Stop SOPA

[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 pe ion. 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 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 load 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?

[IronMaxipad]

[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 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 en lement 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 en lement 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 en lement 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 en lement 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 bull 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) le 17 Amendments- Section 506(a) of le 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 le 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

[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.

[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 .

[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.c...-and-fair-use/
http://adamrafferty.wordpress.com/20...m-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.