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

[Zen Toombs]

[S.O.P.A] 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. -snip- Just remember to learn the facts before you make your decision on whether to Yay or nay this bill.

Personally, I did my research first and I knew that SOPA was intended to (as the name implies) stop online piracy. However, if implemented it would do nothing to stem the tide of piracy and would quickly result in the censoring large portions of the internet. So SOPA should be indefinitely shelved, and an edited version of the bill that doesn't have the horrors of massive censorship should be created under a different (and untainted) name.

Intentions are important, but the consequences are much more so.

 

[Vivi22]

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

The intent of the bill doesn't matter when the way it's being drafted not only won't achieve said goal, but has the potential to outright destroy a lot of legitimate use of the internet, and the ability to use copyrighted content under fair use. Bills need to be judged on the actual effect they will have, not what politicians (who don't even understand what they're trying to regulate) say it's supposed to be doing. Because, you know, they're always trustworthy.

And possibly the biggest problem I have with introducing bills such as SOPA with the aim of stopping online piracy is why we need them at all? Laws against copyright infringement already exist, and rightly require things like evidence to take cases to court so that due process can run it's course. Bills such as SOPA then aren't adding laws to make things that were legal illegal, but rather broadening the scope of government and private power to tackle copyright infringement. And that legitimately fucking scares me, because things like SOPA, as it's worded now, basically harm any person or site accused of copyright infringement before they ever even have a day in court. I think the problem isn't that present day laws are inadequate for dealing with piracy, but that law enforcement is in over it's head and doesn't know how to keep up, so instead of forcing them to evolve the way they investigate and prosecute such crimes, they come up with crap legislation like SOPA.

Now I'll fully admit there are probably some legal grey areas around what law enforcement can legally do to investigate crimes online which should be clarified, but that's not what the intent or the wording of these bills do.

I also get that you did acknowledge you're against the wording as well, so I'm not trying to sound as though I'm accusing you of being for SOPA or anything. But the trouble is, what the bill is intended to curb is already illegal, so adding a new law meant to deal with it is quite pointless, especially when said law contains measures which won't be effective and which will have far reaching ramifications for the future of the internet.

Frankly though, I don't think the answer to any of this is going to be more internet regulation. The genie is out of the bottle, piracy isn't going away, and no amount of regulation is going to change that. If anything, more regulation, monitoring, and harsher sentences will probably make the problem worse as the shadier parts of the internet become more militant in their opposition to such measures. What we really need to be doing is looking at present day intellectual property laws, and how we can adapt them to the changes in technology which have happened in the last half century. Things like the patent system in the US for example are already notoriously flawed, and we really need to consider if IP as it exists in all of it's legal forms today can even continue to survive or if new laws and amendments need to be drafted.

 

[Dastardly]

My thoughts on S.O.P.A

To give you a quick, clear example of how it can go wrong (I know a lot of people in this thread aren't being very civil toward you):

Let's say someone was starting up a new Facebook-style site. And Facebook didn't want to compete. All they would need to do is find someone posting protected content, or a link to protected content, and they could demand that this site shut down until it was investigated. Heck, they could tell a few friends to create accounts and post protected content specifically so they can report it.

And now that new site has to shut down for a couple days. That's a lot of ad revenue lost, and probably a few advertisers will back out entirely. For a new company, that can be death. So now Facebook doesn't have to compete. The bill does nothing to prevent this kind of abuse, and that's the problem.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I heard about SOPA a couple months ago, then I researched the crap out of it. The bill's purpose is just, but the none specifics of the bill and the process in which it does things will be ineffective in stop pirating, and due to a lack of context the bill could effectively destroy the internet if used to the fullest extent.

I don't thin either SOPA or PIPA will destroy the internet if passed but I don't enjoy thinking that they could legally do it.

 

[Oskuro]

Example of SOPA misuse (for those who don't see how it could happen):

a) A gaming site posts a scathing online video review of a high-profile game/movie/product.

b) Claiming that the video illegally uses copyrighted images, the copyright holders have the site de-listed without trial.

c) After a long and arduous process to demonstrate that the video was legally using the content under fair use laws, the site comes back up.

d) The site has no way to seek damages from the parties that wrongly accused it, and thus no way to recoup the losses incurred by being shut down during the proceedings.

e) Rinse and repeat until the small site is forced to shut down permanently due to the incurred losses... Or until they decide to stop publishing negative reviews.


