We won this round! But it's not over yet... (SOPA/PIPA update)

[Kumabjorn]

Isn't there an organization called something like Electronic Frontier Foundation? Don't they work politically to keep the internet free from censorship? Are they registered lobbyists? Perhaps some PayPal donations to them?

[stonetools]

I have an 80 per cent confidence level that SOPA-PIPA will pass later on this year with some amendments. Every major player in the debate believes that foreign piracy represents a threat ( the techno-hipsters argue that piracy poses no threat to the content industries,but their arguments have been rejected by even Google).

I expect that an anti foreign piracy law will pass, with compromises over the safe harbor provisions, which is what Google and the other Silicon Valley companies are fighting hardest about.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I have an 80 per cent confidence level that SOPA-PIPA will pass later on this year with some amendments. Every major player in the debate believes that foreign piracy represents a threat ( the techno-hipsters argue that piracy poses no threat to the content industries,but their arguments have been rejected by even Google).

I expect that an anti foreign piracy law will pass, with compromises over the safe harbor provisions, which is what Google and the other SiliconnValleycompanies are fighting hardest about.

I guess we'll have to do what we can to raise that 20%...

I also expect that the bill will be found to be unconstitutional in court...

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I guess we'll have to do what we can to raise that 20%...

I also expect that the bill will be found to be unconstitutional in court...

I have a 100 per cent confidence level that this current Supreme Court will side with the corporations and the government over the individual on this issue.
That's just being realistic,regardless of how you think the courts should decide.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I have an 80 per cent confidence level that SOPA-PIPA will pass later on this year with some amendments. Every major player in the debate believes that foreign piracy represents a threat ( the techno-hipsters argue that piracy poses no threat to the content industries,but their arguments have been rejected by even Google).

I expect that an anti foreign piracy law will pass, with compromises over the safe harbor provisions, which is what Google and the other Silicon Valley companies are fighting hardest about.

Now, if you'll all look over here, you can see a primitive internet poster using a subtle strawman to, in one fell swoop, disregard all of the legitimate concerns of opponents of SOPA and PIPA (attempts in the early 21st century to provide the U.S. government with censorship powers over the internet). The use of this pejorative had the additional effect of reinforcing the primitive poster's central anti-piracy meme, and also helped him/her reduce any cognitive dissonance he or she may have felt at opposing viewpoints.

Prior to neural augmentation, this sort of argument would likely have been at least somewhat convincing.

Moving on to our next exhibit...

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Now, if you'll all look over here, you can see a primitive internet poster using a subtle strawman to, in one fell swoop, disregard all of the legitimate concerns of opponents of SOPA and PIPA (attempts in the early 21st century to provide the U.S. government with censorship powers over the internet). The use of this pejorative had the additional effect of reinforcing the primitive poster's central anti-piracy meme, and also helped him/her reduce any cognitive dissonance he or she may have felt at opposing viewpoints.

Prior to neural augmentation, this sort of argument would likely have been at least somewhat convincing.

Moving on to our next exhibit...

(Shrug)

Those legitimate concerns will be addressed through the amendments process, like all complex legislation. Once the bill gets to the President's desk , he will sign it into law .
As for a straw man, people have repeatedly argued on this forum that piracy is a mere nuisance at worst. It's a standard trope on the Internet . If you missed that, well, hey, pay attention

[Ken Maltby]

The claim (and Lamar's explanation to me) is that the bills go after overseas pirate
operations that are making money selling pirated intellectual property. The problem
and the real intent shows up in the mechanisms they want to use to address the issue.

It's always: "We are after the Pirates not the internet, but to get the Pirates we need to
take control of the Internet". Just like they use DRM.

They could treat the internet players as a store might be treated for getting caught
selling cigarettes to minors. They seldom padlock the doors of the store, they just fine
the operators. The stores generally get the message.

The "Overseas Pirates" are committing a crime well recognized by all the international
powers, and they must be leaving a money trail. You CAN go after those real Pirates
directly. But what is the FBI doing? They appear to be trying to shut down the store
for transporting stolen goods, instead of taking down the Pirates.

The bills are intended to provide control of internet marketing of IP into the hands of
the current large players and allow them to shutout any potential competition that the
internet may present.

Luck;
Ken

[xg4bx]

these may have been shelved but theres still ACTA and the Protect Children from Internet Pornography plans out there-

"ACTA is an international trade agreement currently negociated by the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia as well as a few other countries, whose aim is to enforce copyright and tackle counterfeited goods (hence its acronym: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).

The main problem with this treaty is that all the negociations are done secretely. Leaked documents show that one of the major goal of the treaty is to force signatory countries into implementing anti file-sharing policies under the form of three-strikes schemes and net filtering practices."

http://www.stopacta.info/

""The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American." Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it."

