• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

White House will not support SOPA, PIPA

Ausmerican

Illuminator
Ausmerican
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
3,490
Good news. The White House wont be supporting either SOPA or PIPA. Given reason?

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/white-house-sopa-pipa_n_1206347.html
 
I assume this goes along the lines of "Yes we want to fight online piracy, but we don't want to implement anything that could actually have any effect on stopping online piracy, so we'll just claim any attempt to stop online piracy is censorship and say something better can be done, but not actually provide anything that is better".
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I assume this goes along the lines of "Yes we want to fight online piracy, but we don't want to implement anything that could actually have any effect on stopping online piracy, so we'll just claim any attempt to stop online piracy is censorship and say something better can be done, but not actually provide anything that is better".
Click to expand...

SOPA and PIPA cast too broad a brush. It could be used to suppress speech by trying to get sites shutdown that have one minor violation. I wouldn't be surprised if JREF has instances where things posted could be considered in violation of SOPA. It also seems to overide the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA.

I live in a hobbit hole so thump up happens a lot because I'm not hobbit sized.
 
seayakin said:
SOPA and PIPA cast too broad a brush. It could be used to suppress speech by trying to get sites shutdown that have one minor violation. I wouldn't be surprised if JREF has instances where things posted could be considered in violation of SOPA. It also seems to overide the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA.

I live in a hobbit hole so thump up happens a lot because I'm not hobbit sized.
Click to expand...

This is why it requires a court order and maintains at the very beginning that it shall not disobey the first amendment and shall not be used to suppress free speech. Sites have the opportunity to remove the small infraction.

The only other alternative is that packet information is viewed by ISPs to block the individual content. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Right now you have 95% of music downloads being illegal. It's out of hand and we need laws that help fight this problem.

Right now JREF and all other sites can face the same problem legally with lawsuits if that's someone's goal. But do we see every web site getting sued? No.
 
crimresearch said:
Errrrm... politicans giving assurances are worth what exactly again?
Click to expand...

If that's the way to look at things, then why have any laws at all? What law cannot be abused? This is why we have a judicial system involved. People run around claiming this allows politicians and corporations to take down sites on a whim. Such people have not read the bill. It's also very clear on line 3 of the bill, for the many people who have not made it past line 2 of the bill.

The bill also covers the legal actions that can be taken should someone make false claims of infringement.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
If that's the way to look at things, then why have any laws at all? What law cannot be abused? This is why we have a judicial system involved. People run around claiming this allows politicians and corporations to take down sites on a whim. Such people have not read the bill. It's also very clear on line 3 of the bill, for the many people who have not made it past line 2 of the bill.

The bill also covers the legal actions that can be taken should someone make false claims of infringement.
Click to expand...
Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps if you would like to rationally address what I said?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
This is why it requires a court order and maintains at the very beginning that it shall not disobey the first amendment and shall not be used to suppress free speech. Sites have the opportunity to remove the small infraction.

The only other alternative is that packet information is viewed by ISPs to block the individual content. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Right now you have 95% of music downloads being illegal. It's out of hand and we need laws that help fight this problem.

Right now JREF and all other sites can face the same problem legally with lawsuits if that's someone's goal. But do we see every web site getting sued? No.
Click to expand...

Did you er.. read them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom