And Boom Goes the Internet (Protect IP/SOPA Censorship Acts)

[ZimMan2]

So allegedly, the Senate is having a hearing on this tomorrow, and I'm fully expecting the entire internet to detonate at the very least.

Have a look at the Wiki article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act)

A New York Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html)

Biden speaks out against it (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/10493316765/vp-joe-biden-explains-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-anti-american-bad-idea.shtml)

If this gets passed, I don't see it ending well. At all. I already signed this petition (http://americancensorship.org/), which also let me send a little letter to my senators, where I basically explained that aside from my own personal issues with the bill (which I'm sure other people would explain far more eloquently than I ever could), passing it would invoke a PR nightmare and, like I said here, not turn out well in any way, purely from a logistic standpoint. But I could be wrong and this might not mean anything in the grand scheme of things, even if it does pass.

What say you, Gailbo?

[Spiffy]

It will probably pass, because the politicos don't understand the issue in depth, or they will bend to the more obvious loud supporters. And then we will get our own little Information Highway version of the Patriot Act--something which will start off small but build into insane levels of arbitrary misuse.

Biden spoke on this, but I wonder if Al Gore, because you know... he INVENTED the Internet :rofl: has anything to say? Heh, that joke never gets old.

[ZimMan2]

No one else has anything to say on this?

[Suffering Sappho]

I saw that and signed the petition. I think people might just be confused by the thread title like I was at first. Try adding "Censorship" to the title to make it a little more clear.

[EmarAndZeb]

No one else has anything to say on this?

I have already signed a different petition against it (for all the good such things may or may not do); I also think it's a terrible bill. There was a thread a while back about the "Protect IP" portion of it where I said more of what I think (basically that it was indeed justified to talk about "censorship" in connection with these bills, because even though the stated goal is to stop piracy, the fact is the language is so overreaching that it can be used as a club to stifle dissent and other, legal speech).

[Spiffy]

No one else has anything to say on this?
Most people don't understand it, or even know its going on now, or what it means.

Its why its very likely to pass, and its only after people see the effects that they'll notice. And even then, maybe not, because from their end all they may notice is that this website they used to like is no longer available to them, and they won't know why.

[ZimMan2]

That's depressing. The hearing is happening right now, so I guess we'll know soon enough.

Also, I don't think I can change a thread title myself.

[Spiffy]

I'll say this, I find myself wondering if after this passes, all of the free video streaming services (and I mean the LEGIT ones) will go away--and not just the illegal ones.

An argument could be made that sites like Hulu might prosper when they illegal competitors are gone. But it could also occur that they'll know they have people over a barrel now, and the free mode will go away--leaving just the paid option.

The show specific streaming networks do from their own websites could go away too. I could see more and more "exclusive" deals, with Amazon, iTunes, etc (or a paid version of Hulu, or just to Comcast customers on Demand, or just to Verizon customers on Demand, etc etc etc.), where shows are ONLY exclusively provided to a specific vendor. Leading to us hopping in a time machine back to a decade ago, when we all had to actually watch shows when they were actually ON, since nobody is going to have ALL the services they need to see everything they want to. I guess that will help the DVR market, but some of us have functioned perfectly well without DVRs in the past few years, and that may be gone.

These are just the practical everyday concerns, of course. The more chilling stuff--the censorship and potential very arbitrary blocking of large parts of the Internet--won't be as "in our faces" as free TV over the Internet maybe going away (or being much more scattered and harder to find). People will miss the obvious before they notice the subtle. When they go looking for that video of someone being talked about around their water-cooler who was on last night's American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, and can't find any clips? That's what they'll notice.

[ZimMan2]

My worst-case-scenario, savior-in-the-dark hope is that if this passes, it will end up failing and getting repealed in about a month.

In all honesty, I don't see this lasting if it passes, much like Prohibition. However, my fear is how long it would take the government to realize it's a bad idea.

[Spiffy]

My worst-case-scenario, savior-in-the-dark hope is that if this passes, it will end up failing and getting repealed in about a month.

In all honesty, I don't see this lasting if it passes, much like Prohibition. However, my fear is how long it would take the government to realize it's a bad idea.
Was the Patriot act ever repealed?

Same thing. Government doesn't give up power once we give it to them.

[ZimMan2]

Blargh.

Honestly, I'm surprised how relatively unknown this is at the moment. I mean, how long did it take for The Orphan Art Act to spread like wildfire? And yet it looks like the only places really lighting up are Twitter and Reddit. Even TGWTG's thread on it only has two pages.

I sent letters to Obama and Biden a little bit ago, preemptively asking Obama to veto it if it passes congress and asking Biden to not to cave to pressure on the issue. And I went ahead and posted on Facebook and made a YouTube video about it. Still remaining hopeful, even though it seems nothing has happened since Google, Mozilla, and all those other companies sent out their letter in opposition.

EDIT: Holy shit, Spambots on Twitter are already using the #SOPA tag for "free college" advertisements. Double blargh.

[Patrick Gerard]

I maintain that the idea of Intellectual Property is, itself, crooked and that artists who support it have deluded ideas about where their own ideas come from.

Claiming ownership over an idea is like when Bush claimed that the U.S. owned outer space.

Our adherence to this failed approach only propels forward countries who DON'T respect ANY media contents rights. The existence of copyright in even a limited form was, itself, a compromise and the United States' climb to world power was fueled by our general lack of respect for foreign copyrights. (Mark Twain was published and publicized on money made pirating Dickens.)

What it comes down to is, some form of copyright is the best way anybody's come up with so far to pay artists. But the very concept of copyright, which is a government created monopoly not a property right, is flawed and expanding it or expanding enforcement doesn't help.

I personally think all copyright is immoral but I try to honor it and respect people because I actually care about the people who don't see eye to eye with me on this and I can't think of a better way to compensate them that would fly in the U.S. (I do like the push in Canada a few years back, supported by Sarah Maclachlan and the Barenaked Ladies, just to create heavy socialization of arts with few or no content controls, as an alternative to prosecuting piracy. But I know that hasn't happened there and it would send some folks on a murderous rampage in the States.)

Frankly, though, I kinda hope M-theory pans out and we get invaded by a coalition of other universes, offended that we've ascribed ownership of them to corporations and individuals. I would love to do a story on how Area 51 was where we, say, captured and dissected Mickey Mouse, who was part of the first wave of fictional characters pissed at us for having the audacity to think we created them. :-)

I'm of the opinion that corporations might JUST have personhood but that we need to clip their wings on doing things that people can't and would like to see a forward thinking legal code that acknowledges that all fictional things likely physically exist somewhere and that, on top of that, cyborgs, human-animal hybrids, and thinking computer programs need advanced civil rights protections BEFORE anyone starts churning them out.

I also think people a thousand years from now will fucking agree with me on this stuff but that most people refuse to confront problems before they're problems and even the so-called progressives in our society tend to be luddites.

[ZimMan2]

Okay, I'm reading over TechDirt's coverage of the hearing now, and a few things:

1.) Senators and Reps ought to be quizzed on bills before they talk about them to make sure they know what the fuck they're talking about.

2.) They should also be quizzed on the constitution before taking office.

3.) Someone tell the MPAA to shut the fuck up.

[Treacle]

I maintain that the idea of Intellectual Property is, itself, crooked and that artists who support it have deluded ideas about where their own ideas come from.

Claiming ownership over an idea is like when Bush claimed that the U.S. owned outer space.

