Acknowledging Blackout, Politicians Ditch SOPA

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Good job internet, you are a credit to the force. I goes to show that people can make a difference.

VICTORY! WE HAVE VICTORY! And this time, STAY DEAD!

O.O

Somebody say FIRE-FUCKING-FLY?
Where do I sign?

Oh, hurrah for sopa being pretty fucked and all...

think of all the money video game, movie, and music companies poured into sopa. now imagine that instead of trying to censure the internet, they instead invested all that cash into moving into a profitable internet based business model. Yeah, not only did they piss everyone off, but they pissed away millions that will never give them a return investment.
way to go sopa guys. take that empty pocket, fill it with Fuck You and know that We, The Internet, put it there. Can I get a "hell yeah" for properly done capitalism?

Posting now as I waited until the 19th to use the net, MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ACTIVISM RULES!

Especially the activism that only needs me to do other things.

Ashannon Blackthorn:

razor343:
Objective: Damage SOPA Complete!

Current Objective: Eradicate SOPA

Bonus Objective: Eradicate PIPA

Next Objective: USE INTERNET TO BRING ABOUT WORLD PEACE!

You missed Break the power of the RIAA, MPAA and the various media moguls who are the makers of a lot of this nonsense.

Damnit! So I have -,-

Oh well, that mission can come in a DLC pack.

While this is a great victory for the right sides it feels like most of them or more or less realizing that supporting a very widely unpopular bill more or less reduces their chances to get reelected\Put back into office.

Still good if not exactly for the right reasons.

It will return. Now that they have the NDAA in place, it's only a matter of time before they censor the media. All media. Especially the internet. I give it a year, two at most before an even worse bill is passed.

I don't know folks; it seems like people are declaring victory a bit too early.

Just because a few politicians have dropped back a bit on their support doesn't mean either bill is defeated.

This is excellent news. I just hope it doesn't stop the movement. Until these bills are totally dead in the water, or watered down to the point where they actually do what they are supposed to do and absolutely nothing else (assuming that's even possible), there is still risk that they will squeak through. To state it in a military sense, one victory can turn the tide, but one victory does not win the war.

lol nice to slip the Firefly cause in there as well (which I wholeheartedly support)

but yeah one day without Wikipedia to stop SOPA...psh no prob!

shocking that these representatives remember what it meant to represent. :O

Naeras:

The Cool Kid:

Can I ask where you read that that is the case?

The fact that it's more severe than DMCA isn't something I think I need to explain. The more-easily-abused-part, however, is due to the term "rogue website" not being defined anywhere near well enough in the bill, so if someone want something down, they can just say that they considered it to be a rogue site for pretty much whatever reason they want, and get away with it.

I mean, that's what they're doing with (and getting away with) Pro-IP and DMCA even today, and a lot of the stuff they shut down is in no way justified of a takedown. An example I can get from the top of my head is when Universal shut down a music video where several artists tried to raise awareness around the fact that they got Megaupload DNS-blocked, by claiming that it "violated their copyrights". It didn't violate their copyrights at all, yet they got the video removed from Youtube anyways. Would you seriously want to give these guys even bigger guns, especially when the gun in question is made to "stop piracy", but piracy is pretty much the only thing it won't affect?

Guess why there is no definition of the term "rogue website"? Because that term is not once used in the Bill.
Please, read the bill because whoever has told you about SOPA has fooled you into believing problems which don't exist.

Universal actually had a deal with Youtube over that, so that was nothing to do with DMCA but a private agreement between the two companies.

Saying it won't effect piracy is just paranoia.

bahumat42:

The Cool Kid:

bahumat42:

most of us when confronted with a law major will trust their word on the issue.
Mainly because they have a better understanding of the issue. Not to mention its kind of hard to misconstrue the words "dns blocking". Putting too much power into the wrong peoples hands won't stop piracy, pirates will just use the direct IP.

If they want to stop it they should get some people who actually have a good idea how to.

Lawyers can, and some will, warp the truth depending on who has hired them.
If you want the complete truth, always go to the source. SOPA demonstrates it perfectly as almost all the anti-SOPA sites never directly quoted the Bill.

DNS blocking certainly isn't perfect, but it's better then nothing and there is no reason it couldn't be tweaked later on. The issue was google and co didn't want to spend money enforcing SOPA.

DNS blocking is anti-competitive and giving corporations the right to bypass courts and offer takedowns and bank freezes via their own means is giving people who don't need that power, too much power. It threatens the freedom of any new internet upstart due to its vague wording.

I think something should be done about piracy. This isn't it.

Anti-competitive? How? It simply stops you typing in "whateversite.com" and going to the site you wish.
Own means? They still need evidence, which can be a)prevented and b)taken to court if need be.

It in no way prevents new internet start up. Where in the bill does it even vaguely suggest that could be the case?

While reading comments on Ars Technica regarding SOPA/PIPA, I ran across a comment that linked to this cartoon on DeviantArt that succinctly portrays the outright duplicity of the content corporations.

image

The link to the DeviantArt page is http://chadrocco.deviantart.com/art/SOPA-PIPA-Executive-E-Motions-280090484

You can also read the Ars Technica article on the response of the content industry to the Internet blackout here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/hollywood-fights-internet-protest-with-tv-ad-billboard.ars

ADDENDUM: I will admit that I sympathize with a company's need to derive revenue and profit from their works and efforts. However, I will not agree with the abhorrently shitty methods they have used to go about it. It has been argued that piracy is not an issue of criminal behavior; it's an issue of obsolete/anachronistic business models and failed customer service. I am strongly inclined to agree with that argument.

EDIT: minor grammatical edit.

The Cool Kid:

Naeras:

The Cool Kid:

Can I ask where you read that that is the case?

The fact that it's more severe than DMCA isn't something I think I need to explain. The more-easily-abused-part, however, is due to the term "rogue website" not being defined anywhere near well enough in the bill, so if someone want something down, they can just say that they considered it to be a rogue site for pretty much whatever reason they want, and get away with it.

I mean, that's what they're doing with (and getting away with) Pro-IP and DMCA even today, and a lot of the stuff they shut down is in no way justified of a takedown. An example I can get from the top of my head is when Universal shut down a music video where several artists tried to raise awareness around the fact that they got Megaupload DNS-blocked, by claiming that it "violated their copyrights". It didn't violate their copyrights at all, yet they got the video removed from Youtube anyways. Would you seriously want to give these guys even bigger guns, especially when the gun in question is made to "stop piracy", but piracy is pretty much the only thing it won't affect?

Guess why there is no definition of the term "rogue website"? Because that term is not once used in the Bill.
Please, read the bill because whoever has told you about SOPA has fooled you into believing problems which don't exist.

Universal actually had a deal with Youtube over that, so that was nothing to do with DMCA but a private agreement between the two companies.

Saying it won't effect piracy is just paranoia.

bahumat42:

The Cool Kid:

Lawyers can, and some will, warp the truth depending on who has hired them.
If you want the complete truth, always go to the source. SOPA demonstrates it perfectly as almost all the anti-SOPA sites never directly quoted the Bill.

DNS blocking certainly isn't perfect, but it's better then nothing and there is no reason it couldn't be tweaked later on. The issue was google and co didn't want to spend money enforcing SOPA.

DNS blocking is anti-competitive and giving corporations the right to bypass courts and offer takedowns and bank freezes via their own means is giving people who don't need that power, too much power. It threatens the freedom of any new internet upstart due to its vague wording.

I think something should be done about piracy. This isn't it.

Anti-competitive? How? It simply stops you typing in "whateversite.com" and going to the site you wish.
Own means? They still need evidence, which can be a)prevented and b)taken to court if need be.

It in no way prevents new internet start up. Where in the bill does it even vaguely suggest that could be the case?

It doesnt "prevent " them i said it threatens them, because it does. the term rogue site is so vague that it could cutrail any number of future ideas to protect what, a few dollars for the entertainment industry, they should just do their jobs better.

In my opinion internet belongs to among the three greatest gifts science could ever give to humanity. Cencoring it is bascially equal to giving up to humankind.
But I understand the polticans. The Arabian spring showed the world the true power of the internet, for those with power this power is perhaps to be feared.

So I guess the moral of the story is if you don't get your way, just do the internet equivalent of holding your breath until you do.

The fact that the government is actually LISTENING to this is simply pathetic.

shado_temple:
I don't know folks; it seems like people are declaring victory a bit too early.

Just because a few politicians have dropped back a bit on their support doesn't mean either bill is defeated.

While it's true that it's not completely dead yet, this just proves that either

A) if we make this damn think unpopular enough, even more will remove their support to keep voters.

or

B) if we plaster what exactly this bill will do in incredibly easy to understand terms everywhere, the politicians, who are literally only voting for it because it "sounds right", will remove their support when they figure out what exactly it is. *cue 5 minute video of every congressman and women admitting that "they dont exactly understand it and they need nerds to explain it to them". And I'm not paraphrasing there.*

You know something's bad when the collective users of the internet, the most disconnected, wild mess of people on the planet rally together in order to stop it.
Excellent work so far, soldiers, but we can't stop now. SOPA's not dead, we've just knocked it over, so don't let it get back up. We have the advantages of numbers and actually knowing what the hell we're trying to stop, and that's something over the politicians, so keep pushing forward for them to withdraw their support.

So it would appear that it indeed took nearly 10 million offically petitioned voices to get the Cockroaches to scatter. They're scattering and they're panicking. The voting public have made it perfectly clear they're not happy, so now it's stopped being about censorship and is now about Lobbyist signed cheques vs. re-election.

SOPA and PIPA will fall and die, but don't think for one minute that we've heard the last of the copyright industry. They're pissed that the big money they have spent to vilify the entire Internet is not working, the bribes are not working and their incessant threats and bleating is not working. The only weapons they know how to use are failing them, and like a baby that's just dropped its bottle, they're screaming like banshees.

If I were making the argument to someone who knows nothing about SOPA, I would explain it like this; You have three factions involved in this debate. One side are the advocates for freedom of speech, information and the internet. There's the middle faction; the Politicians who are mere mercenary pawns on the chessboard, paid under the table to do the bidding of the last faction, the copyright industry and their big business leaders who are fighting to effectively kill the internet for personal, private use to achieve their own financial agendas.

I would have this person ask themselves this; of those three factions, which of them has the most honorable, sensible, admirable and plausible agenda? Answer that, then you have the side you're on.

I'm glad that they're withdrawing from co-sponsorship, but I want them to state that they won't vote for it. Call me cynical, but I don't trust these people not to do what the ESA, MPAA and RIA tell them to if they think they can slip it by the glare of public scrutiny.

I want them to be clear that if they vote for this crap, they don't get another term.

(I mean we vote them out of office, feds- please don't send a van to my house.)

I am a bit curious though if these laws were not set as bait. Simpely to draw out an reaction so that another law could pass more easily. The same thing happened in the Netherlands regarding goverment scholarships. Seems like a clever political strategy to me.

The Cool Kid:

Guess why there is no definition of the term "rogue website"? Because that term is not once used in the Bill.
Please, read the bill because whoever has told you about SOPA has fooled you into believing problems which don't exist.

Yeah, I've read the bill now. Exchange the term "rogue website" with "infringing site" or "internet site dedicated to theft of US property" and you've pretty much got the same thing.
Now, maybe you're a law student or something, and thus might have more experience in reading this stuff than me, but I'm still seeing more or less exactly what any other law students/graduates have told me about this bill.

Universal actually had a deal with Youtube over that, so that was nothing to do with DMCA but a private agreement between the two companies.

Oh, want more examples?
Here you go.
Hell, Universal even considers 50 Cent's own website an infringing site.
And besides, even if my first example didn't go under DMCA, they're still practicing corporate censorship. I see no reason why these people should get more power to exploit.

Saying it won't effect piracy is just paranoia.

It's too easy to work around to claim that it will have any effect on piracy.

And they say we accomplish nothing on the internet.

I think the below displays it nicely.

I have only one thing to say:

IKWerewolf:
*Snip*

Looks like we might have to go nuclear after all, the feds just shut down Megaupload not too long ago. God, I swear this is the kind of crap that makes me hate my government so much.

Here's hoping Twitter, Google and Facebook really give them a sound pounding.

I think that the politicians are getting nervous about having so many eyes watching them attempt to make laws governing something they have no understanding of. Could you imagine how many of them would lose their jobs if people realized that getting elected doesn't automatically make someone an expert on everything and that politicians should be highly educated and knowledgeable?

In short, old men who ran on 'country boy' ideals have their f*** up exposed and are now backpedaling as quickly as they can.

The people in politics are overwhelmingly lawyers. Stats on the current US congress show most of them are career politicians. Very few engineers, economists, computer scientists, etc. to be had. The only people knowledgeable about the SOPA issue are the lobbyists whispering in their ears. Little wonder the bill could be so messed up without them realizing it.

So...

dalek sec:

IKWerewolf:
*Snip*

Looks like we might have to go nuclear after all, the feds just shut down Megaupload not too long ago. God, I swear this is the kind of crap that makes me hate my government so much.

Here's hoping Twitter, Google and Facebook really give them a sound pounding.

I'm not a big fan of Megaupload but I don't think that sets a very good precedent. Also I - You have reached your 72 character limit please subscribe to continue reading -

Naeras:

The Cool Kid:

Guess why there is no definition of the term "rogue website"? Because that term is not once used in the Bill.
Please, read the bill because whoever has told you about SOPA has fooled you into believing problems which don't exist.

Yeah, I've read the bill now. Exchange the term "rogue website" with "infringing site" or "internet site dedicated to theft of US property" and you've pretty much got the same thing.
Now, maybe you're a law student or something, and thus might have more experience in reading this stuff than me, but I'm still seeing more or less exactly what any other law students/graduates have told me about this bill.

Universal actually had a deal with Youtube over that, so that was nothing to do with DMCA but a private agreement between the two companies.

Oh, want more examples?
Here you go.
Hell, Universal even considers 50 Cent's own website an infringing site.
And besides, even if my first example didn't go under DMCA, they're still practicing corporate censorship. I see no reason why these people should get more power to exploit.

Saying it won't effect piracy is just paranoia.

It's too easy to work around to claim that it will have any effect on piracy.

There's a part that actually does detail what "dedicated to theft means".

Companies are ran by humans. Humans aren't perfect. This isn't new; it's hardly like every other law goes by perfectly.
Simply put, they need more power because they are losing billions. Want someone to blame? Blame the pirates.

The Cool Kid:

There's a part that actually does detail what "dedicated to theft means".

Yet they're blacklisting completely legitimate sites, claiming they want to shut them down if the bill goes up. You seriously don't think they'll do that?

Companies are ran by humans. Humans aren't perfect. This isn't new; it's hardly like every other law goes by perfectly.

No, few laws start out perfect, but this one won't do anything useful. At all. It won't help against piracy when it's so easy to work around it.

Simply put, they need more power because they are losing billions. Want someone to blame? Blame the pirates.

I've spent about 10 000 NKR (an equivalent of $2000) on music, and I've found every single motherfucking one of those artists through file sharing in one way or another. The numbers they are pulling out of their ass is according to their business model where every downloaded song is a lost song, yet completely ignoring how musicians are actively using "piracy" as marketing and even forging their success based on that. People aren't buying less media now than they were before.

Universal also didn't have a deal with Youtube. They (allegedly) lied.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/

YAY! big business stopped a political move created by, wait for it... BIG BUSINESS!
I'm so glad to see corporate America pitted against itself and using the political stage to fight their battles.
GO BIG BUSINESS!

Naeras:

The Cool Kid:

There's a part that actually does detail what "dedicated to theft means".

Yet they're blacklisting completely legitimate sites, claiming they want to shut them down if the bill goes up. You seriously don't think they'll do that?

Companies are ran by humans. Humans aren't perfect. This isn't new; it's hardly like every other law goes by perfectly.

No, few laws start out perfect, but this one won't do anything useful. At all. It won't help against piracy when it's so easy to work around it.

Simply put, they need more power because they are losing billions. Want someone to blame? Blame the pirates.

I've spent about 10 000 NKR (an equivalent of $2000) on music, and I've found every single motherfucking one of those artists through file sharing in one way or another. The numbers they are pulling out of their ass is according to their business model where every downloaded song is a lost song, yet completely ignoring how musicians are actively using "piracy" as marketing and even forging their success based on that. People aren't buying less media now than they were before.

What legitimate sites are the blacklisting?? There is no such list in the Bill.

What you forget is that the Bill isn't just for home users but will allow prosecution against the infringing site. You can't work around a block when the site no longer exists as the owner is in prison.

Are you really telling me that how you pirate is how everyone else pirates? All they can say is how many times something has been downloaded and if you think every single game of the billions of dollars that were pirated will result in a legit sale, you are fooling only yourself.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here