SOPA.

[Diaminohexanoate]

If you don't know what this is, you probably do but just don't know that it's called SOPA. Go read about it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA

Does anyone other than me think that this is one of the absolute stupidest pieces of shit to ever pass through the halls of the US government? (Apologies for language, but I dislike SOPA with a fiery passion.)

[Baxter]

Just from reading the wiki summary, I have no clue as to why it's so stupid. Is there something I'm missing? Care to explain? To me, it just looks like they're going to be cracking down on people breaking copyright laws on the internet.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Baxter

Just from reading the wiki summary, I have no clue as to why it's so stupid. Is there something I'm missing? Care to explain? To me, it just looks like they're going to be cracking down on people breaking copyright laws on the internet.

Because it gives corporations the power to decide what can and can't be on the internet?

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because it gives corporations the power to decide what can and can't be on the internet?

They have the power to decide if their material can or can't be on the internet. Plus they still need a court order to accuse and seek action against a website.

[JoshS]

Originally Posted by Baxter

They have the power to decide if their material can or can't be on the internet. Plus they still need a court order to accuse and seek action against a website.

Go do some more research on it, you will realize exactly why it is so stupid. It is way to strict on these copy write laws and there punishments.

[dr2005]

Is it a badly drafted piece of legislation? Certainly. Is it "one of the absolute stupidest pieces of shit to ever pass through the halls of the US government"? Hardly - take a look at the Patriot Act for starters, then work your way back through the history of Congress and you'll come up with some even bigger doozies. From my understanding the Bill needs a comprehensive overhaul, or possibly even junking and starting again, but that does not mean the core idea is unsound. Breach of copyright is as much a criminal offence as going into someone's house or place of business and stealing from them that way, and to those who reject the need for such legislation I would ask the question: Why does the Internet warrant an exception compared with everyday life?

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Breach of copyright is as much a criminal offense as going into someone's house or place of business and stealing from them that way

Considering nothing is actually being stolen, only copied, it's no where near a serious offense.

If they copied it, and tried to make a profit off of it or try to pass it off as their own work, that's one thing. But downloading a copy is simply not that big of a deal, because people who are driven to pirate a game do so because they either refuse to, or cannot pay for the product in the first place. So them "pirating" the game, and them not buying it carry the same weight in terms of monetary loss to "potential" sales, which aren't even close to accurate representations of a profit margin.

I could literally go on and on about this, but to sit there and to believe the thought that file sharing is single-handedly bringing down the entertainment industry, or is even a significant factor, is daft.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Why does the Internet warrant an exception compared with everyday life?

Because the internet is a free information machine. It's the last place we have on the planet that allows us to freely distribute thoughts and ideas.

All of a sudden everything is controlled and copyrighted. Imagine having to pay to use a smiley face, or to watch a you tube clip. All the websites that would get shut down because they have an image a corporation deems "theirs".

Every little piece of freedom we chip off of the internet adds up.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Considering nothing is actually being stolen, only copied, it's no where near a serious offense.

So if you design something - say, a new laptop or mobile phone - and I break into your office, photocopy the design and launch an identical product, I haven't stolen it off you? I'd say that's a fairly ridiculous premise and I can't see it standing up in a court of law...

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If they copied it, and tried to make a profit off of it or try to pass it off as their own work, that's one thing. But downloading a copy is simply not that big of a deal, because people who are driven to pirate a game do so because they either refuse to, or cannot pay for the product in the first place. So them "pirating" the game, and them not buying it carry the same weight in terms of monetary loss to "potential" sales, which aren't even close to accurate representations of a profit margin.

Change "pirating the game" to "shoplifting" and hopefully you see the flaw in that analogy. Your claim of equality of monetary loss, meanwhile, is similarly flawed - in the latter case, the developer/publisher retains the licence to use the software which it can sell to another potential customer, thus cancelling out the loss. In the former, the developer/publisher cannot do that as the product is beyond their ownership - they can no longer exercise their lawful proprietary claim over it, and hence it has been stolen from them. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you have a hard time arguing it's not a duck. Same applies with this and calling it theft.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I could literally go on and on about this, but to sit there and to believe the thought that file sharing is single-handedly bringing down the entertainment industry, or is even a significant factor, is daft.

I didn't say that. With respect, that is a prime example of putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because the internet is a free information machine. It's the last place we have on the planet that allows us to freely distribute thoughts and ideas.

All of a sudden everything is controlled and copyrighted. Imagine having to pay to use a smiley face, or to watch a you tube clip. All the websites that would get shut down because they have an image a corporation deems "theirs".

Every little piece of freedom we chip off of the internet adds up.

Copyright and intellectual property laws predate the Internet by quite a number of decades, so that doesn't actually answer the question or even come close. You are claiming special privilege for the Internet, and I am asking you to justify that on rational grounds. Spouting ideology is not justifying it on rational grounds, I am afraid.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

So if you design something - say, a new laptop or mobile phone - and I break into your office, photocopy the design and launch an identical product, I haven't stolen it off you? I'd say that's a fairly ridiculous premise and I can't see it standing up in a court of law...

Yes, but you're passing it off as your own for profit, which is the only really problem in that situation.. If i download a copy of a game, and play it by myself, and delete it when I'm done, it's not the same as actually stealing.

It'd be as if I took the prototype laptop, copied it part for part, and rebuilt it by myself, and then used it for myself.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Change "pirating the game" to "shoplifting" and hopefully you see the flaw in that analogy. Your claim of equality of monetary loss, meanwhile, is similarly flawed - in the latter case, the developer/publisher retains the licence to use the software which it can sell to another potential customer, thus cancelling out the loss. In the former, the developer/publisher cannot do that as the product is beyond their ownership - they can no longer exercise their lawful proprietary claim over it, and hence it has been stolen from them. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you have a hard time arguing it's not a duck. Same applies with this and calling it theft.

Except again, shoplifting involves the actual physical removal of an item, and the lack of the item after. Not to mention, each game has it's own specific license code in the form of a CD key, which is paid for on the initial purchase. If that copy of the game is say, lent to a friend , under your definition he has just committed piracy and should be punished, even though he hasn't stolen a physical copy of the game.

Which is why it's called file SHARING. The original uploaders of cracked and pirated versions of games don't make a profit. Technically they're sharing it.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I didn't say that. With respect, that is a prime example of putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying that a general statement, cause it seems to be the notion of a lot of people who support SOPA.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Copyright and intellectual property laws predate the Internet by quite a number of decades, so that doesn't actually answer the question or even come close. You are claiming special privilege for the Internet, and I am asking you to justify that on rational grounds. Spouting ideology is not justifying it on rational grounds, I am afraid.

Except again, that's not what this bill is against. When they say copy right infringement, they don't mean ideoligcal theft, they mean "file sharing." And they want the power to deem any site that allows any type of file sharing to be illegal under "copy right infringement". So if someone on TeenHelp shared a file with us, they can label the site as a possible point from which piracy occurs, and they can have it shut down. And no one would be able to say otherwise.

I'm not claiming special privilege for anything. I'm claiming the right to have a right to free speech that doens't require a payment everytime I want to exercise it.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Yes, but you're passing it off as your own for profit, which is the only really problem in that situation.. If i download a copy of a game, and play it by myself, and delete it when I'm done, it's not the same as actually stealing.

It'd be as if I took the prototype laptop, copied it part for part, and rebuilt it by myself, and then used it for myself.

Except that in doing the above, you have gained possession or usage of an item without paying for it and by any definition that is stealing.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except again, shoplifting involves the actual physical removal of an item, and the lack of the item after. Not to mention, each game has it's own specific license code in the form of a CD key, which is paid for on the initial purchase. If that copy of the game is say, lent to a friend , under your definition he has just committed piracy and should be punished, even though he hasn't stolen a physical copy of the game.

No, because in that instance only one person can use that copy of the media at a time, thus using the licence lawfully. With cracked or pirated software it is often this licence function which is disabled in order to allow its usage across a range of machines, and given that the licence is the means by which developers/publishers exercise their proprietary interest over their products, that is an act of unlawful deprivation of property rights. Under most jurisdictions, that's theft.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Which is why it's called file SHARING. The original uploaders of cracked and pirated versions of games don't make a profit. Technically they're sharing it.

Except that, as I pointed out above, by cracking/pirating the software they are depriving the developer/publisher of their lawful proprietary interest, and that is still a form of theft. Whether or not they make a profit from it is irrelevant, just as it would be were a thief to break into someone's house, steal the TV and keep it for their own. The use of euphemistic language does not change the nature of the beast.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except again, that's not what this bill is against. When they say copy right infringement, they don't mean ideoligcal theft, they mean "file sharing." And they want the power to deem any site that allows any type of file sharing to be illegal under "copy right infringement". So if someone on TeenHelp shared a file with us, they can label the site as a possible point from which piracy occurs, and they can have it shut down. And no one would be able to say otherwise.

If the material is originally under lawful copyright, and a breach of that copyright has enabled it to be shared, then I don't see why it is a problem in such instances. An offence has already taken place, and the site is being used as a facilitator of said offence in that example. It's no different to going after a "fence" in the real world. I agree that the blanket nature in which this provision, as currently drafted, is bordering on absurd and that this particular Bill as a result is a mess, but unlike yourself I do not see why the notion itself of having legislation to protect copyright when it is genuinely being infringed is such a major problem. Bear in mind, they would have to demonstrate this to a court in order to get any kind of closure order in the first place.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm not claiming special privilege for anything. I'm claiming the right to have a right to free speech that doens't require a payment everytime I want to exercise it.

The right to free speech and the right to have access to someone else's products which are on general sale without paying for them are not one and the same. If the company in question consents to them being provided for general release without payment then that is their choice and is a different matter altogether. The First Amendment does not, and was never intended to, envisage situations such as Internet piracy and attempting to use it in such a manner is in my view an unjustified manipulation of arguably your country's most important legal document.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Except that in doing the above, you have gained possession or usage of an item without paying for it and by any definition that is stealing.

How is getting something without paying for it by any definition, stealing?

Originally Posted by dr2005

No, because in that instance only one person can use that copy of the media at a time, thus using the licence lawfully. With cracked or pirated software it is often this licence function which is disabled in order to allow its usage across a range of machines, and given that the licence is the means by which developers/publishers exercise their proprietary interest over their products, that is an act of unlawful deprivation of property rights. Under most jurisdictions, that's theft.

Alright, then how about video game stores, or people, that sell used games? None of the money from a used sale goes to the company that made the game, and the game can be sold one or more times depending on where it ends up and who possess it. That's okay though?

Originally Posted by dr2005

Except that, as I pointed out above, by cracking/pirating the software they are depriving the developer/publisher of their lawful proprietary interest, and that is still a form of theft. Whether or not they make a profit from it is irrelevant, just as it would be were a thief to break into someone's house, steal the TV and keep it for their own. The use of euphemistic language does not change the nature of the beast.

Except again, you're entire theory requires that an object actually be physically removed, changing physical ownership which simply isn't happening, and therefor, is not the same as stealing.

Originally Posted by dr2005

If the material is originally under lawful copyright, and a breach of that copyright has enabled it to be shared, then I don't see why it is a problem in such instances. An offence has already taken place, and the site is being used as a facilitator of said offence in that example. It's no different to going after a "fence" in the real world. I agree that the blanket nature in which this provision, as currently drafted, is bordering on absurd and that this particular Bill as a result is a mess, but unlike yourself I do not see why the notion itself of having legislation to protect copyright when it is genuinely being infringed is such a major problem. Bear in mind, they would have to demonstrate this to a court in order to get any kind of closure order in the first place.

Look, like I said, if they were trying to pass the game off as their own work, or selling digital copies they cracked for profit, then I'd have a problem. But again, there's a slippery slope when it comes to defining at what point sharing should be punishable by law.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The right to free speech and the right to have access to someone else's products which are on general sale without paying for them are not one and the same. If the company in question consents to them being provided for general release without payment then that is their choice and is a different matter altogether. The First Amendment does not, and was never intended to, envisage situations such as Internet piracy and attempting to use it in such a manner is in my view an unjustified manipulation of arguably your country's most important legal document.

