SOPA Bill -- have you read it?

[highnote]

Has anyone read the SOPA Bill, yet?

After reading the section I've copied and pasted below it appears that the attorney general can censor any foreign site he thinks is in violation of some kind of U.S. law. Basically, the U.S. gov has the power to control what U.S. citizens are allowed to view over the internet.

This sounds like a power grab to me. Like the old saying goes -- power isn't given, it's taken.

Another assualt on our freedom.

Now, are their illegal sites out there? Probably. Should they be censored? I don't know. Should the U.S. gov be in the business of censorship?

What if a U.S. citizen wants to read a foreign website to try to understand their point of view but the U.S. gov has blocked it?

This seems like too broad of a bill. It will be interesting to see if it passes.

Former Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is now the head of the Motion Picture Association of America and is a driving force in support of this legislation. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html

To my eyes, what the U.S. is doing is no different than from what China does -- restrict access to internet sites by its citizens.



(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:

(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-

(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

(ii) LIMITATIONS- A service provider shall not be required--

(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;

(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or

(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.

(iii) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.

(iv) TEXT OF NOTICE- The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.

(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.

(C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-

(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account--

(I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and

(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.

(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES-

(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--

(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;

(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and

(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.

(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS- Except as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(iv), an entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine the means to communicate such action to the entity's users or customers.

(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS-

(A) IN GENERAL- To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief--

(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or

(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).

(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[boxcar]

Has anyone read the SOPA Bill, yet?

After reading the section I've copied and pasted below it appears that the attorney general can censor any foreign site he thinks is in violation of some kind of U.S. law. Basically, the U.S. gov has the power to control what U.S. citizens are allowed to view over the internet.

This sounds like a power grab to me. Like the old saying goes -- power isn't given, it's taken.

Another assualt on our freedom.

Now, are their illegal sites out there? Probably. Should they be censored? I don't know. Should the U.S. gov be in the business of censorship?

What if a U.S. citizen wants to read a foreign website to try to understand their point of view but the U.S. gov has blocked it?

This seems like too broad of a bill. It will be interesting to see if it passes.

Former Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is now the head of the Motion Picture Association of America and is a driving force in support of this legislation. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html

To my eyes, what the U.S. is doing is no different than from what China does -- restrict access to internet sites by its citizens.

How does that old saying, "An educated consumer is our best friend"? But not when it comes to the U.S. government, apparently. Sounds like this bill would certainly restrict the free flow of information. This would serve to keep us in the dark (as in ignorant) as much as possible. An inquiring mind would like to know what the government is prepping us for...

Boxcar

[highnote]

Here's a scenario:

I like to visit the websites of bookmakers who offer odds on political bets. Even though I can't be a customer I can check out the prices.

Well, if the U.S. attorney general said these sites are illegal then service providers would have to block their IP addresses so I couldn't see them.

And somehow the intent of this bill is to promote innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship?

If you restrict access to information then how can innovation take place?

Well, I'll tell you one way -- by turning law abiding citizens into criminals. Someone will find ways around the blocks and law abiding citizens will use those ways.

Prohibition comes to mind. Great idea, wasn't it?

You know what... I see an opportunity. Set up an offshore server now. Call it the anti-SOPA server. Then when SOPA passes and the U.S. starts blocking IP addresses, the anti-SOPA server will start posting IP address on blogs and facebook pages, google+ pages, Yahoo replies, paceadvantage, etc. These IP addresses can be used as an anonymous gateway to the web.

The IP addresses will change frequently, but there is no way the U.S. gov could stay ahead of them.

The genie is out of the bottle. You can bet your ass smart people in China and other restrictive countries are getting information from outside their countries via the internet.

[mostpost]

I don't think this law is anything like what you guys think it is. It's about copyright infringement. If Amazon publishes a book on line or on Kindle you know the author is receiving payment for that book. If a pirate website does the same the author does not receive payment. The site collects payment from subscribers but does not pay the person who owns the intellectual property rights. The same would apply to music. Singers deserve to be paid for their work. Some singers anyway. :rolleyes:

This law will not prevent Andrew Breitbart from publishing his idiocy, but it will prevent him from publishing "Dreams From My Father' without paying royalties to Barack Obama.

The law clearly states that actions will take place pursuant to the issuance of a court order. Just as the government cannot search your home without a search warrant, so can the government not shut down a website without a court order.

SOPA means Stop Online Piracy Act. It is designed to prevent someone from taking someones intellectual property-a song, a book, a story etc- and providing it on line without the permission of its creator. It has nothing to do with censoring anyone. To think it does is just another example of conservative paranoia.

[mostpost]

Here's a scenario:

I like to visit the websites of bookmakers who offer odds on political bets. Even though I can't be a customer I can check out the prices.

