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. Both 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

95 Comments:

ghost_recon88's Avatar
Glad OCF put up an article about this, wasn't sure if people were aware a site like OCF, as well as many other forums and tech sites could be shut down if this bill passes. It's too bad the thread in General Discussion got closed.....
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
Good to see awareness raised, as this is an important issue. Unfortunately, the following comment on slashdot rang pretty true to me.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...2&cid=38738236

Big Mike's Avatar
Despite movement away from the extreme ideas in the original bill I chose to black out my personal site to join in this movement. The legislation as written is far to dangerous and would allow corporate interests to dictate who gets a voice on the internet.
Big Mike's Avatar
I agree I thought that move was a bit premature, this bill is not yet a dead issue.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
GD thread is open now as well on this issue.

I think the core problem of these bills, from what I understand, is that they essentially say - "don't worry, we'll only use this against the bad people." But when you ask, "who decides who the bad people are?" It appears the answer is, "the corporations decide".
G33K454URU5 R3X's Avatar
I find it highly disturbing that people who don't understand technology are making technological decisions with no understanding of what they are doing other than 'protecting intellectual property'. This is clearly evident with Lamar Smith violating the same acts he wishes to impose on everyone:

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin...icle23783c.htm

SOPA and PIPA should be shot down out of the sky with a full barrage of Internet powers. Keep big business out of telling me what I can and can't see based on what they think I need to know. If these pass, there are going to be some real fireworks - foreign hackers will be the least of worries for Lamar and his gang of dummies.

Lamar proposing SOPA and PIPA would be the equivalent of him going to CERN and telling them how to use the LHC to find the Higgs-Boson - he doesn't understand technology, any of it, yet is making decisions that affect us all.
Seebs's Avatar
Check out this video guys... I puts into layman's terms what it is that SOPA/PIPA would end up doing.

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_..._bad_idea.html
Bobnova's Avatar
I'm kind of surprised the GD thread didn't stay closed, this being a political topic.
Still, it is a very important one!
Check out "namecoin" if you have a chance, it's an alternate, p2p, DNS type system.
Seebs's Avatar
Matt gave the main thread a reprieve based on the fact that the issue is more about legislation and how it affects us than it is about the politics behind the legislation.
Robert17's Avatar
Everything about this SOPA/PIPA billing is bad news for the internet, civil liberties, and freedom of speech/expression. The only good I could see in it may be to catch some congress-critters downloading copyrighted material and put them in prison (since we can't seem to get them there by any other means.

Way too much regulation and legislation in our country as it is.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
I don't know about everything about it being bad. There isn't much discussion going on about solutions, so the discussion these bills are causing may turn out to be a positive in the end. Right now though, the bills are poorly created and everyone is just talking about them not being the right solution.

What is a better solution to enable IP enforcement in a safe way, where our liberties are not threatened?

If I start up a website, and then it begins getting enough traffic that I can make a living off of it, but then I find some loser scraping my content, reposting it on their own site, and giving me no credit - I should have legitimate recourse. Right now my only protection is filing a DMCA claim, and I am at the mercy of their ISP - I just have to hope they do something about it. If not, I'm screwed.

There is a need for better legislation, and some form of actual enforcement. It will be interesting to see if anything positive comes out of this.

...It got people's attention, so that alone could lead to something good.
Bobnova's Avatar
You can sue them, look at the RIAA. It's already illegal to do that.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
True, but I can't say much positive for the right to go broke trying to sue all the financially insolvent people stealing your content. It also does no good for international bandits where you have no legal recourse.
Bobnova's Avatar
SOPA seems like it'd have a hard time touching domain names registered on servers in foreign counties too, unless it's going Green Dam style.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
I'm no expert, so I'm not sure I understand it completely, but from what I have read I believe the provision that addresses foreign registrations/hosts is they could force domestically operated DNS servers to not resolve given domains. So while they may not be able to take the site offline, they would not need to deal with foreign ISPs or registrars - just tell the US DNS operators to not resolve the domain name, and virtually no one in the US would be able to access the site any longer.
TiZakit's Avatar
This article highlights how they propose to deal with DNS - at the ISP level.

http://dyn.com/sopa-breaking-dns-par...online-piracy/
Bobnova's Avatar
Ha so it is sort of along the lines the China's Green Dam.
TiZakit's Avatar
Is that different than the great firewall?
762Nikolai's Avatar
The U.S government shouldn't be able to make a decision that will have such a massive effect on the WHOLE WORLD. And its not like these websites dont already have their own copyright policies
Big Mike's Avatar
The "green dam" (for youth guidance or some such is its full name) is a net nanny type program that is basically mandatory on pcs in China. I think there is a separate system that filters more "offensive" content on a national scale that is considered the great firewall.
TiZakit's Avatar
Great. It's even worse than I thought...

...We put a firewall in your firewall so you can....

You get the point. Yeah, I never heard of that one before. Thanks.
sysane's Avatar
its funny really at the end of the day us the poeple of new zealand have had this bill spat at us for over 8 months now thanks to john key and Sir Peter Jackson. Its good to see people are trying to stop this good luck U.S.A
Theocnoob's Avatar
SOPA should be called SOAP. It lets (insert derrogatory term in plural form) with too much power effectively wash away whatever content they want and control what you see on the internet. I remember when the internet first came into being and the truly free exchange of ideas that it was supposed to represent. Damn you SOPA.
yanz's Avatar
hmm.. will this be a nightmare..
turbohans's Avatar
Awesome article! It's nice to see other topics on the top page here sometimes.
Kind of makes me think; A section devoted to trending popular internet topics would be kind of cool, and would give the less technical users here something to write about.


As far as SOPA and PIPA though I must say I was getting worried, I am trying to focus my carrier path along the lines of website development and administration and I really don't need something like those two to make things hard for me. There has got to be another way to deal with the issues that are really not as bad as they are made out to be.
Google already implements techniques to keep websites that do bad things from showing up in searches, why is the government not working more closely with the two big search engines?!?!? ((Microsoft & Google) Yahoo is no more...)
With all this internet scum around it is a lot harder to start a website,, but in reality the only people whining about anything are the big greedy corporations.
dalek2.0's Avatar
OK. They say it will stop the DNS system from resolving to sites. Could someone just type in the IP address directly? For example, this site is 69.167.156.21 and I could just bookmark it. Am I missing something?

turbohans's Avatar
You are very correct! And on top of that, if it is a well-established or old website and all they do is block the FQDN the big two search engines will still crawl the site and display results in searches!!! Blew my mind one day I searched something and came across a website that did not even have a domain name, was even on the first page!!!

Search engines are sneaky smart, I have a wildcard FQDN pointing to my home internet and I find in the logs that they have spider-ed my site from my ISP's hostname, c-24-11-11-119.hsd1.mi.comcast.net No idea how the spider found that but it is kind-of scary to think they might be crawling computers that are un-intentionally displaying web-pages. Ableit takes a lot to show up within the first few thousand pages of a search if you only have an IIS or Apache welcome page going on. LOL
RedCell989's Avatar
btw, feel free to use that image as much as you like, wherever you like, modify it, make your own etc.

The recourse for pirating sites, and pirates is financial recourse. I personally know several people who have been "popped" for downloading content and the recourse ordered by the court is pretty hefty (nearly $100k per copy fine as well)

If you make a website, someone steals your content, uses it illegally, or profits from it, your "recourse" is suing them. The process is already in place, has been. This is very simple.

Legislation like PIPA & SOPA are extremely dangerous for Americans, it bypasses due process and enables copyright infringement to be EXTREMELY loose in its definition. So loose in definition that "copyright infringement by association" is actually a crime punishable by law. This is one step closer to having regulated (read government dictated) media. If the internet existed during the Nazi regime they would have laws resembling this.
turbohans's Avatar
Are you sure? I'd love to use that in a blog post!

In some way I think some websites are a little too uptight about that... And on the other had there are a lot of lazy people out there that like to copy/paste everything and write nothing. All boils down to lazy un-original people trying to make money the wrong way.

Personally I could care less than to chase people down that "steal" content off my websites, they will just look obvious and bad to anyone that visits their site anyway.
dalek2.0's Avatar
That's what I was thinking. I'm just going to write down the IP for sites that I go to a lot, just in case. After all, they could be doing something wrong and not even know it. lol

Hmmm, if I run a local DNS, then I could manage that manually. I could have some that can't be changed so that even if they are removed from a public server, I would still have a local lookup. Correct?

This is so funny. Those people in Washington DC go to all the trouble of making a law and people know how to get around it before it even gets voted on.

turbohans's Avatar
haha! You got the idea! Both ideas you mentioned will work. In fact with Linux it is pretty easy to set up your own DNS server. Just as long as the website is not on a dynamic IP like mine is your browser will also cache the DNS resolution IP for a period of time. (the TTL value) Most websites usually have a few DNS servers already, I can't think of a good configuration other than maybe a proxy to do what you are thinking, I know there is though.
dalek2.0's Avatar
Actually, I could just add the IP address to my hosts file. I do that with my local machines already. The sites I frequent have fixed IPs.

