47 replies
Hi Gang,

I have read a few posts about articles relating to SOPA and GoDaddy and frankly, it's making my head spin. Can anyone nutshell SOPA for me?


Thanks.

-Jon
#sopa
  • Profile picture of the author Eddie Titan
    I suggest you take a look at post 26 in this thread:
    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5300536
    Signature
    New Members Challenge! Join me in 2012. Set an income goal for the New Year and achieve it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5302320].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ace1337
    It would basically allow the government to block all US traffic to a site if someone makes a valid claim that it infringes on copyright. It can also block their means of funding.

    It targets sites that make it easy to infringe of copyright. Youtube makes it easy to upload a cartoon and infringe on copyright. There are tons of cool user-built sites that could get destroyed by this.

    All porn tube sites would probably be gone and the government would have an incredible amount of power on the internet (which is the last bastion of free speech on this planet). They could effectively censor the internet.

    There are also security risks that experts have warned about.

    All in all, NOT good for the average person. Good for the rich guys.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5302872].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5302965].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ace1337
        @BigMike

        I honestly don't see anything cool in copyright infringement. YouTube should be policing themselves because they profit from the services they offer.

        Youtube is policing themselves and obeying the DMCA takedown notices but this would change even that. This would render the DMCA useless. Big user-built sites just can't function without DMCA. But the funniest thing is that the government would be the judge in how close your site is to "allowing an easy way to infringe on copyright". The law is written so loosely and vaguely that people are afraid it gives to much power over the internet to the government.

        The situation so far was "someone contacts you with a takedown notice and you take down something that a user posted", but now it could be "someone reports one of thousands of user-uploaded videos that you can't possibly control and they block your funding or the entire domain".

        Blocking Copyright Infringement isn't censorship by a long shot.

        I didn't say it is, but this does have implications on freedom of speech.

        Even Vint Cerf, one of the founders of the Internet and Google vice president, wrote House committee chairman Lamar Smith, saying "Requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented 'censorship' of the Web," in a letter published on CNet.

        Such as? (security problems)

        Read this

        Assuming the average person is not involved in copyright infringement, how is that a bad thing for them?

        Threat to online freedom of speech
        Negative impact on web hosting services
        General threat to web-related businesses
        Threat to users uploading content
        Threat to internal networks
        Threat to open source software
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303562].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Ace1337 View Post

          But the funniest thing is that the government would be the judge in how close your site is to "allowing an easy way to infringe on copyright".
          Um, yeah. The government is kind of funny that way, since they operate the legal system and the courts and basically the entire judicial branch of... well, the government.

          The law is written so loosely and vaguely that people are afraid it gives to much power over the internet to the government.
          If the law weren't as "loose and vague" as it is, it would be trivial to change minor aspects of a piracy operation so the law wouldn't apply.

          The situation so far was "someone contacts you with a takedown notice and you take down something that a user posted", but now it could be "you are prosecuted or sued for copyright infringement and they block your funding or the entire domain".
          Fixed that for you.

          SOPA doesn't apply to random sites that are reported to the government. It applies strictly and specifically to websites subjected to an in rem action pursuant to an active court proceeding. If you are not involved in a court case, SOPA does not and cannot do anything to your site.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303776].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author onSubie
        Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

        I'm not sure how that's a bad thing?
        Verified proof and response from defendant are not required. Currently someone who complains needs to prove their case in court or before a regulatory body, where the defendant can present their side of the argument.


        Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

        I honestly don't see anything cool in copyright infringement. YouTube should be policing themselves because they profit from the services they offer. Blocking Copyright Infringement isn't censorship by a long shot.
        There is anything wrong with that, but their should be some oversight and legal option for businesses to prove "fair use".

        For example, you have a large business running an authority web site that hosts movie reviews. It is your primary source of income and has a lot of fans and members. It pays your income and feeds your family.

        You are very careful not to use any copyright material or images!!

        One day you come and your site is gone. No warning no explanation. All your income is gone.

        After days of chasing people around you find out it was taken down by a SOPA complaint from a movie studio because they didn't like a negative review. They complained that they owned the copyright to the movie title, character names and other things you published.

        Today, you would have an opportunity to respond in court that a) a title cannot be copyright and b) using trademarks in a review is "fair use".

        Under SOPA, the trademark holder is taken at their word and you wouldn't even be informed of the site being taken down.

        The problem with your attitude (it is shared by a lot of people and relied upon by governments) is that is gives up your rights and responsibilities. You think you don't need them. Why do I need the right to an attorney? I would never do anything wrong. Why do I need the right to free speech? I would never slander anybody.

        People must realize that in order to retain their rights, they need to grant those same rights to others. To say "I am willing to give up my right to free speech to make it easier for movie studios to shut down web sites they don't like" is a huge imbalance.

        The threat is hugely overestimated and the response disproportionate. There are ways of managing these issues that both protect the trademark owner and the public. The problem is, no large corporation or government is interested in protecting the consumer.

        It isn't until after everyone agrees that a cold blooded killer should be hanged without trial that you find yourself falsely accused.

        Mahlon
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310276].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by Jon Berger View Post

    I have read a few posts about articles relating to SOPA and GoDaddy and frankly, it's making my head spin. Can anyone nutshell SOPA for me?
    There are three primary changes from SOPA.

    1. If your website is outside the United States, and illegally violating copyright, the Attorney General can ask a judge to "blacklist" your domain and IP with US internet providers, payment processors, and advertising outlets.

    2. If your website is inside the United States, and acting as a traffic diverter to a website illegally violating copyright, the plaintiff in a civil copyright infringement suit against the website where traffic is being diverted can ask a judge to "blacklist" your domain and IP with US payment processors and advertising outlets.

    3. If you stream a video or audio recording to one or more people over the internet, this is legally defined as a "distribution" for purposes of copyright legislation.

    Now, here's the "happy trail" idea of what this does:

    Some nasty pirate is operating a site full of illegal software in Belize or something, and also has a site in the US which redirects traffic there through links to the other server. The Federal government can shut down all US traffic to the site in Belize, and all US advertising and payment processing for both sites, so this nasty pirate can no longer advertise or collect money or even get traffic from the United States.

    And here's the "scary monster" idea:

    You post something on your blog and link to a domain on a shared server where one IP leads to multiple domains, and one of those domains is a pirate site but you don't know it. The Federal government shuts off your advertising and payment processing, so you lose all your income.

    Both scenarios are possible under SOPA as currently written. The opposition to SOPA is largely because people want some assurance that the "scary monster" scenario won't happen, but they don't seem to grasp that without that scenario you never get the "happy trail" scenario either. The nasty pirate in that scenario doesn't think he's a nasty pirate. He thinks the government is unfairly targeting him because they're all dicks and don't like internet marketers.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303332].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author davezan
      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      And here's the "scary monster" idea:

      You post something on your blog and link to a domain on a shared server where one IP leads to multiple domains, and one of those domains is a pirate site but you don't know it. The Federal government shuts off your advertising and payment processing, so you lose all your income.

      Both scenarios are possible under SOPA as currently written. The opposition to SOPA is largely because people want some assurance that the "scary monster" scenario won't happen, but they don't seem to grasp that without that scenario you never get the "happy trail" scenario either. The nasty pirate in that scenario doesn't think he's a nasty pirate. He thinks the government is unfairly targeting him because they're all dicks and don't like internet marketers.
      Some people are also worried about something like this:

      ICE Admits To Returning Domain While RIAA Threatens Dajaz1 With More Legal Actions | Techdirt
      Signature

      David

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303598].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author goindeep
        I thought SOPA topics where not allowed? Or did the shutting down of a few thousand domain names scare some sense into people?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303619].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author davezan
          Originally Posted by Andrei Rotariu View Post

          I thought SOPA topics where not allowed?
          Heh, this topic's turning arguably political rather than about internet marketing.
          Signature

          David

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303630].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author goindeep
            Originally Posted by davezan View Post

            Heh, this topic's turning arguably political rather than about internet marketing.
            The unfortunate thing is that some people dont realize - if the "politics" gets in the way - then... there is no more Internet Marketing.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303635].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I've read that link before - and the quotes on it don't match the conclusions of the blogger. If you are charged with bank fraud - your accounts are frozen during the investigation. Same thing happens with paypal - not surprised a site would be unavailable during an investigation.

        SOPA, as I read the legislation a while back, seems to extend the laws already in place for U.S. sites to websites coming into the U.S. from other countries. It's not a coincidence that most illegal download sites are operating outside U.S. jurisdiction.

        I also see much of the resistance to SOPA and the calls for petitions and claims of "censorship" - were begun by people and groups living outside the U.S.

        How many times have we told people "there's not much you can do because that site is hosted outside the country"? Isn't that the main thrust of the SOPA legislation?

        I'd be willing to bet that most signing petitions and complaining about the dangers of SOPA have never read the full legislation but have only read blogs and petitions about it.

        kay
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303871].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rashell
          Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

          Why can't they control it? Why should the intellectual property owner have to go to the expense of searching for violations when they don't profit from such services.

          Google doesn't want to police it because it's cuts into their bottom line - it's their service, they generate revenue from it so they should be responsible for it.

          ...

          It reads to me like the larger services online, including hosting services are going to have to step up and start doing a job that was their's in the first place.
          Wouldn’t that be like saying the Yellow Pages should be policing the business practices of every business they have listed? Newspapers & magazines for every ad? ABC, CBS, NBC every commercial?

          Also, how can they know who owns each copyright without the copyright owner’s participation? Then there's sorting violators from the sites with proper license to use, etc. That's just a huge can of worms for any one company to police.

          Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

          All I see is a bill clarifying a lot of what's already on the books - in some cases, making it more streamlined and hopefully more effective.
          I wonder if it's setting up a bit of a double standard though?

          There's a lot of people offline who infringe upon copyrights. They have no problem making a little hair bow sticking a picture of Tinkerbell on it and selling it at flea markets, craft shows, small boutiques.

          Will these craft show (etc) organizers be held to the same standards as a site linking out to other sites which violate copyrights? Or do lawmakers not care because it's not "global"?

          BTW-- I was "fired" by a small boutique owner because I wouldn't make her a bunch of (non-licensed) Disney trinkets she could resell. It's amazing how many business owners either don't get or don't want to get copyrights.

          Rashell
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5304067].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Wouldn't that be like saying the Yellow Pages should be policing the business practices of every business they have listed? Newspapers & magazines for every ad? ABC, CBS, NBC every commercial?
            The "other people do it" argument gets used a lot - and I don't buy it as an excuse. If the offline merchant found someone to make "disney" trinkets and you reported it - she could have a real problem with the law as could the person who made the items. That's why there are enforcements aimed at faked products coming into the U.S. and why whole shipments are confiscated when found.

            Look in the yellow pages and see if there are ads for "buy stolen credit card numbers" there. Do you see ads on TV or in magazines promoting blatant illegal activities? Of course not. You may see someone hawking a video or ad of a product that ends up being deemed "illegal" - but you won't see it advertised after that. There are laws - with teeth - that advertising venues must adhere to. These are not "censorship" laws - but laws to protect the rights of honest merchants.

            We know what illegal downloads are - they aren't hard to identify. The choice is to try to limit them by making it difficult/expensive for those site owners - or to say "never mind" and let them take over.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5304156].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rashell
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303729].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Rashell View Post

        So this may be a stupid question. BUT... wouldn't what they're trying to accomplish with SOPA be covered with that stupid clause they put at the beginning of every movie?
        That's where the distribution/broadcast distinction comes in. The FBI has jurisdiction over distribution; the FCC has jurisdiction over broadcast. Because it's not been entirely clear for the past fifteen or twenty years whether downloads are legally distribution or broadcast, that clause at the beginning of the movie arguably didn't apply to internet downloads. SOPA nails this down and gives jurisdiction to the FBI.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5303829].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    For those of you wondering why SOPA is a bad thing, here's the short version: It is over reaching, lacks due process, and is too broad to keep anybody with a web site out of the cross hairs.
    Signature

    Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5304161].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

      For those of you wondering why SOPA is a bad thing, here's the short version: It is over reaching, lacks due process, and is too broad to keep anybody with a web site out of the cross hairs.
      As I keep saying over and over again, SOPA does not do anything to anyone except in the course of an in rem action pursuant to an active court proceeding.

      Which is, funnily enough, due process.

      Furthermore, actions under SOPA take place if and only if specific laws are being violated:
      section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code

      section 501 of title 17, United States Code

      section 1201 of title 17, United States Code

      section 34(d) of the Lanham Act
      These do not encompass "anybody with a web site" by any stretch of the imagination.

      To be clear, I'm not saying you should or should not support SOPA. I'm simply saying you should understand what it is before you make any decision about your position on it. Most of the people opposing it are just flat-out lying about what it will do.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305259].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        To be clear, I'm not saying you should or should not support SOPA. I'm simply saying you should understand what it is before you make any decision about your position on it. Most of the people opposing it are just flat-out lying about what it will do.
        The bottom line is who do we trust. I certainly don't trust most of the people who make a living "governing" the people, and are in charge of making this law.

        And what it will do, and what it can do are two different things ... intent vs implementation. It looks to have the potential for abuse that has not been adequately addressed.

        Marvin
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305319].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston View Post

          The bottom line is who do we trust. I certainly don't trust most of the people who make a living "governing" the people, and are in charge of making this law.
          So who do you trust?

          Random people on the internet who are lying to you about what a law does, so you'll oppose it with them? Software and movie pirates? CPA content-lock jockeys who make money by advertising illegal downloads they don't even host?

          Yeah, I think I actually do trust Congress more than I trust those people. But hey, trust who you want.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305395].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

            So who do you trust?

            Random people on the internet who are lying to you about what a law does, so you'll oppose it with them? Software and movie pirates? CPA content-lock jockeys who make money by advertising illegal downloads they don't even host?

            Yeah, I think I actually do trust Congress more than I trust those people. But hey, trust who you want.
            For the record, I rarely, if ever, trust anyone until they have proven they are worthy of trust.

            There is a reason that Congress is considered the opposite of Progress. My experience is staff does most, if not all, of the wording of these laws. And while it should be obvious, they are not elected to their staff positions.

            And as Brian and others have said, the laws prohibiting illegal activities are already on the books. Gaming is what leaves loopholes, and I have no doubt that statement applies to SOPA as well.

            Marvin
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305623].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author robin lee
              Originally Posted by Marvin Johnston View Post

              There is a reason that Congress is considered the opposite of Progress. My experience is staff does most, if not all, of the wording of these laws. And while it should be obvious, they are not elected to their staff positions.

              Marvin
              I have heard several Senators/Congresscritters say that corporate/industry lobbyists write many of the laws that will be signed without much study by the "lawmakers". So, in addition to House staff, the big boys get to write their own laws.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305718].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author goindeep
            I think the main reason's SOPA is bad is that websites can be shut down with only an accusation(whoops no more wikileaks), website owners are responsible for all content on the site (user generated...how the hell is that gonna work?), SOPA use's vague ambiguous language in a world where you can blanket an entire niche with a couple of words and the bill fails to consider the costs of complying with such a bill.

            I want to expand just on that last point for a sec here: do you really think this thing will take down google, youtube, facebook, flickr? No, it wont. Do you want to know why? Because they have the resources to comply with the bill and all they will need is to turn over more money so that they can afford to stay in business. How will they do that? Yep, you guessed it! They will take more money from you! You could potentially see sites charging for memberships but at the very least advertising and marketing prices will go up! and people where wondering how the bill effects I.M. ???


            No one is arguing that piracy and content theft is a bad thing and must be stopped. What we are saying is that a blanket bill which empowers government's and forces massive bureaucratic change to the Internet is a massive threat to the way we produce and share content, the way we make a living, the costs associated to being online both as a user and as a business person and potentially even to free speech on the basis of piracy.

            Did no one read about what happened to Dajaz1 dot com ?

            Andrei
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305652].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        As I keep saying over and over again, SOPA does not do anything to anyone except in the course of an in rem action pursuant to an active court proceeding.

        Which is, funnily enough, due process.

        These do not encompass "anybody with a web site" by any stretch of the imagination.

        To be clear, I'm not saying you should or should not support SOPA. I'm simply saying you should understand what it is before you make any decision about your position on it. Most of the people opposing it are just flat-out lying about what it will do.
        Keep believing that. How many YouTube videos are posted or linked to from this very website? Do any of those videos break any copyright laws? (You couldn't possibly know the answer to that)

        Look for the wording "dedicated to the theft of US property" in the bill. What does that mean? Does that mean linking to a site that may be infringing?

        How many of our blogs have links to the Warrior Forum, YouTube, or any other site that may or may not be infringing? All that do, may be subject to SOPA's reach. Different people will interrupt it in different ways. Heck, just look at the Wire Act of 1961. This administration's Department of Justice just made a 180 u-turn, after 40 years!

        CD, I'm not looking to debate you on this, I just don't believe in new laws being made for acts that are already considered crimes. Copyright infringement is already a crime. Let's work the laws already in the books, rather than creating new laws that can turn everyday citizens into criminals.

        Doesn't the government have terrorists to catch anyway?

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
        Because I was not a Socialist.


        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
        Signature

        Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305535].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marvin Johnston
    Another good description of SOPA is by Jason Falls on the Social Media Explorer website:

    SOPA Is Not A Black Or White Issue | Social Media Explorer

    And there is also a link to sign a petition to oppose it for those who are opposed to it.

    Brians post above is a good summary.

