Stop SOPA

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think I've ever posted anything in this forum related to politics but this is a bit different because in a way its very Spurs related.

Imagine if someone here posted an illegal gif or if someone posted a wall paper they made of Tony Parker made with an image they did not have rights to use. Imagine that as a result, with no due process, Spurstalk is SHUT DOWN and we lose the place where we've talked about this team for damn near a decade. There's almost always copyright violations on every page on this forum and for the most part they are innocent and don't cost anyone money. Your avatar is probably a copyrighted image, for example.

If SOPA passes, this is not something you'll have to imagine because it will definitely occur on at least one if not many websites you currently visit. You've probably seen a blacked out site or two today out of the many you visit on a daily basis (or if you haven't already chances are that you will). The issue is really central to any use of the internet and its one that really deserves at least a few minutes of your attention.

Find out where your representatives stand on the issue and take a few minutes to sign an online petition (or 2) and send a form letter to your reps. If you can, take a few more and call them and let them know you expect them to vote against the issue.

http://www.opencongress.org

[bus driver]

i signed it:
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

[cheguevara]

SOPA not gonna happen. these millionaires in their ivory towers are living in fantasy land.

once you wake up the wrath of the internet you are bound to get burned. just look at godaddy.com :lol

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/29/burned-by-fleeing-customers-godaddy-no-longer-just-doesnt-support-but-actually-opposes-sopa/

[lefty]

meh ..........

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

In essence, Iranian/Chinese/North Korean type of laws dressed up as anti-piracy. Disgraceful.

[lefty]

In essence, American type of laws dressed up as anti-piracy. Disgraceful.

[urunobili]

signed

[DesignatedT]

:tu

[MannyIsGod]

Just to give you perspective, when Kori and Timvp got that letter from then EN that would have been enough to just forget about the letter and shut the site down under SOPA.

[Juggity]

Let it pass. Then we can see if it's really worth protesting or if it's just another instance of the doomsayer internet masses dramatizing unsubstantial events out of a sense of pseudointellectual gallantry.

[cheguevara]

whatever you do, don't vote for the corrupt assholes that support it:

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

[cheguevara]

Let it pass. Then we can see if it's really worth protesting or if it's just another instance of the doomsayer internet masses dramatizing unsubstantial events out of a sense of pseudointellectual gallantry.

LOL once this passes, it would be irreversible.

Why don't we cut off our right hand and see if it was really worth not doing it.

[Juggity]

LOL once this passes, it would be irreversible.


Right, because all laws are irreversible.

[cheguevara]

Right, because all laws are irreversible.

LOl genious read a little. It's not just a law. They would have to fundamentally change the way the internet works. They would put another layer (great american firewall) that will monitor and control your every move.

Good luck getting that reversed :downspin:

[MannyIsGod]

Right, because all laws are irreversible.

An ounce of prevention.

[Juggity]

LOl genious read a little. They would have to fundamentally change the way the internet works. They would put another layer (great american firewall) that will monitor and control your every move.

Good luck getting that reversed :downspin:

The internet is full of people who like to dramatize insignificant events by applying catchphrases like "great American firewall," or other equally ridiculous prospects that could never feasibly be implemented due to extreme cost/effort and lack of burning necessity. It happens with almost every political issue, doubly so when that issue involves the internet. Any law can be reversed given a groundswell of public opposition. See prohibition.

If this law really is as bad as everyone proclaims, let's pass it for a while and use it as a example for future generations of what not to do. Like prohibition.

[dbreiden83080]

LOl genious read a little. It's not just a law. They would have to fundamentally change the way the internet works. They would put another layer (great american firewall) that will monitor and control your every move.

Good luck getting that reversed :downspin:

And the hackers would just find a way around it... You can't beat the internet. Those that tried in the last 10 years failed and will keep failing..

[cheguevara]

"insignificant events"

wake up. This is not an insignificant event. Just like Obama's recent signing of Indefinite Detention Act. (Good luck getting that reversed)

It's not the people that change the laws. It's the politicians. And most of them work for the big coorporations.

Once you give the lion a bone, good luck getting it back.

[Spurminator]

The internet is full of people who like to dramatize insignificant events by applying catchphrases like "great American firewall," or other equally ridiculous prospects that could never feasibly be implemented due to extreme cost/effort and lack of burning necessity. It happens with almost every political issue, doubly so when that issue involves the internet. Any law can be reversed given a groundswell of public opposition. See prohibition.

If this law really is as bad as everyone proclaims, let's pass it for a while and use it as a example for future generations of what not to do. Like prohibition.


Sure, there's a bit of hyperbole. But none that are any worse than proponents' claims that there is some sort of copyright infringement crisis happening that merits government oversight at this broad a scale.

Burden of proof is on the lawmakers to show the necessity of this action. Somehow I doubt that piracy is really what they're trying to control here.

Anyway, "let's just pass a law and see how it goes" is a pretty ridiculous philosophy, in general.

[GSH]

I posted about this here a while back, and a bunch of the geniuses just flamed the hell out of it. They said it could never happen, and even if it did, no one would ever use it maliciously.

It can happen. It already has happened. (They have shut down "egregious" domains, even without SOPA.) And anyone who believes that businesses with political clout won't use something like this maliciously deserves what they get.

BTW - the law allows a domain to be shut down just on the word of another party that the website is infringing on their intellectual property. It doesn't absolutely require proof or due process, just the concurrence of the regulator that the claim is probably true. That's it. No opportunity to fix the problem, or to prove that it was innocently done, or done by some outside party. Shut it down first... sort it out later. Of course, by that time the damage is done.



.

[Borosai]

Indeed.

[cheguevara]

another thing worth mentioning is the law would make it a felony to upload a Justin Beaver video or posting an ESPN article.

yup, up to 5 years in jail for trying to prove lakerfan wrong on spurstalk :lol

[timvp]

Hopefully Pop shows solidarity to the cause by refusing to play Matt Bonner tonight.






Seriously though, while it probably won't pass, and probably wouldn't result in any major sites getting shutdown even if it did pass, it's not worth the risk.

[phxspurfan]

Yes, stop SOPA/PIPA. Sign the petition:

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/


But don't get rid of Pippa:

http://pippamiddleton.net/

[Kool Bob Love]

:tu

[GSH]

Seriously though, while it probably won't pass, and probably wouldn't result in any major sites getting shutdown even if it did pass, it's not worth the risk.

Actually, Timvp, before the recent backlash (from people like us) it absolutely WAS going to pass. The people lobbying for it are very rich and influential, and large political donors. And, as usual, they tried to marginalize and demonize the people who were against it. Brand them as extremists, etc.

Enough people have begun screaming that a number of the lawmakers who were onboard have realized that it might be political suicide to vote for it now. But it's far from decided, and a lot of them will vote for it if they can be convinced that they can still get re-elected. They really, really want to keep the SOPA proponents happy.

If you haven't yet, sign the damned petition. Make a phone call. This is one of those big ugly things, and you don't want people looking back and asking, "How did the people ever allow that to happen?"

[Bill_Brasky]

The internet is full of people who like to dramatize insignificant events by applying catchphrases like "great American firewall," or other equally ridiculous prospects that could never feasibly be implemented due to extreme cost/effort and lack of burning necessity. It happens with almost every political issue, doubly so when that issue involves the internet. Any law can be reversed given a groundswell of public opposition. See prohibition.

If this law really is as bad as everyone proclaims, let's pass it for a while and use it as a example for future generations of what not to do. Like prohibition.

Prohibition is alive and well, and we learned liteally nothing from it. Get off your high horse and read the details of the bill and you will see why so many oppose it. How about we stop a shit law before it takes effect for once?

[TimmehC]

Wow, my congressasshole(Brad Sherman) is a co-sponsor. Angry email fired away.

[silverblackfan]

Signed.

See? All that SpursTalk lurking occasionally pays off.

[GSH]

Wow, my congressasshole(Brad Sherman) is a co-sponsor. Angry email fired away.

There you go. For anyone who wasn't convinced that it could ever pass. I'm sure TimmehC assumed his own congressman could NEVER vote for such a bill - and he's a freaking co-sponsor. There are a shitload of pols* out there who are absolutely ready to vote for this thing unless YOU stop them.

*Kinky Friedman says the word "politics" comes from two root words: poly - meaning "many", and ticks - meaning "blood-sucking parasites". I don't always agree with Kinky Friedman, but you be the judge on this one.

[ElNono]

Hopefully Pop shows solidarity to the cause by refusing to play Matt Bonner tonight.

Where do I sign for that? :lol

[IronMaxipad]

http://i.minus.com/imUw6NIP2K8kO.png

http://i.minus.com/iBezUEpzNxs8h.png

http://i.minus.com/ibl5woYEzOmcqG.png

http://i.minus.com/ibfyfrVLkj7Wrr.png

http://i.minus.com/ibuobhEZSPx276.png

http://i.minus.com/iMRxzJiVp2uig.png

http://i.minus.com/ibgzSaUnQTo73Z.png

http://i.minus.com/ieex2WmhK4Bio.png

http://i.minus.com/i4jMl1FTSvy99.png

http://i.minus.com/izwjBDKhmrgvG.png

http://i.minus.com/iMcMEdUTOChak.png

http://i.minus.com/iFMCrjnM0XIXe.png

http://i.minus.com/iooV0AeedOh0A.png

http://i.minus.com/ibs24YmUVrvq6W.png

http://i.minus.com/iibgYoXqbisVe.png

[Juggity]

Prohibition is alive and well, and we learned liteally nothing from it. Get off your high horse and read the details of the bill and you will see why so many oppose it. How about we stop a shit law before it takes effect for once?

