You are calling Congress about SOPA today, right?

you can sign a petition -- here...

On Craiglist there is a link to a company that does "reverse robocalls". They have their machine thingies call the politicians and give a recorded message (hopefully repeatedly).

For some reason the "turnabout is fair play" aspect of this makes me chuckle.

Perfect! I hope more and more people will sign the petition.

and here's the complete list of e-mail addresses, phone and fax numbers for the US congress & US governors...

Yep. I've written to Kerry and Capuano (our Congresscritter). Scott Brown's site was having troubles when I last checked; will try there again.

The Wikipedia site has a gadget on it that lets you look up your reps by zip code. Pretty handy.

Mmm, sopa. . .

Oh, wait, this isn't a food thread.

Nevermind.

hehehe...that was funny.

Can someone explain to me (in simple terms), why precisely is everyone so worked up about SOPA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

This may be a bit simpler than the wikipedia page...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/

What the Internet Could Be Like if SOPA Passes

The goal of the Stop Online Piracy Act is relatively straightforward: to crack down on "internet pirates" or people illegally downloading copyrighted albums and DVDs. Stealing is wrong, and thieves should be punished--simple, right?

Not exactly.

Opponents of the bill say it's too vague and murky and could potentially restrict freedom of speech and fundamentally change the Internet experience as we know it. It's akin to "dealing with a lion that has escaped from the zoo by blasting some kittens with a flamethrower," according to popular humor site The Oatmeal, which has blacked out its content in protest of the bill. (Tens of thousands of web sites have followed suit, including giants such as Wikipedia and Reddit.)

But what would happen if SOPA actually passes? Would Big Brother track our every click? Could you be arrested and hauled off to jail for posting a copyrighted photo? You might not do hard time in the slammer, but your personal web pages--Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Wordpress blogs, for instance--could be shut down. Without warning.

Much to the chagrin of students everywhere, sites such as Wikipedia -with millions of users posting, editing, and adding content that may or may not be copyrighted - probably wouldn't stand a chance under SOPA. The cost of monitoring such sites would be overwhelming, creating daunting burdens for internet companies with limited resources.

"What we're talking about is book burning here," says David Johnson, assistant professor at American University's School of Communication. "For one sentence in the book you can burn the book under what SOPA talks about. You can take the entire site down. They're shutting down the freedom of the Internet."

Search engines such as Google could also change, filtering results that contain copyrighted material. Internet service providers could even block entire sites at their discretion.

Even comment sections on web sites could be at risk. With SOPA, a blogger or site owner isn't just responsible for her own content, according to a recent article, she'd have to answer for her commenters' posts, too. Faced with having to police their web sites, site administrators would likely just forget to the whole thing and disable comments, effectively stunting online dialogue.

But with opposition to the bill building both within Washington and across the country, SOPA faces a tough battle in Congress. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) came out in support of SOPA protesters Wednesday, saying the efforts "turned the tide against a backroom lobbying effort by interest that aren't used to being told 'no.'" The White House has also expressed concerns about the bill.

SOPA's Senate counterpart--the Protect IP Act (PIPA)--is scheduled for a vote next Wednesday. Debate on SOPA will resume in February.


http://news.yahoo.com/internet-could-sopa-passes-194753995.html

Not to argue against you, (as I've no informed opinion), but it seems to me none of this - or much else that I've skimmed through - has specifically provided any text from H.R.3261 which demonstrates the 'would and could' scenarios that have been provided as opposition.

Forgive my laziness, but if this is as big a deal as some (Google, Wikipedia.. on one side; MPAA, RIAA... on the other) are suggesting, why can't I find anything pointing to the specific wording of the bill?

Here you go. Have at it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

You've read all of this?

Thack, if you are having trouble understanding why this bill is important (and I thought that is what you were saying) then you have a few options.

Either you take the word of people who you respect, or you read the bill yourself, or you do some combination of these things. That's what the rest of us have done. Entering a discussion to say that you haven't done what it takes to understand enough to take a side seems rather meaningless. If you care, then get a clue. If you don't care, then why enter a discussion about it. If you want to know what the bill really says, then read it.

Again, this has been made out by some to be serious, yet there is nothing provided by those who do to back it up. On this site alone, there are no shortage of arbitrary claims made. And it appears permissible enough that they are followed by others asking that a credible reference to the claim be cited. What is the difference here?


So when one claims without providing an example from the bill to substantiate the claim, what's the harm in asking for one?


And if you don't have the answer, you can just say so rather than attempting to humiliate me for not simply following along or not knowing what you also don't know.

Why can't you read it for yourself?

Obviously the two sides are going to make their points. Either choose a side, or decide it isn't worth your time. You have the original text, so what's the big deal.

If you really care, you should start by reading Section 103. This covers many of the points including the vague definition of "sites dedicated to theft...". Then read section 201 to see how the definitions are broadened, for example...



If you really don't care, then so be it. If you really do care and want to be objective, then go to the source and stop complaining.

I hope you don't think I'm just trying to argue with you. If I seem to be complaining, it's not because I do or don't care; it's because I don't know if I should care - and I'd prefer to have an informed opinion on the matter. And obviously I could read it for myself, but it turns out that reading proposed bills generally sucks ass. (Senate Bill 5 took some time)


All that said, You've given me exactly what I was asking for all along and I genuinely thank you for taking the time to point me in the right direction