Why you should support SOPA

[DamianJ]

http://www.fark.com/

[AllAboutCams]

can someone please explain why i should oppose sopa.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by xxxupdate

can someone please explain why i should oppose sopa.

Because Paul Markham and Robbie think it is good.

do you *really* need more than that?

[pornguy]

They can take your domain with ZERO Due Process. all it takes is a complaint from a competitor.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by xxxupdate

can someone please explain why i should oppose sopa.

Mob mentality ...

[kristin]

The thing is, it could be good ... with a few more revisions. Like the legislators have said, “As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs. However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies,”

and

“better to get this done right rather than fast and wrong. Stealing content is theft, plain and simple, but concerns about unintended damage to the Internet and innovation in the tech sector require a more thoughtful balance, which will take more time.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/te...urse.html?_r=1

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pornguy

They can take your domain with ZERO Due Process. all it takes is a complaint from a competitor.

this.....

[nikki99]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Because Paul Markham and Robbie think it is good.

do you *really* need more than that?

I don´t .... I support SOPA now

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by xxxupdate

can someone please explain why i should oppose sopa.

You should read up on it yourself, talk to people on both sides of the issue, and then make an informed, educated, decision. Not simply parrot half truths from biased complete strangers on a message boards.



No reference, nor offense, to DamianJ. Simply putting the question in context.

[blackmonsters]

The problem is that nobody ever gives me a clear reason why SOPA is evil.
I get explanations that don't match the actual language of the law.

SOPA only targets foreign sites that are "dedicated to theft" yet all the objections
talk about the shut down of non-foreign sites that are not "dedicated to theft".

Please put forth an argument that points to the specific language in the bill that
is bad for the internet.

Nobody ever does that.
It's like "weapons of mass destruction" and fear, fear, fear.
But where's the beef?

The only information I'm getting from anti-SOPA people is this :

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by pornguy

They can take your domain with ZERO Due Process. all it takes is a complaint from a competitor.

Bull shit, it takes "Action by the attorney general" and or a court order.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Bull shit, it takes "Action by the attorney general" and or a court order.

Educate yourself you are WRONG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Splum

Educate yourself you are WRONG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA

Educate yourself by reading the actual law and not some spin posted by copyright
violators that are trying to save their own ass.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

H.R.3261
Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House - IH)

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--

......

[DWB]

Originally Posted by pornguy

They can take your domain with ZERO Due Process. all it takes is a complaint from a competitor.

They can also take US citizens now and hold them indefinitely with ZERO due process. No one seemed to care about that.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by DWB

They can also take US citizens now and hold them indefinitely with ZERO due process. No one seemed to care about that.

Exactly. Nobody blacked out a website for human rights, but OH NOOOO, don't take away
my free porn.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Exactly. Nobody blacked out a website for human rights, but OH NOOOO, don't take away
my free porn.

Makes me wonder if people should start getting locked up for no other reason than being retards.

[NewNick]

Don't forget that sopa will break the Internet.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Bull shit, it takes "Action by the attorney general" and or a court order.

Utter fucking gash

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

No reference, nor offense, to DamianJ. Simply putting the question in context.

None taken. Your point is valid and true

Top notch

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Don't forget that sopa will break the Internet.

None of these idiots can even spell dns, let alone comprehend how this will fuck it up.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Don't forget that sopa will break the Internet.

Both of them?

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by DWB

Both of them?

Yep, but dont worry Manwin has a plan.

(Something about pirate based porn parodies starring well known board personalities, free DVD copies for all. Unless you support .xxx)

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

The problem is that nobody ever gives me a clear reason why SOPA is evil.
I get explanations that don't match the actual language of the law.

SOPA only targets foreign sites that are "dedicated to theft" yet all the objections
talk about the shut down of non-foreign sites that are not "dedicated to theft".

Please put forth an argument that points to the specific language in the bill that
is bad for the internet.

Nobody ever does that.
It's like "weapons of mass destruction" and fear, fear, fear.
But where's the beef?

The only information I'm getting from anti-SOPA people is this :

And that's exactly what I've noticed, too. With that, we can read between the lines and understand their true agenda; which is that they don't want their piracy sites taken away. They want to be able to download their entire site rips from PureTnA, and the latest Photoshop and corresponding cracks from The Pirate Bay, and MiniNova.

That seems to be it, in a nutshell. They reference wanting a "free and open internet". And what that seems to mean is they want everything for free, including your content and mine.

Fuck 'em.

[2intense]

Originally Posted by xxxupdate

can someone please explain why i should oppose sopa.

[Operator]

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Because Paul Markham and Robbie think it is good.

do you *really* need more than that?

Yes I do. I need you to go read the law and copy the parts you think will do harm. Remembering the loop holes. Non US sites, sites dedicated to piracy, etc.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

As for "Utter gash"

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--

Can you explain why it's utter gash?

[javinder_mn]

apparently if you were to post a michael jackson song/vid online without the relevant permissions, you would get more time than Conrad Murray got for 'killing' him

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can you explain why it's utter gash?

No, I keep telling you, I'm not debating it with you Paul.

[Operator]

Originally Posted by javinder_mn

apparently if you were to post a michael jackson song/vid online without the relevant permissions, you would get more time than Conrad Murray got for 'killing' him

Good observation, it will stifle everything and make this a television network. That whole network neutrality bs is next.

[Barry-xlovecam]

SOPA and PIPA in their latest incarnations are dead -- the Internet spoke yesterday.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_81...html?pos=hbtxt

The advertising enforcement part of this bill is a joke -- many ad networks are not in the USA now, those remaining will possibly leave, so there is no way to enforce the law with them if it was enacted.

The burden on billing processors is a possibility but their additional scrutiny with "no liability for their actions if they reasonably believe" will create more problems for legitimate businesses than it will ever stop piracy.

Since the US Navy has been unable to stop a few Somali pirates in years what makes you think that some US Law will stop millions of Internet Pirates?

Change the manner of distribution to prevent the theft of your content and quit whining.

If you don't lock your door someone will steal your stuff it has been that way for a long time ...

[michael.kickass]

Fuck SOPA.

[ajrocks]

Does it really matter of you support it or not? We are talking about the US government here, every person in the US could be against it and they would still pass it if they want it.

[martinsc]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Because Paul Markham and Robbie think it is good.

do you *really* need more than that?

[ArsewithClass]

All of the rules we follow everyday, because we are law abiding & anarchy would be an everyday occurrence.... Yet so many of you are against this law!?

I suppose, I could take the law into my own hands & go & deal with people that want to make use of my content.... But then, if I said what I could do, I would be arrested or at least banned from GFY.

PML, what's is wrong with a law that can have anyone acting like a thief, a fool or an idiot banned from the net