Our adherence to this failed approach only propels forward countries who DON'T respect ANY media contents rights. The existence of copyright in even a limited form was, itself, a compromise and the United States' climb to world power was fueled by our general lack of respect for foreign copyrights. (Mark Twain was published and publicized on money made pirating Dickens.)

What it comes down to is, some form of copyright is the best way anybody's come up with so far to pay artists. But the very concept of copyright, which is a government created monopoly not a property right, is flawed and expanding it or expanding enforcement doesn't help.

I personally think all copyright is immoral but I try to honor it and respect people because I actually care about the people who don't see eye to eye with me on this and I can't think of a better way to compensate them that would fly in the U.S. (I do like the push in Canada a few years back, supported by Sarah Maclachlan and the Barenaked Ladies, just to create heavy socialization of arts with few or no content controls, as an alternative to prosecuting piracy. But I know that hasn't happened there and it would send some folks on a murderous rampage in the States.)

Frankly, though, I kinda hope M-theory pans out and we get invaded by a coalition of other universes, offended that we've ascribed ownership of them to corporations and individuals. I would love to do a story on how Area 51 was where we, say, captured and dissected Mickey Mouse, who was part of the first wave of fictional characters pissed at us for having the audacity to think we created them. :-)

I'm of the opinion that corporations might JUST have personhood but that we need to clip their wings on doing things that people can't and would like to see a forward thinking legal code that acknowledges that all fictional things likely physically exist somewhere and that, on top of that, cyborgs, human-animal hybrids, and thinking computer programs need advanced civil rights protections BEFORE anyone starts churning them out.

I also think people a thousand years from now will fucking agree with me on this stuff but that most people refuse to confront problems before they're problems and even the so-called progressives in our society tend to be luddites.

Ideas aren't copyrighted.

Actual productions are.

And copyright doesn't just apply to art and music, it applies to other mediums, like writing.

As a writer, I am okay with my work having copyright protections. If someone wrote a book made of nothing but my blog articles, that would be a problem, and I would want the legal recourse to be able to get them to stop.

[Treacle]

The other title for this thread should be, "When Lobbyists Run Amuck."

Because a whole bunch of people got wined and dined a lot to think this was a good idea.

[Teal_Lantern]

Dear Jesus, how the hell are people not more pisssed at this? (I mean, like, in general, mainstream stuff)

[Jim Schnobrich]

Ideas aren't copyrighted.

Actual productions are.

And copyright doesn't just apply to art and music, it applies to other mediums, like writing.

As a writer, I am okay with my work having copyright protections. If someone wrote a book made of nothing but my blog articles, that would be a problem, and I would want the legal recourse to be able to get them to stop.

In general, I think copyright laws are due for some reform but, like you, I don't think copyrights are immoral. I'd be interested to know what percentage of folks who are against copyrighting are also content creators themselves.

[EmarAndZeb]

I'm in favor of reform in the form of rolling back the lifespan of copyrights, and I think there needs to be clarification of/stronger protection for "Fair Use"... but I'm certainly not against copyright per se. The original intent of it was to encourage the creation of new works by giving creators exclusive rights to publish/monetize their ideas for a certain length of time; that's great. The problem comes when you have entities that stripmine the cultural landscape, squatting on properties as a source of revenue, and aggressively shooting down any new work that even smells like "infringement." Then you have a system that is working in a manner contrary to its original intent.

[JBK405]

TGWTG.com released a very interesting video (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/33243-top-11-reasons-he-wont-review-digimon) earlier today covering the issue. I'm not sure how directly effective that will actually be (I'm sure many TGWTG viewers are teenagers too young to vote or people outside the US), but it's certaily going to spread the word and will get people riled up in a way that threads like this won't (Not that this is a bad thread). There, even if it's a bit hyperbolistic, is an example of "This is what will happen, you'll lose stuff that you like," it will connect with viewers on a much more personal and emotional level than "Well, it might have unintended consequences somewhere about something."

EDIT: I've also called both of my state senators and told them that I would like them to vote "no" on this bill. I do not believe that a single call will seriously impact their decision making process, but it will at least tell them that somebody wants the bill not to pass.

[ZimMan2]

Pelosi spoke out against it yesterday:
http://i.imgur.com/vsoS6.png

Darrell Issa responded in agreement on Twitter and I'm seeing reports that Ron Paul is opposing it now. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/strange-bedfellows-nancy-pelosi-ron-paul-join-sopa-opposition.ars?)

At the same time it seems that, counterpoint to the Big Two sites right now (Google and Facebook) opposing it, 29 other tech companies are showing support. (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/)

As for the whole copyright debate, I'd agree with the people saying that copyright isn't a bad idea, but the current state of it isn't the best.

Sorry if it seems like I'm rushing, but I've got quite a bit of other stuff I'm trying to do at the moment. Just wanted to keep you guys up to date.

[AndrewCrossett]

As a liberal Democrat it kills me to say it, but -- despite all the horrible things the Republicans stand for -- whenever a pro-censorship bill comes down the line, it's usually being pushed by "liberal" Democrats. Patrick Leahy and John Conyers are two of the most liberal members of Congress.

When there's corporate cock to be sucked, you'll see just as many Democrats standing in line to rent knee pads as you will Republicans.

That's why corporations rule this country today just as firmly as they did in the days of the railroad and steel barons, and it's why people like Ralph Nader and the Occupy folks don't rush to align themselves with the Democrats.

If this bill passes and Obama signs it, I will not vote for him in 2012 regardless of the consequences of getting a Republican president.

[Spiffy]

If this bill passes and Obama signs it, I will not vote for him in 2012 regardless of the consequences of getting a Republican president.
Obama has been curiously silent on this whole issue. Which bides badly for him vetoing.

Given that he's thinking he wants to be re-elected, and given that his own party is several of the main motivators of this legislation, he likely doesn't want to piss off his party.

In the past he's expressed support for the concept of net neutrality, but it wouldn't be the first time a politician reversed himself to get elected. In general I think more people are talking about ISPs restricting content when they use the phrase net neutrality than government doing so (certainly the new FCC rules about net neutrality coming into practice in a mere matter of days is about ISPs), but the gist of SOPA is that ISPs are specifically pushed TOWARDS violating net neutrality, because they will be in constant fear of action against them if they don't block things aggressively. All the ISP has to do is state that they thought there was a "reasonable" belief there could have been an infringement, and they are protected against net neutrality lawsuits, FCC fines, etc. So the FCC regs go in the toilet, and the new "standard" becomes to block as aggressively as possible, as a corporate defense against legal actions and simply blame it on SOPA.

[AndrewCrossett]

So this law is pretty much Armageddon for the Internet. YouTube immediately becomes untenable, unless they close it off completely to user uploads. File-hosting sites like Photobucket and Rapidshare will have to go away.

It's taken almost 20 years, but the megacorps have finally found a way to take the Internet away from the people and turn it into a regulated commercial channel.

[Treacle]

Why would someone want to be remembered in history as the person who destroyed the internet?

It's the 21st century equivalent of book burning.

[Spiffy]

And it won't even stop piracy. Its dead certain that the current "open" methods of file sharing and web posting of illegal content will simply be replaced by various encrypted methods. Sure people will have trouble finding the initial "access" to this stuff, and it will become a lot less convenient, but it will still exist, and meanwhile a lot of censorship of casual content (or simply censorship of ANYTHING anyone can justify after the fact as "potentially a copyright threat") will be very real.