    Marvin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5304744].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LeoLover
    So does SOPA good for us internet marketer or not?
    From what I have read, SOPA is good right.. We want to stop piracy..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5304841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatriciaS
    The Wikipedia article was outstanding. What scares ME is that a couple of points that were used as argument in favor but which I see as very negative:

    Rights-holders see intermediaries - the companies who host, link to, and provide e-commerce around the content - as the only accessible defendants

    and

    John Clark, spokesman for Pfizer, testified at the committee hearing that patients could not always detect cleverly forged websites selling drugs that were either misbranded or simply counterfeit.

    ... Or which are Canadian (illegal to buy them, even if they're legitimate, but people are so desperate for AFFORDABLE healthcare and meds in this country that they will do that anyway).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305106].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author robin lee
    Found this on YT this morning. Is sums it up in the first few minutes then goes into details. Very worth listening to IMHO. Find out the big corporations, such as CBS/Viacom, that are spending millions to push SOPA are the very ones that made, distributed and instructed people how to download copyrighted material -- and made money doing it

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305662].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author goindeep
      I cant remember who it was that said "Governments create laws when they can't find solutions".

      Maybe Jaque Fresco? Whoever it was, that quote is perfect for this thread.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305695].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author robin lee
        Originally Posted by Andrei Rotariu View Post

        I cant remember who it was that said "Governments create laws when they can't find solutions".

        Maybe Jaque Fresco? Whoever it was, that quote is perfect for this thread.
        I would add to that a sort of modified Hegelian Dialectic of Problem - Reaction - Solution.

        Itʻs been used as long as there have been leaders who want to guide a group or population in a specific way.

        Create, or point out and frame the dialog around a particular problem; wait for the reaction which is known ahead of time, provide the solution.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305750].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rashell
      Originally Posted by robin lee View Post

      Found this on YT this morning. Is sums it up in the first few minutes then goes into details. Very worth listening to IMHO. Find out the big corporations, such as CBS/Viacom, that are spending millions to push SOPA are the very ones that made, distributed and instructed people how to download copyrighted material -- and made money doing it

      SOPA Video
      I really wish people would stop distributing that video. First the guy reports on the O'Dwyer case with a biased manipulative slant. The kid was a skeez who had been warned several times by his own government to cease and desist. He did not. He shouldn't be painted as an innocent victim.

      Second if I gave you all the tools to break into your neighbors house and showed you how to do it, would you? Do you really think the excuse "CBS (etc.) showed me how to do it" should fly?

      Have you ever seen that show "To Catch a Thief"? Someone could watch it to figure out ways to break into houses. I watched it to learn ways to add safety measures.

      People can make money teaching you how to do all sorts of things. It's what you do that matters in the end.

      What I think is interesting... a year earlier he's ranting about Viacom's copyright infringement in


      And now he's opposing SOPA (because Viacom etc supports it?).

      I don't get the impression he has a problem with copyright infringement but who's doing the infringing. "It's ok if O'Dwyer does it but not Viacom" isn't the message that should be sent.

      Rashell
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305939].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatriciaS
    First, THIS IS NOT POLITICS. Not even close. This is POLICY and both parties put the bills together plus opposition comes from people in both parties or none, all across the country. One way or another, these bills WOULD affect the internet, WOULD potentially affect our businesses either from afar or up close and personal. We NEED to be able to discuss the implications.

    I thought this excerpt from an editorial in the NYT about boht SOPA and PIPA was worth considering. It strikes terror into my heart and I can't understand why others wouldn't respond similarly:

    The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
    And then there's this, and since Homeland Security was involved in some of the recent clampdowns on the Occupy movement, it's nothing to sneeze at:

    YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have played an important role in political movements from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park. At present, social networking services are protected by a “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content as soon as rights-holders point it out to them. The House bill would destroy that immunity, putting the onus on YouTube to vet videos in advance or risk legal action. It would put Twitter in a similar position to that of its Chinese cousin, Weibo, which reportedly employs around 1,000 people to monitor and censor user content and keep the company in good standing with authorities.
    Then there are sites like pinterest.com, which I adore. I go there regularly (several times a week) to take a mental vacation. I'm thinking about 100% of the content there is copyrighted, with absolutely no harm done in the process IMO. In fact, one could argue that pinterest promotes the sites where the images originated. Too, some of the content is uploaded by the owners of the photos and images. Anyway, it seems to me pinterest.com would just have to disappear, which would be a terrible loss.

    Forgot the NYT link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/op...eech.html?_r=3
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Franklin
    Looks like a lot of opinion, conjecture, and even some plain old, superstition, but you know that is what I love about the Internet, if you want to be a geek you can, and if you want to be totally uninformed you can also do that.,

    So why not spread the table the right way, the thing is most of the time the Internet works, sure its not perfect, and yes, there are, from time to time, some things that should not exist online. But who should decide, what should have a place online and what should not exist at all, that is something that is not so easily decided, and while sometimes you might be able to point to a website and say that should not exist, there are other websites and places online where it is not so easy to figure out and should we allow a minority of the people to decide what is and what is not suitable for consumption, (remember not so long ago, to have an alcoholic drink was against the law)
    (most of us are not old enough to remember prohibition, be we can study history to see where we made serious mistakes, in the past, I think we should learn from our mistakes)
    I think over all the good far outweighs the bad, and I also believe that no law is going to stop online piracy, just as passing gun laws will not stop murder, people kill people, I say this because this is the same mentality that is being used here to support this type of law, when you try to rule the people using law, you will eventually find out that it is the people that govern themselves, they are the ones that decide what they will or will not do. Just as laws do not stop acts of violence, or even robberies, passing a law for the sake of passing it is not wisdom...
    But hey that is just my few cents worth, if you want some more interesting facts or even a few well researched articles, have a look below.

    If you want a good analysis of this issue, have a look at the following article.

    What is SOPA Bill 2012?

    7 Things to Know About Controversial Legislation

    What I find of particular interest is that the burden or proof here is passed from the plaintiff to the defendant, that is the number one thing I see that is just pure EVIL.

    Another interesting thing here is that by farting in church you can almost always find someone that will still laugh out loud, even though most of the people would be terribly embarrassed for the poor soul who managed to time that accident at just the wrong time.

    If your not that into the legal system or reading long boring legal language, I like this quote the best of any reply posted to this thread.

    Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

    For those of you wondering why SOPA is a bad thing, here's the short version: It is over reaching, lacks due process, and is too broad to keep anybody with a web site out of the cross hairs.
    That does it for me, but if your still not convinced of the latent EVIL in this issue.

    please do continue reading.

    There have been too many of these "supposedly well intentioned bills, over the last year"

    First it was protect against porn sites, (protect our children from porn) Anyone would support that right, sure, but really what it was as they say was a unicorn disguised as something else entirely, a bill that seemed like it would be a good thing because there is just way too much porn on the internet and its just not decent…

    But we found out that at the heart of the bill there was language that would restrict the freedom of religious expression, (making it unconstitutional) (not I know that those clowns in congress are supposedly the smartest people in the room)

    Congress Tries To Hide Massive Data Retention Law By Pretending It's An Anti-Child Porn Law
    Imagine that, (now this really makes you think about things) Who would not support this law?
    Congress Tries To Hide Massive Data Retention Law By Pretending It's An Anti-Child Porn Law | Techdirt

    Then we had Protect IP act, which also was a real mess,

    Background
    If passed by Congress, Protect IP Act would allow the government to curb public access to websites that have “no significant use” other than infringing copyright, enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. It would also make unauthorized media streaming an act of felony and hold the web publishers and hosting services responsible for curbing their users from posting copyright-infringed content.
    source, knowyourmeme.com

    In addition, Stop Online Piracy Act would effectively rid of the safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content upon notice. Under strict interpretation, a wide range of online communities and social networks including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook would have to censor users or get shut down and ordinary users could be imprisoned for five years or posting any copyrighted work.


    (Now we had SOPA) Yet another attempt at (Intensive regulation of the internet)


    What next, will they introduce a bill to protect our internet screens from damaging pixels?

    It would be for our own good because were just not smart enough to figure out what is best for us right?

    when you consider the implications of a bill that is not designed to serve a purpose but to oppress a people or regulate the internet that is something that should cause you to loose sleep at night.

    As you can see, just because a bill sounds good on the surface does not mean that it is good.

    Just as DDT seemed like a great thing to kill mosquitoes in the 60s and 70s but later we found out that
    the results of using materials without fully testing out the effect on the environment caused consequences that no one seemed to realize at the time, (I remember kids used to chase after those DDT spraying mosquito trucks)

    We did not think much about it because the Government knew what it was doing right?

    Folks, all three of these "Bills" might seem like a good thing but like DDT it is Poison and it will cause a horrible situation if we are not firm on what we the "people" will allow…

    If you remain unconvinced, likely your part of the 20 percent that support this travesty of justice and in that case nothing will convince you that your wrong…

    If that is the case, then I am not talking to the 20 percent at all but the 80 percent that actually do go out and vote in elections, because congress needs an overhaul and 2012 is the best time, to get it started.
    Signature
    Bitcoin | Crypto | Blockchain Secrets |
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305761].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Iriss
    They lost 10K+ accounts. So what?

    They have millions.

    This is a publicity stunt they have been pulling for years to gain more customers. Now all attention is on them. They are gaining new sign ups like crazy right now.

    What was that other story... elephant hunting? Same thing.

    It's unethical, but it works in their favor.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305769].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    It's a bad thing, you can think about why and with what agenda someone would want to define "copyright violation".

    One example would be Wikileaks which without a doubt would have been blocked under the guise of "copyright violation".

    There are other implications, like privacy intrusion, giving the ISP the right to check and tap-into your internet traffic and similar.

    Short..it's a really bad bill which will ONLY benefit the major corporates for their profit...and it will have negative effects up to and including CENSORSHIP for the majority of internet users.

    Think about the equivalent of the Chinese Internet Firewall..built in America, SOLELY run and controlled by and for corporate interests.
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305777].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
      Originally Posted by GeorgR. View Post


      One example would be Wikileaks which without a doubt would have been blocked under the guise of "copyright violation".
      That's not necessarily true. The government does not copyright their documents. There are other laws that Wikileaks broke, though. Espionage comes to mind. The supplier of the docs is facing many charges, including "aiding the enemy". He could face the death penalty.
      Signature

      Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author UTarmadillo
    As soon as you open the door to government control, you open it to corrupt manipulation by the lobby powers...why do you think the owners of large media stores want it. They will create a monopoly for themselves and raise the value of their assets at the expense of everyone else. Same game new media.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5305835].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mikeink
    Good Day All;

    Well as I see it many of the replies here regards SOPA, are way off base.

    So many of you run GO DADDY down, yet you use them. I have not found a perfect host yet. You may complain about a certain host(s), yet they may be the one that will give me better service.

    Please tell me which providers for hosting, domains are the ones that do not support SOPA, and are in the top five. As far as I understand most of the good one are working for you regards this.

    Most of the good ones will support this new act. The only ones that will not are the ones that it will truly affect because they will have to find another way to screw you, and or the one's that will not take the time to find out all the info.

    Let's look at this in another window. I enjoy hunting birds,moose,elk,deer, also fishing. Coming home skunked is ok with me, the farmer makes more money. There are many rules/laws within this area also. Guess who complain the most and do not mark their licenses when they get the moose that they want and the pochers.

    NOW you YANKS have lots of elections coming up over the year. Let your REPRESENTATIVE know, that they will not get your vote if this new law passes and have them enforce the laws that you have better. We all know that the internet is international and VERY HUGE. You pay you reps in your taxes. Make them earn it.

    International laws are not the same as your country laws are. The law makers need to work with all of the world for International problems. Not Just Their Own Country.

    Lets compare apples to apples and not peaches to lemons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Have Your Reps in Government Work The International Scene.

    FYI I am getting 20 more from a domain seller, in the near furture. My sites will be starting to go live in 2012.

    I have problems with two others name/hosting providers and will not use them. Both are fairly large, and many of you use them.

    Watch the video and listen too the video that is on this post 2-4 times again, it does not tell you exactly as to the new law. It is more of an Andy Rooney style and it is his own opinion.
    Signature

    Well let me see. OH yea need to start work on my ???????? again.
    Been working for slave wages to long.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306013].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author vne5
      This conversation is hilarious! How long is going to take for people to realize that this is the governments (and I mean ALL governments) way of controlling the #1 media source on the planet!

      Money breeds money! So it really doesn't matter what "representative" you write, call, fax, or email saying you wont vote for them...

      As far as how this is going to affect us in IM... Here is a scenario...

      Bob, a well-known politician, has a son named Joe. Joe creates a WSO (because he is unemployed and living in his father's basement) and sells his WSO to John and a few hundred others (it was a ok WSO, not WSO of the day of course). John likes Joe's WSO but thinks it's missing something... John rehashes Joe's WSO (hahaha...i know, in real life that never happens). John creates his own WSO based on Joe's WSO and sells 1000 copies in 4 hours (WSO of the day)! Joe buys John's WSO only to find that is a rehashed version of his, and gets pissed! Joe runs to his father (who was home because it was raining that day and his father couldn't play golf on taxpayers money) and tells him that John copied his WSO. Joe's father (wanting to prove that he still has some decency because he is a slimy politician) promptly makes a call (using a unlimited, international cell phone paid for with your tax money) to one of his other slimy politician buddies to report this violation. John's WSO, website, and IP are banned along with, all of the customer's websites, and IP's using John's rehashed version of Joe's WSO. And to top it all off, Warrior Forum is banned for allowing John to sell Joe's rehashed WSO.

      SEE!!! Now we all have to find another place to hang out....

      That is how SOPA effects us!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5306362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308015].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author davezan
      Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

      can someone objectively set me straight on what I'm missing?
      Not sure if you saw it, Mike, but check the dajaz1.com situation I linked on here
      as well as the Rojadirecta.com case. Granted that they're few and between, but
      those are worst-case scenarios many folks hope to avoid arising from SOPA.

      If anything, it is the devil in the details that need some work, and accountability
      ought to go (?) both ways.
      Signature

      David

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308150].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        We know laws can be abused but it doesn't negate the need for laws. There have been people imprisoned for years for crimes they did not commit - but that doesn't mean the laws against those crimes should be rescinded.

        I'm neither for nor against SOPA - but the fact that so much noise against SOPA comes from outside the U.S. is enough to make me go "huh?" and look for the dog in the hunt.

        kay
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5310063].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nicheblogger75
    I don't think it's a bad thing for those of us doing the right thing. however, here's scenario: You link to a site that puts up a video that infringes on copyright and all of a sudden your website is blocked for diverting traffic to a site with a copyright infringement.

    I'm sorry, I'm not anti-government or anything, but the government has a habit of twisting laws to fit their needs when it suits them, and this is one law that I hope does not pass.

    We've already lost too may rights in this country.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5308034].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311172].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author atvking
      I do not think that SOPA violates "freedom of speech". First off let me start by pointing out the obvious: there is no such thing as freedom of speech. You are NOT free to, just for example, spread hate, insult people, call to lynch ect ect. and it's a very good thing that speech is not entirely "free".

      Freedom of speech is beginning to sound like "freedom of piracy". Can't help but notice that the anti-SOPA crowd seem to be mainly websites that have made millions if not billions by facilitating a platform where one can upload other peoples intellectual property without their express permission (Facebook/Youtube ect)

      In reality, it is not very hard to not break SOPA so I don't see what the big deal is: just don't steal other peoples material. Easy as that.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author onSubie
        Originally Posted by atvking View Post

        I do not think that SOPA violates "freedom of speech". First off let me start by pointing out the obvious: there is no such thing as freedom of speech. You are NOT free to, just for example, spread hate, insult people, call to lynch ect ect. and it's a very good thing that speech is not entirely "free".
        If I buy a product and it harms my family, see for example, Ralph Nader's battle against the auto industry, then I should have the right to speak up and say that the product is harmful.

        A corporation should not be able to use trademark infringement from preventing me from speaking. See the Conservative Party of Canada and mesothelioma widow Michaela Keyserlingk.

        The problem with SPOA isn't the idea of protecting intellectual property, the problem is the blanket authority it gives to the State to arbitrarily silence people and shut down websites without disclosing the reason or offering much recourse.

        It isn't hackers and file sharers who are protesting, it is the media and Internet watchdogs like Michael Geist and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

        Mahlon
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311462].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author atvking
          Originally Posted by onSubie View Post


          A corporation should not be able to use trademark infringement from preventing me from speaking.
          Nominative use of a Trade Mark is completely legal.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311514].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author UptonGoodwin
    People don't understand that SOPA is the beginning of the government being able to control the Internet. This bill is not good for the Internet, even if it doesn't reach too far for some people yet, it will be the start of the government trying to regulate the internet.

    I wouldn't be surprised if this bill passes if there's other bills behind it to get rid of net neutrality and let your ISP charge you more to access premium sites (like facebook)

    Quite a few of the congressmen/women trying to pass SOPA don't even know how the Internet works, they are just doing the work of corporations.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5311485].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JustVisiting
    SOPA is the thin end of the wedge.

    Quote:
    "Indeed, legal experts agreed: SOPA did open a lot of dangerous doors, many of which could lead to the widespread censorship of the Internet. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe recently even argued recently that the bill violates the First Amendment."

    Source:
    The Titans of Silicon Valley Rally Around the SOPA Alternative - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

    None of the large tech companies want SOPA. They are in favor of a more workable bill called OPEN.

    SOPA will make sites like Youtube unworkable. Youtube knows that. They cannot police every video uploaded. Google and other search engines cannot review every site they index.

    SOPA would kill WEB 2.0. The proposed alternative;OPEN,is a process to stop piracy. It is not what amounts to the summary execution of websites aka SOPA.
    Signature
    "...If at first you don't succeed; call it Version 1.0"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5314672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kokopelli
    Yes, if SOPA / PIPA don't get passed, something else will ... we have to be vigilant.
    Signature
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5330254].message }}

Trending Topics