U.S. Congress Shelves SOPA

Phopojijo

New member
Jan 18, 2012
28
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
Phopojijo said:
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:

The Cool Kid said:
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

New member
Jan 18, 2012
28
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
Phopojijo said:
The Cool Kid said:
Phopojijo said:
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:

The Cool Kid said:
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

New member
Jan 18, 2012
28
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
Phopojijo said:
The Cool Kid said:
Phopojijo said:
The Cool Kid said:
Phopojijo said:
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:

The Cool Kid said:
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

New member
Jan 18, 2012
28
0
0
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?
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
It seems the White House has won internets....and a lot of them!

Bravo White House, Bravo!
 

masticina

New member
Jan 19, 2011
763
0
0
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

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
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

New member
Feb 4, 2011
156
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
Sizzle Montyjing said:
The Cool Kid said:
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.
AhumbleKnight said:
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.
poiuppx said:
The Cool Kid said:
poiuppx said:
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

New member
Jan 3, 2010
200
0
0
The Cool Kid said:
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

New member
Oct 23, 2008
168
0
0
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