Please defeat SOPA

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:16 pm

Whatever, Skippy. You're supporting thievery and I'm not.

I don't see much opportunity for common ground with thieves.

Truthfully, I'm rethinking my stance on opposing SOPA based upon the ex parte issue. Fact is, given just action for blocking copyright violations has necessary and sufficient protections and accountability, SOPA sounds ever better to me. Any IMMEDIATE action USG can take to support private property seems to me worthwhile.

The issue then becomes whether JoD can be trusted to act in the best interests of the American people, or if we ought to expect such a position inside JoD to be unduly influenced by perverting forces. Given the power to block would be reviewed by such a large and public force, I find it unlikely such actions as blocking, would be abused by JoD.

I'm almost ready to support SOPA as is, despite the questionable vesting of authority it grants JoD.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:37 pm

GIThruster wrote:Whatever, Skippy. You're supporting thievery and I'm not.

I don't see much opportunity for common ground with thieves.

Truthfully, I'm rethinking my stance on opposing SOPA based upon the ex parte issue. Fact is, given just action for blocking copyright violations has necessary and sufficient protections and accountability, SOPA sounds ever better to me. Any IMMEDIATE action USG can take to support private property seems to me worthwhile.

The issue then becomes whether JoD can be trusted to act in the best interests of the American people, or if we ought to expect such a position inside JoD to be unduly influenced by perverting forces. Given the power to block would be reviewed by such a large and public force, I find it unlikely such actions as blocking, would be abused by JoD.

I'm almost ready to support SOPA as is, despite the questionable vesting of authority it grants JoD.

You've been linked to 85,000+ "mistakes" that directly involved the JoD doing exactly what you find to be unlikely. It is perverse to say they haven't been heavily influenced by "perverting forces." Your arguments with regard to this subject seem willfully ignorant and out of touch. Further proof of your "out of touch" view point on this subject is the fact that SOPA and PIPA have now been permanently shelved.

You have to ask yourself why many tech companies such as Google are against SOPA and the reasons are the pure idiocy of the recommended bill. It was the equivalent of saying the best way to deal with criminals is to shoot them and anyone found in association with them (friends/family).

Note: As repeated previously, I'm not for stealing IP, I'm just saying these laws are so poorly worded as to not just be idiocy, but technicaly unfeasible. My comments are on the bills themselves and not on future bills to protect said IP. Punish the criminal, not the victims of trust.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:59 pm

Scott, to the best of my knowledge, SOPA has not been "permanently shelved" but rather has been shelved for 2 weeks. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Whatever you're referring to as regards "85k mistakes", these cannot relate to the proposed mechanism in the future to block sites based upon demonstrated violation of copyright. Please explain.

Indeed, I'm happy to agree, the best way to cope with copyright pirates is to shoot them and watch them die painful and unhappy deaths. We're speaking hyperbolically here. What we're talking about is not capital punishment but rather, removing copyright violators as quickly as possible.

What's wrong with that?

Granted, discerning who is guilty and who is not is at issue, but it's not much a stretch to say when the most recent blockbuster shows up for distribution on the web, it needs to be blocked. So lets look at real world issues.

Does anyone else here remember the issue with the feature film "The Hulk" showing up on the web for free distribution before it was distributed in DVD or pay-for-view? These are the kinds of issues SOPA is intended to address.

Truly, if we don't address the piracy issue, the long term consequences for film and music are there won't be investment in film or music.

THINK about the seriousness of this issue.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:11 am

ScottL wrote: You have to ask yourself why many tech companies such as Google are against SOPA. . .

Seems obvious to me Google doesn't want any governmental influence on whatever they want to do. Your observation on this seems to me trivial. If it's not, please explain.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:40 am

Whatever you're referring to as regards "85k mistakes", these cannot relate to the proposed mechanism in the future to block sites based upon demonstrated violation of copyright. Please explain.

See previous postings with link about 85k sites "accidentally" taken down for various reasons. To say that the reason is piracy doesn't remove the fact that you're talking about a department that at 85k "mistakes" seems prone to them. You're also confused on the "demonstrated" part as there is no stipulation in the bill that a claimant must demonstrate violation. Once again, please see previously posted link.

Indeed, I'm happy to agree, the best way to cope with copyright pirates is to shoot them and watch them die painful and unhappy deaths. We're speaking hyperbolically here. What we're talking about is not capital punishment but rather, removing copyright violators as quickly as possible.

Hyperbolically speaking, you skipped a part of my analogy. You would also have to "shoot" friends, family, co-workers, etc....as they are associated. SOPA plans to punish search engines because they linked to a site that linked to protected material. I have previously quoted the exact portions of the bill in previous posts that state this directly.

