Broncos Forums Going down Forever.

[Thnikkaman]

Mods, feel free to move this to Politics, but I feel this is an issue that will directly effect everyone on this board.

Our Congress and Senate are going to vote on legislation that will essentially sensor the internet to appease copyright holders. SOPA and PIPA will essentially introduce legislation that will allow copyright holders to press charges on anyone that merely clicks on a link to copyrighted material. Ultimately it means that sites like this one would go down rather than have to constantly police posters from violating SOPA and PIPA.

If you wish to learn the technical aspects of these two awful pieces of legislation, these links are available:
EFF: One-page guide to SOPA (https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/One-Page-SOPA_0.pdf)
reddit: A technical overview of the SOPA and PIPA bills (http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html)
DYN: How these bills would break DNS (http://dyn.com/sopa-breaking-dns-parasite-stop-online-piracy/)
EFF: Free speech on the web (https://www.eff.org/free-speech-weak-link)

I urge you to contact your congressmen and senators to tell them to vote no against these bills. You can do so here http://sopastrike.com/strike.



Again, I apologize for putting this in the area where most people will see it, but I'd rather face a "Conserning your post" message than have this place be wiped off the web.

[BroncoJoe]

Today is black Wednesday. This is a very good example of our Government meddling far more than originally intended.

MODS - leave it here so most can see it.

[Thnikkaman]

Today is black Wednesday. This is a very good example of our Government meddling far more than originally intended.

MODS - leave it here so most can see it.

If you didn't know what Black Wednesday was, you couldn't go to wikipedia and look it up, because Wikipedia has been censored today.

[Dreadnought]

I agree, its a BFD. SOPA would make it effectively impossible for sites like this to do what it does - but it willl make a freakin' fortune for ambulance chasing trial lawyers. The good news is Eric Cantor says he won't allow a vote on this POS in the House, so it is dead for the time being. It is stil a dead serious issue. Wikipedia is among a lot of sites going dark today in protest. Google has blacked out their own title.

[BroncoJoe]

check out google.com

They're participating, but not to the extent that wiki is.

[claymore]

1984

[Lancane]

For those interested, contact your local senators and congressmen to let them know that you disapprove of the legislature.

Also, here is another way to voice your opinion...

http://americancensorship.org/

I've already written both of our senators and our congressman, if you wish to do the same just go to their gov.org sites, go to contact and let them know how you feel.

[Thnikkaman]

For those interested, contact your local senators and congressmen to let them know that you disapprove of the legislature.

Also, here is another way to voice your opinion...

http://americancensorship.org/

I've already written both of our senators and our congressman, if you wish to do the same just go to their gov.org sites, go to contact and let them know how you feel.

I've done the same. Thanks for the extra information.

[Tned]

Holy crap, I just nearly crapped my pants. BF going down forever....

Seriously, SOPA is a standard case of a good idea gone wrong. It would give regulatory agencies the power to make sites (more accurately domains, like BroncosForums.com) appear as if they don't exist. They would do this at the domain name level.

The digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) was already a step in the wrong direction in this regard, greying the lines of liability where sites, not users, could be liable to for the postings and uploads of users.

There is a small number of highly powerful studios (film & record) that have a huge lobbying effort behind these bills. While I am for efforts to shut down places like Pirates Bay and other pirated software/movie/music sites, there are better ways to do it then what is being proposed in SOPA with their shut down and ask questions later approach.

[Zweems56]

Spread the knowledge, Thnik.

Joe, I love your opinion. It's one that can be spread to people who don't know the first thing about the internet.

[Timmy!]

Worst. Bill. Ever.

[Joel]

If you didn't know what Black Wednesday was, you couldn't go to wikipedia and look it up, because Wikipedia has been censored today.
Only because they censored themselves.

There's gonna be a new law, folks; you might as well get used to and out in front of it. When the president tables a bill, requests public feedback and says, "don't just tell us what's the wrong thing to do, tell us what's the RIGHT thing to do" the appropriate response is not "DO NOTHING!" That's not going to happen, and frankly, shouldn't. Regardless, Congress WILL pass and the president WILL sign legislation, and if the only bill they have is the one the entertainment industry wrote, it will become law by default. "Constructive" criticism amounting to "keep big government out of our libertarian anarchy!" will be (rightly) dismissed as naïve malcontents.

The issue is access to and dissemination of proprietary content, which includes commercially copyrighted material, but many other things, too. I don't think anyone would argue the First Amendment protects the right to hack the Pentagon for blueprints of the F-22 Raptor, post them online or host a website where people, let alone people overseas, can do either. Commercial interests aside, a law would be inevitable for reasons like that.

I've seen a lot of hysteria over this, and the bills as written merit some of it, but some of it is naked alarmism that just encourages Congress to ignore all criticism. People complain there's no judicial review, yet both the US AG and private media would need a court order to take down any site: Last I checked all court orders were issued by COURTS (i.e. judicial review would be mandatory.) I can certainly understand wanting to restrict how easily private media companies could obtain such court orders but, again, that's the kind of feedback Congress should get, not "NO WIRELESS LAWS EVER111"

Meanwhile, the whole "don't let Big Brother destroy our internet!" argument is absurd. The internet is essentially just a 40 year old DARPA project, which makes its massive public in/output staggering, and great evidence we're not faced with government killing it. If the DoD that created the internet and the FCC which oversees it decided shutting it down served public and/or national security interests, that would be well within their authority. Ranting about government regulation of the internet is like a bumper sticker complaining about cars. :lol:

Ultimately, all that matters is: There WILL be a new law; decide WHAT law you want, write it down, and send it your Representative, Senators and Obama.

[Zweems56]

Holy crap, I just nearly crapped my pants. BF going down forever....

Seriously, SOPA is a standard case of a good idea gone wrong. It would give regulatory agencies the power to make sites (more accurately domains, like BroncosForums.com) appear as if they don't exist. They would do this at the domain name level.

The digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) was already a step in the wrong direction in this regard, greying the lines of liability where sites, not users, could be liable to for the postings and uploads of users.

There is a small number of highly powerful studios (film & record) that have a huge lobbying effort behind these bills. While I am for efforts to shut down places like Pirates Bay and other pirated software/movie/music sites, there are better ways to do it then what is being proposed in SOPA with their shut down and ask questions later approach.

If you watched even a single session that was held, it's so unbelievably obvious who is already bought and paid for. When you hear members of the house state openly that they have no desire to hear experts' opinions on the effect that this bill will have, and that they want to vote now because they're bored, it's downright vomit-inducing.

[tomjonesrocks]

Surprisingly, support/opposition to this doesn't seem divided by party lines:
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

[Thnikkaman]

Only because they censored themselves.

There's gonna be a new law, folks; you might as well get used to and out in front of it. When the president tables a bill, requests public feedback and says, "don't just tell us what's the wrong thing to do, tell us what's the RIGHT thing to do" the appropriate response is not "DO NOTHING!" That's not going to happen, and frankly, shouldn't. Regardless, Congress WILL pass and the president WILL sign legislation, and if the only bill they have is the one the entertainment industry wrote, it will become law by default. "Constructive" criticism amounting to "keep big government out of our libertarian anarchy!" will be (rightly) dismissed as naïve malcontents.

The issue is access to and dissemination of proprietary content, which includes commercially copyrighted material, but many other things, too. I don't think anyone would argue the First Amendment protects the right to hack the Pentagon for blueprints of the F-22 Raptor, post them online or host a website where people, let alone people overseas, can do either. Commercial interests aside, a law would be inevitable for reasons like that.

I've seen a lot of hysteria over this, and the bills as written merit some of it, but some of it is naked alarmism that just encourages Congress to ignore all criticism. People complain there's no judicial review, yet both the US AG and private media would need a court order to take down any site: Last I checked all court orders were issued by COURTS (i.e. judicial review would be mandatory.) I can certainly understand wanting to restrict how easily private media companies could obtain such court orders but, again, that's the kind of feedback Congress should get, not "NO WIRELESS LAWS EVER111"

Meanwhile, the whole "don't let Big Brother destroy our internet!" argument is absurd. The internet is essentially just a 40 year old DARPA project, which makes its massive public in/output staggering, and great evidence we're not faced with government killing it. If the DoD that created the internet and the FCC which oversees it decided shutting it down served public and/or national security interests, that would be well within their authority. Ranting about government regulation of the internet is like a bumper sticker complaining about cars. :lol:

Ultimately, all that matters is: There WILL be a new law; decide WHAT law you want, write it down, and send it your Representative, Senators and Obama.

Joel, do you understand how the internet works, and how this legislation would essentially break that?

[red98]

Only because they censored themselves.

There's gonna be a new law, folks; you might as well get used to and out in front of it. When the president tables a bill, requests public feedback and says, "don't just tell us what's the wrong thing to do, tell us what's the RIGHT thing to do" the appropriate response is not "DO NOTHING!" That's not going to happen, and frankly, shouldn't. Regardless, Congress WILL pass and the president WILL sign legislation, and if the only bill they have is the one the entertainment industry wrote, it will become law by default. "Constructive" criticism amounting to "keep big government out of our libertarian anarchy!" will be (rightly) dismissed as naïve malcontents.

The issue is access to and dissemination of proprietary content, which includes commercially copyrighted material, but many other things, too. I don't think anyone would argue the First Amendment protects the right to hack the Pentagon for blueprints of the F-22 Raptor, post them online or host a website where people, let alone people overseas, can do either. Commercial interests aside, a law would be inevitable for reasons like that.

I've seen a lot of hysteria over this, and the bills as written merit some of it, but some of it is naked alarmism that just encourages Congress to ignore all criticism. People complain there's no judicial review, yet both the US AG and private media would need a court order to take down any site: Last I checked all court orders were issued by COURTS (i.e. judicial review would be mandatory.) I can certainly understand wanting to restrict how easily private media companies could obtain such court orders but, again, that's the kind of feedback Congress should get, not "NO WIRELESS LAWS EVER111"

Meanwhile, the whole "don't let Big Brother destroy our internet!" argument is absurd. The internet is essentially just a 40 year old DARPA project, which makes its massive public in/output staggering, and great evidence we're not faced with government killing it. If the DoD that created the internet and the FCC which oversees it decided shutting it down served public and/or national security interests, that would be well within their authority. Ranting about government regulation of the internet is like a bumper sticker complaining about cars. :lol:

Ultimately, all that matters is: There WILL be a new law; decide WHAT law you want, write it down, and send it your Representative, Senators and Obama.


You are woefully uninformed on this Joel. A 40year old DARPA project? dear lord that is dumb.

We will defeat the law as it is bad law period. They still haven't managed to tax the internet the way they would like despite huge efforts by powerful lobbies including all the state governments.

The part of your post I highlighted is the most egregious example of your lack of knowledge on this subject and enough to ignore anything else you might say on the subject.

[MasterShake]

Thanks for posting this. I think there is a time and a place for regulation, but the internet is not it. Its one of the last bastions of free speech, and this law is way too far reaching.

[Lancane]

Only because they censored themselves.

There's gonna be a new law, folks; you might as well get used to and out in front of it. When the president tables a bill, requests public feedback and says, "don't just tell us what's the wrong thing to do, tell us what's the RIGHT thing to do" the appropriate response is not "DO NOTHING!" That's not going to happen, and frankly, shouldn't. Regardless, Congress WILL pass and the president WILL sign legislation, and if the only bill they have is the one the entertainment industry wrote, it will become law by default. "Constructive" criticism amounting to "keep big government out of our libertarian anarchy!" will be (rightly) dismissed as naïve malcontents.

The issue is access to and dissemination of proprietary content, which includes commercially copyrighted material, but many other things, too. I don't think anyone would argue the First Amendment protects the right to hack the Pentagon for blueprints of the F-22 Raptor, post them online or host a website where people, let alone people overseas, can do either. Commercial interests aside, a law would be inevitable for reasons like that.

I've seen a lot of hysteria over this, and the bills as written merit some of it, but some of it is naked alarmism that just encourages Congress to ignore all criticism. People complain there's no judicial review, yet both the US AG and private media would need a court order to take down any site: Last I checked all court orders were issued by COURTS (i.e. judicial review would be mandatory.) I can certainly understand wanting to restrict how easily private media companies could obtain such court orders but, again, that's the kind of feedback Congress should get, not "NO WIRELESS LAWS EVER111"

Meanwhile, the whole "don't let Big Brother destroy our internet!" argument is absurd. The internet is essentially just a 40 year old DARPA project, which makes its massive public in/output staggering, and great evidence we're not faced with government killing it. If the DoD that created the internet and the FCC which oversees it decided shutting it down served public and/or national security interests, that would be well within their authority. Ranting about government regulation of the internet is like a bumper sticker complaining about cars. :lol:

Ultimately, all that matters is: There WILL be a new law; decide WHAT law you want, write it down, and send it your Representative, Senators and Obama.

Such a legislation has a bigger, broader effect Joel. If the US Government passes such a law, and for those who don't know, it's the same one that is currently in use by governments such as Syria, Iran and China, then we're headed towards becoming a Communistic State, it muffles the one founding fact for which this nation was built upon, 'Freedom'. But what if the Tea Party gets a major foothold or other extreme conservatives, they can use this as a bridge to censor music, television, movies, literature, education and more, and don't for a minute fool yourself otherwise.

I understand they want to curb piracy, but they first need to ask why has piracy become such a problem? Economically, we've lessened what people can afford, music and movies, not to mention that items have price hiked due to inflation and the poor economy, retailers have closed making it harder to purchase items and others have a selective stock which then forces people to go elsewhere, online sites a lot of times have astronomical pricing which makes it harder. A perfect example is books, e-reader and other such programs and devices have made it a little easier to read books, local libraries are limited and many don't carry certain titles, again forcing people to look elsewhere. It's much like the black market of the former Soviet Union, the government was somewhat at fault and instead of fixing the issue they made a law which only made it worse and hurt the Russian people.

This is a legislative bill that should not pass, luckily the White House has sworn to veto any such bill that infringes on the freedom of speech and other constitutional given rights.

[Thnikkaman]

Joel, I would also like to add that this bill would in no way stop internet piracy, even though that is the Aim of the bill.

[weazel]

Mods, feel free to move this to Politics, but I feel this is an issue that will directly effect everyone on this board.

Our Congress and Senate are going to vote on legislation that will essentially sensor the internet to appease copyright holders. SOPA and PIPA will essentially introduce legislation that will allow copyright holders to press charges on anyone that merely clicks on a link to copyrighted material. Ultimately it means that sites like this one would go down rather than have to constantly police posters from violating SOPA and PIPA.

If you wish to learn the technical aspects of these two awful pieces of legislation, these links are available:
EFF: One-page guide to SOPA (https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/One-Page-SOPA_0.pdf)
reddit: A technical overview of the SOPA and PIPA bills (http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html)
DYN: How these bills would break DNS (http://dyn.com/sopa-breaking-dns-parasite-stop-online-piracy/)
EFF: Free speech on the web (https://www.eff.org/free-speech-weak-link)

I urge you to contact your congressmen and senators to tell them to vote no against these bills. You can do so here http://sopastrike.com/strike.



Again, I apologize for putting this in the area where most people will see it, but I'd rather face a "Conserning your post" message than have this place be wiped off the web.

.and you guys call Canada communist lol

[Thnikkaman]

████ is what our █████ █████ ████ ████ with SOPA ███ PIPA

[G_Money]

I agree with The Oatmeal:

http://theoatmeal.com/sopa

warning: fornicating koalas and Oprah/Jesus combos await. Click at your own risk.

~G

[OrangeHoof]

Surprisingly, support/opposition to this doesn't seem divided by party lines:
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/

That's shocking. I notice that Southern California and New York (read: Hollywood and Big Media) are for it and Northern California (read: Silicon Valley) is opposed to it but I can't figure out why some of the hard-core conservatives favor this except that some see these bills as a forerunner to defending national security in the internet age and cite Wikileaks as an example.

That's horribly misguided. A few leakers shouldn't silence the internet for everyone.

Keep in mind, too, that the government has long sought ways to a) regulate and b) tax the internet because they see all the potential revenue streams the government can make off the internet that they cannot now. The unquenchable beast of government expense and control has to place all competition under its thumb and one only has to look at the revolutions in the Middle East (and movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) to realize that the government fears being overthrown by a knowledgeable and organized citizenry.

[Thnikkaman]

By this way of thinking, I would propose that SOPA and PIPA are an infringement on not only our 1st Amendment rights, but our 2nd Amendment rights under the concept that we may use the means of the internet to establish a well regulated militia.

[Dreadnought]

That's shocking. I notice that Southern California and New York (read: Hollywood and Big Media) are for it and Northern California (read: Silicon Valley) is opposed to it but I can't figure out why some of the hard-core conservatives favor this except that some see these bills as a forerunner to defending national security in the internet age and cite Wikileaks as an example.

That's horribly misguided. A few leakers shouldn't silence the internet for everyone.

Keep in mind, too, that the government has long sought ways to a) regulate and b) tax the internet because they see all the potential revenue streams the government can make off the internet that they cannot now. The unquenchable beast of government expense and control has to place all competition under its thumb and one only has to look at the revolutions in the Middle East (and movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) to realize that the government fears being overthrown by a knowledgeable and organized citizenry.

I suspect that some on the Right see it as a matter of protecting intellectual property rights and commerce. OTOH, Redstate.com, which is a political site somewhere to the Right of National Review and Weekly Standard (certainly on social issues) is foursquare against these bills and has joined Wikipedia et al. in going dark today.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/18/stop-sopaprotect-ip/

They also just noted that Senator Marco Rubio has informed them that he is removing himself from sponsorship, so chalk one up for the good guys

[OrangeHoof]

From the Tampa Tribune website:

On day of national protest, Rubio drops support for Internet piracy bill (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/day-national-protest-rubio-drops-support-internet-piracy-bill?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tampabaycom%2Fblogs%2Fbuzz+%2 8The+Buzz+|+tampabay.com%29)

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson had joined Rubio in sponsoring the PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA; his office has not yet said whether he stands by that.

Rubio wrote on Facebook:


"In recent weeks, we’ve heard from many Floridians about the anti-Internet piracy bills making their way through Congress. On the Senate side, I have been a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China. 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. ...

Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy. Since then, we've heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.

Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet."

[iLands]

My boss will veto it if PIPA or SOPA makes it to his desk. He doesn't want to throw his gauntlet down yet, but this is playing right into his hands.

Few things are able to fire people up, convert those on the fence, and actually increase youth turnout than a veto followed by a "trollface" will.

SOPA will get shelved in the house and Reid will yam (yes, yam) a vote on PIPA in a month or two once Mitt locks up the nomination. The veto will follow.

Still, sign petitions and most importantly, contact your representatives.

We won't want the veto overridden and we need to build the groundswell of opposition now.

This will be a great day for awareness of an issue of the utmost importance; I just feel bad for all those undergrads that have a paper due tomorrow.

Feel free to disagree. I don't mind. I don't get paid for my Broncos love. I get paid for analysis.

[NightTerror218]

My boss will veto it if PIPA or SOPA makes it to his desk. He doesn't want to throw his gauntlet down yet, but this is playing right into his hands.

Few things are able to fire people up, convert those on the fence, and actually increase youth turnout than a veto followed by a "trollface" will.

SOPA will get shelved in the house and Reid will yam (yes, yam) a vote on PIPA in a month or two once Mitt locks up the nomination. The veto will follow.

Still, sign petitions and most importantly, contact your representatives.

We won't want the veto overridden and we need to build the groundswell of opposition now.

This will be a great day for awareness of an issue of the utmost importance; I just feel bad for all those undergrads that have a paper due tomorrow.

Feel free to disagree. I don't mind. I don't get paid for my Broncos love. I get paid for analysis.

hackers will have a hayday with this one.

[BroncoNut]

.and you guys call Canada communist lol

we do not live in a democracy, that's for damn sure.

[jhildebrand]

Google should shut down for one day. Put their money where their mouth is! The world wide webs can't function without Google and it would send a very powerful message!

SOPA and PIPA are not good now or ever. My fear is the message got out too late.

[Thnikkaman]

Google should shut down for one day. Put their money where their mouth is! The world wide webs can't function without Google and it would send a very powerful message!

SOPA and PIPA are not good now or ever. My fear is the message got out too late.

I'm not big on political activism, but I had started making my concerns known to my senator and congressperson when NET Neutrality first became a big topic, and have been trying to make my voice heard since SOPA was first introduced.

I just got out of a team meeting were we spent 30 minutes discussing this. Its strange but this is really the first time I have really felt passionate about something that wasn't just a personal matter.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Joel, I would also like to add that this bill would in no way stop internet piracy, even though that is the Aim of the bill.

So, much like most of the gun control legislation that prohibits law-abiding citizens from owning certain types of firearms but has no bearing on the criminals it is meant to target because, well, they're criminals who will break the law to acquire what they want anyway, this bill will punish your average internet user far more than it will all of the users who use it for illegal activities...

Yep. Pretty typical of our government...

[Dreadnought]

So, much like most of the gun control legislation that prohibits law-abiding citizens from owning certain types of firearms but has no bearing on the criminals it is meant to target because, well, they're criminals who will break the law to acquire what they want anyway, this bill will punish your average internet user far more than it will all of the users who use it for illegal activities...

Yep. Pretty typical of our government...

I suspect it won't deter Chinese copyright pirates or Uzbek crime gangs even a little bit. They mostly don't care about lawsuits.

[GEM]

If you go to wikipedia, they have a spot to put in your zip code and it gives all the contact info for your area's lawmakers.

[SpringsBroncoFan]

That's shocking. I notice that Southern California and New York (read: Hollywood and Big Media) are for it and Northern California (read: Silicon Valley) is opposed to it but I can't figure out why some of the hard-core conservatives favor this except that some see these bills as a forerunner to defending national security in the internet age and cite Wikileaks as an example.

That's horribly misguided. A few leakers shouldn't silence the internet for everyone.

Keep in mind, too, that the government has long sought ways to a) regulate and b) tax the internet because they see all the potential revenue streams the government can make off the internet that they cannot now. The unquenchable beast of government expense and control has to place all competition under its thumb and one only has to look at the revolutions in the Middle East (and movements such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) to realize that the government fears being overthrown by a knowledgeable and organized citizenry.

It's fool's gold if anyone thinks this will support national security...

National Security was killed back in the 90's when Cisco gave the Chinese the secrets of their IOS for greed i.e. to gain a bigger market share...

Those secrets allowed the Chinese to learn how to control their own part of the internet and break in everywhere else to steal corporate & military secrets...

They've had over a decade to fine tune their craft & outsource the tools of their black arts to Iran...

As to the topic, yes it's similar to using a sledgehammer when all that's needed is a pair of tweezers...

Edit: I might have been a bit harsh on Cisco. They sold them source code & the story allegedly is that the Chinese used it to break into Cisco to steal the rest of what they needed.

[Thnikkaman]

http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/choochoobear/16072271197/1/tumblr_ly0cbbGfq61qdqdha

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html

[Dreadnought]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html

Senator Roy Blount of Missouri has now also withdrawn his support, in addition to those three you referenced, Carol.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

JUST WHAT ARE SOPA AND PIPA?

Simply put, they would give copyright holders new ways to punish websites that host pirated content.

Both bills originally empowered copyright holders to request orders that would block access to foreign websites accused of hosting pirated content.

That means that users within the U.S. would essentially see an error message when they try to visit that website, though users in other countries would still be able to visit it. This provision has been removed from SOPA pending "further examination," though it's still included in PIPA.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wikipedia-sopa-pipa-article-1.1007847?localLinksEnabled=false

As I do not totally understand this, how exactly would it affect BF? If the issue here is copyright - BF is complying to that.

Using myself as an example, would I no longer be able to post anything from a site, but I could start a thread stating what I had read on the DP site, and if people wanted to read the full article they could go there?

I am totally confused as to why this could shut down BF.

[wayninja]

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kalobaadh-300x239.jpg

[Dreadnought]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wikipedia-sopa-pipa-article-1.1007847?localLinksEnabled=false

As I do not totally understand this, how exactly would it affect BF? If the issue here is copyright - BF is complying to that.

Using myself as an example, would I no longer be able to post anything from a site, but I could start a thread stating what I had read on the DP site, and if people wanted to read the full article they could go there?

I am totally confused as to why this could shut down BF.

How about youtube videos posted to the site by members? Are they "fair use?" I have no idea myself. How about if they are copyrighted music videos? Links to internet streams of games? Trial lawyers can get very creative in finding targets, and sites become liable for stuff posted by third party members. Even a totally bogus suit can be financially ruinous to defeat, which is what the Righthaven creeps depended on in suing websites over articles. This would be Righthaven squared IMO.

[wayninja]

How about youtube videos posted to the site by members? Are they "fair use?" I have no idea myself. How about if they are copyrighted music videos? Links to internet streams of games? Trial lawyers can get very creative in finding targets, and sites become liable for stuff posted by third party members. Even a totally bogus suit can be financially ruinous to defeat, which is what the Righthaven creeps depended on in suing websites over articles. This would be Righthaven squared IMO.

Basically it would mean an end to posting anything that you, yourself didn't create. It probably wouldn't bring the site down, but it would certainly make the experience less enjoyable.

Even if the author of whatever content you posted gave you explicit permission to do so, the staff here (and almost everywhere) simply wouldn't have time to continually police it and would be force to restrict it altogether.

[Thnikkaman]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wikipedia-sopa-pipa-article-1.1007847?localLinksEnabled=false

As I do not totally understand this, how exactly would it affect BF? If the issue here is copyright - BF is complying to that.

Using myself as an example, would I no longer be able to post anything from a site, but I could start a thread stating what I had read on the DP site, and if people wanted to read the full article they could go there?

I am totally confused as to why this could shut down BF.

For instance, the Denver Broncos could see the picture of John Elway in your signature, decide that since you did not give proper credit to the picture taker or the owner of the picture, that it is a copyright violation. Because of this, the people who pay to put adds on this site, can terminate their contract with the owner of this site, and the copyright holder can request to have any DNS Servers that are used in the U.S. to remove any address lookups for broncosforums.com. This would be done without any due process to actually find out if the picture used was part of public domain, or if you explicitly got permission from the owner of the picture (or pictures in your collage) to use it.

Now, we could still access it if we know the IP, but for every link to a thread or post, we would need to re-type the IP address in the browser for broncosforums.com. There are ways around this like editing your hosts file, but you shouldn't need to do that since you are essentially doing nothing wrong.

Finally, you could be sued for copyright infringement for using that picture.

[Nick]

man I signed petition on this first day found out about 4 months ago when I saw it on pirate bay :lol:

All serious I wish wikipedia and google stepped up a long time ago because this thing is very broad and will be a disaster. How ever they stepped up when they needed to, so it will not go through.

It is crazy how people are hearing about this for the first time just now...

[Denver Native (Carol)]

For instance, the Denver Broncos could see the picture of John Elway in your signature, decide that since you did not give proper credit to the picture taker or the owner of the picture, that it is a copyright violation. Because of this, the people who pay to put adds on this site, can terminate their contract with the owner of this site, and the copyright holder can request to have any DNS Servers that are used in the U.S. to remove any address lookups for broncosforums.com. This would be done without any due process to actually find out if the picture used was part of public domain, or if you explicitly got permission from the owner of the picture (or pictures in your collage) to use it.

Now, we could still access it if we know the IP, but for every link to a thread or post, we would need to re-type the IP address in the browser for broncosforums.com. There are ways around this like editing your hosts file, but you shouldn't need to do that since you are essentially doing nothing wrong.

Finally, you could be sued for copyright infringement for using that picture.

So, it appears it is strictly based on copyright. So, using my sig, I could remove it.

Again, it appears that everything has to do with copyright, and nothing more, so if myself, and others, removed any avatar and signature that could fall under copyright, and did not post anything which is directly on another site, all would be ok? I could start a new thread, either using the thread title from the DP, or state something like "interesting read on the DP in regards to the Broncos", and then in the post, post nothing more than the DP link, and that would be ok?

[NightTerror218]

man I signed petition on this first day found out about 4 months ago when I saw it on pirate bay :lol:

All serious I wish wikipedia and google stepped up a long time ago because this thing is very broad and will be a disaster. How ever they stepped up when they needed to, so it will not go through.

It is crazy how people are hearing about this for the first time just now...

SNEAKY SNEAKY TORRENT PERSON!!!!!!!!:welcome:

[Thnikkaman]

So, it appears it is strictly based on copyright. So, using my sig, I could remove it.

Again, it appears that everything has to do with copyright, and nothing more, so if myself, and others, removed any avatar and signature that could fall under copyright, and did not post anything which is directly on another site, all would be ok? I could start a new thread, either using the thread title from the DP, or state something like "interesting read on the DP in regards to the Broncos", and then in the post, post nothing more than the DP link, and that would be ok?

Maybe. Then we get into the sticky situation like, if your opinion wasn't completely original, but maybe something regurgitated from a Denver Post article.

The wording in both pieces of legislation are so vague that this site can come under attack from a copyright holder and have actions taken against it without any due process for just being in suspicion of violating a copyright. The legislation would essentially remove free speech and free thought from anyone accessing the internet on American soil.

[Joel]

Joel, do you understand how the internet works, and how this legislation would essentially break that?
Enough of both to know that as long as the internet has existed the US government has had all the power we're warned it is seizing and will abuse. Puts things in perspective.

A new anti-piracy law is coming, and demanding NO new anti-piracy law be passed just encourages legislators to believe opponents consist solely of data pirates, cyberterrorists and unreasonable fanatic anarchists. Note: I'm not accusing anyone here of being any of those things, just saying that an absolutist stance with Congress suggests any or all of them.

A new anti-piracy law is coming; decide what you want it to be and share that with your Representative, Senators and Obama. If the law written by the entertainment industry is the only game in town, it will pass by default.

Consider this recently proposed second option:
http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/open-alternative-anti-piracy-bill-sopa-will-hurt-startups.html

Then consider that the author of the article about it opposes it just as strongly as he does the SOPA and PIPA. Anyone who doesn't want any of these bills to become the new law is well advised to propose alternatives (which is all the entertainment industry has done, and what Obama has publicly and explicitly requested.) I can't guarantee a better will pass, but if none is proposed I CAN guarantee one of those WILL.

You are woefully uninformed on this Joel. A 40year old DARPA project? dear lord that is dumb.
From Wikipedia (whose blackout can be circumvented if you hit the stop button before the script executes:)


The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

Wikipedia states the first ARPANET message was sent 29 October, 1969 (they transmitted the "lo" in "login" before the worlds first internet server crash.) So a 42 year old DARPA project, not 40; I stand corrected. :tongue:

We will defeat the law as it is bad law period. They still haven't managed to tax the internet the way they would like despite huge efforts by powerful lobbies including all the state governments.
Bad laws get passed all the time; remember Prohibition?

The part of your post I highlighted is the most egregious example of your lack of knowledge on this subject and enough to ignore anything else you might say on the subject.
The part of my post you highlighted is a well known and well documented matter of fact. Ignoring things like that only ensure Congress dismisses complaints as biased, uninformed and counterproductive.

A new anti-piracy law is coming, and if Congress hears from NO ONE but people in tinfoil hats and people in three-piece suits, they will listen exclusively to the latter. Wouldn't YOU? ;)

A lot of things in the currently proposed legislation suck, and some are dagnerous: GIVE THEM A PLAN B. As is usually the case with government, the publics only choices are:

1) Provide a viable superior law or
2) Live with the one enacted instead.

Such a legislation has a bigger, broader effect Joel. If the US Government passes such a law, and for those who don't know, it's the same one that is currently in use by governments such as Syria, Iran and China, then we're headed towards becoming a Communistic State, it muffles the one founding fact for which this nation was built upon, 'Freedom'. But what if the Tea Party gets a major foothold or other extreme conservatives, they can use this as a bridge to censor music, television, movies, literature, education and more, and don't for a minute fool yourself otherwise.
ONLINE. You left out that all important word. Believe it or not, people were able to disseminate ideas, market media and have discussions before the internet. Much of Big Medias motivation in pushing this legislation is that the rise of the internet has diminished the popularity of all those other forms of communication, from the lending libraries you reference to periodicals to film to music publishing to television. One of the big problems with the current legislation is that it is too preoccupied with protecting those other media industries rather than actual piracy. That's one of the things that needs to be fixed before creating any new anti-piracy law.

Yet piracy remains a real problem threatening the livelihoods of content producers, publishers and people employed in producing media as well as related industries.

I understand they want to curb piracy, but they first need to ask why has piracy become such a problem? Economically, we've lessened what people can afford, music and movies, not to mention that items have price hiked due to inflation and the poor economy, retailers have closed making it harder to purchase items and others have a selective stock which then forces people to go elsewhere, online sites a lot of times have astronomical pricing which makes it harder. A perfect example is books, e-reader and other such programs and devices have made it a little easier to read books, local libraries are limited and many don't carry certain titles, again forcing people to look elsewhere. It's much like the black market of the former Soviet Union, the government was somewhat at fault and instead of fixing the issue they made a law which only made it worse and hurt the Russian people.
I disagree the spike in piracy is a result of recent economic woes; we didn't have that problem during the Depression or the Seventies, and DID have it during the tech driven economic boom of the Nineties. Piracy has become a major problem because it's absurdly easy to go online and get intellectual property that represents months or even years of time, energy and money people invested hoping for a return with which to feed their families--only to be disappointed because anyone who wishes can quickly and easily obtain it for free. Even if recent economic crises have fueled piracy, expecting those people to work for free is not the solution, certainly not to THEIR economic difficulties.

This is a legislative bill that should not pass, luckily the White House has sworn to veto any such bill that infringes on the freedom of speech and other constitutional given rights.
The White House promised to end corporate welfare, rubber stamping oil drilling permits and provide universal healthcare with a public option but no mandatory participation. It delivered a staggering level of corporate welfare that would make the previous administration blush, signed off on a BP Gulf drilling permit cut and pasted from their Prudhoe Bay Alaska permit (site of another major spill) and a non-universal healthcare program with no public option but mandatory participation.

Its word is worthless, and voting for Obama yet getting Romney doesn't make me thrilled about choosing between Romney or Romney this November, but that is a separate issue. :focus:

Joel, I would also like to add that this bill would in no way stop internet piracy, even though that is the Aim of the bill.
Yeah, that's the biggest irony of all. Ultimately, piracy probably can't be stopped, but one thing this bill would do is subject convicted pirates to prison terms rather than civil fines they routinely ignore (which is part of what's motivating a new law.) These bills cast too wide a net, IMHO, both in terms of who can be prosecuted and what constitutes "piracy." That's one of the changes we should all suggest to our Congressmen. ;)

That's shocking. I notice that Southern California and New York (read: Hollywood and Big Media) are for it and Northern California (read: Silicon Valley) is opposed to it but I can't figure out why some of the hard-core conservatives favor this except that some see these bills as a forerunner to defending national security in the internet age and cite Wikileaks as an example.
That's exactly what they're thinking, that DARPA created the internet to enhance rather than undermine Americas security. They're thinking of the hundreds of daily cyberattacks orginating from China and the various servers through which they pass en route to the White House and Pentagon, of how America set back Irans nuclear weapons programs by months, if not years, with a single virus spread through all their computers and of Wikileaks defiantly posting sensitive classified data (e.g. the identities of Al Qaeda informants in Pakistan) then laughing at Americas frutiless attempts to have them removed.

The way these laws go about putting a stop to that is awful, both in terms of gross inadequacy to that task and serious jeapordy to innocent bystanders. But the reality and seriousness of the strategic problem alone would guarantee a new law even apart from the reality of piracy or any pressure from the media industry. Expecting Congress to back down from that over First Amendment issues is like expecting them to let you drive an Abrams because it was purchased with tax dollars: It ignores the fact of federal authority over it and asserts a non-existent right to threaten national security.

Google should shut down for one day. Put their money where their mouth is! The world wide webs can't function without Google and it would send a very powerful message!

SOPA and PIPA are not good now or ever. My fear is the message got out too late.
Yeah, don't hold your breath; everyone supports everyone elses rights until it costs them some scratch. That's a lot of this whole debate.

Meanwhile, the world wide web and before it the internet in general functioned just fine without Google for thirty years. Know what it REALLY can't function without? The evil US government that created it.

[BroncoNut]

i think this is a lot of alarmism and drama.. disturbing thing is the blacklist and that anyone can do this, but maybe that is the intent. . I am not going ot jump on this panic mobilequite. yet.

[Thnikkaman]

Joel,

Thanks for the rather lengthy reply, and I appreciate your opinion and agree with most of it. While I do believe there are better ways to write a law that all of the pirates on the internet are going to scoff at, all I can do is offer poor excuses as to why I can't come up with it (lack of time due to being the father of 3 kids, keeping a job, sleeping, etc...). I honestly believe that the lobbyists are behind this are trying to keep their dying industry alive. As seen with the internet, artists no longer have to rely on record labels to distribute their work, terrestrial radio stations lose ratings (and revenue) because there are so many online alternatives that are available (both music and talk). Yes the movie industry suffers when people pirate movies, but I also believe that the studio execs are losing more money than the actual artists involved in making the movie.

And I understand their desire to stay in business. They are about to go the way of the newspaper if they can't do something quick. It's unfortunate that they are wasting money buying politicians rather than trying to figure out a way to adapt. And the bottom line is that there may just not be a way for them to adapt. As a society, we have so many small outlets where we have access to entertainment that we no longer need these huge corporate bodies to tell us what we want to watch and listen to.

As the saying goes, the revolution will not be televised. The people who want to be involved will no what IP address to type into their web browser however.

[Joel]

So, it appears it is strictly based on copyright. So, using my sig, I could remove it.

Again, it appears that everything has to do with copyright, and nothing more, so if myself, and others, removed any avatar and signature that could fall under copyright, and did not post anything which is directly on another site, all would be ok? I could start a new thread, either using the thread title from the DP, or state something like "interesting read on the DP in regards to the Broncos", and then in the post, post nothing more than the DP link, and that would be ok?
That's how I understand it, but you'd be best served to ask a lawyer, which I am not (and don't want to be prosecuted for practicing law without a license.) Part of why many people are worried though is the bill is supposed to give the US AG and/or private media firms the ability to get a court order blocking SITES from the whole internet if a single USER posts ANY material they have copyrighted. You could post the Raiders logo on a Raiders site, notify the NFL it was there, and boom, a court order has that site "erased." Not only could people no longer load it directly, but any web searches that USED to list it would automatically filter it out of results.

[wayninja]

So, it appears it is strictly based on copyright. So, using my sig, I could remove it.

Again, it appears that everything has to do with copyright, and nothing more, so if myself, and others, removed any avatar and signature that could fall under copyright, and did not post anything which is directly on another site, all would be ok? I could start a new thread, either using the thread title from the DP, or state something like "interesting read on the DP in regards to the Broncos", and then in the post, post nothing more than the DP link, and that would be ok?

No, you can't post the link either. How would the site administrator know if you are posting a link to something 'free' or copyrighted?

[Nick]

█ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██. ███ ███ This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed.

[wayninja]

█ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██. ███ ███ This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed.

Actually if this is how the bill worked, it really wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

We aren't talking about line item censorship, we are talking about babies with bathwater.

[Northman]

******* blue lights,,read em their rights...

[BroncoNut]

Let's torture and quarter Joel and disperse his parts. He's the ringleader. Why do you think he's been granted asylum in Norway for so long now? think about it you guys.

[Tned]

Such a legislation has a bigger, broader effect Joel. If the US Government passes such a law, and for those who don't know, it's the same one that is currently in use by governments such as Syria, Iran and China, then we're headed towards becoming a Communistic State, it muffles the one founding fact for which this nation was built upon, 'Freedom'. But what if the Tea Party gets a major foothold or other extreme conservatives, they can use this as a bridge to censor music, television, movies, literature, education and more, and don't for a minute fool yourself otherwise.

I understand they want to curb piracy, but they first need to ask why has piracy become such a problem? Economically, we've lessened what people can afford, music and movies, not to mention that items have price hiked due to inflation and the poor economy, retailers have closed making it harder to purchase items and others have a selective stock which then forces people to go elsewhere, online sites a lot of times have astronomical pricing which makes it harder. A perfect example is books, e-reader and other such programs and devices have made it a little easier to read books, local libraries are limited and many don't carry certain titles, again forcing people to look elsewhere. It's much like the black market of the former Soviet Union, the government was somewhat at fault and instead of fixing the issue they made a law which only made it worse and hurt the Russian people.

This is a legislative bill that should not pass, luckily the White House has sworn to veto any such bill that infringes on the freedom of speech and other constitutional given rights.

While I disagree with what appears to be your position on piracy, why it happens and what needs to be done to stop it, the SOPA solution is not one I agree with.

[Nick]

Actually if this is how the bill worked, it really wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

We aren't talking about line item censorship, we are talking about babies with bathwater.

It is communism and a very big deal.

[Tned]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wikipedia-sopa-pipa-article-1.1007847?localLinksEnabled=false

As I do not totally understand this, how exactly would it affect BF? If the issue here is copyright - BF is complying to that.

Using myself as an example, would I no longer be able to post anything from a site, but I could start a thread stating what I had read on the DP site, and if people wanted to read the full article they could go there?

I am totally confused as to why this could shut down BF.

The problem is that it gives very wide powers to a government agency. Let's say the Broncos say, "this Broncosforums is using our trademark and needs to be shut down" if a clerk in the complaints department agrees (oversimplified, but that's the essence) agrees, then they remove BroncosForums from the DNS system, so that when you try and go to BroncosForums.com it's as if it never existed.

The fact that the use of Broncos in this case is nominative use, has tons of case law, etc. doesn't matter. I would then have to appeal to the government agency, possibly bring a civil suit, and fight both the United States government and the $10+ billion a year NFL to bring BroncosForums back up.

Or, maybe someone says, "such and such post that is being represented as Carol's opinion is actually my original work" and a clerk agrees, poof, BroncosForums is gone.

The problem of piracy is real and needs to be deal with. I'm not one of the wack jobs (no offense guys) that thinks if you can break the copy protection, rip it and post it on the Internet than it should be free for everyone, even if some company invested $200 million in producing the work (film, software, etc.). However, this is a far reaching, omin-powerful bill that is likely to do little to stop piracy (this group will find away around it), but has the potential to do grave harm to other parts of the Internet we use on a day-to-day basis.

[Joel]

i think this is a lot of alarmism and drama.. disturbing thing is the blacklist and that anyone can do this, but maybe that is the intent. . I am not going ot jump on this panic mobilequite. yet.
There are real and in some cases serious dangers in the current legislation as written--but that makes dumping all the alarmism and paranoia to focus on practical reasonable alternatives all the more important. If Congress hears critics present REASONABLE alternatives addressing real piracy problems, we get a better law; otherwise, we get what's currently on the table. We ARE getting a new law though; just a question of what and when.

Joel,

Thanks for the rather lengthy reply, and I appreciate your opinion and agree with most of it. While I do believe there are better ways to write a law that all of the pirates on the internet are going to scoff at, all I can do is offer poor excuses as to why I can't come up with it (lack of time due to being the father of 3 kids, keeping a job, sleeping, etc...). I honestly believe that the lobbyists are behind this are trying to keep their dying industry alive. As seen with the internet, artists no longer have to rely on record labels to distribute their work, terrestrial radio stations lose ratings (and revenue) because there are so many online alternatives that are available (both music and talk). Yes the movie industry suffers when people pirate movies, but I also believe that the studio execs are losing more money than the actual artists involved in making the movie.

And I understand their desire to stay in business. They are about to go the way of the newspaper if they can't do something quick. It's unfortunate that they are wasting money buying politicians rather than trying to figure out a way to adapt. And the bottom line is that there may just not be a way for them to adapt. As a society, we have so many small outlets where we have access to entertainment that we no longer need these huge corporate bodies to tell us what we want to watch and listen to.

As the saying goes, the revolution will not be televised. The people who want to be involved will no what IP address to type into their web browser however.
Those excuses aren't poor; they are, unfortunately, the biggest obstacles to effective activism, however. I can't fault folks too busy working to feed their kids or helping them with their homework to change the world for them. There's a trade off difficult to balance; some of the most effective activists, renowned as heroes, were AWFUL ever absent parents as a result. If they didn't end up like JFK and RFK Jr.s dads. Sucks.

We need a better bill, and I hope most of the people really knowledgeable about the issue stop complaining about CURRENT legislation and/or insisting NONE is needed in time to produce a much superior ALTERNATIVE before Congress decides it must pass SOMETHING (which sooner or later it will, because, ultimately, we do need that undefined "something.")

The IP work around and others will still be effective and used, but in a way that's part of the problem, because a primary goal of the new law is to put a stop once and for all to all the tech savvy circumventions that let hackers and space cowboys stay light years ahead of anti-piracy laws. No more will denizens of Pirate Bay or Napster be told, "you owe Atlantic Records a $500 fine for EACH of the 300 songs you illegally downloaded" only to respond, "bite me! :lol:" and go their merry way with impunity.

If the current bill passes, many copyright infringements that are currently a civil matter would become criminal; instead of fines, violators would face 5 year prison terms.

It's important we get this right, particularly since I'm convinced SOME new law is inevitable, and probably necessary. So less alarmism and more constructive criticism is what we need--badly and soon.

[gnomeflinger]

It sounds like another case of the many suffering because of the few.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The problem is that it gives very wide powers to a government agency. Let's say the Broncos say, "this Broncosforums is using our trademark and needs to be shut down" if a clerk in the complaints department agrees (oversimplified, but that's the essence) agrees, then they remove BroncosForums from the DNS system, so that when you try and go to BroncosForums.com it's as if it never existed.

The fact that the use of Broncos in this case is nominative use, has tons of case law, etc. doesn't matter. I would then have to appeal to the government agency, possibly bring a civil suit, and fight both the United States government and the $10+ billion a year NFL to bring BroncosForums back up.

Or, maybe someone says, "such and such post that is being represented as Carol's opinion is actually my original work" and a clerk agrees, poof, BroncosForums is gone.

The problem of piracy is real and needs to be deal with. I'm not one of the wack jobs (no offense guys) that thinks if you can break the copy protection, rip it and post it on the Internet than it should be free for everyone, even if some company invested $200 million in producing the work (film, software, etc.). However, this is a far reaching, omin-powerful bill that is likely to do little to stop piracy (this group will find away around it), but has the potential to do grave harm to other parts of the Internet we use on a day-to-day basis.

So, if I said that I felt TT deserved at least another year, and Woody Paige also wrote that in an article of his, which I did not read, or did not reference - that would be wrong for me stating my opinion, because Paige also had the same opinion????????

[Nick]

The problem is that it gives very wide powers to a government agency. Let's say the Broncos say, "this Broncosforums is using our trademark and needs to be shut down" if a clerk in the complaints department agrees (oversimplified, but that's the essence) agrees, then they remove BroncosForums from the DNS system, so that when you try and go to BroncosForums.com it's as if it never existed.

The fact that the use of Broncos in this case is nominative use, has tons of case law, etc. doesn't matter. I would then have to appeal to the government agency, possibly bring a civil suit, and fight both the United States government and the $10+ billion a year NFL to bring BroncosForums back up.

Or, maybe someone says, "such and such post that is being represented as Carol's opinion is actually my original work" and a clerk agrees, poof, BroncosForums is gone.

The problem of piracy is real and needs to be deal with. I'm not one of the wack jobs (no offense guys) that thinks if you can break the copy protection, rip it and post it on the Internet than it should be free for everyone, even if some company invested $200 million in producing the work (film, software, etc.). However, this is a far reaching, omin-powerful bill that is likely to do little to stop piracy (this group will find away around it), but has the potential to do grave harm to other parts of the Internet we use on a day-to-day basis.

The NFL team forums could ultimately be ran by the NFL and make a bundle through affiliate marketing and selling gear. If you use a video not authorized by nfl and or posting an article not authorized from a news paper. they could very easily shut you down. There is no way to police that on open boards.

[Thnikkaman]

So, if I said that I felt TT deserved at least another year, and Woody Paige also wrote that in an article of his, which I did not read, or did not reference - that would be wrong for me stating my opinion, because Paige also had the same opinion????????

Absolutely correct.

[wayninja]

It is communism and a very big deal.

I hope this is a joke, because otherwise it's one of the most ignorant things that has ever been said.

First of all censorship is not communism. I have no idea how you came up with that.

Secondly, removing, on a case by case basis, items that violate copyright laws from individual websites is not censorship. If we could simply do that, this wouldn't be as big a deal because nothing would effectively change other than you wouldn't be able to see copyrighted materials any longer. That may make the overall experience less enjoyable for some, but it wouldn't force entire sites to shutdown or abide by cease-and-desist orders because of some frivolous lawsuit.

[wayninja]

Absolutely correct.

Although that is VERY unlikely. But it is possible under the law. It's hard to imagine a court actually upholding an injunction based on this though.

[Thnikkaman]

Although that is VERY unlikely. But it is possible under the law. It's hard to imagine a court actually upholding an injunction based on this though.

You are missing the fact that the legislation states that these actions can be taken without due process.

[Nick]

I hope this is a joke, because otherwise it's one of the most ignorant things that has ever been said.

First of all censorship is not communism. I have no idea how you came up with that.

Secondly, removing, on a case by case basis, items that violate copyright laws from individual websites is not censorship. If we could simply do that, this wouldn't be as big a deal because nothing would effectively change other than you wouldn't be able to see copyrighted materials any longer. That may make the overall experience less enjoyable for some, but it wouldn't force entire sites to shutdown or abide by cease-and-desist orders because of some frivolous lawsuit.

They don't need to work on this on a case to case basis bro... How ever you want to label it... While it is not the definition by all means. freedom of speech online VS censorship, Censorship in communist countries is strictly enforced.

[Thnikkaman]

I hope this is a joke, because otherwise it's one of the most ignorant things that has ever been said.

First of all censorship is not communism. I have no idea how you came up with that.

Secondly, removing, on a case by case basis, items that violate copyright laws from individual websites is not censorship. If we could simply do that, this wouldn't be as big a deal because nothing would effectively change other than you wouldn't be able to see copyrighted materials any longer. That may make the overall experience less enjoyable for some, but it wouldn't force entire sites to shutdown or abide by cease-and-desist orders because of some frivolous lawsuit.


Communism is an ideal that states that everything is publicly owned, even your own self. Thus, when the public (the government) tells you what you can and cannot say (censorship), it is communism at a basic level.

[wayninja]

They don't need to work on this on a case to case basis bro... How ever you want to label it... While it is not the definition by all means. freedom of speech online VS censorship, Censorship in communist countries is strictly enforced.

They don't need to do what? I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Censorship may be enforced in communist countries. So? Communist countries also have strong militaries. Does that make militaries communist?

Enforcing copyright law is not censorship. I only becomes censorship if you burn the entire book rather than the page with the copied picture.

[wayninja]

Communism is an ideal that states that everything is publicly owned, even your own self. Thus, when the public (the government) tells you what you can and cannot say (censorship), it is communism at a basic level.

Sorry, but this just isn't true. You've made a leap between public ownership (egalitarianism) and the restriction of speech.

One may lead to the other, but not out of necessity.

Traditionally communist countries have used force and restriction to enforce socialism, but that doesn't mean they needed to.

You could have a communist group of hippies that share everything and place no restrictions (no censorship) of anything.

[Thnikkaman]

Sorry, but this just isn't true. You've made a leap between public ownership (egalitarianism) and the restriction of speech.

One may lead to the other, but not out of necessity.

Traditionally communist countries have used force and restriction to enforce socialism, but that doesn't mean they needed to.

You could have a communist group of hippies that share everything and place no restrictions (no censorship) of anything.

I'm arguing that the concept of the government telling you what you can and cannot say is communistic. Weather or not the communistic society chooses to enforce that is another matter all together.

[wayninja]

Communism is an ideal that states that everything is publicly owned, even your own self. Thus, when the public (the government) tells you what you can and cannot say (censorship), it is communism at a basic level.

Sorry, but this just isn't true. You've made a leap between public ownership (egalitarianism) and the restriction of speech.

One may lead to the other, but not out of necessity.

Traditionally communist countries have used force and restriction to enforce socialism, but that doesn't mean they needed to. This is a bastardization of pure communism though. Marx himself defended the rights of free speech.

You could have a communist group of hippies that share everything and place no restrictions (no censorship) of anything.

[Thnikkaman]

Sorry, but this just isn't true. You've made a leap between public ownership (egalitarianism) and the restriction of speech.

One may lead to the other, but not out of necessity.

Traditionally communist countries have used force and restriction to enforce socialism, but that doesn't mean they needed to. This is a bastardization of pure communism though. Marx himself defended the rights of free speech.

You could have a communist group of hippies that share everything and place no restrictions (no censorship) of anything.

What does egalitarianism (the thought that everyone should have equal rights) have to do with censorship?

[wayninja]

I'm arguing that the concept of the government telling you what you can and cannot say is communistic. Weather or not the communistic society chooses to enforce that is another matter all together.

But that's simply not true. Freedom of the press is one of the first tenants of communism...

[NightTerror218]

Good bye YouTube, I liked you while it lasted.

[iLands]

The amount of misinformation in here is pretty painful.

I keep reading reiterations of Cold War platitudes as well. :laugh:

I know few probably liked my stated position earlier, but I stand by it.

If anyone really wants to make a difference, fax your representatives. Their voicemails would have been filled tens of minutes into the blackouts and most offices have less staffers on phones than you have fingers on one hand.

The faxes will roll through regardless.

EDIT: We're living through the greatest restructuring of the American economy since war based industrialization during WW2. Unlike the time of the DMCA, the interests that oppose these bills have much greater accrued capital than those in favor. The pendulum isn't swinging the other way. It can't. Inertia is too great.

Of course, lobby your representatives, but do not have great fear in your hearts.

[wayninja]

What does egalitarianism (the thought that everyone should have equal rights) have to do with censorship?

Very little. But it has a TON to do with communism. Which is basically my point.

Communism is not censorship. Not any more so than Democracy is freedom of speech.

[red98]

Here is an article that explains the problems with this law very well.

http://www.wptz.com/r/30232977/detail.html

[wayninja]

You are missing the fact that the legislation states that these actions can be taken without due process.

I think a court order is required. I don't claim to be an expert, but this was my understanding. Is this not the case?

[Thnikkaman]

I think a court order is required. I don't claim to be an expert, but this was my understanding. Is this not the case?

A court order is required, but Due Process is not. A copyright holder can present the request in a way to get the results that they want without the accused being able to challenge the accusation.

[wayninja]

A court order is required, but Due Process is not. A copyright holder can present the request in a way to get the results that they want without the accused being able to challenge the accusation.

Well, yeah, I agree, it sucks. It puts the burden of proof on the accused, not disagreeing with that.

But when you say 'without due process' it makes it sound like a switch is flipped as soon as an accusation is made and that's not quite right. A judge still has to give the ok. Again, I'm not saying that is a good thing, but there is a layer of process involved even if it's not due.

[red98]

Enough of both to know that as long as the internet has existed the US government has had all the power we're warned it is seizing and will abuse. Puts things in perspective.

A new anti-piracy law is coming, and demanding NO new anti-piracy law be passed just encourages legislators to believe opponents consist solely of data pirates, cyberterrorists and unreasonable fanatic anarchists. Note: I'm not accusing anyone here of being any of those things, just saying that an absolutist stance with Congress suggests any or all of them.

A new anti-piracy law is coming; decide what you want it to be and share that with your Representative, Senators and Obama. If the law written by the entertainment industry is the only game in town, it will pass by default.

Consider this recently proposed second option:
http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/open-alternative-anti-piracy-bill-sopa-will-hurt-startups.html

Then consider that the author of the article about it opposes it just as strongly as he does the SOPA and PIPA. Anyone who doesn't want any of these bills to become the new law is well advised to propose alternatives (which is all the entertainment industry has done, and what Obama has publicly and explicitly requested.) I can't guarantee a better will pass, but if none is proposed I CAN guarantee one of those WILL.

From Wikipedia (whose blackout can be circumvented if you hit the stop button before the script executes:)


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

Wikipedia states the first ARPANET message was sent 29 October, 1969 (they transmitted the "lo" in "login" before the worlds first internet server crash.) So a 42 year old DARPA project, not 40; I stand corrected. :tongue:

Bad laws get passed all the time; remember Prohibition?

The part of my post you highlighted is a well known and well documented matter of fact. Ignoring things like that only ensure Congress dismisses complaints as biased, uninformed and counterproductive.

A new anti-piracy law is coming, and if Congress hears from NO ONE but people in tinfoil hats and people in three-piece suits, they will listen exclusively to the latter. Wouldn't YOU? ;)

A lot of things in the currently proposed legislation suck, and some are dagnerous: GIVE THEM A PLAN B. As is usually the case with government, the publics only choices are:

1) Provide a viable superior law or
2) Live with the one enacted instead.

ONLINE. You left out that all important word. Believe it or not, people were able to disseminate ideas, market media and have discussions before the internet. Much of Big Medias motivation in pushing this legislation is that the rise of the internet has diminished the popularity of all those other forms of communication, from the lending libraries you reference to periodicals to film to music publishing to television. One of the big problems with the current legislation is that it is too preoccupied with protecting those other media industries rather than actual piracy. That's one of the things that needs to be fixed before creating any new anti-piracy law.

Yet piracy remains a real problem threatening the livelihoods of content producers, publishers and people employed in producing media as well as related industries.

I disagree the spike in piracy is a result of recent economic woes; we didn't have that problem during the Depression or the Seventies, and DID have it during the tech driven economic boom of the Nineties. Piracy has become a major problem because it's absurdly easy to go online and get intellectual property that represents months or even years of time, energy and money people invested hoping for a return with which to feed their families--only to be disappointed because anyone who wishes can quickly and easily obtain it for free. Even if recent economic crises have fueled piracy, expecting those people to work for free is not the solution, certainly not to THEIR economic difficulties.

The White House promised to end corporate welfare, rubber stamping oil drilling permits and provide universal healthcare with a public option but no mandatory participation. It delivered a staggering level of corporate welfare that would make the previous administration blush, signed off on a BP Gulf drilling permit cut and pasted from their Prudhoe Bay Alaska permit (site of another major spill) and a non-universal healthcare program with no public option but mandatory participation.

Its word is worthless, and voting for Obama yet getting Romney doesn't make me thrilled about choosing between Romney or Romney this November, but that is a separate issue. :focus:

Yeah, that's the biggest irony of all. Ultimately, piracy probably can't be stopped, but one thing this bill would do is subject convicted pirates to prison terms rather than civil fines they routinely ignore (which is part of what's motivating a new law.) These bills cast too wide a net, IMHO, both in terms of who can be prosecuted and what constitutes "piracy." That's one of the changes we should all suggest to our Congressmen. ;)

That's exactly what they're thinking, that DARPA created the internet to enhance rather than undermine Americas security. They're thinking of the hundreds of daily cyberattacks orginating from China and the various servers through which they pass en route to the White House and Pentagon, of how America set back Irans nuclear weapons programs by months, if not years, with a single virus spread through all their computers and of Wikileaks defiantly posting sensitive classified data (e.g. the identities of Al Qaeda informants in Pakistan) then laughing at Americas frutiless attempts to have them removed.

The way these laws go about putting a stop to that is awful, both in terms of gross inadequacy to that task and serious jeapordy to innocent bystanders. But the reality and seriousness of the strategic problem alone would guarantee a new law even apart from the reality of piracy or any pressure from the media industry. Expecting Congress to back down from that over First Amendment issues is like expecting them to let you drive an Abrams because it was purchased with tax dollars: It ignores the fact of federal authority over it and asserts a non-existent right to threaten national security.

Yeah, don't hold your breath; everyone supports everyone elses rights until it costs them some scratch. That's a lot of this whole debate.

Meanwhile, the world wide web and before it the internet in general functioned just fine without Google for thirty years. Know what it REALLY can't function without? The evil US government that created it.

Joel the internet stopped being a tiny government project back in 1990 from the same article you quoted:


Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.

I'm not old enough to "remember' prohibition but as we both know it hasn't been the law in many decades. But by bad law I mean the law burdens the many while benefiting a very narrow few.

The law basically forces private companies to police global copyright violations at great cost and under the threat of heavy penalty.

It should remain up to content owners to enforce their copyrights internationally as it has always been. We already have DMCA here and it works well domestically.

Further, like Obamacare and other laws, the legislation proposed leaves so much to the discretion of the executive branch as far as rules and enforcement mechanisms and penalties that we have no real idea of what it will do beyond what I mentioned.

STOP SOPA!

[weazel]

I dont understand why you guys are so mad about this considering the US Government basically did this to your personal rights a while ago. They dont need an ounce of reason to lock you up and not tell anyone ever where you are. I would be more worried about that than your right to post a picture or video.

[Thnikkaman]

Well, yeah, I agree, it sucks. It puts the burden of proof on the accused, not disagreeing with that.

But when you say 'without due process' it makes it sound like a switch is flipped as soon as an accusation is made and that's not quite right. A judge still has to give the ok. Again, I'm not saying that is a good thing, but there is a layer of process involved even if it's not due.

Sure, and we don't know of any corrupt lawyers or judges in this country. You're right, its not an instant, "Your site is going down", but do you think that copyright owners aren't going to find like minded judges and lawyers that are going to judge in favor of them?

Yes this sounds like a conspiracy theory, and it may only apply to a small fraction, but it could apply to nobody if a better anti-piracy bill is drafted.

And again, like other laws, its only going to affect people who are law abiding citizens. People who want to pirate are still going to pirate, and find ways to do it without getting caught.

[iLands]

I dont understand why you guys are so mad about this considering the US Government basically did this to your personal rights a while ago. They dont need an ounce of reason to lock you up and not tell anyone ever where you are. I would be more worried about that than your right to post a picture or video.

Smoking too much blogspam?

[Thnikkaman]

I dont understand why you guys are so mad about this considering the US Government basically did this to your personal rights a while ago. They dont need an ounce of reason to lock you up and not tell anyone ever where you are. I would be more worried about that than your right to post a picture or video.

I'm concerned about that bill as well, and did the same steps to try and get that one stopped.

This is America, we shouldn't fear what our government is going to do with us.

[Nick]

I dont understand why you guys are so mad about this considering the US Government basically did this to your personal rights a while ago. They dont need an ounce of reason to lock you up and not tell anyone ever where you are. I would be more worried about that than your right to post a picture or video.

As a conservative and big supporter of civil liberties. I had mixed feelings on this because it has it's pros and cons. The bill is way to broad. If your a US citizen and you are suspected terrorist, grab him and ask questions later.

I will never be in that situation so I say go for it but it is waaaay to broad.

This is somthing you most likely, hopefully, will not come across.

SOPA would effect online for ever.

[weazel]

Smoking too much blogspam?

LMAO you're denying that they have done this? :lol: you're a funny guy!

wow, talk about naive. You might wanna see whats going on under your own nose

[weazel]

As a conservative and big supporter of civil liberties. I had mixed feelings on this because it has it's pros and cons. The bill is way to broad. If your a US citizen and you are suspected terrorist, grab him and ask questions later.

I will never be in that situation so I say go for it but it is waaaay to broad.

This is somthing you most likely, hopefully, will not come across.

SOPA would effect online for ever.

just dont have a nice tan and be in Arizona LOL

[iLands]

LMAO you're denying that they have done this? :lol: you're a funny guy!

wow, talk about naive. You might wanna see whats going on under your own nose

Hypothesis confirmed.

[Nick]

After posting Wikipedia / Google news last night:

Wife: Did you even miss Wikipedia? No? Didn't think so.

Me: I like Wikipedia. If SOPA passes... I am going to post copied righted material on ever site you go on so you will have no reason to go on the internet.

:lol:

[Joel]

wayninja already covered the court order=/=without due process thing, so I'll just say I agree. Letting the US AG and/or a private company do something via court order is not the same as letting them do as they like.

Communism is an ideal that states that everything is publicly owned, even your own self. Thus, when the public (the government) tells you what you can and cannot say (censorship), it is communism at a basic level.
Communism is a philosophy rejecting the very premise of private property, intellectual or otherwise; a law based on protecting private property rights is not communist, but anti-communist at a basic level.

Joel the internet stopped being a tiny government project back in 1990 from the same article you quoted:
That's when it stopped being JUST a (not so) tiny government project. The feds still maintain control and authority over most of it within the US, it's just not (usually) in your face about it. The federal government could almost literally yank the infrastructure right out from underneath the internet in the US at a moments notice or none. And there wouldn't be much any of us could do about it because most such actions would be entirely within their existing authority. Much of the problem with these bills is that the feds would be using that existing authority on behalf of private corporate interests (which would, of course, be UNPRECEDENTED. :rolleyes:)

Corporate America is trying to do the same thing to small business online that it's used the government to do everywhere else. The only surprise is it took so long, but the internet only recently became worth the trouble.

I'm not old enough to "remember' prohibition but as we both know it hasn't been the law in many decades. But by bad law I mean the law burdens the many while benefiting a very narrow few.

The law basically forces private companies to police global copyright violations at great cost and under the threat of heavy penalty.

It should remain up to content owners to enforce their copyrights internationally as it has always been. We already have DMCA here and it works well domestically.

Further, like Obamacare and other laws, the legislation proposed leaves so much to the discretion of the executive branch as far as rules and enforcement mechanisms and penalties that we have no real idea of what it will do beyond what I mentioned.

STOP SOPA!
The only way you'll stop SOPA (or PIPA) is to come up with something better. We've never enforced copyright law internationally because we never had the means, just as we can't prosecute a Californian in France for murder there: No jurisdiction. With content crossing borders via electronic lines we DO have the means to prevent copyright infringement there. In the case of pirates, hackers and cyberterrorists we should; we just shouldn't go after everyone who's ever had any online contact with them, knowingly or otherwise. We certainly shouldn't send people to prison unless they were actively and knowingly involved in such activities.

There are major problems with both bills in Congress, and the one alternative I've seen has problems, too, since it places enforcement discretion in the ITC. But piracy is a serious, real and growing problem, and we won't "STOP SOPA!" by simply shouting, "STOP SOPA!" at Congress in unison until they listen. As long as that's ALL we do, they'll NEVER listen, because we aren't contributing any better options, and they WILL enact SOMETHING.

By the way, has anyone looked into what, if any, effect SOPA and PIPA would have on sites with domain names registered in the US? I know one of the arguments against them is that a lot of US sites are actually registered overseas, and would thus be subject to the laws even though that's not what Congress intended, but it seems like getting a domain name in the US ought to be a fairly simple solution to that problem.

[CrazyHorse]

Google should shut down for one day. Put their money where their mouth is! The world wide webs can't function without Google and it would send a very powerful message!

SOPA and PIPA are not good now or ever. My fear is the message got out too late.

I could function just fine. I'm sure Yahoo! and Bing would like that though.

[NightTerror218]

Joel you have been in Norway way to long.

[Joel]

Joel you have been in Norway way to long.
That Pirate Bay operates from the evil imperialist country next door is purely coincidental to my feelings on this matter. :tongue:

[silkamilkamonico]

http://www.aaanything.net/wp-content/gallery/some-famous-quotes/george_carlin_about_american_dream_you_have_to_be_ asleep_to_believe_it.jpg

[Nick]

That Pirate Bay operates from the evil imperialist country next door is purely coincidental to my feelings on this matter. :tongue:

http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really. To fix the "problem of piracy" one should go ...to the source of the problem.

The entertainment industry say they're creating "culture" but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv shows that make them think that they're fat.

:lol:

[Joel]

Pirate Bay can't access Wikipedia? They mean English Wikipedia, right? Otherwise I can send them a link to the Swedish version (I think that's still legal.) Or just let them know one of the several ways to access the English version despite the pro forma "blackout."

The sad thing about these bills is the people they're aimed at pretty much know how to get around them. You can usually bet on a 20 year old college stoner weaned on a computer to know more about the internet than the 68 year old Senator who needs his grandson to show him how to access his email account. Daily. The blacklists will screw people like, well, like the Senator, who don't know how to get around them. People who do... well, that's why the new bills move from "we're fining you $500 for each of the 300 songs you illegally downloaded, even though we know you'll never pay and we can't make you" to "we're sending you to prison."

[red98]

wayninja already covered the court order=/=without due process thing, so I'll just say I agree. Letting the US AG and/or a private company do something via court order is not the same as letting them do as they like.

Communism is a philosophy rejecting the very premise of private property, intellectual or otherwise; a law based on protecting private property rights is not communist, but anti-communist at a basic level.

That's when it stopped being JUST a (not so) tiny government project. The feds still maintain control and authority over most of it within the US, it's just not (usually) in your face about it. The federal government could almost literally yank the infrastructure right out from underneath the internet in the US at a moments notice or none. And there wouldn't be much any of us could do about it because most such actions would be entirely within their existing authority. Much of the problem with these bills is that the feds would be using that existing authority on behalf of private corporate interests (which would, of course, be UNPRECEDENTED. :rolleyes:)

Corporate America is trying to do the same thing to small business online that it's used the government to do everywhere else. The only surprise is it took so long, but the internet only recently became worth the trouble.

The only way you'll stop SOPA (or PIPA) is to come up with something better. We've never enforced copyright law internationally because we never had the means, just as we can't prosecute a Californian in France for murder there: No jurisdiction. With content crossing borders via electronic lines we DO have the means to prevent copyright infringement there. In the case of pirates, hackers and cyberterrorists we should; we just shouldn't go after everyone who's ever had any online contact with them, knowingly or otherwise. We certainly shouldn't send people to prison unless they were actively and knowingly involved in such activities.

There are major problems with both bills in Congress, and the one alternative I've seen has problems, too, since it places enforcement discretion in the ITC. But piracy is a serious, real and growing problem, and we won't "STOP SOPA!" by simply shouting, "STOP SOPA!" at Congress in unison until they listen. As long as that's ALL we do, they'll NEVER listen, because we aren't contributing any better options, and they WILL enact SOMETHING.

By the way, has anyone looked into what, if any, effect SOPA and PIPA would have on sites with domain names registered in the US? I know one of the arguments against them is that a lot of US sites are actually registered overseas, and would thus be subject to the laws even though that's not what Congress intended, but it seems like getting a domain name in the US ought to be a fairly simple solution to that problem.


The infrastructure of the Internet is not owned or controlled by the Government. The servers and nodes are not owned or controlled by them. You may recall stories of the Obama administration wanting a "kill switch" for the purpose of shutting it down in case of a national security emergency.

Here is an excerpt of an article explaining the kill switch idea:


A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.

Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

"We're not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone," said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.

Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those "crucial components that form our nation's critical infrastructure."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.html


So, no, the government can't shut it down and doesn't own or operate any of it.

Copyright and similar laws have ALWAYS been enforced internationally through treaties and in the courts of the country with jurisdiction.

More treaties and better laws in other countries are the best way to go in addressing issues of international piracy.

There may be a need for better laws and as a very active political person I know it's not enough to just shout "stop SOPA".

As such I promise you: we will stop SOPA and it's brethren.

You know I enjoy your posts Joel even though they can be time consuming ;). But on this one you just got it wrong.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

So - let's just say that this goes thru - I see no reason why there still can't be Broncos Forums - maybe the name would have to be changed - i.e. orange forums, or whatever. Then no articles posted, no videos posted, but I can not see how they can stop us from creating threads, and posting within those threads.

Am I missing something here?

[Thnikkaman]

So - let's just say that this goes thru - I see no reason why there still can't be Broncos Forums - maybe the name would have to be changed - i.e. orange forums, or whatever. Then no articles posted, no videos posted, but I can not see how they can stop us from creating threads, and posting within those threads.

Am I missing something here?

It could work. But a team of Mods would have to approve every post before displaying it on the site to ensure that there was no conceivable way that a post could be viewed as a copyright infringement.

So otherwise, make running the site a full time job for 5 or 6 people, or just take the site down.

If this passes, sites like youtube, facebook, twitter, reddit, slashdot, etc... all go away. Any site that relies on user generated content would be gone, in theory due to the way the legislation is worded.

[gnomeflinger]

What about the ads, if the site is allowed to stay with no restrictions, or any restrictions?

I might/might not miss links for "Denver Bronco Thongs" and "Dating Chinese Girls."

What kind of site are you running, Tned? :shocked:

[Thnikkaman]

What about the ads, if the site is allowed to stay with no restrictions, or any restrictions?

I might/might not miss links for "Denver Bronco Thongs" and "Dating Chinese Girls."

What kind of site are you running, Tned? :shocked:

With the ad revenue, the advertisers would be given the right to break any contract and pull out if the site is accused of linking to, or hosting copyrighted material that they don't have the permission to do so.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

It could work. But a team of Mods would have to approve every post before displaying it on the site to ensure that there was no conceivable way that a post could be viewed as a copyright infringement.

So otherwise, make running the site a full time job for 5 or 6 people, or just take the site down.

If this passes, sites like youtube, facebook, twitter, reddit, slashdot, etc... all go away. Any site that relies on user generated content would be gone, in theory due to the way the legislation is worded.

Then I would assume that would also apply to the message board on the Broncos' website, as well as fan forums on all professional team sites? In fact, I would assume it would apply to any site where people can post.

[wayninja]

So - let's just say that this goes thru - I see no reason why there still can't be Broncos Forums - maybe the name would have to be changed - i.e. orange forums, or whatever. Then no articles posted, no videos posted, but I can not see how they can stop us from creating threads, and posting within those threads.

Am I missing something here?

They can't, I thought I answered this earlier?

The site (probably) wouldn't shut down, worst case scenario they just prevent linking to anything external (and use scripts to scrub URL's etc).

[Denver Native (Carol)]

They can't, I thought I answered this earlier?

The site (probably) wouldn't shut down, worst case scenario they just prevent linking to anything external (and use scripts to scrub URL's etc).

Sorry - did not take the time to read all of the posts.

[wayninja]

Sorry - did not take the time to read all of the posts.

No worries, Tink's being a bit extreme (in order to make a point). I think the possibility of any of this happening is pretty low actually.

[Tned]

http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

SOPA can't do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we'll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really. To fix the "problem of piracy" one should go ...to the source of the problem.

The entertainment industry say they're creating "culture" but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv shows that make them think that they're fat.

:lol:

This is the point I was making earlier. This bill will do nothing to stop the piraters that NEED to be stopped, but has the potential to be abused and damage legitimate sites.

[I Eat Staples]

This government already censors too much and is trying to restrict more and more of our freedoms. Bills like these are why I continue to dislike America more and more.

[Tned]

What about the ads, if the site is allowed to stay with no restrictions, or any restrictions?

I might/might not miss links for "Denver Bronco Thongs" and "Dating Chinese Girls."

What kind of site are you running, Tned? :shocked:

The better question is what the heck do you do on the internet when you aren't on BF???? :lol:

To a very large extent, everyone one of us sees different ads. One of the ad companies is a sports company, and all their ads are the same. However, Google delivers ads based on their tracking of what each of us does (google searches, siites we visit, etc.) -- Big brother google knows everything about you...

So, if I do some googles on how to transfer songs from my Ipod, I will start to see ads about Ipod transfer software, or Itunes, or whatever.

So, the big question is what you do on the internet to get thong and chinese girls!!

[Tned]

They can't, I thought I answered this earlier?

The site (probably) wouldn't shut down, worst case scenario they just prevent linking to anything external (and use scripts to scrub URL's etc).

One of the powers in the bill is to shut down sites by having domains removed from the domain name system, so it isn't about scrubbing anything external. If a complaint is made about BF or another site, and it can be essentially removed from cyberspace at the DNS level.

Of course you can bring the site back up with another domain name, but then you have to try and get word out for people to now start coming to Tnedsforums.com or whatever.

Now, obviously, much of what's being discussed is worse case scenario, but considering it will do NOTHING to stop places like Pirates bay and the sites that really do need to be shutdown, but risks great abuse to legit sites, this is bad legislation.

[VonSackemMiller]

This government already censors too much and is trying to restrict more and more of our freedoms. Bills like these are why I continue to dislike America more and more.

Are you going to pick up and leave though?

[wayninja]

One of the powers in the bill is to shut down sites by having domains removed from the domain name system, so it isn't about scrubbing anything external. If a complaint is made about BF or another site, and it can be essentially removed from cyberspace at the DNS level.

Of course you can bring the site back up with another domain name, but then you have to try and get word out for people to now start coming to Tnedsforums.com or whatever.

Now, obviously, much of what's being discussed is worse case scenario, but considering it will do NOTHING to stop places like Pirates bay and the sites that really do need to be shutdown, but risks great abuse to legit sites, this is bad legislation.

Well, that's true, but I was talking about what BroncosForums would do to protect itself from such claims in the event the bill passes (under the assumption that preventing any pictures/links etc is easier than policing each one). Obviously if a claim is made under the bill and a court approves it, BroncosForums goes bye bye.

[Tned]

Well, that's true, but I was talking about what BroncosForums would do to protect itself from such claims in the event the bill passes (under the assumption that preventing any pictures/links etc is easier than policing each one). Obviously if a claim is made under the bill and a court approves it, BroncosForums goes bye bye.

Not just BF, let's say there is a site claiming that Wal-Mart mistreats employees and sells goods made by drugged children in Malaysia. Wal-mart and their minions of lawyers get a friendly judge and regulator to wipe the site off the face of the earth, claiming trademark infringement, copyright infringement, etc.

This is the issue that many of us have with the law. While I think the chances of it effecting BF are slim, when it comes to sites like facebook, youtube, flickr, wikipedia, google, many, many blogs and other sites.

There are already methods and remedies for companies to go after trademark, copyright and other infringement. This bill is ill conceived and has far greater risk of abuse than it does solving the piracy issue.

This will create an industry of lawyers that focus on wiping sites off the internet for a fee. They will cherry pick jurisdictions where they have the easiest time getting a judges order, just like they now cherry pick jurisdictions that give the biggest awards in class action suits.

[Davii]

You know, I understand that Piracy is the problem they are trying to solve, or so they claim.

What strikes me is that this is the completely wrong vehicle to do so and the completely wrong forum. This is not a law that needs to be passed, the activity itself is already illegal. Not just in this nation either, I keep hearing that it's those damned Russian sites selling cheap mp3's and streaming everything under the sun.

While this is true that both activities take place, passing a law in the US does nothing to stop it except to prosecute or otherwise harass you and I for buying a 10 cent song instead of a 99 cent one.

So, what's the solution? The laws are already in place, even in Russia, and the agreements between all of our media outlets, record labels, etc. all have language in them requiring piracy protection.

Tell the record companies if they don't like it, get off their ass and stop it. Tell the movie companies the same thing, and all the networks. You don't want your movie being recorded, poorly, in a shitty theater? Great, put a digital watermark in the corner, or insert a frame every so often with a serial number. It would flash quick enough nobody could see it, but the movie company could get hold of pirated work and figure out what theater it was recorded in. Follow the rabbit, cut them off, and when their business dies since they can't get movies anymore other theaters will get the hint and police that shit.

Same thing goes for broadcast. I'm quite certain they could ascertain what channel, country, region, etc the stream is coming from and then cut them off for future events. They'll figure it out quick.

CD's? Technology exists to encrypt the data where it can't be recorded. Sure the pirates will figure it out, then you change it again.

It's illegal to steal a car, but it still happens, so should we make it illegal to enter a car lot or parking lot without armed guards, signatures, photo id, and a DNA test?

No, protect yourself, get a car alarm, car lots should have cameras and anti-theft devices installed, etc.

Common damn sense, protect your own frigging product!!!!!!!

[Nick]

It could work. But a team of Mods would have to approve every post before displaying it on the site to ensure that there was no conceivable way that a post could be viewed as a copyright infringement.

So otherwise, make running the site a full time job for 5 or 6 people, or just take the site down.

If this passes, sites like youtube, facebook, twitter, reddit, slashdot, etc... all go away. Any site that relies on user generated content would be gone, in theory due to the way the legislation is worded.

Exactly.

[Joel]

The infrastructure of the Internet is not owned or controlled by the Government. The servers and nodes are not owned or controlled by them. You may recall stories of the Obama administration wanting a "kill switch" for the purpose of shutting it down in case of a national security emergency.

Here is an excerpt of an article explaining the kill switch idea:
Kill the lines and you kill the net; I don't think (though I could be wrong) wireless links have yet reached the level of saturation to sustain it without cables. And if the government feels a need to go after those, they can and will. Odds are, whatever replaced Carnivore would make killing the net without doing that childs play. If the feds can fry Irans nuclear weapons program with a single virus, better believe they can handle your laptop.

Part of what I find so ridiculous about all this "the government is trying to take power they will abuse to destroy the internet111" is that requires no new powers; a kill switch would not enable it, just make doing it without a lot of collateral damage much easier. In terms of individual sites, while the government may no longer directly control the US domain name registry, you can bet any site they wanted pulled would be.

I was living in Austin happily playing GURPS when the Secret Service shutdown Steve Jackson Games claiming the upcoming Cyberpunk supplement was some kind of hacker how to manual (ironically, it was around the same time the feds declared the internet a commercial public realm.) That's not what this is, by any means.

So, no, the government can't shut it down and doesn't own or operate any of it.
It owns and operates a great deal of it; if they instituted a blackout of government servers and routers tomorrow I bet the world, and the US in particular, would feel the pinch a lot sooner and worse than Wikipedias.

Copyright and similar laws have ALWAYS been enforced internationally through treaties and in the courts of the country with jurisdiction.

More treaties and better laws in other countries are the best way to go in addressing issues of international piracy.

There may be a need for better laws and as a very active political person I know it's not enough to just shout "stop SOPA".

As such I promise you: we will stop SOPA and it's brethren.

You know I enjoy your posts Joel even though they can be time consuming ;). But on this one you just got it wrong.
The reason SOPA and PIPA exist (along with the alternative bill I referenced earlier but whose acronym I now forget) is that a lot of countries (particularly China) are not signatory to many copyright treaties, and don't always adhere to those they HAVE signed. Piracy sites there CAN'T be shut down (witness Pirate Bays derision) so Big Media and Congress are trying to block ACCESS to them instead.

Which brings up an interesting point: Would domain names registered in the US even be affected by these laws? The targets are piracy sites with foreign registry (which, as noted elsewhere, incidentally includes some US sites registered overseas, and excludes foreign sites registered in the US.) These bills, rightly blasted for vagueness in other areas, try really hard to define "foreign" and "domestic" sites on that basis. I don't claim to be an authority on the bills (or the internet) but it seems like finagling an exemption would be as simple as registering a new domain in the US. Of course, EXISTING US law might cause such a site to be removed if accused of copyright infringement, but in some ways that's the point: Foreign sites currently get away with things already illegal under US law, because they operate outside the US.

Davii: The media industry has already tried, repeatedly and exhaustively, for decades, to copy protect and otherwise prevent piracy. It doesn't work, mainly because hackers and crackers are always WAY ahead of the curve there. Even when they don't know how to circumvent copy protection before it hits the market, they learn fast. That's another reason the media industry is pushing for new laws.

Region coded DVDs are a good example: Anyone with basic knowledge can get around that, and anyone without even that knowledge can simply by a "regionless" DVD player that plays EVERYTHING.

If copy protection had ever worked, Pirate Bay wouldn't exist. Faced with countries that do not have and/or do not enforce international copyright laws, where people who know media companies' copy protection better than they do and are willing to spend hours shredding it just for free, just for the sake of doing it, they are attempting to exercise their sole remaining option: Block access to the result.

[BroncoNut]

OMG!!! Hoes is going to be reinstated?

