U.S. Congress Shelves SOPA

[mega48man]

big ass snip, bitches love a bigass snip

Spoiler

-snip-

Lucky people do, eh?
And they say it's bad news.

But guess they're all wrong because you say so.
Also, answer the question.
What will SOPA do then?

Erm, I don't think you understood my point.
99% of people don't understand the bill, hence why so many people are misguided about it, including yourself.
if they understood it, then they would not say it is bad news.

How can I explain what SOPA would do if you don't understand it? The most simple way to put it would be to say that it would give a injunction similar to a cease-and-desist through an utterly fair trial in which (for once) money would not be the driving force, but evidence.

I'm sorry but if you truely understand what the bill is all about you would and should be able to reiterate it in more plain language for us "lesser minds". If you can't do that you do not truely understand it.

And how do you know 99% of the people to which this applies' thoughts? "Through sheer fucking luck?"

It is not my job to teach people what a bill means because they don't have the vocabulary and skills to read the bill on their own.
If you don't understand it, then you should not be arguing about it.

Have you read the internet ? Everyone who complains about this bill are all wrong, thus have not read the bill or understood it, but seeing that it is pretty clear, I will presume they have not read it.

i feel extra proud for having written a letter to my congressman a while back

Had you actually read the bill or just went on crap rumours from the internet?

i understood that SOPA would have granted the government greater legal authority on the internet which i found to be unconstitutional, so with the image of captain america in my mind, i wrote to my congressman about my concern simple as that.

but why are you questioning me here? it's a good thing i wrote. being 18 and of voting age, i'm merely using my right express my opinion in the matters of congress and have said opinion be represented by the ones who i elect to represent me in congress. you learn this stuff in 5th grade watching school house rock, come on now.

Well where does theft and loss of sales come into the constitution?

No, it is not a good thing that you wrote.
You were willing to write to someone about a bill you had not read or understood. People like yourself are the reason why arbitration and caps on compensation exist. You get on the bandwagon of a false idea made by the media and go with it and never stop to do your own unbiased research. This is why democracy does not work. You don't get a plumber to fix your car, or a doctor to sort out your tax returns, so why should people with no idea over politics get a say?

oh god dammit.
[HEADING=1]CENSORSHIP OF COUNTERFEIT MATERIAL[/HEADING]

it's great that this included things like knock off brand crap sold on the internet that's made with poor quality that hinders the brand image of whatever they're knocking off (say a handbag that LOOKS like a coco channel handbag but isn't and falls apart in a month). however if those bribe stuffed senators took a minute to remember; we're in an economic crisis right now, not everyone has enough money to buy that coco channel handbag because it's fucking 300$-500$ w/e they charge at the mall. some people might prefer the 30$-50$ knockoff instead to save a little money, hell, they probably know that it's not Coco channel but buy it anyway b/c of the price.

but that's not my beef with censorship of counterfeit material. here's my beef; this idea of hurting brand name image or using copyrighted material/imagery goes overboard when court orders are issued without due process of law before a website is shut down to be ruined for everyone. think about it; there are 200 metric ton fucks of petty youtube videos with 4 to 429 views (i counted, 200 metric ton fucks) that feature copyrighted music in the background, whether it be a clear audio track or a fuzzy justin bieber song on some girls ipod, or copyrighted imagery included album artwork, stock photos, or even pictures of historic events like the civil war or holocaust that have copyrights held with....whoever holds copyrights for pictures taken during those time periods used for a class project about the civil war or holocaust.

this also applies to things that have imagery of copyrighted material including fanart, fan made videos, and videos with music remixes. that includes my god damned pony fan art. hell what about frye-frye's deviant art account? Lauren faust might be the executive prodeucer of MLP:FiM, but she has freehand sketches of ponies that look EXACTLY LIKE THEY DO IN THE SHOW BECAUSE SHE MADE THE FUCKING SHOW on her deviant art account which would mean SOPA would ask Deviant art to remove the content or be shut down. But she made the show! even though devaint art does recognize intellectual property copyrights, SOPA will force them to jump through hoops any. fan made things are shit that we the people make with inspiration in our eyes. the media corporations now realize with the introduction of the internet and it's ability to share files and information that we are not just brain dead vegetables in front of a TV, we are intelligent individuals with the intent of sharing information freely. this scares them. they want to subjagate us to their agendas.

With SOPA, youtube would be sent a notification that they'd be SHUT THE FUCK DOWN if they didn't take down the videos. however, like i said, there are 200 metric ton fucks, probably 300 metric ton fucks by the time i'm done typing this and 400 metric ton fucks by the time you read it, of videos, that already have appropriate credit given in the description when they're uploaded, with copyrighted material, and that X metric fuck tons of video is a LOT to exam within the time they're allowed to remove them so they wouldn't be able to remove all the videos in time before a court order would be issued to BLOCK YOUTUBE FROM THE INTERNET IN THE UNITED STATES. and even if youtube did manage to do this, they'd loose millions upon millions of users who enjoy watching, sharing, and uploading those kind of videos and would cripple their business model to the point where they'd be forced to go out of business.

[HEADING=3]I DON'T WANT YOUTUBE TO BE DESTROYED BECAUSE OF 200 METRIC TON FUCKS OF JUSTIN BIEBER FAN VIDEOS. I DON'T WANT TO LOOSE HUNDREDS OF HILARIOUS VIDEOS OF BILL O'REILLY LOOKING LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT SO I CAN SHOW MY FRIENDS. I WANT TO WATCH YOUTUBE'S ANNUAL LIVE STREAM OF ROCK IN RIO FOR WHEN IT COMES NEXT YEAR. WE NEED THE MANY THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS OF U.S. STUDENTS WHO NEED YOUTUBE FOR THEIR VIDEO PROJECT FOR SCHOOL TO BE A TOOL WHICH THEY CAN UPLOAD THEIR PROJECT FOR CLASS OR EVEN WANT TO USE YOUTUBE AS STARTING POINT FOR RESEARCH.[/HEADING]

[HEADING=1]I FUCKING NEED YOUTUBE TO WATCH MY LITTLE PONY:FRIENDSHIP IS MAGIC. I SWEAR TO CELESTIA AS MY WITNESS, I WILL START RIOTS AND FIRES IN THE STREETS IF LAMAR SMITH TAKES AWAY MY FUCKING PONIES. I'LL ORGANIZE AS MANY PROTESTS AS I NEED TO, I'LL GATHER MY FELLOW INTERNET USERS AND FILL THE JAILS, WE'LL MARCH ON WASHINGTON, WE'LL CRASH THE SENATORS CONGRESSMEN'S WEBSITES DAY AFTER DAY WITH COMPLAINTS LIKE WE DID TODAY IF THEY GET IN THE WAY OF OUR LITTLE POINES.[/HEADING]

DYVfA7dbWJc

 

[Pearwood]

Words

Yeah I get why they do it but my point was there's nothing I can do about it. I have no vote in America, even having the name of someone from the UK would probably mean about as much as someone signing with an X on a petition. I'm pretty sure wikipedia has UK servers so a blackout here means absolutely nothing except annoying people.

 

[SoetSout]

firstly you CANT stop pirating, i will stake my life saying that government will never be able to control all the hackers out there. all the programmers...

Sopa already has workaround tool created by hackers. Piracy will never be stopped, just a bit harder to obtain.

Whether or not people are for or against piracy is irrelavent with this bill. Google, reddit, wiki didnt go offline to protest they want piracy, they didnt want the governement messing up the internet, it would ruin internet, and TBH it would ruin one of my greatest hobbies... surfing the net talking shit, about random stuff.

but i wont be able to with that bill, if that bill exists escapist is dead, youtube is dead, twitter is dead, facebook is dead, reddit is dead, wikipedia is dead. who else... hmm Anime Fansub groups will be killed, newgrounds will definitly be killed.

all your favorite sites could be killed cause 99?% of sites you like(yea you know where this statistic came from) contain copyrighted material.

heck i can draft a beter bill then that for piracy, it would be tons more effective. never said best, just beter ^^

 

[SoetSout]

@Jimbo1212

i think you need to go read that bill again, cause clearly you dont understand how VAGUE it is. the problem is not how it fights or what its aimed at, its what else can it do..

you might know a bit about what your talking about , but myself and everyone else on this forums knows for a FACT you dont understand the bill completely.

and like i said before, they arent gona be able to combat piracy. The only slight possible chance is if, they slash game prices as sopa gets implemented.

Many sites are relying on videos, pictures.

Parody's will be stopped.
and o yea, US will loose alot of its website hosting to Switzerland.
Many companies can be shut down after one mistake from a user not tied to the company.

the problem is not what it intends, its what else it can do.
im a programmer, yet i can fix anything around the house just with a wikihow or youtube video. as long as i can follow instructions i dont need to call people out. but with sopa this will stop, i will need to phone larry to fix a cable for me..

some might say we need those jobs, i think we dont need to be such idiots that can only do one thing in life. and we will loose a lot more jobs if this gets passed.