See, I agree that taking down a website like spurstalk for a small infringing .gif posted on the forums is wrong. But I have serious doubts that the legislation's verbiage will be used in this manner. That small .gif can't be monetized by the NBA or whoever owns it; if they were to sue for it to be taken down, a judge would have to ask what the company was losing by this tiny image being posted, and the answer to that question is nothing at all. A full game or movie posted to youtube is another story entirely. And I'm sure youtube would create agreements with copyright troll companies to take these down pre-emptively without being sued by the companies. My sense is that, despite the support from Wikipedia/Google etc, the main thrust of internet opposition to this bill is coming from the "We're allowed to download/torrent whatever we want whenever we want regardless of the law" crowd. Those folks maintain a self-bestowed entitlement that runs afoul of the law as it currently stands, and would be more prone to regulation assuming SOPA were to pass. I think they are acting out of this sense of entitlement rather than altruism (as it has been framed).

[jsandiego]

Check out this post on "The Slippery Slope of Freedom"

http://bit.ly/ysjmmf

[Dr. Gonzo]

Torbrowser will be the way to go.

[GabeIsGone]

See, I agree that taking down a website like spurstalk for a small infringing .gif posted on the forums is wrong. But I have serious doubts that the legislation's verbiage will be used in this manner. That small .gif can't be monetized by the NBA or whoever owns it; if they were to sue for it to be taken down, a judge would have to ask what the company was losing by this tiny image being posted, and the answer to that question is nothing at all. A full game or movie posted to youtube is another story entirely. And I'm sure youtube would create agreements with copyright troll companies to take these down pre-emptively without being sued by the companies

You are making some VERY large and VERY wrong assumptions. Groups like the MPAA and RIAA (already notorious for attacking everybody they can, no matter how small their crime or financial standing, to make an example) would MOST CERTAINLY report every instance of supposed 'copyright infringement' they could. These Hollywood groups are very backwards and are unwilling to modify their distribution methods to conform to a modern society, thus they try to keep the status quo by any means neccessary. (Including spending 70+ million dollars in lobbying congress to get these bills passed).




My sense is that, despite the support from Wikipedia/Google etc, the main thrust of internet opposition to this bill is coming from the "We're allowed to download/torrent whatever we want whenever we want regardless of the law" crowd. Those folks maintain a self-bestowed entitlement that runs afoul of the law as it currently stands, and would be more prone to regulation assuming SOPA were to pass. I think they are acting out of this sense of entitlement rather than altruism (as it has been framed).

This couldn't be more wrong. Hackers/'the crowd you were talking about' are the ones who will be able to get around this kind of stuff and wont be that effected by it. In fact The Pirate Bay has already anounced that they have changed their system to something else, and will work fine with SOPA/PIPA in place.

This would effect the everyday internet user more than them.They would require no proof to get a site 'blacklisted', just an accusation is enough, and it would take a while to get it back up (Violation of Rights anyone?). This would almost annihilate most sites that depend on user content. (such as this forum).

So your assumption that this opposition is self-serving is incorrect.

[The ADMIRAL 50]

See, I agree that taking down a website like spurstalk for a small infringing .gif posted on the forums is wrong. But I have serious doubts that the legislation's verbiage will be used in this manner. That small .gif can't be monetized by the NBA or whoever owns it; if they were to sue for it to be taken down, a judge would have to ask what the company was losing by this tiny image being posted, and the answer to that question is nothing at all.

The problem is, under SOPA a judge would never be asking these questions. They wouldn't sue the site, they would simply shut down the site. No court case, no due process. The NBA is a reputable company, as, for instance, is the Express News. All it would take to shut down a site such as Spurstalk would be for one of these or any other reputable company (and to be honest they don't really even need to be reputable, but regardless..) to make a "good faith claim" that Spurstalk is hosting copyrighted material (or even linking to a site that is) without permission. No proof is needed and there would be no hearing or judge to make a ruling. If the claim appears to be "in good faith" the site would be shut down. Just like that. As you can imagine, this affects a myriad of sites.

As for the underlined claim; Do you live in America? Corporations in this country bend the law in any way they can to make money or profit themselves, and this is a bill that would require little to no bending. They will use this anyway they can and there would be essentially no oversight. There would be no concrete way to police it, corporations would be making as many good faith claims as they could and sites would be getting shut down faster than they could sort out who really deserved it, if they even cared to sort it out that is.

[Interrohater]

Those Brits are trying to tax us without having a representative available to negotiate on our behalf? Well it's their god given right to do so. I'd also like to point out that the only people who would not be willing to go along with these new taxes are the scalawags and ruffians who smuggle tobacco and other goods. Let's allow these taxes, pay them and we'll see what happens. They'll probably realize that it's just too expensive to keep sending ships and soldiers here and just give up.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

There is so much ridiculous hysterical bullshit being thrown out there about SOPA. Do you realize you are all getting spun by the Googles of the world who simply don't want to have this expense on their business?

