US NFers: Say NO to SOPA and PIPA!

[Guest guest4729]

So as some of you may know, the United States Congress is passing around two bills: PIPA and SOPA. I am absolutely by no means any expert on law or these types of things, but I know internet censorship like this should NOT be happening in the U.S.

How SOPA/PIPA Can Affect You

SOPA and PIPA Explained in Plain English

Please consider calling your local representatives, signing online petitions, spreading the word and just generally making your voice heard.

The future of the internet in the US could very well depend on it.

[verin]

Protest!

[Denny]

Europeans should be aware of ACTA which is a very similar bad law soon being voted for in the European Parliament. More below on SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.

http://www.laquadrature.net/

[Matow]

I was popping on to mention this - a few websites are being taken down to protest SOPA, the most notable being:

Reddit

English Wikipedia

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I frequent

[scarletleavy]

I was popping on to mention this - a few websites are being taken down to protest SOPA, the most notable being:

Reddit

English Wikipedia

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I frequent

I have a feeling today is going to be a super productive day at work for redditors world wide.

[bigm141414]

I was popping on to mention this - a few websites are being taken down to protest SOPA, the most notable being:

Reddit

English Wikipedia

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I frequent

Don't forget Boing Boing. I know my productivity will shoot through the roof today. Thankfully NF didn't go down or else I might have finished all of my projects

[aj_rock]

All the big sites went down as scheduled. My money says that most of the action we saw today in opposition of the bill was because of wikipedia and google.

Why? Because those are the two sites most frequented by people who wouldn't already be aware of SOPA.

I think after today, we can all see exactly how much political power these two websites have, without even throwing money into the mix...

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

12 senators withdrew support! I had my avatar here and on facebook yesterday set as a SOPA/PIPA awareness picture.

[Guest guest4729]

12 senators withdrew support! I had my avatar here and on facebook yesterday set as a SOPA/PIPA awareness picture.

That is SUPER duper awesome.

[Oz.]

Been doing some reading, and someone I know far more intelligent than me pointed this out:

""""""

This is just a big farce from the likes of wiki and google to avert attention away from their censorship and restrictions on free speech. 99% of what has been said about SOPA and PIPA has been whipped up by the freetards and the corporate overlords who already practice wholesale restrictions of your internet viewing experience.

There is also the issue of the freetards and kiddies not being able to work out the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of actions. Speech is something you say Taking other people's stuff isn't you saying something

As for saying the internet will become more locked down... well you've not got freedom of speech here. I can't say what I want as someone might press the report button and the moderators might edit/delete my post or even ban me. Everyone here seems happy to live that way so you must have all accepted your restrictions on free speech already. So why whine now?

Wikipedia and their band of editors are some of the worst. If a page doesn't conform to their version of reality it gets edited or removed. They are also constantly removing 'old' pages. So much for wikipedia being a one stop source for all and unbiased information on the internet.

SOPA would not have allowed someone to shut down youtoob. That is just fanciful blitherings from the sort of people who in one breath berate hollywood, microsoft, adobe etc.. and in the next ask where they can download the latest movies and photoshop for free. You hate these companies yet will suckle on their products.

What about the bloggers claims that they will get shut down? Hmm... copying huge sections of someone elses work isn't really expressing your personal views, its simply copying. SOPA and PIPA just stops you copying, not saying something contraversial.

Anyway... protection of IP is actually part of the 1948 UN declaration of human rights. And contraty to freetard opinion protection of design promotes innovation. Imagine if Adire audio had not protected the motor design they used in the brahma (I think) and licensed to RE for the XXX. At the time everyone was 'oh wow this is the best sub evar!!!'. Now if every other company had simply copied it and sold it cheaper everyone would have the best sub evar and what would be the point developing something new? But because the design was protected the other sub companies had to put their thinking caps on and design something different and possibly better.

No protection = imitation not innovation"""""

Basically a link to copyrighted material is fine, but a link to a website that does not have permission to use copyrighted material can be shut down. Quite appropriately.

Oz.

[msuroo]

Scott Adams (Dilbert author) wrote a great blog post regarding SOPA, it's intent, and what the real consequences would be (hint: nobody really knows). It is for that reason (the not knowing what would really happen part), that he opposed the bill, not because it would cause the government to shut down the internet.

[Guest guest4729]

Been doing some reading, and someone I know far more intelligent than me pointed this out:

""""""

This is just a big farce from the likes of wiki and google to avert attention away from their censorship and restrictions on free speech. 99% of what has been said about SOPA and PIPA has been whipped up by the freetards and the corporate overlords who already practice wholesale restrictions of your internet viewing experience.

There is also the issue of the freetards and kiddies not being able to work out the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of actions. Speech is something you say Taking other people's stuff isn't you saying something

As for saying the internet will become more locked down... well you've not got freedom of speech here. I can't say what I want as someone might press the report button and the moderators might edit/delete my post or even ban me. Everyone here seems happy to live that way so you must have all accepted your restrictions on free speech already. So why whine now?

Wikipedia and their band of editors are some of the worst. If a page doesn't conform to their version of reality it gets edited or removed. They are also constantly removing 'old' pages. So much for wikipedia being a one stop source for all and unbiased information on the internet.

SOPA would not have allowed someone to shut down youtoob. That is just fanciful blitherings from the sort of people who in one breath berate hollywood, microsoft, adobe etc.. and in the next ask where they can download the latest movies and photoshop for free. You hate these companies yet will suckle on their products.

