Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 01:39 AM

Anyone even want to try to defend this?

Big Mac · Nov 17, 2011, 02:40 AM

Nope. And if the Republican leadership gets behind it I'll stop calling myself a Republican.

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 03:17 AM

Massive, steaming pile of s***.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2011, 09:04 AM

Can't see owt wrong with it personally.

mattyb · Nov 17, 2011, 09:32 AM

Land of the free, home of ....

Oops.

Big Mac · 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Can't see owt wrong with it personally.

It would devastate the Internet, impairing the integrity of DNS for one thing, and threatening every site with the prospect of highly destructive, frivolous lawsuits that could take whole sites down by way of empty allegations. (DMCA on steroids.) Our clueless Congressmen are largely technically illiterate (the chairman of the committee admitting as much), and in an open display of bias they stacked the witness roster with 5 in support and 1 (Google) in opposition. Have you read the bills, Doofy, or at least synopses of them? They're overly broad and vague. A single country's legislature can't be trusted with the integrity of the global information network the world relies on ever more.

Even those who support totalitarian clamp downs on IP infringement should recognize that all the IP isn't worth risking the integrity and mostly unmolested functionality of the Internet. This legislation would open a Pandora's box that one can easily see quickly causing massive damage to life online as we know it. And it's especially hypocritical of Republicans to support this monstrosity when nearly every Republican I can think of has been dead set against Net Neutrality, aruging that government should keep its grimy, regulatory hands off the Internet.

The media cartels own Congress, though, so I'm not optimistic about fighting this one. It will pass eventually in some form, and we'll have to look [to] the SCOTUS for relief.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2011, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Have you read the bills, Doofy, or at least synopses of them? They're overly broad and vague.

I read the Wiki page.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

A single country's legislature can't be trusted with the integrity of the global information network the world relies on ever more.

You say that like the rest of us are going to take any notice of the US government?

Chongo · Nov 17, 2011, 11:30 AM

SOPA has unintended consequences written all over it.

When I saw the thread title I thought it was about this

OreoCookie · Nov 17, 2011, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It would devastate the Internet, impairing the integrity of DNS for one thing, and threatening every site with the prospect of highly destructive, frivolous lawsuits that could take whole sites down by way of empty allegations. (DMCA on steroids.)

Yup. It circumvents the justice system, because it would be »too much of an effort« for the owners of copyrighted materials. Although it seems ownership isn't even necessary to get a site taken down.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The media cartels own Congress, though, so I'm not optimistic about fighting this one. It will pass eventually in some form, and we'll have to look the SCOTUS for relief.

Same here. Unfortunately, the media companies world-wide still look to the US for »inspiration«.

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You say that like the rest of us are going to take any notice of the US government?

I think he's saying it like Google and Facebook pay attention.

The rest of (general) you pay attention to them. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't have money flying out of their butts.

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The media cartels own Congress, though, so I'm not optimistic about fighting this one. It will pass eventually in some form, and we'll have to look the SCOTUS for relief.

There could be a teeny-weenie bit of blowback from the voting public.

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Can't see owt wrong with it personally.

Not much here I'd properly call a defense.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2011, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Not much here I'd properly call a defense.

You mean "defence"? Speak English boy!

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You mean "defence"? Speak English boy!

I was trawling GIS for a picture of a fence, but found this instead.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2011, 02:27 PM

^^ Now that's just seriously awesome.

lpkmckenna · Nov 18, 2011, 01:35 AM

SOPA would be a disaster for the U.S. tech industry while accomplishing nothing for the media companies who support it.

OAW · Nov 18, 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It would devastate the Internet, impairing the integrity of DNS for one thing, and threatening every site with the prospect of highly destructive, frivolous lawsuits that could take whole sites down by way of empty allegations. (DMCA on steroids.) Our clueless Congressmen are largely technically illiterate (the chairman of the committee admitting as much), and in an open display of bias they stacked the witness roster with 5 in support and 1 (Google) in opposition. Have you read the bills, Doofy, or at least synopses of them? They're overly broad and vague. A single country's legislature can't be trusted with the integrity of the global information network the world relies on ever more.

