@Neospector (View Post)

devast8a:

@Videogamer555 (View Post)

Get the fuck out seriously.

The problem I've got with SOPA isn't that I want to be able to commit crimes without punishment.

It's that those who would be given the power to effectively censor the internet (The corporations) will abuse this power for their own benefit (Beyond using it to stop piracy of their content obviously).

Hell not to mention GoDaddy is/was exempt from SOPA [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nocbt/under_the_current_draft_godaddy_would_be_exempt/]

The problem is that SOPA will not stop piracy, only legitimate internet start-ups. As a result SOPA only serves to stifle innovation and act as a mother for which companies will run to when someone bad mouths them.

I've read the the text of the law. It gives companies more power to stop piracy but lists specific things they can do. It clearly is worded in a way that doesn't give any meaning to its existence other than as an anti-piracy law. It does NOT give companies the power to shut down a site just because they say something bad about said company. It gives the companies power to shut down a site only when a site is engaging in piracy or supporting a site which does engage in piracy (such as providing links to a piracy site). There's nothing in the law that says, "companies hereby can shut down any website they don't like". It doesn't say anything even close to that.

If you can prove me wrong by finding an excerpt from the actual text of the law which supports your claim that we need to worry about it, then post it so I can read it.

The big companies like sony and time warner are all in it to make money. thats all they care about. this bill does not harm them, it harms everything besides them. it destroys all competition. its a loophole in the monopolies laws

@tommig (View Post)
Technically it only affects US citizens trying to access blocked sites, but since most of the English web demographic is American, it becomes very difficult for servers to continue to host sites. Eventually the sites will have to close to everyone because the servers can't afford to continue to host them, so it indirectly affects us.

devast8a:

@Videogamer555 (View Post)

Seriously, you've never seen/heard of companies launching DMCA takedown notices on content they do not own?

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/08/02/riaa_sends_questionable_dmca_takedown_for_radiohead_album

http://razorfast.com/2011/04/25/dropbox-attempts-to-kill-open-source-project/

by that alone I'd say that companies will abuse this law.

SOPA may not directly cripple other companies rather (and more likely) indirectly cripple them. Newer services tend to be heading toward a more user generated content approach, it becomes increasingly difficult to guarantee that there's no copy-righted material being used on this service. Investors will likely need to increase their return rates to cover the increased risk and become more picky about who they invest in, which would lead to a decrease in new companies obtaining funding.

Piracy has yet to be stopped by law, and I have no reason to think that any future law will stop it.

If it would actually stop piracy then there may actually be some worth to this bill, but as it stands we're only going to get problems. It's not a good bill, it simply will not do what it is set out to do.

Also piracy is not necessarily a bad thing.

I read both of these.

The second one DOES fall under DMCA. It involved reverse engineering a proprietary data transfer protocol used by a real company (Dropbox). This is a violation of the law, no question.

The first one is a bit more questionable. Though I can understand RIAA's position on this. While the music grourp Rainbowhead did exist as a RIAA protected entity, when they left RIAA (who had protected them and their music from pirates) their contract with them did not end. The contract I assume basically stated that RIAA had the rights to work with them in controlling distribution, but when they left RIAA that didn't terminate their contract with RIAA (which states that RIAA would work with them to control distribution), it only terminated their existence as a RIAA member. Since they no longer are a RIAA member, my above statement "RIAA had the rights to work with them in controlling distribution" would have to change to "RIAA had the rights in controlling distribution". So while Rainbow Head was the creator of the music, the fact that they joined RIAA and signed a contract AND THEN LEFT RIAA before properly terminating their contract, left RIAA with the sole distribution rights for Rainbow Head's music (and thus Rainbow Head forfeited the rights to distribute their own music for the remainder of the time that their contract with RIAA existed). As such, when they tried to distribute their own music they then WERE violating copyright law as RIAA was the owner of the copyright at that time, as their contract with RIAA hadn't yet expired. While this sounds like a dumb arrangement, this is more the fault of Rainbow Head for agreeing to and then later infringing on their contract with RIAA.

So yes it was done by the law in both cases. The law wasn't abused. Both cases the DMCA actually was CORRECTLY FOLLOWED "by the letter of the law". In both cases, the infringing party really WAS infringing based on what the laws say.


Now SOPA sounds much more narrow in scope. It is SPECIFICALLY to outline measures that companies can take against people who are violating the law and actively encouraging such violations. It specifically covers the websites that commit actual copyright infringement, websites who link to such sites and who ignore orders to stop linking, ad companies who post ads on such sites and then ignore orders to stop posting ads on these site, money distribution services who process donations to said infringing sites and then ignore orders to stop providing them money services, DNS servers who ignore orders to stop translating the URL of the infringing site into the IP Address used by the browser for going to the site. It may also include ISPs who refuse to block all communications from infringing sites as well, but I don't remember reading that in the law, so I'll have to go back and check it again. This is very limited power designed specifically to stop piracy. It requires initial action being taken by the company who's rights are being infringed. It does NOT allow the government to take initial action (which is a good thing because the government couldn't possibly know every company that exists and every piece of copyrighted material that was ever produced and which company it belonged to).

In fact the only people who should be worried are those who are actually pirating stuff, because they'll find all of a sudden that they can't get anyone in the US to access their site, and even worse their funds from donations and ads hosted on their site will dry up real quick. Meanwhile mainstream society, which is NOT into illegal distribution of copyrighted material, will go on as normal and not notice any effect to their internet use (because their normal internet use won't involve piracy).

This is NOT a "big brother" or "dictatorship" law. This is just an antipiracy law, and quite obviously the most powerful one yet produced. Yet it is so limited to JUST combating piracy that there is no way it could be misused.

devast8a:

@Neospector (View Post)

<"to shut down the internet because we badmouth their product, that would be incredibly stupid">

Are you kidding? That would be fantastic for companies, well not the entire internet obviously but anything that bad mouths them. It would effectively mean only good reviews of their products will get through meaning more people will buy their (I assume shit) product. I wouldn't surprised if they tried to take-down smaller competitors as well.

Cripes, you sound like you think corporations control the government.