OT - ATTN: We Need Your Help - PLEASE READ

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Sites will get taken down.

Site owners will at a certain point not even bother creating or managing certain kinds of sites.

Those sites that do stay up will censor their users heavily to avoid being taken entirely down.

The short answer is if RandomPats fan puts up a link on this board and that website has any material whatsoever that violates anyones copyright this site would be have to pay megabucks to the point that there is no way for the site to continue.

 

[rojo8401]

I work for one of the main sponsors of this bill so I am obviously biased.

This bill is aimed squarely at foreign sites selling counterfeit goods and intellectual property. It is not to be used against sites operating inside of the United States. Period. At least that's what the language says (not being reported for political/financial reasons).

Google and other tech companies who's business models subsist on making money off of our content (mainly through ads on torrent sites , etc) have a financial stake in this matter and are using scare tactics. Your internet will not change one iota.

People need to understand how tech companies like AOL, Google, Facebook are not interested in protecting intellectual property because it limits their users access to content.

As I sit here and write this from my ivory skyscraper, I can look around the halls and count the number of empty desks that used to be occupied by hard working creative people who's only crime was that the content that they helped make was coveted by pirates and Google execs. That's not hyperbole either.

We have had 40% layoffs for the last 4 years. It tends to make you quite angry and embittered...

If Google and the rest were sincerely interested in fighting piracy then they would offer meaningful solutions and take steps to address it. They have not done anything because that would affect their bottom lines.

They say quaint things like "we're obviously against piracy" but they do nothing to help the video game makers, the movie studios and music industry people who invest huge amounts of time and money making this content.

This is not about censorship. It's about taking on pirates and the huge tech companies that profit from this traffic.

If your servers are in the US, you are not culpable. That's how it was written. I have not read it in the last six months so if that's changed I am obviously wrong and disregard.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

Rojo, the entertainment industry already has the tools to go after copyrighted material, and have it removed. The language in in PROTECT/IP SOPA (written by lawyers) is intentionally vague and leaves the whole internet open to censorship.

Sorry, I do not trust politicians at all to take their word that they will not abuse this power for their own ends at the expense of everyone else.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

As a five year old can be sued for singing happy birthday to her friend, I figure the laws against priacy are strong enough.

 

[Ian]

I work for one of the main sponsors of this bill so I am obviously biased.

This bill is aimed squarely at foreign sites selling counterfeit goods and intellectual property. It is not to be used against sites operating inside of the United States. Period. At least that's what the language says (not being reported for political/financial reasons).

Google and other tech companies who's business models subsist on making money off of our content (mainly through ads on torrent sites , etc) have a financial stake in this matter and are using scare tactics. Your internet will not change one iota.

You're right, that's what the bill is aimed at - and I understand the main reasons behind it - but the language needs to be written better because it could be a problem for sites like ours with user based content. Unfortunately people exploit loopholes and there are too many that could impact smaller sites like this one.

Needless to say hopefully they come up with something a little more specific and targeted better.

 

[rojo8401]

Rojo, the entertainment industry already has the tools to go after copyrighted material, and have it removed. The language in in PROTECT/IP SOPA (written by lawyers) is intentionally vague and leaves the whole internet open to censorship.

Sorry, I do not trust politicians at all to take their word that they will not abuse this power for their own ends at the expense of everyone else.

AS i mentioned Rusty, this bill goes after the FOREIGN SITES that we have no way of shutting down under current law. That's what this bill addresses. You have no idea how brazen the russian, chinese and other foreign pirates sites are. They operate with full impunity within their respective countries. We can't do jack and it's hurting our economy.

You are correct in your assertion that we have the ability to go after AMERICAN sites that infringe.

 

[Fencer]

Your internet will not change one iota.

Even if the rest of what you say is correct, why do you assume that nobody in the US looks at foreign sites?

Also, why do you assume that these unprecedented new censorship powers will never, ever, ever be extended?

 

[shmessy]

Couldn't the authors of this bill simply put all the concerns to rest by clearly including that it pertains only to FOREIGN ISPs??????

The ability to shut THEM down quickly is OK with me as long as there are severe penalties for any frivolous/wrong claims by the whistleblowing corporation once it gets to court..

Make it swift and effective, but lethal to frivolous and wrong accustations.

Until that is done, what a waste of productivity?

 

[rojo8401]

As a five year old can be sued for singing happy birthday to her friend, I figure the laws against priacy are strong enough.

Lol. That's unfortunately a real example of bad policing and we're working internally to make sure that crap stops.

This bill goes after foreign sites that have no interest in protecting American intellectual property and real goods.

We currently have no legal way to shut these sites down. This bill stops them.

Your internet will not be censored. That's Google and other pirate-huggers trying to confuse the issue.

 

[Patspsycho]

I work for one of the main sponsors of this bill so I am obviously biased.

This bill is aimed squarely at foreign sites selling counterfeit goods and intellectual property. It is not to be used against sites operating inside of the United States. Period. At least that's what the language says (not being reported for political/financial reasons).

Google and other tech companies who's business models subsist on making money off of our content (mainly through ads on torrent sites , etc) have a financial stake in this matter and are using scare tactics. Your internet will not change one iota.

People need to understand how tech companies like AOL, Google, Facebook are not interested in protecting intellectual property because it limits their users access to content.

As I sit here and write this from my ivory skyscraper, I can look around the halls and count the number of empty desks that used to be occupied by hard working creative people who's only crime was that the content that they helped make was coveted by pirates and Google execs. That's not hyperbole either.