Just a couple of points:

a) the OP said SpursTalk could get shut down for posting a copyrighted image under SOPA. This is ridiculous because SOPA is about non-US-owned websites. Not SpursTalk. The DMCA already covers this issue for US-owned websites, so SpursTalk is already regulated. I really wish people would take the time to actually understand what the SOPA bill is, rather than listening to the storm of spin you are being subject to.

(b) The Admiral 50 just posted that if a claim appears to be "in good faith" a site is shut down immediately. This is simply not the case. Read the freakin bill. There is a process similar to the one under DMCA where the web site gets to either repair the infringing piece, or explain why it's not infringing. The only way, under SOPA, a site gets cut off (NOT shut down... this is about non-US sites and we don't have jurisdiction), WITHOUT a judicial process, is if the Justice Department determines (NOT a company or individual) that mass pirating is going on on that website (NOT small incidents) and decides to invoke SOPA.

All the above is simply factual, not an opinion. Those who believe otherwise (i.e. listen to the propaganda) are simply wrong.

Look, SOPA is imperfect in many ways, for example technically. But this stuff about "Google, Facebook, etc. etc. could get SHUT DOWN WITHOUT WARNING" is just insane crap. Try making up your own minds by looking at how things actually are, rather than just letting yourself be caught up in a propaganda campaign.

[cheguevara]

See, I agree that taking down a website like spurstalk for a small infringing .gif posted on the forums is wrong. But I have serious doubts that the legislation's verbiage will be used in this manner. That small .gif can't be monetized by the NBA or whoever owns it; if they were to sue for it to be taken down, a judge would have to ask what the company was losing by this tiny image being posted, and the answer to that question is nothing at all. A full game or movie posted to youtube is another story entirely.

wow, wow. Please stop spewing lies. Read the damn law.

This law gives power to the media giants to shut down sites without any decision from any judge or anybody. Without any proof either. They are even devising ways they can automatically shut things down with the mere press of a button, no questions asked. LMAO there won't be any judge involvement.

[Juggity]

This law gives power to the media giants to shut down sites without any decision from any judge or anybody. Without any proof either. They are even devising ways they can automatically shut things down with the mere press of a button, no questions asked. LMAO there won't be any judge involvement.



(a) Title 17 Amendments- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(a) Criminal Infringement-



`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--






`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;








`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, or by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works, when the total retail value of the copies or phonorecords, or of the public performances, is more than $1,000; or








`(C) by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial dissemination, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial dissemination.






`(2) EVIDENCE- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction, distribution, or public performance of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright."

The way I read that passage is that it takes a large burden of proof to shut down a website.

[ElNono]

The way I read that passage is that it takes a large burden of proof to shut down a website.

What's the large burden?

The alarming section is actually section (C):

`(C) by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial dissemination, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial dissemination.

--

Even if you post something and nobody downloads it, because "you made it available", you would be infringing.

You couldn't even argue you didn't know. Because "you should've known", you're liable.

Crazy stuff.

[Juggity]

Even if you post something and nobody downloads it, because "you made it available", you would be infringing.

You couldn't even argue you didn't know. Because "you should've known", you're liable.

Crazy stuff.

That's a fair point, but "should have known" encompasses those obvious foreign websites (pirate bay/torrent sites, etc) that very clearly stand in violation because they contain such a wealth of either hosted or linked copyrighted content. I think the point here is that there definitely is a legal process that must be adhered to, and a company must prove that infringement was willful (probably by nature of the volume of infringing content) and it's not going to be an internet Armageddon as many have been suggesting.

[ElNono]

That's a fair point, but "should have known" encompasses those obvious foreign websites (pirate bay/torrent sites, etc) that very clearly stand in violation

Sure. It also encompasses everything else. The language is vague enough to apply to almost every user generated content. If the actual target was "foreign websites" then there would be no problem codifying it as such.

Frankly, foreign websites are out of reach even with this legislation. And the current laws already addresses violation by non-foreign websites.

[Nbadan]

Stop SOPA before they stop Spurs talk

1p-TV4jaCMk#!

[Cry Havoc]

Look, SOPA is imperfect in many ways, for example technically. But this stuff about "Google, Facebook, etc. etc. could get SHUT DOWN WITHOUT WARNING" is just insane crap. Try making up your own minds by looking at how things actually are, rather than just letting yourself be caught up in a propaganda campaign.

The company that's behind this, the RIAA, has sued individuals for $60,000 a song for illegally downloading music via torrents -- even though the person in question was 60+ years old, could barely operate a computer, and didn't know what a torrenting program is. They also famously sued a DEAD person claiming they had illegally downloaded songs, citing dates that occurred after the party had died.

