-22 10:42 · Score: 1

Maybe the problem is having a business model that is incompatible with sharing of information.

From the inception of the information revolution, information became easy to copy. It will be that way until you take away all computers and networks.

The real question - is there something we can do to reduce the damages these powerful industries do, while kicking and screaming on their way to irrelevance?

I'm sorry, if you want Congressman Smith to listen to you please insert $100k to his campaign every other year like the entertainment industry does: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2008&type=C&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20

You might get more response from him if you fund a challenger. Lamar Smith (and Patrick Leahy) would be prime candidates for influence via opposition, not support. Fuck their racket, get an opponent to so they sweat re-election.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

27th Amendment by tepples · 2012-01-22 13:59 · Score: 1

"Pay the sum of one million US dollars to annually."

To whom annually? If to you, then the next Congress has a 27th Amendment right to repeal it before it goes into effect. If to someone else, that's no different from any other earmark.

For-profit pro-freedom groups by tepples · 2012-01-22 14:03 · Score: 1

Get some respected pro-freedom groups

Here's the problem: The pro-freedom groups are more likely to be charities or other non-profit organizations. Charities by law cannot make campaign contributions. What for-profit pro-freedom groups would you try to get in on this bill?

Re:For-profit pro-freedom groups by SteveFoerster · 2012-01-22 14:44 · Score: 1

It' s not black and white like that, or else ostensibly non-profit unions wouldn't be able to exert so much control.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org

Pravda handbag buys YOU by tepples · 2012-01-22 14:06 · Score: 1

The bill is also meant to target counterfeit manufactured goods, like fake Prada handbags shipped directly from China.

As opposed to Pravda handbags shipped directly from Russia?

TV news networks benefit from broader copyright enforcement powers because all of them share a parent company with a movie studio in the MPAA. ABC==Disney, CBS==Paramount, CNN==Warner Bros., FNC==Twentieth Century Fox, and MSNBC==Universal. Copyright will become a wedge issue only if blogs take over as the primary political news source from the incumbent mainstream media.

Charities vs. PACs by tepples · 2012-01-22 14:53 · Score: 1

There exist more than one kind of not-for-profit organization. Labor unions, for example, operate under a different subsection from charities. The well-known pro-freedom groups with "foundation" in the name, such as FSF, EFF, and the holding company that owns Mozilla Corporation, are charities because of the tax advantages of being a charity. Perhaps what we want is a PAC that coordinates with a charity, much as NORML is split into a PAC and a charity.

Re:Filesharing-sites will charge rent to IP owners by Synerg1y · 2012-01-23 04:47 · Score: 1

Your offtopic by a mile, but interesting argument, to counter:

If I rented out my bedrooms at my house and I rented to a murder who murdered somebody while LIVING AT MY HOUSE, am I liable? Why should megaupload be liable for letting the pirate in w/o knowing s/he is a pirate?

P.S. Fuck no I'm not, never stopped the police from harassing ( convicting) everybody in their investigation though.

what an idiot by circletimessquare · 2012-01-23 13:47 · Score: 1

racism still exists. racism always will exists. all that is required for racism to spontaneously appear in any country and any time period is some loser with low iq and a grudge

the simple point is, we've made progress. you don't get to deny obvious progress because you find racism existing somewhere. no shit sherlock, it exists!

now get your head out of your ass and find some reason to celebrate real progress

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Slashdot Mirror

SOPA Goes Back To the Drawing Board, PIPA Postponed

267 comments