[no2pencil]

The idea of a copyright (I have one, btw) is that you can dictate how your product is handled. If my software were to be pirated, I have option to peruse them. I also have the option to not give a fuck.

Now the goverment is making it their business.

That's fucked.

On top of it, they are making a black list network. If you get added to the list, by whatever means they will use to determine you've done something in this bill that is list worthy, your isp has to either follow suit, or they risk being on the list. Being on the list means you are banned from doing business with companies in the list of 'we do not do business with people or companies on the black list'.

This is one step closer to pay to play.

Lets throw in the idea of the new internet off switch that Barrack put into order recently. How long until American internet is comparable to that of China or Iran.

America the brave, home of the free.

My ass.

It's all about money & control, & our goverment doesn't have enough funds to properly fund schools & police, but they have enough to perpetuate this bullshit.

[UziTech]

no2pencil, on 23 December 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

The idea of a copyright (I have one, btw) is that you can dictate how your product is handled. If my software were to be pirated, I have option to peruse them. I also have the option to not give a fuck.

Now the goverment is making it their business.

People have seriously got to read the actual bill instead of getting their opinion from propaganda.

Like you said the person who has the copyright gets to decide if they care or not. This bill gives the government a way to make websites act quickly when a person with a copyright wants their stuff off the website instead of the website to take it off "when they get around to it" or when the law suits get through

[WolfCoder]

It's not like we can just get past domain filters with various methods. Any bill even closely related to SOPA will cause the Internet to route around the damage. It will make piracy worse and hurt only the legitimate people.

[ccubed]

I'm grossly against the bill, but not because of what it does, because of how it does it. I don't want to open the door for them censoring the internet and this is a rudimentary first step.

However, the bill, as it stands, is not bad. If people read the thing. And going through that article, seriously. Where the hell do people get this? Are they reading the same bill?

I'm taking these from the link earlier. http://www.techdirt....bad-ideas.shtml

1) The broad definitions in the bill create tremendous uncertainty for nearly every site online.
Answer: WTF are you smoking? The definitions aren't broad. Have you even read them? In their latest form?
The definition of DNS is this: The term ‘domain name system server’ means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.
How is that broad? Sounds clear to me.

1.1) Under SOPA, you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if the core functionality of your site "enables or facilitates" infringement. (Long rant on how this defines the internet)
Answer: What sites do you visit that its core functionality is 'enabling or facilitating' infringement short of Pirate Bay? (And don't start, it is) Facebook and youtube are cited as examples because why? The only thing youtube offers is a way to upload videos, that is not inherently infringement.

2)The risk of these broad definitions on perfectly legitimate companies is not theoretical. (Long list of sites like youtube and facebook again)
Answer: I may be the only one reading this in the bill, but you realize that they have to convince a judge that the primary purpose of these sites is infringement and so far, viacom still hasn't managed to do that to youtube. And even then, there exists an avenue for the site to say that they don't facilitate infringement and fight back.

3)That uncertainty has very real and quantifiable effects on jobs in this country. (something about internet jobs)
Answer: Yes..it will totally ruin internet jobs. Damn them gold farmers, won't have money anymore.

4) That uncertainty has extreme and quantifiable effects on investment in new startups.
Answer: I'm not even going to answer this one. He draws outrageous connections between what SOPA proposes to do and job creation/loss. RIDICULOUS and OUTRAGEOUS CONNECTIONS.

5) Broadly expanding secondary liability is a dream for trial lawyers, but will be a disaster for business.
Answer: Yes, it requires them to have a system to remove links. (like google doesn't already have this.) That can't possibly be that hard for any site to facilitate. So shut it. They aren't required to monitor their sites, only have a method to remove content when NOTIFIED of it, not before then, and even then, they can CONTEST it and leave the content up.

6) The technical measures described in both bills is tremendously problematic.
Answer: The only thing that is actually a reason and one of the reasons i'm against it.

The rest of his points follow in the vein of six and have the same answer from me. I'm all for hating a bill, but at least read it and have a verifiable reason to hate it rather than feeding off the misconceptions of the propaganda.

Bottom Line: Hate SOPA if you want, but don't be an idiot, have an actual reason to hate it.

[Karel-Lodewijk]

ccubed, on 24 December 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Under SOPA, you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if the core functionality of your site "enables or facilitates" infringement.

I didn't read the bill but if that is a passage of it, how can you not call this not too broad.

The core functionality of youtube is sharing videos. This sharing of videos enables and facilitates infringement.

The core functionality of google search is scanning/categorizing and presenting information on the internet. This enables and facilitates infringement.

The core functionality of an ISP is to provide access to the internet at large, this enables and facilitates infringement.


It doesn't say that you are only liable if the core functionality of your site is facilitating or enabling infringement, that would be much more acceptable.

This post has been edited by Karel-Lodewijk: 25 December 2011 - 08:59 AM

[ccubed]

Karel-Lodewijk, on 25 December 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

ccubed, on 24 December 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Under SOPA, you can be found "dedicated to the theft of US property" if the core functionality of your site "enables or facilitates" infringement.

It doesn't say that you are only liable if the core functionality of your site is facilitating or enabling infringement, that would be much more acceptable.

It does. The quote I used was from the article on the web that paraphrases in a way that makes what you said true but isn't true under SOPA. The specific text is:

Quote

(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
2
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

This post has been edited by ccubed: 25 December 2011 - 01:49 PM

[Karel-Lodewijk]

Quote

(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code;
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

[/quote]

Ok, this is a really horrible sentence almost impossible to read. For me that would be sufficient to vote against this. But we're debating it's meaning, so what I got from that is that a U.S.-directed site is liable if one of these conditions is true.

• It is primarily designed to offer illegal goods or services.
  
• It is primarily operated to offer illegal goods or services.
  
• It has limited purpose other than offering illegal goods or services.
  
• It has limited use other than offering illegal goods or services.
  
• It is marketed by its operator for use in offering illegal goods or services.
  
• It is marketed by another acting in concert with its operator for use in offering illegal goods or services.

Well I'd say the first one is bad if something is designed to offer illegal goods or services but isn't used to do so, then I see no issues with that.

Also the fourth one. If a website has limited use other than offering illegal goods or services but no actual illegal goods or services are offered, then that would be perfectly fine.

Even after that I would say it really leaves way too much room for interpretation.

• Primarily without quantifying what this means in any way.
  
• Limited again without quantifying in any way what limited means.
  
• Another acting in concert with its operator without specifying what in concert means.

One could say operator is vague but it is more narrowly defined in the legislation in concert is not however.

This is law and preferably should leave no room or very little room for interpretation, how can one know if what he's doing is within the confinements of the law if it is not clearly defined.

Again I didn't really read the thing just scanned parts relevant to this passage but if this is a taste of it, I'd say yes definitions are too broad.

Also this:

Quote

IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION

Followed by "in the reasonable belief that". Basically with such broad definitions and no judge required to make an impartial judgment, I can see why people are worried.

Not too worried though, set you dns server to one outside the US. And any site that could be targeted by claims against copyright infringement whether it is justified or not, will simply move abroad.

This post has been edited by Karel-Lodewijk: 25 December 2011 - 05:19 PM

[ccubed]

Karel-Lodewijk, on 25 December 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

Quote

(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code;
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

Karel-Lodewijk, on 25 December 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

Well I'd say the first one is bad if something is designed to offer illegal goods or services but isn't used to do so, then I see no issues with that.

Also the fourth one. If a website has limited use other than offering illegal goods or services but no actual illegal goods or services are offered, then that would be perfectly fine.

Who makes a website dedicated to a purpose that they don't make the website fulfill in actuality? This makes no sense in any way. That's like saying i'll create a torrent tracker and never make it function as a torrent tracker, therefore my site should be safe. If you're not using the website to do what you created it for, why would you even bother creating it other than to troll someone?

Karel-Lodewijk, on 25 December 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

• Primarily without quantifying what this means in any way.
  
• Limited again without quantifying in any way what limited means.
  
• Another acting in concert with its operator without specifying what in concert means.

As to one, If you read the bill as a whole, it explains everything quite well.

As to two, Limited being left up to the interpretation of the judge. I also don't agree that limited even needs to be defined. It means what it means. If your site has little purpose other than illegal purposes, then you fall under the limited category.

As to three, In concert, a phrase that means 'in tandem' which means 'working alongside' or in a more direct definition, 'act with a common plan.'

Karel-Lodewijk, on 25 December 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

no judge required to make an impartial judgment, I can see why people are worried.

A judge is required to make a judgment. They can initially claim the site is infringing, but any legal action, including blocking, requires a judge's decision first or a legal court order.

This post has been edited by ccubed: 25 December 2011 - 06:13 PM

[111027]

The SOPA bill is, as far as i understand, anti-pirate. Most pirate sites aren't even hosted in the US, so they're safe from it. I don't really see the problem with it.

[ccubed]

111027, on 26 December 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

The SOPA bill is, as far as i understand, anti-pirate. Most pirate sites aren't even hosted in the US, so they're safe from it. I don't really see the problem with it.

SOPA specifically applies only to foreign websites you know.

[111027]

Dude, i seriously don't see how this would affect the internet a lot. Again, it's an American bill. America is but a small part of the world. Lots of bigger fish, like China, are doing this, and it's very, very easy to fool their systems. American bills can't do a thing outside the states. They don't have the legal authority to do so, nor do they have the power.

[Utael]

To the guy who thinks this won't affect other nations. USA is one if the largest sources if data. If something is passed here it will be used on all data going through and stored on US soil. Last no judge is required to black list a site. Any further action requires a judge but censoring a site is done by committee.

Sopa is a way for the government to control the flow of information. Just like the fcc is used to filter television. I am one of the few who still believe we need a revolution to get our government where the founding fathers wanted it to be. If we had Ben Franklin or George Washington around they would be fighting with everyone because we have done basically the same thing our country was founded to get away from.

When did govt. Become able to micro manage our lives?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

[111027]

Not really. Most sites i know of are hosted in the EU. But then, i could be wrong.

[modi123_1]

That's your sites... you then represent a small subset of the gen pop. Not to mention it's not like a country hasn't used political ties to kill a website or five.

[111027]

Believe it or not, those that will be affected by SOPA are the lesser subset of the gen pop,