Much Ado About SOPA and PIPA

If you use the Internet, chances are you’ve heard a lot of the commotion about the SOPA and PIPA bills making their way around the United States Congress right now. Today, many sites like Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia are protesting the bills as they are generally considered to be bad for the health of the Internet as a whole.┬áBoth bills have the noble goal of eliminating piracy on the Internet, but actually contain clauses that promote extreme censorship that would harm many websites, including ours here at Overclockers.com.

We are not blacking out today because we want to continue providing our community the high level of service they love, but we do want to make sure all of our users are informed on the current events that could impact their lives and this site in the future. So, please take a few moments to browse some of the links below and if you are American, take action by contacting your local representatives.

Of course, you can leave your comments and questions below, too.

- splat

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Discussion
  1. Robert17
    Here's an interesting and related SOPA/PIPA bit of news, ACTA, something that's been making a few headlines lately with Anonymous already hacking away at the players. Take a few minutes to read it. It underscores the corruptions and cronyisms as well as any article I've seen on the subject. As I.M.O.G said, repackaging of the same ideas but on an international scale. Welcome to 1984.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Impeachable+Offense+Obama+Takes+Bribe+Institutes+SOPAs+Evil+Twin+ACTA/article23882.htm


    I just wrote my Senator about this. I'll get a reply in a few days. They have learned they better, I'll send them more messages until I do. They even called me about SOPA/PIPA so I would stop. I told them they are hard of hearing. I have to make certain I am getting through. :facepalm:

    :) :)
    Here's an interesting and related SOPA/PIPA bit of news, ACTA, something that's been making a few headlines lately with Anonymous already hacking away at the players. Take a few minutes to read it. It underscores the corruptions and cronyisms as well as any article I've seen on the subject. As I.M.O.G said, repackaging of the same ideas but on an international scale. Welcome to 1984.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Impeachable+Offense+Obama+Takes+Bribe+Institutes+SOPAs+Evil+Twin+ACTA/article23882.htm
    dalek2.0
    But they claim your friends will buy it IF you don't GIVE it to them. I don't agree myself but that is their claim.

    I watch TV episodes on the internet sometimes because I miss the show on TV. Would I go buy the show if I couldn't watch it on the net, heck no. To me, watching something on youtube is no different than me recording the show on my VCR or to my computer. After all, I could get a capture card, shoot it over from my digital satellite box to the card and then record it digitally. I suspect that to the eye, it would look no different with that than it does if watched on TV directly. The added benefit is that I can remove the commercials easier on the puter than I can on the VCR.

    What they need to do is like other companies have had to do in the internet age. They need to change their business models. They need to come up with a way that they still make money because people WANT to buy the product. When I go to a store and see the price of some movies, I lose all interest in watching. Heck, a lot of movies wouldn't be worth watching for free. When the RIAA started going after people and getting a LOT of innocent people caught in their net, I canceled my membership to my CD clubs and I think I have bought one CD since. That was many years ago. It was also one of those $3 or $4 deals. I doubt there is a CD out there I would pay more for. The music nowadays is yuck.

    If laws would change this, we wouldn't have people getting murdered every day. Murder has been illegal for a very long time. In some states, the price is very serious when caught too. They still do it.

    :) :)


    Amen to everything you've said. :thup:
    dalek2.0
    Why don't they do movies and music the same as they do drugs? You own it for a certain amount of time then others can sell it or make it available to download too? I can't help but notice that Tylenol is still in business.

    Neuromancer, did I read that right? Downloading is not illegal? It's the people that upload it that are in trouble? I sort of thought it was both.

    :) :)


    That may have changed it has been a while since I cared about any of this.
    Archer0915
    First off I agree most everything music these days is not to my liking; yuck.

    Now these business are set up partly on a value added manufacturing model. They make some plastic and put music on it and sell you (anyone) a license to listen to that music.

    On the CD packaging it is noted for example: News Boys Born Again states on the CD packaging that the media is protected by copyright law. It has the sharing warnings and everything. Hell it even covers lending for the express purpose of copying.

    These companies are in business to make a profit. If people do not like it then they need not listen to it. You suggest changing the business model but why? Why should business cater to the "We will not steal it if you make it cheaper and put it online" Bull!

    I think for much of this they just need to keep doing what they have been doing. Catch and fine. Take away the computers and any digital devices that are not expressly needed for work and make them start over.

    I think some of this crap is stupid and unrealistic though. Give a fine that is realistic not a joke that will never get paid. Hell a $1000 fine plus $.50 per song or movie or piece of software on any type of media that is not covered under fair use for said item.


    Thing is, it is not working for them. They got laws already. Thing is, they get greedy and innocent people get caught up in the net. Then they get sued and they end up with less than they got in catching the people that actually did something. I bet that grandma that got caught up in this mess got a pretty penny. They said the sum was "undisclosed". I bet it was more like embarassing. That's not to mention the bad press. Everytime there was a innocent person caught, the press was all over it as soon as they got wind of it.

    As for fines, it is a civil matter. Me, I'm disabled. I could download whatever and they can sue all they want, they can't get anything from me. As a lawyer told me in my divorce, I'm judgement proof. IRS, student loans, child support. That's it. I don't have kids either. Heck, I can't be forced to pay a speeding ticket. They can lock me up since it is a crime but they can't seize my checking account or anything.

    At some point, they better come up with a better plan not more laws. I'm not giving up my freedoms just because they can make up numbers that can't be proven.

    :) :)
    dalek2.0
    What they need to do is like other companies have had to do in the internet age. They need to change their business models. They need to come up with a way that they still make money because people WANT to buy the product. When I go to a store and see the price of some movies, I lose all interest in watching. Heck, a lot of movies wouldn't be worth watching for free. When the RIAA started going after people and getting a LOT of innocent people caught in their net, I canceled my membership to my CD clubs and I think I have bought one CD since. That was many years ago. It was also one of those $3 or $4 deals. I doubt there is a CD out there I would pay more for. The music nowadays is yuck.


    First off I agree most everything music these days is not to my liking; yuck.

    Now these business are set up partly on a value added manufacturing model. They make some plastic and put music on it and sell you (anyone) a license to listen to that music.

    On the CD packaging it is noted for example: News Boys Born Again states on the CD packaging that the media is protected by copyright law. It has the sharing warnings and everything. Hell it even covers lending for the express purpose of copying.

    These companies are in business to make a profit. If people do not like it then they need not listen to it. You suggest changing the business model but why? Why should business cater to the "We will not steal it if you make it cheaper and put it online" Bull!

    I think for much of this they just need to keep doing what they have been doing. Catch and fine. Take away the computers and any digital devices that are not expressly needed for work and make them start over.

    I think some of this crap is stupid and unrealistic though. Give a fine that is realistic not a joke that will never get paid. Hell a $1000 fine plus $.50 per song or movie or piece of software on any type of media that is not covered under fair use for said item.
    Mario1
    The whole anti-piracy thing is stupid.

    I don't see anything wrong with me buying an album and sharing it with other people.

    I'm giving it as a gift, not selling it or anything... :shrug:


    But they claim your friends will buy it IF you don't GIVE it to them. I don't agree myself but that is their claim.

    I watch TV episodes on the internet sometimes because I miss the show on TV. Would I go buy the show if I couldn't watch it on the net, heck no. To me, watching something on youtube is no different than me recording the show on my VCR or to my computer. After all, I could get a capture card, shoot it over from my digital satellite box to the card and then record it digitally. I suspect that to the eye, it would look no different with that than it does if watched on TV directly. The added benefit is that I can remove the commercials easier on the puter than I can on the VCR.

    What they need to do is like other companies have had to do in the internet age. They need to change their business models. They need to come up with a way that they still make money because people WANT to buy the product. When I go to a store and see the price of some movies, I lose all interest in watching. Heck, a lot of movies wouldn't be worth watching for free. When the RIAA started going after people and getting a LOT of innocent people caught in their net, I canceled my membership to my CD clubs and I think I have bought one CD since. That was many years ago. It was also one of those $3 or $4 deals. I doubt there is a CD out there I would pay more for. The music nowadays is yuck.

    If laws would change this, we wouldn't have people getting murdered every day. Murder has been illegal for a very long time. In some states, the price is very serious when caught too. They still do it.

    :) :)
    The whole anti-piracy thing is stupid.

    I don't see anything wrong with me buying an album and sharing it with other people.

    I'm giving it as a gift, not selling it or anything... :shrug:
    Why don't they do movies and music the same as they do drugs? You own it for a certain amount of time then others can sell it or make it available to download too? I can't help but notice that Tylenol is still in business.

    Neuromancer, did I read that right? Downloading is not illegal? It's the people that upload it that are in trouble? I sort of thought it was both.

    :) :)
    Sorry guys didn't read everything...

    Antipiracy laws need to work because...

    a) DRM only hurts the legitimate buyer. My cousin spent $10 on an ebook from nook (same book was $5 for paperback at B&N store). Couldn't put it on his daughters tablet. Took me 3 minutes to do so. And I did not use B&N. I had no compunction about it he paid for it.

    b) Pirating is bad and WAY popular. Hell even I know how to do it. I resisted a lot of things in my life. Hacking, cracking. But admit that occasionally I get mad at a comcast on demand for being sucky and grabed something. (I paid for it, why not? Hell I double paid for it cuz I use a DL service).

    That is the crux that is why MU got shut down. downloading is not illegal (just immoral) uploading is illegal, according to current laws. MU will probably beat most of the rap against them. (aren't they based in Germany?) But.. since they hosted they were the infringers. When technically it was other people that put it on there. (not liek the y didnt know what was going on.. but..)

    Now we are going to get into what has gone on before with the RIAA and napster. The people that uploaded to MU get sued. Now some of them may deserve it. Honestly if you make money off of pirated stuff, you are a criminal, deal with it. You got paid you stole.

    thats what the copyright law has been in this country forever. You make money on it, you are wrong.

    Dont get me wrong the mpaa/riaa was so against having distributable formats because "what if they lent the tape to their friends?"

    Yeah what if I lent them my car? Ford ain't complaining. I don't lend out my CDs because I generally don't get them back. I still got digital copies though of most everything I have bought in the last 8 years or so. + a ton of recorded stuff. (and some stuff I missed .. oops)

    I don't sell it, I don't upload it, I don't even remove watermarks on it. I am going to look into appropriating thermite though especially since the government decided PGP was not a constitutional right. :)

    EDIT: I am libertarian. I think less laws is good. And when someone steals from you, you shoot them.

    I also think corporations are evil. Because I grew up in the 80s and was well schooled and have a basic understanding of human history and religion.
    A video I've always found somewhat interesting...

    This isn't an Obama bash... Even though personally I don't like the guy... It's just representative of the type of people who are out there voting.

    2 Words... Uninformed Sheeple.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I
    You are right, about half turn out to presidential elections. Obama was over 60%, and it was a record in recent decades.

    For anyone to decide for themselves about how many people are voting in major elections, see the following link. Look through not just the main graph, but also hover over voter turnout in the left sidebar and flip through the different elections:

    http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
    Wasn't the turnout around 60% when Obama got voted in? That's a majority.

    I'm hoping to see an even larger one, now that the concept of politicians actually listening to The People has been brought to the forefront by the destruction of SOPA1.0. I'll probably be disappointed, but so it goes.
    Well let's start with voters. They are not the majority. A fraction of the eligible population actually votes in major elections, even fewer vote on the other ones. Not that its a bad thing, everyone's vote is equal and I've met a lot more ignorant and uninformed people than I've met really smart ones. Unfortunately though, the voter pool is small enough that busing in uninformed citizens to vote is common practice, because those with a vested interest in the outcome know that people from a certain area are more likely to vote in a certain way - get enough people in that area voting, and you sway the voting pool. The "get out and vote" initiative is crap. People should stay home and not vote, unless they have already "got out and gotten informed" on the issues. Not much advertising to the well informed public however, they aren't the ones whose opinions are easily swayed.

    But other than that, if you don't believe the public is, on average, not listening to what the government is doing and you think it isn't apathetic - thats ok. I just disagree from my observations. We shouldn't argue political views, we just have different outlooks on the topic I think.

    Some people are informed and motivated. They are in the minority though. For things that get enough publicity and coverage, like the SOPA/PIPA thing, armchair activists tweet and change their facebook profiles but most do little else.

    I believe there are hundreds of policies that get pushed through quietly each year piggybacked on other bills, and few people care or ever pay any attention. The SOPA/PIPA got enough publicity, and it got some attention. Its an example of winning a battle, but the war goes on... It will be chopped up, reprocessed, watered down, and once no one recognizes it as SOPA/PIPA, piece by piece its components will be slipped through as law while very few people turn their heads.
    I.M.O.G.
    Meathead, because informing the public doesn't work. Too short of an attention span and too apathetic. Something may be needed to enable these companies to better protect their IP, but informing the public wont have broad enough impact and this bill seems too broad and unspecific.


    Whats an example of the public not listening and being too apathetic? You do realize this is the same public is who is voting so majority > minority no matter if its right, wrong or indifferent.

    I'm pretty sure I've done whatever I can to stop any of these **** bills that have been attempted to be passed over the years so I'd have to think there are other people out there that don't have this short attention span since they haven't been passed and legitimate companies are still in business and receiving my dollar. I saw numbers like 12 million people protested, in some form or another, against SOPA and PIPA and you're telling me informing the public doesn't work. This protest alone demonstrated that it does work.

    What I do see on the list of sopa supporters is a bunch of media groups (media not....not just music.... I see publishers and computer game companies that have failed to put any non-fail anti-piracy until just recently, like EA, or is still nonexistent). A bunch of media groups that are just behind the times. I see a lot of companies on the list supporting the bills that have ****ty reputations for doing shady **** in the name of "profit". I see a lot of organizations with "honey jar" markets and now that the markets have moved on, instead of moving on and embracing technology and these shifts in business trends, they are fighting tooth and nail for control to regain their once beloved "honey jar".