Well, if the U.S. attorney general said these sites are illegal then service providers would have to block their IP addresses so I couldn't see them.
If they are providing their own odds, they can't be illegal. You may not be able to wager because of US gambling laws, but there would be no reason to block them.
And somehow the intent of this bill is to promote innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship?
Allowing piracy stifles innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. Why should someone invent something if anyone can steal his ideas and profit from them.

If you restrict access to information then how can innovation take place?
The only information they are restricting access to is information that has been copyrighted or patented. And that information is available if the owner wants to divulge it and if the person seeking it is willing to pay for it.

Well, I'll tell you one way -- by turning law abiding citizens into criminals. Someone will find ways around the blocks and law abiding citizens will use those ways.

Prohibition comes to mind. Great idea, wasn't it?

You know what... I see an opportunity. Set up an offshore server now. Call it the anti-SOPA server. Then when SOPA passes and the U.S. starts blocking IP addresses, the anti-SOPA server will start posting IP address on blogs and facebook pages, google+ pages, Yahoo replies, paceadvantage, etc. These IP addresses can be used as an anonymous gateway to the web.

The IP addresses will change frequently, but there is no way the U.S. gov could stay ahead of them.

The genie is out of the bottle. You can bet your ass smart people in China and other restrictive countries are getting information from outside their countries via the internet.

You are completely misinterpreting the purpose of this legislation.

[bigmack]

How am I supposed to get free software, movies & music with this kind of invasive legislation going on?

From my cold, dead hands!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/92110.jpg
Nerdly yours,

Wilfred J. Millenbrew ESQ
Chess club. Pocket pen protector salesperson.

[boxcar]

How am I supposed to get free software, movies & music with this kind of invasive legislation going on?

From my cold, dead hands!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/92110.jpg
Nerdly yours,

Wilfred J. Millenbrew ESQ
Chess club. Pocket pen protector salesperson.

Mack, is that a cancer stick between your fingers? :eek: :eek:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This law will not prevent Andrew Breitbart from publishing his idiocy, but it will prevent him from publishing "Dreams From My Father' without paying royalties to Barack Obama.

Not to worry. If he ever had a copy, I'm burn it. He wouldn't even pay someone to take that trash off his hands.

SOPA means Stop Online Piracy Act. It is designed to prevent someone from taking someones intellectual property-a song, a book, a story etc- and providing it on line without the permission of its creator. It has nothing to do with censoring anyone. To think it does is just another example of conservative paranoia.

Sure it does. How do you know it really doesn't mean Stop Online Privacy Act? Oh wait...I know...because you implicitly trust your Big Bro. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

You are completely misinterpreting the purpose of this legislation.

You are completely without understanding about what the legislation actually is, and how it will work. It's incredibly complicated, in reality, and carries with it a multitude of unintended consequences (from breaking DNSSEC, to requiring deep packet inspection by ISPs.)

It's a terrible bill, even the guy who wrote it has been backing away from some of the stuff in it -- after internet companies spent a lot of time trying to explain how this thing he's trying to regulate actually works. Congress basically has no idea what they're doing when it comes to the internet, they are out of their depths.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/

[chickenhead]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/under-voter-pressure-members-of-congress-backpedal-on-sopa.ars

Excerpt:
Meanwhile, six GOP senators who served on the Senate Judiciary Committee (which unanimously approved the legislation last year) wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to postpone a vote on PIPA to give them more time to study the legislation.

"We strongly believe that the theft of American intellectual property is a significant problem that must be addressed," they wrote. But since the Judiciary Committee last considered the legislation, "we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights."

Yeah, OOPS, you jackasses. Breaking cyber-security of your own Homeland Defense dept, breaking the structure of the internet itself, and requiring ISPs to vigorously monitor all consumer activity on the internet.

Maybe that isn't the best response to some teenagers downloading music.

The public outcry over the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act seems to have gotten so loud that even members of Congress can hear it. On Thursday we covered the news that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was expressing second thoughts about SOPA's DNS provisions. He said he changed his mind after he "heard from a number of Vermonters" on the issue.

On Friday, several Republicans started backpedaling as well.

SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith (R-TX) announced that he would be pulling the DNS-blocking provisions from his own bill. “After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision," Smith said in a Friday statement.

Lest anyone doubt the signers' tough-on-piracy bona fides, they include Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who once proposed that Congress give copyright holders a special exemption allowing them to hack into the computers of those suspected of piracy. In a 2003 hearing, he suggested that damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."

Another member of Congress that has been feeling the heat from voters is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). After reddit members raised $15,000 in 48 hours for his anti-SOPA challenger, Ryan came out with a clear statement of opposition to the legislation.

"It appears that lawmakers are beginning to realize how much damage their anti-'piracy' bills could cause to the Internet and to Internet-related businesses," said Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy in a statement. "While we are pleased that some progress is being made, we are also firm in our opposition to both bills because some very bad provisions remain."