[GEM]

The better question is what the heck do you do on the internet when you aren't on BF???? :lol:

To a very large extent, everyone one of us sees different ads. One of the ad companies is a sports company, and all their ads are the same. However, Google delivers ads based on their tracking of what each of us does (google searches, siites we visit, etc.) -- Big brother google knows everything about you...

So, if I do some googles on how to transfer songs from my Ipod, I will start to see ads about Ipod transfer software, or Itunes, or whatever.

So, the big question is what you do on the internet to get thong and chinese girls!!


Well thank heavens I already have my "gemming" site picked out and don't have to search them. :laugh:

[BeefStew25]

1984

Or, if Dallas Chief checks in:

1993

[GEM]

You know, I understand that Piracy is the problem they are trying to solve, or so they claim.

What strikes me is that this is the completely wrong vehicle to do so and the completely wrong forum. This is not a law that needs to be passed, the activity itself is already illegal. Not just in this nation either, I keep hearing that it's those damned Russian sites selling cheap mp3's and streaming everything under the sun.

While this is true that both activities take place, passing a law in the US does nothing to stop it except to prosecute or otherwise harass you and I for buying a 10 cent song instead of a 99 cent one.

So, what's the solution? The laws are already in place, even in Russia, and the agreements between all of our media outlets, record labels, etc. all have language in them requiring piracy protection.

Tell the record companies if they don't like it, get off their ass and stop it. Tell the movie companies the same thing, and all the networks. You don't want your movie being recorded, poorly, in a shitty theater? Great, put a digital watermark in the corner, or insert a frame every so often with a serial number. It would flash quick enough nobody could see it, but the movie company could get hold of pirated work and figure out what theater it was recorded in. Follow the rabbit, cut them off, and when their business dies since they can't get movies anymore other theaters will get the hint and police that shit.

Same thing goes for broadcast. I'm quite certain they could ascertain what channel, country, region, etc the stream is coming from and then cut them off for future events. They'll figure it out quick.

CD's? Technology exists to encrypt the data where it can't be recorded. Sure the pirates will figure it out, then you change it again.

It's illegal to steal a car, but it still happens, so should we make it illegal to enter a car lot or parking lot without armed guards, signatures, photo id, and a DNA test?

No, protect yourself, get a car alarm, car lots should have cameras and anti-theft devices installed, etc.

Common damn sense, protect your own frigging product!!!!!!!


Only problem with that....theater hires 10 more people to police each theater and cost of ticket goes up another $5. :mad: Took my daughters to the movies and just the tickets alone were $29. :mad: Insane.

[Davii]

Kill the lines and you kill the net; I don't think (though I could be wrong) wireless links have yet reached the level of saturation to sustain it without cables. And if the government feels a need to go after those, they can and will. Odds are, whatever replaced Carnivore would make killing the net without doing that childs play. If the feds can fry Irans nuclear weapons program with a single virus, better believe they can handle your laptop.

Part of what I find so ridiculous about all this "the government is trying to take power they will abuse to destroy the internet111" is that requires no new powers; a kill switch would not enable it, just make doing it without a lot of collateral damage much easier. In terms of individual sites, while the government may no longer directly control the US domain name registry, you can bet any site they wanted pulled would be.

It owns and operates a great deal of it; if they instituted a blackout of government servers and routers tomorrow I bet the world, and the US in particular, would feel the pinch a lot sooner and worse than Wikipedias.

The reason SOPA and PIPA exist (along with the alternative bill I referenced earlier but whose acronym I now forget) is that a lot of countries (particularly China) are not signatory to many copyright treaties, and don't always adhere to those they HAVE signed. Piracy sites there CAN'T be shut down (witness Pirate Bays derision) so Big Media and Congress are trying to block ACCESS to them instead.

Which brings up an interesting point: Would domain names registered in the US even be affected by these laws? The targets are piracy sites with foreign registry (which, as noted elsewhere, incidentally includes some US sites registered overseas, and excludes foreign sites registered in the US.) These bills, rightly blasted for vagueness in other areas, try really hard to define "foreign" and "domestic" sites on that basis. I don't claim to be an authority on the bills (or the internet) but it seems like finagling an exemption would be as simple as registering a new domain in the US. Of course, EXISTING US law might cause such a site to be removed if accused of copyright infringement, but in some ways that's the point: Foreign sites currently get away with things already illegal under US law, because they operate outside the US.

Davii: The media industry has already tried, repeatedly and exhaustively, for decades, to copy protect and otherwise prevent piracy. It doesn't work, mainly because hackers and crackers are always WAY ahead of the curve there. Even when they don't know how to circumvent copy protection before it hits the market, they learn fast. That's another reason the media industry is pushing for new laws.

Region coded DVDs are a good example: Anyone with basic knowledge can get around that, and anyone without even that knowledge can simply by a "regionless" DVD player that plays EVERYTHING.

If copy protection had ever worked, Pirate Bay wouldn't exist. Faced with countries that do not have and/or do not enforce international copyright laws, where people who know media companies' copy protection better than they do and are willing to spend hours shredding it just for free, just for the sake of doing it, they are attempting to exercise their sole remaining option: Block access to the result.

Then they need to find a better way, period. If encoding isn't workable then pull your product from markets that turn a blind eye, etc... There are solutions out there and I'm quite certain they can find them. Maybe a completely new all digital standard, something, I don't know the answer, but I also don't have the capital, access, resources, etc of the entire electronics/media/recording industry...

All I know is it's an industry's responsibility to protect their product. Maybe we should ban pockets because Walmart and Target lose revenue to shoplifters.

[Tned]

Kill the lines and you kill the net; I don't think (though I could be wrong) wireless links have yet reached the level of saturation to sustain it without cables. And if the government feels a need to go after those, they can and will. Odds are, whatever replaced Carnivore would make killing the net without doing that childs play. If the feds can fry Irans nuclear weapons program with a single virus, better believe they can handle your laptop.

Part of what I find so ridiculous about all this "the government is trying to take power they will abuse to destroy the internet111" is that requires no new powers; a kill switch would not enable it, just make doing it without a lot of collateral damage much easier. In terms of individual sites, while the government may no longer directly control the US domain name registry, you can bet any site they wanted pulled would be.



Joel, your are pretty far afield on this argument you keep repeating, not mention you keep making arguments about the predecessor to the current Internet, which has little to do with how it works now.

Can the government take control of the Internet and shut it down? Of course, the same way the US government could nationalize all the oil companies, banks, telecoms, cell providers, retail stores, etc.

What you are describing is no different than nationalizing any other industry.

ARPANET has nothing to do with the current Internet in terms of who owns/operates it. You are simply mistaken on that fact or a few decades out of date in your knowledge.

As to who "owns" or more accurately operates the Internet, you have to start with the back bone, which is made up of 8-10 companies in the US like ATT, Verizon, Level 3, UUNET, and several others that all link together at major junctions around the US (and the world, but focusing on US here). In addition to that, you have the many local providers like Comcast, Suddenlink, ATT, etc., that connect users to the backbone. In very few, if any, cases these days does our Internet traffic transit federal government routers or lines.

Your whole line of reasoning is bogus as it relates to this conversation. There is a HUGE difference between the government nationalizing companies or issuing a Marshal Law of sorts and shutting down the Internet, and implementing an anti-piracy law that allows complaints with little to no evidence and no defense by the accused, that would remove sites from the DNS system -- making them essentially disappear from the Internet.

You really need to do some homework and bring yourself into the 21st century in regards to what the Internet is and how it works, rather than posting long rants that have no basis in reality.

[dogfish]

Or, if Dallas Chief checks in:

1993

i think i found DC from '93:


http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6066/4254368.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/4254368.jpg/)

[dogfish]

Well thank heavens I already have my "gemming" site picked out and don't have to search them. :laugh:

i don't wanna know, but i wanna know. . .


:shocked:

[Dreadnought]

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has argued that this is in fact a case of old fashioned non-competitive media and entertainment companies attempting to use the power of the government to kneecap their newer, more efficient, more effective competitors. Rather than adapt their own business models to compete they want to have somebody else guard their gravy train. No thanks.

I am from Rochester, NY. Eastman Kodak employed over 60,000 people when I was a kid. It now employs 7,000 and filed for bankruptcy this week. They refused to adapt to a world of digital photography and clung to their (enormously profitable) film and film development models long after it was clearly going the way of buggy whips and corsets. In this case Hollywood and the NYC media establishment want to use government power to enshrine their obsolete business model. They had a great run, they made a ton of money, but they need to adapt themselves or die.

[red98]

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has argued that this is in fact a case of old fashioned non-competitive media and entertainment companies attempting to use the power of the government to kneecap their newer, more efficient, more effective competitors. Rather than adapt their own business models to compete they want to have somebody else guard their gravy train. No thanks.

I am from Rochester, NY. Eastman Kodak employed over 60,000 people when I was a kid. It now employs 7,000 and filed for bankruptcy this week. They refused to adapt to a world of digital photography and clung to their (enormously profitable) film and film development models long after it was clearly going the way of buggy whips and corsets. In this case Hollywood and the NYC media establishment want to use government power to enshrine their obsolete business model. They had a great run, they made a ton of money, but they need to adapt themselves or die.


Exactly, crony capitalism writ large.

[Davii]

i don't wanna know, but i wanna know. . .


:shocked:

http://Davii.blogsspot.com ;)

*had to edit the link, as it turns out there is an imposter Davii out there. Always look for the "Forged on Parris Island" seal.

[chazoe60]

This is why I despise our government. Love our country, hate our government. Yes we have it better than most, but freedom should not be an issue of "better than most" it should be a fundamental right of all not infringed upon by anyone.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19776023

[BroncoNut]

http://Davii.blogspot.com ;)

Davii, what is your astrological sign?

[Zweems56]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19776023

Awesome. This just adds fuel to the fire. You don't need SOPA or PIPA to stop Copyright infringement. It's already illegal. ******* your citizens in the ass is not the way to stop pirating.

[Davii]

Davii, what is your astrological sign?

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius. Are you hitting on me nut?

[BroncoNut]

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius. Are you hitting on me nut?

no. you are way out of my league. figures you are an aquarius. As hot as you are and everything.

[sneakers]

Good. I hate the internet anyway. lol

[Slick]

Are you going to pick up and leave though?

Yes!

[Davii]

no. you are way out of my league. figures you are an aquarius. As hot as you are and everything.

You're a good looking man and of commendable character Nut. It could never work though.

[NightTerror218]

some people are standing up against it in the senate...for now

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46064036/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/#.TxjAMIHKFCM

[Joel]

Then they need to find a better way, period. If encoding isn't workable then pull your product from markets that turn a blind eye, etc... There are solutions out there and I'm quite certain they can find them. Maybe a completely new all digital standard, something, I don't know the answer, but I also don't have the capital, access, resources, etc of the entire electronics/media/recording industry...

All I know is it's an industry's responsibility to protect their product. Maybe we should ban pockets because Walmart and Target lose revenue to shoplifters.
There are NOT effective solutions out there they can find if they just look. The computer gaming industry alone has been trying for 25 years; if tech pros who've been online since the first day people COULD go online haven't found effective copy protection by now, I doubt they ever will. I don't think they CAN, because every "solution" just invites younger, more creative and more tech savvy people to devise superior cracking techniques. Encrypters know that because most of them got their expertise doing the same thing when the people doing it now were born.

Every copy protection technique is just shutting the barn door after the cows got out, which quickly turns into the Dutch boy trying to plug leaks in his dike: After about the tenth one, he's out of options.

Meanwhile, since when is it industrys responsibility to protect their product? If you walk out of Target with a plasma TV you didn't pay for, expect to go to jail.

Joel, you are pretty far afield on this argument you keep repeating, not mention you keep making arguments about the predecsor to the current internet, which has little to do with how it works now.

Can the government take control of the internet and shut it down? Of course, the same way the US government could nationalize all the oil companies, banks, telecoms, cell providers, retail stores, etc.

What you are describing is no different than nationalizing any other industry.

ARPANET has nothing to do with the current Internet in terms of who owns/operates it. You are simply mistaken on that fact or a few decades out of date in your knowledge.

As to who "owns" or more accurately operates the Internet, you have to start with the back bone, which is made up of 8-10 companies in the US like ATT, Verizon, Level 3, UUNET, and several others that all link together at major junctions around the US (and the world, but focusing on US here). In addition to that, you have the many local providers like Comcast, Suddenlink, ATT, etc., that connect users to the backbone. In very few, if any, cases these days does our Internet traffic transit federal government routers or lines.

You whole line of reasoning is bogus as it relates to this conversation. There is a HUGE difference between the government nationalizing companies or issuing a Marshal Law of sorts and shutting down the Internet, and implementing a anti-piracy law that allows complaints with little to no evidence and no defense by the accused, that would remove sites from the DNS system.

You really need to do some homework and bring yourself into the 21st century in regards to what the Internet is and how it works, rather than posting long rants that have no basis in reality.
Even if I accepted that federal routers and servers are completely extraneous to the internet (as dubious as I consider that,) they'd still have PLENTY of FCC authority to shut it down without nationalizing anything. How many of the private entities you named would stay operational without federal licenses? The idea the government is invading the virgin internet is just bizarre; at most, it's reasserting control of its own creation.

In reality it's not even doing that, just being a lot more obvious than in the days the feds actively used Carnivore to probe and monitor internet traffic, sites and users. Just because few people knew about that until they switched to more current software doesn't mean it wasn't happening, or has ceased since: They just don't shoot off fireworks and wave red banners every time they do it.

The irony is amusing though: These bills attempting to clamp down on free entertainment have liberals scurrying to blame Big Business as conservatives scurry to blame Big Brother, providing TONS of free entertainment itself. This debate demonstrates the absurdity of that false paradigm better than anything else ever could. Big Business and Big Brother aren't competing for public support; they should be, but they're not. Big Business owns Big Brother just like everything else, and PRESENTS it as a competition. Hence the publics only hope is regaining control of the only effective defence it has against Big Business run amok.

If folks want to contribute to the process, this is as good a place as any to start. But it'll take more than "NO, NO, NO!" People who want to get involved should GET INVOLVED, not wait until besieged, then just protest that.

[Joel]

some people are standing up against it in the senate...for now
Once the unsustainable public outcry subsides, the unrelenting corporate agenda will resume. The foundation of lobbying is that you can pay people to camp outside a Congressional office lying in wait for months, while the general public only has time to spare for it until 8AM tomorrow when they have to be back at work to pay bills (which, of course, is what pays the lobbyists. ;))

Give them more feedback than alarmist absolute opposition: Give them suggestions for a law that better accomplishes the goal of reduced piracy WITHOUT threatening free expression, because, sooner or later, they WILL enact something. If the only things on the table are proposals by folks in the same suits Senators wear, and opponents offer nothing but paranoid opposition instead of alternatives, guess what the new law will be. :tsk:

By the way, did we ever establish once and for all whether sites with US registry are even affected by these bills? Since they're explicitly targeted at foreign sites, I would think that should be the first suggested fix.

[Davii]

There are NOT effective solutions out there they can find if they just look. The computer gaming industry alone has been trying for 25 years; if tech pros who've been online since the first day people COULD go online haven't found effective copy protection by now, I doubt they ever will. I don't think they CAN, because every "solution" just invites younger, more creative and more tech savvy people to devise superior cracking techniques. Encrypters know that because most of them got their expertise doing the same thing when the people doing it now were born.

Every copy protection technique is just shutting the barn door after the cows got out, which quickly turns into the Dutch boy trying to plug leaks in his dike: After about the tenth one, he's out of options.

Meanwhile, since when is it industrys responsibility to protect their product? If you walk out of Target with a plasma TV you didn't pay for, expect to go to jail.


So maybe they need to find a new format... The dvd rental business has figured out that streaming is the new blockbuster.... It doesn't have to be on a disc Joel. I also find your assertions that it's not possible laughable. How many pirated xbox games are running around? Some yes, but it's not widespread... Why? Because in order to have full functionality of today's games you need an internet connection and microsoft checks for hacks on the xbox. You can download a copy of mw3, but it won't work on your already hacked xbox and when the next xbox hack comes out it willl be countered on the next game release, etc.

Your analogy on the tv proves my point Joel, so thank you. Certainly you should expect to go to jail for stealing a flat screen. But it wasn't the coos that caught you, it was store employees, cameras, etc who then called the cops. Catching shoplifters is a businesses responsibility. I've never seen a cop patrolling the local mall, the mall hires private security...

[Joel]

This is better than most of the approaches I've seen to date (and contains a convenient link to the text of SOPA:) http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO1117.pdf

It STILL operates too much on the basis of "remove this, this and this and everything will be fine." That reminds me too much of people saying, "I like all traffic laws except speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights." In my experience, most of the people who say that are the reason speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights exist, which is probably why the government remains deaf to their pleas to eliminate those things. ;)

Waiting till others petition for legislation, then listing the parts of it to which one objects, creates the impression, accurate or otherwise, that

1) the petitioner has a deeper and broader knowledge of the situation (hence they presented a comprehensive request for new legislation) and

2) the objector is only familiar with the few narrow aspects affecting them and/or just wants exemption from those aspects because they are inconvenient.

