Are we for or against the new internet bill?

[Christy]

Craigslist is against..

STOP SOPA & PIPA
HR3261 & S968 are
threatening CL and
the rest of your
Internet. Most of
the web sites you use
strongly oppose these
bills.

[Carlos Miller]

I'm totally against it.

[Jess]

What is this bill? Christy's OP didn't make any sense to me.

[Doug]

Strongly against this. It would curtail free speech as we know it. Youtube would cease to exist. Wikipedia is also planning a black out in protest.

[Doug]

From wikipedia:

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.^[2] Presented to the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act.^[3]

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.^[4]
Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites.^[5] They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.^[6]
Opponents say that it violates the First Amendment,^[7] is Internet censorship,^[8] will cripple the Internet,^[9] and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions.^[7][10] Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and planned service blackouts by major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next Congressional hearing on the matter.
The House Judiciary Committee held hearings on November 16 and December 15, 2011. The Committee was scheduled to continue debate in January 2012.^[11]

[Catt]

and notice ..... this is nowhere in the news ... there was a petition going around that is to be presented to television media, demanding that they stop what is being called a "media blackout" of this information.


"Dear Friend:

I just took action to demand that the networks end their blackout on SOPA, a bill that could kill free speech online.

Opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA (H.R. 3261), has reached a boiling point. Millions of activists, hundreds of startups, social media sites like Tumblr, Reddit and Twitter and even big companies like Google, Yahoo! and eBay have joined with Free Press and other Internet advocacy groups against it.

But while discussion of SOPA is everywhere on the Internet, it’s nowhere on the nightly news. We need to hold the networks accountable for neglecting to cover one of the biggest tech stories of the year.
Take action today and tell the news directors of the major broadcast networks to end the SOPA blackout:
http://act2.freepress.net/sign/media_sopa/



Thank you,

Josh Levy
Free Press
SavetheInternet.com"

[wpns4l]

Google and facebook alone probably have the power to stop this. All they have to do is tell the government they will stop providing them services and support if they pass the bill and im sure it would get dropped.

[Doug]

Google and facebook alone probably have the power to stop this. All they have to do is tell the government they will stop providing them services and support if they pass the bill and im sure it would get dropped.

Rite-Aid is for it, though. If they threatened to stop supplying drugs to the politicians, it might make them vote for it...

Major companies who support SOPA:

http://theoriesofconspiracy.com/2011...rting-sopa.htm

[Catt]

just now got this e-mail; apparently some are beginning to take notice -


Dear Cathy,

More than 40,000 people have told the major news networks to stop ignoring the Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) and Protect IP (PIPA) Acts — bills in the House and Senate that could open the door to widespread censorship online.
At last, some in the media are starting to take notice. Last weekend, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes devoted an entire segment to a debate on the legislation.¹ Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended the legislation on Meet the Press last Sunday.²
The White House just announced its opposition to provisions in both bills that pose a threat to free speech,³ and thousands of websites — including Wikipedia, reddit, BoingBoing, FreePress.net and SavetheInternet.com — are set to go black tomorrow in protest.⁴ The Senate’s vote on PIPA is scheduled for a week from today.
Momentum is starting to turn as people in the media realize the need to cover these dangerous bills. But we still need to pressure ABC, CBS and Fox News to join MSNBC and NBC and stop ignoring this important legislation. Please tell your friends on Facebook to urge more media outlets to cover PIPA and SOPA.
Thanks,
Josh Levy
Internet Campaign Director
Free Press
SavetheInternet.com



1. “Debating SOPA,” Up with Chris Hayes, Jan. 15, 2011: http://act2.freepress.net/go/8175?akid=3206.9948820.QTqB2y&t=3


2. Meet the Press, Jan. 15, 2011: http://act2.freepress.net/go/8176?akid=3206.9948820.QTqB2y&t=5


3. Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra and Howard Schmidt, “Combating Online Privacy While Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet”: http://act2.freepress.net/go/8177?akid=3206.9948820.QTqB2y&t=7


4. “Web Goes on Strike!: http://act2.freepress.net/go/8178?akid=3206.9948820.QTqB2y&t=9

[Matt Meltzer]

Though I'm usually a contrarian, my motivations for disagreeing with you all here are a little different...

I am one (as are many of you on this site) who makes part of my living off creative endeavors. In my case it's writing, but it's really not much different than music or photographs or anything else that creative people use their time, effort, talents and energy to produce.

So I NEVER want anything I've worked for to just be given away, unless the people who have paid me to write it deem that appropriate. like, ok, this site is free, so Gus and Michelle obviously have no problem with giving away the content. Fine. They pay me and after that how to make money off what I do is their decision.

BUT if they decided this should be a pay site, and I found some site reproducing my sh!t and GIVING it away? I'd be PISSED. Like when some of you all were trying to scan my Cosmo articles and post them on here. Uh-uh. not cool. You pay for it or you don't read it or you come over to my house and read the copy (which I paid $8 for) on my coffee table.

So I'm actually all for this bill. I really don't think it's fair to the creative people who spend a lot of time and energy producing stuff to have it devalued and given away for free. If there's no monetary incentive to producing quality work, then it will cease to exist. And that is damaging to our culture.

I don't download music for free, unless there's no way I can find it on a pay site. I don't stream movies (except on Netflix, which I pay for) and I don't download TV shows or movies. The arts and entertainment are based on the concept that you have to PAY for them. If we don't, it's only going to get worse as talented people will find more lucrative ways to use their talents.

Y'all too used to getting a free ride. Having to pay for things that other people worked to produce shouldn't be looked at as irregular. Rather, it should be the norm.

[Jess]

I quite literally could not have said it better myself.

[Doug]

@Matt - I don't think you fully understand what the implications of the bill are. The way things are now, you can still sue for copyright infringement. You would sue the person who infringed on your copyright. This bill would make it a criminal rather than a civil matter, and it would also hold any site that ever posted any copyrighted material on it responsible for material posted on their site by other people. So that would be the end of youtube and quite possibly, this website. Also, you spoke of creative interests. Did you know that if you make a movie and there is a sign in the background in one of your shots, that is considered copyright infringement? Or if your niece was lip-synching to a Madonna song and you uploaded it on video, you would be a criminal? Or what if you wrote a story on Miami Beach 411 and posted a photo in it that you found on the internet? Or you quoted someone from an article that you didn't have permission to use? What if you shot video of Ocean Drive and there was music coming out of one of the clubs that got on your tape? You would be a felon. This is not a good idea. It censors free speech.

[dylan]

I think this internet bill is a load of BULL I really hope it doesn't go through.

[Doug]

A blogger explains some of the consequences of this legislation here:

There are bills underway in the U.S. Senate and House that have very dangerous consequences for the Internet. SOPA and PIPA are meant to protect intellectual property online, but they give far too much enforcement power to the government.

The bills allow the government to immediately shut down entire websites because they didn’t filter user content that might help someone obtain an illegal copy of something. For example, Wikipedia could be shut down immediately and without warning because someone posted an except of a book that they didn’t have permission to post. Facebook could be shut down because someone posted a link to a picture that was copied without permission.

This would be like the government shutting down and entire mall because someone walked through it with a copied CD in their pocket. According to these bills, the mall should have searched people before they entered the mall to make sure they didn’t have any illegal copies of media on them.
These bills go beyond punishing those who illegally copy intellectual property. They will also punish anyone who allows any communication about such piracy. Since the Internet was built on the ideals of allowing people to freely communicate, punishing people who allow free communication will severely hinder the Internet. These bills would mandate censorship of the Internet, punishing people who allow free speech.
On Wednesday, Wikipedia and other web sites are going dark in protest of these bills. I support their protests. While shutting off access to the sites may seem extreme, it is only an example of what could happen to those sites if these bills are allowed to pass.

Since Miami Beach 411 doesn't filter its content, it could be immediately shut down if this were to pass.

[Christy]

Matt, try spotify for music. It's free and it's linked to facebook so you can listen to my cool mixes since I'm your friend. Keep in mind for articles we use a lot of google images that are copyrighted.

So technically our sight could get shut down because of that. Not cool. I'm totally against the bill but wanted to see what everyone else thought. Sorry for not explaining the bill in my OP, but Doug and Cathy did a nice job!

[Catt]

POTUS killed the bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaud...y-legislation/

The growing anti-SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) support that has swept through the gaming and Internet community found a very big ally today. With websites like Reddit and Wikipedia and gaming organizations like Major League Gaming prepared for a blackout on January 18^th – the same day that the House Judiciary Committee hearing on HR 3261was scheduled in Washington, DC – President Barack Obama has stepped in and said he would not support the bill. SOPA has been killed, for now.
...
California congressman Darrell Issa, who has been opposed to the bill from the beginning, praised the Internet action that has swept like a virus across the Web the past week. “The voice of the Internet community has been heard,” said Issa. “Much more education for members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal.”

But there remains another similar bill, Protect IP (the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act), that poses a problem for gamers and Internet users. This legislation is scheduled to go before the Senate on January 24^th.
...
“Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing,” said The White House. “We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.”

[Christy]

Way to go Obama! I wonder what will happen if we have a new Republican president. Does anyone know Mitt Romney's stance on the bill?

[Blackford Oakes]

First of all, I'm against becomming China.

For some strange reason, I'm not able to download crap today.

[Matt Meltzer]

There was some major Internet-wide blackout thing today. All the kids I'm in charge of couldn't get on Tumblr. It was a major catastrophe.

That said, I'd be happy to give up using copyrighted images in my articles if it meant an end to music and film piracy. There's media commons images we could use, or take our own pics, or whatever.

I like the spirit of the law, to try and stop the widespread theft of intellectual property. It really is a serious problem. Perhaps the execution wasn't tactful enough to gain widespread approval. This version may have been shot down, but I think this is not the last we've heard on the matter.

[Mario]

This bill sucks, and what Doug says is true. And the mainstream media is barely reporting this. Similar to the Occupy movement, which was essentially ignored by the media for almost a month.