Washington insiders hold disproportionate sway on Capitol Hill. But members of Congress are ultimately chosen by American voters. When enough of them express a strong view on an issue, members of Congress do pay attention.

[porchy44]

This youtube video talks about how supporters of SOPA has profited from distributing file sharing software.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc&feature=player_embedded

[Tom]

It's purpose is control of the citizens - nothing more.
The internet has shown it's use in the Arab Spring - and it will be used for the same purpose here. Obama has been after control of the net since day one. He understands it's potential and needs to stop us from using it.

[boxcar]

It's purpose is control of the citizens - nothing more.
The internet has shown it's use in the Arab Spring - and it will be used for the same purpose here. Obama has been after control of the net since day one. He understands it's potential and needs to stop us from using it.

I believe you have nailed it perfectly, Tom. It's likely that the real intent behind the measure is to give government the power to restrict the free flow of information among ourselves-- the People. When we go to war with another country, what is one of our very prime first objectives? Is it not to take out the enemy's communication system?

Our guns and our internet. This is what the government wants to control. But the internet would be an even higher priority. If they can restrict our flow of information and keep us confused and ignorant, it would make their job easier to go after our guns next because it would make it much harder for the people to plan and organize.

Finally, this is axiomatic: Never, never, never trust a government acronym. I have little doubt that Stop Online Piracy Act really means Stop Online Privacy Act. After all, has the cost of health care decreased and become more affordable since the "Affordable Health Care Act" was passed? :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You are completely without understanding about what the legislation actually is, and how it will work. It's incredibly complicated, in reality, and carries with it a multitude of unintended consequences (from breaking DNSSEC, to requiring deep packet inspection by ISPs.)

It's a terrible bill, even the guy who wrote it has been backing away from some of the stuff in it -- after internet companies spent a lot of time trying to explain how this thing he's trying to regulate actually works. Congress basically has no idea what they're doing when it comes to the internet, they are out of their depths.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/
I was addressing the contention that the purpose of the bill is to censor free expression on the internet. The purpose is to prevent piracy; to prevent protected content from being stolen. It may be that parts of this bill need to be changed to do that better. That does not mean there is some nefarious plot to take away our liberties.

[Dave Schwartz]

Our constitution was founded upon the principle that, while many laws are written with truly beneficial purposes in mind, along the way they may be re-purposed to be used nefariously.

Therefore, potential new laws are automatically looked at (from a constitutional standpoint) based upon the harm they can do rather than the good that was originally intended.

If the interpretation of this changes (and I fear that it is already changing), we are sunk as a nation.


Just my opinion.


Dave Schwartz

[chickenhead]

I was addressing the contention that the purpose of the bill is to censor free expression on the internet. The purpose is to prevent piracy; to prevent protected content from being stolen. It may be that parts of this bill need to be changed to do that better. That does not mean there is some nefarious plot to take away our liberties.

Its not a nefarious plot to take away our liberties -- it just takes away some of our liberties. The internet works just fine as is.

[NJ Stinks]

It's purpose is control of the citizens - nothing more.
The internet has shown it's use in the Arab Spring - and it will be used for the same purpose here. Obama has been after control of the net since day one. He understands it's potential and needs to stop us from using it.

What you said above is crazy talk by somebody who sees a boogeyman behind every tree.

[highnote]

It has nothing to do with censoring anyone. To think it does is just another example of conservative paranoia.

I have been called a lot of things, but a paranoid conservative is not one of them. :D Hell, I'm even a registered democrat.

It is not only conservatives who don't like this law it is liberals. Further to your point, it is republican Lamar Smith who is the main backer of the bill. It was introduced in the US House of Representatives by him.

The SOPA bill would bar search engines like Google from publishing hyperlinks to offending sites in their search results. That is censorship, plain and simple.


http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant-innovate-and-the-result-is-sopa/

WHY THE MOVIE INDUSTRY CAN'T INNOVATE AND THE RESULT IS SOPA

This year the movie industry made $30 billion (1/3 in the U.S.) from box-office revenue.

But the total movie industry revenue was $87 billion. Where did the other $57 billion come from?

From sources that the studios at one time claimed would put them out of business: Pay-per view TV, cable and satellite channels, video rentals, DVD sales, online subscriptions and digital downloads.

The music and movie business has been consistently wrong in its claims that new platforms and channels would be the end of its businesses. In each case, the new technology produced a new market far larger than the impact it had on the existing market.

you can read the rest at the link. It's the best article I have read yet on SOPA. It's written by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who now teaches at Stanford.

[PaceAdvantage]

I was addressing the contention that the purpose of the bill is to censor free expression on the internet. The purpose is to prevent piracy; to prevent protected content from being stolen. It may be that parts of this bill need to be changed to do that better. That does not mean there is some nefarious plot to take away our liberties.Oh no, you were doing much more than that, including a few well timed insults along the way (which is fine...Lord knows plenty gets thrown your way).

