OT - ATTN: We Need Your Help - PLEASE READ

[rojo8401]

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

That is completely false. Have you read the bill?

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

It's neither speculation nor fear mongering. It's exactly what the bill, as written, explicitly allows for.

If you want a technical explanation of exactly how this hands over massive censorship powers to corporate America, you can find that here: blog.reddit -- what's new on reddit: A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP

I don't have the time to rehash it point by point again here, but as someone who works in the website startup business, I've been following this bill closely for months, and all of the claims being made here about what it allows for, as written, are true. The one thing that it won't due, ironically, is stop online, or even significantly hinder, piracy.

 

[NEP4Life]

I'm shocked that anyone posting on this board would support a bill that gives scheming super-rich entertainment executives the ability to arbitrarily shut down any web site they don't like.

Ian, before this thread turns ugly, maybe it's time to lock and sticky it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That is completely false. Have you read the bill?

I have, and what Patspsycho said is completely true. Based on said accusation, DNS providers can be compelled to delist a site (so that www.patsfans.com could no longer get you here), search engines can be forced to remove it, and advertisers and payment processers can be forced to shut down its revenue streams.

Hey rojo, seeing that you live in LA too, I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and say that you probably work in the entertainment industry, either recording or movies? I say this because those are the only people who could support this garbage bill, and they do it entirely for their own gain.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

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

Actually it is an example of bad laws. The orginal intent of copyright protection was to allow the creator to profit from his original work for 28 years and then allow it to enter the public domain. Laws have changed that so that nothing ever gets into the public domain.

If companies like yours are willing to compromise and will support restoring copyright protection to 28 years then others will be more willing to support your efforts.

 

[shmessy]

I'm shocked that anyone posting on this board would support a bill that gives private individuals and corporations the ability to arbitrarily shut down web sites.

Ian, before this thread turns ugly, maybe it's time to lock and sticky it.

I support the ability to shut down websites FOR A REASON - - not arbitrarily.

I support the "INTENT" that Rojo is talking about.

Just find someone with an adequate English language education from amongst the 300+ million people in our country to clearly delineate a bill that it is aimed only against foreign ISPs that misuse copyright/intwellectual property, and that, if the allegation is proven false, harsh and automatic economic penalties are levied against the accuser.

 

[NEP4Life]

I have, and what Patspsycho said is completely true. Based on said accusation, DNS providers can be compelled to delist a site (so that New England Patriots Fans featuring News, Stats, Analysis, Messageboards & Forums, Patriots Blogs, And Salary Cap Information for Fans. - PatsFans.com could no longer get you here), search engines can be forced to remove it, and advertisers and payment processers can be forced to shut down its revenue streams.

Concur. It's unthinkable that this bill is even being considered in the United States of America, but it shows us how powerful the greedy super-rich entertainment moguls are, and what they're willing to do to the First Amendment and our freedoms to keep their huge mansions and private jets.

 

[Ian]

That is completely false. Have you read the bill?

I have read the bill, and unfortunately the potential proposal makes that true for independently run sites that don't have our own servers in house. Server companies, for their own protection and business interests, will shut a hosted site down if they're threatened legally. They're just a host, it's not their fight, they don't care and they don't want the headache. So the responsibility falls on the owner of the site.

From there the site owner would have to deal with the claims and will need to provide legal proof they're not infringing before being able to be put back online. That's the real issue.

 

[rojo8401]

I understand why people are afraid of this bill. I really do.

The president has some objections to some of the language so it's likely not to be passed anyway.

But people really need to understand that a lot of the people lining up against this bill have financial reasons too. They're just more sneaky about it.

I have compassion for the little guys, especially this site!

 

[shmessy]

Rojo, your problem is this "intent" business.

Write a bill that clearly delineates the "intent".

It's simple and easy. Why can't our government multi-billion dollar corporations craft an honest and clearly delineated bill?

Because, obviously, that is NOT the "intent".

There are no excuses for something so simple.

 

[rojo8401]

Concur. It's unthinkable that this bill is even being considered in the United States of America, but it shows us how powerful the greedy super-rich entertainment moguls are, and what they're willing to do to the First Amendment and our freedoms to keep their huge mansions and private jets.

That perception is really a huge part of the problem.

I can point you to the doeznes of former colleagues standing in the unemployment lines if you really think those are the only people piracy hurts.

 

[xmarkd400x]

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).

First: Can you quote the language in the bill that says this? Otherwise, I do not believe you.

Second: How can the US possibly make a law that extends beyond it's jurisdiction? How can a law, passed in the US, apply to a torrent site in Finland? It can't. It can, however, apply to US businesses with relationships with overseas entities.

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.

Google does not make money "mainly through ads on torrent sites". Please substantiate that statement. That statement itself is a scare tactic, intended to raise fear about how much of an impact piracy truly has.

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.

Please substantiate this in some way.

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.

Please name me one title of a work that has been 'coveted' by a Google exec, that caused financial harm to the creator(s).

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.

Google's job is to maximize value to investors. Just like AOL, MPAA, RIAA, and your company. They do not have a vested interest in being a watchdog for YOUR content.

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.

Do you mean like Youtube being one of the fastest sites out there to comply with DMCA takedown notices?

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.

Please quote the section of either SOPA or PIPA (or ACTA) where this is stated. I'd find it incredible if the senate passed a law that did not apply to it's only jurisdiction, the USA.

 

[Jangles]

I wrote my state representatives.

I've never been so involved with my life

Shame on you SOPA people for trying to kill the internet

 

[shmessy]

I understand why people are afraid of this bill. I really do.

The president has some objections to some of the language so it's likely not to be passed anyway.

But people really need to understand that a lot of the people lining up against this bill have financial reasons too. They're just more sneaky about it.

I have compassion for the little guys, especially this site!

And, HONESTLY, I am rooting for you on this.

Just like I root for the Patriots - - they have to PERFORM.

Your corporation has NOT been able to come up with a CLEARLY DELINEATED bill on this.

Do better. It's not hard to string together a couple of sentences that communicate legally that it is only concerning foreign ISP's and that there would be significant and automatic penalties for falsely shutting down a foreign website's access to the American market.

Please tell me, Rojo, how hard would that be.


.......and PLEASE don't insult everyone's intelligence by repeating the "intent" argument again.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

I understand why people are afraid of this bill. I really do.

The president has some objections to some of the language so it's likely not to be passed anyway.

But people really need to understand that a lot of the people lining up against this bill have financial reasons too. They're just more sneaky about it.

I have compassion for the little guys, especially this site!

But, if Patsfans happens to get caught up in the details, it's really not my problem, I got mine.

 

[VrabelJr]

The idea behind this bill is great. I'm a huge open source programmer and obviously Anti-SOPA. Stopping piracy would be fantastic but I'm well aware of what our government and it's lobbyists are capable of doing once they get one bill to pass - they sneak in a bunch of other bull****. A prime example of this is the SAFE Port Act and how they stashed in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) seemingly over night.

If SOPA/PIPA are passed it is going to set a precedency of more restrictions of your rights. Sure, right now it looks just like websites that are infringing upon copyrights and stolen material but I guarantee you not far after this will be the coming of ISPs charging you to access certain websites just as you pay for extra channels on your televisions. They've been trying to get this for years and they are just using piracy as an emotional tool to accomplish it one step at a time.

 

[shmessy]

That perception is really a huge part of the problem.

I can point you to the doeznes of former colleagues standing in the unemployment lines if you really think those are the only people piracy hurts.

Then hire a FARKING LEGAL WRITER at $500/hour for one week to write a CLEAR bill that can get this done.

What is so hard about that????

Your company pays more in COBRA payments to your laid off colleagues. You know the REAL reason why this won't be done????

It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

[NEP4Life]

Really, this is no different than railroads or buggywhip manufacturers in the 19th century running to government for protection for their declining industries.

The world is changing. Technology is changing. Some business models that worked even 10 years ago are obsolete.

Typically one sees industries in decline seeking financial subsidies and protection from competitors using new technologies. This may be the first time an industry has attempted to eviscerate the First Amendment to protect its profits.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

You might want to do some research into how these bills define foreign and domestic sites. And frankly, I reject the statement that it's "hurting our economy", at least to the extent that this bill, if passed, will hurt the economy a whole lot more.

 

[rojo8401]

First: Can you quote the language in the bill that says this? Otherwise, I do not believe you.

Second: How can the US possibly make a law that extends beyond it's jurisdiction? How can a law, passed in the US, apply to a torrent site in Finland? It can't. It can, however, apply to US businesses with relationships with overseas entities.



Google does not make money "mainly through ads on torrent sites". Please substantiate that statement. That statement itself is a scare tactic, intended to raise fear about how much of an impact piracy truly has.



Please substantiate this in some way.



Please name me one title of a work that has been 'coveted' by a Google exec, that caused financial harm to the creator(s).



Google's job is to maximize value to investors. Just like AOL, MPAA, RIAA, and your company. They do not have a vested interest in being an watchdog for YOUR content.

Do you mean like Youtube being one of the fastest sites out there to comply with DMCA takedown notices?


Please quote the section of either SOPA or PIPA (or ACTA) where this is stated. I'd find it incredible if the senate passed a law that did not apply to it's only jurisdiction, the USA.

Ok, you're right. I don't know Google's financials because they don't release them so it's speculation but we think it's considerable or they wouldn't be dragging their feet.

your point is correct. Google is a business just like ours. i am just trying to point that fact out.

Yes, Youtube is in heavy compliance.

Your points are fair.

Read the bill. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not a lawyer, I design artwork for Lady GaGa, Justin Bieber and the like. You caught me! But this has been explained to us and I did read the bill. Obviously I'm biased and I do appreciate that fact.

I didn't expect any support when I posted my opinion!