 

[mega48man]

snip

<youtube=hc--dFFp7mY>

Seriously.

Raging won't get you anywhere on the internet, and on the Escapist it could get you banned pretty fast.
So word of advice: take a chill, giggle at the ghosties, and meditate. Contrary to popular belief, you can't release anger through physical action; it only acts as a means for temporary escape.

Hey, I'm angry about SOPA but you don't see me smashing words onto my keyboard. We'll get those pesky politicians eventually, so relax.

lol thx. i was only emphasising SOPA's ramification to someone who sounded like they didn't understand, then ironically ended it with pony rage. thx though, i'm gonna go watch giggle at the ghosties now <3

 

[ltbigjohn]

dynamic, innovative. awwwwwww i think their giving us a compliment guys

 

[SuperiorityComplex]

I'm sitting reading through these posts going, "Okay, fine. So one person doesn't know what he's talking about but the person replying doesn't know what he's talking about because the first person who didn't know what he was talking about says so."

You're going round in circles and what's more, you know it. Claiming that most pirates would be unable to work how this is done is like claiming that most people don't like oranges. You don't go round in circles forever, you either pull out specific arguments to back yourself up or you back off.

It's strange how the two people in question most bleating that they 'know exactly what they're talking about' have pulled out links for the SOPA bill and said damn all else. Except 'read the bill' because "we understand it but you don't and since you don't, there's no point in us explaining it to you". Laymans terms were created for a reason, so that jargon can be explained. Now either turn around and give us a straight answer, in terms we the sheep can understand, or back off, because you can't explain shit otherwise. And the I'm right and you're wrong mentality doesn't work, it never has, and it never will.

And then realise I actually can't do shit about SOPA whether I supported it or not, because I'm not American. So no, there's not a damned thing I can do except ask you to clarify yourselves.

 

[Phopojijo]

Yeah I was pointed to this thread by Leam (a friend of my girlfriend), so I created an account to correct you (note the 3 post count and 3 posts in this thread).

And you know little about SOPA/PIPA despite your crowing... the same sort of crowing you did about security when you were obviously way over your head. You vaguely claim to read the bill, yet you rarely ever actually state a direct problem -- exactly how you tackle the security issue.

If you're so serious, point out a *specific and detailed* issue with SOPA that has been misunderstood... and then likely someone will swing by and prove you wrong.

Until then, crowing does not equal knowledge.

Example, the issue with SOPA related to security is not with SSL or anything like that, it's with DNSSEC authentication.

Steve Gibson, GRC --> http://youtu.be/1y-YE0I0n9Y?t=15m00s

Steve: Lamar Smith, who is the Texas Republican representative who's one of the sponsors of this bill, the SOPA, Stop Online Privacy ((he meant Piracy)) Act bill, he said, "Well, you know, I'm not technical." Well, okay. And this is the problem, is that one of the many things this does is it breaks DNSSEC. That is, DNSSEC is all about preventing DNS spoofing, which is essentially what this is, is legislated, government-backed DNS spoofing. And so many of the people have been concerned because essentially it means we can't have DNS security if we're going to have a mandated, legislated, deliberate breakage of DNS.

--------------------------

So you're wrong.

That link is just more shit.
They make a claim but never follow it with facts and I don't have the strength to listen to vacuous propaganda.

Here is an issue with SOPA that has been misunderstood; "It'll break the internet"

What a retarded statement. DNS blocking is flawed, but at least it is something. It will in no way break the internet. And let's not forget, if your server is on US soil, you can expect harsher legal action.

And how does it break DNS? You type in a torrent site, this is cross checked with a DNS blacklist and you are redirected to a blocking site.
How is that breaking DNS? That's like saying stopping people for speeding will ruin traffic. Everywhere. Forever.

Firstly... I just want to point out some irony between this (and several of your posts) and this:

And I know nothing about SOPA why? Because you claim it? Want to back that up or just going to leave it as a hollow claim?

Hollow claims, huh? Pot-kettle... only in this case the kettle's orange.

Secondly -- you don't know what you're talking about... don't worry though, I'll prove you don't. But you apparently think you know more than a professional security researcher who coined the word "Spyware" and discovered vulnerabilities in firewalls about a decade ago.

How about another security researcher? He puts it in specific albeit easy-to-understand terms.
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

"From an operational standpoint, a resolution failure from a nameserver subject to a court order and from a hacked nameserver would be indistinguishable. Users running secure applications have a need to distinguish between policy-based failures and failures caused, for example, by the presence of an attack or a hostile network, or else downgrade attacks would likely be prolific."

Why does that break DNSSEC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_cache_poisoning

DNS Cache Poisoning: "DNS cache poisoning is a security or data integrity compromise in the Domain Name System (DNS). The compromise occurs when data is introduced into a DNS name server's cache database that did not originate from authoritative DNS sources. It may be a deliberate attempt of a maliciously crafted attack on a name server. It may also be an unintended result of a misconfiguration of a DNS cache or from improper software design of DNS applications.

...

Secure DNS (DNSSEC) uses cryptographic electronic signatures signed with a trusted public key certificate to determine the authenticity of data. DNSSEC can counter cache poisoning attacks, but as of 2008 was not yet widely deployed. In 2010 DNSSEC was implemented in the Internet root zone servers."

In other words: A lot of security flaws stem from spoofing DNS entries -- a man in the middle (such as someone on public wifi who gets your computer to believe his computer is your router) can interscept your DNS requests and send you a false one in return. You could send a request to http://www.facebook.com and he could send you back the IP address for http://iwilltotallystealyourfacebooklogin.com. With SOPA, the false censorship request is indistinguishable from a false fraudulent request.

Seriously, we're not joking. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's like the mythical Ostrich who thinks "If I can't see him, he can't see me!"

 

[Phopojijo]

Yeah I was pointed to this thread by Leam (a friend of my girlfriend), so I created an account to correct you (note the 3 post count and 3 posts in this thread).

And you know little about SOPA/PIPA despite your crowing... the same sort of crowing you did about security when you were obviously way over your head. You vaguely claim to read the bill, yet you rarely ever actually state a direct problem -- exactly how you tackle the security issue.

If you're so serious, point out a *specific and detailed* issue with SOPA that has been misunderstood... and then likely someone will swing by and prove you wrong.

Until then, crowing does not equal knowledge.

Example, the issue with SOPA related to security is not with SSL or anything like that, it's with DNSSEC authentication.

Steve Gibson, GRC --> http://youtu.be/1y-YE0I0n9Y?t=15m00s

Steve: Lamar Smith, who is the Texas Republican representative who's one of the sponsors of this bill, the SOPA, Stop Online Privacy ((he meant Piracy)) Act bill, he said, "Well, you know, I'm not technical." Well, okay. And this is the problem, is that one of the many things this does is it breaks DNSSEC. That is, DNSSEC is all about preventing DNS spoofing, which is essentially what this is, is legislated, government-backed DNS spoofing. And so many of the people have been concerned because essentially it means we can't have DNS security if we're going to have a mandated, legislated, deliberate breakage of DNS.

--------------------------

So you're wrong.

That link is just more shit.
They make a claim but never follow it with facts and I don't have the strength to listen to vacuous propaganda.

Here is an issue with SOPA that has been misunderstood; "It'll break the internet"

What a retarded statement. DNS blocking is flawed, but at least it is something. It will in no way break the internet. And let's not forget, if your server is on US soil, you can expect harsher legal action.

And how does it break DNS? You type in a torrent site, this is cross checked with a DNS blacklist and you are redirected to a blocking site.
How is that breaking DNS? That's like saying stopping people for speeding will ruin traffic. Everywhere. Forever.

Firstly... I just want to point out some irony between this (and several of your posts) and this:

And I know nothing about SOPA why? Because you claim it? Want to back that up or just going to leave it as a hollow claim?

Hollow claims, huh? Pot-kettle... only in this case the kettle's orange.

Secondly -- you don't know what you're talking about... don't worry though, I'll prove you don't. But you apparently think you know more than a professional security researcher who coined the word "Spyware" and discovered vulnerabilities in firewalls about a decade ago.

How about another security researcher? He puts it in specific albeit easy-to-understand terms.
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

"From an operational standpoint, a resolution failure from a nameserver subject to a court order and from a hacked nameserver would be indistinguishable. Users running secure applications have a need to distinguish between policy-based failures and failures caused, for example, by the presence of an attack or a hostile network, or else downgrade attacks would likely be prolific."

Why does that break DNSSEC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_cache_poisoning

DNS Cache Poisoning: "DNS cache poisoning is a security or data integrity compromise in the Domain Name System (DNS). The compromise occurs when data is introduced into a DNS name server's cache database that did not originate from authoritative DNS sources. It may be a deliberate attempt of a maliciously crafted attack on a name server. It may also be an unintended result of a misconfiguration of a DNS cache or from improper software design of DNS applications.

...

Secure DNS (DNSSEC) uses cryptographic electronic signatures signed with a trusted public key certificate to determine the authenticity of data. DNSSEC can counter cache poisoning attacks, but as of 2008 was not yet widely deployed. In 2010 DNSSEC was implemented in the Internet root zone servers."