Every new law must overcome the lawbreakers at whom it's aimed trying to either pull its teeth or kill it outright, and Congressmen know that. Unless critics suggest a viable means of accomplishing their stated goal without collateral damage, they have every reason to believe that's all this is. Everyone says, "there are less draconian ways to stop piracy." Why not make a list of them and send it to Congress?

[Medford Bronco]

Today is black Wednesday. This is a very good example of our Government meddling far more than originally intended.

MODS - leave it here so most can see it.

Shocker our Government meddling:rolleyes:

[Joel]

So maybe they need to find a new format... The dvd rental business has figured out that streaming is the new blockbuster.... It doesn't have to be on a disc Joel. I also find your assertions that it's not possible laughable. How many pirated xbox games are running around? Some yes, but it's not widespread... Why? Because in order to have full functionality of today's games you need an internet connection and microsoft checks for hacks on the xbox. You can download a copy of mw3, but it won't work on your already hacked xbox and when the next xbox hack comes out it willl be countered on the next game release, etc.
And the crackers will counter that, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Just yesterday on another site debating this very issue I saw a guy talking about how that persistent internet connection requirement that kept messing up his MW3 game when he got disconnected MOTIVATED him to find a pirated copy. So, yeah, I'd say they're out there, since the copy protection on a legal copy "forced" him to find one solely for easier play.

Your analogy on the tv proves my point Joel, so thank you. Certainly you should expect to go to jail for stealing a flat screen. But it wasn't the coos that caught you, it was store employees, cameras, etc who then called the cops. Catching shoplifters is a businesses responsibility. I've never seen a cop patrolling the local mall, the mall hires private security...
Actually, that was your analogy (shoplifting at stores,) and it still DISproves your point: Cops arrest people when stores detect shoplifing, just as the new bills would allow court orders to redirect traffic away from sites when people saw detect their copyrighted material posted on them. In both cases, merchants can do little more than notify law enforcement of a crime then let them enforce the law. Retailers don't even have legal authority to detain shoplifters until cops arrive to make the arrest, though a lot of people don't know that (having worked in retail and been told I did not have that power, I do know.)

Law enforcement powers reside with law enforcement and, frankly, that's the way I prefer it. You catch somebody stealing from your store or posting your intellectual property without permission, you call the cops.

[Tned]

Even if I accepted that federal routers and servers are completely extraneous to the internet (as dubious as I consider that,) they'd still have PLENTY of FCC authority to shut it down without nationalizing anything.

Do you ever go back and read stuff you type with the question "just how arrogant do I sound?" in mind as you re-read it?

Suggestion, take a break from spewing shit you clearly know nothing about and do some research about how the "thing" we call the Internet actually works.

Who knows, you might just transition from dubious to informed.


How many of the private entities you named would stay operational without federal licenses? The idea the government is invading the virgin internet is just bizarre;

Where did I ever say anything about the government invading the virgin Internet? Yep, you got it, I didn't.

See point one, do a little research and go from dubious to informed.


at most, it's reasserting control of its own creation.

This is just ridiculous on its face, and doesn't deserve a response, but because I'm feeling generous...

This is the equivalent of saying that the ancestors of Alexender Graham Bell have the right to "reassert" control and shutdown the use of the telephone and ALL technologies that it spurred, or the heirs of Alexander Flemming can 'reassert" control of penicillin and ALL antibiotics that were created following penicillin...

Yea, pretty ridiculous notion, huh?

While we're at it, maybe Karl Benz's ancestors should be allowed to "reassert" their control over Benz's creation, the automobile, and shutdown the use of all automobiles used on the planet????



In reality it's not even doing that, just being a lot more obvious than in the days the feds actively used Carnivore to probe and monitor internet traffic, sites and users. Just because few people knew about that until they switched to more current software doesn't mean it wasn't happening, or has ceased since: They just don't shoot off fireworks and wave red banners every time they do it.

You clearly don't understand what people are concerned with regarding this law, so back to point one:

Do a little research and go from dubious to informed...


The irony is amusing though: These bills attempting to clamp down on free entertainment have liberals scurrying to blame Big Business as conservatives scurry to blame Big Brother, providing TONS of free entertainment itself. This debate demonstrates the absurdity of that false paradigm better than anything else ever could. Big Business and Big Brother aren't competing for public support; they should be, but they're not. Big Business owns Big Brother just like everything else, and PRESENTS it as a competition. Hence the publics only hope is regaining control of the only effective defence it has against Big Business run amok.

Nothing other than "wow" really works in response to this beut...

[Davii]

Law enforcement powers reside with law enforcement and, frankly, that's the way I prefer it. You catch somebody stealing from your store or posting your intellectual property without permission, you call the cops.

Huh... So we're already covered then... Debate over!

[Tned]

Huh... So we're already covered then... Debate over!

Yea, megaupload just got shut down, didn't need SOPA. ICE has shut down a BUNCH of Chinese websites selling DVD's, and haven't needed SOPA.

Here's a perfect example. Visit this site, which was a website that sold DVDs shipped from China that were "much" cheaper that you could buy them in the US, even shipped from China.

http://storeofeast.com/

ICE (Immigrations and customs) did that, and didn't need SOPA.

[I Eat Staples]

This is why I despise our government. Love our country, hate our government. Yes we have it better than most, but freedom should not be an issue of "better than most" it should be a fundamental right of all not infringed upon by anyone.

Brilliantly stated. This is what I tell people who get offended when I'm critical of America. Freedom shouldn't be something that the government gives to us and we need to be thankful for, it should be something that is the birth right of every human being everywhere.

Countries that restrict freedom are committing crimes against humanity. We aren't a good country because we allow our people to live freely, we're just better than the worst. A person isn't automatically a good person because they don't murder people, as the alternative is unacceptable. We should hold our country to higher standards than the bare minimum which should be expected.

[Thnikkaman]

Good. I hate the internet anyway. lol

Thank of all the cat and goose pictures you will be missing.

[Thnikkaman]

Joel,

I know plenty of internet security experts that I can get you in contact with that can set you straight. Hell, I went to college with the person that runs and maintains kernel.org. (Kernel.org is the backbone of linux FYI). I know people that have worked computer security for the CIA.

The only way the government could shut down the American hubs to the internet would be if they cut off power to the cities that house them.

[Zweems56]

To clarify, this is an email I received today from some organizers.

Hi everyone!

A big hurrah to you!!!!! We’ve won for now -- SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today -- the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled.

The largest online protest in history has fundamentally changed the game. You were heard.

On January 18th, 13 million of us took the time to tell Congress to protect free speech rights on the internet. Hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, people all around the world saw what we did on Wednesday. See the amazing numbers here and tell everyone what you did.

This was unprecedented. Your activism may have changed the way people fight for the public interest and basic rights forever.


The MPAA (the lobby for big movie studios which created these terrible bills) was shocked and seemingly humbled. “‘This was a whole new different game all of a sudden,’ MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times. ‘[PIPA and SOPA were] considered by many to be a slam dunk.’”

“'This is altogether a new effect,' Mr. Dodd said, comparing the online movement to the Arab Spring. He could not remember seeing 'an effort that was moving with this degree of support change this dramatically' in the last four decades, he added."

Tweet with us, shout on the internet with us, let's celebrate: Round of applause to the 13 million people who stood up - #PIPA and #SOPA are tabled 4 now. #13millionapplause



We're indebted to everyone who helped in the beginning of this movement -- you, and all the sites that went out on a limb to protest in November -- Boing Boing and Mozilla Foundation (and thank you Tumblr, 4chan)! And the grassroots groups -- Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, CDT, and many more.

#SOPA and #PIPA will likely return in some form. But when they do, we'll be ready. Can you make a donation to Fight for the Future, to help us keep this fire going?



We changed the game this fall, and we're not gonna stop. $8, $20, every little bit helps.

13 million strong,

Tiffiniy, Holmes, Joshua, Phil, CJ, Donny, Douglas, Nicholas, Dean, David S. and Moore... Fight for the Future!


P.S. China's internet censorship system reminds us why the fight for democratic principles is so important:

In the New Yorker: "Fittingly, perhaps, the discussion has unfolded on Weibo, the Twitter-like micro-blogging site that has a team of censors on staff to trim posts with sensitive political content. That is the arrangement that opponents of the bill have suggested would be required of American sites if they are compelled to police their users’ content for copyright violations. On Weibo, joking about SOPA’s similarities to Chinese censorship was sensitive enough that some posts on the subject were almost certainly deleted (though it can be hard to know).
...
After Chinese Web users got over the strangeness of hearing Americans debate the merits of screening the Web for objectionable content, they marvelled at the American response. Commentator Liu Qingyan wrote:

‘We should learn something from the way these American Internet companies protested against SOPA and PIPA. A free and democratic society depends on every one of us caring about politics and fighting for our rights. We will not achieve it by avoiding talk about politics.’"

Edit: Clarification for possible confusion

[Nick]

Regardless of SOPA or PIPA's legislation, The government is already capable of taking down a website without due legal process, and enlisting the cooperation of international law enforcement to arrest its key members on foreign soil, what exactly do we need additional legislation for?

Megaupload.com was shut down yesterday whom was run by Kim Schmitz, whom was just arrested, He is known by Kim Dotcom, Arrested for causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and generating more than $175 million in ad revenue and selling premium subscriptions to users.

This is a typical video file sharing site.

Authorities arrested Schmitz yesterday at Dotcom Mansion in Auckland, New Zealand this morning. The 37-year-old Schmitz fled to a safe room and police "had to cut their way in," reports show. When police entered the safe room, Schmitz was found with a shotgun at his side.

"It was definitely not as simple as knocking at the front door," detective inspector Grant Wormald told the New York Times.

Reports show officers seized $4.8 million in luxury automobiles, including a Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe and a pink 1959 Cadillac. Myriad artworks and electronics also were taken from the estate.

:lol: pink 1959 cadilac, he was rolling!

So people that think the government can't just shut down a site and you need due process. Your kidding yourself.

[Nick]

This is pretty funny.

Hacking group Anonymous retaliated after Megaupload was taken down by launching denial of service attacks on the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA), among others

Now they hacked in and got it back up, then went down, and they got back up... Looks like they are battling back and fourth right now. :lol:

[MOtorboat]

So people that think the government can't just shut down a site and you need due process. Your kidding yourself.

I've stayed out of this discussion mostly because I know this legislation isn't good, but I don't know the technical ins and outs.

However, I do know the criminal process. And the above story doesn't tell us whether they sought a court order and search warrant. I'm guessing that they did, under whatever New Zealand law exists for such situations.

Currently, for that to happen in the U.S., a search warrant and a court order would be obtained to search his residence. At that time, if the servers for his website were at his home, they could be seized. However, if the servers are off site and they don't know where they are and they can't obtain a search warrant, they can't seize the servers.

That's part of the due process, process. On top of that, he then faces the entire criminal court process.

Under this new law they could go in through the backend and simply shut the site down with as little as a court order. And there's no criminal court process.

[Zweems56]

I've stayed out of this discussion mostly because I know this legislation isn't good, but I don't know the technical ins and outs.

However, I do know the criminal process. And the above story doesn't tell us whether they sought a court order and search warrant. I'm guessing that they did, under whatever New Zealand law exists for such situations.

Currently, for that to happen in the U.S., a search warrant and a court order would be obtained to search his residence. At that time, if the servers for his website were at his home, they could be seized. However, if the servers are off site and they don't know where they are and they can't obtain a search warrant, they can't seize the servers.

That's part of the due process, process. On top of that, he then faces the entire criminal court process.

Under this new law they could go in through the backend and simply shut the site down with as little as a court order. And there's no criminal court process.

Was just doing some reading on it. Court order and search warrant were approved and obtained.

[dogfish]

i'd just like to point out that the '59 caddy is the most pimp ride of all time. . . of all time!

[Joel]

Do you ever go back and read stuff you type with the question "just how arrogant do I sound?" in mind as you re-read it?

Suggestion, take a break from spewing shit you clearly know nothing about and do some research about how the "thing" we call the Internet actually works.

Who knows, you might just transition from dubious to informed.
I try to keep myself honest, yeah, and have lots of help if I don't succeed. I also try not to personalize debates, with what success I can only guess. Again I note:

1) If so inclined, the US goverment could take down private US servers and routers at least as easily as it took down those in Iran used by that countrys nuclear weapons program.

2) Without even going that far, the FCC could shut down most, if not all, of the private internet operators you mentioned just by jerking all their licenses.

3) The FBI's surveilled/investigated internet activity, and arrested people on the basis of that, since (at least) the early '90s. In 1990 the Secret Service shut down a company (falsely) ACCUSED of hacking.

If they had the technical expertise and legal authority to do that 20 years ago, what do you think their capability NOW? The only reason the feds aren't tracking, interfering with, even sabotating everything you do online is that they have better things to do with their time, not because they can't. The idea we can't allow them that power because they'll abuse it is contradicted by the fact they already have but (usually) don't abuse it.

Where did I ever say anything about the government invading the virgin Internet? Yep, you got it, I didn't.

See point one, do a little research and go from dubious to informed.
You didn't explicitly say that, no, but many (most) critics I've heard hear and elsewhere give that impression. I'm reminded of that little exchange with rcsodak about "insinuation."

This is just ridiculous on its face, and doesn't deserve a response, but because I'm feeling generous...

This is the equivalent of saying that the ancestors of Alexender Graham Bell have the right to "reassert" control and shutdown the use of the telephone and ALL technologies that it spurred, or the heirs of Alexander Flemming can 'reassert" control of penicillin and ALL antibiotics that were created following penicillin...

Yea, pretty ridiculous notion, huh?
Not entirely, since the phone company used to take peoples phones (even from people who'd purchased them) for swearing at people on the line. Fleming couldn't make many claims on penicillin anyway, because he only DISCOVERED rather than CREATED it (in cases where people HAVE created new organisms the situation is slightly different: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx.)

The real difference, however, is that the federal government retains substantial authority to regulate most US utilities that cross state lines, which definitely includes the internet. Frankly, I think we're better off that way, because allowing the various private operators you mentioned sole control would essentially be putting it in the hands of the very big media firms pushing these bills. Were that the case we would not even have the OPTION of writing our Congressmen or threatening to elect someone else next November: We'd get what they chose to provide.

You clearly don't understand what people are concerned with regarding this law, so back to point one:

Do a little research and go from dubious to informed...
Different people are concerned about different things, some more realistic than others. When we're talking about restrictions on posting OTHER PEOPLES COPYRIGHTED work, the notion of "censorship" is fairly ridiculous itself. When we're talking about websites being blocked from the internet (in ways easily circumvented,) all I've seen on the bills indicates they would only affect sites with foreign registry in the first place.

The difficulty in researching this is it's kinda like researching abortion or gay marriage on Wikipedia: There's a TON of "data" but almost none of it UNBIASED; nearly all of it comes from advocates on one side or the other. Hence my best friend, who's been working in IT for a decade or more, asking me what prison term is appropriate for watching streams of NFL games in Norway (because Sweden won't extradict Pirate Bays operators for violations of existing US civil law, but Norway will extradict people to face prison terms. :rolleyes:

Nothing other than "wow" really works in response to this beut...
C'mon, it's hilarious watching each end of the political spectrum explain how these bi-partisan bills are part of the others indsidious overarching agenda. Unlike most folks, the people pushing this legislation won't lose interest or focus when the rioting in the estreets dies down in a few months, so the bills will be back. Sooner or later a bill will be passed; instead of pointlessly protesting that, let's make sure it's not a disaster.

Huh... So we're already covered then... Debate over!
Within the US, yes, hence SOPA and PIPA are directed at foreign registered sites (still waiting for someone to show how these bills even COULD affect US registered sites; consider this asking a third time.) Overseas, particularly in China, it quickly becomes problematic. Many countries (again, particularly China) don't extradict people accused of violating US copyright law, so blocking access to their sites is about all that can be done.

Yea, megaupload just got shut down, didn't need SOPA.
Yeah, and Anonymous has already retaliated by hacking:

1) The MPAA,
2) The RIAA,
3) The White House,
4) The FBI and
5) The US Department of Justice.

Way to convince Congress the internet doesn't need any new regulation or oversight, folks. :rolleyes:

ICE has shut down a BUNCH of Chinese websites selling DVD's, and haven't needed SOPA.

Here's a perfect example. Visit this site, which was a website that sold DVDs shipped from China that were "much" cheaper that you could buy them in the US, even shipped from China.

http://storeofeast.com/

ICE (Immigrations and customs) did that, and didn't need SOPA.
Yes, because shipping physical items is covered by customs jurisdiction; ELECTRONICALLY shipping data is not, or you can bet ICE would be blocking access to the same sites SOPA and PIPA target.

