The Peeps Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act and I don't think we've had a thread about it... at least not in the last 4 pages of this board (unless I missed it). Do people know about this? What are your views? Obviously the Bill is to try and stop online piracy which is a problem but the argument against it is that it's too broad and can potentially end up shutting down innocent websites with no illegal content. The full Bill can be found here. The reason I'm making the thread is because I looked on BBC News and saw that some websites are going to go offline for 24 hours in protest of the Bill. The most notable websites taking part in the blackout are Wikipedia and Reddit. So do you think this Bill should be passed? Is online piracy even a problem for you? Is this internet censorship? Do you support the protest? Who shot Mr. Burns? :p SOPA explained - BBC News Web Blackout Protest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 As someone who's studied law the "Stop Online Piracy Act" sounds just wrong. However it just seems like there are too many broad terms and holes to exploit. Could be better if they started smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Something I've not seen much of is evidence of the harm piracy is supposedly doing. I wonder if it's not getting confused with the angst that old style distributors feels when they realise they're out of touch. Which is why netflix exists and blockbusters is closing! http://www.studiobriefing.net/2011/07/media-exec-pirates-spend-more-on-movies-than-others/ ^ This argument seems compelling to me also ^ I pirated tons of music at uni when I was broke. Now that I have a job I have bought everything I liked, a collection of 6123 tracks that I might not have known about otherwise. Piracy IMO is a legitimate market force (I am not a libertarian!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't know what this is, and nor do I care. But frankly, that acronym is far too close to "SOFA" for my liking, and I will not have something I love as dearly as my sofa rendered a term of abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caris Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You really should care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It's been shelved for now - Obama threatened a veto and the republicans dropped the bill. It'll be back though, and will continue to be championed by technical luddites who do not understand the nature of the internet. Very Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It's been shelved for now - Obama threatened a veto and the republicans dropped the bill. It'll be back though, and will continue to be championed by technical luddites who do not understand the nature of the internet. Very Bad. And if they try, it'll just get vetoed...simple as We've won already. We just need to get rid of PIPA now which is pretty much identical to SOPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Nothing's been won. It's been shelved so that they can push PIPA instead. It's just a way of saying "oh ok, we'll back down on x, and give you y instead" so that we'll just take it like a victory and accept PIPA as the default outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Nothing's been won. It's been shelved so that they can push PIPA instead. It's just a way of saying "oh ok, we'll back down on x, and give you y instead" so that we'll just take it like a victory and accept PIPA as the default outcome. The reasoning for the shelving of SOPA was Obama's administration hinting that they'd veto it. They also hinted the same for PIPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokong Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It's been shelved for now - Obama threatened a veto and the republicans dropped the bill. It'll be back though, and will continue to be championed by technical luddites who do not understand the nature of the internet. Very Bad. So if this is a republican thing (why am I not surprised?) would that mean Obama doesn't get re-elected end of this year we'll likely see a ton of these types of bills come in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Protect IP will completely fail to stop piracy, for starters one of their main propositions to block a website simply by giving the domain name to US ISPs can be solved simply by getting a new one, an alias or by typing in the IP address. All it brings to the web is the ability to easily censor websites through rules that are just ambiguous enough to get away with pretty much anything when put in front of the right decision-makers. Edited January 18, 2012 by Shorty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So if this is a republican thing (why am I not surprised?) would that mean Obama doesn't get re-elected end of this year we'll likely see a ton of these types of bills come in? I think that's why all the sites are going with the "blackout". They still need to make the point across to the many powerful people who support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The problem is that so many of the people deciding it have no idea how the Internet works and just listen to the media companies who are just saying "piracy is bad, we should kill it" They honestly think that they're doing the right thing and they believe those who are against it are just trying to support piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The problem is that so many of the people deciding it have no idea how the Internet works and just listen to the media companies who are just saying "piracy is bad, we should kill it" They honestly think that they're doing the right thing and they believe those who are against it are just trying to support piracy. Rupert Murdoch is one of those people. He pretty much accused Google (and Obama) of supporting piracy. And his word goes out to many, many gullible minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 They honestly think that they're doing the right thing and they believe those who are against it are just trying to support piracy. So educate, don't terrorise. Shutting down websites that people rely on in a form of protest really has no discernible effect other than inconveniencing the people who would be inconvenienced by them being shut down in the future. "Oh, look what would happen if this got through!" Yeah, and that makes you better than them how? You've just demonstrated that if something pisses you off, or your livelihood is threatened in any way, you're going to dig your heels in and go all Union on them. Where does this behaviour stop? You've done it once, there's nothing to stop you having another crack at it, especially as this seems to have worked. People have overreacted, way overreacted to this. They did not examine the facts or the situatin fully before they shot their mouths off, and that is precisely what they are protesting against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So educate, don't terrorise. Shutting down websites that people rely on in a form of protest really has no discernible effect other than inconveniencing the people who would be inconvenienced by them being shut down in the future. "Oh, look what would happen if this got through!" Yeah, and that makes you better than them how? You've just demonstrated that if something pisses you off, or your livelihood is threatened in any way, you're going to dig your heels in and go all Union on them. Where does this behaviour stop? You've done it once, there's nothing to stop you having another crack at it, especially as this seems to have worked. People have overreacted, way overreacted to this. They did not examine the facts or the situatin fully before they shot their mouths off, and that is precisely what they are protesting against. Exactly. I had a few people suggest I join in on the blacking out of my site (having game screenshots would make me vulnerable to SOPA), but I view it as a form of terrorism. I don't feel it's the right way. The way Google, Amazon etc. have gone about it is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Exactly. I had a few people suggest I join in on the blacking out of my site (having game screenshots would make me vulnerable to SOPA), but I view it as a form of terrorism. I don't feel it's the right way. The way Google, Amazon etc. have gone about it is better I actually keep forgetting that you've got an interest in this, should a priori make you a better judge of things than the rest of us. I still object to the name, sounds too much like sofa and how are you supposed to take that seriously? Or maybe that's the idea... If there was a law forcing you to kill a beaver every second Thursday from March to June called the "Affection and Cuddles Resoration Act" I think it wouldn't be so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I'm not in support of it, but if it gets through it's not the end of the world i guess, as long as it's not abused! If it really is just a measure to protect copyrighted material, and not eventually transformed into a method for censorship then i could live with it. I don't usually download songs for free, as long as i can buy them easily. But record companies don't take into account people sharing tracks that are obscure/not available to purchase anyway. To me that's the sad thing about stuff like emule getting shut down. Edited January 18, 2012 by Pancake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The main problem is that the person behind it, Lamar Smith, rejected almost all the ammendments proposed during the markup which would have made it more logical, and protect websites against ridiculous things. America claims to be innocent until proven guilty. However, if you get suspected of it, they will shut the site down to America until you are cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Note that these laws would mean that sites that host or link to the copyrighted material can be closed down. While torrent sites (that don't actually host the material) are a fair enough target, it would also potentially close down sites like Youtube. It doesn't even simply cover sites that directly host the material. Art sites like etsy, Deviantart and Redbubble would also be at risk. While it's unlikely that those sites would be shut down, it still means that they could be. And they wouldn't be able to even appeal for seven days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just to clarify for those not in the know. Technically, under SOPA the following would be considered violations Posting game screenshots Posting game videos Posting TV show screencaps Posting movie screencaps Posting a video of yourself singing along to a song Plus, it gets even worse. If a user came on say here and posted one of the above, he wouldn't be responsible, @Ashley would. This entire thing is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 it's not the end of the world i guess, as long as it's not abused! That's the biggest problem I can see. It was too quickly pushed forward for consideration and the wording behind it is too vague. It could easily be used to shut down media sites if presented to the right judge with the right cross-references drawn up. Just little things... like you'll start landing on Soundcloud pages that Sony have jumped in and shut down because a clip of one of their records was used in one out of a hundred mashups. Putting it like that will make it sound petty to some people, but for me it's those little snippets of censorship that are the most worrying. With the planned extradition of that 23 year old Brit to the US, looking at 10 years jail time, it's obvious we're in the US's pocket when it comes to legal issues backed by their media industries. So it wouldn't be very surprising if we followed suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The main problem is that the person behind it, Lamar Smith, rejected almost all the ammendments proposed during the markup which would have made it more logical, and protect websites against ridiculous things. America claims to be innocent until proven guilty. However, if you get suspected of it, they will shut the site down to America until you are cleared. Thing with innocent until proven guilty is... It's nice if someone is innocent, but when someone is obviously guilty, the temptation is to just... Carpe jugulum. Which is completely the wrong thing to do, of course. And the same problem is when people think they are doing the right thing. You admire their convictions, and their hearts are in the right place, but they need redirection, like a missile that has gone off course. That said, the world is full of terrible people, and you need a weapon equally terrible to deal with them.Guantanamo Bay is a horrible travesty of justice and a mockery of democracy, but if it's between that and a YouTube video of me getting my head cut off by a nutter in a tea-towel, then break out the orange jumpsuits and the shackles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 That's the biggest problem I can see. It was too quickly pushed forward for consideration and the wording behind it is too vague. It could easily be used to shut down media sites if presented to the right judge with the right cross-references drawn up. Just little things... like you'll start landing on Soundcloud pages that Sony have jumped in and shut down because a clip of one of their records was used in one out of a hundred mashups. Putting it like that will make it sound petty to some people, but for me it's those little snippets of censorship that are the most worrying. With the planned extradition of that 23 year old Brit to the US, looking at 10 years jail time, it's obvious we're in the US's pocket when it comes to legal issues backed by their media industries. So it wouldn't be very surprising if we followed suit. Whaaaaaaaaaat. I didn't realise it was that ridiculous.That's... appalling. Ok no way should it be passed then. Internet fun ruiners! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just to clarify for those not in the know. Technically, under SOPA the following would be considered violations Posting game screenshots Posting game videos Posting TV show screencaps Posting movie screencaps Posting a video of yourself singing along to a song Plus, it gets even worse. If a user came on say here and posted one of the above, he wouldn't be responsible, @Ashley would. This entire thing is flawed. Correct me if I'm wrong (but don't) but those things have always been legal grey areas anyway, yeah? I remember hearing as a child that you were not supposed to record football games on a VHS (ouch, my archaism) or in fact any other kind of TV show and keeping it for more than something like 3 days. Or was that just an urban myth with some ring of truth to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts