• 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.

Stop Online Piracy Act

Do you support SOPA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 2.8%

  • No

    Votes: 126 88.7%

  • I use SOPA in my bath every Sunday night, whether I need it or not.

    Votes: 12 8.5%
  • Total voters
    142
GreyArea said:
I have a few questions about SOPA.

1.) First, can one get around it simply by typing in an IP address, instead of a URL?

2.) Second, is this bill targeting (perhaps not explicitly) websites that encourage user-generated content? I ask because it seems to me that user-generated content is a new kind of competitor for the big content providers. I watch more YouTube than the tube, and I bet I'm not alone.

If free "TV" was ever completely blocked, I wouldn't go back to buying cable. I'm just not interested enough. Peer-to-peer communication is not amenable to these big content providers' top-down, one-to-many business models, even after fifteen years.

Similarly, I bet that a lot of pirated material is stuff that people wouldn't have bothered trying if they had to pay for it, so estimates of lost profits are probably inflated for that reason alone.

3.) Finally, if I wanted to shut a site down, couldn't I just post some of my own copyrighted material to it and then report the infringement? Didn't Viacom do that on YouTube recently?
Click to expand...

  1. Yes.
  2. Not explicitly, but they would definitely be effected. It would be child's play, for example, for some pseudoscience fanatic to get this forum board blocked.
  3. Yes.
 
GreyArea said:
I have a few questions about SOPA.

1.) First, can one get around it simply by typing in an IP address, instead of a URL?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

2.) Second, is this bill targeting (perhaps not explicitly) websites that encourage user-generated content? I ask because it seems to me that user-generated content is a new kind of competitor for the big content providers. I watch more YouTube than the tube, and I bet I'm not alone.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's supposed to, but it makes it a lot easier for the bigger businesses to do so by exploiting the broadness of the law.

Similarly, I bet that a lot of pirated material is stuff that people wouldn't have bothered trying if they had to pay for it, so estimates of lost profits are probably inflated for that reason alone.
Click to expand...

In some cases, like music it may in fact be the opposite. Many people see what is happening at the moment is the content companies trying to fight back against

3.) Finally, if I wanted to shut a site down, couldn't I just post some of my own copyrighted material to it and then report the infringement?
Click to expand...

Most likely. You wouldn't even need to post your own material, you could probably link to the homepage of a file storage website and then report the site for failing to prevent infringing activity. (At least that's how I understand the legislation in question.) Pharyngula has taken a similar view.

Didn't Viacom do that on YouTube recently?
Click to expand...

Yes.

R.A.F. said:
Unfortunately, not everyone is as "informed" as you, therefore making necessary the blackout to raise awareness.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This blackout was mentioned on Al Jazeera, the BBC CBCand ABC (it actually made the NSW news broadcast), and a quick search give me articles from MSNBC, CNN and even Fox News. It's a story that is now somewhat prominent on the front pages of all these sites except the ABC and MSNBC where it's a "top story".

When you consider that this is an issue that was barely discussed in the mainstream news media (yes, Fox included) it's amazing to see such prominence. And more so when you see it being a top story in international news media. I guess the Americans here can tell us if it makes the evening news.

...and blacking out Wiki is not a "victory" for the other side, it is simply a "demonstration" of what might happen if this bill were to pass.
Click to expand...

I think that Wikipedia supporting the blackout was a massive coup for the anti-SOPA crowd, as well as demonstrating what might happen it's also caught the attention of the general public, the casual users who don't go to sites like reddit but use websites like Wikipedia. Hell since the blackout started I've become rather amazed at how much I rely on Wikipedia to look up things that I don't know about. I'd link to a relevant xkcd comic but xkcd is participating in the blackout as well.
 
Last edited:
I opened Firefox and it had a button to click if you're against SOPA. I clicked it and put my personal information. Then it took me to a page where they ask you for financial support. While I do want to contribute, I'm a bit afraid that this may be a scam. Anyone knows if this is legit?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I opened Firefox and it had a button to click if you're against SOPA. I clicked it and put my personal information. Then it took me to a page where they ask you for financial support. While I do want to contribute, I'm a bit afraid that this may be a scam. Anyone knows if this is legit?
Click to expand...

Firefox is asking you for money? Considering that all I've seen so far is links to petitions or how to contact your congressman I'm inclined to say that it's probably a scam.
 
I use Firefox and saw nothing like that today.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I don't think that would solve many of the problems, as I noted before, the MPAA and other corporations would be having top of the line legal teams working for them, while a defendant would only have (almost literally) the first solicitor to walk in the room. It would be like an ant trying to fight against a lion.
Click to expand...

That is always an issue. However here is the deal, one of the complaints is that SOPA is too broad in its application
-no evidentiary status at all just a complaint that something is occurring
-broad application of the rules, hosts help accountable for the behavior of members, even on a forum like this

So evidentiary hearings would be important:
-establish that actual copyright infringement has occurred or evidence that it has occurred
-establishment of intent


Now the main point is that people do not have the right to freely distribute copyrighted material (that they do not own the rights to distribute) just because people are doing so, perhaps it should not continue, if SOPA should be scrapped, then how should it be implemented?

And courts get a lot of leeway, say they rule that making a copy transfer to a single or limited number of individuals is allowable but mass distribution is not?
 
Wildy said:
Firefox is asking you for money? Considering that all I've seen so far is links to petitions or how to contact your congressman I'm inclined to say that it's probably a scam.
Click to expand...

mozilla.com -> eff -> send message to congress -> eff donation page afterwards
 
Dancing David said:
That is always an issue. However here is the deal, one of the complaints is that SOPA is too broad in its application
-no evidentiary status at all just a complaint that something is occurring
-broad application of the rules, hosts help accountable for the behavior of members, even on a forum like this

So evidentiary hearings would be important:
-establish that actual copyright infringement has occurred or evidence that it has occurred
-establishment of intent


Now the main point is that people do not have the right to freely distribute copyrighted material (that they do not own the rights to distribute) just because people are doing so, perhaps it should not continue, if SOPA should be scrapped, then how should it be implemented?

And courts get a lot of leeway, say they rule that making a copy transfer to a single or limited number of individuals is allowable but mass distribution is not?
Click to expand...

And how many people will be brought before the courts by the RIAA under this system? Perhaps tens of thousands per year, with the expected outcome of when an ant tries to fight a lion. The opportunity for abuse is too great under any SOPA-like system.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I don't think that would solve many of the problems, as I noted before, the MPAA and other corporations would be having top of the line legal teams working for them, while a defendant would only have (almost literally) the first solicitor to walk in the room. It would be like an ant trying to fight against a lion.
Click to expand...


Not if you ran it the way we run our anti-piracy courts. No lawyery BS. Just the facts.
 
Wouldn't it be hilarious if SOPA passed and then the major media companies behind it got their own websites taken down by a slew of complaints?
 
Travis said:
Wouldn't it be hilarious if SOPA passed and then the major media companies behind it got their own websites taken down by a slew of complaints?
Click to expand...

They have lawyers, they can fight it. The cost would be small. Then they will use their lawyers to shut all the small guys down that compete with them. It won't be hilarious.
 
SOPA is being lobbied by the folks that will sell a DVD in the US for $10 dollar each, and twice that in the UK. UK organisations (such as the BBC) work the same way in reverse. They are keen to rant and rave about online piracy, but aren't keen on the idea that they will be held to the same standards. If they all produced DVDs at the same flat rate without the silly regional coding rip-off crap, then they might have an arguement. At the moment it boils down to 'who is the biggest robber' and the producers lose hands down.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom