Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA)

[Adventureless_Hero]

So Facebook is buzzing with posts from all my jump-on-the-band-wagon friends about how I have to sign some online petition to kill these legislative acts. So I was trying to find out exactly what they were and what they would mean if passed before jumping on the band wagon myself. So I found a pretty neat little article here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/sopa-pipa-wont-break-the-internet/2012/01/18/gIQA3dAP8P_blog.html) and a link to describe in plain English what the SOPA is here (http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/011812_SOPA%20Myth%20vs%20Fact.pdf).

So I've got those somewhat reliable sources telling me not to worry and not to expect a George Orwell-esque 1984 scenario. Is there anyone with internet savvy that could read some of these articles and possible provide me with some more information? Will these acts affect sites from like Wikipedia and Google? It is my understanding that Wikipedia has information posted by people so those is free information and that Google will just be unable to provide links to illegal sites.

I'm just looking for a fair, unbiased explanation of these two acts. Anyone?

[nikvoodoo]

Well of course this doesn't automatically get the Orwellian 1984 (ps: I love that orwellian is in my swype dictionary), but if you censor one website, what prevents you from censoring other things? I'm never an advocate for the slippery slope argument but there are valid points to it.

censorship is not what this country is about. If you want to stop piracy, find a different way.

Do I feel sorry that production companies are losing money? Yes. These are people that insure my friends, and myself stay employed. Does something need to be done? Yes. But these bills are not the way to do it.

[Adventureless_Hero]

Well of course this doesn't automatically get the Orwellian 1984 (ps: I love that orwellian is in my swype dictionary), but if you censor one website, what prevents you from censoring other things? I'm never an advocate for the slippery slope argument but there are valid points to it.

censorship is not what this country is about. If you want to stop piracy, find a different way.

Do I feel sorry that production companies are losing money? Yes. These are people that insure my friends, and myself stay employed. Does something need to be done? Yes. But these bills are not the way to do it.

I can dig that, but my question is, why? Why not these acts? What is it about them that is considered dangerous? Doesn't it read that they can only stop payment to sites profiting off the sale of copy-right infringed material, and in some cases bar the site from reaching American viewers? If that is the case then they would not allow the goverment to "censor" anything but sites which are already illegal. Is there something in their writing I am not catching or perhaps a way that search engine sites and blogs operate that I am not understanding?

(p.s. it is hard to tell in written text sometimes but i am not trying to come off as sarcastic, i am seriously asking. it may sound like i am in favor of these bills but the truth is i'm just trying to get edjumacated on them ^w^)

[nikvoodoo]

Believe me: I get it. I'm one of those that has to explain snark vs not often.....mainly cause I'm always snarky.

And again: its the slippery slope. You enact a law today that prevents access to foreign pay sites. What happens when if want to prevent access to a website that exposes a war crime America has committed? you have the ground work in place. You've already started censoring, what stops you from expanding the scope to other web sites doing other things?

[Adventureless_Hero]

Believe me: I get it. I'm one of those that has to explain snark vs not often.....mainly cause I'm always snarky.

And again: its the slippery slope. You enact a law today that prevents access to foreign pay sites. What happens when if want to prevent access to a website that exposes a war crime America has committed? you have the ground work in place. You've already started censoring, what stops you from expanding the scope to other web sites doing other things?

Oh, I'm already certain that kind of censoring already occurs. We could go off on a tangent about Project Blue Book and crazy shtuff like that. But to say that we would be opening the door to future bills that would slowly pull a noose over the neck of those practicing free speech seems a bit drastic. I see the bills now focusing on illegal sites gaining from the infringement of copy righted material. If in the future that scenario you spoke of where a bill would be put into place to shield the viewing of material that might put the American government in a bad light, they would have to prove that it was illegal in some way. That itself would be one hell of a task. Then I would imagine a flood of petitions and protests in which people could say, "They wish to censor the truth."

But with these current bills, they are focusing on illegal sites. To say they set the ground work for government controlled censorship is like saying allowing 18 year olds the right to vote will one day lead to 16 year olds voting, which in turn may lead to 10 year olds voting. Wouldn't it (okay, extreme analogy, but you know what I mean)? :-P

[nikvoodoo]

Think of it in this sense:

Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court rules that keeping Whites and Blacks in separate but equal establishments was illegal. Within 15 years of that decision, the Civil Rights Movement is passed.

I am not drawing a direct comparison. I'm not saying this #firstworldproblem of IP Piracy compares in the slightest to Human and Civil rights. I think the Civil Rights movement is the most important piece of legislation passed in America in the 20th century. All I'm saying is once the Supreme Court sparked the flash powder of the civil rights movement (in terms of legal precedents and action) it soon came to be that everyone of every color had their equal rights in the eyes of the law.