"As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn't require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history -- being suspected of any crime is enough. (It may even be made available in civil matters like divorce trials or child custody battles.) Nor do police need probable cause to search this information. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner says, (R-Wisc.) "It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I'm not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...r-good/242853/


"A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.

It represents "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...snooping-bill/

[Tony1988]

I dont see the big deal really. Did everyone think the internet would remain like this forever?? There are alot of pirates out there stealing music, books, film and other intellectual property. There are people not getting paid for their work. How come so many are against protecting their rights??

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

I dont see the big deal really. Did everyone think the internet would remain like this forever?? There are alot of pirates out there stealing music, books, film and other intellectual property. There are people not getting paid for their work. How come so many are against protecting their rights??

Well, if you realize that it is not stealing but infringement of a right created by laws it is easier to understand. We have an invented right on one side and destroying a very good thing that have stimulated progress and inventions in ways that would not have happened without it (the internet) on the other side. So do you destroy the internet and all the advantages or do you change the copyright laws to some other form that works together with the internet?

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, if you realize that it is not stealing but infringement of a right created by laws it is easier to understand. We have an invented right on one side and destroying a very good thing that have stimulated progress and inventions in ways that would not have happened without it (the internet) on the other side. So do you destroy the internet and all the advantages or do you change the copyright laws to some other form that works together with the internet?

I dont think anyone who wants to get creative on the internet is going to be threatened by any anti piracy law. I must be missing something I guess. I was puzzled why Wikipedia, Google, Amazon etc. are so concerned. I think the only people entities that need to be concerned are those that are illegally hosting without permission copyrighted material for free use.(movie music, book files) I dont see how its messing with anyones personal freedom. Again I maybe I an missing something.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, if you realize that it is not stealing but infringement of a right created by laws it is easier to understand.

Piracy is stealing.

We have an invented right on one side and destroying a very good thing that have stimulated progress and inventions in ways that would not have happened without it (the internet) on the other side. So do you destroy the internet and all the advantages or do you change the copyright laws to some other form that works together with the internet?

All rights are invented.

But, yeah, the harm caused by piracy isn't so great that you should tear down the internet to stop it.

How do you imagine copyright should be changed? Do you think piracy would stop if there were a 15 year limit?

The fact is, some people are going to steal things, just like they steal physical goods. There are laws against both, but neither will ever stop all crime.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

I dont see the big deal really. Did everyone think the internet would remain like this forever?? There are alot of pirates out there stealing music, books, film and other intellectual property. There are people not getting paid for their work. How come so many are against protecting their rights??

No one is "against protecting their rights", and none of these bills actually
go after those Pirates. They just want to control or shut down any site
that they do not own. (Can I make it any simpler??)

Maybe political speech is new to you? A bill titled "To improve the education
of our children" actually means "A bill to payoff the teacher's union". A bill to
"help the poor" actually means "A bill to provide funding to more social workers
and mostly those at the highest administrative level and/or the collage professors
advising them". Little if any of the funding actually gets into the hands of any poor
person.

Just because a bill claims to be for protecting "Intellectual Property Rights"
means nothing, look at what the bill actually puts in place and authorizes the
bureaucrats to do.

Luck;
Ken

[xg4bx]

PCIPA and ACTA, The next PIPA and SOPA


my wall of text condensed into one site-

http://ipowerproject.com/forum/topic...0Comment985383

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

No one is "against protecting their rights", and none of these bills actually
go after those Pirates. They just want to control or shut down any site
that they do not own. (Can I make it any simpler??)

Maybe political speech is new to you? A bill titled "To improve the education
of our children" actually means "A bill to payoff the teacher's union". A bill to
"help the poor" actually means "A bill to provide funding to more social workers and mostly those at the highest administrative level and/or the collage professors advising them". Little if any of the funding actually gets
into the hands of any poor person.
Just because a bill claims to be for protecting "Intellectual Property Rights"
means nothing, look at what the bill actually puts in place and authorizes the
bureaucrats to do.

Luck;
Ken

That paranoia talking. I an pretty sure that if you have a site that is not using any trademarks or content witout consent you will be fine. Many sites get permission right now to use certain logos, music etc.

Its all speculation on part of people who do not want this. Like it or not this will come to pass. The internet will still be here for all to use. The only difference is you either will have to pay for using certain trademarks, music etc. and pay for content you want to view.

I am beginning to wonder that the underlying fear of many is that they will not be able to view or listen to copyrighted stuff for free any longer.(ie. Some Youtube content)

The excuse I always here is. "If the music, Tv industries had a good business model for obtaining their material, it would resolve much of the piracy." Bunch of BS. As long as people can pirate this stuff they will. There is no business model that will prevent people from obtaining this stuff online for free. Free is always better than paying, right??? If someone can get it for free online there are those that wont pay. This will be policed. Like it or not. Its been a long time coming.