Alright, I didn't mean to come off as saying that downright stealing should be protected under the 1st, but the idea of giving big business the right to target websites at at will under a faulty definition of stealing that THEY can define is just absurd, like you said above.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

How is getting something without paying for it by any definition, stealing?

If it's originally for sale, and not as a gift, then taking it without paying is stealing. That's a pretty basic principle.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Alright, then how about video game stores, or people, that sell used games? None of the money from a used sale goes to the company that made the game, and the game can be sold one or more times depending on where it ends up and who possess it. That's okay though?

Again, the licence to use it transfers with the game (hence the installer requiring you to read and agree to the End User Licence Agreement), so the sale is that of the licence to use the enclosed software. So again, that is a different situation to piracy.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except again, you're entire theory requires that an object actually be physically removed, changing physical ownership which simply isn't happening, and therefor, is not the same as stealing.

By breaking the link between the licence and the software, which is what tends to happen with such file-sharing enterprises, you are changing the physical ownership of the software. Prior to the crack, you use the software purely subject to the terms of the licence and so you have been granted a right to use it by the original owner. After the crack, you are passing the software off as your own property. You have, in effect, usurped the developer/publisher and - as I seem to be saying quite a bit now - that is stealing.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Look, like I said, if they were trying to pass the game off as their own work, or selling digital copies they cracked for profit, then I'd have a problem. But again, there's a slippery slope when it comes to defining at what point sharing should be punishable by law.

As I've said above, once you cross the line of rendering the licence obsolete, you've entered the realm of passing it off as your own property (even if you do so only for personal gain) and that's when it becomes theft.

[Iridescence]

Oh SOPA. I remember that

I went on Tumblr, and every thing was censored, I was like "What the fuck o_O"

I seriously hope they pull their heads out of their asses, this is utter bullshit.

[Cosmo]

If SOPA is passed, it'll be the end of the internet.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Here's why SOPA is stupid: it gives corporations the power to essentially blacklist (e.g. remove from public availability) ANY website that has ONE piece of content that infringes their copyright. In other words, if this law passes, and some record label finds a song (just ONE) on YouTube that wasn't an authorized use, they get to demand that internet service providers make it so that the public can't access the site, and they can make it so that the payment providers (paypal, mastercard, whoever processes payments for the site) cancels the website's account. And there's no verification--it just happens, EVEN if you didn't violate anybody's copyright at all. Tell me that's not extreme. It's RIDICULOUS that a company would want to take down a whole site just because of one piece of copyrighted content. That's just wrong.

[Cosmo]

Oh, you linked to a ThePirateBay page on your facebook wall?

Unfortunately, facebook.com will now be removed from the internet. Guess you're sorry for posting that link now huh?

[Sythan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

You know what's fucked up? A lot of the torrent software was actually made and advertised by the very same corporations that are pushing for SOPA to pass.

[Loving Linux Penguin]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Oh, you linked to a ThePirateBay page on your facebook wall?

Unfortunately, facebook.com will now be removed from the internet. Guess you're sorry for posting that link now huh?

That's essentially the idea. The good news is that it's not actually a total removal--it's a DNS redirect. For those of you who don't know how that works, I'll try to summarize.

Web browsers don't know how to read a web address like "http://www.teenhelp.org" or "http://www.youtube.com". They know how to read a unique numeric code. So when you type a URL into your address bar, your browser contacts a server (usually managed by the company that you buy your internet connection from), which gives the browser that unique numeric code (called an IP address), and then it takes you to the correct address. It's all instintaneous and virtually seamless. Under SOPA, a site with unathorized copyrighted content wouldn't actually be taken down. Instead, all of the internet service providers would be required by law to change the numeric code that they send the browser, so that it is instead directed to a page saying that the site is no longer available due to copyright infringement. But it's not as effective as the entertainment industry could hope for--as you could still get to the actual site by typing it's REAL numeric code into your browser instead of it's URL.