Now you're backing off a bit...hell, I'm surprised you even popped up in this thread again...I figured after chickenhead's excellent reply, we'd never hear from you in this particular thread again... :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Our guns and our internet. This is what the government wants to control. But the internet would be an even higher priority. If they can restrict our flow of information and keep us confused and ignorant, it would make their job easier to go after our guns next because it would make it much harder for the people to plan and organize.



Even crazier talk. Congratulations.

Name one thing Obama has taken away from you. Just one thing you can't do now that you could before he was elected.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have been called a lot of things, but a paranoid conservative is not one of them. :D Hell, I'm even a registered democrat.

It is not only conservatives who don't like this law it is liberals. Further to your point, it is republican Lamar Smith who is the main backer of the bill. It was introduced in the US House of Representatives by him.Damn...now the hole for mosty has been dug even deeper...how's he ever gonna get out of this one?

Maybe NOW he won't ever show his face in this thread again after this one-two punch by chickenhead/swetyejohn

[FantasticDan]

Oh no, you were doing much more than that, including a few well timed insults along the way (which is fine...Lord knows plenty gets thrown your way). :confused: Where in this thread does mospost "insult" anyone, other than maybe not-so-Breitbart? :lol:

[FantasticDan]

Damn...now the hole for mosty has been dug even deeper...how's he ever gonna get out of this one?
Maybe NOW he won't ever show his face in this thread again after this one-two punch by chickenhead/swetyejohnJeez, maybe he'll quit the site entirely after the shameful and humiliating shellacking he's sustained in this thread.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol:

[highnote]

:confused: Where in this thread does mospost "insult" anyone, other than maybe not-so-Breitbart? :lol:


I'm not sure if the paranoid conservative thing was intended as an insult. Even if it was, I wouldn't be insulted. I refuse to be insulted.

If someone gives you a gift and you refuse to accept it then who owns the gift? It's the same with insults.

But more important is to read the article at this link about "Why the Movie Industry can't Innovate and the Result is SOPA"

http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant-innovate-and-the-result-is-sopa/

You know, if the movie, music and print media do not like their products being pirated then they should stop publishing digital content.

The movie industry should go back to only making their movies available in theaters. The record industry should start making vinyl LPs again. And publishers should only print hard copies of books and newspapers. Problem solved.

Why should my tax dollars be used to protect these industries when these industries are not willing to step away from technology?

These industries make billions in profits. Let them fund their own security measures. They should innovate the way Apple innovates instead of making me pay for their protection.

[chickenhead]

I have been called a lot of things, but a paranoid conservative is not one of them. :D Hell, I'm even a registered democrat.

I did think that was kind of funny, you're not exactly the House conservative.

The internet is the most amazing thing, a decentralized and open public square with the full range of humanity on display and in communication. The internet is the free-est place that exists in the world, and so long as your gov't doesn't screw it up for you, you are a full citizen of the internet.

Its amazing, that is is high technology, and computers spread out all over the world, that allow *humanity* to express itself, and to communicate with each other in a way they never have before. The town square in a lot of ways doesn't exist anymore. The public commons doesn't exist in the real world. But what we, *humans*, have created for this, is the internet. It was created to be decentralized. It was created to not be controlled. There are many many *non-human entities*, be they gov'ts or corporations, what want to control the internet. All gov'ts do, and everyone that wants to sell you something do.

Most gov'ts around the world want to insure first and foremost that the internet is safe for them, that they have control over it for monitoring, and most companies that want to sell you stuff want to turn it into something as safe and bland as your neighborhood shopping mall.

With freedom come many great things, and some bad things. There are plenty of bad things on the internet. But as *humans*, we need to grow the f up, understand that humans are multifaceted and unpredictable and sometimes naughty, and ask ourselves exactly what lengths we are willing to allow our own freedom of expression, our own humanity, and the last public square on earth to be undermined in order to allow non-humans to control it under the pretense of stamping out all non-acceptable human behavior from the world. Because it is only pretense.

[PaceAdvantage]

:confused: Where in this thread does mospost "insult" anyone, other than maybe not-so-Breitbart? :lol:Well, for starters, his opening response was basically a thinly veiled "You're an idiot."

Then the whole paranoid conservative thing.

But the real laugh is that swetyejohn is a registered Democrat and the bill was introduced by a Republican.

Mosty is blinded by his perception of who started this thread, automatically thinks this is an Obama bill (which in his mind he must support at all costs), and goes off on conservatives yet again...

Like I said, the hole has been dug deep. It's fun watching him dance sometimes.

[highnote]

More from the Steve Blank article. This just makes me roll my eyes:

http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant-innovate-and-the-result-is-sopa/

•1920’s – the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can’t compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
•1940’s – movie studios had to divest their distribution channel – they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. “It’s all over,” complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
•1950’s – broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn’t compete with paid.
•1970’s – Video Cassette Recorders (VCR’s) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with “end of the world” hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket. With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
•1998 – the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
•2000 – Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR’s reignite interest in TV.
•2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
•Today it’s the Internet that’s going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

[PaceAdvantage]

And for the record, I don't support this bill, but as of now, on the record, mosty does.... :lol:

[highnote]

And for the record, I don't support this bill, but as of now, on the record, mosty does.... :lol:


So your the liberal and mosty is the conservative? :eek:

[chickenhead]

and the White House has officially come out as against this Bill saying its goals and implementation are screwed up. and Eric Cantor has come out that the Bill will not come up for a vote in the House, because it is too screwed up.

This bill is so bad, in both its goals and its implementation, and has caused such a widespread public outcry from Democratic think tanks, Libertarian think tanks, the Defense Department, every Internet company that matters, and the public at large that by the day politicians on both sides are literally running away from it as fast as they can.

I think Mosty is the only one who supports the bill, on either side of the aisle. :lol:

[highnote]

I think Mosty is the only one who supports the bill, on either side of the aisle. :lol:

Stick to your guns, Mosty. As Kris Kristofferson said to Sinead O'Conner after she was booed for ripping up a picture of the Pope... "Don't let the bastards get you down."

I would add... "Don't let the bastards get you down, even when you are wrong." :D

I guess that's a 15 yard penalty for piling on. ;)

[highnote]

But back to the point of this thread... why should U.S. taxpayers spend money to protect the interests of the movie industry?

I say let them spend some of their $87 billion in revenue to find innovative ways to proect their products.

Apple has made billions of dollars by being innovative.

[PaceAdvantage]

But back to the point of this thread... why should U.S. taxpayers spend money to protect the interests of the movie industry?

I say let them spend some of their $87 billion in revenue to find innovative ways to proect their products.

Apple has made billions of dollars by being innovative.Excellent point.

And even Apple has tons of piracy going on. One can rather easily "jailbreak" an iPhone or iPad and download apps for free...this is no secret.

No matter what, piracy will never be completely thwarted...not even a little bit, at least given the current state of our technological world.

[highnote]

Excellent point.

And even Apple has tons of piracy going on. One can rather easily "jailbreak" an iPhone or iPad and download apps for free...this is no secret.

No matter what, piracy will never be completely thwarted...not even a little bit, at least given the current state of our technological world.


Actually, it kind of pisses me off that the movie industry thinks that the taxpayer should pay for their problems.

How about we ask the government to censor movies we don't think are appropriate?

Oh... and as broadcasters were suing to protect their interests rather than innovate, cable companies were quietly earning billions. Now Comcast Cable owns NBC.

Again -- from Steve Blank:

•1920’s – the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can’t compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
•1940’s – movie studios had to divest their distribution channel – they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. “It’s all over,” complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
•1950’s – broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn’t compete with paid.
•1970’s – Video Cassette Recorders (VCR’s) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with “end of the world” hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket. With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
•1998 – the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
•2000 – Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR’s reignite interest in TV.
•2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
•Today it’s the Internet that’s going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

[boxcar]

Actually, it kind of pisses me off that the movie industry thinks that the taxpayer should pay for their problems.

How about we ask the government to censor movies we don't think are appropriate?

Oh... and as broadcasters were suing to protect their interests rather than innovate, cable companies were quietly earning billions. Now Comcast Cable owns NBC.

Again -- from Steve Blank:

•1920’s – the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can’t compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
•1940’s – movie studios had to divest their distribution channel – they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. “It’s all over,” complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
•1950’s – broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn’t compete with paid.
•1970’s – Video Cassette Recorders (VCR’s) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with “end of the world” hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket. With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
•1998 – the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
•2000 – Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR’s reignite interest in TV.
•2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
•Today it’s the Internet that’s going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

Informative post!

One of two things are for certain: Our government is either too stupid to figure all this out (but, of course, they are smart enough to get our personal health care right :rolleyes: ) or what is more likely, facts like these prove the government is using the Act as a cover or excuse for its true clandestine designs.

We're living in "strange days", folks (I liked that movie). Keep on your toes. Keep alert. Stay awake! Keep informed! Things are moving quickly and will continue to accelerate.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Google, Yahoo & many other internet 'giants' have said that they will shut-down in protest if this bill is passed. WAY too far reaching.

Paradoxically, the movie industry brings on much of their plight with their own egos. When a film is still in the theater they send out DVD's to industry members for Oscar considerations. That is where much of movie piracy stems from..

The bill in its current form has bipartisan support but will prolly not pass in its current form. A waterdowned version is expected to sail.

