What is your opinion of SOPA?

[Gene Steinberg]

This being is being opposed by Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. If the law gives a potential offender sufficient time to rectify a problem before the ax falls, you would wonder why they'd be concerned, other than the possibility that they'd have to spend more time dealing with individuals, and thus have to hire additional staff.

The main concern is abuses. If innocent people aren't caught in the crossfire, that's not a problem; otherwise, it may be. But can't existing copyright laws, such as DMCA, deal with this? If not, why not?

 

[Fred Sherman]

It has nothing to do with abuses; its Occam's Razor, plain and simple. Its because they'll need to spend a lot of time developing and testing the code to be able to implement the measures plus the extra manpower required to execute the court orders.

I'm sure they had the same reaction I day when they saw the 5-day execution requirement. That will require dedicated staff. Plus I doubt they like the part about them being liable as well if they fail to execute the court orders within 5 days.

From a business standpoint, it makes sense that they would oppose this. It adds operational costs and does nothing to create revenue to offset those costs. Just consider Google, for example. Passage of SOPA would end up being about a 5 cent/share hit to their stock. Thats a $16 million dollar loss.

Thats the real reason. Its not the apocalyptic doom that has no basis in reality, its the financial hit.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Funny that this bill was proposed by a conservative Republican, but is being opposed by some conservative think tanks. More to the point, though, you have to be concerned about the law of unintended consequences, and, in the end, whether we need yet another set of bureaucrats to manage what people do. Even liberals have to be concerned about this, unless, of course, they are part of the entertainment industry and are desperately seeking lifelines, rather than finding more synergies in digital media.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Funny that this bill was proposed by a conservative Republican, but is being opposed by some conservative think tanks.

Thats good. At least they're finally doing something that isn't pure partisan bickering. Protecting American intellectual property from Chinese piracy isn't a partisan issue.

More to the point, though, you have to be concerned about the law of unintended consequences, and, in the end, whether we need yet another set of bureaucrats to manage what people do.

What unintended consequences? Assuming you've read the bill, what sections do you feel could be used for anything other than their intended purpose? By requiring that actions taken are done under court order, it requires a judicial review of each and every case.

Even liberals have to be concerned about this, unless, of course, they are part of the entertainment industry and are desperately seeking lifelines, rather than finding more synergies in digital media.

Are you saying that an artist who choses not to release his or her material digitally shouldn't be afforded copyright protection? Just because there are people who want it in that format, and have the means to do so for themselves personally, should they be allowed to distribute their work illegally?

Where does that stop? Are people going to scan books that don't wish to offer an e-reader format? You can't create a digital burmese death march, forcing people into a format that don't wish to embrace for whatever reason, or even none. They are still entitled to legal protection. If their artistic desires are stronger than the market forces, then thats the end of that.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You are getting really really extreme here and making far too many assumptions. Artists do have copyright protection; as an artist myself, I believe in that protection. We also have a DMCA already. Why do we need another set of rules and regulations and enforcement features when there are already laws on the books to enforce?

 

[twhiting9275]

Looks like Godaddy quit supporting SOPA, after apparently losing a TON of business this past weekend.

As far as SOPA:
All the U.S. government is doing is trying to legalize what they've been doing for a few years, WITH the support of the *AA's. Unfortunately, this is about as overreaching as it gets, and REALLY not effective, if you look at the big picture.

#1: They've been pulling websites for a year or better. No due process, no judicial anything. No day in court, nothing of the like. Simply hand the demand to the registrar, the registrar complies. I work with a number of people who've had this happen to them. They weren't given any notification at all, the domain was simply hijacked by the U.S. government. MANY of these weren't even illegal sites, they simply linked to a video of some kind, or quoted a lyric.

#2: This isn't just about U.S. websites, this is about something much , much far reaching. If this (or it's counterpart, PIPA) passes , all it will take (literaly) is some *AA guy calling up their pet congress/senate individual, and <insertdomainhere> will be added to a global 'blacklist' as it were. It doesn't matter if that domain is hosted here, China, India, Japan, Russia, or anyhere. it's blacklisted now. THANKFULLY, that's easily prevented by using non-US DNS.

#3: This isn't just about websites, this is about money. Yes, this will allow government officials to now demand that businesses like PayPal cease doing business with these companies. Again, all on the request of a *AA 'offiicial'

Copyright is one thing, due process a completely different one. The *AA's have been circumventing due process for years now, it's just finally being turned into law.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Looks like Godaddy quit supporting SOPA, after apparently losing a TON of business this past weekend.

As far as SOPA:
All the U.S. government is doing is trying to legalize what they've been doing for a few years, WITH the support of the *AA's. Unfortunately, this is about as overreaching as it gets, and REALLY not effective, if you look at the big picture.

#1: They've been pulling websites for a year or better. No due process, no judicial anything. No day in court, nothing of the like. Simply hand the demand to the registrar, the registrar complies. I work with a number of people who've had this happen to them. They weren't given any notification at all, the domain was simply hijacked by the U.S. government. MANY of these weren't even illegal sites, they simply linked to a video of some kind, or quoted a lyric.

#2: This isn't just about U.S. websites, this is about something much , much far reaching. If this (or it's counterpart, PIPA) passes , all it will take (literaly) is some *AA guy calling up their pet congress/senate individual, and <insertdomainhere> will be added to a global 'blacklist' as it were. It doesn't matter if that domain is hosted here, China, India, Japan, Russia, or anyhere. it's blacklisted now. THANKFULLY, that's easily prevented by using non-US DNS.

#3: This isn't just about websites, this is about money. Yes, this will allow government officials to now demand that businesses like PayPal cease doing business with these companies. Again, all on the request of a *AA 'offiicial'

Copyright is one thing, due process a completely different one. The *AA's have been circumventing due process for years now, it's just finally being turned into law.

#1 - Not quite. What they want to be able to do is isolate foreign piracy sites. They don't have the authority to shut them down, but they can make this disappear from the internet for a US-based user. Yes, there is a day in court. It can only be done by court order. And then there is a due diligence provision that requires notifying the owner/operating and giving them 5 days to correct the problem before even seeking a court order. Yes, if a site makes it the point of a court order, US-based traffic will be redirected to a US AG website stating that it has been taken over and why.
#2 - Correct, its not about US websites. Its about denying access to foreign digital piracy sites. No, a non-US DNS site will not help you. All DNS does is translate a hostname to an IP address. I can still make sure you can never reach that IP address. At the same time, you have simplified and politicized a process that has far more structure and requirements than maybe you are aware of.
#3 - Once again, no. Only be court order which means the same level of judiciary review as search warrant. Opposition to it is about money, and that is reasonable for companies like Paypal and Good to take that stance. If I was the CEO of Google, I'd oppose this too. But I'm not and having worked for companies that had their IP stolen by foreign companies, causing home to go out of business, I see the value in this.

 

[twhiting9275]

#1 - Not quite. What they want to be able to do is isolate foreign piracy sites.

#3 - Once again, no. Only be court order which means the same level of judiciary review as search warrant.

Both counts, incorrect. You go on believing that lie if you like though.
I've seen what they intend to do with this bill the past year and a half, and it's just disgusting. It is all about censorship, nothing about "is it legal"

 

[Forsaken]

Both counts, incorrect. You go on believing that lie if you like though.
I've seen what they intend to do with this bill the past year and a half, and it's just disgusting. It is all about censorship, nothing about "is it legal"

I think he's ignoring the fact that the major pushers for this are in RIAA/MPAA pockets, and that the people who presented the bills now are working for the RIAA/MPAA .

They've put several billion dollars into buying off politicians for this so far.

 

[Jay]

They've put several billion dollars into buying off politicians for this so far.

What evidence can you provide for making these allegations?

 

[mcrider]

What evidence can you provide for making these allegations?

I'm not sure the number is in the billions but it is at least in the several million.

http://tinyurl.com/c3tg2sm

reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/legacy-media-bankrolling-campaigns-of-SOPA-consponsors/

 

[Fred Sherman]

What evidence can you provide for making these allegations?

They don't need evidence! Just look at all the claims being made that have no evidence to support them. You're wasting your time.

 

[Forsaken]

I'm not sure the number is in the billions but it is at least in the several million.

http://tinyurl.com/c3tg2sm

reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/legacy-media-bankrolling-campaigns-of-SOPA-consponsors/

I'm also including politicians no longer in office, as well as people who worked for government bodies who are now working for the RIAA/MPAA (There are quite a few).

What evidence can you provide for making these allegations?

Many news outfits have documents supporting the amounts that have been spent to buy politicians and government bodies. Mcrider supplied one, but I'll try to find the one I was basing my statement off of, which also included former politicians and government bodies.

They don't need evidence! Just look at all the claims being made that have no evidence to support them. You're wasting your time.

So you're saying that politicians do not take money from corporations/lobbying groups to get their agenda pushed?

If so, I'd love to know what country/world/galaxy you live in, because thats obviously not the United States, on Earth, or Milky Way galaxy. Tell me, are there unicorns, leprechauns and fairies in your dreams world?

I'll look for the Wikileaks docs showing the amount of money the RIAA/MPAA has spent buying politicians to push their various bills like this, but I doubt you'd consider that evidence either.

 

[iTuN3r]

They don't need evidence! Just look at all the claims being made that have no evidence to support them. You're wasting your time.

Answer me one thing : Don't you think this government has too much corruption going on ? I know where you are coming from and on what basis but i think you are defending totally wrong sides at the moment.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Answer me one thing : Don't you think this government has too much corruption going on ? I know where you are coming from and on what basis but i think you are defending totally wrong sides at the moment.

No. When you look at everything the US government has the capacity and means to do and doesn't, its pretty clear that the combination of the separation of powers, the systems of checks and balances, states rights versus federal purview and a basic sense of responsibility to the electorate is effective restraint. The US is not a banana republic - at least not yet.

Debt management and deficit spending is a much larger problem than corruption.

 

[Skyrie]

I transferred my domains long ago because GoDaddy seems very childish and unprofessional. The name itself “Go Daddy” is hardly a professional sounding registrar and the layout seems aimed at teenagers and net newbs than businesses and techies. I paid the fee and moved to DynDNS because their website seemed much more professional and techie based, but I did that years ago.

If SOPA passes just make sure you host your website in a country the USA is scared of and they won’t touch you!

 

[Robert F Schmitz]

Partial Quote:

...Debt management and deficit spending is a much larger problem than corruption.

Really? Corruption is exactly what has led us to where we are today.

 

[Brent W]

Wikipedia is going black on January 18th!

https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/158960549105909761

 

[Gene Steinberg]

With Congress backing down on this bill, is that necessary?

 

[Brent W]

Yes. This bill needs to be killed off entirely.