SOPA / Internet Censorship Bill (HR 3261)

Edwin wrote:
bonch writes "Less than 12 hours after the U.S. launched a virtual embassy for Iran, the Iranian government blocked access to the website, directing visitors to a government page proclaiming the site illegal. The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.'"

I thought the irony was too much not to post. Especially considering CDA, COPA, DMCA, COPPA, CIPA, COICA, DOPA and now SOPA.

Is it too late for Alanis Morissette to write a song that's actually about irony?

Mixolyde wrote:
Edwin wrote:
bonch writes "Less than 12 hours after the U.S. launched a virtual embassy for Iran, the Iranian government blocked access to the website, directing visitors to a government page proclaiming the site illegal. The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.'"

I thought the irony was too much not to post. Especially considering CDA, COPA, DMCA, COPPA, CIPA, COICA, DOPA and now SOPA.

Is it too late for Alanis Morissette to write a song that's actually about irony?

We could repurpose the old one, but I'm pretty sure it would break one of the laws listed above.

DSGamer wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Edwin wrote:
bonch writes "Less than 12 hours after the U.S. launched a virtual embassy for Iran, the Iranian government blocked access to the website, directing visitors to a government page proclaiming the site illegal. The White House condemned the move, calling Iran's internet policies 'an electronic curtain of surveillance and censorship around its people.'"

I thought the irony was too much not to post. Especially considering CDA, COPA, DMCA, COPPA, CIPA, COICA, DOPA and now SOPA.

Is it too late for Alanis Morissette to write a song that's actually about irony?

We could repurpose the old one, but I'm pretty sure it would break one of the laws listed above.

This joke stack has more layers than an onion.

Got this form letter back from my Rep:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (H.R. 3261). I appreciate knowing of your interest in this legislation.

As you know, H.R. 3261 was written to protect intellectual property and combat copyright infringement by curbing the sale of counterfeit goods online. H.R. 3261 would authorize the Justice Department to sue a domain or website that sells pirated goods and it would give the Attorney General authority to seek financial restitution from those sites. The bill would also hold host websites accountable for illegal content, and allow the government to order third parties, such as payment processors and online ad networks to cut ties with said sites.

I agree that the broadness of the language would grant unprecedented authority to the DOJ and could result in regulations that might censor websites and stifle free speech. I believe that it is possible to advance legislation that strengthens intellectual property rights without compromising other Internet freedoms and will work with my colleagues to make sure the two are not irreconcilable. H.R. 3261 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet. I do not sit on that committee, however, should this bill come to the House floor, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
James P. Moran

Emphasis mine.

I don't want you to keep my thoughts in mind, I want you to vote NO on internet censorship! No to mention that IP rights don't really need strengthening when network printers can receive subpoenas and there is an entire cottage industry of software patent infringement litigation. Ugh.

Internet piracy bill: A free speech 'kill switch'

Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.
Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content.  Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Additionally, SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

MPAA Head Chris Dodd on Online Censorship Bill: China's the Model

If you're wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd, now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People's Republic of China:

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

EDIT - Amazingly, as I was typing this post, CNN aired a commercial prompting me to contact my Congressmen to vote for SOPA bill. Sponsored by CreativeAmerica.org.

More tools to raise awareness and easy ways to contact your Rep here:

http://americancensorship.org/

They have some neat fake censorship posts and things for social networks.

itwbennett writes "The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a debate and vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act for later this week. Representative Lamar Smith, the committee chairman and main sponsor of the bill, will offer an amendment that is meant to address some concerns with the bill. Smith's proposed amendment would clarify that the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement."

Something must be done about piracy. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

Worked for the Patriot Act.

Nevermind.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Something must be done about piracy. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

Worked for the Patriot Act.


Ah, the Politician's Syllogism. It has perhaps caused more damage over the last 50 years than anything else.

(sorry if someone posted this already) Comedian Louis C.K. confronts piracy head on with digital experiment .

It's great to see people thinking of ways to tackle piracy without jumping to the "censor the internet, store a log of every byte transferred for at least a year, etc". It's even better to see it working out for him.

Now imagine what would happen if SOPA were passed.

Apparently, if you want to promote your video game, or members of the company that developed it through the use of online video hubs like YouTube, you had better make sure Viacom didn’t, at any point, put their hands on it, otherwise, you’re video stands a good chance of being pulled.

Just ask video game developers Naughty Dog, who posted the trailer to their upcoming game, The Last of Us, on YouTube. Shortly after it appeared, it was taken down thanks to a copyright claim from Viacom. Their issue? Even though they didn’t make, produce, advise or star in The Last of Us, because the trailer in question was first shown during the VGA Awards show, which aired on Viacom-owned SpikeTV, Viacom’s claim was temporarily upheld.

Internets, how the f*ck do they work? Luckily this won't stop me from legislating on them!
http://motherboard.tv/2011/12/16/dea...

Looks like SOPA has been delayed...hopefully forever...

act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_sopa_reddit/?source=fbs-victory

Dunno if this was already mentioned. I skim.

Petitions and calls didn't work. The committee quit because one senator called another "boring". http://m.zdnet.com/news/sopa-votes-d...

Edwin wrote:
Petitions and calls didn't work. The committee quit because one senator called another "boring". http://m.zdnet.com/news/sopa-votes-d...

Good to know our politicians aren't paying attention and are surfing the internet instead. Ironic that his method of entertainment is threatened by the bill he's likely voting for.

93_confirmed wrote:

If you're wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd, now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People's Republic of China:

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."


Dodd is now the head of the MPAA? Wow, I missed that one. That actually made me feel sick, it's unbelievable how corrupt our government is.

Barab wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

If you're wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd, now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People's Republic of China:

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."


Dodd is now the head of the MPAA? Wow, I missed that one. That actually made me feel sick, it's unbelievable how corrupt our government is.

Yup and I feel even more sick when he references China as a model for censorship. RIP modern day Internet if this sh*t gets passed.

There's a petition to veto this bill at the White House's web site. I guess if it hits 25k signatures you win a prize, which is some explanation from a PR person about why this bill is so awesome.

gore wrote:
There's a petition to veto this bill at the White House's web site. I guess if it hits 25k signatures you win a prize, which is some explanation from a PR person about why this bill is so awesome.

I didn't realize it at first, but if you haven't, actually read the text of that petition. It makes a very excellent point. In that text, the auther links to a copy-righted image. He then makes the point that the White House Website is now in violation of SOPA and can be blocked.

Tkyl wrote:
gore wrote:
There's a petition to veto this bill at the White House's web site. I guess if it hits 25k signatures you win a prize, which is some explanation from a PR person about why this bill is so awesome.

I didn't realize it at first, but if you haven't, actually read the text of that petition. It makes a very excellent point. In that text, the auther links to a copy-righted image. He then makes the point that the White House Website is now in violation of SOPA and can be blocked.

It's indeed very clever. And it passed the threshold, and so should be commented on by somebody from the administration.

Looking at the responses to previous whitehouse.gov petitions, I expect the petition's nuance to be... overlooked... in the PR response we are ultimately given.

All Political Candidates Should Be Concerned About SOPA

Here’s a plausible campaign scenario under SOPA. Imagine you are running for Congress in a competitive House district. You give a strong interview to a local morning news show and your campaign posts the clip on your website. When your opponent’s campaign sees the video, it decides to play hardball and sends a notice to your Internet service provider alerting them to what it deems “infringing content.” It doesn’t matter if the content is actually pirated. The ISP has five days to pull down your website and the offending clip or be sued. If you don’t take the video down, even if you believe that the content is protected under fair use, your website goes dark.

Movement starting to punish GoDaddy for supporting the bill, with other sane providers offering various discounts for people moving off GoDaddy.

Someone sure got SOMEONE's attention with all the fuss last night.

GoDaddy is backing off their support of the bill. Announcement here.

momgamer wrote:
Someone sure got SOMEONE's attention with all the fuss last night.

GoDaddy is backing off their support of the bill. Announcement here.


Of course we have no idea what their planned "revisions" are.

I was just saying GoDaddy at least changed the words to their tune. What that means to Congress or anyone else I don't know.

A friend re-posted this from Chris Heald of Mashable, Inc:

Chris Heald wrote:
I just got a call from #GoDaddy. The rep said he noticed that I'd transferred my 60+ domains away (I've still got a few there that I'm working on transferring, but am being conservative with, since I can't afford any downtime at all with them), and wanted to know if I'd tell them why. I got to tell them that it was because of their #SOPA support, and that I couldn't in good conscience give my money to a tech company that would support legislation like that. I told him I was aware that they had reversed their position, but that their explicit support of it in the first place had cost them my confidence in them, as it is at the best viciously ignorant, and at worst, malicious. The rep was quite sincere in his apology to me, asked if there was anything they could do to win me back. He had a "We support IP protections, and now realize that support of SOPA is too broad" song-and-dance routine that probably came in from a PR memo today. I told him "no thanks", and that was that. I'm impressed by the customer service hustle, but it shows that this little incident really spooked them.

I think that the backlash against their support was a lot more swift and severe than they'd anticipated. Their initially glib "lol, whatever" response was replaced by "oh god, please stop punching us in the quarterly financial report!" real fast.

That last quote makes me feel all warm inside.

Aetius wrote:
A friend re-posted this from Chris Heald of Mashable, Inc:

Chris Heald wrote:
I just got a call from #GoDaddy. The rep said he noticed that I'd transferred my 60+ domains away (I've still got a few there that I'm working on transferring, but am being conservative with, since I can't afford any downtime at all with them), and wanted to know if I'd tell them why. I got to tell them that it was because of their #SOPA support, and that I couldn't in good conscience give my money to a tech company that would support legislation like that. I told him I was aware that they had reversed their position, but that their explicit support of it in the first place had cost them my confidence in them, as it is at the best viciously ignorant, and at worst, malicious. The rep was quite sincere in his apology to me, asked if there was anything they could do to win me back. He had a "We support IP protections, and now realize that support of SOPA is too broad" song-and-dance routine that probably came in from a PR memo today. I told him "no thanks", and that was that. I'm impressed by the customer service hustle, but it shows that this little incident really spooked them.

I think that the backlash against their support was a lot more swift and severe than they'd anticipated. Their initially glib "lol, whatever" response was replaced by "oh god, please stop punching us in the quarterly financial report!" real fast.

That last quote makes me feel all warm inside. :)

Very nice.

Meanwhile, it appears the Judiciary Committee was misrepresenting lawyers as supporting SOPA, when in fact they were saying that they agreed with an analysis of the bill. The lawyers are apparently quite upset about it.

It looks like a very deliberate lie, too -- the signatures on the letters explicitly said that they were for identification purposes only, not an expression of support.