Enjoy sites with cover scans of comic books? Say bye to them. Enjoy people posting fan-made graphics with images they take from popular characters or franchises? Gone. Enjoy YouTube videos where someone reviews a movie or TV show using fair-use clips? Likely gone (because while the fair use rules will still exist, those kinds of things will be pre-emptively taken down or disallowed in the first place going forward, merely because there's a REASONABLE chance they might violate a copyright).

[Spiffy]

Why would someone want to be remembered in history as the person who destroyed the internet?

It's the 21st century equivalent of book burning.


Oops!
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/image.php?u=8732&dateline=1243812337&type=thumb

Your Avatar may violate someone's copyright. It will be removed next time you log in!

No, not really. Yet. But that's the potential end point of rules like this. Constant pre-emptive action by ISPs, websites, and anyone who fears getting in trouble, using the catch-all logic that they are more legally protected by over-restricting than by allowing.

[Spiffy]

I also wonder if Flickr will start doing some kind of verification process on uploaded photos (meaning they will be violating your privacy), and perhaps removing anything they have doubts about. Its not quite clear to me HOW a website is made responsible officially by the government, but it IS clear that ISPs will be in trouble if they allow access to sites which have been labeled as having questionable content. Ergo, out of fear that a major ISP will block them, that's what will drive websites into self-censorship (tricking down to removing things posted/uploaded by members, banning members, etc.) Its all dominoes stacked in a row leading to nothing being permissible anymore because of a constant state of paranoia over what can and can't be used.

[AndrewCrossett]

Proponents of these bills argue that they are primarily designed to choke off access to black-market sites outside of the U.S., and that if the content industry wanted to go after YouTube or Photobucket or your little sister's Facebook page with a picture of Justin Bieber on it, they could already have done so under the terms of the DMCA.

Unfortunately, the bills are far too open-ended to assure they'll be used only for that purpose. Under the current House version, any one of us on this forum who use avatars or sig images we didn't create ourselves could be sued outright (without so much as a cease-and-desist). I'm sure we all remember when the RIAA was going around suing 12-year-old kids for millions of dollars for downloading music, then extorting settlements of "only" a couple thousand dollars.

Hand the corporations police-state powers over the Internet, and trust them to only use those powers to go after Russian and Chinese gangsters. Yeah, that sounds like it will end well.

The chilling effect will be the worst part... as ISP's shut down or cut off access to web sites right and left, because they're afraid of being sued... and the industry and government get to shrug and say "What? We didn't sue anybody. No abuse going on here."

[Patrick Gerard]

Ideas aren't copyrighted.

Actual productions are.

And copyright doesn't just apply to art and music, it applies to other mediums, like writing.

As a writer, I am okay with my work having copyright protections. If someone wrote a book made of nothing but my blog articles, that would be a problem, and I would want the legal recourse to be able to get them to stop.

The "actual productions" thing is heavily, heavily muddied when you look at related issues like derivative works, publicity/likeness rights, and trademarks.

I'm against the idea of ideas, executions of ideas, or images being owned. I just can't come up with a better idea so I'm fine with a limited version that doesn't expand as a placeholder. My problem is with regarding it as more than a placeholder.

And the very term "Intellectual Property" is deliberate propaganda put forward by corporations who DO want to own ideas, who want to equivocate intangible goods with tangible goods. It's an Orwellian term that programs how you think about the issue.

[Patrick Gerard]

In general, I think copyright laws are due for some reform but, like you, I don't think copyrights are immoral. I'd be interested to know what percentage of folks who are against copyrighting are also content creators themselves.

I think my position must be hard to read.

I think it's immoral and I'm in favor of it.

I see copyright as a stopgap to protect content creators but that, ideally, we need a new system that totally replaces this one.

[Spiffy]

Proponents of these bills argue that they are primarily designed to choke off access to black-market sites outside of the U.S., and that if the content industry wanted to go after YouTube or Photobucket or your little sister's Facebook page with a picture of Justin Bieber on it, they could already have done so under the terms of the DMCA.

Unfortunately, the bills are far too open-ended to assure they'll be used only for that purpose. Under the current House version, any one of us on this forum who use avatars or sig images we didn't create ourselves could be sued outright (without so much as a cease-and-desist). I'm sure we all remember when the RIAA was going around suing 12-year-old kids for millions of dollars for downloading music, then extorting settlements of "only" a couple thousand dollars.

Hand the corporations police-state powers over the Internet, and trust them to only use those powers to go after Russian and Chinese gangsters. Yeah, that sounds like it will end well.

The chilling effect will be the worst part... as ISP's shut down or cut off access to web sites right and left, because they're afraid of being sued... and the industry and government get to shrug and say "What? We didn't sue anybody. No abuse going on here."
Exactly. Its not just the official use of the law that's the problem, its the culture of fear which will be created, and the knee-jerk actions to protection. ISPs will protect themselves from lawsuits and federal fines via mass blocking of sites and services. Websites will protect themselves from ISPs blocking them (and potential lawsuits) by massive self-censoring, and draconian actions against members. It will all cascade into NOTHING being permissible--not because the laws will be targeting specific things, but out of vast overreactions and understandable fear. It will do the POLAR OPPOSITE of what the Net Neutrality regs JUST going into effect are meant to do.

The Internet is fucked. Not because the bad ol' govinmint has the resources to target some poster named Treacle or Spiffy for using copyrighted material in an avatar, but because the ass covering will be FORCED to happen, and to extremes. And so eventually, not to long from now, you will probably have to BUY your Avatars with commercial images in them from a pre-cleared list, which is "sold" via some website plugin to verify you own the rights to use it (linked to your real world identity--so there goes your privacy), OR use one of a very small group of Avatars bundled with the BBS software. The very notion of uploading your own Avatar? I'll bet that's gone--just as one TINY example of how far this could all go.

Yes, an Avatar is a petty example vs. many of the other things which may (probably will) happen, but its one we can all identify with.

[EmarAndZeb]

As a liberal Democrat it kills me to say it, but -- despite all the horrible things the Republicans stand for -- whenever a pro-censorship bill comes down the line, it's usually being pushed by "liberal" Democrats. Patrick Leahy and John Conyers are two of the most liberal members of Congress.

When there's corporate cock to be sucked, you'll see just as many Democrats standing in line to rent knee pads as you will Republicans.

That's why corporations rule this country today just as firmly as they did in the days of the railroad and steel barons, and it's why people like Ralph Nader and the Occupy folks don't rush to align themselves with the Democrats.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q21/EmarandZeb/miscellaneous/socialcontrols.png


...but seriously, the current administration is just as authoritarian as the Republicans have been. See: not following through on promises to close Gitmo, expanding use of drones to just kill whoever they want (trust us; they were bad guys; no, we won't show you the evidence, it is too secret), and not doing shit about repealing/reforming the Patriot Act. They don't have the same religious/socially conservative "flavor" to their authority, but they have the same love of control. They won't give up existing powers or turn down new ones easily.

I haven't thought of myself as a "Democrat" for a long time (and I've never thought of myself as a "Republican"), so I don't feel any compunctions about saying that.


Also, anyone who thinks "Yes, this law has over-reaching powers, but they will always be fairly applied by good people!" is a good argument is a complete moron and poison to democracy. There is no nice way of saying this and still being truthful.

[Spiffy]

Also, anyone who thinks "Yes, this law has over-reaching powers, but they will always be fairly applied by good people!" is a good argument is a complete moron and poison to democracy. There is no nice way of saying this and still being truthful.To be specific, it WILL no doubt be used for a small number of good things, quite visibly in front of people, while in the background its used for thousands of shady things. Sort of like the Patriot Act.

[ZimMan2]

Okay, before I post the latest developments, I just wanna ask: how many of you have written to Congress? I understand that you might feel like it wouldn't be useful anyway, but seriously, it's better than doing nothing.

Now, first off, CNET did a bit (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57328045-281/sopas-latest-threat-ip-blocking-privacy-busting-packet-inspection/) on how, apparently SOPA will actually allow ISPs to block certain IP adresses from any online access. As if it wasn't bullshitty enough.

Second, Viacom put up this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UUk80NkM62U) that seems to show that they only read the title of the bill.

And then there's this. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/17200316783/sopa-sponsors-pass-sopa-to-protect-troops-everyone-else-wtf.shtml) Nothing to add.

Sadly, no real news from actual Congress since Pelosi, Paul, and Issa came out against it. Although I read in a tweet that Issa himself is apparently proposing an alternative.

[AndrewCrossett]

Ron Paul is against everything, but if Pelosi and Issa are both against it (and Biden), that's a good indication that there's bipartisan opposition as well, and the bill will at least be fixed to remove the most egregiously abusable provisions before it comes up for a vote.

If the purpose of this bill is to give IP owners a weapon to use against bootleggers and pirates who are in other countries, outside the jurisdiction of the DMCA, it needs to limit itself explicitly to that.

It's getting to the point where we might as well save some money by abolishing Congress and just letting the lobbyists vote on legislation. It would be more honest that way. They already write the laws anyway.

[ZimMan2]

I have to wonder if we'd be better off with direct democracy like the Greeks. I mean, sure it wasn't feasible when the country started, but with technology being what it is now...

I should stop. There's a certain point in me talking about politics where I start sounding like that crazy guy behind the dumpster who mumbles about the Lollipop Guild trying to regulate the Popcorn industry.

[Hugin]

Ron Paul is against everythingYou say that like it's a bad thing.

[AndrewCrossett]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm just saying that he's such a contrarian, his opinion doesn't carry much weight with mainstream politicians, even other Republicans. There have been plenty of votes in the House where his was the only dissenting vote.

If he's against the bill then his followers will be... I would expect hardcore libertarians to be against it, but most so-called "libertarians" in Congress are phonies who will, in the end, do whatever their corporate masters command.

[Spiffy]

I'm just saying that he's such a contrarian, his opinion doesn't carry much weight with mainstream politicians, even other Republicans. There have been plenty of votes in the House where his was the only dissenting vote.

If he's against the bill then his followers will be... I would expect hardcore libertarians to be against it, but most so-called "libertarians" in Congress are phonies who will, in the end, do whatever their corporate masters command.
Yeah, I wanted to say the following when it was pointed out "and Ron Paul is against it".

So?

I mean this isn't to knock him, or his supporters, because there's a lot of sincerity, but as a PRACTICAL thing saying "Paul supports it" means that other politicians may hear that and knee-jerk oppose it, because they'll perceive anything Paul supports as the "radical" position (be that actually true or not for a specific issue--we're talking about the perception of a group, politicians, who often do things strictly because of "appearances"). Paul has a certain amount of clout among voters, sure, but among his fellow politicians, he has very little.

[Thequeerjock]

Yeah, I get the sense that the other candidates are always snickering at him during the debates.

[Treacle]

And the very term "Intellectual Property" is deliberate propaganda put forward by corporations who DO want to own ideas, who want to equivocate intangible goods with tangible goods. It's an Orwellian term that programs how you think about the issue.

No, it's not. It's a legal term that references trademark, copyright, patents, trade secrets and other intangible assets that would much harder to protect without such laws. It's also not a modern invention. The first versions of these laws appeared in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'm not a corporation, and I benefit from intellectual property laws. They protect me from infringements (corporate or otherwise) that I would be vulnerable to.

[AndrewCrossett]

I'm not against copyrights, but I think the concept of "fair use" should be expanded considerably beyond what it is now.

[Spiffy]

I'm not against copyrights, but I think the concept of "fair use" should be expanded considerably beyond what it is now.
Under SOPA, "fair use" won't exist at all anymore.

Not because the law would remove it or redefine it, but because it would use pressure to get everyone, at every stage, to err on the side of paranoia and caution to the extreme. Things would be blocked, removed, or disallowed and that would always be justified and legally protected against if they simply state they had a reasonable suspicion (with no clear definition of that). This is even before we talk about the many potential deliberate misuses. Even just doing what they legitimately think they have to do to be "safe" will make "fair use" effectively gone. People will have to PROVE that what they are doing is "fair use" I think, probably after a removal or blocking, and have things put back up.

[AndrewCrossett]

Normally I would hope for a law like this to go down on Constitutional grounds, but after Citizens United it's obvious this Supreme Court will not only defer to corporate power in all cases, but will proactively go out of its way to expand it.

[sk716]

Summed up my thoughts in a Tastes Like Comics post.

http://www.tasteslikecomics.com/2011/11/lets-talk-about-sopa/

I'm not sure what kind of expansion "fair use" needs, though. Care to expand, Andrew?

[Patrick Gerard]

No, it's not. It's a legal term that references trademark, copyright, patents, trade secrets and other intangible assets that would much harder to protect without such laws. It's also not a modern invention. The first versions of these laws appeared in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'm not a corporation, and I benefit from intellectual property laws. They protect me from infringements (corporate or otherwise) that I would be vulnerable to.

I think it is a propaganda term.

Intangible things cannot be owned as conventional property. An idea is not a chair. A poem is not a chair.

On top of that people don't CREATE things. Not you, not Gail, not Alan Moore, not Stan Lee, not Yeats or Dickinson or Shakespeare.

It's misappropriating words to distort how people behave and, in doing so, a lot of skilled artists have fallen prone to it. And it's seductive to think of it from that perspective, because it provides you a livelihood.

My problem is that the idea of intellectual property needs to be annihilated because it's a perversion, a systematic falsehood that labors of the mind can be owned, and it's designed to support an oligarchal system.

I support the idea of food on your table and cash for your efforts. I pay for music and books and movies. I don't pirate them. But the whole system of thinking about this needs to be gutted and burned while protecting artists.

The idea of non-physical property is a lie and a subversion of integrity on every possible level. It needs to be considered as a placeholder for the better concept that will replace it eventually.

[Treacle]

I think it is a propaganda term.

Intangible things cannot be owned as conventional property. An idea is not a chair. A poem is not a chair.

On top of that people don't CREATE things. Not you, not Gail, not Alan Moore, not Stan Lee, not Yeats or Dickinson or Shakespeare.

It's misappropriating words to distort how people behave and, in doing so, a lot of skilled artists have fallen prone to it. And it's seductive to think of it from that perspective, because it provides you a livelihood.

My problem is that the idea of intellectual property needs to be annihilated because it's a perversion, a systematic falsehood that labors of the mind can be owned, and it's designed to support an oligarchal system.

I support the idea of food on your table and cash for your efforts. I pay for music and books and movies. I don't pirate them. But the whole system of thinking about this needs to be gutted and burned while protecting artists.

The idea of non-physical property is a lie and a subversion of integrity on every possible level. It needs to be considered as a placeholder for the better concept that will replace it eventually.

Well, you keep thinking that.

And I'll keep thinking that I own the stuff I write.