Even those who support totalitarian clamp downs on IP infringement should recognize that all the IP isn't worth risking the integrity and mostly unmolested functionality of the Internet. This legislation would open a Pandora's box that one can easily see quickly causing massive damage to life online as we know it. And it's especially hypocritical of Republicans to support this monstrosity when nearly every Republican I can think of has been dead set against Net Neutrality, aruging that government should keep its grimy, regulatory hands off the Internet.

The media cartels own Congress, though, so I'm not optimistic about fighting this one. It will pass eventually in some form, and we'll have to look the SCOTUS for relief.

110%

OAW

Big Mac · Nov 18, 2011, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

110%

OAW

Thank you kindly.

People are smearing Apple as a supporter of this crap:
Fanboys Are Very Upset About Apple's Tacit SOPA Support - Technology - The Atlantic Wire

OAW · Nov 18, 2011, 03:57 PM

^^^^^ I haven't read anything to lead one to the conclusion that Apple supports this. Seems like people are assuming silence equates to acquiescence. Somehow that never seemed to work with my parents.

OAW

subego · Nov 18, 2011, 04:01 PM

It's not purely silence. They belong to an organization who loudly supports it.

OAW · Nov 18, 2011, 04:09 PM

It's true they belong to the Business Software Alliance. But Apple doesn't even bother to put DRM on its software and you don't hear about Apple sending out BSA investigators against companies over software licensing either. It could be that Apple has other reasons for being a member of the BSA and is choosing to remain silent on this issue so as not to upset the apple cart with the BSA.

OAW

subego · Nov 18, 2011, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

and you don't hear about Apple sending out BSA investigators against companies over software licensing either.

Apple stopped outsourcing their SWAT teams a few years back.

Big Mac · Nov 21, 2011, 01:17 PM

Some good news: There is bipartisan opposition to this nightmare: List of Pols against #SOPA Blows My Mind | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

Athens · Nov 21, 2011, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

SOPA would be a disaster for the U.S. tech industry while accomplishing nothing for the media companies who support it.

Yup

Media companies are trying to hold on to the old way of doing things and waging war against those that purchase the stuff they sell. They just don't want to adapt. HMV in Vancouver is closing down and I think the entire chain is closing down and its because people are not buying CD music any more. I can tell you why I don't. Its over priced. I will not buy a CD for $20.00. At these prices its no longer in the range for impulse purchase. At $10.00 a CD or even a little less it becomes a impulse purchase item. Since they can't see this they have out priced themselves. And because its easy to download music from the Internet people don't bother with CDs any more. They need to adjust the price of what they sell so people will buy it and stop suing people and stop trying to change the laws to keep the old model a live a little longer. The only people that should be gone after are those that profit off of pirated copies. When I was in NY last a lot of street venders had pirated near look alike movies for sale for 5 bucks including some still in the theaters not released on DVD yet. Those are the people that should be targeted.

Shaddim · Nov 21, 2011, 05:09 PM

The only music place in town that is booming is... the record store. Really, no joke. They're doing very well, one of their best years ever.

Athens · Nov 21, 2011, 05:12 PM

The used CD store I got to is doing great. I picked up the last 60 CDs for 2.00 a piece.

lpkmckenna · Nov 21, 2011, 05:48 PM

Even the Business Software Alliance now backpedaling on SOPA support.

Big Mac · Nov 30, 2011, 10:16 PM

SOPA - H.R.3261: Stop Online Piracy Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress - Another important link to vital information on the bill, the proponents and the opponents

ebuddy · Dec 1, 2011, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Nope. And if the Republican leadership gets behind it I'll stop calling myself a Republican.

^ This

This is no different than a proposed gun ban and any Republican in support of this should be asked publicly why they support yet another government overreaction to a societal ill.

Athens · Dec 2, 2011, 07:03 AM

bump

Waragainstsleep · Dec 2, 2011, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

^ This

This is no different than a proposed gun ban and any Republican in support of this should be asked publicly why they support yet another government overreaction to a societal ill.

Guns don't kill people, file-sharing websites do.

Big Mac · Dec 2, 2011, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Guns don't kill people, file-sharing websites do.

Doofy · Dec 2, 2011, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is no different than a proposed gun ban

Drama much?

ebuddy · Dec 2, 2011, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Drama much?

No, why?

Doofy · Dec 2, 2011, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, why?

How is preventing citizens from accessing foreign websites which are ripping off your domestic companies anything like any sort of gun ban? Was there a new amendment popped into the bill of rights I didn't receive the memo for?
"Being necessary to the fullness of citizens' hard drives, the ability to download pirated digital files from foreign websites shall not be infringed"?

subego · Dec 3, 2011, 05:06 PM

C'mon D...

You really need someone to tell you that vague laws end up getting used for more than they're intended?

No one has a problem with stopping pirates, it's a question of the right tool for the right job. You don't kill a fly with a .30-06.

ebuddy · Dec 4, 2011, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

How is preventing citizens from accessing foreign websites which are ripping off your domestic companies anything like any sort of gun ban? Was there a new amendment popped into the bill of rights I didn't receive the memo for?
"Being necessary to the fullness of citizens' hard drives, the ability to download pirated digital files from foreign websites shall not be infringed"?

Any particular reason why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 aren't enough that we'd need more busy-body copyright infringement protection written vaguely enough to arbitrarily block payment facilitator partnerships like Pay Pal or bar search engines from accessing web content? I don't think so.

I get the impression you're protecting a personal interest to the extent that you're willing to suspend any well-founded skepticism that a centralized authority wouldn't abuse its jurisdiction here.

lpkmckenna · 05:31 PM

When anarchy-libertarians defend a policy that neither conservatives nor liberals will support, you know either the policy is terrible or anarchy-libertarian is misguided nonsense.

Wait, not "or". I meant "and".

Doofy · Dec 4, 2011, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I get the impression you're protecting a personal interest to the extent that you're willing to suspend any well-founded skepticism that a centralized authority wouldn't abuse its jurisdiction here.

I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, that's all.

subego · Dec 4, 2011, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I just think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill, that's all.

And we don't.

Wheeeeee!

Doofy · Dec 4, 2011, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by subego

And we don't.

Which is why "drama" is one of the top three exports of the US and A.

Originally Posted by subego

Wheeeeee!

subego · Dec 4, 2011, 07:29 PM

Huh?

Our top three exports are ass kicking, pharmaceuticals, and cholesterol.

besson3c · Dec 4, 2011, 07:33 PM

Also Hollywood, hot dogs, lite beer, crying eagles, country music, jazz, hip hop, baconaise, and Alan Alda.

subego · Dec 4, 2011, 07:37 PM

They're all lower, however, to be fair, four of those are drama.

subego · Dec 4, 2011, 07:40 PM

This is fun, but we should get back to how it's a swell idea to let the MPAA run the DNS.

Waragainstsleep · Dec 4, 2011, 07:42 PM

I'm not sure you actually export much cholesterol.

Real hot dogs are german.

No self respecting human being outside of the US would ever touch something called Baconaise.

lpkmckenna · Dec 4, 2011, 07:48 PM

Violence, movies about violence, and hypocrisy.

Doofy · Dec 4, 2011, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Huh?

Our top three exports are ass kicking, pharmaceuticals, and cholesterol.

Drama, bullshit and violence.

Doofy · Dec 4, 2011, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by subego

This is fun, but we should get back to how it's a swell idea to let the MPAA run the DNS.

Umm. How's about you guys read the updated version of the bill where they don't touch the DNS?

Big Mac · Dec 4, 2011, 08:41 PM

You mean the alternative bill that's been proposed by Wyden, who has been one of the chief opponents of SOPA? That's not an updated version, it's a different bill altogether.