U.S. Congress Shelves SOPA

mega48man

New member
Mar 12, 2009
638
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
mega48man said:
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.
 

Grottnikk

New member
Mar 19, 2008
338
0
0
Even though it didn't pass and is shelved, there are a bunch of sites having a little sit-in anti-SOPA thing going now. Just tried to get into the Elder Scrolls wiki and got a "this website is blocked by SOPA" message. :)
 

Aidinthel

Occasional Gentleman
Apr 3, 2010
1,743
0
0
Grottnikk said:
Even though it didn't pass and is shelved, there are a bunch of sites having a little sit-in anti-SOPA thing going now. Just tried to get into the Elder Scrolls wiki and got a "this website is blocked by SOPA" message. :)
It being "shelved" does not mean it is permanently dead, just significantly delayed. To next month.

Also, SOPA's companion bill in the Sanate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) is scheduled for vote on I think the 24th.
 

alandavidson

New member
Jun 21, 2010
961
0
0
w00tage said:
Okay, I'm going to have to break this up for clarity's sake. Any ways, here goes:

Well, yeah, the store was just a setting for the analogy so it breaks down there. My point was that people who have the chance to buy, but don't, are proving that they weren't going to buy it anyways, even if they lose the ability to view it unlicensed. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I think it's a person-by-person that can't really be known.

However, if by chance some bill does pass and unlicensed viewing goes away, I will bet that any increase in sales is a tiny fraction - if any at all - of the unlicensed views, aka "piracy".
I actually think that the passing of the bill will decrease sales because it will limit the discovery of new films, games, music, etc. This is where "unlicensed viewing" becomes a catch-22, and also where studios really need to get their heads out of their asses.

For example, go on YouTube and look up any random bootleg clip from a movie (especially horror or comedy), and you'll see that it has upwards of 100,000 views. When studio execs (lawyers especially), they look at it, and instead of saying "hey, this clip from our movie has 100,000+ hits, and is giving us massive amounts of free advertising, we should do something like that because it will allow a lot more people to know about our product and boost our sales" they say, "hey, those thieving bastards are stealing money from us!". And at that point I do a facepalm because I've been trying to explain to them for a long time that "free clips are good, they help us sell the product".

However, I wasn't saying and don't defend a position of "more free is good". That's not my model, I just want to know that I want what I'm buying - per caveat emptor rules - before forking over the money. Entertainment doesn't give you the chance to inspect what you're buying first, and everyone has walked out of a theator or turned off the TV going "well, that wasn't worth it". So the chance to watch first is what I'm after (on things I can't actually see on licensed sites that is, I have Netflix and Hulu, etc. and wait for US productions to show up there). The only things I remember watching that I really liked and didn't buy are not available for purchase in the US (QI, etc.). And I still check every one, because I have no problem supporting the creators.
I like more free (see above comment), and I think that studios need to have more and newer content available for free streaming.

The hang-up with that lies within the unions and their having few clear guidelines as to residual distribution when it comes to "new media" (aka, the internet). I mentioned before the writer's strike, which was sparked by the writers not getting any money from the ad revenue garnered by streaming content. SAG (the Screen Actors Guild, the actors union) also has no clear guidelines on streaming content, although that's changing. And I'll be honest, a lot of messes when it comes to studios and unions stem from people just being greedy. That's why we need whistle blowers and people watching over the unions and studios to ensure they don't get out of control. Now if we only had a "remove head from ass" division, we would be set.

Re your other point about studios giving more away, I honestly believe it's the middlemen in the process that are causing the problems. They get in between creators and consumers so they can get dollars (or tens of dollars) where you get pennies, so the price is both massively inflated at the point of purchase, and much of that is not going to you or the other productive parts of the process, its getting lost in Hollywood accounting.

My hope is that we'll get artist->consumer works going with the middlemen reduced to their proper role as servants of the process instead of masters. I would bet that the prices drop massively while the revenues to the artists increase by the same amount.
A lot of it has to do with markups. The average DVD costs $3 or less (usually less) wholesale, and the stores then turn around sell them for $25+. So yeah, consumers are getting ripped off big-time. There are a ton of issues that need to be fixed in the whole system, and maybe someday they will be. We just have to keep working at it.
 

Phopojijo

New member
Jan 18, 2012
28
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
-snip top-
Cybersecurity as it stands is a joke. Until everything is 4096 bit encrypted, it's like debating what's better to stop a bullet - a single leaf or a sheet of paper. Also it's hard to brute force your way through passworded systems so ultimately any security related complaints are negligible.
-snip bottom-
Yeah it is plainly obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/brazil_banker_crypto_lock_out/

This 256-bit key was uncrackable after 5 months of attempts by Brazillian authorities as well as 12 months of attempts by the FBI. He may have "only" used 256-bit AES encryption, but he used it smartly.

If you did speak to a "security expert" about 4096-bit keys, he was probably talking about the RSA encryption algorithms that you see in 2nd year Rings and Fields math classes. I'm guessing he was an undergraduate university Math or Computer Science student?

Encryption these days is much more secure than the environment around it. (Simple choice in passwords, malware on one of the endpoints, compromised SSL certificates/MITM attacks, etc.) Essentially the worst enemy to security is complacency -- as is evident by Sony, etc.
 

Spectrre

New member
Mar 7, 2011
66
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
Sizzle Montyjing said:
Jimbo1212 said:
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?"

The Cool Kid said:
TopazFusion said:
The Cool Kid said:
SOPA is to stop pirates
But the problem is; it won't.

Instead, it has the potential to disrupt many legitimate websites, as others have already pointed out.
I've said before to others that SOPA isn't perfect but DNS blocking will certainly reduce pirating as it will make finding pirated material much more difficult as the average user is not going to know how to get around DNS blocking. I know SOPA is not perfect, but it's a start.
Then for the love of god why can't you grasp that we should not accept SOPA but a bill that can come from it, without it's mistakes and flaws?
 

iRevanchist

New member
Jun 11, 2011
141
0
0
I read on reddit that SOPA has NOT been shelved. I'm not gonna stand down till this thing is burned, not merely put up until we forget about it. and niether is wikipedia. #blackout
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
This isn't the last we'll hear of it. The dicks who come up with things like this aren't easily thwarted; the fewer rights we have, the easier it is for them to be in control. Shelving this bill and its ilk is not enough.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Spectrre said:
Jimbo1212 said:
Sizzle Montyjing said:
Jimbo1212 said:
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.


mega48man said:
Jimbo1212 said:
mega48man said:
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?
 

Nydestroyer

New member
Jun 12, 2011
51
0
0
This half victory is awesome in almost every way besides one thing..all my friends I told about the bill but didn't believe me or help by signing or opposing it will just said told you it wouldn't happen but still like i care the interwebs are OK! almost >.>
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Jimbo1212 said:
Everyone who complains about this bill are all wrong
WE'RE ALL WRONG BECAUSE YOU SAY SO

Awesome argument you have there.
Well sorry for reading the bill.
Unless you read it, this is a slightly impossible task to prove. I could claim you are wrong because line 114 says so, or because in fact all your claims are simply this - made up. You claim the bill needs no evidence, it clearly states it does etc.


TopazFusion said:
Jimbo1212 said:
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?
This argument can be turned right back around and used against you.

Why did the politicians, who have little or no understanding of how the internet works, or how piracy really goes down, come up with a bill that they think will be a "silver bullet"? When it clearly won't be.

Why didn't they get some technical experts in there to draft out the thing?

And last but not least:

You pull other people up for not being experts.
So I take it you are an expert on politics, the inner workings of the internet, and the legal implications of SOPA.

Wow, you must have some serious qualifications there.
...because they would have drafted in expertise advise or just done a copy-paste job of a cease-and-desist order?
Not hard to work out. Both would work and are reasonable.

I do know my politics. It is not exactly complex or difficult, and being a democracy you really should know this.
The legal implications of SOPA are few. Some big giants who have profits in the billions would lose a fraction of that and other companies would stand to save vast sums of money.
And yes, I fully understand how the internet works. Some of us have degrees after all.
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Jimbo1212 said:
I could claim you are wrong because line 114 says so, or because in fact all your claims are simply this - made up. You claim the bill needs no evidence, it clearly states it does etc.
You're saying that everyone who is against the bill hasn't actually read it.

Including Google, Wikipedia, etc.
With all their legal might, you're saying they're wrong too?

You're putting yourself on one hell of a pedestal here.
Or that Google would lose advertising revenue from these illegal websites and would have to spend money on changing their search engine. They could easily afford this, but heck, the share holders would not be happy to hear they took a drop in profits.
As for wiki...amazing how their funding campaign has magically stopped isn't it and they now hate SOPA.

But the average joe has not read the bill. They have just jumped on the bandwagon of being ill-informed and put on tin hats.

TopazFusion said:
Jimbo1212 said:
Some big giants who have profits in the billions would lose a fraction of that and other companies would stand to save vast sums of money.
If this is true, why are there so many big organisations against it?
Did they miss something that only you can see?
M O N E Y

They stand to lose revenue as pirating brings in a lot of money through adverts etc and some of those people either host adverts or host pirating eg 4chan. What would happen to /rs/? That is right, shut down.

And lets not forget, good old peer pressure. Some of those companies would not be affected, but having a mob of angry people who think SOPA is evil will not help them either.
 

Von Strimmer

New member
Apr 17, 2011
375
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Jimbo1212 said:
I could claim you are wrong because line 114 says so, or because in fact all your claims are simply this - made up. You claim the bill needs no evidence, it clearly states it does etc.
You're saying that everyone who is against the bill hasn't actually read it.

Including Google, Wikipedia, etc.
With all their legal might, you're saying they're wrong too?

You're putting yourself on one hell of a pedestal here.
Jimbo1212 said:
Some big giants who have profits in the billions would lose a fraction of that and other companies would stand to save vast sums of money.
If this is true, why are there so many big organisations against it?
Did they miss something that only you can see?
Eh just ignore him and move on.

Actually fuck that this is the internet, argument time! Why does the USA get to cockblock the internet on the rest of the world? Riddle me that one. Also why is the world known as "foreign thieves" to your Congress?

SOPA and PIPA are good motives with bad practices. Now if you will excuse me I am going to go and watch cat videos, because I still have that freedom for the moment!

Edit: Also the whole point of democracy is that the people decide! The people have decided and they dont want the law! Its as simple as that, if you like the government choosing your laws for you then move to Iran or Saudi Arabia or come here to Australia!
 

Spectrre

New member
Mar 7, 2011
66
0
0
Jimbo1212 said:
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 know it is pointless to try and argue with you but.. I'm bored and I can't think of anything better to do so;


Your eternal argumental backbone that "we should just read it" I still don't understand. How are you still clinging on to this? You claim to know exactly what everyone effected by this bill has done just because they have a different opinion than yours?

Not only do you have NO way of knowing what people know or have read you must realize at some level that among all those people there are lawyers, CEO's (of companies big and small) many of who we know for a fact they HAVE read it and probably understand it a whole lot better than you or I could. Because these people are showing their support in stopping this flawed bill.

But w/e. Go ahead and keep on ignoring whatever counter-argument thrown at you. Happy trolling.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
What really sucks is that a US Senator would throw so much money, time and effort into something that's presented as a solution to piracy, when the real goal here isn't to make Fox, Universal or EMI happy.

It's to shut down The Pirate Bay on a local basis. They finally realized that legal wrangling wouldn't work against a Swedish site based, obviously, in Sweden. As they can't just storm Stockholm and tear the tracker's very roots down (and they've tried several times, in one form or another), they're taking steps to block off access to the site on their territory.

Granted, if and when TPB is blocked off by SOPA or PIPA, they'll go after the other big-name trackers. Demonoid's likely to follow, along with pretty much every average-sized tracker they can find.

Will this stop anything? Of course not. Both of those bills are focused on Torrent trackers or storage solutions like Megaupload. Anything that starts with a Web search can be blocked by SOPA. Unfortunately for them, ED2K connections and servers still do exist, and one or two of the post-Napster Era file-sharing programs are still active (e.g. LimeWire).

These bills will screw up the 'net and block off access to Torrent trackers. That's it. Even if you somehow could excise BitTorrent technology from the Internet entirely, you'd still be left with a generous handful of alternatives.

Security risks or otherwise, copyrights or otherwise, theft or otherwise - there simply won't be any stopping piracy.

After all, the bill is designed to stop *online* piracy. What if they ended up bolstering exchanged copies based on physical media, like back in the nineties?
 

Jimbo1212

New member
Aug 13, 2009
676
0
0
Spectrre said:
Jimbo1212 said:
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 know it is pointless to try and argue with you but.. I'm bored and I can't think of anything better to do so;


Your eternal argumental backbone that "we should just read it" I still don't understand. How are you still clinging on to this? You claim to know exactly what everyone effected by this bill has done just because they have a different opinion than yours?

Not only do you have NO way of knowing what people know or have read you must realize at some level that among all those people there are lawyers, CEO's (of companies big and small) many of who we know for a fact they HAVE read it and probably understand it a whole lot better than you or I could. Because these people are showing their support in stopping this flawed bill.

But w/e. Go ahead and keep on ignoring whatever counter-argument thrown at you. Happy trolling.
I actually facepalmed when I read that.

You don't understand why you should know what you are arguing about?
Well I thought I heard everything, but this takes the prize for being absurd.

The bill is perfectly clear, and all these theories of it being evil and going to destroy the internet are shown to be wrong if you just read it. It is like people arguing that the US constitution says that you can rape babies and have to wear clown hats every 96th minute. If you just read it, you would know that is simply made up rubbish.

I know people have not read it because they still believe these fallacies being posted on the internet. Users on this forum have even posted parts of the Bill which show these fallacies to be such, YET STILL, people claim SOPA to be spawned from the devil.

Ah yes, telling people that their misinformed and unsubstantiated opinion is wrong over facts is trolling.......oh wait, it is called being right.
 

Pearwood

New member
Mar 24, 2010
1,929
0
0
So does this mean websites can take down those annoying as hell messages that everyone needs to vote against this? I mean fair enough, if I had a vote I'd use it if only to stop Americans trying to control what I do over here but I don't so this whole thing has just been an annoyance. Even here there's black margins that send me to some website against it and it's completely wasted on any non-American.