[highnote]

I think I am going to boycot hollywood films and start watching the avante garde films I used to enjoy seeing in college. The avante garde art films don't have much plot, but they are interesting to watch.

I watched the movie "Shutter Island" last night. I thought that since Scorcese directed it, it would be good. It was kind of boring, never suspenseful and a waste of 2 hours of my life. That's not to say others will have the same opinion, but in my opinion there are many better films.

[mostpost]

Found this on Wikipedia.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
The English version of Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours on Wednesday to protest the proposed SOPA bill.

I am still not totally convinced that this is a plot to censor the internet, but apparently a lot of people are. This certainly needs more discussion and a lot of oversight.

It's not that I've changed my mind; it's that I'm changing my mind. ;)

[mostpost]

Actually, it kind of pisses me off that the movie industry thinks that the taxpayer should pay for their problems.

How about we ask the government to censor movies we don't think are appropriate?

Oh... and as broadcasters were suing to protect their interests rather than innovate, cable companies were quietly earning billions. Now Comcast Cable owns NBC.

Again -- from Steve Blank:

•1920’s – the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can’t compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
•1940’s – movie studios had to divest their distribution channel – they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. “It’s all over,” complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
•1950’s – broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn’t compete with paid.
You realize this one is the opposite of the others? The others say that people won't pay for stuff if they can get it free. (makes sense) This one says people won't watch free stuff if there is stuff they can pay for. (makes no sense.)
•1970’s – Video Cassette Recorders (VCR’s) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with “end of the world” hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket. With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
I don't think it took them very long to figure out they could make a lot of money selling tapes of movies or renting them.
•1998 – the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
The reason for that is obvious. I buy a movie and make 500 copies and sell them. That is the same as if I went into a jewelry store, stole 500 watches and sold them.
•2000 – Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR’s reignite interest in TV.
•2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
•Today it’s the Internet that’s going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

Not the internet, but people abusing the internet.

[rastajenk]

Those damn internet abusers! How dare they!?! :mad:

[boxcar]

Found this on Wikipedia.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
The English version of Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours on Wednesday to protest the proposed SOPA bill.

I am still not totally convinced that this is a plot to censor the internet, but apparently a lot of people are. This certainly needs more discussion and a lot of oversight.

It's not that I've changed my mind; it's that I'm changing my mind. ;)

Your mind needs more than that. It needs to be fundamentally transformed so that you don't even recognize yourself anymore. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Very long read, but it gives a comprehensive explanation of why both SOPA and PIPA are really bad bills. Also it's, ironically" in the name of "copyright infringement" that repressive governments such as Russia and China restrict the flow of information to their citizens.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml

Boxcar

[highnote]

There is not a lot of difference between republican and democrat politicians (although they want their constituents to believe there are!). So should it be any surprise that the U.S. is becoming more like China and Russia with the respect to privacy, liberty, freedom and justice?

Very long read, but it gives a comprehensive explanation of why both SOPA and PIPA are really bad bills. Also it's, ironically" in the name of "copyright infringement" that repressive governments such as Russia and China restrict the flow of information to their citizens.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

and the White House has officially come out as against this Bill saying its goals and implementation are screwed up. and Eric Cantor has come out that the Bill will not come up for a vote in the House, because it is too screwed up.

This bill is so bad, in both its goals and its implementation, and has caused such a widespread public outcry from Democratic think tanks, Libertarian think tanks, the Defense Department, every Internet company that matters, and the public at large that by the day politicians on both sides are literally running away from it as fast as they can.

I think Mosty is the only one who supports the bill, on either side of the aisle. :lol:Rupert Murdoch owner of the conservative Fox News has rather vocal in his support of the those bills.

[cj's dad]

Found this on Wikipedia.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
The English version of Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours on Wednesday to protest the proposed SOPA bill.

I am still not totally convinced that this is a plot to censor the internet, but apparently a lot of people are. This certainly needs more discussion and a lot of oversight.

It's not that I've changed my mind; it's that I'm changing my mind. ;)

Mosty coming out for some air !

[NJ Stinks]

Mosty coming out for some air !

He looks pretty young in that picture! :p


(That picture is hilarious! :lol: )

[Robert Goren]

Something to give the Obama haters here some pause. Obama has come out it against the bills. The Hollywood "liberals" are threatening withhold any further political donations to candidates who oppose the bills.

[highnote]

Something to give the Obama haters here some pause. Obama has come out it against the bills. The Hollywood "liberals" are threatening withhold any further political donations to candidates who oppose the bills.


Good. I hope they withhold all of their palm greasing money. Maybe they can use it to develop better technology and products that consumers are willing to pay for.

Why the hell would anyone steal music or video anyway? Who has time to watch and listen to them except kids -- who can't afford to buy them in the first place.

