SOPA and PIPA Internet Blackout Day

[iacas]

If I had the power to do this easily I'd post something on the site - a big banner or something.

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/sopa-pipa/

Take a minute to view that page, read it, and fill in a little form to write to your representatives or sign a petition.

[bunkerputt]

www.firefox.com and click the red button  is one way to take action

[Ernest Jones]

I normally avoid political and or religious debates with people on the internet but as someone directly involved in the intertainment industry I think I need to step in here to counter some of the rhetoric and misinformation about this bill. Here are some points that are being clouded/omitted by many people who oppose this legislation.

While the original version of SOPA was controversial, it has been substantially changed to address reasonable concerns, yet some myths unfairly persist.  The following is a list of some of those myths and the reality of the bill:

Myth:  SOPA is an extreme bill that would destroy the Internet.

Reality:

• The new version of SOPA prohibits courts from requiring DNS redirection and forbids the interpretation or application of the law in a way that harms the Internet.
• The technique of DNS filtering is already in use and has not harmed the Internet.
• Only cases brought by the Justice Department can result in domain name filtering.

Myth:  SOPA would let the Government and right holders shut down websites without any due process.

Reality:

• Rogue sites legislation requires compliance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which includes detailed procedures for issuing all types of injunctions, including notice and opportunities to be heard in court.  Any criticism of the due process protections is with existing court processes, not rogue websites legislation.

Myth:  DNS blocking is censorship like countries like China.

Reality:

• Rogue sites legislation is a viewpoint-neutral enforcement of international IP standards through a fair judicial process.  None of those things can be said about foreign political censorship.

Myth:  The definition of “rogue sites” is vague.

Reality:

• The definitions of a rogue site under the Senate and House bills use clearly defined, high standards, which already exist in current law.  These bills do not change the definition of what is counterfeit or infringing; they merely provide the tools law enforcement needs to stop foreign criminals.

Myth:  If a person uploads one infringing copy, a whole website can be taken down.

Reality:

• A domain name can be filtered by a court only if that website is dedicated to infringing activity as demonstrated by willful actions of the owner or operator of the website.  A single infringing copy uploaded by a user would not trigger domain name filtering.

Myth:  Rogue website legislation could shut down YouTube, Facebook, etc.

Reality:

• The new version of SOPA explicitly applies only to foreign domain names, not U.S. domain names ending in (for example) .com, .net, or .org.   Even foreign versions of American companies’ websites would not be covered because they do not meet the bill’s requirement that the site be “U.S.-directed.”

Myth:  Rogue sites legislation is a trial lawyer’s dream.

Reality:

• The action authorized in this bill is very limited in that it provides only the ability to prevent ongoing theft, but gives a plaintiff NO opportunity to recover damages or any money from a rogue website at all.

Lastly, the people who get hurt the most from pirating are the people at the bottom of the ladder, the techniciens and labourers that have to work 60 hr workweeks to put food on the table. They are the ones who lose in the end because the guys at the top aren't taking any paycuts, I can gaurantee you that.

Just sayin'

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Lastly, the people who get hurt the most from pirating are the people at the bottom of the ladder, the techniciens and labourers that have to work 60 hr workweeks to put food on the table. They are the ones who lose in the end because the guys at the top aren't taking any paycuts, I can gaurantee you that.

Just sayin'

True, but this will not stop pirating, at all . To think otherwise is illogical.

The reality is, this will either ruin the internet, or do absolutely nothing.

Which is why it should be abandoned

[Stretch]

No offense dude, but I still think the anti side is articulating its message better.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by Stretch

No offense dude, but I still think the anti side is articulating its message better.

No offense taken, but I would like to point out that the "information" in your cartoon is false, read my post to seee why. It's much easier to make a point when you can use whatever information (whether it be true or not) to back your position. Anyway, not here to debate or fight with people - here to get better at golf! - but I just thought it would only be fair to put out some information from the "other" side of the argument.

I believe the points I put forth in the above post pretty much sums up the counter-arguments to kittens being inadvertently killed by the big bad flamethrowers and the supposed abandonment of due process so I'll leave it at that.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

I believe the points I put forth in the above post pretty much sums up the counter-arguments to kittens being inadvertently killed by the big bad flamethrowers and the supposed abandonment of due process so I'll leave it at that.

Two things...

1. If the bill isn't going to stop piracy (and nothing you said counters that argument), then it should be thrown out for that reason alone. It's placing restrictions on things without being effective.
2. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Especially if you don't even get a little safety out of the deal.

[Domenic]

Originally Posted by Stretch

No offense dude, but I still think the anti side is articulating its message better.

truly frickin' hilarious

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by iacas

Two things...

If the bill isn't going to stop piracy (and nothing you said counters that argument), then it should be thrown out for that reason alone. It's placing restrictions on things without being effective.

Speed limits do not stop accidents, should we abandon them? Are they too restrictive?

Rape laws do not stop rape, should we abandon them? Are they too restrictive?

If we could create laws that would " STOP " crime it would be a wonderful world but so far the best we have been able to come up with is laws that address crime.

Originally Posted by iacas

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Especially if you don't even get a little safety out of the deal.

Essential liberty to download free episodes of "Ally McBeal"? That's a strawman, no one is looking to wipeout freedom of speech or personal liberty, well at least not in this case .

One man's freedom ends where another's begin. Your liberty to surf around the net stops at stealing someone else's property. Whether or not these kinds of laws will be 100% effective is obviously highly debatable but I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any laws that are 100% effective.

In any case, I probably shouldn't have posted in this thread as I really don't want to engage in this kind of thing here. "No politics at the dinner table" as the saying goes, I also don't want to create needless animosity over this on a Golf Forum.

I'm a good guy, I promise, I just have a different POV on this due to a different background/lens.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by Domenic

truly frickin' hilarious

It is pretty funny.

[jamo]

True, but this will not stop pirating, [U] at all [/U]. To think otherwise is illogical. The reality is, this will either ruin the internet, or do absolutely nothing. Which is why it should be abandoned

Exactly. I don't generally like the "slippery slope" argument, and I think some of the effects of the bill have been vastly overstated, but it's quite simply not going to put a dent in internet piracy one iota.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jamo

Exactly. I don't generally like the "slippery slope" argument, and I think some of the effects of the bill have been vastly overstated, but it's quite simply not going to put a dent in internet piracy one iota.

This is my biggest (may even be my only) real complaint. I do not want any of my "liberties" taken away or infringed upon by legislation that will be completely ineffective .

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Speed limits do not stop accidents, should we abandon them? Are they too restrictive? Rape laws do not stop rape, should we abandon them? Are they too restrictive?

I'd venture to guess that laws like those decrease the relevant crimes, so that seems like a poor point to attempt to make. SOPA/PIPA likely won't do a darn thing to "decrease" piracy, either.

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Essential liberty to download free episodes of "Ally McBeal"? That's a strawman, no one is looking to wipeout freedom of speech or personal liberty, well at least not in this case.

Nope. I haven't pirated a damn thing since I started selling my own software. Over a decade now. I don't need the lecture about stealing someone else's property. These laws are more likely to be 0% effective as they are to be 100% effective. Most likely they'll not put a dent, as Jamo said, in online piracy.

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

In any case, I probably shouldn't have posted in this thread as I really don't want to engage in this kind of thing here. "No politics at the dinner table" as the saying goes, I also don't want to create needless animosity over this on a Golf Forum.

This isn't the golf section of the forum. It's in the 19th Hole. I could move it to the Grill Room today, but it's kind of an "announcement" so I posted it here.

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

I'm a good guy, I promise, I just have a different POV on this due to a different background/lens.

I doubt anyone thinks you're not. But you should share some of that perspective and why you support these acts for our enlightenment.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by iacas

This is my biggest (may even be my only) real complaint. I do not want any of my "liberties" taken away or infringed upon by legislation that will be completely ineffective.

I'd venture to guess that laws like those decrease the relevant crimes, so that seems like a poor point to attempt to make. SOPA/PIPA likely won't do a darn thing to "decrease" piracy, either.

Nope. I haven't pirated a damn thing since I started selling my own software. Over a decade now. I don't need the lecture about stealing someone else's property. These laws are more likely to be 0% effective as they are to be 100% effective. Most likely they'll not put a dent, as Jamo said, in online piracy.

This isn't the golf section of the forum. It's in the 19th Hole. I could move it to the Grill Room today, but it's kind of an "announcement" so I posted it here.

I doubt anyone thinks you're not. But you should share some of that perspective and why you support these acts for our enlightenment.

Have to deal with my kids right now, but I'll reply later.

Just one question for now, which liberties, specifically, do you feel will be infringed upon by this act?

[newtogolf]

For copyrighted material, it places the burden of proof on the accused versus the accuser.  My website could get shut down until I prove in court that the material on my site is not in violation of a copyright, which is totally backwards.  In terms of counterfeit parts and products we know that these mostly come from China.  If this is a major concern why aren't we placing more pressure on the Chinese government through modification of our trade agreement?

A bill driven by drug companies, record labels and the movie industry....I'm sure it has nothing to do with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Just one question for now, which liberties, specifically, do you feel will be infringed upon by this act?

I never said there were any. I was just reminded of the quote. I'm generally in favor of less government, less laws, less restrictions. Period. This is "more laws, more government, more restrictions." I'm also generally not in favor of vague laws that are destined to be ineffective. Those never seem to work out very well.

Plus what newtogolf said.

To be honest, I've done only cursory reading on this, but I've done it from people I trust to present opinions fairly and they represent a spectrum of use cases.

[jamo]

I never said there were any. I was just reminded of the quote. I'm generally in favor of less government, less laws, less restrictions. Period. This is "more laws, more government, more restrictions." I'm also generally not in favor of vague laws that are destined to be ineffective. Those never seem to work out very well.

Not to mention the time and money begin spent on a pointless, horribly vague law.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

For copyrighted material, it places the burden of proof on the accused versus the accuser.  My website could get shut down until I prove in court that the material on my site is not in violation of a copyright, which is totally backwards.  In terms of counterfeit parts and products we know that these mostly come from China.  If this is a major concern why aren't we placing more pressure on the Chinese government through modification of our trade agreement?

A bill driven by drug companies, record labels and the movie industry....I'm sure it has nothing to do with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Assuming your site is US based:

Myth:  Rogue website legislation could shut down YouTube, Facebook, etc.

Reality:

• The new version of SOPA explicitly applies only to foreign domain names, not U.S. domain names ending in (for example) .com, .net, or .org.   Even foreign versions of American companies’ websites would not be covered because they do not meet the bill’s requirement that the site be “U.S.-directed.”

If you are not US based:

Myth:  If a person uploads one infringing copy, a whole website can be taken down.

Reality:

• A domain name can be filtered by a court only if that website is dedicated to infringing activity as demonstrated by willful actions of the owner or operator of the website .  A single infringing copy uploaded by a user would not trigger domain name filtering.

Not sure where the drug companies (evil bastards I will agree readily!!) come into play here.

Originally Posted by iacas

I never said there were any. I was just reminded of the quote. I'm generally in favor of less government, less laws, less restrictions. Period. This is "more laws, more government, more restrictions." I'm also generally not in favor of vague laws that are destined to be ineffective. Those never seem to work out very well.

Plus what newtogolf said.

To be honest, I've done only cursory reading on this, but I've done it from people I trust to present opinions fairly and they represent a spectrum of use cases.

I'm not a big fan of big brother either, for instance, I don't think the government should have any say in who I can or cannot marry, what substances I can ingest or whether or not I want to tattoo a swastika on my face. However, I think the government should play a role in restricting what I can do to others, and this is what this is about. It is not about personal freedom it's about individuals rights, specifically rights to property.

Originally Posted by jamo

Not to mention the time and money begin spent on a pointless, horribly vague law.

Ok, you feel the law is horribly vague, could you elaborate on that please? What specifically do you, Jamo, feel is vague about this proposed legislation?

I seem to be voicing an unpopular opinion here, so just to balance things out, keep in mind that I would love to play a round of golf with any of you and drink some beer and talk about something else but that will have to be another day I guess!

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

For copyrighted material, it places the burden of proof on the accused versus the accuser.  My website could get shut down until I prove in court that the material on my site is not in violation of a copyright, which is totally backwards.  In terms of counterfeit parts and products we know that these mostly come from China.  If this is a major concern why aren't we placing more pressure on the Chinese government through modification of our trade agreement?

A bill driven by drug companies, record labels and the movie industry....I'm sure it has nothing to do with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

A large portion of the lobbyists actually represent trade unions who are working on behalf of the common workers who, ultimately, bear the brunt of these hijacked revenue streams.