The same can happen in reverse. You spark the flash powder of censorship (in any way, shape or form) and it becomes easier and easier to restrict things because you now have a legal precedent set by PIPA and SOPA.

But if you lived in the South in 1950 would you have ever imagined that before your unborn child had reached driving age your understood daily life would change so much? Probably not.

[reaper239]

i am huge small government advocate. as such i don't want the government censoring anything, and there's a few reasons for that: 1) as nik already pointed out, once you give the government any kind of power, it seeks to expand it until it becomes all encomposing (not exactly how nik put it but i'm taking the "sliperey slope" thing a step further) 2) censorship of any kind is unbelievably unconstitutional. it would be like a handgun ban here in the US, the country would convulse and there would be mass riots in the streets (no i don't think i'm exagerating) 3) as nik also stated, there are other, better, ways. fines avoid censorship and leave it on the authorities to enforce. IP adressess are trackable, and the internet isn't as anonymous as we would all like to believe anymore. granted, there are ways around it, but the average guy downloading the latest transformers movie isn't going to be implimenting any of those steps. those are my reasons, granted, something being unconstitutional isn't a great argument when the president straight up anounces that he will decide what is constitutional, but for reasonable people i think it's a good argument. and anyone who says that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet is full of crap. besides several court rulings establishing that freedom of speech extends to the internet, all you have to do is look at TV. freedom of speech applies to TV (roughly) and TV didn't exist at the writing of the constitution, therefore, logiccally it would extend to the internet as well.

edit: one more thing, how hard is it to expand the idea of what is considered illegal? look at drugs. i'm not for drugs but let's look at the facts: up until 1914 when the Harrison Tax Act was enacted and levied a tax on narcotics there were no drug restrictions in the US. now those things are either strictly regulated, or outright illegal. i'm not saying we legalize heroin, but that is how it started, as something minor. i don't want to tlive in comunist china, thank you very much.

i tell you what, i'm a constitutionalist, we should get an anarchist view point. where's horrorhiro?

[Adventureless_Hero]

I see the word censorship being thrown around loosely and that seems like a misuse of the word when referring to the SOPA and PIPA since they are not censoring any information.

It would just cut the funding for sites that using copy-righted material without permission for their own profit. Where is the censoring in that? Child pornography is illegal, why are people not claiming that is censorship? Just because online piracy is socially acceptable people are using censorship as a fear instilling word to get people riled up against these acts.

Going to Reaper's example, that guy downloading the latest Transformers movie (why the hell would anyone want to do that by the way, lol) wouldn't be able to do such if the site didn't exist. It's an illegal site providing material that doesn't belong to it. Do you mean to say that cops should look the other way when someone is selling crack on the street? Not an extreme example, online piracy and crack (last I checked) are both illegal.

I'm not advocating these bills, but I am just saying that I have yet to see a good argument against them, or one that resembles the Wikipedia and Google version of what could happen. The fear that you provide precedent to future censorship of information doesn't apply since they are only barring ILLEGAL activity.

[reaper239]

child pornography is illegal, but not censored. the perpetrators are located and prosecuted. the difference is that the illegal material is removed instead of the government telling you you can't...

[Adventureless_Hero]

child pornography is illegal, but not censored. the perpetrators are located and prosecuted. the difference is that the illegal material is removed instead of the government telling you you can't view that site. and what is censorship if not the fed stepping in and saying "you can't view this because it may be illegal. granted, noone has been prosecuted yet, but that's our rulling" and as i stated earlier, it's a small matter for the fed to tweak the law and make something illegal. and if they can censor the internet, you won't even know about it.

Illegal matter is removed? Removed from search engines for certain, but sites hosting that material can be barred, depending on where the material came from. I'm not trying to say compare online piracy and child pornography but as they are both illegal they should be handled in the same manner. Search results that lead you to sites containing illegal copy-righted material should be removed from search engines. Where is the harm there?

[reaper239]

then that should be left to the search engines to enact. the government should only be dealing with the offenders, and not making an end run around the constitution. and let's say we leave it to the search engines, we can have a conversation about that, but i can't support giving an already far overreaching government more power and control.

[Adventureless_Hero]

This just reminds me about the scare over the Patriot Act. I think it is being blown out of proportion.
So if we left it to the people running the search engines do you mean then that we should hold them responsible. So if a guy in a flea market is selling knock off Coach purses, you should sue the market owner, not the vender? That seems like the opposite of what people are arguing about these bills. They mean to protect and shield the sites that make these illegal sites available.

Some one comes to you and says, "Hey, I have a head ache." You respond, "Yeah, go see Frank." Then Frank sells the dude crack, should you be held responsible? No way dude. The SOPA and PIPA appear to me like they are just saying, "No, you can't go see Frank cuz that mother fucker sells crack. We are putting his ass in jail." lol

If you leave it to the search engines to weed out these illegal sites, then how do you make certain they do thier job? If a search site stops caring what links it provides then do owners of copy righted material sue them? I'm saying responsible parties should be held responsible and not drag anyone down with them. SOPA and PIPA appear to do just that. Unless I am totally missing some fine print in the bills or not understanding how some websites operate.

[reaper239]

you make some goodpoints, to which i counter with: you can make the changes. if you don't want to support illegal activity, don't go to that flea market. after a while when people stop renting his spaces, he'll get the idea and make the change. and the patriot act was the biggest fuckjob in american history.listening to people who have done nothing wrong? major 4th amendment violation. next i'm sure you'll tell me that the TSA is a necessary evil, that you don't mind giving up a bit of freedom and privacy for security. ben franklin said, "those who would give up liberty for some temporary security deserve neither" here is another famous quote "give me liberty or give me death" patrick henry. i would rather the government not interfere with my life and my liberties and protect my self and my family, than have them provide "security" while making me less secure in my freedoms. why punish the search engines by enacting arbitrary restrictions on what they can and can not show.instead of enacting restrictions on the search engines, why not punish the offenders let's take your example about the flea market. are you saying that you would want feds sitting at the door asking to "see your papers?" welcome to nazi america. vhere ahr your travel papiers? oh wait, that's TSA. the last thing we need is another government agency to regulate some aspect of our lives.

[Adventureless_Hero]

The thing is, just me alone not supporting illegal activity is going to work. It is a good comparison to have online piracy likened to drugs. They are both too easily available and some actions must be taken to curb and hopefully one day stop them all together.

Man, with the post you put up we can go off on all sorts of tangents. The TSA being a necessary evil; well to me I could give a shit so long as they aren't sticking a rubber gloved hand up my ass. Some folks argue that they welcome those infringements on their liberties so long as they can fly with peace of mind that some dude isn't going to take a nail file to the pilot's jugular. It could start a whole other thread debating one way or the other...

But in regards to the aforementioned bills, I see they are keeping those businesses a tool to protect their interests (copy righted material). With people losing folks left and right, I can see how these money grubbing, billion-dollar companies would want to gobble up as much of their profit as possible. The little guys (illegal pirated material offering sites) will have to take the hit, and folks wanting said copy righted materials won't have the means to access them illegally.

I'm not sure what business you are in, but let's say that KC decides he would like to start charging a tiny fee for each download of his story. It will only be a matter of minutes before those purchased dl's would be offered as a torrent somewhere or become part of some file sharing between two online buds. KC would then suffer the loss because he isn't receiving those purchases on iTunes. Plus there wouldn't be a way to track the number of downloads taking place. He could have thousands of folks listening to his story but only have the proof of so many hundred listeners (I know the number of listeners to WA is in the millions).

Anyway, I'm saying that you may not want the protection but there are those who interests are concerned that would want it (and let me make it clear I was only using KC Wayland and We're Alive as AN EXAMPLE. This in no way reflects his opinion, as far as I know).

I should also point out that I don't buy in to the notion of "give me liberty or give me death". It's a very beautiful sounding phrase but the truth isn't so black and white. If someone one came up to me and said "I can save your daughter's life from a rare disease but I will need some of your blood." I won't deny something in return for her safety. In turn, if laws were enacted that I give up some small liberties in order to ensure mine and my family's safety, then by all means, take them. Knowing the difference between how far is too far is the real issue.

Right now SOPA and PIPA are targeting illegal websites. The laws were not tweaked. These are genuine sites that offer illegal pirated material. They are mostly foreign sites that are difficult to prosecute through normal copy right infringement laws and so to ban then seems a logical choice to me. Did you read the links I provided?

[reaper239]

i would not give up my liberties, and in fact i am in the fight to take them back. my family can best be protected by me and my community and the system our founders set in place. again i say, Prosecute The Offenders

do you realize that the TSA is not just in airports? they are starting to appear on all forms of mass transit. "oh for security, we need to check your bags." "oh for security, we need to see your ID." "oh for security, we need to know where you're going, how long you plan to be there, when you'll be returning, and what mode of transit you'll be taking." well guess what: I'M NOT A CRIMINAL, i have commited no crimes that i need to be harrassed as i board some form of mass transit, i plan to commit no crimes because i am a law abiding citizen, and i don't want the fed intruding into my life.

and the same thing applies to this, which is the beginnings of net neutrality. "oh this looks illegal, we should take it down." "oh this looks inflammatory, we should take it down." "oh this is dissent against the powers that be, we sould takke it down." i don't want the fed anymore involved in my life, than the constitution stipulates, which, constitutionally, i should have almost no dealings with the fed as most of my business should be largely at the state level. they should prosecute the perpetraters, which i might add, they already have the authority to do and so they really don't need this law except to set precedence as saying "look we have the authority to take down bad websites."

[nikvoodoo]

As you'll note, neither Reaper nor myself has said Piracy is cool and awesome and needs to continue. We said you need to find another method of enforcement. Like punish the college kid who steals GB upon GB of data. That's someone in this country you can get a hold of. Start punishing the thieves. Take some personal responsibility.

Again, you can say these bills THIS TIME target illegal sites. But if you want to talk about gray area and not black and white....I think you're not seeing how allowing censorship of one variety doesn't lead to the other. And don't look now, but you've taken a side.

[Adventureless_Hero]

As you'll note, neither Reaper nor myself has said Piracy is cool and awesome and needs to continue. We said you need to find another method of enforcement. Like punish the college kid who steals GB upon GB of data. That's someone in this country you can get a hold of. Start punishing the thieves. Take some personal responsibility.

Again, you can say these bills THIS TIME target illegal sites. But if you want to talk about gray area and not black and white....I think you're not seeing how allowing censorship of one variety doesn't lead to the other. And don't look now, but you've taken a side.

LOL! I totally did jump on one side of the line. I guess I just don't agree with the arguments being made, you know? I feel like they are overly paranoid. It's like this whole statement Reaper just posted,
"do you realize that the TSA is not just in airports? they are starting to appear on all forms of mass transit. "oh for security, we need to check your bags." "oh for security, we need to see your ID." "oh for security, we need to know where you're going, how long you plan to be there, when you'll be returning, and what mode of transit you'll be taking." well guess what: I'M NOT A CRIMINAL, i have commited no crimes that i need to be harrassed as i board some form of mass transit, i plan to commit no crimes because i am a law abiding citizen, and i don't want the fed intruding into my life."

I feel that if you are not a criminal and have commit no crime, then you should not mind. It would be like me telling the Border Patrol agents stationed at the check point 30 miles out of Laredo, Texas (IN USA) to fuck off each time they asked me if I'm an American Citizen. If you start taking all these things out of place then you end up with a country that continually gets car bombs set off, buildings blown up, plains hijacked, drug traffickers running all through the veins of the country, and then online piracy becomes such a minor issue.

I see how you are are saying that the perps need to be the ones prosecuted but look how that turns out. As it is we prosecute drug users. Now our prison system is over crowded. People are bitching that minor drug offenders are getting harsh sentences. That is why the source is always the target. Like with online piracy; remove the source. I can not think of any other effective means. But since these points are debatable from person to person, can you provide some reasons why Google or Wikipedia might be affected by these bills? I would like to get back to an unbiased position. Thanks for catching that I took sides, I almost didn't even realize it myself! lol

[nikvoodoo]

Google, Wikipedia and all sites advocating against this bill are for net neutrality. They, as the face of the Internet as most users know it, have the responsibility to fight for the cause for all users. And again, it's the slippery slope argument. They are fighting against the initial censorship to prevent any future instances. You can think its childish or improbable but again: civil rights movement sparked by one legal action.

[mathuect]

For a point of reference, THIS FORUM would be eligible to be shut down as there are countless pictures and videos which have been posted without consent of the original makers. Youtube would be gone the first day, as would Wikipedia, and any sites like them. These two bills would make that a legal responsibility, not a possibility. These bills over shoot downloading GBs and TBs of movies and music, and undermine freedom of information in any form. That is why there is such opposition to them. Censorship of any information DOES lead to more censorship. It is not a slippery slope effect, it is what has been shown in every instance of censorship of information.

If you want more explanation google PIPA or SOPA. There is a lot of information on these bills out there. If you agree that this is a bad idea don't just write it here, please write to the people who represent you and tell them you do not support this. The main response to these protests of these bills has been "Well I guess I better read it." Then even the co-sponsors of the bill have spoken out against it.

[reaper239]

i used to think exactly like that. if you have committed no crime then it shouldn't bother you, right? but the fact is, that is an overstep of the boundaries the founding fathers established when...

[Adventureless_Hero]

To change my mind all you would have had to do is redirect me here:

SOPA Bad (http://theoatmeal.com/sopa)

[reaper239]

yes kitten bbq = bad, but that's the same thing we were saying all along.