American Censorship: Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

celebi23

Member
headertitle.png


What is SOPA?
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R.3261, is a bill that was introduced to the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Now before the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the Protect IP Act.

The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the infringing website; barring search engines from linking to such sites and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
Click to expand...

What is the Protect IP Act?
The PROTECT IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011; United States Senate Bill S.968) is a proposed law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S. The bill was introduced on May 12, 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 11 initial bipartisan co-sponsors. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the bill would cost the federal government $47 million through 2016, to cover enforcement costs and the hiring and training of 22 new special agents and 26 support staff.[3] The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, but Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed a hold on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP
Click to expand...

GAF, this is some 1984-level creepiness.

SAY "NO" TO INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Take 3 minutes to save the web. Call your Senators.
http://americancensorship.org/
 
Do people really not care? I mean, it's websites we use every day that can be closed because of this. You make a cover of a song on youtube and you can go to jail, for crying out loud if this pass.
 
BY2K said:
Do people really not care? I mean, it's websites we use every day that can be closed because of this. You make a cover of a song on youtube and you can go to jail, for crying out loud if this pass.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying. I honestly thought that GAF doesn't give a shit about this. I emailed/called my senators during the last Internet Censorship Day and the email responses were horrible. All of my senators from CT support both SOPA and the Protect IP Act. Still going to call/email them again. Come on GAF, care about this!
 
Well, I'm Canadian, so I can't do anything since this is a US bill, but sites I go everyday are US based, so it still affects me somehow.
 
It's 10 am in the morning on the east coast and a lot of GAF is on the west coast. I doubt they're awake and if they are they're probably on their way to work, not reading GAF*

*I am on my way to work and also reading GAF.
 
Wait what? Okay, who the fuck has a problem with this:
The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement
Click to expand...
Giving the government power to indiscriminately shut down or block websites? Yeah, that's a fucking bad thing.
But being able to get court orders against copyright infringing sites? That's how due process is supposed to work. Especially since:
The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.
Click to expand...
which sites like YouTube already do.
 
I think until you can show examples of these types of bills being abused, everything in the bill sounds pretty logical and reasonable. Sorry to say.
 
The_Technomancer said:
Wait what? Okay, who the fuck has a problem with this:

Giving the government power to indiscriminately shut down or block websites? Yeah, that's a fucking bad thing.
But being able to get court orders against copyright infringing sites? That's how due process is supposed to work. Especially since:

which sites like YouTube already do.
Click to expand...

They can abuse it to no end.
 
BY2K said:
They can abuse it to no end.
Click to expand...

If we assume the worst case scenario we should never do anything at all. Its not a perfect metaphor, but I again think of all of the "worst case scenarios" people must have imagined when the FCC first began to regulate the airwaves.

I mean, I am struggling to think of how if there exists a site called www.watchsupernatural4free.com that features streaming of the latest season of Supernatural, and if WB pursues a court order to get this site distributing their content taken down, and if that order is sucessful, I am really struggling to see how that is a bad thing
 
Is it just me or have I seen "Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX)" mentioned in a disturbing amount of articles about some really heinous shit of late?
 
Posting to make sure this thread doesn't get lost in a sea of others. This is blasphemy yet it could be worse. Will Send an email later since I'm at school :(
 
The_Technomancer said:
Wait what? Okay, who the fuck has a problem with this:

Giving the government power to indiscriminately shut down or block websites? Yeah, that's a fucking bad thing.
But being able to get court orders against copyright infringing sites? That's how due process is supposed to work. Especially since:

which sites like YouTube already do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

But at the same time, knowing how people sue for anything in this country, something as simple as a code sample on a blog could get the author sued and his site shut down if some jackass has the will to do it. And it will happen.
 
The_Technomancer said:
If we assume the worst case scenario we should never do anything at all. Its not a perfect metaphor, but I again think of all of the "worst case scenarios" people must have imagined when the FCC first began to regulate the airwaves.

I mean, I am struggling to think of how if there exists a site called www.watchsupernatural4free.com that features streaming of the latest season of Supernatural, and if WB pursues a court order to get this site distributing their content taken down, and if that order is sucessful, I am really struggling to see how that is a bad thing
Click to expand...

But where would painful fart's daughter get her Pokemon fix?!

Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Court orders are fine, but I guess some stuff like streaming being a felony and whatnot is taking it a bit far.
 
After watching a video about this bill(this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE5WlyQRvaM) it's basically the death of the internet. Giving them the power to shut a site down even if it LINKS to a with site with piracy and that includes if someone posts it in the comments? So basically, I come in, post a warez link, GAF gets shut down. That's the power they get. Sites like Google and youtube and facebook will be DEAD.
 
The_Technomancer said:
If we assume the worst case scenario we should never do anything at all. Its not a perfect metaphor, but I again think of all of the "worst case scenarios" people must have imagined when the FCC first began to regulate the airwaves.

I mean, I am struggling to think of how if there exists a site called www.watchsupernatural4free.com that features streaming of the latest season of Supernatural, and if WB pursues a court order to get this site distributing their content taken down, and if that order is sucessful, I am really struggling to see how that is a bad thing
Click to expand...

you really, really, really think that it would be used in that way? i think American politics have set a precedence again and again to go to the ultimate extreme.

this is 1984, this is scary, this is bad
 
Alpha-Bromega said:
you really, really, really think that it would be used in that way? i think American politics have set a precedence again and again to go to the ultimate extreme.

this is 1984, this is scary, this is bad
Click to expand...

Specific citations? Again, the FCC is a counter-example of the government getting into regulating a medium of information transmission without disastrous consequences. A crazy idea I know, but not everything the government touches turns into obsidian infused with raw evil.

Cynicism about the government depresses me. I mean christ knows its deserved with our current congress, but it depresses me all the same.
 
celebi23 said:
The Protect IP Act did, but, it's on hold (from what I understand). If all of GAF went to http://americancensorship.org/ and called their senators, we could have a positive impact. This shit is important.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. I'm sure my senator is only concerned with keeping gay marriage illegal. Besides, it's not like I'm one his constituents. Those are all business that fund his campaign. It's too late. The people lost this country long ago.
 
Darklord said:
After watching a video about this bill(this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE5WlyQRvaM) it's basically the death of the internet. Giving them the power to shut a site down even if it LINKS to a with site with piracy and that includes if someone posts it in the comments? So basically, I come in, post a warez link, GAF gets shut down. That's the power they get. Sites like Google and youtube and facebook will be DEAD.
Click to expand...

Sounds like some exaggeration in there, but yeah, it sounds too broad and too easy to take advantage of if that's accurate.

I think my biggest problem with this law is that it seems excessive, can't a company already already file a lawsuit against someone hosting copyrighted content? I guess it's a matter of what can be done to the person distributing the content.
 
Deus Ex was right.

Being Australian I won't be (as) affected by this especially considering internet censorship is a toxic subject over here in politics nowadays, it's still going to hurt considering most sites are hosted in the USA. Is this really going to be the death of game playthroughs on Youtube? What a ridiculous age we live in, and I can't wait until it ends.
 
I agree with your sentiments, OP, and I am strongly against both of these bills. But let's face it, our representatives are going to do what they and their corporate overlords want regardless of the will of the people.
 
The older I get, the more I am for this sort of enforcement.


The amount of money that copyright owners, recording artists, videogames developers and so on have lost over the last 15 years since the advent of mp3s, mpegs and ripped/cd-keyed games and cd/dvd burners is incredible.


I say that this is not perfect, but a good step in the right direction for protecting people's property.
 
In related news...

Per Wired:
On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder urged Americans to fink on their neighbors and report intellectual-property offenses like popping or hawking unapproved pharmaceuticals and downloading music and movies illegally.

The announcement at the White House came as the Justice Department kicked off a public campaign against intellectual-property theft, which like all successful wars against societal scourges, will have public-service announcements on MTV.

“Fortunately, we can all be part of the solution. Anyone who suspects an IP crime can visit cybercrime.gov, fbi.gov, or iprcenter.gov to report suspected offenses,” Holder said. “The public’s proactive attention to these issues can help us to disrupt the sale of illegal goods; to prosecute the individuals, gangs, and international criminal organizations that profit from these activities; and to stop those who would exploit the ingenuity of others for monetary gain.”
Click to expand...
 
Are artists actively opposed to this regulation too? I always see it as greedy corrupt business paying off politicians as if piracy actually is a right of every American citizen.

Do artists realize what the innocent downloader is really all about and why can't they add their voice?
 
Isn't the White House going to veto SOPA anyway, pass or not? At least, that's how I heard it.

Plus, this bill has not a hope in hell of passing. Once again, ActivistGAF goes off half-cocked.

Move along folks, nothing but lolPre-Election American Politics to see here.
 
JGS said:
Are artists actively opposed to this regulation too? I always see it as greedy corrupt business paying off politicians as if piracy actually is a right of every American citizen.

Do artists realize what the innocent downloader is really all about and why can't they add their voice?
Click to expand...

Define "artists". "Artists" are everyone from a guy in his garage who releases a single that sells 500 copies to the team behind producing the latest season of House to a middle-class author who sells enough books to make $60k a year.

Also "innocent downloader"? Lol. I can't think of much of a bigger "fuck you" to a creative producer then saying "I enjoyed your art, but I don't think you deserve compensation for it"
 
On one hand, this is so ridiculous and overreaching that I have a gut feeling that it could never pass as it is.

On the other hand, it makes me want to head over to Occupy with some anti-SOPA signs and scream my lungs out.
 
I'm Canadian, but I really really hope this doesn't get passed. Don't think it will, but what a potential shitshow if it did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Who should be the next James Bond? (Round 2)
2 3 4
159
5K
E-Cat replied
American Primeval (Netflix)
|OT| 
4
905
I collect VHS tapes replied
2025 Movies - North American Release Schedule
4
2K
dispensergoinup replied
Zuck: Meta will follow X’s lead, add community notes, simplify policies, prioritize free expression over censorship
2 3 4
198
10K
Bert Big Balls replied
American YouTuber Sabbatical falsely imprisoned in Russia
30
2K
Mr Reasonable replied
Top Bottom