So yeah, you call it insane, and that's exactly what it is. But you absolutely have your head in the sand if you think the proponents of this bill are rational and sane in their pursuit of profit. They aren't. They will lie cheat and exploit every single American citizen to line their pockets if given the opportunity.

Say it's hyperbole all you want. The RIAA/MPAA have already acted hyperbolic in the past, so they deserve that moniker. And this kind of law is tantamount to placing more restriction on the internet, which is an absolutely horrifying prospect, given the rate of erosion of civil liberties in this country over the past decade.

By all means though, explain to us how you know more about SOPA than Google, or any of the other tech giants. Do you really think they're going to shut down their own websites for a day, tossing all that profit out the window, for something that isn't serious? Reddit is missing out on something like 50 million pageviews in the 12 hours they are dark. But oh, I forgot, again, you are coming from the position of superior knowledge here. Got it. :lol

[z0sa]

Big Business always wins in America.

1, 2, 3 for Capitalism!

[DJB]

whatever you do, don't vote for the corrupt assholes that support it:

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

LOL John McCain. What a douche.

[shraediggz]

`(2) EVIDENCE- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction, distribution, or public performance of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright."

I really believe many of us fail to realize the implications of this law.

Essentially, say you have a Spurstalk user whose been coming on here for years to post on game threads. Nothing less, nothing more. All he does is comment on game threads. Say in his user profile he's got a link to his own personal website. Say this guy is a musician and that his personal website is dedicated towards his music. Say some of the songs he's performed are covers of other peoples songs which he's posted for people to listen to.

Under this proposed pipa/sopa act, It's not only his personal web page that could be shut down, (ie, due to public performance of a copyrighted work), Spurtalk can be shut down because it links to such websites that violate copyright laws. All because some guy chose to share himself strumming his guitar whilst singing other peoples song.



So a tribute-style cover is definitely out; you need to seek permission before playing in a club, bar, or posting a video on Youtube. (Yes, videos evidently are pulled from Youtube all the time. And worse – if you aren’t scared by the thought of a slap on the wrist from Youtube, check out this link about a club owner who let bands play covers and had to pay $40,000 in damages:

http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/2010/02/09/cover-songs-and-fair-use/
http://adamrafferty.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/critical-info-for-youtube-musicians-who-perform-cover-songs/

If this new bill passes, it could give a lot of power to people/organizations who are already power hungry and paranoid into thinking a few "youtube covers" are costing their organizations tons of money. If anyone is dramatizing the effects of anti piracy and these proposed laws, it's Sopa and Pipa, not the people who stand against it. Because lets face it, if we want to steal content, we can steal content. Most cities have libraries, and most libraries have media (current movies and music) available for free. In some cases, it's easier to rip those products than it is finding a legitimate/dependable source on the internet.

These bills are all about censorship. Nothing less, nothing more. It's a bunch of companies wanting final say one what can and cannot be done with pop culture. Simple as that. They want to dictate how people share these materials and squeeze every last bit of profit out of it.

Think of all the settlements those guys will be able to chase, websites will potentially have to decide "do we stay closed, or do we pay a fine and get back online". And before any of you want to say I'm dramatizing, you might be interested in knowing there are plenty of instances where this happens... This guy chose to pay out 31k settlement on a copyright case for using a pixelated version of an album cover because it was the cheapest / easiest option available. Link to the story; http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/

[Blake]

I really believe many of us fail to realize the implications of this law.

Essentially, say you have a Spurstalk user whose been coming on here for years to post on game threads. Nothing less, nothing more. All he does is comment on game threads. Say in his user profile he's got a link to his own personal website. Say this guy is a musician and that his personal website is dedicated towards his music. Say some of the songs he's performed are covers of other peoples songs which he's posted for people to listen to.

Under this proposed pipa/sopa act, It's not only his personal web page that could be shut down, (ie, due to public performance of a copyrighted work), Spurtalk can be shut down because it links to such websites that violate copyright laws. All because some guy chose to share himself strumming his guitar whilst singing other peoples song.



Highly doubtful that they shut down ST in that scenario.

[shraediggz]

Highly doubtful that they shut down ST in that scenario.

Do we really want to play the odds on this thing, If the bill passes, it would give them the right to do so. And what makes you think user boards like S.T. wouldn't be targeted?

Right now, these are the same group of guys responsible for getting youtubers banned for posting videos of themselves performing crappy covers. the same people who make it an offense to stand on the street corner and sing a song you heard on the radio. Same people who make it illegal for you to play your stereo loud in a public park or your place of work (without first obtaining a license to do so).

