PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Hello

What's your opinion about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

I'm still trying to go into its details

It's important to soon pass some legislation that protects Copyrights/intellectual-property but Congress has to make sure it does'nt hurt legitamit businesses and people. Neither should the legislation be some deceitful way of Giving Government power to abuse and violate citizens rights for their own benifits. It looks like this current Bill can affect Free Speech, bring prosecution to legitamit businesses and give certain bussinesses and Governments too much power. Many of us hate pirating and other forms of crime but fear even more Governments and big bussinesses getting too much power (wich they already have so not giving them more is the better statement).

I would not trust the Congress we have at the moment to deal with such important issues since they are too Auction-based and only listen to the highest bidders. Congress has to be corrected before we go dealing with important issues like this.

there are already copywrite protection laws that are sufficient.
more laws will only create more confusion.

it doesn't matter what laws get passed if the courts interpret them in a way that benefits someone other than the one the law was designed(theoretically) to protect. just face it, the government CAN'T and WON'T protect you, except to keep trade flowing, the sewers flowing and possibly other country's blood flowing(in case of conflict). the sooner people get used to that, the sooner we can get to honest government.

the day that "online piracy acts" actaully work against anyone but the very stupid and those engaged in what was always considered "fair use", will be the day that ALL the Nigerian, Russian, Dutch, etc, email scammers are caught. so much energy applied to pointless tasks...

They need more and more excuses to clamp down on 'internet 1' in order to promote the 'need' for 'internet 2'.

...and I do NOT want to go into what I think internet 2 would look like.

Gary's right. There's already tons of laws that just need to be maintained rather than glomm on more and more legislation.

Congress is technically inept anyways, so I don't hold out much hope for this.

Greg

Exactly...More regulations to " help " these geniuses who already get paid to do a mediocre job makes little sense from an Americans POV.
We watched a financial crisis wreck the global economy and we had regulatory commissions, committees and tons of laws that prevent such activities and even make them a crime.
But our Gangsters...............ooops................I meant leaders distracted the real issues, used Bernie Madoff as a fall guy while the real criminals are recieving bail outs from their friends in DC, who then turn around and pass the Dodd Fag......sorry......I meant the Dodd Franki Act which are the very 2 criminals who oversaw the problems, but since they recieved beachfront property on the Irish coast and new sado masichism outfits to wear for his boyfriend, they didn;t notice the bankers were hedging their bets illegally, so the system failed.
So letting these guys go free and passing more regulations is what the elites want, they won;t get my vote, as a matter of fact it's my duty as a tax paying citizen to remove these worthless walking fecal enitites from DC and let some freshmen who want to prove themselves do those jobs.
We actually still have 3 years left to prosecute these dirtbags, and even if they get off the idea of them spending millionms just to defend themselves keep them busy enough in court to not screw anything else up....

Internet 2..??
Let me guess. taxes to save the Planet or something like that..?
More Gangster shit.

Sounddesigner wrote:It looks like this current Bill can affect Free Speech, bring prosecution to legitamit businesses and give certain bussinesses and Governments too much power.

I would appreciate if you could point me to some analysis of the actual Bill which conclude the above. Please no Google.com funded institutions like EFF etc.

Warp69 wrote:

Sounddesigner wrote:It looks like this current Bill can affect Free Speech, bring prosecution to legitamit businesses and give certain bussinesses and Governments too much power.

I would appreciate if you could point me to some analysis of the actual Bill which conclude the above. Please no Google.com funded institutions like EFF etc.

This is far bigger then just Google. Many organizations have analyzed the Bill and have all concluded the same thing "the Bill is too broad in language thus can hurt too many innocent people". More specific senarios need to be written into the Bill and better protection for Legit Businesses.
The Broad Bill needs to be more narrow and specific to ease fears.
This Bill can harm so many people and harm on many many levels that go from free-speech, to second-hand-online-markets and more.

Some opponents are who've given their Analysis :


The American Civil Liberties Union

The Global Network Initiative

Public Knowledge

Consumer Federation

Consumer Unions

Center for Democracy & Technology

(Consumer Federation and several others each wrote letters to Congress discussing some of the provisions of the Bill, can be read here - http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/sopa ).

the consumer groups comment on certain parts of the Bill here - http://consumerist.com/2011/11/consumer ... o-far.html


Apart from those Organizations many businesses Oppose it such as - LinkedIN, Mozilla, AOL, Google, Verizon, Facebook, Yahoo, eBay and Twitter. All of the major internet companies; many from silicon valley are against it as well as consumer elecronics associatoin and consumer-groups and more.

Warp, facebook, twitter, etc are some of our main tools for fighting Government corruption and police brutality as shown by the Occupy Wallstreet and other Movements around the world, so its no wonder Government wants to be able to cleverly go after them. Government knows it is impossible for those companies to stop piracy and other infringements.


From my personal experience ebay is against piracy and ebay does take steps to stop pirating its just not much they can do, but it can be deemed they have'nt done enough even in situations where they can't do much.

What the government deems as counterfit or infringing needs to be written out in a very very specific way and not left to their interpretation on a later day, nor the interpretation of IP owners nor the interpretation of Internet Service Providers on a Later day.


what about whistle-blowers who release government documents and videos to prove corruption in Government? This bill is a convenient way for government to shut down sites, search engines, isp, etc that lead to such exposure and excersise control for politcal reasons. They'll use that power to stop that wich exposes its corruption.


links in emails and text written on sites can get Social Network sites in trouble.

Secondary markets i.e forum-market places,legitimate student-to-student textbook exchange site, etc can be shut down without notice or approval from a judge. It would also make unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty up to five years in prison.

Here's a quote -
"But the types of content that would be prohibited under SOPA would also include amateur remix works, like YouTube covers of songs or mash-ups of movies. These works would be considered copyright violations, and not only could the creator of the work be legally vulnerable, but also could the host of the content. "



China and Iran are about Censorship, USA has always promoted Open Internet threw-out the world, if The USA starts Censoring for what appears to be Bogus reasons other countries may have no problem with blocking our websites that speak unfavorably of their politics.

The Bill has a good chance of passing since the supporters of the bill are the bigger donators to campaign funds for congress- U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Motion Picture Association of America, Independent Film & Television Alliance, National Association of Theatre Owners,consumer-groups ., National Music Publishers' Association.


Do you have links to analysis from totally neutral and non-biased source that states otherwise (good luck with finding that)? I've posted links from decent Organizations but I don't believe both sides arguemeents can be fully trusted that's why i state i would'nt want this Congress to handle any important issues of this day due to past policies that showed bias in favor of big business. All we can do is form an opinion off the little information both sides give us and from what the Bill state.

I'm all for tuffer penalties on pirates and blockin foreign websites that don't adhere to the rules but the rules appear as if they can be twisted to block or harm the innocent.

idk if those companies can truly be called a force against governbment corruption or just the other side of the same coin, but you can be sure that the moment someone in power starts doing something major that is all for your benefit is the moment that there is someone trying to take something from you.

Im well aware of your opinion, Sounddesigner, but I specifically asked for any analysis regarding SOPA and the following :

* Affects free speech
* bring prosecution to legitamit businesses
* give certain bussinesses and Governments too much power

I have not yet seen any report that suggest the above - that's the reason why I asked the question.

The bill would allow rights holders to send notices to payment processors and advertisingnetworks, ordering them to cut off funding to sites the rights holders believe are “dedicated to thetheft of U.S. property.” ..................... This means that an entirely legitimate site can be defunded, and even enjoinedentirely, merely because a few of its users may have infringed.

This is apparently a much loved conclusion for those who oppose the Bill. I would suggest that you actual read the Bill yourself, since it actual outlines the procedure :

* A rights holder sends a notice, that a site dedicated to copyright infringement is using the payment processors or advertising networks services.
* They (payment processors or advertising networks) fail to comply.
* The rights holder files a lawsuit under the bill against them.
* It requests, and the court grants, an order to comply against the payment processors or advertising networks.
* They still fail to comply.
* The rights holder requests the court to order them to show cause why it has not complied.

Then, and only then can the court enjoin the payment processors or advertising networks to comply and/or impose monetary sanctions for knowing and willing failure to comply.

And yet - the above procedure (worst case scenario - the offending site dedicated to copyright infringement can send counter notices, which they also failed to do in the above procedure) translates to :

The bill would allow rights holders to send notices to payment processors and advertisingnetworks, ordering them to cut off funding to sites the rights holders believe are “dedicated to thetheft of U.S. property.” ..................... This means that an entirely legitimate site can be defunded, and even enjoinedentirely, merely because a few of its users may have infringed.

protection already exists in US law and you can already sue. there's no need to transfer more power to the central authority. we already know that they don't care about us. you can see that in our cities when you come here.

just enforcement of current laws is sufficient for a pleasant world, or at least the USA part of it.

I was not aware it was possible to sue advertising companies under current IP related laws.

All of the sites that have my product for download for "free" have google ads - meaning google and the site operator earns money through advertising or subscription, but not the actual content creator.

that's between you and the site.

you have the right of copy. you don't have to allow ANY distribution that you dislike, unless you've contracted for that distribution. if anyone violates your right of copy in ANY way, you can sue them. how do you think that Disney and other big companies cleanse the internet of things they don't like that involve their property? the little guy can't afford to do that, and if the bill passes, he still can't afford it.

regulation is a great thing, if the regulators are just, righteous and true, for REAL. what percentage would you say that this would be the case? regulators can't be trusted with anything more than basic control, or you'll have a stepford world. "clean", "good", "nice", oh and sterile...i prefer real life.

you know, just because it's the internet, doesn't mean that basic principles of law don't apply anymore. if the various mouthpieces say it often enough though, people will believe it and then it will be so, and to everybody's detriment.

garyb wrote:that's between you and the site.

Let us continue the simplified example. There're 3 parties : Content Creator, Advertising network and the Site operator. All 3 parties know of the infringement of the IP.

Both the advertising network and the Site operator earns money because of the infringement - both have been contacted regarding the infringement and both decided to ignore the notice. According to you, only the Site operator is wrong?

dude, it doesn't matter. if you can afford to, you can sue EVERYONE and win in that case.

nothing will be improved with a new law. you will still be able to sue. if you have the money, you will still be able to seek remedy, just like now. the difference is that the untrustworthy folks will have just a little more power over everyone.

I can't avoid to perceive assonance with this other issue occurred here in early October...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wi ... ng_protest

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&h ... 24&bih=497

If the link above shouldn't work try a Google search with the words: "italian wikipedia shut down" or "italian wikipedia strike"


As for the "stop online piracy act" imho an effective way to fought web offenses and piracy could be through international agreements (something like the state hosting the offence should pay damages in first person and then make the liable person pay...)

It's complex indeed, even apart from pure IP related issues.
I just wrote -the state hosting the offense should pay- but it has few sense; it should be: the state hosting the transgressor should pay...
...the "state hosting the offense" is just in case of sites with prevalent pirate content sites...

that's what war is for.

Yeah are we ready for a war for copyright violations?

Naaa..... I think a strong, solid coalition of States around the world might obtain much without war.
Unfortunately, to get the right foreign politic, the right diplomacy, are far from being the first commitment in many of our governments...

Cochise wrote: As for the "stop online piracy act" imho an effective way to fought web offenses and piracy could be through international agreements (something like the state hosting the offence should pay damages in first person and then make the liable person pay...)

"the state holding the transgressor or the offence" paying the victim directly would be the absolute situation we are seeing today with the financial meltdown. Take a look at Iceland, since it was one of the first to go down...the Banks made some sketchy investment based on investor requests. The investors took their money and ran, and the rest of the system fell into recession. Then the rest of the investors demanded Iceland, the state, and the people who pay taxes, but not involved with the investment at all, to pay all the other investors who didn't get their big pay check yet. Why should the "state" (ie - populous) pay? Luckily for Iceland, the people decided NOT to pick up the failure of a few. They are the only crashed economy who now has picked up and recovered.

The rest of us are still paying the bill for a few greed F$ckers...US, Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc. The investors who made their money love to blame things on "Socialist agenda" causing the failure, rather than themselves.

No thanks, me having to pay up to cover the offense of someone else doesn't help the situation at all.

Back to Warp69's question...I don't personally see anything the new bill adds to MY protection as a person. I also don't see how it protects information, or serves the common good (my own standard for allowing a law to effect all citizens). It ONLY serves a select few. My rights are already covered by other law, and spreading the responsibility for copyright failure is only due to the fact that the US governments, and more importantly the businesses involved, can't police and protect the information themselves. So they pass that responsibility on to the website owners, and any one else involved with the movement of information.

To me, it is like someone tring to send a bag of illegal drugs through a shipping company like DHL....does DHL now have to check the legality of the contents of ALL shipments? Is it responsible for delivering illegal contents now? Because if it doesn't, and they are told someone is shipping drugs, then they have to stop shipping the drugs, and play an active role in finding out WHO and HOW the drugs are being shipped. If not, under this law, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE and could be completely shut down.

In your simple case, you said the advertisers and site operators have knowledge of the offense, and also are presumably making money off of the offense. That IS covered by current law...if you commit an act of crime with knowledge of the criminal act, and even more you PROFIT from the offense, you are also guilty under current law, as Gary stated. What we are saying, is the law can be interpreted to require the site operators and advertisers to be responsible for the content they carry. This is because to carry such information can be determined, in NOT VERY CLEAR TERMS, to be a FELONY. a felony here in the US is the highest level of crime (besides treason). Seeking a court order to stop all payments to an advertiser or service provider can destroy a small business. Getting a court order does not require a jury, or any of the 5 steps you listed above. A court order allows the government to respond quickly to situations where normal due process is too slow. But in such, it also short circuits the normal due process, which in essence cuts out rights (like a right to trial by jury). A court order can be obtained on opinion, not only fact. This makes for very shaky ground for consumers and other people (such as a small business owner who provides ads or services) who aren't normally "lawyered up" and ready to counter a court order.

jksuperstar wrote:To me, it is like someone tring to send a bag of illegal drugs through a shipping company like DHL....does DHL now have to check the legality of the contents of ALL shipments? Is it responsible for delivering illegal contents now? Because if it doesn't, and they are told someone is shipping drugs, then they have to stop shipping the drugs, and play an active role in finding out WHO and HOW the drugs are being shipped. If not, under this law, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE and could be completely shut down........

....
....
....

What we are saying, is the law can be interpreted to require the site operators and advertisers to be responsible for the content they carry.

SOPA has nothing to do with responsibility/liability etc. regarding content at all - you're talking about DMCA.

In your illegal drug example (not related to SOPA in any way, but only used as an example) - the SOPA specifies the following : A DHL customer have been identified by a 3rd party as someone using the DHL service for sending illegal drugs. DHL doesn't need to check any content and DHL have NO liability regarding the content since they're protected by the DMCA. SOPA makes it possible to order DHL to stop any business relation to that customer which sole purpose is sending illegal drugs.

jksuperstar wrote:In your simple case, you said the advertisers and site operators have knowledge of the offense, and also are presumably making money off of the offense. That IS covered by current law...if you commit an act of crime with knowledge of the criminal act, and even more you PROFIT from the offense, you are also guilty under current law, as Gary stated. What we are saying, is the law can be interpreted to require the site operators and advertisers to be responsible for the content they carry. This is because to carry such information can be determined, in NOT VERY CLEAR TERMS, to be a FELONY. a felony here in the US is the highest level of crime (besides treason). Seeking a court order to stop all payments to an advertiser or service provider can destroy a small business. Getting a court order does not require a jury, or any of the 5 steps you listed above. A court order allows the government to respond quickly to situations where normal due process is too slow. But in such, it also short circuits the normal due process, which in essence cuts out rights (like a right to trial by jury). A court order can be obtained on opinion, not only fact. This makes for very shaky ground for consumers and other people (such as a small business owner who provides ads or services) who aren't normally "lawyered up" and ready to counter a court order.

Is the SOPA functionality included in the Copyright Act?

SOPA doesn't specify anything regarding stopping payments to an advertiser or service provider (except if the advertiser/service provider ONLY service customers that are dedicated to copyright infringement and they don't comply with any notice). SOPA does specify that the advertiser or service provider should terminate the business relation to a specific customer dedicated to copyright infringement, but the advertiser or service provider is NOT liable to ANY damage what so ever.