    Offer me a firewall of suggested sites to block and I'll run it when making any purchases to make sure I'm doing so legitimately but it better be optional because I'm going to remove that **** 99% of the time just off of principle.

    I just read on wikipedia that the Obama administration and Harvard Law School opposes sopa so if thats actually true I lol'd inside
    Archer0915
    Many of the people on those boards hold Doctorates that they worked very hard for amd Doctors dubmit papres to these things. Many work for institutions that require them to research. There is a bunch of money going into this stuff and then to have it freely spread over the web or "SOLD" is where the issue lies.

    EDIT: Thinking about this I do still support thre premise of SOPA but I think a federal blocked site list would work better. The sad thing is it only works in the US.

    The FCC can figure out who is going direct by bothering the providers with it. Hey try can get daily reports at the FCC and micromanage the media theft. Because it is really not worth it they can get the media companies to pay a special tax to do it.


    Well, another way to get around all this is a anonymizer. There are lots of them on the net. Nobody can see what is going on when you use them. The traffic is encrypted all the time from the user to the server.

    Think they can shut down the anonymizer, nope. If they shut them down, people in China can't get to facebook and LOTS of other social sites. If facebook lost all those users, facebook would be in court faster than a bolt of lightning.

    I wanted to see how easy it is to setup and use a anonymizer. I used Firefox since it is the most popular. I installed tor, installed the Firefox plugin for it to use tor and in about 10 minutes, I was invisible. From what I have read, if you use a tool like that, they have no idea what the traffic is. There are also other options than tor. There are lots of them.

    I use Linux here and there are lots of ways to do this. All are open source and no hidden code either. Some websites do this too. I found one at http://hidemyass.com/ and it seems to work fine. Encrypted all the way and no record keeping.

    I just don't see the need for any more laws. If they can use current laws to bring down megaupload then they have more than enough. It's just that they have chosen not to because the media had a field day with them going after the wrong people. Plus, we have already found not one but two ways around the new law. Use the IP address and/or a anonymizer. Use both and short of shutting down a website, you can't be stopped.

    What these people need to do is update their business models. They are outdated and I think they know it.

    :) :)
    dalek2.0
    Why are these supporting this?

    National Board for Certified Counselors

    National Board for Certified Counselors Foundation

    American Mental Health Counselors Association

    Are people losing their minds or something?

    I'm just tired of the companies thinking they can run over the people. Yea, people shouldn't take companies stuff but companies shouldn't be able to run over people either. They already have more than enough laws to deal with this. Use them or maybe come up with a better plan for the business.

    Oh, even if this law passes, all you have to do is type in the IP address directly. If a person uses Seamonkey, Firefox or a few other browsers, you can use keywords to type in the name of the site and they will go to the site without knowing the IP. Just bookmark the IP address instead of the name. The browser remembers the IP address but you can type in the name as a keyword. This alone renders the law null and void.

    :) :)


    Many of the people on those boards hold Doctorates that they worked very hard for amd Doctors dubmit papres to these things. Many work for institutions that require them to research. There is a bunch of money going into this stuff and then to have it freely spread over the web or "SOLD" is where the issue lies.

    EDIT: Thinking about this I do still support thre premise of SOPA but I think a federal blocked site list would work better. The sad thing is it only works in the US.

    The FCC can figure out who is going direct by bothering the providers with it. Hey try can get daily reports at the FCC and micromanage the media theft. Because it is really not worth it they can get the media companies to pay a special tax to do it.
    Archer0915
    I have tried and tried to explain this patent infringement as well!

    Look at this list and run through the names. Look at the patents and trade marks.

    Companies Supporting SOPA:

    << SNIP ONE LONG LIST >>>

    That is where I am going. It ain't just about movies and music.

    (Some very bad words) when is it going to be clear it is not just music behind this bill.

    Why Ford? Why Zippo? Why Rite Aid? Why Oakley, Inc.?

    How else can it be made clear? There is much more than just the Big Record companies here.

    http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_gw.jsp


    Why are these supporting this?

    National Board for Certified Counselors

    National Board for Certified Counselors Foundation

    American Mental Health Counselors Association

    Are people losing their minds or something?

    I'm just tired of the companies thinking they can run over the people. Yea, people shouldn't take companies stuff but companies shouldn't be able to run over people either. They already have more than enough laws to deal with this. Use them or maybe come up with a better plan for the business.

    Oh, even if this law passes, all you have to do is type in the IP address directly. If a person uses Seamonkey, Firefox or a few other browsers, you can use keywords to type in the name of the site and they will go to the site without knowing the IP. Just bookmark the IP address instead of the name. The browser remembers the IP address but you can type in the name as a keyword. This alone renders the law null and void.

    :) :)