We have had 40% layoffs for the last 4 years. It tends to make you quite angry and embittered...

If Google and the rest were sincerely interested in fighting piracy then they would offer meaningful solutions and take steps to address it. They have not done anything because that would affect their bottom lines.

They say quaint things like "we're obviously against piracy" but they do nothing to help the video game makers, the movie studios and music industry people who invest huge amounts of time and money making this content.

This is not about censorship. It's about taking on pirates and the huge tech companies that profit from this traffic.

If your servers are in the US, you are not culpable. That's how it was written. I have not read it in the last six months so if that's changed I am obviously wrong and disregard.

The problem with those two specific bills is that the language is so poorly written and so broad that a lot of small sites, such as this one will become dangerously exposed to prosecution. In other words it is a corporate sponsored (e.g., heavily lobbied) bill.

All it would take is one claim (read that again, just a claim, NOT proof) filed in court against a website like this one, to get an injunction to have it shut down until the claim can be heard in a court of law and we all know how long that takes.

This bill is actually a much better alternative as it directly targets foreign sites that traffic in piracy without disrupting internet protocol.

KeepTheWebOpen.com

 

[Rusty Coupe]

AS i mentioned Rusty, this bill goes after the FOREIGN SITES that we have no way of shutting down under current law. That's what this bill addresses. You have no idea how brazen the russian, chinese and other foreign pirates sites are. They operate with full impunity within their respective countries. We can't do jack and it's hurting our economy.

You are correct in your assertion that we have the ability to go after AMERICAN sites that infringe.

Get a better bill then that addresses the problem specifically, not an open ended vacuum for U.S. politicians that are bought off by corporate donations, that says 'trust us'. Nope.

 

[Jangles]

Could someone here draft up a form letter I can copy pasta to my state representatives?

 

[rojo8401]

Even if the rest of what you say is correct, why do you assume that nobody in the US looks at foreign sites?

Also, why do you assume that these unprecedented new censorship powers will never, ever, ever be extended?

Because that's not the intent of the bill. Why are you assuming that it is? Sure, someone in the future could try to alter the bill to suit their nefarious ends but that's pure speculation.

Let's try to limit this discussion to the facts and not let fear mongering creep in.

 

[rojo8401]

Get a better bill then that addresses the problem specifically, not an open ended vacuum for U.S. politicians that are bought off by corporate donations, that says 'trust us'. Nope.

It does address the problem specifically. You are parroting the fear mongers and special interests on the other site of the conflict.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Could someone here draft up a form letter I can copy pasta to my state representatives?

This is what I sent to mine:

"I am your constituent, and I urge you to oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act. These bills will kill jobs and stifle innovation, undermine cyber security, risk censoring the American Internet, and provide cover for totalitarian regimes that want to undermine Internet freedom abroad."

 

[Patspsycho]

Lol. That's unfortunately a real example of bad policing and we're working internally to make sure that crap stops.

This bill goes after foreign sites that have no interest in protecting American intellectual property and real goods.

We currently have no legal way to shut these sites down. This bill stops them.

Your internet will not be censored. That's Google and other pirate-huggers trying to confuse the issue.

You are completely wrong on that one.

If this bill is passed, Monster Cable has indicated that it will not hesitate to go after what it considers "rogue sites" such as Craigslist, et al., because those sites resell their products for lower than retail price:

Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites' | Techdirt

 

[shmessy]

Because that's not the intent of the bill. Why are you assuming that it is? Sure, someone in the future could try to alter the bill to suit their nefarious ends but that's pure speculation.

Let's try to limit this discussion to the facts and not let fear mongering creep in.

INTENT - - I call BS, Rojo.

Get off that. I support the "intent" and your corporation's intellectual property 100%.

Somewhere amongst the 300+ million people in this country is a man or woman who can CLEARLY delineate this bill in writing so we don't have cutesy support for the "INTENT".

It is the English language. It has been spoken and written for hundreds of years.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

Because that's not the intent of the bill. Why are you assuming that it is? Sure, someone in the future could try to alter the bill to suit their nefarious ends but that's pure speculation.

Let's try to limit this discussion to the facts and not let fear mongering creep in.

In contrast to you're 'all is well, nothing to see here, just move along' agenda?

 

[Ian]

Lol. That's unfortunately a real example of bad policing and we're working internally to make sure that crap stops.

This bill goes after foreign sites that have no interest in protecting American intellectual property and real goods.

We currently have no legal way to shut these sites down. This bill stops them.

Your internet will not be censored. That's Google and other pirate-huggers trying to confuse the issue.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. The overseas sites are a big issue, and now with private domain registrations it makes it even tougher to contact site owners when it comes to copyright issues. So I agree completely that something needs to be done in order to keep this from continuing, along with the continued piracy issues. It's been a big problem for a long time, and I'm absolutely behind a law to make sure it can't continue.

My concern is with the way the language is written that it makes it too easy for copyright claims to cause a site like this one to be shut down without the ability to properly deal with it. I think that bill is a good start, but it needs to be written better to correctly target the problem they're trying to address.

ALSO - Please don't attack rojo8401. The point is to try and keep this thread on the main topic and discuss it rationally. I think we're all for stopping infringement and copyright, piracy issues. But this bill is unfortunately simply not targeted enough to correctly address it without potentially causing a problem for sites like this one.

 

[Patspsycho]

Get a better bill then that addresses the problem specifically, not an open ended vacuum for U.S. politicians that are bought off by corporate donations, that says 'trust us'. Nope.

This is the better bill:

KeepTheWebOpen.com