SOPA MUST BE STOPPED

Except give ways to fight "international" copyright pirates. That was SOPA's intent, not domestic but foreign copyright violators.

 

House Leader Harry Reid as announced that he will NOT bring SOPA to a floor vote next week. Says far to many defections among both Republicans and Democrats to get it to pass as written. Business Week just released this detailed report.

See http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LY2FJ81A1I4H01-3JKFE33ANFPN5UNA7NB97PPLT5

 

Well that sucks.

 

There are laws to combat that and they were recently used against Megadownload.com...

Well you know this move was to lull the opposition into thinking the bill is dead.
Anybody who has more than three brain cells to communicate with each other knows the bill will be ether reintroduced later in the year under a different name or will be broken up into it's component parts and passed within other bills.

We already have sufficient laws to deal with this problem.

 

Read this for a simple explanation of SOPA

The original intent of the bill was to require sites to "not provide services" to international piracy sites. It was mainly intended for the search engines like Bing, Google, Yahoo, Duck Duck, and all the others to not list piracy sites in their searches, and companies like Paypal not to process payments for those sites. While current laws are sufficient to protect stateside media from stateside copyright violations, the problem comes from stateside media copyrighted material stolen by FOREIGN sites. The bill as originally proposed would allow the US to get court orders to "de-list" any offending foreign sites from search engines, and require site owners to remove links to these sites as well as financial sites not to process payments to and from these sites.

That is what SOPA does.




Why the Hubbub?

Internet freedom fighters see this as the "slippery slope" whereby some of the fine print in SOPA could be used in nefarious ways within the US in future laws. I agree that the language needs to be clarified to remove any doubt about the international aim of the legislation, but the lines between the international intent of the bill and domestic concerns are also intentionally blurred by opponents. You can read the comments and see very few understand what SOPA is.

The Solution

Clarify the bill so that it is easier to understand and removes any ambiguous language where restrictions don't specifically repeat "international" in their descriptions.

 

There are UN treaties to deal with this.
The law as it's advertised is unnecessary.

Have you ever noticed........
When this government wants to restrict freedom and impose new laws they stop enforcing related laws for a time.

 

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

" If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

" Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

" The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

""Whatever the immediate gains and losses, the dangers to our safety arising from political suppression are always greater than the dangers to the safety resulting from political freedom. Suppression is always foolish. Freedom is always wise."

"“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

 

Could you kindly clarify?

Its my understanding that megaupload.com was breaking copyright law in the U.S. bigtime. Apparently they also broke NZ law too. Why was it wrong to shut them down?

Other sites such as this have been shut down in the past.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

From what I've read, the FBI managed to get megaupload.com because some of their servers were in the USA. It would have been more difficult to get them on anything if all their servers and people were elsewhere. With SOPA they would have been able to order ISPs etc in the US to block access to them. It's hard to say how effective that would be.

The US could also shut down the megaupload.com domain although I think they can do that now without SOPA because the US government effectively controls the .com top level domain.

These guys were sure making lots of money. There can't be that many $30 million houses in New Zealand.

Here's some of his cars being hauled away.

http://www.gtspirit.com/2012/01/20/update-megaupload-founder-kim-schmitz-cars-being-seized/
(If you read the title literally, it raises the question "his car's what was being seized?")

Another article quotes a neighbor saying how she heard a helicopter and thought it was just this guy going out for breakfast in his helicopter as he often does until she realized it was the police helicopter.

 

Have you ever worked in Hollywood? I spent most of my adult career there. When the "media moguls" want something, they do not take "no" for an answer. In their world, there is no such thing as the word "compromise." They will be back next Congress with an even more onerous legislative agenda. From this they have learned the power of the Internet and now will likely seek a way to have total control over every aspect of the Internet -- or at least try -- and try -- etc.

 

They certainly were unprepared for the 'flash mob'--but will be ready next time. That's good-- information based on fact is always a good thing and empowers everyone. I think they expected a few factual editorials to trump rumor and fear.

BTW, its not at all clear the bills are dead--they are delayed at moment pending rewording.

They definitely need some work, but copyright protection is worth the trouble.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

You are completely right in your perceptions on the "Media Moguls". The sheeple in this country don't know/don't care who actually controls these media outlets or the agenda they try to promote. The Founding Fathers never have conceived in their time that corporations would dominate the ownership of the Press as they do so today.

"GE, General Electric is a true behemoth: the conglomerate is the world’s third largest company with market capitalization of nearly $370 billion and annual revenue of $173 billion (2007). The company produces practically everything – from aircraft engine to locomotives to medical devices.

GE’s media holding includes television networks NBC and Telemundo, 27 television stations in the United States and many cable TV networks, including the History Channel, A&E, and Sci Fi Channel. It also owns the popular web-based TV website Hulu."



"Time Warner, is the world’s largest media and entertainment company – it owns major operations in film, TV, print, Internet, and telecommunications. Time Warner has an annual revenue of $50.5 billion (2008) – the equivalent of the entire GDP of Luxembourg.

Like cartoons? Time Warner’s got you covered with Cartoon Network and Adult Swim. Classic movies? Check (Turner Classic Movies). And who can forget CNN and Headline News? Both are Time Warner properties. (Note: CW is co-owned by Time Warner and CBS)."



"You may associate it with amusement parks, but The Walt Disney Company has grown to be one of the world’s largest media and entertainment corporation since its founding as an animation studio by brothers Walt and Roy Disney in 1923.

The Walt Disney Company owns the ABC television network, with more 200 affiliated stations reaching nearly 100% of all U.S. television market, as well as dozens of niche cable networks. True to its cartoon animation origin, Disney captures its viewers early – it counts millions of young children as its audience with kids channels like the Disney Channel."



"Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation is a behemoth: it is the largest media company in the world by market capitalization ($38 billion). For most people, the conservative news channel Fox comes foremost to mind when asked what they think of Murdoch’s media empire – but the company’s holding is far larger: it includes Asia’s Star TV Network, the National Geographic Channel and even the iconic TV Guide network.

Don’t watch TV? Even if you prefer to browse the Internet, most likely you’ve visited News Corp’s property, which include Hulu (owned in partnership with GE through its subsidiary NBC Universal) and the social networking giant MySpace."


"CBS (which used to stand for the Columbia Broadcasting System) is not sometimes called the Tiffany Network for nothing: the company is known for its high programming quality. It is currently the most watched television network in the United States, and reached more than 103 million homes in the country.

Both CBS and Viacom are owned by multi-billionaire Sumner "content is king" Redstone, through his holding company National Amusements."



"Viacon stands for "Video and Audio Communication" – and true to that name, the company owns a large number of cable and satellite television networks (the company was split from CBS Corporation in 2005, though both have the same majority owner).

In 2007, Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement and recently a federal judge granted Viacom’s request for data of all YouTube users. The blogosphere has since called for a boycott of all Viacom properties – so that means no MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon or – gasp – Comedy Central for you!"



"Five media conglomerates � Viacom/CBS, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp. and NBC/GE � control the big four networks, 80 percent of the primetime television market share, most cable channels, as well as vast holdings in radio, publishing, movie studios, music, Internet and other sectors."



"The total worth of the publicly owned airwaves that U.S. broadcasters utilize has been valued at $367 billion -- more than the GDP of many nations � but the public has never been paid a dime in return. Now, these conglomerates claim they can't afford to be accountable to the public interest."



"Consolidation is killing local media choices. Since 1975, two-thirds of newspaper owners have disappeared, and one-third of television owners have vanished. There are less than 300 unique owners of the nation's 1,500 daily newspapers, and more than half of all U.S. markets are dominated by one paper."



"Moreover, the number of radio station owners has plummeted by 35 percent since 1996, when ownership rules were gutted. That year, the largest radio owners controlled fewer than 65 stations; today, radio giant Clear Channel alone owns over 1,100."


:Big Media wants the FCC to lift the restrictions on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership and allow one company to own two or more television stations in a single market. If the rules are changed, the largest conglomerates will immediately begin swapping newspaper and television properties. Then the radio giants like Clear Channel will begin selling off their already consolidated radio holdings for billions to the other dominant companies, creating local and regional media fiefdoms."



"If FCC Chairman Kevin Martin tries to push through changes similar to those rejected in 2003, one company could potentially own the major daily newspaper, eight radio stations and three television stations in the same town. Once the digital television transition is completed in 2009 � allowing stations to broadcast multiple signals � one company could control 12 or even 18 television channels in a single city."





Since I am sure everyone will agree information is a very powerful force in today's World. It looks like the volume/accuracy of the information provided to the American sheeple in today's World might not be looked at with a Journalist's perspective on the story, but might just have a corporate slant to it. I am sure even Ray Charles can see from those numbers posted above the chance sure is possible. Corporations are there to make a profit and I am sure certain stories that cut into said bottom line might just be left out of the coverage or given a different slant then what the truth really is.



The Internet is probably the last refuge of actual Freedom of the Press that is left in this country. The corporations missed the boat on this 1 and sure want to make up for lost time. Censorship is never a good thing in any way shape or form in any society. I can give "Dutch" credit for 1 thing he was absolutely right about when he snapped off the statement: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'



Why is it that the same folks who don't want a large presence of Government regulations in the marketplace are pushing so hard to get exactly what they have been campaigning against all of this time? The Right to have Freedom of Speech in this country has has come at a very high price, paid in blood by many people in this Country's history. Any invasion of that Right no matter how the argument is put forth by it's proponents, should be sent to the recycle bin, IMO.

 

SOPA goes much further than existing law, current laws put the burden of locating offenders on police and copywright owners and when those direct offenders are caught; they pay the price.
With SOPA the burden to find pirated property is put onto the host that shares said property eg. Google or YouTube.
So if pirated property is found on these sites the Host and the offender pays the fines and both can do Jail time.

Pirates Bay was a domain operated by Pirates and contained almost exclusively pirated content so it was an easy take down. In the case of Youtube they would have to go through every video and make sure no images or music are ripped, that means even a case of someone talking on a video while a TV show is playing in the background would need to be removed. Just the music aspect alone would probably invalidate half of you tube videos under SOPA and sites like this one would have to go throught every picture every avatar and even the links to make sure nothing violates Sopa or they would be prosecuted.

 

It's never going to happen. This goes way beyond <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> and way beyond <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1Hollywood</ST1</st1:City>
I don't know of anything that makes young people passionate today except for the Internet! If they mess with the Internet it will open a flood gate of angry youth who will literally destroy <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1Hollywood</ST1</st1:City>. Did you see the Story on CNN about "Anonymous"? CNN could not even get one police officer to come on TV to talk about them; the police said they feared for the life of any officer sent and on top of that no one would volunteer to do it.<O</O
Just think how much bigger "Anonymous" would be if Hollywood got SOPA passed and how many other groups would spring up world wide and just think of what they would do, they would make Today’s Piracy and hacking seem like picnic.<O</O

 

The only content that would be on the Internet the day after these BS laws would take affect would be owned by corporations. No web site would go thru all of the BS to search it's entire database and look at every single file in there to find copy write infringement in any form, picture, text or music. It would be too time consuming, cost way too much for that to happen. I am sure this law would also apply to coping text from Internet corporate owned Web sites and then pasting that text on to another site.
Sounds like a way to choke off Freedom of Speech to me by going thru the backdoor, but I am sure those Titians of the Media giants, have my best interest at heart when making their decisions.