Please defeat SOPA

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Postby kcdodd » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:22 am

Sorry GIThruster I only read the first few lines of your post but saw it was a waste of my time. Just kidding. At least about not reading the whole post.

Billions!? What? He never even said billion in the whole video. So either you have really poor listening comprehension or you are lying yourself. Why is it you keep accusing other people of doing exactly what you do? And he didn't even lie as you are accusing him as I already said. You don't even bother to watch the video, saying its a waste of time, but spend all this time writing extensive posts on why you disagree with it and just making stuff up? What! You make absolutely no sense.
Carter

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:28 am

Carter, your joker did indeed say "billions". I listened to it three times.

You're a waste of time. Respond to the substance or don't respond at all.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Postby palladin9479 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:06 am

D Tibbets wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Honestly, I'm reading the bill and don't see a problem. It gives the IP owner the right to take legal action against those making illegal use of their IP, and gives the DoJ the authority to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It does not give this ability to anyone who wants it, it does not give this ability to any and every IP owner. It gives the ability to block to DoJ alone.

Y'all are full of shit writing this nonsense above in support of thievery and should be ashamed of yourselves.


The key is the second sentence. You don't say it gives them the right or duty to report a claim, it gives them the right to take action. They are their own law. The DOJ is only acting as the executioner, not as the adjudicator.

Dan Tibbets


He's playing fast and lose with his words on purpose. Any intelligent individual, and I'm assuming the nature of this site virtually ensures we're all intelligent rational individuals, can clearly see how this law could be abused. The definitions used are to broad and gives too much decision making authority to private entities. GIT knows this, he's just defending the corner he's backed himself into by pretending not to see it. One of those "see no evil" self rationalizations.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:33 pm

I don't see any such thing and I'm not backed into a corner.

Its a good law that will do far more good than compared to how it can be abused. People who are not interested in thievery can see that. People writing nonsense about "censorship" and "freedom of speech" can't be argued with because they don't care about thievery. They care about lining their pockets with the ill-gotten goods of others.

Dan made a simple mistake when he failed to recognize the language "legal action" as filing suit.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Skipjack
Posts: 6006
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:58 pm

No, the SOPA is going to give large corporations the right to shut down whoever the want without having to go to court. This opens the door to abuse, which has already happened in the past to a lesser extent. You give these people power and they will abuse it, just like a government would. It is a dangerous law and it wont do good for anyone. Even microsoft realized that and they withdrew their backing for the law.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:12 pm

Skipjack wrote:No, the SOPA is going to give large corporations the right to shut down whoever the want without having to go to court. This opens the door to abuse, which has already happened in the past to a lesser extent. You give these people power and they will abuse it, just like a government would. It is a dangerous law and it wont do good for anyone. Even microsoft realized that and they withdrew their backing for the law.


Okay, explain what you're saying. How can someone use this law "to shut down whoever they want without having to go to court"?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

krenshala
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Postby krenshala » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:18 pm

GIThruster wrote:
Skipjack wrote:No, the SOPA is going to give large corporations the right to shut down whoever the want without having to go to court. This opens the door to abuse, which has already happened in the past to a lesser extent. You give these people power and they will abuse it, just like a government would. It is a dangerous law and it wont do good for anyone. Even microsoft realized that and they withdrew their backing for the law.


Okay, explain what you're saying. How can someone use this law "to shut down whoever they want without having to go to court"?

Easily -- you threaten to go to court.

Skipjack
Posts: 6006
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:40 pm


GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:32 pm

Hmmph. Well, I will still own that I don't personally believe interferring with the ability to contact a web site is a remedy that should be considered "censorship" nor a "freedom of speech" issue. Again, to maintain this is to say that freedom of speech necessarily includes a right to distribute stollen property and this is not so. I don't generally have problems with the remedy of blocking access, though I understand how some do.

I do however, have a real problem with ex parte proceedings being used to provide this outcome. Ex parte is only rationalized in a tiny fraction of cases where there is either a time element involved, or proceedings involving both parties would damage an ability, such as in surveillance, counter-intel, etc. I don't see the need to deprive the alleged offender from defending themselves in this case, so this does indeed appear to be a case of failing due process.

If this is true, I have to say its not a good law after all. I'm not entirely sure it's true. Usually I do trust gizmodo, but there are so many lies about the bill being passed around that I hesitate at this point to presume the law writers were this kind of careless and inept.

Why was ex parte resorted to in this instance? Does anyone here know?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:36 am

Taking a look through the text of SOPA, as best I can make out of the legal verbiage, the critics are correct. An accuser need only make a claim before a (friendly) judge to get an injunction against a site hosting "offending" materials. The accused then has the burden of proof to overturn the injunction, which is a clear reversal of due process. Under DMCA safe harbor, as I understand it, the poster need only make an affidavit to the host they they have legal right to post the material and the host is protected when they restore the material covered by the take down notice. The poster remains subject to a lawsuit for posting material against copyright, the plaintiff having burden of proof.

In addition I object to language recognizing delivery of notice by ordinary mail + email as "service of process", neither channel supporting proof of receipt.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:56 pm

"Well, I will still own that I don't personally believe interferring with the ability to contact a web site is a remedy that should be considered "censorship" nor a "freedom of speech" issue."

How could it possibly not be? It is exactly analogous to the Crown seizing all copies of "Common Sense", and burning them--preventing the "free speech" from being read or heard. The fact that only an allegation need be made makes it an atrocious overreach--one that is unconstitutional. I have myself seen favored videos and blogs taken down by non-governmental--but sometime quite politically motivated--accusations that site content is in some way in violation of copyright or violates some other term of service.

This can be horribly abused, therefore it will be, as with the RIAA.

SOPA should not become law, if it does, it should be struck down.

GIThruster, you are attempting to preserve an obsolete business model by extending the privilege of copyright--which is a privilege and no right at all--to extreme and ludicrous lengths. I would rather that business model go by the wayside than that the 1st amendment by trumped by mere accusation.

Your pretension this is really about making stolen property widely available is silly--it is about stopping unwelcome communication on the basis of mere accusation. We already have proper laws to protect the copyright privilege. If only improper laws can serve that end now, it is better copyright go unprotected.

As I have said, if SOPA provided for prohibitively punitive penalties against complainants making false accusations, I'd have no trouble with it.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:17 pm

@TDPerk & @hanleyp... Right on and well said. This is all more about Revenue Streams than IP. They want to "tap in" on this Internet thing; I'm sure an accuser could be paid enough to forgo filing an injunction. It therefore just another form of rent seeking, and isn't about protection against "theft". It's about tapping in on another revenue stream at the expense of the public domain.

I go a bit further. I feel that IP should fit the physics of media; It's so easy to dupe "content" now that the threshold of a violation should be against the Revenue stream, not the duplication of content. If BMI had the "rights", possibility and physical capacity to do so, they'd charge you every time a tune popped into your head. The only reason they don't, is because they don't have the physical capacity to do so. IP Law needs to be Physics and technology aware, and reflect these realities. As it is, you can already sue if someone is generating a revenue stream on your content. We don't need SOPA for any legitimate reason.

The privileged value of IP therefore, should be for sales, and not court leveraged revenue streams, which is what SOPA is all about.


If they passed SOPA, it would only drive 3rd party IP related content exchange underground, where content would be encrypted and secured, and passed unimpeded. The only penalty would be on the free flow of information, where agents of "IP holders" would have revenue generating leverage on all Open content internet companies. If SOPA passes, buy stock in BMI, and be prepared for a deficit in content that should be in the public domain.

It's tough luck for us. I'm ever more convinced that in wealthy countries, it is far easier to get rich rent-seeking against Taxpayers, Electrical rate payers, and now as SOPA shows, against the public domain in general. We'd be better off if BMI and other rent-seekers worried more about content, and less about securing revenue streams at the publics detriment.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:27 pm

TDPerk wrote:How could it possibly not be? It is exactly analogous to the Crown seizing all copies of "Common Sense", and burning them--preventing the "free speech" from being read or heard.

That's crazy. The reason the remedy of blocking the site is not a case of censorship is that the materials blocked are supposedly STOLLEN and leaving them online allows and promotes others steal them as well. It is not "censorship" to guard personal property from theft.

The reason the remedy of blocking the site is not a freedom of speech issue is that you do not have freedom to steal another persons property! Likewise, this is not a speech issue at all. There's no free expression going on at sharing sites where people are promoting theft!

Honestly, I can't imagine what you're thinking except perhaps from the rest of your post, you seem to think stealing is okay. Is that what you were implying?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Advocates of SOPA answer this question:

Postby Helius » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:40 pm

If technological change forces major changes in business models and law, should the business models forced to change be those:

1) that relax legal requirements and contention,

2) force greater constraints and more legal contention?

IMHO, Perhaps the continued and relentless strengthening of IP legal power for the benefit of IP managers and thieves like BMI, or Disney should be reversed to again enrich the public domain. BMI and Disney will be fine. As it is now, it is the public Domain that is suffering.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:49 pm

TDPerk wrote:GIThruster, you are attempting to preserve an obsolete business model by extending the privilege of copyright--which is a privilege and no right at all--to extreme and ludicrous lengths. I would rather that business model go by the wayside than that the 1st amendment by trumped by mere accusation.

Your pretension this is really about making stolen property widely available is silly--it is about stopping unwelcome communication on the basis of mere accusation. We already have proper laws to protect the copyright privilege. If only improper laws can serve that end now, it is better copyright go unprotected.


Lets leave the ex parte issue aside as i have already said I don't support that part of the measure.

I don't honestly think you could have given any serious thought to your words above. Just to be clear: in a world were there are no copyright protections, there is no music, no movies, no games, no creation outside the sciences. If people cannot protect their intellectual property, they cannot earn a living creating it. The fact you would write that you'd prefer this to some protections offered is pretty nutty.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests