[Wildcatk23]

Millions of Americans oppose SOPA and PIPA because these bills would censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the U.S.

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

[Aslan]

So what's the positives of this bill? Are there any?

[nky]

It's goal is to curb online piracy. [Image: http://www.google.com/url?source=imgland...8IbO-RPdew]

[nky]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...lenews_wsj

Stop Online Piracy Act, known as SOPA, in the House and sister legislation called the Protect IP [Intellectual Property] Act, or PIPA, in the Senate. Both are designed to tackle the problem of foreign-based websites that sell pirated movies, music and other products.

[NothingTrivial]

It surprises me something like these weren't brought up sooner than now.

[Wildcatk23]

[Image: http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.....jpg?w=620]

[Wildcatk23]

Basically it will censor the Internet and the government can block anything they please.

[Wildcatk23]

Mark Zuckerberg:

The internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can't let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the internet's development. Facebook opposes SOPA and PIPA, and we will continue to oppose any laws that will hurt the internet.

The world today needs political leaders who are pro-internet. We have been working with many of these folks for months on better alternatives to these current proposals. I encourage you to learn more about these issues and tell your congressmen that you want them to be pro-internet.

You can read more about our views here: https://www.facebook.com/FacebookDC?sk=a...9750453932.

[Mr. Pike Central]

No.

[nky]

[Image: http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.....jpg?w=620]

B est thing I've seen all day. They could close that site for ever

[nky]

Basically it will censor the Internet and the government can block anything they please.

at least those sites that violate the copyrights laws.

[LWC]

Obviously there has to be more to it than just to stop people from watching pirated movies and stuff.

With the obvious backlash many government official will and are receiving, what do they gain? Why risk re-election or backlash if all you are going to do is stop people from making copies of movies, etc...

[HawksRule]

‎[notice: This comment has been found in violation of h.r. 3261, s.o.p.a. And has been removed]

[Wildcatk23]

B est thing I've seen all day. They could close that site for ever

You would support this bill. Since your boy from texas wrote it. If it was written buy a liberal you would be all over this "Obama is Communist".

Come on,

[Wildcatk23]

Obviously there has to be more to it than just to stop people from watching pirated movies and stuff.

With the obvious backlash many government official will and are receiving, what do they gain? Why risk re-election or backlash if all you are going to do is stop people from making copies of movies, etc...

The government will control the internet. It's crazy to even think about.

The bills currently under consideration in Congress were intended to combat the theft of copyrighted materials by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites that allow for the distribution of stolen materials. They would cut off payment processors like PayPal that handle transactions.

The bills would also allow private citizens and companies to sue to stop what they believed to be theft of protected content. Those and other provisions set off fierce opposition among Internet companies, technology investors and free speech advocates, who said the bills would stifle online innovation, violate the First Amendment and even compromise national security by undermining the integrity of the Internet’s naming system.

[NothingTrivial]

The idea behind it is a good one in principal. The wording and the way it will work is absolutely crazy.

[LWC]

The government will control the internet. It's crazy to even think about.

Again, why would many of these people risk re-election if this bill is bad for everyone but the government. If EVERYONE hates it, then they will not vote for the people who support it. Why would they risk it?

[TheRealVille]

WASHINGTON — Internet protests on Wednesday quickly cut into Congressional support for anti-Web piracy measures as lawmakers abandoned and rethought their backing for legislation that pitted new media interests against some of the most powerful old-line commercial interests in Washington.
Readers’ Comments
"Piracy amounts to a small loss to huge companies. Why should they diminish our legal freedoms? It's not worth it."
sean travis, hyde park, ny
Read Full Comment »
Post a Comment »
A freshman senator, Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising Republican star, was first out of the starting gate Wednesday morning with his announcement that he would no longer back anti-Internet piracy legislation he had co-sponsored. Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who heads the campaign operation for his party, quickly followed suit and urged Congress take more time to study the measure that had been set for a test vote next week.

Mr. Cornyn posted on his Facebook page that it was “better to get this done right rather than fast and wrong. Stealing content is theft, plain and simple, but concerns about unintended damage to the Internet and innovation in the tech sector require a more thoughtful balance, which will take more time.”

Their decisions came after some Web pages were shut down Wednesday to protest two separate bills, the Stop On-line Piracy Act in the House, written by Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, drafted by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Members of Congress, many of whom are grappling with the issues posed by the explosion in new media and social Web sites, appeared caught off guard by the backlash to what had been a relatively obscure piece of legislation to many of them. The Internet sensibility of the Senate was represented a few years ago in remarks by the late Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who called the Internet “not a big truck” but a “series of tubes” — an observation enshrined in the Net Hall of Shame.

The backlash to the pending legislation had caused the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to go dark. Google’s home page had a black banner across its home page that leads to pointed information blasting the bills.

Such new-media lobbying was having an impact.

“As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs ,Florida jobs,” Mr. Rubio wrote on his Facebook page. “However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/techno....html?_r=1

[LWC]

^Okay, so the intention of the bill was good, but the wording was bad. NothingTrivial hit the nail on the head.

[LWC]

A buddy of mine sent me this:

Okay, here's how I understand it (though admittedly I haven't been following it the best, I think that also gives me a more unbiased perspective):

Basically, because the internet is so greatly contributing to all the illegal sharing of copyrighted material (movies, music, pictures, etc), many lobbyists for those industries proposed this bill that would ban the domain names of any website found to be promoting the illegal gathering of such material. That means Google.com, Wikipedia.org, Facebook.com, etc, could all go down (they'd still be accessible, though only by their IP addresses and not their domain names)... this includes any website that provides unmoderated user-submitted content (like Facebook), etc. Even if a website doesn't HOST an illegal, say, movie, if it provides access to it through some kind of search engine, it would still qualify for being banned>

The reason the bill has gotten so far (though I suspect it's being overblown a little bit by the media/social networks) is in-part due to the teaming together of various companies within the entertainment industry who have lobbyists to campaign for the bill.

Pretty well unbiased answer to the situation.

[Wildcatk23]

A buddy of mine sent me this:



Pretty well unbiased answer to the situation.

Which would be just awful.

[Wildcatk23]

Well you could say goodbye to BGR until another Forum Company was produced, VBulletin would be one of the first things to go.

Then YouTube, Facebook, Google, PayPal, Wikipedia so on so forth.

[Image: http://t.qkme.me/35nnha.jpg]

[Wildcatk23]

[Image: http://4.imgland.net/esmi.jpg]

[TheRealVille]

^Okay, so the intention of the bill was good, but the wording was bad. NothingTrivial hit the nail on the head.

That's the way I see it. While the intent is good, in stopping internet piracy, it will drag a bunch of other stuff down with it.

[toussaints]

this bill has good intentions and it's extremely tough to stop piracy online, but it will be one major pain in the ass if it does go through.

that and there are bigger issues that need to be addressed before anti-piracy

[LWC]

So is everyone agreed that Washington has a right to stop online piracy, but they need to find a better way to go about it?

Don't get me wrong, I might have enjoyed a few movies that I watched online while they were in theatres, maybe, not saying I did, but maybe. However, I know at some point the "gravy train" is going to stop, we all know it.

[vundy33]

at least those sites that violate the copyrights laws.

Which is pretty much every site on the web, lol..

[RunItUpTheGut]

If retards would quit downloading music and movies than we wouldnt be in this situation.
I dont see the harm in indiviuals posting pictures or articles from other sites without sourcing them since there not trying to get any monetary gain, however downloading stuff that you should be buying when you know its wrong is the complete intent of this bill.
These types of bills needs to be modified greatly. Instead of punishing harmless sites like google and facebook, they need to target things such as piratebay and even wikipedia that does post stuff without consent.

[Wildcatk23]

I remember a website i payed a 40$ one time charge. Some UK company. I downloaded over 300 movies in 4 months. They didn't have movies that was in theater like Torrents but man if it wasn't the best website on the planet. All DVD quality in 700mb AVI files. 10meg Download speeds. You couldn't beat it. Unfortunately that website is now shutdown and i have to torrent Crap, And get hate mail from Suddenlink and Warner Bros

[LWC]

^How did you get time to watch 300 movies? lol