Almost any tune I want to hear is on youtube and pandora, etc. Netflix online has tons of movies -- more than I could ever possibly watch.

Maybe Chinese kids are downloading them illegally? If so, the movie companies should be glad they are getting a toehold in those markets -- and it's not even costing anything to market their films there.

One dollar per download is a lot more to a Chinese teenager than it is for a U.S. teenager. So don't expect the Chinese kids to start paying anytime soon -- even if SOPA and PIPA are signed into law.

[Tom]

People are stealing music and movies?
Oh well, tough luck! Who cares?
Not me. :D

Not my problem.

[highnote]

People are stealing music and movies?
Oh well, tough luck! Who cares?
Not me. :D

Not my problem.


I agree. Who cares? Maybe live music and live theatre will become popular again. It's hard to steal live entertainment.

[boxcar]

Good. I hope they withhold all of their palm greasing money. Maybe they can use it to develop better technology and products that consumers are willing to pay for.

Either that or they can lock arms with Warren Buffet and contribute millions to real needy people. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[highnote]

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20120119&id=14710455&ocid=ansmony11

The site MegaUpload based in Hong Kong was taken down today by the DOJ today. The founder and three employees were arrested in New Zealand. Judging from the story, one of the employees was Dutch.

So how is it that a Dutch citizen can be arrested in New Zealand over a copyright infringement claim?

And if the DOJ can already do this then why are SOPA and PIPA needed?

Interesting that the arrests happened one day after the voluntary blackouts by Wikipedia and other sites.

Anonymous hacked the DOJ, MPAA and other sites in retaliation.

Piracy won't stop as long as it is easy to pirate products and as long as it is lucrative to do so.

The media industry needs to find better ways to protect their copyrights.

How much of taxpayer money was spent arresting these alleged copyright violators? Why are taxpayers footing the bill for the media industry's incompetence and downright laziness? Why won't the media industry innovate?

[highnote]

Here is a similar email I sent to my senator -- Senator Blumenthal:

MegaUpload was taken down today and the founder and a few employees were arrested in New Zealand. A story on MSN seemed to indicate that one of the employees is Dutch.

Why is taxpayer money being used to arrest Dutch citizens in New Zealand on alleged U.S. copyright infringement?

The media industry needs to create products that can not easily be pirated. The industry needs to innovate, not expect that U.S. taxpayers should foot the legal bills caused by the media industry's incompetence, negligence and downright laziness.

If piracy wasn't so easy and so lucrative then there would be much less of it.

Also, it is particularly bothersome that supporters of these bills have also received large campaign contributions from the media industry. This is no way to run a democracy.

John Swetye, Democrat
Darien, CT

[Robert Goren]

I do find it a bit strange that the same people who thinks it is ok for a convenience store clerk to shot someone for stealing a 12 pack of Bud are now so up in arms that the movie producers want to track down and legally prosecute the people who are stealing their product. Using the logic of some of the people here and applying it to convenience store robbery, the police would not be allowed to look up the licence plate number the clerk copied down because privacy concerns. After all we can't have the police tracking our every movement by tracking plate numbers.

[highnote]

I do find it a bit strange that the same people who thinks it is ok for a convenience store clerk to shot someone for stealing a 12 pack of Bud are now so up in arms that the movie producers want to track down and legally prosecute the people who are stealing their product. Using the logic of some of the people here and applying it to convenience store robbery, the police would not be allowed to look up the licence plate number the clerk copied down because privacy concerns. After all we can't have the police tracking our every movement by tracking plate numbers.


That's a bit of a stretch.

I don't think anyone has any problem with the police arresting someone for stealing from a convenience store.

1.) In the case of the New Zealand arrest of the MegaUpload people the SOPA and PIPA bills were not used or needed.

2.) One of the people arrested of is a Dutch citizen. This person was arrested in New Zealand for being an employee of MegaUploads. Talk about the long arm of the law! From what I've read, not every thing MegaUploads does is illegal.

What if a U.S. citizen posted something on the internet that was illegal to say in a country with Shariah law and the person was arrested at the airport of the offended country while the person was laying over? According to that country the person committed a crime. And imagine the country where they are laying over has an agreement with the offended country to arrest anyone breaking a law in either country.

That's basically what we have here. A crime was allegedly committed in one country and a person with citizenship in another country was arrested in still another country. However, it is not clear who actually committed the crime. Plus, we have not heard MegaUploads defense. Maybe it's strong. Maybe it's weak.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is what bothers me about these SOPA and PIPA bills - we have laws, lots of them, that can be used to deter and punish potential cases of copyright infringement and piracy.

The penalties aren't exactly a joke for that simple conviction and as can be seen in this case, when you have an enterprise that profits from this illegal activity, you incur the wrath of additional charges that stem from being a "criminal enterprise" in addition to simply a "pirate".

We have the technology to catch offenders. We have laws to punish them. This is my problem with the premise that the SOPA/PIPA legislation is simply about stopping piracy. If we aren't dealing with that crime, it's because we aren't dealing with the crime, not because we can't deal with the crime. This case shows it very clearly.

Do we really need to provide MORE means of stripping our liberties through policy under the heading of a crime that already can be dealt with effectively if the will is there by using existing laws?

[lsbets]

Robert,

Here was one of the problems with SOPA as origionally written:

A poster on PA puts up a complete, copyrighted article without permission (as 46zilzal would often do even after PA told him not to). He includes the link to the site where he found it, and that site did not have permission to publish the article.

PA edits the length of the citation in the post, but leaves the link to the source page.

The owner of the copyright goes after those who are using his material without permission.

In a reasonable world, with a reasonable government, only the page linked to would have a problem, because PA more than likely didn't know the page he linked to was in violation of the law.

Bureaucrats never get unreasonable do they? As the law was written, the government could also seize paceadvantage.com for linking to the unauthorized material. And since PA shows up on google, they could also shut down google.

There are already laws to deal with copyright violations. Giving the government sweeping new powers is unnecessary and wrong.

[LottaKash]

Do we really need to provide MORE means of stripping our liberties through policy under the heading of a crime that already can be dealt with effectively if the will is there by using existing laws?

Yes we do, Mostie, Hcap, and NJS are working on it right now...:D ...They will find a chart or something to show the rest of us know nothings, why More government control is so good for us...

best,

[boxcar]

Yes we do, Mostie, Hcap, and NJS are working on it right now...:D ...They will find a chart or something to show the rest of us know nothings, why More government control is so good for us...

best,

Fortunately, it looks like freedom-lovers will get a reprieve. There's so many people up in arms over this blatantly transparent power-grab that many politicians now are backing off -- at least for now. For the time being, we won't become a Russia or China.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Fortunately, it looks like freedom-lovers will get a reprieve. There's so many people up in arms over this blatantly transparent power-grab that many politicians now are backing off -- at least for now. For the time being, we won't become a Russia or China.

Boxcar


I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of these bills. The last thing Washington Elites want is an "American Spring" -- even though it was an American Spring that made this country free of tyranny.

[Tom]

You think they realize that they are more like King George than Americans, and the we all know it too?

American Spring....has a very nice ring to it.
Very nice indeed.

[highnote]

I've always liked the quote: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Governments fear the power that the internet gives to people.


You think they realize that they are more like King George than Americans, and the we all know it too?

American Spring....has a very nice ring to it.
Very nice indeed.

[bigmack]

Di was nice enough to respond to my inquiry. I skipped calling her 'Senator' and went with "Biyatch." Some women respond to mingy speak better than others. :rolleyes:

Dear Geraldo de la Mackawhackstein :

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act."

The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice authority to take action against websites "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying. I'm sorry to say that theft of intellectual property is a major problem and has primarily adversely affected the American motion picture industry.

I voted for the "PROTECT IP Act" when it came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but I always had reservations about several aspects of the bill.

First, I oppose censorship and am working to make sure the bill protects First Amendment rights to free speech. In addition, as far back as 2010, I raised concerns about the website blocking provision. I was pleased Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced this provision would be removed from the bill. I was also concerned that the overbroad language of the bill could encompass non-pirate websites and filed an amendment to fix this problem. Finally, I worked to alleviate undue burdens on Internet advertising services and to minimize the risk of litigation on growing technology businesses.

On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" by voice vote for consideration by the full Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced on January 20, 2012, that he was postponing a procedural vote on this bill. I believe postponing this vote was the right thing to do. In order to move forward, the bill must be changed to prevent it from harming legitimate businesses and Internet users in the process of protecting copyrights and trademarks. In other words, the bill must be fair and balanced.

In mid-January, I convened a meeting in San Francisco with Google, Yahoo! and Facebook to hear valid concerns of high-tech businesses and public interest groups. I have spoken again with leaders at Google about a path forward on this bill. My goal is to do everything I can to bring all sides together – including copyright owners, high-tech and my colleagues – to produce a fair and balanced bill.

As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), which is similar to the "PROTECT IP Act", in the House of Representatives. Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on either of these bills.

Once again, thank you for sharing your views. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Wishing you a happy 2012.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

[johnhannibalsmith]

Geraldo de la Mackalackawackastein... :lol:

[boxcar]

American Spring....has a very nice ring to it.
Very nice indeed.

I bet the hibernating Occupiers think so too. :D

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Geraldo de la Mackalackawackastein... :lol:
Beeeautiful. :ThmbUp:

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3zolHalP1qe0eclo1_r17_500.gif

“I have all the characteristics of a human being: flesh, blood, skin, hair … but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust.”

American Psycho (2000)