Poll: S.O.P.A (The Real Story)

[Brausten Stone]

S.O.P.A, (Stop Online Piracy Act) A lot of people seem to be protesting this bill heavily. Although I myself am not to eager for this bill to pass. It would be great if some of you actually knew what the objective of the bill is. A lot of people (no idea why) seem to think that SOPA's main purpose is to censor the internet and make everything shitty with black bars all over their favourite sites stopping them from enjoying content. That however is incorrect. The bill is meant to do Exactly what the name is, stop piracy. Protecting intellectual property is not the same as censorship; the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks. So why would it protect downloading things illegally from the internet. The only thing that makes me weary about this bill is the lack of clarity. I think it should be revised Heavily before anyone even thinks of passing it. Just remember to learn the facts before you make your decision on whether to Yay or nay this bill.

My thoughts on S.O.P.A

 

[Pegghead]

S.O.P.A, (Stop Online Piracy Act) A lot of people seem to be protesting this bill heavily. Although I myself am not to eager for this bill to pass. It would be great if some of you actually knew what the objective of the bill is. A lot of people (no idea why) seem to think that SOPA's main purpose is to censor the internet and make everything shitty with black bars all over their favourite sites stopping them from enjoying content. That however is incorrect. The bill is meant to do Exactly what the name is, stop piracy. Protecting intellectual property is not the same as censorship; the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks. So why would it protect downloading things illegally from the internet. The only thing that makes me weary about this bill is the lack of clarity. I think it should be revised Heavily before anyone even thinks of passing it. Just remember to learn the facts before you make your decision on whether to Yay or nay this bill.

My thoughts on S.O.P.A

Aye, but wasn't there also concern for what it would mean to sites that hosted copy-righted content? Sure, I'm not one for downloading games and movies willy-nilly, but all sites use some form of copy-righted content.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Snip for convenience-

All interesting in theory, and I knew of course what, optimistically, it was suppose to lead to. Namely, that the politicians probably think they're trying to do some good. My current position is that if any of them honestly believe this, then they just don't really understand what they're trying TO do. This isn't being handled by people who understand the internet or how it works. This is a great deal of wanting something largely unfeasible by the acts of the bill. They're demonstrated already that they don't know what they're really looking for, or know how, or whatever. This was always the wrong approach. You literally can't remove piracy this way. It always, always, ALWAYS digs deeper if not blatantly thwarting you. History shows this to be true! The black market is NEVER gone!

And that's why even the best of intentions can lead directly to disaster.

 

[evilneko]

First off, the good news: at tonight's GOP debate, all four candidates came out against SOPA. This means, no matter who wins in 2012, we will very likely have a president who is against SOPA for the next four years. In the unlikely event it passes congress, it will be vetoed by the President. SOPA's pretty much screwed.

So let's get on to why SOPA, and its close relative PIPA, suck.

1. The anti-circumvention clause of SOPA effectively undermines vital parts of the Information Security industry and in particular, undermines DNSSEC, a security technology that keeps the DNS system useful. DNS is how your computer translates human-friendly names like "escapistmagazine.com" to computer-friendly IP addresses. Other areas of InfoSec that get screwed over include developers and providers of anonymizing proxy and VPN services. Use, development, or hosting software to access the TOR network, for example, would be illegal under SOPA.

2. Under both SOPA and PIPA, ISPs can blacklist sites without judicial oversight and be immune from any legal liability. You know how annoying the DMCA can be? Well at least under the DMCA, the victim of a false claim can pursue legal action against whoever made the claim.

3. Related to the above, user-driven sites like Youtube that have traditionally relied on their userbase to flag illegal content could easily find themselves on the wrong end of a SOPA-powered block. Both bills basically force huge liability concerns onto websites, and uncertain liabilities like these tend to scare off investors, making it harder for new startups to get off the ground.

It's a good thing it's pretty much dead in the water.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

This quote is used way too much, but it just fits:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

I think it should be revised Heavily before anyone even thinks of passing it.

There's not enough red ink in the world to edit SOPA. The bill is garbage and everyone knows it. It doesn't need to be revised - it needs to be scrapped. The internet does not need anymore policing than it already has.

 

[loc978]

The OP states the intent of the bill without actually referencing the content of the bill. It's certainly not the intent that I have a problem with (though adding legislation is a poor way to combat software piracy... it's already quite illegal, the laws simply have to be enforced), it's the content. Not the stated objective, but the tools added to corporate arsenals supposedly just to reach said objective. If I trust any group with that sort of power, and they have a vested interest in profiting from use of intellectual property, more the fool I.

 

[Voodoomancer]

The issue isn't the bill's stated intent. Sure, it's stated to be for stoping online piracy, and in theory, that is what it would do. In practice it's so vaguely written and badly composed that it would serve as a legal loophole to allow for the much-discussed Internet Cencorship.

 

[kurupt87]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

 

[Smooth Operator]

OP it seems you lack clarity on this, stopping piracy is the sales pitch, what the bill will allow is corporate sponsored censorship and take downs of entire domain names.

Oh and if you wonder why companies so happily support the bill, they were all promised immunity when this thing hits.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

The bill is meant to stop piracy

and guns are meant to protect people. people still get murdered with guns.

 

[Charli]

I read the entire bill. The wording is terrible, it's mutated spawn PIPA is not much better.

No you have not changed my mind.

Also America do not have the right to do this without asking the rest of the world. Argue the semantics all you want, this will affect international relationships poorly at a time where the U.S needs friends quite alot, as broader and broader uses of the 'term' piracy are exploited to line someones pockets. The intent of the bill is noble, the people who will use the bill, are not.
Ergo, the idea and the bill are a stupid idea.
Freedom to judge without a bottom line is harder, but safer for both parties who get involved in an ownership despute. And in some cases copyrighted material has boosted sales of a corporations product.

You honestly saying you think Yu-gi-oh would still have a following larger than a few basement dwellers if it hadn't been for some bored internet personality thinking to himself? "Y'know what, I'm going to edit and parody all the episodes and then put them on youtube." Pft, yeah...

There's quite a bit of good that would be smothered by this bill.


It's a bad bad, terri-bad idea. And they are starting to realize it.

 

[Don Reba]

It's "affected", not "effected". Also, road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Khanht Cope]

Personally, I'm cynical over the idea that broad legislation for reinforcing intellectual property rights is purely for combating piracy. Intellectual property rights can have positive effects for the owners beyond ensuring they're compensated for their work via protection from the black market. Namely market dominance and/or making competition illegal; eg the global patent wars between Apple and Samsung, or any potential investor for new inventions to break into the market. The justification for information control is also useful. eg pressuring wikipedia over their including information related to a product, company or entity which the entities would rather not be included.

Then there's the potential economic warfare/protectionism. China is a world leader in patents an intellectual property along with the US, having become a major exporter itself; but there isn't similar respect there for protecting intellectual property that isn't Chinese.

The piracy part is the justification that's easiest to rally the masses to support broader and more powerful IP legislation over.

 

[Eekaida]

From the international perspective, it presents itself as a pain in the ass, and is clearly a logistical nightmare. A lot of what I'm hearing from America is how vague the wording of the propsal is - surely this would be a massive warning sign to anyone that such a bill is rife for abuse?