In other words: A lot of security flaws stem from spoofing DNS entries -- a man in the middle (such as someone on public wifi who gets your computer to believe his computer is your router) can interscept your DNS requests and send you a false one in return. You could send a request to http://www.facebook.com and he could send you back the IP address for http://iwilltotallystealyourfacebooklogin.com. With SOPA, the false censorship request is indistinguishable from a false fraudulent request.

Seriously, we're not joking. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's like the mythical Ostrich who thinks "If I can't see him, he can't see me!"

Well that is quite interesting and potentially alarming until you realize anyone who isn't trying to access pirated material will be unaffected.

And you can take your condescending attitude elsewhere as this is not the only complaint people have had about SOPA, not to mention, almost no one actually read the bill. Does that not concern you? Or are you here to simply shout one point and one point alone?

No actually. The point is you cannot distinguish between:

-a DNS spoof from the Government to block a pirate website
and
-a DNS spoof from a hacker trying to redirect you away from an eStore to a phishing site posing as that eStore.
(or a site loaded with malware, etc.)

-----

Also, that assumes they're correct.

Earlier in the year, the DHS shut down a domain suspected of Child Pornography. Unfortunately that one domain wasn't a child porn website, it was a DNS host pointing to 84000 websites.

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/homeland-security-falsely-accuses-84000-websites-of-trafficking-child-pornography-20110216/

Imagine if you were a children's dance school who was redirected to a child porn accusation site? Irreparable damage.

Or how about when MediaDefender took down Revision 3?

http://revision3.com/blog/2008/05/29/inside-the-attack-that-crippled-revision3/

-----

And that assumes that the takedown request isn't just (allegedly) fraudulent in the first place.

Like when Universal took down a Megaupload ad that (still allegedly) did not infringe upon anything.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/megaupload-contract/

Or when Monster Cable claimed monoprice.com and pricegrabber are conterfeit websites.
http://www.monstercable.com/counterfeit/dealers_blk.asp

-----
So yes it is a very very big issue. It just takes like a half dozen tries to get you to realize you're wrong about each individual point. It takes a lot of patience to deal with your ignorance. Patience that I have, however.

 

[Phopojijo]

Yeah I was pointed to this thread by Leam (a friend of my girlfriend), so I created an account to correct you (note the 3 post count and 3 posts in this thread).

And you know little about SOPA/PIPA despite your crowing... the same sort of crowing you did about security when you were obviously way over your head. You vaguely claim to read the bill, yet you rarely ever actually state a direct problem -- exactly how you tackle the security issue.

If you're so serious, point out a *specific and detailed* issue with SOPA that has been misunderstood... and then likely someone will swing by and prove you wrong.

Until then, crowing does not equal knowledge.

Example, the issue with SOPA related to security is not with SSL or anything like that, it's with DNSSEC authentication.

Steve Gibson, GRC --> http://youtu.be/1y-YE0I0n9Y?t=15m00s

Steve: Lamar Smith, who is the Texas Republican representative who's one of the sponsors of this bill, the SOPA, Stop Online Privacy ((he meant Piracy)) Act bill, he said, "Well, you know, I'm not technical." Well, okay. And this is the problem, is that one of the many things this does is it breaks DNSSEC. That is, DNSSEC is all about preventing DNS spoofing, which is essentially what this is, is legislated, government-backed DNS spoofing. And so many of the people have been concerned because essentially it means we can't have DNS security if we're going to have a mandated, legislated, deliberate breakage of DNS.

--------------------------

So you're wrong.

That link is just more shit.
They make a claim but never follow it with facts and I don't have the strength to listen to vacuous propaganda.

Here is an issue with SOPA that has been misunderstood; "It'll break the internet"

What a retarded statement. DNS blocking is flawed, but at least it is something. It will in no way break the internet. And let's not forget, if your server is on US soil, you can expect harsher legal action.

And how does it break DNS? You type in a torrent site, this is cross checked with a DNS blacklist and you are redirected to a blocking site.
How is that breaking DNS? That's like saying stopping people for speeding will ruin traffic. Everywhere. Forever.

Firstly... I just want to point out some irony between this (and several of your posts) and this:

And I know nothing about SOPA why? Because you claim it? Want to back that up or just going to leave it as a hollow claim?

Hollow claims, huh? Pot-kettle... only in this case the kettle's orange.

Secondly -- you don't know what you're talking about... don't worry though, I'll prove you don't. But you apparently think you know more than a professional security researcher who coined the word "Spyware" and discovered vulnerabilities in firewalls about a decade ago.

How about another security researcher? He puts it in specific albeit easy-to-understand terms.
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

"From an operational standpoint, a resolution failure from a nameserver subject to a court order and from a hacked nameserver would be indistinguishable. Users running secure applications have a need to distinguish between policy-based failures and failures caused, for example, by the presence of an attack or a hostile network, or else downgrade attacks would likely be prolific."

Why does that break DNSSEC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_cache_poisoning

DNS Cache Poisoning: "DNS cache poisoning is a security or data integrity compromise in the Domain Name System (DNS). The compromise occurs when data is introduced into a DNS name server's cache database that did not originate from authoritative DNS sources. It may be a deliberate attempt of a maliciously crafted attack on a name server. It may also be an unintended result of a misconfiguration of a DNS cache or from improper software design of DNS applications.

...

Secure DNS (DNSSEC) uses cryptographic electronic signatures signed with a trusted public key certificate to determine the authenticity of data. DNSSEC can counter cache poisoning attacks, but as of 2008 was not yet widely deployed. In 2010 DNSSEC was implemented in the Internet root zone servers."

In other words: A lot of security flaws stem from spoofing DNS entries -- a man in the middle (such as someone on public wifi who gets your computer to believe his computer is your router) can interscept your DNS requests and send you a false one in return. You could send a request to http://www.facebook.com and he could send you back the IP address for http://iwilltotallystealyourfacebooklogin.com. With SOPA, the false censorship request is indistinguishable from a false fraudulent request.

Seriously, we're not joking. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's like the mythical Ostrich who thinks "If I can't see him, he can't see me!"

Well that is quite interesting and potentially alarming until you realize anyone who isn't trying to access pirated material will be unaffected.

And you can take your condescending attitude elsewhere as this is not the only complaint people have had about SOPA, not to mention, almost no one actually read the bill. Does that not concern you? Or are you here to simply shout one point and one point alone?

No actually. The point is you cannot distinguish between:

-a DNS spoof from the Government to block a pirate website
and
-a DNS spoof from a hacker trying to redirect you away from an eStore to a phishing site posing as that eStore.
(or a site loaded with malware, etc.)

-----

Also, that assumes they're correct.

Earlier in the year, the DHS shut down a domain suspected of Child Pornography. Unfortunately that one domain wasn't a child porn website, it was a DNS host pointing to 84000 websites.

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/homeland-security-falsely-accuses-84000-websites-of-trafficking-child-pornography-20110216/

Imagine if you were a children's dance school who was redirected to a child porn accusation site? Irreparable damage.

Or how about when MediaDefender took down Revision 3?

http://revision3.com/blog/2008/05/29/inside-the-attack-that-crippled-revision3/

-----

And that assumes that the takedown request isn't just (allegedly) fraudulent in the first place.

Like when Universal took down a Megaupload ad that (still allegedly) did not infringe upon anything.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/megaupload-contract/

Or when Monster Cable claimed monoprice.com and pricegrabber are conterfeit websites.
http://www.monstercable.com/counterfeit/dealers_blk.asp

-----
So yes it is a very very big issue. It just takes like a half dozen tries to get you to realize you're wrong about each individual point. It takes a lot of patience to deal with your ignorance. Patience that I have, however.

Because a tone of pretension always works and makes you sound reasonable. An attitude never helps anyone.

The thing is, how big an issue is DNS spoofing to someone who has a secure computer? As long as you follow trusted sites and so on, what is the possibility of being spoofed? Plus if that issue would occur, it is more then likely that some company, whether it's Mozilla or Symantec, would compensate for government redirection by looking at the redirected site? I fail to see why phising would become a larger problem as the government redirect would be redirecting to a known site. Is there no way that could be dealt with? Considering there are already countermeasures against phising and spoofing, I can't see why this would then "break" it.

Mistakes happen and that's where compensation and part 103.6 fills the gap. As for Universal, youtube actually had a private contract with universal to remove content on demand.

SOPA is not perfect. There are ways around it, companies could abuse it, but law is never perfect so why does SOPA have to be?

First and foremost -- Universal (allegedly) lied about having a private contract with Youtube. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/ Youtube released that statement the day after Universal claimed they had a contract.

------------

The point of DNS spoofing is that it is independent of the computer: you do not need to compromise the endpoints, just redirect the path from the initial endpoint to an untrusted destination endpoint. It is 99% analogous to opening the yellow pages, and replacing the telephone banking number for the phone number of a scammer -- and then replacing people's phonebooks for your's.

In other words, there is nothing that Mozilla or anyone can do besides have a trusted third party give thumbs-up that the DNS response came from the intended trusted name server.

That is called DNSSEC. That is precisely what SOPA disallows... because the DNS response did NOT come from the intended trusted name server.

------------

As for 103.6 (Misrepresentations) -- the same problem occurs with SOPA as occured with the DMCA. You have to go to court to prove misrepresentation. To prove misrepresentation you run the risk of having the best lawyers in the world fight their asses off (including lying, as is allegedly the case -- again -- with Universal's claim that Youtube and they had a private contract) to try and prove that YOU are the one, in fact, misrespresenting.

So no, that is not sufficient.

------------

And let's not forget the biggest annoying part of this all: it is not even proven that piracy reduces sales in the first place!!!!

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189585/20110730/paulo-coelho-piracy-books-authors-the-alchemist.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/10481211524/comic-book-pirated-on-4chan-author-joins-discussion-watches-sales-soar.shtml
http://boingboing.net/2009/01/23/monty-pythons-free-w.html

People point to big piracy figures and try to equate it to lost sales. What about sales gained as a result of piracy exposure, hmm? What about them? Maybe the decline in revenue is bad business practices??? (Ubisoft and your 90% decline in PC sales http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/07/opinion-ubisoft-piracy-and-the-death-of-reason/)

Maybe before we strip our freedoms and slaughter adjecent businesses... we look at the supposed problem itself more closely? You think that might be smart? See if we're fighting for an industry that's committing suicide by sacrificing revenue for control? (Then blaming the lack of revenue on a lack of control...)

Just maybe?

 

[Phopojijo]

You're asking the wrong question. The question is not: "Would at least one sale have occured during a million unauthorized downloads" (Even after ignoring that 1 download is not 1 unit as podtrac and other companies will tell you that a unique viewer count to a podcast is somewhere around 1/2 or 1/3rd of the download count)

The question is: "How much revenue would I make without X action to promote/hinder piracy, versus how much revenue would I make WITH X action to promote/hinder piracy."

If you shrink piracy by like 50% but shrink sales by like 90% (Ubisoft...) what did you accomplish?

Seriously think about it... what if the fallout after SOPA and/or PIPA hypothetically passed reduced sales. The industry you protect continues to bleed out, the industry you threw under the bus is splattered by the tire, and the individuals who are doing legitimate things are wrongfully accused (intentionally or otherwise), and they have next-to-no services to publish on because there's too much liability. What did you accomplish?

And yes -- sales can increase as a result of piracy.

(again)
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189585/20110730/paulo-coelho-piracy-books-authors-the-alchemist.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/10481211524/comic-book-pirated-on-4chan-author-joins-discussion-watches-sales-soar.shtml
http://boingboing.net/2009/01/23/monty-pythons-free-w.html

Maybe we should take some time and figure out why FIRST?

 

[crhoades]

HUZZAH AND HOORAY.

 

[Buizel91]

It seems the White House has won internets....and a lot of them!

Bravo White House, Bravo!

 

[masticina]

You know it, I know it, the big media companies will just try to push a simular bill through. At least it has shown the congress that just not reading stuff and saying yes when you get a fat paycheck is kinda frowned upon.

Won't change that soon enough they will try to sneak something equal to anyway.. that is politics. Definitely now big companies can buy senate seats.

 

[Olas]

I doubt congress would ever pass something like SOPA or PIPA, they can barely even pass reasonable bills that are necessary for the country (debt ceiling) much less ones that are excruciatingly controversial and condemned by some of the world's largest corporations.
Hell, even if by some wild chance it had passed the backlash would have been so volcanic it wouldn't have lasted a month.

It's nice to see that the internet was able to stay calm and realistic about this virtually nonexistant threat though.

 

[pwned123456]

-snip-

You do realise that the bill gives far too much power to corporations right?
They would abuse the shit out of it, and do you know why?
Corporations are not our friends, hell, if VEVO can block content randomly based on what country i am from, if music companies can take down stuff that they don't OWN because THEY. DON'T. LIKE. IT. Then what do you think they are going to do with this bill?

To be honest, i think i'll take the opinions of the majority and INTERNET AND LAW EXPERTS.

How about you READ THE BILL? Why is that such an alien concept?

The Bill does not give corporations too much power because they need to provide evidence and can be taken to court if they wrongfully acuse sites. You'd know this if your ead the bill as it is clearly stated in parts 103.4 III and 103.6.

You can't abuse it. That's not how the bill works. Read. The. Bill.

Instead of listening to others, form an opinion on it yourself straight from the source.

Some of the problems include a lot of people not being happy with Copywrite Infringment becoming a felonly, and the transfer of a large amount of the cost of owning IP onto the government (and by extension tax payers). If you own an IP, then it is yours to profit off and as such yours to protect. The most important problem, as has already been stated, is that all this questionable shit will have no effect on piracy. NONE.

Why advocate ineffective, expencive, questionable legislation that will not stop the thing that it claims it will stop?

It's not actually CRI that's a felony, but dedication to the theft of CRI. It would have an effect on piracy because finding torrent sites would become extremely hard, and once discovered, they would be gone in a maximum of 5 days.

Snip

SOPA may not have been a solution, but it certainly would have helped cut down piracy as joe-average isn't going to know how to work around DNS redirects. It hardly seems a criticism to say google, an extremely wealthy company, would of had to spend money to enforce SOPA. If they couldn't afford it, they would be exempt from the bill as laid out in the first section of it.
Piracy costs the industries we love billions and to see SOPA scrapped though mainly ignorance is just a sad sight showing how blind the masses can be.

I can more than sympathize with wanting to defend our industry. More than. I try to curtail it when I'm on here, partly because I can be a bit... extreme in my sentiments there-in, but I am decidedly in the anti-piracy camp. My issue is right there in your first paragraph reply; it was not a solution. Not a long-term one at the least, and not one that would have had enough of an impact. People found TPB. They learned how to work a torrent. Banking on their stupidity when it involves their pursuit of their greed can be a bad gamble.

Look, you and I are closer to being on the same side than you perhaps realize. But the thing is, if you ever want to see a legitimate way to combat large-scale piracy, you don't want to start with something equal parts flawed and derrided like SOPA. When you need a new car, you don't pick up the used Edsel from the first lot you get to... you keep searching. SOPA was not the champion worth pegging your colors onto. Even setting the hyperbole aside, it was poorly written, suggested solutions that were anachronistic at best, and ultimately, as you yourself admit, its main weapons were easily circumvented from day 1 with the right know-how. The fact the blacklist raised a bit of the old Red Scare shadow likely didn't help sell it to the public either.

You're angry, and you have a right to be. But ask yourself if SOPA was really the solution you wanted it to be, or if the anger came more from how it was blown out of proportion to The Sky Is Falling levels. Take five steps back and ask yourself if, on a site that adores slamming pirates, it would really have received this much negative attention if it was the solution you wanted it to be. If the answers you come to is no, then take a breath, refocus, and start looking for the better solutions to champion.

SOPA isn't perfect, but it's not broken beyond use. With it working on CRI (Copy right infringement) and dedication of theft, while having a 5 day maximum time limit, means no matter what tech is brought out in the future, it could bring that down as well, allowing it to combat many forms of piracy.
Most pirates will not have the right know-how to circumvent SOPA. There will always be those who will set up VPN's and so on, but that is far harder to do, and become part of, then hitting up a torrent search engine. I see SOPA as a mass immunisation; it may not cure the illness, but it will certainly stump the spread of it.
I think this site hates SOPA because most of the people haven't read it. Most of the criticisms they have are simply false and based on websites misinforming them. Claiming it prevents freedom of speech is like claiming bleeping someone on TV is censoring the freedom of speech.

it is giving them too much power because websites that host anything copywrited could be shut down no matter the use because it will still count as enough evidence

 

[Monster_user]

Did you ever read the actual Bill that was proposed?
Here it is: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf

Section 103.4 (B) (ii) & (iii) clearly state you need evidence

103.6
Section 103.5

In short, you were all lied to and the result will be that the gaming, film and music industry will lose billions due to people not bothering to read what they were so happy to criticise.

That is section 103. Which involves actions enacted by the U.S. Government.

Section 104 is the section of most concern with regards to the law being enacted with no consequences, or evidence. Those who read the bill were not concerned about the U.S. Government taking action without evidence.

16 in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability
17 for damages to any person shall be granted against, a
18 service provider, payment network provider, Internet ad19
vertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, do20
main name registry, or domain name registrar for taking
21 any action described in section 102(c)(2), section
22 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet
23 site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending
24 financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable
25 belief that?

We were concerned about Hollywood, and big money taking action without evidence, and convincing the government that they had "reasonable belief". Considering how much copyright infringing material is on Youtube, and Facebook.

 

[BoTTeNBReKeR]

One down, 3 more to go.
Pipa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/

ACTA (already signed by the US and other nations, we're fucked)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement