SOPA Opera, internet outlaws, or freedom?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Synthaholic, Jan 15, 2012.

  1. Synthaholic
    Offline

    Synthaholic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    35,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,032
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
    Ratings:
    +8,859
    SOPA Opera

    Where Do Your Members of Congress Stand on SOPA and PIPA?




    Click the LINK for the breakdown. It's extremely bipartisan on both sides.


    These bills need to be defeated. Here's one example:






    Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'

    from the total-failure dept

    When we talk about how dangerous PROTECT IP is as a censorship bill, we're often told that we shouldn't worry so much, because it's only targeted at "rogue sites" and thus wouldn't impact any legitimate sites. We're told there's nothing about rogue sites that is worth defending. And yet, as we've seen with the list of "pirate" sites that GroupM put together with help from the music and movie industries, their definition of a "pirate" site is expansive in the extreme. It included the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Soundcloud and a ton of blogs and news sites, including the famed Vibe magazine.

    And don't think it gets any different when you hop over to the trademark/counterfeit side of the debate. In Tim's post about Monster Cable lobbying in favor of PROTECT IP, as an aside at the end, he notes that on Monster Cable's own list of "rogue sites," eBay and Craigslist top the list. And it doesn't stop there. Retailing giant Costco is on the list. As is Sears. Also some Backpages sites are listed as well (Backpages is a Craigslist-like classifieds system). There's also FatWallet, which is one of the most popular "deal" listings sites out there. There's also PriceGrabber and ComputerShopper -- popular legitimate sites for comparison shopping and computer purchases. These are not "rogue sites." These are legitimate companies that Monster Cable appears to have a vendetta against, because they allow for or promote the resale of perfectly legitimate secondhand goods.

    In other words, for all the misleading whining from Monster about how it needs PROTECT IP to stop "rogue sites," you can see from Monster's own definition of what it considers a rogue site, that it would like to use such things to stomp out legitimate secondhand sales. Now, you can argue over whether or not these sites would pass following a judge's scrutiny under PROTECT IP, but we've seen judges rubber stamp similarly questionable claims against blogs in the past as being "rogue sites."

    If you look at both the GroupM and the Monster lists, one thing becomes clear: these companies are defining any site they can't control as being a "rogue site." This isn't about stopping "piracy." It's about using the law to stomp out channels that they can't control. This is a key point that becomes obvious if you spend any time looking at the details of this law. It's not about protecting "IP." It's about protecting old business models that were based on absolute control of the channel. The complaints of the Universal Musics and Monster Cables of the world isn't really about counterfeits and piracy, but about the fact that they no longer have absolute control.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Ringel05
    Offline

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    40,241
    Thanks Received:
    8,008
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    El Paso, TX
    Ratings:
    +17,358
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Synthaholic
    Offline

    Synthaholic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    35,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,032
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
    Ratings:
    +8,859
    I am genuinely happy to be on the same side of an issue as Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, and Darrell Issa. Although I do not know if our opposition is for the same reasons.
     
  4. Synthaholic
    Offline

    Synthaholic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    35,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,032
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
    Ratings:
    +8,859
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Synthaholic
    Offline

    Synthaholic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    35,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,032
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
    Ratings:
    +8,859
    Breaking: Marco! ... Rubio! has withdrawn his support for PIPA.

    Here's the link from Slate's Dave Weigel, but I don't click on Facebook links, so I'm taking his word for it.

    http://on.fb.me/zd4WIT
     
  6. PixieStix
    Offline

    PixieStix Coal Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Thanks Received:
    4,972
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Ratings:
    +5,259
    From Wiki The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks, and payment processors to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws. The Attorney General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites

    Stop Online Piracy Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Impact on online freedom of speech

    On TIME's Techland blog, Jerry Brito wrote, "Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech?"[22] Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology warned, "If SOPA and PIPA are enacted, the US government must be prepared for other governments to follow suit, in service to whatever social policies they believe are important—whether restricting hate speech, insults to public officials, or political dissent."[23]

    Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”[7][24]

    The AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida, arguing in favor of SOPA, has stated that free speech was not a relevant consideration, because "Freedom of speech is not the same as lawlessness on the Internet. There is no inconsistency between protecting an open Internet and safeguarding intellectual property. Protecting intellectual property is not the same as censorship; the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks.


    Unintended consequences down the road as I see it, usual way of legislation these days
     
  7. PixieStix
    Offline

    PixieStix Coal Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Thanks Received:
    4,972
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Ratings:
    +5,259
    Moving this thread to politics. Because it is ALL about that
     
  8. PixieStix
    Offline

    PixieStix Coal Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Thanks Received:
    4,972
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Ratings:
    +5,259

Share This Page