[zemo]

I gotta be honest, I think the whole "ideas should be free" approach is already established where it is necessary, everything beyond that is just convenience. Almost everything scientifical created or discovered in Western countries that has been paid for by tax money is free to use /excepting whatever the military pays for, I'd assume), resulting in medical treatments and whatnot. So yeah, in my eyes the stuff that is, you know, important for all of humankind already is free in its majority. Some pages from the lattest Amazing Spider-Man, while providing income for some and entertainment for others, simply aren't in the same league.

[AndrewCrossett]

Summed up my thoughts in a Tastes Like Comics post.

http://www.tasteslikecomics.com/2011/11/lets-talk-about-sopa/

I'm not sure what kind of expansion "fair use" needs, though. Care to expand, Andrew?

I think that use of copyrighted materials without a profit motive should have a reasonable amount of safe harbor. As things stand now, profit is irrelevant in determining whether a use constitutes infringement.

I also think material that's out of print and not currently available for legitimate sale should get some leeway.

But it's tricky when you're dealing with digital media on the Internet. It would require a certain amount of common sense and judgment on a case-by-case basis: where legally is the line between using a Cerebus avatar on a messageboard, and posting a free archive of the complete Cerebus? The law likes clear dividing lines, not judgment calls.

[HamsterRage]

I think it is a propaganda term.

Intangible things cannot be owned as conventional property. An idea is not a chair. A poem is not a chair.

On top of that people don't CREATE things. Not you, not Gail, not Alan Moore, not Stan Lee, not Yeats or Dickinson or Shakespeare.

It's misappropriating words to distort how people behave and, in doing so, a lot of skilled artists have fallen prone to it. And it's seductive to think of it from that perspective, because it provides you a livelihood.

My problem is that the idea of intellectual property needs to be annihilated because it's a perversion, a systematic falsehood that labors of the mind can be owned, and it's designed to support an oligarchal system.

I support the idea of food on your table and cash for your efforts. I pay for music and books and movies. I don't pirate them. But the whole system of thinking about this needs to be gutted and burned while protecting artists.

The idea of non-physical property is a lie and a subversion of integrity on every possible level. It needs to be considered as a placeholder for the better concept that will replace it eventually.

As an owner of my own IP I take issue with this.

You really need to think this through Patrick... If we didn't have IP laws to protect us, Giant corporations can rip off our art and not give us a dime.

Your idea here is ridiculous quite frankly.

[Patrick Gerard]

As an owner of my own IP I take issue with this.

You really need to think this through Patrick... If we didn't have IP laws to protect us, Giant corporations can rip off our art and not give us a dime.

Your idea here is ridiculous quite frankly.

It's why I think it's a placeholder. I'm not saying,"Get rid of it tomorrow." I'm saying, "I think our philosophy is imperfect and this is one of many areas where law should be a periodic stopgap."

And any protection that applies to people will ALSO apply to corporations.

I'm not entirely unconvinced of Corporate Personhood, as much as it pains me to say. Nor am I convinced that courts can or will protect "the little guy" with any consistency.

I think there's a better system, a better philosophy.

We don't have it now so we work with what we've got. I'm fine with that.

I have issues with the idea that law should be constructed around the idea that our current philosophical framework about anything is right and the problem is that law tends to cling to old frameworks. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we had a system where laws had to undergo periodic review to remain laws, failing to do so means rewriting them from scratch, and congress couldn't rubberstamp them back like with the Bush Tax Cuts and the Patriot Act.

If, say, laws had a twenty five year expiration date. At twenty years, a two thirds vote is required to keep them. If that fails, they have to spend the next five years rebuilding them if they want to keep any aspect. And have a small list of constitutionally recognized laws that include things like murder that don't need periodic review.

I don't trust anyone's views on long ranging philosophical subjects that will certainly turn upside down in the future such as intellectual property and genetic research and medical patents.

There is approaching a point at which we will understand human creativity on a neurological level and I think what we'll find is that creativity is work. It is a service, rental of processing capability. Just like being hired to dig a ditch. A person's thoughts are probably entitled to compensation on a much deeper level than we currently provide for but it is also a replicatable work.

Think of it this way: a drug that makes people feel a certain way is subject to patent, not copyright, because it illustrates a process of doing something neurologically. I think creative works are really closer to that philosophically and that the IDEA of patents are a better model for story narratives or evoicative illustrations... But at the same time, patents are a much worse designed area of law with even more corporate dominance.

I think the whole damned thing is a chimera, everybody's wrong when they try to model this stuff (including me), and we should proceed with what works right now while acknowledging that neuroscientists will rewrite how this issue is looked at, quite probably in our lifetimes, and that we aren't in a position to make decisions for the ages just yet.

[sk716]

I think that use of copyrighted materials without a profit motive should have a reasonable amount of safe harbor. As things stand now, profit is irrelevant in determining whether a use constitutes infringement.

I also think material that's out of print and not currently available for legitimate sale should get some leeway.

But it's tricky when you're dealing with digital media on the Internet. It would require a certain amount of common sense and judgment on a case-by-case basis: where legally is the line between using a Cerebus avatar on a messageboard, and posting a free archive of the complete Cerebus? The law likes clear dividing lines, not judgment calls.

Not so much. Judgment calls are kind of the backbone of the American judicial system.

Example: JK Rowling Vs. RDR Books and Steve Vander Ark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._and_JK_Rowling_vs._RDR_Books).

[AndrewCrossett]

Not so much. Judgment calls are kind of the backbone of the American judicial system.

Example: JK Rowling Vs. RDR Books and Steve Vander Ark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._and_JK_Rowling_vs._RDR_Books).

The problem is that every instance would involve a judgment call... the court system couldn't handle it, and people couldn't constantly be hiring lawyers to try and argue that a 100x100 pixel icon of Dilbert won't adversely affect sales of Dilbert books, whereas a 200x200 one might...

[HamsterRage]

It's why I think it's a placeholder. I'm not saying,"Get rid of it tomorrow." I'm saying, "I think our philosophy is imperfect and this is one of many areas where law should be a periodic stopgap."

And any protection that applies to people will ALSO apply to corporations.

I'm not entirely unconvinced of Corporate Personhood, as much as it pains me to say. Nor am I convinced that courts can or will protect "the little guy" with any consistency.

I think there's a better system, a better philosophy.

We don't have it now so we work with what we've got. I'm fine with that.

I have issues with the idea that law should be constructed around the idea that our current philosophical framework about anything is right and the problem is that law tends to cling to old frameworks. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we had a system where laws had to undergo periodic review to remain laws, failing to do so means rewriting them from scratch, and congress couldn't rubberstamp them back like with the Bush Tax Cuts and the Patriot Act.

If, say, laws had a twenty five year expiration date. At twenty years, a two thirds vote is required to keep them. If that fails, they have to spend the next five years rebuilding them if they want to keep any aspect. And have a small list of constitutionally recognized laws that include things like murder that don't need periodic review.

I don't trust anyone's views on long ranging philosophical subjects that will certainly turn upside down in the future such as intellectual property and genetic research and medical patents.

There is approaching a point at which we will understand human creativity on a neurological level and I think what we'll find is that creativity is work. It is a service, rental of processing capability. Just like being hired to dig a ditch. A person's thoughts are probably entitled to compensation on a much deeper level than we currently provide for but it is also a replicatable work.

Think of it this way: a drug that makes people feel a certain way is subject to patent, not copyright, because it illustrates a process of doing something neurologically. I think creative works are really closer to that philosophically and that the IDEA of patents are a better model for story narratives or evoicative illustrations... But at the same time, patents are a much worse designed area of law with even more corporate dominance.

I think the whole damned thing is a chimera, everybody's wrong when they try to model this stuff (including me), and we should proceed with what works right now while acknowledging that neuroscientists will rewrite how this issue is looked at, quite probably in our lifetimes, and that we aren't in a position to make decisions for the ages just yet.

Not it's not the same as digging a ditch. It's very hard work.

Maybe you should consider doing some creative work?

[sk716]

The problem is that every instance would involve a judgment call... the court system couldn't handle it, and people couldn't constantly be hiring lawyers to try and argue that a 100x100 pixel icon of Dilbert won't adversely affect sales of Dilbert books, whereas a 200x200 one might...

It's not clogging up the Judicial System, now.

Should SOPA pass, there are no judgment calls. There wouldn't even be a Judge.

[ZimMan2]

Here's the latest development in Congress (http://stopcensorship.org/), from Demand Progress, along with another form. Already signed it myself.

Also, it looks like Russia, the Middle East, (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111120/22021716846/how-other-parts-world-view-sopa.shtml) and the European Union (http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=3319621&pagtype=allchandate) have all spoken out against it.

EDIT: Someone set up a petition on WhiteHouse.gov (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/terms-participation) saying to amend the constitution in order to prevent extreme legislation like this from standing a chance of passing. Tried to sign up for an account, but when I click the link it says "fill out the form below" and yet there is no form. Not sure if there's a plugin or something missing.

Also, some hard numbers (http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-copy-culture-survey-infringement-and-enforcement-in-the-us/) on how many people ostensibly oppose the ideas of this bill and what the majority of internet users feel the appropriate response to piracy is. Might want to link to it if you're eMailing congress.

[Spiffy]

The EU is the only of those three with any juice to affect American lawmakers. Russia, for example, can easily be positioned as a society constantly exploiting American Intellectual Property, and thus... not a very effective critic of the law.

[ZimMan2]

The EU is the only of those three with any juice to affect American lawmakers. Russia, for example, can easily be positioned as a society constantly exploiting American Intellectual Property, and thus... not a very effective critic of the law.

Not that I'd disagree, but I still think it says something when even those countries are pointing out the hypocrisy in this bill.

[ZimMan2]

Sorry to not bump this until now, but I just realized that the petition on a site called Avaaz (http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?wlUTgbb) is international, and they're pretty close to one million signatures. So, there's that if you're not in the US but still think this is bullshit.

Gamespot's getting in on it. (http://www.gamespot.com/features/sopa-the-bill-that-wants-to-break-your-internet-6346561/) Granted, I don't think they're as big as they once were, but still.

The BSA recently pulled their support of the bill. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12585716869/bsa-changes-its-mind-sopa-unintended-consequences-too-big.shtml)

Senator Ron Wyden has vowed to fillibuster the bill if it comes to that. Demand Progress put up a petition (http://stopcensorship.org/) to let him read people's names during said fillibuster.

Also, while I can't find a link right now, Mozilla has a mass-phone-call campaign planned for this coming Tuesday. I haven't decided if I'm joining, because while I'm cool with written statements, I'm very self-conscious when it comes to using my actual voice.

EDIT: Found Demand Progess' version of the call-in campaign. (http://americancensorship.org/) I signed up. God only knows how well it'll go on my end.

[Jae Namkyoung]

Put in on the petition, as if this country didn't have enough problems. They should focus on something like... the job crisis and not the internet.

[ZimMan2]

Put in on the petition, as if this country didn't have enough problems. They should focus on something like... the job crisis and not the internet.

Funny thing is, supporters are now trying to make this about jobs.

"Teh eval interweb pirates are takin' our jobs! We have to fire our personal assistants in order to keep our fifth Mercedes!"

[ZimMan2]

Sorry if bumping this annoys any of you, but I seriously feel like I need to do something to spread the word about this.

[Spiffy]

Sorry if bumping this annoys any of you, but I seriously feel like I need to do something to spread the word about this.
Hey, I was at a party the other day with a room full of 20 or so reasonably intelligent adults (several of them techies) and not a single person had heard of SOPA, or realized what it meant or easily understood what its repercussions could be after I initially gave a fairly conservative explanation about it. I have a feeling this is pretty typical. ALL of them knew about some recent protests down on Wall Street I myself hadn't, and were amazed at me not being familiar with the details of those, just as I was shocked none of them knew squat about SOPA.

[ZimMan2]

I know I'm sounding like a broken record at this point, but seriously, if you've got the time, call your senators and Harry Reid. Every little bit helps, and if you're a paranoid crazy like me, it'll make you feel like you've done something at least.

Choose your poison when it comes to how you do it.

Demand Progress/Fight For the Future/American Censorship (http://americancensorship.org/)

Mozilla (https://donate.mozilla.org/page/s/commit-to-call-pipa?source=tw-share)

And there's also Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org/take-stand-against-pipa-call-your-senator-now), who don't have a form, but do have instructions that are pretty clear cut.

I went the Demand Progress route, and I think I did alright in terms of how I sounded, but God only knows.

[Spiffy]

I'm assuming the mass media in general have been ignoring or De-emphasizing this as a story, since their parent companies are the ones behind this?

[ZimMan2]

Funny you should mention that, because it was just announced that Ron Wyden, the guy who was speaking out against SOPA and PIPA from the start, is gonna be on Keith Olbermann tonight (https://twitter.com/#!/RonWyden), talking about SOPA and PIPA. *Which is doubly funny when you realize Olbermann is on MSNBC, which is owned by NBC, who sent out a letter threatening their suppliers to support it or they might drop them. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10175516914/nbc-universal-threatens-partners-that-they-need-to-sign-grassroots-support-sopapipa-it-might-have-to-drop-them.shtml)*

Also, CNN did a bit about it on their website a while back, and the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059894208244720.html) even published an editorial on it recently.

I've got a feeling there will probably be at least a little bit more attention given to it now. Could be wrong though, since I'm not very knowledgeable in how influential Keith Olbermann is to the political media at large.

**=Disregard this sentence, I derped.

[Corrina]

Isn't Olberman on some obscure cable network now, not MSNBC?

[ZimMan2]

Isn't Olberman on some obscure cable network now, not MSNBC?

*Googles, looks beyond first result*

Hmm, it seems he is. Shows how much I know.

Aaaand, I don't even get that channel. Fuck.

[Spiffy]

Isn't Olberman on some obscure cable network now, not MSNBC?
"The Al Gore Network".

Okay, not precisely (its "Current TV"). But close enough. Which means either people don't get it, or they roll their eyes at it. Of course if they'd actually put Gore's name in the network name, maybe they'd eye roll even more.

[ZimMan2]

Well, at the very least, there'll probably be a clip online to spread like wildfire, and hopefully Wyden will clear up any confusion as to what exactly is going on with the bill right now.

[AndrewCrossett]

Joe Biden has been pretty loudly opposed to these bills. I know he and Obama don't necessarily agree on all policy, but at least there will be a strong opposing voice in the president's inner circle to veto it.

At least, I don't see the far-more-extreme SOPA bill becoming law in anything like its current form.

[Tyr]

Wasn't a similar bill shot down in senate in 2010?

Also if there trying to find a legal worm us out of free speech wouldn't there be a way worm this back into the legal system, and up to the supreme court to be overturned as unconstitutional?

Steven Colbert on SOPA (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act)

[ZimMan2]

Wasn't a similar bill shot down in senate in 2010?

Also if there trying to find a legal worm us out of free speech wouldn't there be a way worm this back into the legal system, and up to the supreme court to be overturned as unconstitutional?

Steven Colbert on SOPA (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act)

Yes, but the point of making a big deal now is to avoid all that (and possibly and even uglier situation) later.

[Spiffy]

Steven Colbert on SOPA (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act)
Trust Colbert to eventually get around to this.

Of course by its very nature his mocking POV can't properly express or communicate the worst possible abuses (or the climate of fear and self-censorship it will create). But even the over-the-top possibilities mentioned by him (teenaged girls going to prison for 5 years for posting clips of themselves dancing to "Single Ladies", or all YouTube being shut down) might turn some attention in the right direction.

[Spiffy]

Here's another clip from Colbert on this, a bit less jokey (okay, not MUCH less) and with pro and con guests:

Stop Online Piracy Act - Danny Goldberg & Jonathan Zittrain (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act---danny-goldberg---jonathan-zittrain)

[ZimMan2]

Here's another clip from Colbert on this, a bit less jokey (okay, not MUCH less) and with pro and con guests:

Stop Online Piracy Act - Danny Goldberg & Jonathan Zittrain (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act---danny-goldberg---jonathan-zittrain)

So Goldberg says it's not about censorship, and that the bill doesn't take those extreme measures "from what [he] understand[s]." Well, Mr. Goldberg....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT_nlLqRb-s&feature=watch_response

[Spiffy]

Goldberg doesn't come off as very bright. Its like he doesn't see (or acknowledge) any of the subtleties of the situation, and his advice is basically "trust them with this almost unregulated power". He's like the people who never saw anything wrong with the open-ended Patriot Act, only in this case he's willing to give away vast uncontrolled power to the government over music royalties, instead of ostensibly, over putting away terrorist killers.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa)


Today, a group of 83 prominent Internet inventors and engineers sent an open letter to members of the United States Congress, stating their opposition to the SOPA and PIPA Internet blacklist bills that are under consideration in the House and Senate respectively.

Also:

The nightmarish SOPA hearings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/the-nightmarish-sopa-hearings/2011/12/15/gIQA47RUwO_blog.html)


Last night I had a horrifying dream that a group of well-intentioned middle-aged people who could not distinguish between a domain name and an IP address were trying to regulate the Internet. Then I woke up and the Judiciary Committee’s SOPA hearings were on.

[ZimMan2]

Yeah, I was going to get around to posting that stuff eventually, but I'm kind of swamped with school at the moment. Thanks for picking up.

Called Jan Schakowsky's office today. They were closed by the time I called, but I felt a message about SOPA in my usual overly polite, apologetic manner that shows well and truly why I couldn't lead androids to a picnic.*

From what I've gathered, the hearing today was further proof that congress is largely made up of buffoons and cowards. As if I needed further proof.






*Man, this topic really has a way of making me quote G1 Megatron.

[Spiffy]

The thing is they have no excuse in simply "not knowing the technology". Because while some of the stumbling blocks and dangers take tech knowledge, many just take application of common sense and knowing human nature and abuses of power. HISTORY is a better primer for what's going to happen than a book on how TCP/IP works would be.

[ZimMan2]

The thing is they have no excuse in simply "not knowing the technology". Because while some of the stumbling blocks and dangers take tech knowledge, many just take application of common sense and knowing human nature and abuses of power. HISTORY is a better primer for what's going to happen than a book on how TCP/IP works would be.
The sheer lack of this in today's world makes me think we should call it something else, seeing how it's not very "common." "Basic logic" seems more appropriate.

[Tyr]

One of Linkara's partners in Crime, Spooney, went to DC, along with a few other channel awesome people, to discuss SOPA with legislators. Here's his v-blog about it (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/12/14/vlog-12-14-11-trip-to-dc-stop-sopa/).

Also I sent a email to my district rep, how about you guys?

[EmarAndZeb]

SOPA hearings are *NOT* postponed until 2012...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/11102617108/sopa-markup-runs-out-time-likely-delayed-until-2012.shtml



Update.... Despite the fact that Congress was supposed to be out of session until the end of January, the Judiciary Committee has just announced plans to come back to continue the markup this coming Wednesday. This is rather unusual and totally unnecessary. But it shows just how desperate Hollywood is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, before the momentum of opposition builds up even further.

[ZimMan2]

News! Actual news!

First, the hearings have been delayed until 2012 again. (http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html) Not sure if it's because of us or just coincidence, but either way, it buys us a lot more time. I already called again yesterday, this time to Boehner and Cantor. Plan on calling up Kirk, Durbin and Schakowsky again soon.

Second, the myth that SOPA and PIPA are good... has been busted. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/mythbuster-adam-savage-sopa-could-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-6620300) Great link to spread around.

[CutterMike]

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson

He may have been a damned bastard, but he was also a damned SMART bastard.

[ZimMan2]

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson

EVERY president should have this mantra.

[Spiffy]

Second, the myth that SOPA and PIPA are good... has been busted. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/mythbuster-adam-savage-sopa-could-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-6620300) Great link to spread around.
The problem isn't that educated people know how outrageously dangerous these laws are, of course. The danger is that the common shmoe doesn't (or doesn't care--at least until something he likes gets taken away).

I honestly think there's still a pretty damn good chance these will pass, at least the hearing stage, and then we shall see. On one side you will have scientists and political scientists telling the congressmen how dangerous this is, and on the other side not just the usual array of corporate stooges, but the MEDIA companies, saying the opposite. While its in vogue to have a little caution against the word of big corporations when the media spotlight is shining on a whole process, that's unlikely to happen this time since the mainstream media is going to downplay, refuse to cover, or actively oppose airing or printing coverage of this. The usual "hammer" is gone, and while blogs and discussion boards on the existing (for the time less censored) Internet will go apeshit over this, it would probably take something like a real world event (a series of protest gatherings or marches) to get eyes on this, and its hard to be that passionate about stuff like this for many, I bet.

[ZimMan2]

The problem isn't that educated people know how outrageously dangerous these laws are, of course. The danger is that the common shmoe doesn't (or doesn't care--at least until something he likes gets taken away).

I honestly think there's still a pretty damn good chance these will pass, at least the hearing stage, and then we shall see. On one side you will have scientists and political scientists telling the congressmen how dangerous this is, and on the other side not just the usual array of corporate stooges, but the MEDIA companies, saying the opposite. While its in vogue to have a little caution against the word of big corporations when the media spotlight is shining on a whole process, that's unlikely to happen this time since the mainstream media is going to downplay, refuse to cover, or actively oppose airing or printing coverage of this. The usual "hammer" is gone, and while blogs and discussion boards on the existing (for the time less censored) Internet will go apeshit over this, it would probably take something like a real world event (a series of protest gatherings or marches) to get eyes on this, and its hard to be that passionate about stuff like this for many, I bet.

I wasn't saying that smart people don't know about what's wrong with these. I know that full well. It just that Adam Savage is a name and face most people recognize, and is far more likely to get people's attention than some random blogger.

[Spiffy]

It just that Adam Savage is a name and face most people recognize
I actually doubt that's true, but even if it is, his article appeared in Popular Mechanics. Which most people DON'T read.

[ZimMan2]

I actually doubt that's true, but even if it is, his article appeared in Popular Mechanics. Which most people DON'T read.

