A Sea Of Red

Not sure if I missed this, but has flamefans made a case for or against the Stop Online Piracy Act? I am totally opposed to some of the fundamental problems with this bill. I would assume FF would shut down because we dont want FF to be liable for anyone posting anything that could infringe upon upon copyright laws.

Bob Goodlatte is one of the co-sponsors, so we have a voice here.

which explains why there is no wiki today; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

no term papers will be written for the next 24 hrs

I'd think any legislation like this will be overturned as "unconstitutional" unless Washington sells it as "save the children"

I didn't vote for Goodlatte...my hands are clean on this one. I'm just waiting for Facebook and Google to follow through on their blackout threats.

Google and Wikipedia are participating in a censorship blackout. Congress is voting on censoring the web? It has something to do with piracy and privacy I am sure. As long as google isnt happy, I am not happy.

Beat me too it! I think the law is crap and I love how Google has a black patch over their logo!

This law is total crap. This is in a long line of crap bills like the NDAA and now the Enemy Expartriation Act. SOPA/PIPA need to be killed. Make sure you call or email your Congressmen bc if I remember correctly for the update email i got we still need 35 Congressmen on our side to kill the bill.

Google's "blackout" is the weakest thing I've ever seen. Real committed there, guys.

It's weird how diversely supported these acts are in both the house and senate. Some people you'd never think would support this stuff have signed up.

PAmedic wrote:which explains why there is no wiki today; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

no term papers will be written for the next 24 hrs

I'd think any legislation like this will be overturned as "unconstitutional" unless Washington sells it as "save the children"

It amazes me that students use Wiki as a credible reference when most universities and colleges will not except them.

I just don't understand how this is even legal. The White House has said Obama will use his Veto power which is a nice change of pace...

Typical grandstanding Goodlatte. All of you don't want this bill to pass are obviously for internet piracy! (sarcasm)

Hey Goodlatte, we already have resources to stop copyright infringement. It's called the United States Court System, in that little thing called the Constitution. You might want to read it every once in awhile.

Well this is positive, from Marco Rubio (co-sponsor of PIPA):

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/18/r ... -bad-idea/

In recent weeks, we’ve heard from many Floridians about the anti-Internet piracy bills making their way through Congress. On the Senate side, I have been a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs.
However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies.
Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy. Since then, we’ve heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government’s power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.
Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.

flamerbob wrote:

PAmedic wrote:which explains why there is no wiki today; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

no term papers will be written for the next 24 hrs

I'd think any legislation like this will be overturned as "unconstitutional" unless Washington sells it as "save the children"

It amazes me that students use Wiki as a credible reference when most universities and colleges will not except them.

Wikipedia can actually be a great reference. While you can't always depend on the content since it's user created, the Notes and References section at the bottom of most pages cuts out a lot of research time. You can just search out those references and you're good to go.

Also, FYI, if you need to use Wikipedia today, just click the ESC button as soon as the page you searched for loads.

What is the difference between SOPA and the powers that they already have?

ALUmnus wrote:Google's "blackout" is the weakest thing I've ever seen. Real committed there, guys.

It's weird how diversely supported these acts are in both the house and senate. Some people you'd never think would support this stuff have signed up.

yeah i think its hilarous

gvt - OOOHHHH YOU SHUT DOWN WIKIPEDIA OOOOOOOOOOOOO *knees shaking*

seriously we are the wussiest protestors on the planet.

egypt - cut the heads off our leaders!!!
US - NO LOOKING UP THE RADIOHEAD DISCOGRAPHY FOR THE DAY!!!

RubberMallet wrote:seriously we are the wussiest protestors on the planet.

egypt - cut the heads off our leaders!!!
US - NO LOOKING UP THE RADIOHEAD DISCOGRAPHY FOR THE DAY!!!

Now how am I going to figure out which album My Iron Lung was on???!!!

As long as SMOOTH can still download his porn.......

jmdickens wrote:I would assume FF would shut down because we dont want FF to be liable for anyone posting anything that could infringe upon upon copyright laws.

That is correct. I would no longer be willing to take on the liability of hosting user-submitted content. Most sites wouldn't.

RubberMallet wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:Google's "blackout" is the weakest thing I've ever seen. Real committed there, guys.

yeah i think its hilarous

gvt - OOOHHHH YOU SHUT DOWN WIKIPEDIA OOOOOOOOOOOOO *knees shaking*

seriously we are the wussiest protestors on the planet.

egypt - cut the heads off our leaders!!!
US - NO LOOKING UP THE RADIOHEAD DISCOGRAPHY FOR THE DAY!!!

Wikipedia is the 6th most visited website in the United States. (Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org) Shutting it down and calling direct attention to one piece of legislation should be a pretty effective means of spreading the message and getting people to act. That was their only intention.

Wikipedia is also a non-profit organization. They rely on donations to operate. Their involvement helps dispute the politicians and MPAA/RIAA argument that Google and other tech companies are only involved because they profit from piracy.

LUconn wrote:What is the difference between SOPA and the powers that they already have?

There are a few differences.

Currently the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows copyright holders to submit takedown requests to website owners. Website owners can choose to comply (most do because of liability otherwise) or not. Then the original poster of the content can file a counter-claim to have the content re-enabled.

There's more to the DMCA than that, but that's the gist of the SOPA-related parts.

SOPA/PIPA, on the other hand, would allow copyright holders to take down the sites entirely, instead of just specific content. It also gives people who advertise on disputed sites (or provide other revenue) a 5 day deadline to cut off all sponsorship of the site. The original language of this bill gave the government the ability to re-route DNS requests for the United States so that these sites would not be available. This is how China and Iran currently filter the Internet within their countries. The DNS portion has been tabled "for now".

All of this happens without anyone setting foot in a courtroom. It hands all of this power over to the MPAA/RIAA and the government cooperates with and trusts them not to abuse it. Note that they've already abuse the DMCA profusely. This has been well documented over the last 10 years or so.

The liability of hosting user-submitted content would scare off any business based on that premise. This will effectively kill Internet-startups who have business models revolving around that. To illustrate, imagine if SOPA was law when YouTube came online. I think it's pretty easy to see that it wouldn't be here today. And it would have gone offline without a day in court. Just off because the MPAA requested it.

That's my rushed and limited summary.

El Scorcho wrote:

LUconn wrote:What is the difference between SOPA and the powers that they already have?

There are a few differences.

Currently the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows copyright holders to submit takedown requests to website owners. Website owners can choose to comply (most do because of liability otherwise) or not. Then the original poster of the content can file a counter-claim to have the content re-enabled.

There's more to the DMCA than that, but that's the gist of the SOPA-related parts.

SOPA/PIPA, on the other hand, would allow copyright holders to take down the sites entirely, instead of just specific content. It also gives people who advertise on disputed sites (or provide other revenue) a 5 day deadline to cut off all sponsorship of the site. The original language of this bill gave the government the ability to re-route DNS requests for the United States so that these sites would not be available. This is how China and Iran currently filter the Internet within their countries. The DNS portion has been tabled "for now".

All of this happens without anyone setting foot in a courtroom. It hands all of this power over to the MPAA/RIAA and the government cooperates with and trusts them not to abuse it. Note that they've already abuse the DMCA profusely. This has been well documented over the last 10 years or so.

The liability of hosting user-submitted content would scare off any business based on that premise. This will effectively kill Internet-startups who have business models revolving around that. To illustrate, imagine if SOPA was law when YouTube came online. I think it's pretty easy to see that it wouldn't be here today. And it would have gone offline without a day in court. Just off because the MPAA requested it.

That's my rushed and limited summary.

Oh. Also. SOPA/PIPA would make it illegal to link to copyright infringing content. So, even an animated gif of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch would be enough to get your site taken offline if it made the wrong person in Hollywood mad.

This is a longer but good writeup on DMCA vs. SOPA: http://www.webhostingsearch.com/article ... dustry.php

Very nice piece scorcho. Makes the complex understandable.

I also find it funny Goodlatte has comments on his facebook page disabled. But I can still contact via the friend page

El Scorcho wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:Google's "blackout" is the weakest thing I've ever seen. Real committed there, guys.

yeah i think its hilarous

gvt - OOOHHHH YOU SHUT DOWN WIKIPEDIA OOOOOOOOOOOOO *knees shaking*

seriously we are the wussiest protestors on the planet.

egypt - cut the heads off our leaders!!!
US - NO LOOKING UP THE RADIOHEAD DISCOGRAPHY FOR THE DAY!!!

Wikipedia is the 6th most visited website in the United States. (Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org) Shutting it down and calling direct attention to one piece of legislation should be a pretty effective means of spreading the message and getting people to act. That was their only intention.

Wikipedia is also a non-profit organization. They rely on donations to operate. Their involvement helps dispute the politicians and MPAA/RIAA argument that Google and other tech companies are only involved because they profit from piracy.

so? the makers of wikipedia are constantly whining about this that and the other. no different here.

NO HUMP DAR THATLL SHOWEM!

LUconn wrote:What is the difference between SOPA and the powers that they already have?

Last part (I think): SOPA also makes uploading copyrighted content a felony under federal law. The popularly quoted bit going around the web about this: "Under SOPA, you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song. One year more than the doctor who killed him."

For the uninitiated, here's a nice video that makes SOPA/PIPA easy to understand: http://devour.com/video/sopa-breaks-the-internet/