U.S. Congress Shelves SOPA

[samsonguy920]

After they managed to pass that stupid healthcare bill, I am surprised they actually did this with SOPA. I guess there really is power in the White House.

?That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.?

SOPA only rests. It will return.

I'm figuring not with this congress, but someone down the road will get it in their brain to try again. Nobody's touching anything like this bill until after the elections at the least.
I get the impression Protect IP is less popular in congress than SOPA was, so I think we really can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

I hope this celebration won't swamp the internet. SOPA is defused, but not destroyed, and what's more important, the Protect IP Act, which is pretty much SOPA v1.01, is still going. This Plan B must not be successfully executed while people forget the threat after the party. Media attention span is short-lived enough to make this happen.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Hmmm...Obama blocked this? I...eh...hmm. I may have to reconsider my decision not to vote for his reelection...

 

[2fish]

2fish like, but must not lower our guard we must. Legislation not make one great.

SOPA is now sleeping, meanwhile PIPA is learning from SOPA's failings.

Next week on congressional high school romance


Will APOS rise to hunt vampires or the internet?

 

[Sandytimeman]

snip

It will use DNS manipulation to inact its "penalty" that will cause destabilization of the world net and stop plans to move forward with the new protocals.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Why do you have to be an expert to read a Bill? Or just going on a strawman?
Why can't you read the bill and come to your own conclusions?
Read the Bill; it's really not complex.

You are asking me why you need to be an expert in law to fully understand a bill of law?
Hmmmm, let me think.
Reading and understanding are different things, i read that bill ,but didn't understand a word of it.

Quite clever of your really, giving a complex bill to the ordinary person who knows fuck all about it.
Then again i doubt you do either, judging by your use of the the 'come to your own conclusions'. It's a bill of law, not an interpretation.

Then again judging by your join date and forum health bar, you seem to have a... reputation.

 

[Ruwrak]

Would have been impossible to have it pass anyway.
But good to see there are still some sensible heads in the USA.
Even though Europe would feel it less I think.

Anyway, celebration time *goes off to post copyrighted material on YouTube*

 

[DracoSuave]

So you have read the bill then? If so then please tell me what the problem is with making sure pirating doesnt happen and increasing the penalties on importing dangerous and illegal goods.

If you truly cared about poltics and America you wouldn't wield false dichotomies like a cavalry rider wields his saber, cutting through intellegent discourse left and right with calculated cunning and unmitigated lust for slaughter.

Now, to address something you brought up:

Yes, you can persue damages for false action using the bill, however by the time you seek redress IT'S TOO LATE because that action has already resulted in the complete shutdown of your domain at a fundamental level.

Good luck funding your lawsuit, because your income has been stripped of you, along with your domain name, and any ways for you to do perfectly legal business.

It puts the onus onto the content provider to prove his content is legal before he can show it, rather than putting the onus on the copyright holder to prove the content is illegal. This is, of course, ASS BACKWARDS.

In order for holders of intellectual properties to stop, they have to display in the courts, using a preponderance of evidence, that their rights are being infringed. SOPA and PIPA give them a weapon that allows them to skip the requirement of preponderance of evidence, and go straight into action before it's been examined in a court of law. This goes against the central concepts of civil law.

 

[DracoSuave]

So you have read the bill then? If so then please tell me what the problem is with making sure pirating doesnt happen and increasing the penalties on importing dangerous and illegal goods.

If you truly cared about poltics and America you wouldn't wield false dichotomies like a cavalry rider wields his saber, cutting through intellegent discourse left and right with calculated cunning and unmitigated lust for slaughter.

If you truly cared about politics, you'd quote the Bill rather then using abusrd metaphors that essentially are of no value.
If you have a problem with SOPA, please tell me the exact part which is the problem, with page number.

So far, all you've done is quoted numbers and used false dichotomy. You haven't presented an argument, and the ONLY point you've made, I've editted my post to address. You're the one making a point, so fucking MAKE YOUR CASE. Don't rely on 'Just read it, no really just read it' and condescend to people and assume you've made an argument. You actually haven't.

SPecifically: Your argument consists solely of an appeal to authority, ad hominem, and false dichotomy. By those standards, your argument fails on a fundamental level and should not even be debated. So, I would entreat you to further expound on your points, so a proper debate can flourish.

Failure to do so means you've forfeited your argument, as you are not engaged in debate, but political rhetoric and jibberjabber.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

You have eyes and a brain therefore you can read and understand the Bill. It really isn't that complex - give it a read. It's not like asking a toddler to do quantum mechanics.
Complex? Please quote the part or parts you are finding difficult as I found it a breeze to read so I'll help you where I can.

You're a very clever person, and i respect that. You're argument styles constantly changing.

However, i still disagree with you on SOPA, i like the internet the way it is and even if there was only a 1% chance that this bill would cause the effects you seem to believe as false, it's still not a risk I'm willing to take.

The layout of this bill, the wording of the bill, the fact that i can hardly find any substance to this bill and the need to refer back to past paragraphs make it a ***** to read.

However, you do act like a politician, you still haven't answered my question.
Do you have any sort of law degree/ education in law?