Same group of guys who sue 83 year old ladies, or 12 year old kids for allegedly sharing copyrighted materials.

http://www.scribd.com/funfan/d/45716-The-10-Most-Ridiculous-Lawsuits-of-All-Time

Music piracy can get you in real trouble, but you have to be alive to do it.
2005,Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Gertrude Walton, who hadpassed away the year before at the age of 83, after having received notice of her death and a copy of the death certificate. The RIAA claimed that Watson had illegallydownloaded and shared over 700 songs. Watson’s daughter claims that she never even had a computer in the house. Although RIAA dropped the case against Watson,it was only one of over 20,000 similar lawsuits filed by the association beginning in2003. While some of the lawsuits are legitimate cases of piracy, defendants haveincluded a twelve-year-old girl whose parents wound up paying RIAA $2,000, andfamilies who have never owned a computer. Defendants can face charges of $150,000 per song

None of us can say for certain how they will and will not use these laws to their advantage. All we can say for certain is that everything seems "fair game" to them.

[lefty]

It has begun


There is a storm coming

[Buddy Holly]

Wow, my congressasshole(Brad Sherman) is a co-sponsor. Angry email fired away.

Looking at the area he serves, you're surprised?

Basically his congressional area is at the core of the entertainment industry, which is behind both SOPA and PIPA.

No doubt they've invested dearly into lobbying Mr. Sherman.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

The company that's behind this, the RIAA, has sued individuals for $60,000 a song for illegally downloading music via torrents -- even though the person in question was 60+ years old, could barely operate a computer, and didn't know what a torrenting program is. They also famously sued a DEAD person claiming they had illegally downloaded songs, citing dates that occurred after the party had died.


In every case they had IP address logs that showed torrenting activity of copyrighted material on that person's ISP account going to their home. This is really not in dispute. Does this mean that exact person was operating the computer? Maybe they had an open wifi router. Maybe they had a malware bot on their machine. Maybe their kid or a visitor did it. IP address tracing is the best they can do at the user end of things. That's what lawsuits are for, to get to the truth of what happened.

So what you get from the pro-piracy anti-copyright crowd is not a straight up, "Sharing copyrighted content on the Internet is fine, and that's our position. Copyright laws are stupid and should be repealed. In the meantime we're going to pirate our asses off." No, because that's not a winning strategy. What you get instead is these kinds of horror stories. They try to paint the content owners as the bad guys when all they are trying to do is legally protect their legitimately copyrighted content which is being pirated on computers that were detected doing sharing of illegal content. (Not just downloading, sharing/uploading.) By doing this they try to undermine attempts to enforce copyright by painting them as "censorship", "breaking the Internet", blah blah blah. This is spin, hyperbole, conscious propaganda, whatever you want to call it. And you are falling for it.



So yeah, you call it insane, and that's exactly what it is. But you absolutely have your head in the sand if you think the proponents of this bill are rational and sane in their pursuit of profit. They aren't. They will lie cheat and exploit every single American citizen to line their pockets if given the opportunity.


None of this is supported by anything factual.



Say it's hyperbole all you want. The RIAA/MPAA have already acted hyperbolic in the past, so they deserve that moniker. And this kind of law is tantamount to placing more restriction on the internet, which is an absolutely horrifying prospect, given the rate of erosion of civil liberties in this country over the past decade.


What restrictions? That they are going to block access to illegal sites that they can't shut down because they are overseas? Is that a civil liberty, to commit illegal acts?



By all means though, explain to us how you know more about SOPA than Google, or any of the other tech giants. Do you really think they're going to shut down their own websites for a day, tossing all that profit out the window, for something that isn't serious? Reddit is missing out on something like 50 million pageviews in the 12 hours they are dark. But oh, I forgot, again, you are coming from the position of superior knowledge here. Got it. :lol

Well, for one thing, mr. sarcasm, I've actually read the bill. Have you? Or have you just listened to the spin? Did you actually look at the "blacked out" websites? I did. Google did not shut down their website, they just put up a link to their opposition statement. Wikipedia did not shut down their website, they just put up a javascript-generated "blackout" screen and then told you how to bypass it by setting a simple option in your browser. Reddit and others got a giant pile of free publicity for blacking out and probably made more in revenue because of it.

The serious part of SOPA for the Googles of the world is that it puts an additional procedural burden on websites that collect and organize user submitted content, and search engine websites. It's a bit more than DMCA already does. They don't want to do this. That's why they are against it. Don't be fooled.

[Proxy]

If the government has the power to shut down megaupload, then what was the purpose of SOPA/PIPA? Seems like a big "fuck you" from the government, flexing it's muscles...

This has been very interesting though... for those that weren't aware... this has been going on for a little while now.

-SOPA proposed with very little publicity
-internet finds out and is outraged that congress attempted to pass it before anyone really found out
-reddit vs godaddy
-blackouts
-megaupload shut down
-anonymous retaliates by shutting down DoJ site, among others

...

[ElNono]

In every case they had IP address logs that showed torrenting activity of copyrighted material on that person's ISP account going to their home. This is really not in dispute. Does this mean that exact person was operating the computer? Maybe they had an open wifi router. Maybe they had a malware bot on their machine. Maybe their kid or a visitor did it. IP address tracing is the best they can do at the user end of things. That's what lawsuits are for, to get to the truth of what happened.

They should keep on suing, using their money, if they think that's the best course of action for their industry... No new law is required for them to keep on doing that.


What restrictions? That they are going to block access to illegal sites that they can't shut down because they are overseas? Is that a civil liberty, to commit illegal acts?

Who determines what are "illegal sites"? Where does the law specifies that it only applies to overseas sites? Is the law constrained enough as to not inadvertently bring down legitimate sites if hosted in the same place as these "illegal sites"? You read the law, please point that out for me.


The serious part of SOPA for the Googles of the world is that it puts an additional procedural burden on websites that collect and organize user submitted content, and search engine websites. It's a bit more than DMCA already does. They don't want to do this. That's why they are against it. Don't be fooled.

Actually, it's not just "procedural burden", it's flat out liability. The "making available" and "should have known" language makes anybody linking to any allegedly illegal content a potential target.

[Proxy]

The serious part of SOPA for the Googles of the world is that it puts an additional procedural burden on websites that collect and organize user submitted content, and search engine websites. It's a bit more than DMCA already does. They don't want to do this. That's why they are against it. Don't be fooled.

This was never about the bill. This was about SOPA acting as a gateway to allow for restriction of american internet. If these bills were really about allowing for some legality in shutting down sections of the internet, then why does the government shut down megaupload without notice, when the site technically abides by the same rules that youtube does?

Seriously, you're being a prick and an idiot. You say that some statements aren't supported by anything factual, when your entire statement of websites generating money from blacking out is complete assumption.

[ElNono]

If the government has the power to shut down megaupload, then what was the purpose of SOPA/PIPA? Seems like a big "fuck you" from the government, flexing it's muscles...

This has been very interesting though... for those that weren't aware... this has been going on for a little while now.

-SOPA proposed with very little publicity
-internet finds out and is outraged that congress attempted to pass it before anyone really found out
-reddit vs godaddy
-blackouts
-megaupload shut down
-anonymous retaliates by shutting down DoJ site, among others

...

The purpose is to create the new criminal figure of "making available", which was not part of the current copyright act (the act grants exclusive public reproduction and distribution rights. Some legal cases argued that unless you prove that distribution took place, there was no infringement). Basically, it reduces the bar on evidence that the DOJ needs to present in order to charge somebody with criminal copyright infringement.

[Proxy]

The purpose is to create the new criminal figure of "making available", which was not part of the current copyright act (the act grants exclusive public reproduction and distribution rights. Some legal cases argued that unless you prove that distribution took place, there was no infringement). Basically, it reduces the bar on evidence that the DOJ needs to present in order to charge somebody with criminal copyright infringement.

I see... thanks

[BRs.Ganso]

SOPA not gonna happen. these millionaires in their ivory towers are living in fantasy land.

once you wake up the wrath of the internet you are bound to get burned. just look at godaddy.com :lol

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/29/burned-by-fleeing-customers-godaddy-no-longer-just-doesnt-support-but-actually-opposes-sopa/

fail

[Cry Havoc]

In every case they had IP address logs that showed torrenting activity of copyrighted material on that person's ISP account going to their home. This is really not in dispute. Does this mean that exact person was operating the computer? Maybe they had an open wifi router. Maybe they had a malware bot on their machine. Maybe their kid or a visitor did it. IP address tracing is the best they can do at the user end of things. That's what lawsuits are for, to get to the truth of what happened.

So what you get from the pro-piracy anti-copyright crowd is not a straight up, "Sharing copyrighted content on the Internet is fine, and that's our position. Copyright laws are stupid and should be repealed. In the meantime we're going to pirate our asses off." No, because that's not a winning strategy. What you get instead is these kinds of horror stories. They try to paint the content owners as the bad guys when all they are trying to do is legally protect their legitimately copyrighted content which is being pirated on computers that were detected doing sharing of illegal content. (Not just downloading, sharing/uploading.) By doing this they try to undermine attempts to enforce copyright by painting them as "censorship", "breaking the Internet", blah blah blah. This is spin, hyperbole, conscious propaganda, whatever you want to call it. And you are falling for it.



None of this is supported by anything factual.



What restrictions? That they are going to block access to illegal sites that they can't shut down because they are overseas? Is that a civil liberty, to commit illegal acts?



Well, for one thing, mr. sarcasm, I've actually read the bill. Have you? Or have you just listened to the spin? Did you actually look at the "blacked out" websites? I did. Google did not shut down their website, they just put up a link to their opposition statement. Wikipedia did not shut down their website, they just put up a javascript-generated "blackout" screen and then told you how to bypass it by setting a simple option in your browser. Reddit and others got a giant pile of free publicity for blacking out and probably made more in revenue because of it.

The serious part of SOPA for the Googles of the world is that it puts an additional procedural burden on websites that collect and organize user submitted content, and search engine websites. It's a bit more than DMCA already does. They don't want to do this. That's why they are against it. Don't be fooled.

You're defending the RIAA. Sorry, you're obviously a shill and I have nothing to say to you. Trying to paint a corporation willing to sue someone for $60,000 per song+ in a favorable light? Yeah. You aren't worth conversing with, and nothing you say is going to have any impact on me because you're about as impartial as a Lakers fan in a debate concerning LeBron James.

BTW, I have read the bill. Just because you've read it as well does not suddenly mean you have the ability to grasp the consequences, as evidenced by the fact that you seem to think that corporations won't use any and all avenues to destroy people if it makes them a tiny bit of money or eliminates perceived competition. Sorry, but "they probably won't go that far" is the worst argument that I've ever heard and shows that you have your head in the sand, or up an interested party's ass.

[Cry Havoc]

They shut down megaupload without SOPA, but with SOPA they'll probably be SUPER RATIONAL AND CONSIDERATE OF WEBSITES' RIGHT TO EXIST! :lmao

Amazing how out of touch with reality some people are.

[romad_20]

They shut down megaupload without SOPA, but with SOPA they'll probably be SUPER RATIONAL AND CONSIDERATE OF WEBSITES' RIGHT TO EXIST!


Sucks for the millions of people who just lost their legitimate files they backed up.

[Cry Havoc]

hyeah... millions... hright

Registration - 180+ million users

Unless you can offer some evidence that says 99.5% of them were illegal file sharers, the point is completely valid. With 180,000,000 people, it stands to reason that even an extremely conservative estimate of legitimate users would be 10,000,000 or more.

[ElNono]

i just asked my dick and the only legitimate user was your foppish ass

http://www.wiichat.com/forum/attachments/anime-lounge/8648d1311055173-hanamaru-kindergarten-plz-stop-post.jpg

[GSH]

They should keep on suing, using their money, if they think that's the best course of action for their industry... No new law is required for them to keep on doing that.



Who determines what are "illegal sites"? Where does the law specifies that it only applies to overseas sites? Is the law constrained enough as to not inadvertently bring down legitimate sites if hosted in the same place as these "illegal sites"? You read the law, please point that out for me.



Actually, it's not just "procedural burden", it's flat out liability. The "making available" and "should have known" language makes anybody linking to any allegedly illegal content a potential target.


Cut. Print. That's a wrap.

Even if they need more laws to fight piracy, SOPA ain't it.

[ElNono]

^There's other legislation making the rounds (ie:OPEN act) that addresses the need to fight piracy without going overboard and that includes support from a lot of the same people that oppose PIPA/SOPA...

[Cry Havoc]

fight piracy

Without draconian measures I don't see it as a fight. Piracy is going to exist until you offer something that the pirates can't. Why not make EVERY SINGLE tv show available online a week after it airs, replete with advertisements and the like? People can already TIVO shows, why not just offer up entire series on Netflix or through the host website like the Daily Show or South Park does? The media is being run by old people who still have no ability to understand how fast everything has changed in the past decade, and they refuse to adapt.

[ElNono]

Without draconian measures I don't see it as a fight. Piracy is going to exist until you offer something that the pirates can't. Why not make EVERY SINGLE tv show available online a week after it airs, replete with advertisements and the like? People can already TIVO shows, why not just offer up entire series on Netflix or through the host website like the Daily Show or South Park does? The media is being run by old people who still have no ability to understand how fast everything has changed in the past decade, and they refuse to adapt.

We already have a discussion going in the political forum (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174882). Feel free to bring this up there. I think this thread served it's purpose here.

[ChuckD]

I was surprised that Franken was for it until I realized that he probably gets residuals for SNL seasons 1-5.

[Buddy Holly]

They shut down megaupload without SOPA, but with SOPA they'll probably be SUPER RATIONAL AND CONSIDERATE OF WEBSITES' RIGHT TO EXIST! :lmao

Amazing how out of touch with reality some people are.

Completely different animal from SOPA. The feds took their time to gather evidence and create a case.

With SOPA, all the feds would need is the slightest suspicion and they would then be able to shut down a site. No probable cause, no evidence, just suspicion of illegal activity.

[ElNono]

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm158/cheezymacyo/2006-12-11-cats-not-that-funny1.png

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/15/129001325389377930.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

[QUOTE=4cc;5590869]http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm158/cheezymacyo/2006-12-11-cats-not-that-funny1.png

Trolling: The only thing less original and more pathetic than volumes of cat photos.

[MannyIsGod]

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm158/cheezymacyo/2006-12-11-cats-not-that-funny1.png

I think the cats are funny. Bitch.