If you were mad about Obamacare, if you were made about the Patriot Act, the DHS watch lists, the administration’s reach into your diets, then you’re already concerned about SOPA.
SOPA = Stop Online Piracy Act sounds benign, as almost all legislation does. The names of most bills are completely antithetical to what the bill would actually do. SOPA is no exception. You read the name. “Piracy is bad,” you think. “Respect for intellectual property is good,” you think. Both of these things are correct. SOPA survives on the assumption that this is all the bill entails. Piracy is a major problem, but SOPA, and its Senate companion PIPA (Protect IP Act), are the worst ways to go about solving it.
The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks, and payment processors to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws. The Attorney General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites.[13]
If the Justice Department or a copyright holder believed a site was directing users to pirated content, they would go to court. Depending on who’s complaining, different remedies would come into play: In some instances a judge could order an Internet service provider like Verizon to cut off access to a site. In others, a search engine like Google could be directed to delete links to an infringing site. The idea is to starve the offending sites of the web traffic that keeps them in business.
Inconclusively, too.
Google and First Amendment scholars like Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe argue that SOPA would squelch free speech by giving private parties power to effectively cripple sites that allegedly — but not conclusively — steal copyrighted content. The simple filing of a complaint, they say, would exert huge pressure on the Internet ecosystem to blacklist an accused site. They also say it would give the feds dangerous new powers to go after sites for political reasons.
Perhaps the most galling thing about SOPA in its original construction is that it let IP owners take these actions without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. All it required was a single letter claiming a “good faith belief” that the target site has infringed on its content. Once Google or PayPal or whoever received the quarantine notice, they would have five days to either abide or to challenge the claim in court. Rights holders still have the power to request that kind of blockade, but in the most recent version of the bill the five day window has softened, and companies now would need the court’s permission.
The language in SOPA implies that it’s aimed squarely at foreign offenders; that’s why it focuses on cutting off sources of funding and traffic (generally US-based) rather than directly attacking a targeted site (which is outside of US legal jurisdiction) directly. But that’s just part of it.
…to the point of potentially creating an “Internet Blacklist”…
Here’s the other thing: Payment processors or content providers like Visa or YouTube don’t even need a letter shut off a site’s resources. The bill’s “vigilante” provision gives broad immunity to any provider who proactively shutters sites it considers to be infringers. Which means the MPAA just needs to publicize one list of infringing sites to get those sites blacklisted from the internet.
Potential for abuse is rampant. As Public Knowledge points out, Google could easily take it upon itself to delist every viral video site on the internet with a “good faith belief” that they’re hosting copyrighted material. Leaving YouTube as the only major video portal. Comcast (an ISP) owns NBC (a content provider). Think they might have an interest in shuttering some rival domains? Under SOPA, they can do it without even asking for permission.
Who is behind it?
These people. SOPA sponsors. The main sponsors are Democrat John Conyers and Republican Lamar Smith.
Check that link for their Twitter names and other contact info.
Many sites are going dark to highlight concern over SOPA and PIPA:
Wikipedia is not alone in its plans for a blackout. Reddit and theCheezburger network, whichincludes sites like The Daily What and Fail Blog, also plan to shut down to protest SOPA. The document service Scribd already made a billion pages vanish.Craigslist boasts a notice on its home page saying “Stop SOPA and PIPA.”
Feel free to use the information provided to contact an elected official and voice your opposition to SOPA and its companion PIPA. Ask for a better-crafted bill to combat online piracy.
Further reading:
The Stop Online Piracy Act Pits Hollywood Against Tech and the American People
Stopping Online Piracy – One Way or Another
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
82 Comments
Yes, by all means, prevent the passage of SOPA and PIPA. But one of the unwritten rules of contemporary politics is: When people have been convinced, whether by fair means or foul, that there's a "problem," it's not enough simply to oppose toxic bills that claim to address the "problem." We must:
– Either show that there is no problem (dubious in this case), or:
– Propose a solution, or solutions, that don't allow Washington to censor the Internet or have a chilling effect on free speech.