I'm going to play Santa. I'm making a list and checking it twice. lol

turbohans's Avatar
I did not think about that, might make some of them load a little faster too. Only reason I run a site on a dynamic Ip is I am cheap hahaha most sites like overclockers.com here would never do that. Well maybe if they had some funky way of scaling their servers but that is usually done internally.
Big Mike's Avatar
On the DNS subject, when this thing started gaining a little traction it was pointed out there's already a FireFox plug in developed that is capable (and I believe has a crowd sourced database available) of resolving IPs directly based on an "independent" DNS table. Personally I feel like that's all the more reason to come up with better legislation, if a lot of the people who are the problem can figure stuff like that out to circumvent it, all it will do is deny access to sites to "average joes" who may not even be looking for the content in question.
Archer0915's Avatar
Well I entirely support things like this. There is nothing wrong with the legislation. The issue is abuse of the legislation. Everything can be abused though.
Big Mike's Avatar
I think a war is brewing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ODQ_story.html

Anonymous downed a number of federal and IP industry websites in retaliation for the MegaUpload raid.
Archer0915's Avatar
Now that was stupid. I hope Anonymous gets busted. (all of them)
diaz's Avatar
If any of this ever passes, there will just be other work arounds..

The reason the government might not have seen any problems:
1. Lobbyists
2. Lobbyists
3. Lobbyists

The only way to counter lobbyist, is to make the opinion upopular, therefore decreasing the government's approval rating. They (government) cannot afford any more of that, hence the pause in the legislation..

Just my opinion..
RedCell989's Avatar
Oh I am not worried about the government abusing powers, they never do that.
petteyg359's Avatar
Free injunctions with no court involved aren't wrong? AFAIK, all a company has to do is tell your ISP that you're infringing their rights, and your ISP can either choose to spend their money to fight on your behalf (really, how likely is that?) or cut you off.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't speak lawyer-excrement, so I can only go off of information that other people have deciphered.
Archer0915's Avatar
There is a lot more to it than that. You will have time to come into compliance if you are not direcrly involved with the infringment.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
Does it say how much time, how it is determined if you are in compliance, and who does the determination?

My issue is in lack of specificity. If those points are nailed down, I could feel better about the proposed legislation.

You seem to have read the actual law more than others, and I can't decipher lawyer speak so I too am mainly going off explanations of others in articles I've read.
Archer0915's Avatar
I will find it and

I will get paragraph 4 up

The knowingly and willfully fail to comply. This is giving teeth to laws that have been circumvented.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
Also a huge security risk in using "independent" DNS. DNS is who tells you what IP a domain name should go to. If someone can compromise the "independent" DNS, fishing attacks or other security compromises would be especially dangerous - a much higher risk than there is in the current DNS system.

@Archer: Ya, but what the hell is that saying? To me, that says I can't sue the people in the goverment responsible for accusing me. It all talks in circles though, and if I were in the situation, I'd need to hire a lawyer to tell me what the law says.
Archer0915's Avatar
Well I guess that could be an issue. You are a smert person and you dont get it on the first read. I guess those people in DC will be and are clueless.

What is it saying? Well basically if you take steps as outlined by the law and use all due diligance to comply with the law you will be immune.

I think it would be good to actually go over this. I may need filled in on what is actually wrong with this legislation.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
Gotcha, I can see how that could be what it means.

Parts like this especially concern me:

So by law in as little as five days of receiving notice, the advertising agency needs to drop the relationship with the offending site. I don't know where the law states how someone is determined to be an offender, and I don't know where the law states how a counter claim can be filed by the advertising agency - if I'm an ad agency, I may have had that client for years and it may be an especially profitable relationship. If I don't believe the notice was duly obtained or administered, I should have reasonable recourse. I also don't understand what the repercussions would be for me if I refuse to comply with the notice.

Here's a relevant reference that I think is very appropriate. I've gained this knowledge from running this site, and handling DMCA takedown requests:

The DMCA allows for reasonable terms that for the most part work alright, but it is also a horribly abused system - iNet receives dozens of DMCA requests. Often times they are sent by people that don't like what someone said about them on a site, true or not. Often times they go ignored, as iNet is good about valuing real discussion. Ultimately, it is the individual poster responsible for the material as well, not iNet - however people send these sorts of DMCA requests to iNet because many companies other than iNet knee-jerk comply rather than stand up for their users. These individuals either don't want to incur the court costs by going through the legal system, or they know they don't have a real case - but by abusing the DMCA system, they can often get the result they are after almost for free.

From what I've read, there are a lot of issues like that in the proposed legislation. Everything I'm reading points to the thing not being fully cooked, worse off than DMCA already is, and most alarmingly, it extends the reach of the law beyond the borders that DMCA currently reaches. There is good reason for this to cause international alarm, as well an national alarm for US citizens who feel it isn't right for the US to make an internet governing land grab.

Take this reference for example:

https://plus.google.com/101149790069...ts/M5fF2FBgpGX

Just as I can't understand and fear the repercussions of the bill, but know I would need a lawyer to figure it out, this guy is basically saying just that, while referencing the forbes article he links.
Archer0915's Avatar
SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.