Joel,

I know plenty of internet security experts that I can get you in contact with that can set you straight. Hell, I went to college with the person that runs and maintains kernel.org. (Kernel.org is the backbone of linux FYI). I know people that have worked computer security for the CIA.

The only way the government could shut down the American hubs to the internet would be if they cut off power to the cities that house them.
Then I guess it's a good thing for all of us the Iranian governments servers aren't as secure from interference as private ones in the US.

I'd be more interested in hearing from the people who do computer security for the CIA; I wouldn't question the sincerity of someone deeply involved with Linux, but their objectivity might be a different matter.

[Joel]

I'll leave ya'll to it, because nothing said here will change anyones mind. However,

#SOPA and #PIPA will likely return in some form. But when they do, we'll be ready.
I sure hope that's true, and folks provide alternate suggestions for the anti-piracy law that WILL pass, sooner or later. Maybe do what Obama requested and tell Congress the RIGHT thing to do instead of just what's wrong.

[Zweems56]

Yeah, and Anonymous has already retaliated by hacking:

1) The MPAA,
2) The RIAA,
3) The White House,
4) The FBI and
5) The US Department of Justice.

Way to convince Congress the internet doesn't need any new regulation or oversight, folks.

I don't think that anyone here would say that what they did was a good thing. They're acting like petulant little children, and they don't see how their actions will affect the thought process of legislators. To be honest, retaliating back because a filesharing site got shut down is ******* stupid. This is the shit that we WANT to happen. We want filesharing sites to be shut down LEGALLY, with due process of law. This capability already exists within the constraints of our laws. We don't need to completely rework the system. As far as DDOS attacks on these sites, there are ways to prevent DDOS attacks. Relatively simple ways, in fact. Using this as an excuse to push SOPA or PIPA, or any new legislation that removes internet based freedom is ******* ridiculous. What they need is increased network security. They didn't get "hacked." They got DDOS'd by a bunch of kids. With a little research and a little money, anyone can do it.

[Tned]

I'll leave ya'll to it, because nothing said here will change anyones mind. However,


Good thing, because all of your arguments at the root are no different than...

The US Federal Government has a big army, with tanks and Apache helicopters, so if they want to shut down a protest, or round up all people that disagree with a government position or law, or eliminate all Americans of Italian decent, they can, because they have that army with the capability to do it.

That's the essence of the argument you keep making. They can shut it ALL (whole Internet) down if they want, so why is everyone upset about a law that gives federal employees the right to shut down individual sites without due process or a chance to defend themselves.

I CAN delete any post I disagree with, like everyone of your posts in this thread, but that doesn't mean it is right or consistent with the rules (constitution if you will) of this website.

Having the physical ability to do something, and it being 'right' or socially acceptable, are two completely different things.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Senate and House leaders announced Friday they are postponing work on two controversial anti-piracy bills in the wake of large online protests that spurred several congressmen to rethink the legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he is postponing Tuesday's procedural vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said his committee is postponing consideration of PIPA's House companion, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), "until there is wider agreement on a solution."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57362675-503544/pipa-sopa-put-on-hold-in-wake-of-protests/

[OMorange&blue]

Damn. Read the thread title and thought thnik was declaring war on BF.

[Joel]

Good thing, because all of your arguments at the root are no different than...

The US Federal Government has a big army, with tanks and Apache helicopters, so if they want to shut down a protest, or round up all people that disagree with a government position or law, or eliminate all Americans of Italian decent, they can, because they have that army with the capability to do it.

That's the essence of the argument you keep making. They can shut it ALL (whole Internet) down if they want, so why is everyone upset about a law that gives federal employees the right to shut down individual sites without due process or a chance to defend themselves.

I CAN delete any post I disagree with, like everyone of your posts in this thread, but that doesn't mean it is right or consistent with the rules (constitution if you will) of this website.

Having the physical ability to do something, and it being 'right' or socially acceptable, are two completely different things.
Nearly all complaints I've seen against this legislation boil down to "government must be denied this authority because they'd abuse it." Yet they already have both power AND authority, under certain conditions, to do what I've mentioned, and rarely abuse it. These bills expand those conditions too far, which should be corrected, but the notion government would ABUSE them is contradicted by the rarity of existing authoritys abuse.

Fact is, government wouldn't be abusing its authority regardless; it would act at the direction of private firms abusing their expanded rights, rather than in its capacity to serve the whole public. That's a problem, too, but a long standing one far larger than SOPA or PIPA. As noted earlier, this really just boils down to Big Business using Big Brother to do the same thing to consumers and small businesses online that it's done everywhere else.

[Tned]

Nearly all complaints I've seen against this legislation boil down to "government must be denied this authority because they'd abuse it." Yet they already have both power AND authority, under certain conditions, to do what I've mentioned, and rarely abuse it. These bills expand those conditions too far, which should be corrected, but the notion government would ABUSE them is contradicted by the rarity of existing authoritys abuse.

Fact is, government wouldn't be abusing its authority regardless; it would act at the direction of private firms abusing their expanded rights, rather than in its capacity to serve the whole public. That's a problem, too, but a long standing one far larger than SOPA or PIPA. As noted earlier, this really just boils down to Big Business using Big Brother to do the same thing to consumers and small businesses online that it's done everywhere else.

Joel, you clearly don't understand ANY of the issues surrounding this bill (bills, actually), the increased authority and reduced requirements for action, and are just spewing BS that is barely even on topic.

It isn't a "government is bad, they might hurt us" argument, and the fact that you haven't been able to get past that fact shows how much this discussion and issue has gone over your head.

[chazoe60]

Joel, my friend you trust the government too much.

Just because the g'ment has yet to abuse a power is no reason for us to stand by and let them gain even more powers they could possibly abuse later.

The best way for people to coexist with their government is to have a healthy distrust and suspicion of it.

[Joel]

I don't think that anyone here would say that what they did was a good thing. They're acting like petulant little children, and they don't see how their actions will affect the thought process of legislators. To be honest, retaliating back because a filesharing site got shut down is ******* stupid. This is the shit that we WANT to happen. We want filesharing sites to be shut down LEGALLY, with due process of law. This capability already exists within the constraints of our laws. We don't need to completely rework the system. As far as DDOS attacks on these sites, there are ways to prevent DDOS attacks. Relatively simple ways, in fact. Using this as an excuse to push SOPA or PIPA, or any new legislation that removes internet based freedom is ******* ridiculous. What they need is increased network security. They didn't get "hacked." They got DDOS'd by a bunch of kids. With a little research and a little money, anyone can do it.
I'm not accusing anyone here of acting like petulant children who can't see how their actions influence the thoughts of legislators, but a little active dissociation might not go amiss. ;) The best way to do that is probably still to offer the requested suggestions for GOOD legislation rather than continuing to harp on what's wrong with PROPOSED legislation.

Joel, you clearly don't understand ANY of the issues surrounding this bill (bills, actually), the increased authority and reduced requirements for action, and are just spewing BS that is barely even on topic.

It isn't a "government is bad, they might hurt us" argument, and the fact that you haven't been able to get past that fact shows how much this discussion and issue has gone over your head.
The issue with these bills (I've made an effort throughout to refer to them in the plural; there are at least three I know of, though PIPA is basically just the Senates SOPA) depends entirely on the critic asked. For many it IS just "government is bad, they WILL hurt us." Others simply replace "government" with "business." Again, watching them point fingers at each other while missing the point is the best free entertainment I've had in a while.

Listing everyones version of what's wrong with the bills would be lengthy, and do little to get an accurate read of the situation (much of the problem facing Congress.) Ultimately, all that matters is:

1) All the bills have deep serious flaws (OPEN would just punt the whole thing to the ITC, so writing your Congressman would be pointless) and 2) SOME anti-piracy law WILL be enacted in the end.

Anyone who doesn't want that to be an awful law is best advised to get involved with writing a good one, because when the public fervor dies down a new one will be signed by Obama or his successor.

Mark my words there, and they will be my last on the subject, because nothing any of us says will alter that reality.

Joel, my friend you trust the government too much.

Just because the g'ment has yet to abuse a power is no reason for us to stand by and let them gain even more powers they could possibly abuse later.

The best way for people to coexist with their government is to have a healthy distrust and suspicion of it.
I don't trust them, I just know their priorities, and that I have a lot more control over them than over the people who wrote this legislation and told them to pass it.

[OrangeHoof]

So - let's just say that this goes thru - I see no reason why there still can't be Broncos Forums - maybe the name would have to be changed - i.e. orange forums, or whatever. Then no articles posted, no videos posted, but I can not see how they can stop us from creating threads, and posting within those threads.

Am I missing something here?

There's a Texans board I frequent where we deliberately set the v-bulletin software to prevent posting photos, sigs, avatars and there is no mention in the title or graphics specifically about the Texans in order to prevent a lot of the potential for legal problems. Some articles get copy/pasted because there's no way to prevent it but it does get discouraged.

The cool thing about the policy is that the level of conversation is more intelligent and serious than the typical "you suck/we rule" banter that ruins a lot of fan boards.

[gnomeflinger]

This is pretty funny.

Hacking group Anonymous retaliated after Megaupload was taken down by launching denial of service attacks on the websites of the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA), among others

Now they hacked in and got it back up, then went down, and they got back up... Looks like they are battling back and fourth right now. :lol:

This made me think of this song:

2H5uWRjFsGc&ob=av2e

[NightTerror218]

this made me think of this song:

2h5uwrjfsgc&ob=av2e

takes me back to junior high!!!!

[gnomeflinger]

takes me back to junior high!!!!

Junior high? I had my first kid the year this song came out.

[NightTerror218]

Junior high? I had my first kid the year this song came out.

haha

[I Eat Staples]

The 10 most dangerous words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

[dogfish]

The 10 most dangerous words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

nah. . .

"Hello, my name is BroncoGator. Now it's time to die!"

[gnomeflinger]

nah. . .

"Hello, my name is BroncoGator. Now it's time to die!"

or...

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

[JPPT1974]

Sometimes Government needs to butt out of people's business. Well people 1 government 0. But this is all far from over! FAR FROM IT!

[Nick]

After looking into mega upload. I think the government just shit themselves in the foot. This is showing a person whom never uses this site is able to try to set an example with out thinking through.

This site is no different then any other video file sharing. I have not personaly used this site for 2 years atleast.

Anybody who has even downloaded a single file from Megaupload knows that they make it perfectly easy to submit claims of copyright infringement, and have such content taken down... Immediately.

We have an example of lawmakers and justices who apparently don't even use the internet themselves, and yet love to hand out prosecution.

This is a perfect example of how SOPA would work if passed.

Despite the site having a due process for removal of copyrighted material, disclaimer denoting the individual's legal responsibility to not upload illegal content, they simply come in and get rid of the entire site with a click of a button.

It's effectively the equivalent of squashing a fly by nuking the city in which it's buzzing.

There is no way to get rid of piracy sites because someone will always post copywrited stuff all you are able to do is remove if asked or Youtube should also be shut down right now.

I can only imagine the effect of the revenue stream and a site that ranks for over 20k keywords organically will be effected.

They will actually beat this out...

[Nick]

All Megaupload does is provide a storage facility. They aren't responsible for the uploaded content, which is why they have a copyright disclaimer and pull copyrighted content when it is reported.

The hackers are outraged, and they're always hilarious when they're irate, but this is a war that no one can win.

They'll just be a lot of casualties on both sides in the end. Since they did this, there has been 10's of thousands of these sites trying to get more aggressive...

Never going away...

[wayninja]

Junior high? I had my first kid the year this song came out.

Woah! Knocking chicks up in Junior High? Were you on springer?

[wayninja]

Woah! Knocking chicks up in Junior High? Were you on springer?

It has recently and embarrassingly come to my attention that gnomeflinger IS a chick.

The question remains valid, however. Season and episode of springer and I will find it.

[gnomeflinger]

It has recently and embarrassingly come to my attention that gnomeflinger IS a chick.

The question remains valid, however. Season and episode of springer and I will find it.

Challenged accepted. Be sure to find it and post it before SOPA v.2 comes. :D

[sneakers]

Are we still here?

[wayninja]

Are we still here?

This is a pretty deep existential question, sneak. I really didn't think you capable of such profound thought. I'll think on this and see if I can come up with something worthy of such a meaningful query.

[gnomeflinger]

BTW, I forgive you wayninja for thinking I was a dude. One time this poster thought I was a gay dude stalking him. It was an epic fail on his assumption and a source of great amusement to me.

[chazoe60]

Gnomie, you rock babe!

[Dreadnought]

BTW, I forgive you wayninja for thinking I was a dude. One time this poster thought I was a gay dude stalking him. It was an epic fail on his assumption and a source of great amusement to me.

That is superb. How did I not know this? Who was ther poor sap?

[elsid13]

Interesting side note, as way both side tried to influence the debate on this subject. The anti-SOPA group went to the internet to influence vote using network approach. While the Pro- SOPa group has been running commercials on both TV and radio (plus the lobbyists and contributions) here in DC, very industrial approach.

Even though it is tabled now, we need to vigilante because Media companies haven't given up.

[Nomad]

Would this affect streaming of the games?

[chazoe60]

Would this affect streaming of the games?

Absolutely.

[Nomad]

Absolutely.

I guess I'm gonna have to overrule the wife on getting DTV and the Sunday Ticket again. I had DTV/ST before fan forums and streaming and I can live without them, but with forums and streaming I didn't need DTV the last couple years because we've moved twice in 2 yrs.....plus the wife didn't want to get it again. But I like watching the BRONCO games.


EDIT: But having Tebow starting has worked out great as far as the BRONCOS being televised way more than expected.....Tebow's a keeper:D

[wayninja]

I guess I'm gonna have to overrule the wife on getting DTV and the Sunday Ticket again. I had DTV/ST before fan forums and streaming and I can live without them, but with forums and streaming I didn't need DTV the last couple years because we've moved twice in 2 yrs.....plus the wife didn't want to get it again. But I like watching the BRONCO games.


EDIT: But having Tebow starting has worked out great as far as the BRONCOS being televised way more than expected.....Tebow's a keeper:D

I'm a pick your battles type of guy when it comes to the wife. But this is a battle worth picking (if necessary).

[gnomeflinger]

That is superb. How did I not know this? Who was ther poor sap?

West.

[Nomad]

I'm a pick your battles type of guy when it comes to the wife. But this is a battle worth picking (if necessary).

Yeah....she's pretty easy going and I didn't press the issue extensively due to the fact of being able to stream the games. I just got her a new remote start, so she'll definitely be willing to get DTV...her only reason for not wanting it anymore is because she likes to have the local channels and in Minot, we would have had to cut some trees down. I want to go on a couple offshore fishing trips here this summer ($$$) and I may have to settle for one to get DTV.:D

It's all about compromise:lol:

[BroncoNut]

I hope not. this is my only social outlet.

[Tned]

I hope not. this is my only social outlet.

Is that healthy? I think you should consider also visiting Ravens boards so that you have multiple outlets...

[VonSackemMiller]

So whats the skinny? Is this thing in effect? Or when will it be in effect? I dont feel like reading everybody opinions. I just want the business.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

So whats the skinny? Is this thing in effect? Or when will it be in effect? I dont feel like reading everybody opinions. I just want the business.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-wins-sopa-and-pipa-both-shelved.ars

[wayninja]

No, it's not in effect. After recent protests, both the House and Senate seem to want to distance themselves from the bill (as currently written) and have postponed both of them indefinitely.

Not to toot my own horn, but I said that both of these bills (both SOPA and PIPA) were unlikely to pass. Never underestimate our governments ability to dither, procrastinate and otherwise cowtow to any popular opinion of the moment.

[BroncoNut]

Is that healthy? I think you should consider also visiting Ravens boards so that you have multiple outlets...

no, it's not I don't think. maybe i should try a Ravens board for giggles sometime.

[Tned]

no, it's not I don't think. maybe i should try a Ravens board for giggles sometime.

Bet the Raven's board isn't too cheerful a place right now.

[BroncoNut]

Bet the Raven's board isn't too cheerful a place right now.

Probably not. maybe next season. I was on a jets forum for a while this season, but they were kinda rude to me. they kinda picked on me too

[Tned]

Probably not. maybe next season. I was on a jets forum for a while this season, but they were kinda rude to me. they kinda picked on me too

New Yorkers are kind of like that. When I was young, I was a rude jerk, but I am now indoctrinated in the kind ways of the south...

[Dreadnought]

West.

Of course. That was too obvious when you think about it.

[BroncoNut]

New Yorkers are kind of like that. When I was young, I was a rude jerk, but I am now indoctrinated in the kind ways of the south...
In my experience, I have found that upstate new yorkers are really nice folks. Those from the city are pretty nice too, but they are really kinda naiive about some things and don't realize it. But I've met some great people from the city