What about the bloggers claims that they will get shut down? Hmm... copying huge sections of someone elses work isn't really expressing your personal views, its simply copying. SOPA and PIPA just stops you copying, not saying something contraversial.

Anyway... protection of IP is actually part of the 1948 UN declaration of human rights. And contraty to freetard opinion protection of design promotes innovation. Imagine if Adire audio had not protected the motor design they used in the brahma (I think) and licensed to RE for the XXX. At the time everyone was 'oh wow this is the best sub evar!!!'. Now if every other company had simply copied it and sold it cheaper everyone would have the best sub evar and what would be the point developing something new? But because the design was protected the other sub companies had to put their thinking caps on and design something different and possibly better.

No protection = imitation not innovation"""""

Basically a link to copyrighted material is fine, but a link to a website that does not have permission to use copyrighted material can be shut down. Quite appropriately.

Oz.

I do agree with some of those thing, yes. CLEARLY we will never have 100% freedom of speech. You can't go into a crowded movie theater and yell "FIRE!" or go onto an airplane and yell "OMG I FOUND A BOMB!" just like you can't threaten death or harass people on the internet. However, here's the thing: HOW DO YOU MODERATE THE ENTIRE INTERNET? Who is going to be hired to actually look into any and/or all of the claims of copyright infringements or who stole whose work? Do you really think they're going to sit there and try to figure out if Person A or Person B filmed [x] clip or took [y] picture?

As far as Wikipedia goes, CLEARLY they are also going to moderate things and might have a preference towards certain groups or whatever. Here's the thing: People shouldn't be using Wikipedia as their ONE AND ONLY source anyways. When I do research, I only check Wikipedia to get a general overview of a topic, theory or word. Then I use real books, educational resources, textbooks and other materials. By using information from multiple sources you can get a truer picture of whatever you're looking into.

I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm attacking you for your post, Oz, but just trying to state my opinion with what you posted.

[Oz.]

I do agree with some of those thing, yes. CLEARLY we will never have 100% freedom of speech. You can't go into a crowded movie theater and yell "FIRE!" or go onto an airplane and yell "OMG I FOUND A BOMB!" just like you can't threaten death or harass people on the internet. However, here's the thing: HOW DO YOU MODERATE THE ENTIRE INTERNET? Who is going to be hired to actually look into any and/or all of the claims of copyright infringements or who stole whose work? Do you really think they're going to sit there and try to figure out if Person A or Person B filmed [x] clip or took [y] picture?

As far as Wikipedia goes, CLEARLY they are also going to moderate things and might have a preference towards certain groups or whatever. Here's the thing: People shouldn't be using Wikipedia as their ONE AND ONLY source anyways. When I do research, I only check Wikipedia to get a general overview of a topic, theory or word. Then I use real books, educational resources, textbooks and other materials. By using information from multiple sources you can get a truer picture of whatever you're looking into.

I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm attacking you for your post, Oz, but just trying to state my opinion with what you posted.

Doesn't sound like you are attacking my post! I imagine the owners of the copyright will be the ones who will pass it on to government who will then look into it and instruct appropriate legal action.

It only matters if you as a website are hosting or displaying copyrighted material. Ie a link to Sky sports website is fine. but a link to a stream of live sky sports is clearly illegal. Its already illegal, but there is no enforcement on the person providing the link. Which is stupid its like saying this is how you murder someone and not being accountable for providing that information.

Wikipedia will have no issue anyway, as long as the material is not copyrighted by someone else, and if it is, they have permission to use it.

I honestly believe it will have a much lesser effect than Wikipedia and the like will make out to believe.

Google will be annoyed as you can basically use it to find copyrighted material illegally.

My issue with it, is that its very unclear in its rule.

Oz.

[Guest guest4729]

Doesn't sound like you are attacking my post! I imagine the owners of the copyright will be the ones who will pass it on to government who will then look into it and instruct appropriate legal action.

It only matters if you as a website are hosting or displaying copyrighted material. Ie a link to Sky sports website is fine. but a link to a stream of live sky sports is clearly illegal. Its already illegal, but there is no enforcement on the person providing the link. Which is stupid its like saying this is how you murder someone and not being accountable for providing that information.

Wikipedia will have no issue anyway, as long as the material is not copyrighted by someone else, and if it is, they have permission to use it.

I honestly believe it will have a much lesser effect than Wikipedia and the like will make out to believe.

Google will be annoyed as you can basically use it to find copyrighted material illegally.

My issue with it, is that its very unclear in its rule.

Oz.

I also dislike how unclear it is, and how it's hard to tell what, exactly, will happen because of it. Google will clearly have issues, but I think it's annoying that they will possibly be punished because of what other people do. There's just so many things about it that I don't like about it I just don't even know where to begin. Ugh.

[Atalan]

The biggest problem with SOPA/PIPA is they erode various rights guaranteed Americans in the Bill of Rights (mostly due process-related) despite already existing laws that can be used to arrest, cease and desist shut down website, and prosecute the owners of those websites as the shut down of megaupload.com and the arrest of their owners showed.

(Although, since New Zealand has non-extradition for their citizens and given how long the owners of that website lived in New Zealand, they seem to have missed the boat on protecting themselves legally by not acquiring New Zealand citizenship).