 

[Auesis]

The pro-SOPA arguments are a little ridiculous. Regardless of how "beneficial" this would be to the big corporations supposedly suffering due to piracy (there's even a piracy margin in most companies' fiscal mappings, it's not like they're being caught off-guard), that 5-10% of benefit it might bring is NOT worth risking breaking the entire internet infrastructure just by smashing some edits in to DNS all willy-nilly because VEVO doesn't like Lady Gaga being promoted on dodgy Turkish web pages.

I am all for bringing down piracy, but SOPA is NOT the way to do it. Leave the DNS alone and tackle the pirates head-on by a re-write of the DMCA, and tighten the loopholes that websites like TPB tear open to stay alive.

 

[TakeyB0y2]

I read that while listening to My Hands by Leona Lewis (Final Fantasy XIII's ending theme, for those that weren't aware). Made this news twice as epic!

OT: Ahem.... HOORAY!!!! Props to the White House. To think the first words to come out of their mouths about this deal was... Well, that. Yay!

 

[Rabid Toilet]

You have eyes and a brain therefore you can read and understand the Bill. It really isn't that complex - give it a read. It's not like asking a toddler to do quantum mechanics.
Complex? Please quote the part or parts you are finding difficult as I found it a breeze to read so I'll help you where I can.

Okay, I've read the bill. I can safely tell you that I have no idea what exactly it will do.

There's some stuff about blocking foreign sites and preventing copyright infringement, but as to the exact details on what would happen if it were passed, I don't have a clue. The bill has so many references to other sections or to other bills, not to mention all of the confusing legal jargon, that getting real details as to what it all means is a pretty big task. Your average joe wouldn't have a clue what the bill was about.

That's why you need actual lawyers to go through these bills. Someone with an honest to goodness law degree would be able to tell you whether a section of the bill would actually do what it seems to say. That's why people are choosing to trust the word of software engineers and internet lawyers who say that this bill is bad news.

 

[silent-treatment]

YAY!! I know that it is only a temporary victory, but still, YAY!!

 

[Ariyura]

There couldnt have been any other outcome. SOPA wouldve ruined internet, not only in the US but globally:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/109533-how-sopa-could-actually-break-the-internet

OT: Still good news

I'll add to this that it will interrupt and interfere with the new protocols that they're working on for increased internet security.

http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/congress-sopa-protectip-break-internet-1333/

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Can you point out the part about SOPA you don't like? The internet at the moment is costing the entertainment industry billions of dollars. That simply isn't fair.
Skip to Section 103; that's where the good stuff is, mainly parts 4, 5 and 6.
No I don't have a degree in law, but I can read and the bill is simple enough to understand that the criticisms of it, or at least a lot of them, are simply lies. See the link to the thread above.

Look, any credibility you had has just gone out the window.
First of all, you act like these corporations are 'victims' (which they aren't).
I mean, you say the internet is costing them-
No, it's not.
Piracy maybe, but they still make huge amounts of profit, but the internet? You've got to be joking.

Second point, if you don't have a law degree, then you can't really claim to know what it's talking about, you could easily misinterpret or not fully understand the implications.
Also, read Rabid Toilet's post about legal jargon, because that's what it is.

Third point- I'm seriously beginning to suspect that you've been hired or something, the way you defend these mega businesses, your undying hatred of piracy (i don't like it either, but people are free to make that choice) and your avoidance of questions.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well read it. The fact you are trying to comment on something you haven't is alarming. My point has been clear from the start that the criticisms are false.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.338370-The-truth-about-SOPA
That's my point. Almost all the criticisms are based on ignorance.

I have rebutted the points you have made. You have refused to acknowledge their existance.

You have forfeited the argument, and your side is wrong by default.

Good day, sir.

Protip: Spamming a link to other posts you have made is not an argument.

However, you're pointing out PARTS of SOPA that do not actually address others' concerns. The fact is, it's the ENFORCEMENT aspects that people find wanting. It's not the fact that you need evidence that has people in a tizzy, it's the process by which such evidence is examined that people have problems with.

It's not the fact that you can enact legal proceedings against wrongful use of the law that people are worked up about, it's the fact that the plaintiff does NOT need to use the courts to enact the law in the first place.

Thus the burden of proof becomes on the defendant to prove legality, rather than on the plaintiff to show illegality, in the courts. It circumvents the courts and thus discussion of 'evidence' and such is nonsense--evidence is ONLY evidence when it is tested in the courts.

There's no -preponderance- of evidence, and thus, the law is flawed.

Do you not understand that?

If you do not understand what 'Preponderance of evidence' means, you, yourself, do not have the knowledge required to continue this debate.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Freedom is sweet. Oh so sweet.

 

[DracoSuave]

Can you point out the part about SOPA you don't like? The internet at the moment is costing the entertainment industry billions of dollars. That simply isn't fair.

Appeal to emotion, the premise does not involve the conclusion. Argument is invalid.

 

[GeorgW]

I have a vuvuzela sitting right next to me and every fibre in my being wants to blow it in celebration. However, it's 00:33 ATM and I don't think that'd go over well. So, I'll just have to do it here.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!