I haven't thought long enough about this to have a proposal of my own. What about the rest of you?
Dana, may I ask you a question?
Are the people behind this new law the same people who've been ripping off singers, dancers, and actors for the last 100 years? I call them the hollywood elite?
Haven't we all heard of the countless singers who've been sold a bill of goods?
Here we have a young entertainer, sometimes 18 or 20 years old, who comes from poverty and goes to hollywood to become famous. They have talent and are conned into "signing on the dotted line", with offers of cash and trinkets. Some slicked back agent talks them into a contract that most cannot understand. They are handed a few thousand bucks, which is more than most of them have ever seen before, and told of future wealth and fame. Problem is, that the only ones who get rich are the producers along with their agents. How many stories have we heard about the poor media moguls in hollywood loosing their shirts because they were conned by entertainers? As for me, the answer is a big fat ZERO.
I have no compunction about downloading from the net because I'm sick of seeing the hollywood con artists get rich on the backs of mostly kids.
But… but… but… they're from the Federal Government and they're here to help… surely this must be for our own good, right?
The Constitution was written for one reason: Protect the people from the government.
With sham laws such as these, with laws easily enforced if wanted. Again "our" government works to allow a problem, and then wants to protect us with a new better law. It's like preventing rape by putting all women in burkas, and then whipping the woman after being rape because her temptations were hidden, so she must have brought shame onto herself, even though that "male" did it before. When all was needed was to put the molester in jail.
SOPA/PIPA are both naked attempts by corporations like Viacom (that has been trying to sue YouTube for years) to shut down any websites that they can't make money off of. It's corporate censorship, and you can bet the politicians who are pushing this pile of feces are being generously compensated.
Anyone who's co-sponsored these corporate censorship bills MUST be thrown out of office by any and all freedom-loving Americans regardless of party. Personal freedom is something Democrats and Republicans should be able to come together on.
It's actually corporations like Viacom who have been trying to sue websites like YouTube for years, but haven't been successful due to fair use and "safe harbor" laws. Safe Harbor means that a website isn't liable for the misuse of it's users. YouTube can be ordered to remove a video, but they can't shut down the entire site or sue YouTube itself for damages.
That's ALL these laws are about. It's about corporations shutting down websites that they can't make money off of. However this goes beyond YouTube, and can affect personal blogs that quote news stories and such. The chilling effect of being sued (or being threatened to be sued) will end freedom of speech on the internet.
SOPA/PIPA didn't come about because citizens are rising up to demand that the government do something about copy-write infringement. This is Corporate censorship by companies like Viacom that don't like how sites like YouTube can show material for free.
This is a naked attempt to use the threat of lawsuits to shut down websites like YouTube and silence free speech. Not for any totalitarian purpose, but simply to make money.
Dana Loesch finally found her way to the right side of an issue! Congrats. First the Patriot Act, then SOPA, all we need is Mitt Romney, abolition of unions, and GOP control of Congress to become exactly like China.
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 – )
Lets look at it this way Dana: The Legislative Branch will do their best to fix everything until its broke!
SOPA and PIPA can bring the left and right together… against SOPA and PIPA that is!
It's just bad policy to give the government that much control over the internet.
The fear is that from here on out, shady congressmen will tag SOPA and PIPA onto other bills, little by little, until it's law… and under the radar.
Read this interesting post by an author that makes a lot of his works free, because it increases sales. He also hits on the point that the majority of folks that download stuff from the Internet would never bother to buy it.
http://www.baen.com/library/intro.asp
Parts of this bill are fair. No matter what you believe the entertainment industry has done or how eveil they are, they have a right to their content and a right to protect it. However, giving the justice department the ability to shut these sites down as easily as they are is scary.
Oh, you are a thief because once somebody somewhere did somebody wrong. That makes nonsense. Young artists have been robbed by big corporations so you are going to pay back those big corporations by also stealing from the same artists. Yeah, you have no moral compass at all.
You are a thief pure and simple. You definately are not supporting any young artists by stealing their work. It doesn't help them for you to rob them. If you were so concerned about young artists then go to their web sites and buy directly from them.
So your saying viacom doesnt have a right to make money off its content but youtube does. I dont think youtube should be shut down but they should either have to pay viacom for its content or not use it. Youtube needs to make money off its own content or off its user generated content not off content others have made. I could make a profitable business if I could take someone elses idea duplicate it and then sell it. I wouldnt be burdened with any of the production cost or other overhead cost.
Wow! So many lies…
I am against the law because it does to much to curb free speech but I dont understand how you can be pro letting sites like youtube show the content for free. Viacom spent the money to create the content so they should be paid for it. If youtube wants to make moeny they can either make it off their user generated content or make thier own content. And in your point you fail to address the fact that Google the owner of youtube is a fairly large corporation that can pay to make thier own content or pay viacom.
I bet you could do a study that proved that shoplifters would not have paid for what they steal too. So what? They/you should not take someones intellectual property without paying what they ask for it. If you do not want to pay they you shouldn't get to see it.
I am against these laws for other reasons but clearly piracy is rampant: several posters here proudly admit to being theives so far.
Good intentions don't make good law…
One has to ask, what do they really want to do here?
Right now, there are people from Viacom scouring YouTube to find their content. It is then swept.
Viacom wants YouTube to do the work or be able to sue. That is not right.
I watch a Japanese show called "Gaki no Tsukai". It is not available in the US. Their DVDs have no English subtitles. I would buy this show if I could. Sometimes, English speaking fans sub the shows and put them up on YouTube. Nippon tv goes in and sweeps them. If this passes, YouTube could be sued if it's up for even a day. That is stupid.
My friend, I suspect your question is rhetorical. If this law passes, by Nov. 6th, we no longer will be posting here, Intense debate will be shut down and our names are put on a list…..
youtub has a system and viacom can use it, it's amazingly simple and it works. If I could take a law which does not need more, why increase the cost? I sing Happy Birthday, and don't pay to do it, I'm breaking the law and some git is not loseing money, but cries he is less enriched.
Yes, it is…
We all know this piracy crap is just a convenient excuse to quiet those pesky 'loud people'…..
Hey buttbrain, I never stated just what I d.l. and for you to assume that I meant music makes an ass out of you. Not only don't I steal music from starving artists, but I've worked with a few to promote their wares. People like you who take everything literally are the same people who're probably stealing from anyone.
What a douche!
Hey buttbrain, I never stated just what I d.l. and for you to assume that I meant music makes an ass out of you. Not only don't I steal music from starving artists, but I've worked with a few to promote their wares. People like you who take everything literally are the same people who're probably stealing from anyone.
What a douche!
Congress is about to find out just how powerful the internet is. I would hate to be a staffer this morning. Their inboxes are probably maxed out and unable to open.
The "fairness docterine" now rearing it's ugly head toward the internet..
Simply marxist control freaks on display, hiding behind diversionary words and slick packaging..
And I believe Chris Dodd is involved with this also (fresh off his Golden Globes appearance!) – I certainly don't trust anything with his fingerprints on it.
These guys are simply amazing in their uncanny ability to project their own ideas on others…
But the question must be asked: Does the "right" for the entertainment industry to protect their content (i.e. profits) override the 1st Amendment of the US Constititution which was written to protect individual liberties, not corporate.
I used wikipedia to contact all my Reps and let them know I will be watching how they will vote on this oh so important issue, but, truthfully, I know how they are going to vote anyway. But you never know, maybe Sen. Hagan will get off the liberal bandwagon. She has done it a couple of times.
I can happily say that all of most of my fellow nerds (who are usually leftists) are completely against this.
Use the links on the wikipedia site to contact your representatives! sTop SOPA and PIPA
I'm not sold on the idea that they have a right to their content and have the right to protect it. I think once you sign a song out loud it belongs to the culture. It is legal to tape a song you hear playing, but not download the file that is made from that recording. Sounds kind of futile to me. And this craziness is what is leading smart artists to take their art directly to the public via the internet, and avoid the pimps altogether.
Agreed. Nevertheless, too many people, including too many Congressmen, have been persuaded that a problem exists. It's a non-problem by my lights — but our task is either to prove that it's a non-problem, or to craft a solution to the non-problem that preserves the integrity of the Internet.
It's simply not enough to scream "Power grab!"
The entertainment industry will do anything to avoid having to change its business model, mostly because they're cowards who are deathly afraid of failure. SOPA is evidence that their "solution" is to enshrine their current business model as the law of the land.
This is why government power in general needs to be reduced; it provides Big Business with the means to avoid facing the reality of the free market.
Thanks for the link: " We expect this Baen Free Library to make us money by selling books." I use Archive dot org regularly and wonder how they make money.
With Wikipedia down, I can make outrageous claims that people can't fact check. By the way, I invented the comma.
I wonder if it might not be about time to re-evaluate copyright altogether. I work with a theatre company that got the rights to perform a play 8 months ago. That means a lump sum, another sum for each performance, another to rent the scripts, another to rent the scores, another to use the logo, and another to use the music. What that doesn't cover is rights to photograph, film, or record the show in any way – even for publicity; can't change the script around; and they can pull the rights whenever they want to (when they get a better offer). Which is what happened to us – a week before we opened. Costumes, set – all paid for and built. Cast – rehearsed and eager to go. Rent looming and Marketing rolling. And then a phone call informing us that Broadway is looking at opening the show next year, so we cannot perform it now. And if we do, then we're cut off from every script they currently control. It's these gatekeepers that are the problem – not the individual artists or pirates. And this is a bill to protect the gatekeepers.
"what do they really want to do here?" That's the crux of it, isn't it, Deuse.
Leaving aside that politicians are not known for actually reading and understanding the ramifications of passing a bill such as this, somebody, besides the starving artists who congress does not give a fig about, will win big time with this law.
I can see, for example, a band doing a cover of a song in a bar and someone posting it on a site and the whole site then goes down just because the original band makes a complaint.
Is this the kind of thing we really want?
Well, the number of folks illegally downloading books on the internet is growing thanks to publisher price hikes on digital material. I know a lot of these people would prefer the simple process of purchasing an item but it's become too expensive so they've found themselves downloading for free. That being a very seductive and addictive pastime, they may never come back even if publishers stop gouging.
Personally I think illegally downloading material for any reason is reprehensible. But I can see how the actions of the publishers/studios/labels have actually increased the practice over what it would normally be. Let's face it, there will always be jerks who steal, but intentionally gouging makes the practice more attractive to those who might never have considered it before and who don't feel as strongly as some of us do about it.
We all know the REAL reason behind this law…..
and Fast and Furious. Taking away our last two rights….
What an absolutely asinine response.
"Haven't we all heard of the countless singers who've been sold a bill of goods? "
Haven't YOU heard of Leonard Chess? Leonard Chess is the guy who stole the livelihood from Bo Diddley. And he did it without the internet. Hollywood has been dog robbing artists for as long as the Hollywood sign has been erected.
Warner Records is not exactly the Prince of Payouts either. The answer to give the US Authorities a Kill Switch makes you part of the problem in this country. Move to Moscow jacka$$.
Just so's y'all know, wattsupwiththat.com is off the air too in protest!
Now I'm pissed off! If Anthony doesn't like it, I don't like it for sure!
This is at their website http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed...
Where did I say to take stuff is OK?
Did you follow the link? This is the publisher putting out books for free, and that has led to increased sales. Also, Baen publishing sells their e-books for $6, in an open format.
What an absolutely asinine response from Lamar Smith. We expect this crap from the DNC. WE will not tolerate this crap from the CRAPPY GOP. How this bill made it this far tells us all we need to know about the 112th Congress. NDAA contains the same fingerprints although Allen West has shown us the version that was dusted clean of what their real intentions were.
Hasn't Lamar Smith heard of Leonard Chess? Leonard Chess is the guy who stole the livelihood from Bo Diddley and countless other artists. And he did it without the internet. Hollywood has been dog robbing artists for as long as the Hollywood sign has been erected.
Warner Records is not exactly the Prince of Payouts either. I've been listening to artists complain about Warner for years when I still was running in the streets of LA. Sure. There is the occasional Jeff Blue & Linkin Park. Few and far in between. The answer to give the US Authorities a Kill Switch makes you part of the problem in this country.
Pirates are a part of human nature just like criminals are a part of Congress. DOn't even get me started on the Farm Bills from the 111th Congress which contained language so broad that backyard gardens could theoretically be regulated. Who knows what the current farm bills are about.
Purging these criminals out of Congress is as important if not more important than purging PUPPET 44. It seems there aren't enough J. Christian Adams to help get us out of this mess.
The primary sponsor of PIPA is Lamar Smith. He is 67.
The primary sponsor of SOPA is Patrick Leahy. He is 71.
They probably have minimal experience with the internet and only when their grandkids help them out.
The Police State wants to stifle all opposing opinion and close the gate on free speech. These bills are designed to give the Feds more control over content. You can bet your azz that these bills, if enacted into laws, will be abused to the Max by the criminals at the 'Justice" department to remove the voices who oppose their criminal enterprise. Hollywood is one of the worse offenders when it comes to stealing content from artists and they don't use the internet to commit the thefts.
You people here need to grow up and face reality. America is dead, it's not coming back. Your freedoms and liberties are dead, they're not coming back. We've petitioned, assembled, protested and even elected representatives…all for nothing. Face it, this country is dead. Start making plans to get out while you still can.
And you found another reason to beat your meat over her.
No, I invented the comma! AND the semicolon! So there!
Oh, man, that sucks hugely.
Maybe it's time to review the way your organization handles performance agreements. There's no reason a rights holder should not be willing to extend the rights for a minimum number of performances so your org. can cover costs if they decide to pull rights. An extremely dogged agent/attorney could probably get this done.
I was thinking the same as you – it sounds like a convenient and stealthy way to shut down websites and go after people while all the while sounding like you care about copyright infringements.
The Internet is the last free realm we have and they are bound and determined to take it over.
I wouldn't be surprised if McCain and Graham were pushing this law…..
It's always the usual suspects trying to chip-away at our rights….
They've got lawers to do that….
In so few sentences! Impressive for a know-nothing liberal jagoff.
And what will we all do once BB is taken down? Then Drudge?
We will be watching NBC and Rick (Rachel) Maddow's nightly feeding of the news they want us to know.
It's Lamar Smith for the GOP. I'd like to know if McCain and Graham are supportive of it, though.
I'd be willing to bet that a president Romney would sign this law….
after all, it's good business….
I'd like to know too…
but I wouldn't be surprise if all of the RINOs are on board….
No, it wouldn't surprise me either.
Your opinion is the definition of foolishness.
She's always been right, you've just been asleep. The Constitution trumps your illogic.
Both parties MUST BE STOPPED. There is a reason that Washington opposed them to his death.
As a fellow Gaki no Tsukai watcher, I concur that this is a bunch of BS. Media corporations already exercise a heavy enough hand over websites such as YouTube; proposing to give them even more leverage than they currently have is an utterly demented idea.
Just one example: There was one video game — The Last Of Us — the first trailer for which premiered during the Video Game Awards on Spike TV a month or so ago. In the days following the show, Viacom — Spike's parent company — industriously flagged, for "copyright violations", every channel on YouTube that uploaded a copy of any trailer that had premiered at the VGAs… including the official YouTube channel of the company developing The Last Of Us. Let me just run that by you again: VIACOM WAS GIVEN LEEWAY TO TAKE DOWN MATERIAL THAT DID NOT EVEN BELONG TO THEM, EVEN FROM THE CHANNEL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY OWNED THE CONTENT. It was eventually reinstated after all those concerned agreed that it was just a stupid misunderstanding (presumably there was some confusion over what was actually meant by giving Spike TV an "exclusive" to premiere the trailer), but the fact that it was allowed to happen at all speaks volumes as to the kind of control the mass-media corporations already have over the Internet — and I reiterate that to give them even MORE of this control, in the name of preventing "piracy", is outright insane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2nWc9_HuTw
I smell a revolution coming then.
Yup. A whole legion of them.
I have to agree to a point. I am not convinced that copyright laws have done societies more good than harm. We have overreaching governments in multiple countries trying to force other countries to respect something called "intellectual property." There is something that appeals to many in terms of fairness when it comes to the idea of buying a decent song from a person who spent the time to put it together — but now this notion of fairness is starting to cost something in terms of freedom. How did an idea become property? Shouldn't we be celebrating that technology has enabled us to spread a song or a video in record time around the world for little to no direct cost? Instead, we are attempting to destroy this technology and bury speech under the guise of fairness.
I think there is a reason why a number of programmers have turned to open source projects — the free market just isn't supporting the notion that we should be paying for every bit of software. As time goes on, I suggest that corporations like Microsoft will not be making money selling software as much as they will be making money from selling services and using software simply to fulfill these services. In some ways, this is already the state of the present.
A cute "protest song" to the tune of "Miss American Pie": http://lifeaftersopa.cheezburger.com/.
Well, Romney said he'd of signed the NDAA bill as is…from what little I know of that legislation the thought of Romney agreeing with it is a bit disconcerting…
I think Newt and Santorum agreed with him, too.
Would this legislation prevent the pirating of copywritten material I hear is practiced constantly in other nations?
Predicted this in '93,in an AOL forum,via a 14.4kbps analog modem and the Spry Mosaic browser-have the page saved for perpetuity,everyone there agreed,incidentally.Another Newt failure(to set up a "firewall: against this SPECIFIC dhimmicrat prophesied move),especially after hearing the Goracle prattle on about it(the web-I have THAT saved as well,as an intact time/date stamped zip file)pm me if you'd like a copy.
Of course,keep their freakin' hands off of the web,it's NOT negotiable,NO ONE asked for this.Remember,dhimmicrats look you in the face and state corporations CAN NOT be an individual with rights.WHY are the dhimmicrats crony capitalists,NOW?Oh,WAIT!
The "archive" is a 503c group.EVERY bit of data is user generated,and must be public domain type stuff.
I started my indie studio,in '81,with JUST that in mind.My next-door neighbors were a 1950's duo(Philly-NJ-NY jazz scene) who had top ten hits then.That's where I went to corporate school.I had to wait a long time on the internet to appear the old ncp-node to node version just wouldn't work,and digital recording cost about $50,000 a track them.
I call total BS! I've been hearing that crap for years. Where is this revolution? How much more do we have to take? How much more do we have to lose? Our founders would have tarred and feathered these leftist bastards years ago over the most trivial intrusion into our lives! America and it's people deserve to fall!!
How is that not right? Youtube knows that it is going on. Google has as much money as viacom why should viacom have to pay when google doesnt. I am against the power to shut down sites but I am not against theses guys be able to hit youtube for the money they make of their videos. Any add revenue generated from ads shown on pirated content should be sent to Viacom. There is no ands ifs or buts about it. If you create the content you own it.
I agree that they are trying to create a larger problem then there is but we also have to allow viacom and them to own their content that they pay to create. I think sites should be required to take down pirated content and that sites such as youtube should also have to send the money made from any ads shown during the viewing of the pirated content.
It's not right because the middle man is punished.
If I don't like the Big sites, I can post 100 Disney pictures then call the authorities. The site is shut down because of content they did not put up. It's making the middleman responsible.
We don't need any more government. Period. Cause right now the government we have doesn't like this site and next time they won't like lib sites. I don't trust the government, do you?
You must be logged in to post a comment.