Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 07:53 am
I confess that I haven't paid much attention to all the talk about SOPA because I don't steal copyrighted material and have worked to maintain copyright of my own work. But this morning I came across this video that I thought was pretty interesting:



Now I'm thinking that maybe I should pay attention.

I'm not sure if this guy is being an alarmist or if SOPA is as far reaching as he suggests.

What do you think?
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 04:56 pm
@boomerang,
I'll watch the video when I get home from work.

SOPA is a pretty scary bill as it parallels the French antipiracy bill. Three strikes and your out mentality. That's not three strikes as in three proven charges of copyright violations but three ACCUSATIONS!

This obviously unconstitutional proposed law throws out due process.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 07:53 pm
If it is actually unconstitutional, if it does actually prevent due process, it will not go into effect without a 14th amendment challenge which will inevitably succeed. Legislators love to pass **** that makes them look concerned, intelligent, patriotic--you name it--but which they know will not actually pass muster, so that they won't be held to account for the consequences.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 08:33 pm
@boomerang,
I am very much against SOPA (and I also maintain a copyright on several of my own works). The problem is it is a sledgehammer that does a lot more than stop privacy.

If you post a picture or a video or even a quote from a book you can be accused of piracy. The problem is that the penalties start before before the issue has been resolved. Is the cute kid in the video singing a Shakira song violating copyright? or is it fair use? Blog owners will have to play it safe meaning that in effect lots of perfectly legal content will be squashed.

This is a big deal for blogs like Able2know which will have to spend a lot more time and money pouring over our posts to look for possible piracy, and if there is any question they will be under pressure to yank your posts.





0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 08:34 pm
@Setanta,
I don't think it is actually unconstitutional, although it should be.

This is why if you like the freedom you have on blogs like Able2Know, you should be calling your congress people.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2011 10:28 pm
DailyKos (a prominent lefty blog) is suggesting that a coalition of internet companies including Google, Facebook, Yahoo and AOL are talking about using their services to fight this legislation. I suppose this might mean you will see a "blackout page" explaining why this bill is so bad.

Redstate (a prominent righty blog) is also strongly opposing this bill. This is the only thing I have ever seen these two sites agree about, which shows you that blogs see this as a real threat to freedom of expression.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2011 03:23 am
@maxdancona,
First, able2know is not a blog. Second, my remark was conditional--if this legislation would intervene in an individual's right of due process, then it is unconstitutional, and there is no question of that.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2011 05:01 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I don't think it is actually unconstitutional, although it should be.

This is why if you like the freedom you have on blogs like Able2Know, you should be calling your congress people.


I called mine (Rep. Carolyn Maloney) a couple of weeks ago to express my concerns and contempt for the proposed law).
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2011 08:25 am
@Setanta,
Able2Know is a place where you can express your self without being constantly watched. This legislation would mean that Able2know could be targeted as a piracy facilitator if they don't start censoring us. This would mean that Able2know could be effectively shut down (i.e. removed from search engines and cut off from advertising revenue).

Due process for an individual isn't the issue. The charges and the resulting penalties would be against the site (in this case Able2know) for not doing a good enough job policing its members.

For example there could be a complaint about the number of Leonard Cohen songs posted here. Under SOPA, if whatever legal panel decides that there are too many Leonard Cohen songs being posted (against copyright) the government would shut down the entire site. (not just the alleged copyright violation).

This means that sites like Able2Know would have the burden (under a risk of great harm to themselves and their members) of policing every post. The self-censorship will be done by sites motivated by self-preservation. This will cost time and money as Able2know would likely hire people for the express purpose of censorship. And since the issues surrounding copyright issues (i.e. fair use) are sometimes fuzzy and the stakes are so high, you can bet that censors will err on the safe side meaning that content that should be permitted will be removed.

The self-censorship by website owners that will be forced by self-preservation is the most insidious part of this bill. Since the censorship is technically being done by the private website owners, the issue of due process doesn't come into play.
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2012 07:09 pm
@boomerang,
Here's another video that might interest you on this topic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SOPA
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 04:31:14