This example might seem paranoid, but it wouldn't be the first time that high profile publishers have actively tried to shut criticism down (google Kane and Lynch 2), and this would give them another very nasty tool to do so with impunity... Not to mention that suing smaller companies (or individuals) secure in the knowledge that their lesser economic power won't see them through the process, even if they are in the right, is an often used tactic.

The problem, then, is not the attempt to stop piracy. The big problem is the vague language of the bill, which does not provide strict checks and balances on how the rules are enforced, thus allowing for abuse.


The thing is, and I digress, that what really is killing big publishers is not Piracy, but the Internet. Big publishers are a product of the logistical issues of the pre-internet era, where reaching a wide audience was impossible without someone handling the promotion and distribution.

Nowadays anyone can promote and distribute their products themselves, and the growing online market is slowly killing the traditional publishers (won't destroy them, but will most certainly reduce them drastically).

Piracy, in the end, is just a boogeyman used to justify measures meant to keep control over the net, and avoid the paradigm change.

Or so I think, at least.


[EDIT] Vivi22 and Dastardly posted while I was writing this.

 

[That New Guy]

I havent heard from someone that agrees with this bill, i think we all agree on the same thing. Many people are ignorant of this bill but who cares? Its a stupid bill and even if its passed im sure it will be withdrawn so quickly when people see the ramifications of it.

i dont live in america so you cant sue anything in my country, but you will be able to isolate international websites and force them to close down or take away alot of content and that will affect me. What will happen is websites and software growth from my country will be stunted as will alot of other countries, America will make its own little internet and all countries that use american servers which is a huge percentage, will just start hosting domestically.

In my eyes this bill was created to give greater control to the media corporations but its just going to make everything turn into one giant witch... sorry... piracy hunt.

TubeYou wants Youtube out of buisness so it finds a video someone posted and they happen to be wearing a pokemon hat, competition eliminated.

Im really tired, forgive me if this is poorly phrased or doesnt make any sense.

 

[That New Guy]

One thing that opened my eyes was this line from Wikipedia:

SOPA could require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced offline.

In other words, not only can a site can be forced offline if accused of copyright infringement.
But also, a site can be forced offline merely for linking to a site accused of copyright infringement.

So it has the potential to take out multiple entire websites, just for one (claimed) instance of copyright infringement.

Topaz, you ever played the game 6 degrees of adolf hitler?

Basically you go to wikipedia and click random artical, then within six hyperlinks you need to get to the adolf hitler Wiki page, as an example ill play it right now and tell you what links i press.

clicked random artical.

1st. is Boulton Paul Atlantic, I can see a link on that page to the WW1 page so i will click that.

2nd. ww1, under the heading "discontent in germany" i can see adolf hitler.

in two links i got to adolf hitlers page from a RANDOM artical, now imagine each wiki page is a seperate website with links and "adolf hitler" is the infringed copyrighted material. every page could be taken down because everything links to everything on the internet.

Its a fun game, i suggest you play it.

 

[michael87cn]

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

What are your thoughts on Libraries? The government were the first pirates, after all. What right did they have to purchase copies of other peoples work and put them out for free for any and all to come and utilize? I mean, the lost profits, the lost sales! The humanity! Ever since libraries came out, people completely stopped purchasing books!

THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!

Oh, wait. Libraries are good things as they promote sales, as people tend to purchase what they like, and the right to 'truly' own something, cannot be gained by pirating it. (many games cannot be played multiplayer when cracked for example, a borrowed book must be returned, etc.).

There is nothing wrong with pirating. In fact, we need more of it. And we need it more publicly and more accessible to everyone. It will only improve business and sales, and give customers more control over WHAT they get with their money.

My opinion of course.

 

[Phlakes]

Piracy should be fought, and the principle behind SOPA is something I fully support.

But this is fucking not the way to do it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Like I said in another thread, SOPA is too far reaching.

It needs to be a sniper rifle, not a nuclear bomb.

 

[The Funslinger]

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

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

I've often wondered what Thomas Hobbes would have thought of that viewpoint.

 

[LostCrusader]

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.

I was thinking about this point earlier this week, if all the bill does is block DNS for the websites, then how is this going to doing anything to stop the most likely tech savvy pirates from connecting to those sites by just using the actual ip addresses. I don't think they will have any effect on the people they are trying to stop.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

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

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

I've often wondered what Thomas Hobbes would have thought of that viewpoint.

I may be being completely thick but, I'll admit it, I have no idea what you are getting at.

 

[VladG]

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

You do realize that the only thing SOPA will not do is stop piracy, right? It will at most slightly inconvenience people who pirate software.

Dedicated pirating sites are not hosted in the US, and as such not subject to being closed down, simply blocked in the US, and that can very easily be bypassed with a proxy.

 

[Sandytimeman]

snip

I think you should watch this. Seriously, I know its like 14 mins long but seriously take some time and watch this video. It states exactly my views, my concerns arn't this law, but the side effects of this law.

 

[chadachada123]

This is a really extreme analogy, but I hope the point will be understood.

Want to know the most effective way to stop piracy? Execute anyone that visits any sites other than sites that Universal, Disney, Road Runner Records, Viacom, etc own or deem "safe" to visit. No trial needed, because they "might" be pirating, and collateral damage is irrelevant. Oh, and only rich copyright holders have the sway needed to say which sites are "safe" and which aren't.

Also, one of the main problems with this bill is the fact that it's entirely and solely backed by large corporations, who are paying off Congressmen. This kind of corruption is what Ron Paul and other, er, freedom-fighters are pushing to end.

(I'm sure others will point out specific flaws with the bill itself, I'm just saying two of the overarching reasons why).

There's also the fact that this bill will probably do nothing to stop piracy...

 

[VladG]

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.

Or it could just mean that these candidates simply said this to gain votes and could give rats ass about the fate of the internet.

I don't buy it one bit from them.

That's basically the foundation of Democracy. He doesn't have to care, he just has to want to get (re-)elected.

 

[Red_Knight]

When movies and games and whatnot stop making hundreds of millions of dollars, then I'll believe there's a real problem. Not until then. The MPAA and RIAA will still make their millions and billions, and so will everyone else, cuz their prices are so damn high. They won't win this fight and then lower their prices. It's yet another attempt to squeeze every last dollar out of the American consumer by buying a law that suits them and ignores the people.

"Piracy" needs to be redefined, and SOPA needs to be thrown out and rewritten entirely to work, as Daystar suggested, like a sniper rifle, picking off the ones that need to be picked off while not abridging the lives of the rest.

 

[varulfic]

Who cares what the bill is supposed to do, the protests are about what the bill does. Why is anyone bothering defending this thing? SOPA doesn't need a devil's advocate... it needs a devil to torture it in the fires of hell for all eternity.

 

[Daverson]

What's SOPA's supposed to do, and what it'd actually do are two very different things.

Let's face it, if you think piracy is good for the industry, you're either a fool or a communist (and some would argue there's no real distinction between the two). I think most people, including a few pirates themselves, would like to see an end to piracy. Draconian measures like SOPA though, aren't going to end piracy.

You know how people are always complaining about restrictive DRM? SOPA is pretty much just restrictive DRM for the internet. It's not going to stop piracy, it's just going to cause a lot of technical problems for legitimate users.

SOPA wouldn't do anything to prevent:
-Filesharing programs like Napster
-Illegally sharing films, music and games through torrents
-People from creating and sharing key-generators, CD-Cracks and all the other things pirates love.

What it would do would be make legally sharing content much harder - as a modder, I used Megaupload pretty extensively to share my work. Now there's plenty of fan-sites that do host community content, but they aren't just going to hand their FTP information out to anyone who wants to upload a file, are they? (With good reason - for every one person who wants to stick a legitimate file on your server, there'll be at least 10 who want to put illegal content, adverts, malware or just plain junk there) Without these sites, what option does that leave for letting people get to my work? These days mods can be several gigabytes in size, sending files that big over Instant Messengers or Email just isn't feasible. The same thing goes videos and youtube, art and deviantart, flash games and newgrounds and so on and so forth. Effectively legally made free content would greatly suffer.