Okay, they may not know Adam Savage per-se, but they know Mythbusters, and associate it with the Discovery Channel, which to the general public, has connotations of being fact-based and educational. And I know that most people aren't frothing at the mouth to read the latest updates on the Popular Mechanics website, it's a link you can provide to people you know that is more likely to get people interested than most. If you just show them the online article, most people aren't even likely to look at what website it is. And even if they do, "Popular Mechanics" sure as hell sounds more reputable than "Salon.com"

I'm not implying that the general public has some sort of "Adam Savage Sense" that tells them when Adam Savage has something important to say, just that if they see "Mythbusters" in the title, it's something that will grab most people's attention.

[zemo]

I actually doubt that's true, but even if it is, his article appeared in Popular Mechanics. Which most people DON'T read.

Well, Obama went and appeared on Mythbusters. Let's assume that he, like any other politician, wouldn't make an appearance unless it would help him look good for a big audience :3

[ZimMan2]

Okay, so Mike Mozart of JeepersMedia made a video about this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc&feature=share) Now, outside of his reviews, which I find mildly entertaining, Mozart has been pretty notorious (in my eyes at least) for exaggerating the Viacom situation on Youtube and being ludicrously late to the party on it (he made a video about Viacom in 09 or 10, while the actual controversy peaked around 07-08 ). And he seems guilty of both here as well, but he actually brings up a valid point about cnet, owned by CBS/Viacom, openly distributing file-sharing software under the pretense of using it for infringement. I seem to remember looking for a DVD ripping software (gave up on it, still don't use it) and encountering a couple examples on CNet sites.

Now, CBS/Viacom could just argue they didn't know what their subsidiary was doing, but that just paints them as being incredibly irresponsible and even more incompetent when it comes to the internet.

I myself am debating weather or not to tell me own Senators and Rep about this video, as I can't be 100% sure how legitimate the claims are, but I thought I should at least share it with all of you.

[Spiffy]

The guy takes a lot of liberties, and builds a conspiracy theory which sounds scatterbrained, so it only hurts the cause of stopping these laws. His evidence is that independently operating subsidiaries (many who didn't even have the same corporate masters a decade ago--something he conveniently ignores), who distributed all KINDS of software, were specifically doing so to entrap people a decade in the future so they could sue them and then control their access to the Internet?

He comes off like a nut and a quack.

[ZimMan2]

Yeah, that's what higher logic tells me. It's kinda sad, too, because it's really making the rounds on Twitter,despite it not being nearly as concrete as finding the RIAA's computers linked to the piracy of TV shows (they actually responded, saying someone hijacked their IP addresses).

Reminds of a similar thing with the NDAA, where this one guy was literally spamming Twitter (posting the exact same tweet with different @ mentions), got his account suspended (not even banned), and wrote on his website about how it was a conspiracy by Twitter.

My point is, while Twitter is a great tool, you need to remember the vast majority of users are just normal people, who are easily misled.

[ZimMan2]

Sorry for the double post, but yesterday, the news broke the GoDaddy was in support of SOPA, and so a lot of users started moving their domains to other registrars (a couple companies even took advantage of it, offering discounts to users transferring with code names like "NODADDY"). Now, I just looked on Twitter and....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! (http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup)

Now, I don't own any domains, but if I did or was planning on registering one, I wouldn't use GoDaddy on the grounds that their commercials are disgustingly sexist and everyone who isn't sponsored by them (ie: everyone but Revision3) said their business practices are terrible, and this pull seems kind of superficial and isn't likely to affect the bill that much, but it shows a company taking notice.

Plus, I find the fact that they're trying to cover their asses so quick pretty damn funny.

Although, it and quite a few other things have gotten me thinking about the whole "BOYCOTT ALL THESE COMPANIES" approach to the situation. Do you think it's the solution? To me, it sounds like it would just make the companies think it's more piracy hurting their profits.

And also, however hypocritical this sounds: I love movies, I love music, and I love TV shows. And I'm not going to boycott the things I love. I want to support the creators that I think turn out good content. I'll admit, I have a torrent client open in another window, but it's for fan subs of Kamen Rider shows that aren't even available with English subtitles in Japan. Should these shows be licensed by a good DVD company (hint, hint, Shout Factory), I would buy them in a heart beat. Hell, even if the release wasn't that great, I'd still buy it, because, in recent months, I've discovered that I fucking love Kamen Rider. And I want to see more Kamen Rider. And I know the way to get it is to show the company that makes it that I want more by purchasing the content available to me. This applies to all the things I love. Another example: the music of Anamanaguchi. I'm ashamed to admit I pirated my initial copy of their Scott Pilgrim game soundtrack. So much so, that as soon as I got a new iTunes card, I immediately paid for not only it, but their other two albums as well. And honestly, as much as this bill gets my blood boiling, I don't see myself stopping that pattern if it passes.

Does that makes me part of the problem?

[coveredinbees]

Good. Their commercials are annoying and they don't turn into porn when I continue on their website.

I've been mentioning this to acquaintances, as it sounds fairly evil, but I'm struggling to get people to see it as a big deal. =/

[ZimMan2]

Good. Their commercials are annoying and they don't turn into porn when I continue on their website.

I've been mentioning this to acquaintances, as it sounds fairly evil, but I'm struggling to get people to see it as a big deal. =/

I'd imagine it's hard to get people who aren't steeped in online activity to take anything relating to the internet seriously. Which is probably one of the main reasons it's hard to get enough people reacting to it to cause a significant uproar.

[K-DoG7p7]

for those that need some info on what SOPa is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM

[zemo]

Does that makes me part of the problem?

Short answer: Yes :3

Long answer: Buying stuff you like in order to make more stuff you like being produced is a time-honored principle of the market. However, you have to decide for yourself what is more important to you: Getting the stuff you like, but lessening the chances of others, who like stuff they CAN'T get to get the stuff THEY enjoy. Or taking a stand to help form a future you and others would like to live in. That's the whole point about process, the people participating in it show that the topic at hand is so important to them that they are willing to more than slightly inconvenience themselves to convey this. That's why 10,000 people signing an online petition against big business doesn't even cause yawns, but them showing up on Wall Street sets pants aflame from super-sonic pants-shittery.

[ZimMan2]

I hate my life.

[Spiffy]

Forbes appears to be REALLY on the ball about this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/12/22/the-story-of-sopa-so-far-2/

A very enlightened layout, considering their readership is supposedly "those corporate types".

[ZimMan2]

....

[ZimMan2]

I'm dropping out of getting directly involved with this stuff from now on for personal reasons, but I still feel the need to spread the word on what's going on.

American Censorship is requesting people meet personally with their Seantors about Protect IP, which is supposed to go the floor on the 24th. (http://americancensorship.org/meet/?state=) Like I said, I won't be doing this for personal reasons, but if you've got the courage, by all means, do it.

And now, many major players online are seriously considering a total site blackout. (http://techland.time.com/2012/01/05/sopa-what-if-google-facebook-and-twitter-went-offline-in-protest/) Personally, I think they should do it. Unless Colbert does more stories on it and EVERYONE starts watching Colbert, I don't see news about this getting out to more people any other way. One source even claims the blackout is definitely happening, on the 23rd. If they can only do it one day, That's not a bad choice, seeing as it's a Monday, and school will be back in session and many people will be at work. However, I think they're better off going black for two days. On Sunday the 22nd and Monday the 23rd. It would be risky, but I'd wager the risk would be worth it.

[AndrewCrossett]

Looks like SOPA/PIPA is about to become a dead issue (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/white-house-sopa-pipa_n_1206347.html)... at least for 2012.