Truly, if we don't address the piracy issue, the long term consequences for film and music are there won't be investment in film or music

While I don't agree with you statistically on the numbers of how it effects the industry as a whole, that obviously doesn't make it right. I'm fine with addressing the issue, however; I don't believe, as previously stated, that the wording of either bill is stellar. They would need to detail mechanisms for enforcement and remove whole sections in my opinion.

Seems obvious to me Google doesn't want any governmental influence on whatever they want to do. Your observation on this seems to me trivial. If it's not, please explain.

Where you see it this way, it seems obvious to me Google does not want to be shut down because their web crawler created a link to a site that although was seemingly legit, did contain a single piece of protected material. As it stands now, SOPA today would apply to Google and they'd be forced offline. In all likelihood, search engines as a mechanism for searching raw data (sites) would die.

To clarify, there is a piece in the bill that specifically states that Search Engines such as Google would have 5 days to identify and eliminate any link to any site that has protected material. The amount of raw data to sift through just to manage such a task would take decades if not centuries.

These bills are not technically feasible, plain and simple. Furthermore, with the advent of trackerless torrenting, one no longer needs a site to contribute to pirating per se. Unfortunately most news articles gloss over this and talk about Napster as though it was still relevent with regard to P2P downloading now. If you want a best-case solution to piracy, do it on a service model like Netflix, but with whatever media you're peddling, making it available at a reasonable cost and quality. You'll never stamp out piracy completely, but this will make a dent.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:08 am

Whatever, Skippy. You're supporting thievery and I'm not.

I am supporting thievery from myself? Yeah, makes total sense!
Think first, then type!

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:18 am

ScottL wrote: Where you see it this way, it seems obvious to me Google does not want to be shut down because their web crawler created a link to a site that although was seemingly legit, did contain a single piece of protected material. As it stands now, SOPA today would apply to Google and they'd be forced offline.

That's nonsense. For SOPA to work at all it needs the assets at Google, Wiki, etc.

You don't understand the issues, nor the stakes. You should educate yourself before posting further.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:23 am

Well Google, Wiki etc dont agree with you and have been protesting SOPA and PIPA for that reason. Also worth mentioning is that Microsoft, one of the companies most hurt by online software piracy is also against SOPA and PIPA.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:32 am

As I've already explained, assets like Google and Wiki have self invested cause to object to SOPA because it relegates to USG the authority to supervent these private industries plans toward the national vested interest.

I'm not seeing anything here that makes more than Jr. High objections. Y'all need to be ashamed of yourselves. Your objections are those of 10-year olds.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:35 am

GT, you make me LOL, really.
You have not even read half of what I wrote. that is absolutely clear. Your accusations are stupid and childish as is the rest of your behaviour. You are clearly not interested in engaging in a real discussion, just throwing arround wild accusations. If anyone should be ashame of himself, it is you.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:46 am

Well let's wait for the casual reader here to judge who is "wild' and who is crazy.

For the record, I think you're crazy, Skippy.

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:14 am

It seems to me that if Cass Sunstein is talking about using copyright to "chill" speach he doesn't like then one should look long and hard at those who want to remove due process from copyright.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/20/r ... -theories/

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:16 am

GIThruster wrote:
ScottL wrote: Where you see it this way, it seems obvious to me Google does not want to be shut down because their web crawler created a link to a site that although was seemingly legit, did contain a single piece of protected material. As it stands now, SOPA today would apply to Google and they'd be forced offline.
That's nonsense. For SOPA to work at all it needs the assets at Google, Wiki, etc.

You don't understand the issues, nor the stakes. You should educate yourself before posting further.

My counter:

(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.

Nonsense or not, that's the wording from the bill and what I posted is correct. Search engines can no longer link to a site that links to infringing material, which means one hell of a data crawl to clean them up. The 5 day or any period of time is unfeasible so this whole section becomes ....nonsense. If they're going to write these things, they really should consult with technical experts first.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:51 am

I also want to add that I find the current copyright law situation completely insane as well. 98 years after the death of the author? Hello? This is fracking insane! A patent is valid for 20 years at most! How does that compare? It is major BS!

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:56 am

Skipjack wrote:I also want to add that I find the current copyright law situation completely insane as well.

No surprise here. You want to be able to steal from IP holders.

If you have objections to IP law, then take IP law to task. Supporting theft of IP in spite of IP law just makes you out to be an outlaw.

It's because you have no regard for IP that everyone here ought to count your opines as vacant and self absorbed.