(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
(b) Action by the Attorney General-
(1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or
(B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
(2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a foreign infringing site or the foreign domain name used by such site.
(3) NOTICE- Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--
(A) to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site--
(i) at the postal and electronic mail addresses appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and
(ii) via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(B) to the owner or operator of the Internet site--
(i) at the primary postal and electronic mail addresses for such owner or operator that is provided on the Internet site, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(ii) if there is no domain name of the Internet site, via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the Internet Protocol allocation entity appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of allocations and assignments, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(C) in any other such form as the court may provide, including as may be required by rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(4) SERVICE OF PROCESS- For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.
(5) RELIEF- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.
(c) Actions Based on Court Orders-
(1) SERVICE- A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:
(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-
(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
(ii) LIMITATIONS- A service provider shall not be required--
(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or
(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.
(iii) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.
(iv) TEXT OF NOTICE- The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.
(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link. (C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-
(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account-- (I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).
(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES-
(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS- An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to--
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.
(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).
(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS- Except as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(iv), an entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine the means to communicate such action to the entity's users or customers.
(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS-
(A) IN GENERAL- To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief--
(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or
(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).
(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection.
Archer0915's Avatar
Forums and the like should be protected. Most try to keep it clean and that is due diligence.

If anything this gives some sort of written protections. MegaUpload? They did not need this for that.

Above are the sentencing guidlines. Most likley a Judge and Jury will take care of that part.

As far as the guys in the garage? This would help protect them from infringement by foreign powers like China.

One other thing: Most people have not clue how to read a contract and understand it (truly understand it and the repercussions of failing to honor it(look at all the failed mortgages)) and many have no idea how to make heads or tails of legislation. Many of them are bitching about things that others have said and most of the people who have complained don't have a clue either. I am not saying this is all good but many jump on the band wagon without having a clue what direction it is going.

I have a hard time with legislation because you have to jump around for reference but there again it is no different than a research paper. Different language and structure but the same amount of jumping around.

I am also not saying I have not missed anything because you can not read it straight through.
Meathead's Avatar

The guys in the garage do not need protection from China. The big dogs do. All you have to do is look at wikipedia's list of companies supporting the SOPA bill and it already sends off multiple red flags that something is probably not right. Video game designers figured out how to stop piracy through programs like steam. Why can't these media idiots do that? All these years of trying to pass **** bills when they could have created their own itunes and stopped crying like babies. I'm sure as the sky is blue that I'm not giving the government the ability to decide what is "due diligence" because these gigantic corporations with wallets as tall as the empire state building can't handle their own problems and come up with their own solutions. Kinda interesting that these media giants aren't being creative about how to protect their media, they aren't being creative about the shows they produce, yet they want to be paid for their creativeness ( see show examples in next paragraph for an example)

This is not about the media business's loss in revenue and profits from foreign sources and mom and pops going out of business left and right due to online priacy. This is the giant corporations fighting for the strangle-hold that they once had over all forms of media and media outlets. How ****ty is the radio? How ****ty is network tv? All thats on network tv is ****ty spinoffs using celebrities.... dancing with the stars.... losing weight with the stars..... losing weight...... bachelor......bachelorette.... SURVIVOR: THE MOON...... .... They just pump out the same **** different twist

Now that the internet is around and full steam thanks to plenty of nifty media devices, we don't have to rely on big business to create media for us. The majority now have the power to create and distribute their own media. What does that spell for these media giants? No more free ride. You actually have to create original **** that I want to watch to get my dollar now. Theres so much competition that the consumer has the power to enjoy whatever they please. I've found so much underground music that I legally get for free that I've stopped paying for any media except new video games. Even thats about to go with these free to play games like league of legends where I can pay them for some eye candy because they let me play their game and I think they deserve some money.

On a side note.... I'm not sure whats scarier.... The government controlling the internet or google/microsoft having so much power due to their control of the major search engines.

And don't even get me started about the court systems.... Can we really handle the load that would ensue after the wave of infringement complaints ensue? I doubt it but then again I'm just an avid reader and not a player of any sort in these matters.
Archer0915's Avatar
So what exactly in the bill do you have an issue with? It will be redone and it will pass but the more we can suggest to our elected officals the better.

EDIT: By the way they already have the powers (megaupload is gone, the patriot act...) this gives protections.
Meathead's Avatar
The problem with this bill is it is not needed. If you provide the services needed, then people will buy from you. I'll keep shouting it over and over. STEAM, BATTLE.NET, ETC......

Incentives go a long way. Stop trying to prevent. Prevention still does a ****ty job and all it does is **** people off. Steam lets me shop for all game needs and makes it so easy and convenient that I can't believe steam is even freeI'
I've only read portions of the bill but I trust my sources that interpret things and I double check their sources and leave it at that. Just in the same way you trust others because you cannot be an expert in all aspects of life.
Archer0915's Avatar
Companies do not do things the way you want so they need to change? I don't think so. Your contention is you dont like it because they need to do business your way.

Also; I do see a bias in your post. How could I trust your sources? I would assume they have the same bias.

I was dead serious: what part of the bill do you take issue with? The parts that try and put a stop to pirate web sites because they want you to buy their product? The part that can help stop US patents from getting messed over? What exactly do you have issue with? They are not going to go with your wants; not yet.
Meathead's Avatar


You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying they should bend to my will. I'm saying I won't let the government tell me what is appropriate and not appropriate to view on the internet because the media industry can't develop and adapt a business model that works.

Trust my sources? All i do is read peoples conclusions and look where they got their info. I'm not refuting anything in the bill. I'm just stating my reasoning for why this bill is trying to be passed and why it should never pass.

Megaupload being shut down is equivalent to a sporting goods store being shut down for counterfeit goods. This would be like us blocking china off of trade and tourism because someone in their country sold that sporting goods store the counterfeit goods.

Heres my specific point.

(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.



I have an issue with just the fact that my service provider is controlled by the government is the method of enforcement. When does it stop? I believe the internet should stay as pure as humanly possible plain and simple. Otherwise how can I trust any source I read?
Archer0915's Avatar
(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

So would you say do not block it? I mean you suggest a steam like format which is cool but that will not prevent infringement. So should the infringement not be stopped? I mean a proprietary device and encryption software could be made that may prevent any exact digital copies from being made but that is easily circumvented.

What do you propose to do to stop the infringement?
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
I have to nitpick here. with reference if possible, who other than you is making the argument that sopa/pipa gives protections? I suppose it gives protections to the media giants mainly, however they already have DMCA, patriot, etc. I don't see anyone arguing that it gives protections to small business owners, or website operators. I do see a lot of people expressing concern over the international control it describes the US having to influence the internet.

I suggest they publish a documentation that explains why DMCA is insufficient, and specifically how SOPA addresses those shortcomings. This law is about putting deeper control in the hands of the government thru increases means to restrict the population, and making that the law.

I recognize megaupload got what's coming, what they were doing is wrong. However I would prefer the government keeps out of it, rather than takes deeper or more stringent control - I fear their impact on the market will be much larger and more negative than our current situation.
Meathead's Avatar
Yes I'm saying the government should not be able to tell my service provider that certain content is not allowed. I suggest a steam like format as an example of something non-intrusive that the majority who uses it loves it that it is possible to prevent piracy without laws for digital content.

I never said I had any answers. I just know that this type of enforcement is bad news.

To what IMOG said.... I like what you said. The backers of this bill should have some type of website up defending the bill and addressing popular concerns that are rampant everywhere. Why aren't they trying to win the people over? Isn't that how you're supposed to get a law passed?
Archer0915's Avatar
Blah Blah; I am getting sleepy excuse the slop. They are in there but I do think upone reading it several times that it is too encumpasing. It could be split into three bills and I think that might clear up some confusion.

What worries me is they already can do these things. I mean they took Mega down and they can track most anything they want.

I think it is better to have some rules to this game or anyone and everyone can get a letter. Like this it affords a website recourse if the government does not follow procedures.

Remember the FBI closing things up at many sites recently? I think it was gambling. Well guess what it was about revenue and they want theirs. Every CD not sold is sales tax lost to the states and that means the states beg for more federal money. No matter the truth that is how it is seen and the only way to prove different is to stop it.
Archer0915's Avatar
Thank you for clarifying.
Archer0915's Avatar
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...digital-piracy

I think anything is better than what we have now. We need something to protect us because if we do not see it how do we know? The feds could run rampant because at the moment they make the rules up as they go along it seems.

I.M.O.G. if people were surfing warez links in a PM how would you know? Would it not be nice to get a letter and have a chance to fix it before the FBI banner is hung over Overclockers?
Bobnova's Avatar
Don't think iNet would, wouldn't all the DNS servers simply be told to stop resolving overclockers.com into it's IP address?
Archer0915's Avatar
There are levels and iNET would be given a chance to come into compliance. Or at least make every effort to comply.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
And we'd be screwed if we thought the claim was bullcrap and refused to comply. Within 5 days, our site would be taken off line by DNS from that chunk of the law I read.

Currently, with DMCA requests if we disagree we simply reply and tell them we see things differently, and apologize that we can't comply with their wishes. If they don't like that, they can sue us, then we'll comply with a legal order from the court system. This is nice for site operators, not so nice for those with copyright complaints - they have to deal with the legal system to force a company like ours to take action, which is a pain. However, I think it is a valid protection for those operating businesses.

If I understand SOPA/PIPA, it sounds like our site would be offline until we file a legal order to contest the accusation and get our DNS entries reinstated.


PM's are entirely private, no one would know unless one of the parties reported it or were the police themselves. If there were an offense going on like that, we would receive DMCA notice and we'd comply as its against the terms of use on the site - a portion of the rules we actively enforce as most long term members have observed in the open forums. Problem solved, no threat to the existence of the site.

EDIT: Disclaimer - I don't completely understand the new laws, but I worry about how they would be enforced, and it doesn't stand to help our site, only potentially threaten it.
Archer0915's Avatar
Point well made. Lose ground being shut down while proving your point to be valid.

Well that is one legitimate strike against this I suppose.

So they can not shut us down now with what is already on the books if you refuse?
Archer0915's Avatar
I think we are all concerned.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
They can shut us down, but the current system provides reasonable security for us. They have to send us a DMCA request, we have a couple weeks to respond, and if our response is not satisfactory to them, they have to go through the legal system to get a court order requiring us to take action.

Usually this involves people saying "person XYZ said ABC about us, and we believe that to be innaccurate and want it removed from your site." Typically our response is "We cannot determine the accuracy of such claims, and as our site is a publicly accessible resource, the claims are the responsibility of the individuals who made them." That's heavily paraphrased, and our response is typically slightly more professional - but thats essentially what it says. Then we don't usually hear anything further, but they could sue us at that point if they believe firmly enough that they have legal standing. Usually I don't think they do, but are hopeful sending DMCA will be enough to scare us into action - for many sites, it is enough. If they do seek legal recourse and the claims are libelous or slanderous which they want removed, the original authors could get in serious legal trouble, and we'd get a legal order to remove or amend the statements on our site - which we'd comply with unless we contested the claims.
Archer0915's Avatar
Well perhaps they need to rip out some componrnts and clean this up a tad. Something like this is going to pass it is just a matter of when.
dalek2.0's Avatar
Not if we continue to stand up to them. From all the stories I read, they got the message. Their email servers crashed from the traffic and their phones couldn't handle all the calls. They may be tone deaf but even they can hear all that. I know mine did. Mine even called and said we get the message. Guess he got tired of all the signed petitions, emails and calls.

Archer0915's Avatar
Something will pass. There are jobs at stake and there are more and more pissed off companies out there. I honestly think anyone who has issue with this that does not have a stake in it (A real one not just their opinion) really has no idea what it does. Do you know much about the dupporters of this who are trying to sell their products against knock off sold over the web? This is about more than most understand.
dalek2.0's Avatar
Yep it is. Thing is, this is more about freedom of speech than someone downloading a mp3.

I might also add, most hollywood types live and vote in California. That means the voters in the other 49 states can say no if they want to pass something that goes way to far. This was one of those cases.

All these people already have a way to stop people from getting their stuff. Why not just use what they already have? Oh, bad press. People stopped buying their products in protest, like I did. I haven't bought a CD in years. Why? RIAA going after people, some of which did nothing. I still remember them going after a Grandma and it turned out to be the wrong person. That was before this thing they just wanted. It would be even worse with the new bills.

I think they have enough power already. Just use it. If we keep sitting by and leting them do what they want, they will have badges and arrest powers next. Maybe even their own prisons to boot.

Archer0915's Avatar
Would you have issue if they dropped the music and video from the bill?
dalek2.0's Avatar
Then what point is the law? They already have laws to deal with this. They asked for the old laws but they got really bad press when they used it. Now they want to be able to do it quietly without going through the legal system. Then the press has very little or maybe even nothing to report other than a site is gone.

Would you want them to be able to come arrest you and take you to jail, take your house then a year or two later give you a small chance to prove you didn't even do anything? That would be after they seized your computer and did who knows what to it.

They already put their videos on youtube. Then they complain when someone watches it. Just go to youtube, search for "official" and your favorite artist. I'd be very suprised if you didn't get quite a few hits.

Archer0915's Avatar
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:

1-800 Contacts, Inc.
1-800-PetMeds
2b1 Inc
3M Company
ABRO Industries, Inc.
Acushnet Company
adidas America
Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed)
Allen Russell Photography
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Alliance of Visual Artists (AVA)
Altria Client Services
American Apparel and Footwear Association
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Board of Internal Medicine
American Federation of Musicians
American Gramaphone LLC
American Made Alliance
American Mental Health Counselors Association
American Photographic Artists
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers
American Society of Picture Professionals
American Watch Association
Anatoly Pronin Photography
Andrea Rugg Photography
Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Initiative (ACAPI)
Applied DNA Sciences
Art Holeman Photography
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Association of Equipment Manufacturers
Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP)
Association of Test Publishers
AstraZeneca plc
Australian Medical Council
Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association
Baker & Taylor Ent.
Bay State Psychological Associates
Beachbody, LLC
Beam Global Spirits & Wine
Blue Sky Studios, Inc.
Bose Corporation
Braasch Biotech LLC
Brian Stevenson Photography
Brigid Collins Family Support Center
Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
Burberry
C. F. Martin & Co., Inc.
Callaway Golf Company
Cascade Designs Incorporated
Caterpillar Inc.
Caveon, LLC
CBS Corporation
Cengage Learning
Center for Credentialing & Education
Center Stage Photography
CFA Institute
Chanel USA
Christopher Semmes Photography
Church Music Publishers Association
CMH Images
Coach
Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP)
Columbia Sportswear Company
Comcast Corporation
Commercial Photo Design
Commercial Photographers International
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System
Consumer Healthcare Products Association
Copyright Alliance
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)
Coty Inc.
Council of Fashion Designers of America
Country Music Association
CropLife America
Cross-Entertainment LLC
CSA Group
CVS Caremark
Dan Sherwood Photography
Danita Delimont Stock Photography
Dayco Products, LLC
Deluxe Entertainment Services Group
Dennyfoto
Derek DiLuzio Photography
DeVaul Photography
Direct Selling Association (DSA)
Directional Insight
Distefano Enterprises Inc.
Doriguzzi Photographic Artistry
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Dolce & Gabbana USA, INC.
Dollar General Corporation
Don Grall Photography
Dunford Architectural Photography
Eagle Rock Entertainment
Ed McDonald Photography
Educational & Industrial Testing Service
Electronic Arts, Inc.
Electronic Components Industry Association (ECIA)
Eli Lilly and Company
Englebert Photography
Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
ERAI, Inc.
Eric Meola Studio Inc
Evidence Photographers International Council
Exxel Outdoors
FAME Publishing Co., LLC.
FAME Recording Studios
Far Bank Enterprises
Fashion Business Incorporated
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy
Fender Musical Instrument Company
Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America (FDRA)
Ford Motor Company
Fortune Brands, Inc.
Fred J. Lord Photography
GAR Associates
Gelderland Productions, L.L.C.
Gemvision Corporation
Gibson Guitar Corp.
GlaxoSmithKline
Gospel Music Association
Governors America Corp.
Graphic Artists Guild
Greeting Card Association (GCA)
Greg Nikas Photography
Guru Denim
H.S. Marketing & Design, Inc.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
HarperCollins Publishers
Harry Fox Agency
Hastings Entertainment, Inc.
ICM Distributing Company, Inc.
IDS Publishing
IEC Electronics corp.
Images Plus
Imaging Supplies Coalition (ISC)
Independent Distributors of Electronics Association (IDEA)
INgrooves
Innate-gear
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)
International Trademark Association (INTA)
IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries
Ira Montgomery Photography
J.S. Grove Photography
James Drug Inc.
Jaynes Gallery
JCPage Photography
Jean Poland Photography
Jeff Stevensen Photography
John Fulton Photography
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
Juicy Couture, Inc
Julien McRoberts Photography
K&R Photographics
kate spade
Kekepana International Services
Kenneth Garrett, photographer for National Geographic
Killing Jar Productions LLC
Lacoste USA
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
Lexmark International, Inc.
Light Perspectives
Linda Olsen Photography
Little Dog Records
Liz Claiborne, Inc
L’Oréal USA
Lucky Brand Jeans
LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Macmillan
Major League Baseball
Marcia Andberg Associates LLC
Mark Niederman Photography
Marmot
Marona Photography
McLain Photography Inc
Merck & Co., Inc.
Messy Face Designs, Inc.
Michael Stern Photography
MicroRam Electronics, Inc.
Minter Works of Art
Mira Images
Monster Cable Products, Inc.
Moose’s Photos
Morningstar Films LLC
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
MotionMasters
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
MPA – The Association of Magazine Media
Mr. Theodor Feibel (sole proprietor)
Music Managers Forum-U.S.
Nashville Songwriters Association International
Natalie Neckyfarow Actor/Dancer/Singer
National Association of Broadcasters
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM)
National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO)
National Basketball Association (NBA)
National Board for Certified Counselors
National Board for Certified Counselors Foundation
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
National Football League (NFL)
National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA)
National Retail Federation (NRF)
NBCUniversal
Nervous Tattoo Inc., dba Ed Hardy
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
New Era Cap Co Inc
New Levels Ent. Co. LLC
News Corporation
Next Decade Entertainment, Inc.
NHL Enterprises, L.P.
Nicholas Petrucci, Artist, LLC
Nike, Inc.
Nintendo of America Inc.
Nissle Fine Art Photography
North Dakota Pharmacists Association
North Dakota Pharmacy Service Corporation
Oakley, Inc.
One Voice Recordings
OpSec Security, Inc.
Outdoor Industry Association
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
Outdoor Research, Inc
Pacific Component Xchange, Inc.
Party Killer Films LLC
Pearson Clinical Assessment
Peavey Electronics Corporation
Perry Ellis International
Personal Care Products Council
Peter C. Brandt, Architectural and Fine Art Photography
Peter Hawkins Photography, Inc.
Petzl America
Pfizer Inc.
PGA of America
Philip Morris International
Photojournalist Dave Bartruff
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Pigfactory Music
PING
PNW Images
Premier League
Production Music Association (PMA)
Professional Photographers of America
Quality Float Works, Inc.
Raging Waters Music
Ralph Lauren Corporation
Ramsay Corporation
Rebel Photo
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Red4 Music/Doogs Rock Inc
Reebok International Ltd.
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
Revlon
Richard Flutie Photography
Rite Aid
Robin Davis Photography, Inc.
Rodger Scott Craig, a member of Liverpool Express, The Merseybeats, Fortune, Harlan
Cage, 101 South, and Mtunz Media
Roger Smith Photography Services
Rolex Watch USA Inc.
Romance Writers of America (RWA)
Rosetta Stone Inc.
Saddle Creek
Sage Studios LLC
Sam D’Amico Photography
Schneider Electric
Sean McGinty Photography
Secret Sea Visions (Photography)
SESAC, Inc.
SG Industries, Inc.
Shure Incorporated
SIGMA Assessment Systems
Six Degrees Records
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
SMC Entertainment
SMT Corp.
SoBe Entertainment
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Sony Electronics Inc.
Sony Music Entertainment
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Soul Appeal Records and Music
SoundExchange
Southern Gothic LLC
Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
SPI (The Plastics Industry Trade Association)
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
Sports Rights Owners Coalition
Spring Fever Productions LLC
Spyder Active Sports, Inc
Stenbakken Photography
Stephen Dantzig Photography
Stock Artist Alliance
Stuart Weitzman Holdings, LLC
Student Photographic Society
Studio 404
SunRise Solar Inc.
Taylor Glenn Photographs
Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.
Tednologies, Inc.
The Cambridge Don
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College
The Donath Group, Inc.
The Dow Chemical Company
The Estee Lauder Companies
The McGraw-Hill Companies
The Music People! Inc.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
The Recording Academy (National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences)
The Timberland Company
The Walt Disney Company
Tiffany & Co.
Time Warner Inc.
Tony Bullard Photography
Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc.
TRA Global
Tricoast Worldwide
Trio Productions, Inc. / Songscape Music,
Twist & Shout, Inc.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Ultimate Fighting Championship
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Universal Music Group
Uniweld Products Inc.
VF Corporation
Viacom
Vibram USA, Inc
Virtual Chip Exchange USA, Inc.
Voltage Pictures, LLC
W.R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co.
Walcott Studio, LLC
Wal-Mart
Warner Music Group
Wendy Kaveney Photography
Western Psychological Services
Westmorland Images, LLC
Wild & Associates, Inc.
Wild Eye Photos LLC
William Sutton Photography
Willis Music
WindLegends Ink LLC
Winestem Company
Winslow Research Institute
Wolfe Video
Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
Woolrich, Inc.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
Zippo Manufacturing Company
Zumba Fitness, LLC

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
Meathead's Avatar
So then what exactly is this bill trying to protect? What are the goals that it hopes to accomplish? Is it just trying to stop us americans from buying from these illegal sites? If so, why not just list them on a website and we all agree to not buy from them because we'd be hurting our own country. I don't agree with this bill based on how it wants to enforce it's policies but that doesn't mean I disagree with what it's designed for.

I don't see why this can't be handled without censoring my intraweb.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
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.
dalek2.0's Avatar
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.

Archer0915's Avatar
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.
dalek2.0's Avatar
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.

Meathead's Avatar
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
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
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.
Bobnova's Avatar
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.
I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
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
Convicted1's Avatar
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
Neuromancer's Avatar
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.
dalek2.0's Avatar
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.

Mario1's Avatar
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...
knightdredd's Avatar
That's going to be the Cyberworld with borders...
dalek2.0's Avatar
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.

Archer0915's Avatar
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.
dalek2.0's Avatar
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.

Neuromancer's Avatar
That may have changed it has been a while since I cared about any of this.
Mario1's Avatar
Amen to everything you've said.
Robert17's Avatar
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...ticle23882.htm
dalek2.0's Avatar
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.

Leave a Comment