How SOPA (as written) might kill ATS and free speech online (UPDATED)

Unfortunately its our own fault and so be it.

The MPAA and Music BS industry have spent far more money lobbying the right people than "silicon Valey" has over the last 5 years.

Silicon valley just got to bog headed and now we will pay.

In America everything can be bought. So why wasn't this stopped in its tracks???????

. Surely no president would sign such legislation into law.
Although I do not know where our current president stands on this issue....

Ummm . . . That is what I would have said about the NDAA. Now I am thinking there is no telling where all this is going to stop and realizing, that yes I do need to go and sign the petitions, and let my voice be heard, and encourage others to see what I see. Our constitution has been trampled on already and repeatedly. Looks like free speech is the one they are trying to destroy now.

Remember that by doing nothing, you still have made a choice. What choice do you want to live with?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

How does that eliminate the risk of a paid poster intentionally posting such content, then complaining and getting the site shut down?

Am I the only one here who thinks at the end of the day the Government wouldnt dare implement such measures? If they do, the Internet would collapse, causing mass revolt. The legislators may be dumb, but they're not that dumb.

Of course, they are not dumb. Why would they want to shutdown the internet which is a great way for people to vent out their frustrations, feel they are doing something while doing absolutely nothing?

If they believe a particular site is not to their liking (I absolutely have no fears of ATS being in that category), they will hint the owners that the site can be taken down unless the site falls in line and the owners of the site will take the hints. In the unlikely event such hints are not taken, one such site will be taken down and the others will fall in line.

I`ll cry wolf when it really happens.

Fair enough.

My prediction: This site will still be up and well in 10 years from now.

Don't see why not. This site offers perfect escape for a lot of guys to whine and do nothing, while feeling self-important. It would be silly for any government to take it down.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I've become jaded on this issue due to the incredible number of posts here defending the theft of intellectual property. ATS is full of such threads. If the laws are working so well, how is it people are stealing their software and music so easily and think they are justified in doing so? It bothers me.

Having said that, I've contacted those in government who represent me and expressed my opposition. I wonder how many posting care enough to do the same?

I do know just objecting is not enough and that with this new technology having taken over the show, new ideas are needed to protect the product of peoples hard work.

I honestly think the thieves stealing intellectual property, almost at will, share equal blame for this kind of legislation. I think that is a valid part of the conversation. Did the thieves not exist among us, there would be no need for this conversation to begin with. They have to be dealt with somehow.

The "thieves" may be people who don't believe in the concept of "intellectual property".

There are a lot of people who put in a lot of hardwork into creating things extremely useful to others and refuse to claim "intellectual property rights" on them. Perhaps you heard of open source software?

So the concept of "intellectual property" has nothing to do with whether the creator of the work put hardwork into it or not, but whether the society should grant the creator the privilege to decide on the terms of access and use to the work even when copies of the work have passed into the control of others. Sure societies do grant this privilege, but as technologies progressed the privileges are becoming increasingly difficult to enforce.

Perhaps it is time for the societies to scrap these collectively enforced privileges and let the creators protect their work in the way they see fit, perhaps by sharing it with only those people who agree to their conditions, instead of coming out with ridicuolous laws to enforce these increasingly unenforceable privileges. If you don't make your work accessible to those who don't believe in the conditions you impose on them, you may not have to worry about "thieves".

the latest from... ya well you know it is CNN but then thought you would like to know any way www.cnn.com... from the link

CNN) -- Members of Congress may be on vacation, but that hasn't calmed critics who say an effort to stamp out online piracy would create an unprecedented threat to free speech on the Internet.

i thought that congress was back??

Far from fading from memory, the Stop Online Piracy Act (along with a related Senate bill) has become a rallying point for Web freedom advocates in a debate that has pitted Hollywood and other business interests against some of the biggest titans of the technology world.

What more that one bill what is the other one??

Interest in the debate spiked again this week when one of the bill's opponents suggested that online heavyweights such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter had considered a "nuclear option" -- temporarily shutting down their sites in protest -- to raise awareness about the bills, which await lawmakers when they return this month.

Shut down my email , how will i know when i ma to go to work or when my time slip is due, oh ya work could call me lie that would work

When contacted by CNN, none of those companies would confirm that such a drastic move had ever been considered. By Friday, the advocate whose comments had fueled the speculation appeared to back away from claims that a Web blackout was still likely to occur.

yea if they still have a job, but the next part is interesting

"Internet and technology companies will continue to educate policymakers and other stakeholders on the problems with the (legislation)," Markham Erickson, director of Web trade association NetCoalition, said in a statement. "An 'Internet blackout' would obviously be both drastic and unprecedented."

you but your sweet rumpas it would, no ATS!!! , how dare they even think it

Part of the urgency comes from critics' fears that the legislation, which has opponents and supporters on both sides of the political aisle, is going to move quickly once Congress reconvenes.

???? can you make sense of this

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, has announced plans to push that chamber's companion bill, the Protect IP Act, as soon as they return January 23. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, also a Democrat, and other senators have promised to filibuster, a move that would prevent leaders from calling for a vote until the following day.

so now we know the other bill, that is the, Protect IP Act

"We hope that the Senate will cancel its scheduled vote on PIPA so that we can get back to working with members on how to address the concerns raised by the (Motion Picture Association of America) and others without threatening our nation's security or future innovation and jobs," Erickson said.

ok what does the MPAoA have to do with SOPA ???/

The future of SOPA itself is a little murkier. It was being considered in a House committee last month, when the wave of protests and proposed amendments from members led that committee's chairman to postpone consideration until later.

more or less saying when the dust settles and of news is making news, this can get passed with out now one knowing

Both bills are intended to help put a stop to foreign websites that illegally post, and sometimes sell, intellectual property from the United States. Federal law-enforcement agencies would be empowered to shut down those sites and cut off advertising and online payments to them.

look out you that post here on ATS the gov will get ya , go Ytube

At stake, say supporters, are American jobs. Every free piece of content scraped to be sold, or given away, online takes money out of the pockets of record companies, movie producers and other content creators and their millions of employees.

ok by by Ytube

Pharmaceutical companies, sports leagues and video-game makers have also voiced support.

what no Viagra, or Nike, or NCAA, not NFL??PS3??? If I have got any thing wrong feel free to correct me. This is all new to me, but the comments are the way I see them it does go on, the link that is.

Lol, who told you ATS had free speech? They have rules and none of them reflect the 1st ammendment. Although, most websites have their gimmicks.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I've become jaded on this issue due to the incredible number of posts here defending the theft of intellectual property. ATS is full of such threads. If the laws are working so well, how is it people are stealing their software and music so easily and think they are justified in doing so? It bothers me.

Yes, but if the laws are NOT working so well, why would the solution be... more laws? I believe since the offense is technologically assisted, the response will also have to be technological, perhaps coupled with ENFORCEMENT of existing laws. I don't think new laws are the answer, and the people offering them as the answer are not even really aware of the question. That would be one approach.

Another approach, and perhaps a more effective one, would be to reign in the greed. This legislation is driven primarily by media companies - the recording and film industry. Most honest musicians will tell you that they aren't making much off of the CD sales - they make the bulk of their money from merchandising and touring. So where is the money from astronomically overpriced CDs and DVDs going? To the recording labels. Their own greed is killing them, because they are thieving from both the artists, not paying them what the work is worth proportionally, and from the consumer, grossly overpricing the product.

That really doesn't make stealing OK, not by a long shot, but it does justify simply not purchasing. The net result to the recording labels is the same.

In any event, it doesn't justify squelching free speech and expression - but this isn't about copyright, it's about control. Copyright is just the legal justification they are giving. Media giants want it to enforce sales, but government wants it to squelch dissent. It's a marriage made in hell between the two, but it's nice to see a couple getting along these days and working towards common goals, isn't it? When this passes, what's next? Do you think it's possible they may pass laws forcing the citizenry to buy a certain amount of music, a certain number of movies per year, to insure the support of the recording labels? Sure, it may sound far fetched, but it hasn't been that long ago that they passed laws guaranteeing an income for the insurance industry, another private concern with a useless product, with governmental enforced sales.

I honestly think the thieves stealing intellectual property, almost at will, share equal blame for this kind of legislation. I think that is a valid part of the conversation. Did the thieves not exist among us, there would be no need for this conversation to begin with. They have to be dealt with somehow.

Oh, there's no doubt they share blame in the matter. Without them, the Big Wheels would have to drop back and punt, find a different justification for their power grab. I think they should send the pirates a thank you note - "Dear pirates... THANKS! We couldn't have subjugated the planet without you! here's your share of the take. We sent a check, because thirty pieces of silver were too heavy to mail."

Back up by popular demand, I uploaded this on my youtube account 11 hours ago almost, and I've been enjoying watching it get out there. Pardon the bad cropping in camtasia on the vid I threw it up there quick to get it exploding out. next time I'll watermark. Either way, eat it censor freaks.

Originally posted by Observor

There are a lot of people who put in a lot of hardwork into creating things extremely useful to others and refuse to claim "intellectual property rights" on them. Perhaps you heard of open source software?

That's me. The stuff I create, I give away for nothing, and consider it a legacy. People can do with it as they will. Of course, I don't create things for a living. By the same token, I don't begrudge their wages to people who do. That's their "job" and it's up to the market to determine whether it's a valuable enough thing to make a living at, or if people are willing to pay the price the creator set for the thing created. If not, they can go to another product, or make their own.,

I recognize both copyright and "intellectual property", but don't believe they are necessarily connected, nor that they necessarily guarantee financial gain.

If I create something, it is my "intellectual property". If, however, I release it to another, whether for money or not, it becomes his "physical property", even though I may retain an intellectual interest in it. As far as I'm concerned, he can do whatever he wants with his own physical property, and if I don't like what he may do, I just won't sell or give it to him.

It's not that simple, however, for people whose sole or main motivation for creating to begin with is financial. My own solution is that if someone doesn't want me to own something they made, I just don't buy it. In that case, I could care less what their motivation for making it is - it's not mine, and it never will be, so it's not for me to worry over. Or purchase.

The only thing the record labels produce is the physical media. They produced something, but they created nothing. The artists do the creating, yet they don't get recompensed proportionally. the labels hog the bulk of the profits, simply for chucking out bits of plastic. it seems unfair to me all around.

How can the MPAA and the RiAA have any "intellectual property" that they didn't put any intellect into creating?

Essentially they're just trying to re-legalize things they can already so with plenty of the things they've passed, but just haven't used. When they come for the net, they know, they're coming for people next. No way to cry out. They can block cell phones selectively or in areas so good luck there. This is more organized an attack than some give credit.

I'm amazed they wait until they make the illegal Legal before acting. It gives those of us who can see time to freak out as the masses don't care and it's all really happening, but so what says Average Person.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
[
Is there a conspiracy against pornography?

Who declared the naked body and what we do as human beings with it shameful?

If it cannot be discussed or shared, there is a conspiracy against it.

Did you know that many websites are topically focused? For example, there are car websites, pet websites pornography websites, conspiracy websites, political websites, etc. Do you understand the purpose of such focus is not a conspiracy or a secret plan to tyrannize you?

reply to post by Skyfloating


hmmm depends on what the person enforcing the focus views as focus. Personally I view "moderation" or "facilitation" of any sort to be tyrannical. And personally I am and forever will be vehemently against things like occupy because of "censorship" issues in how they had to carefully manage things like a PR campaign even so far as to cover up criminal activity and auckland OWS even publicly banned someone who had a problem with the meth dealers there when they attempted to expose their shameful behaviour. That's just one example of many. Censorship in anyway, shape or form, is tyranny. Weather it be a tyranny from a government or a tyranny from a for-profit website that relies on making money from it's viewers for money. I also view this "family friendly" thing as offensive considering again, it is subjective to the moderator and if the family had a problem with what their kid could see they would install filters. And if the kid can get around the filters, then they are probably smart enough to think rationally enough about what they are seeing. Yeah I know a few days ago I suggested the mods deal with someone and their "hatespeech" but frankly, that was because the mods censored comments which clearly were not I figured you may as well take care of what is really hatespeech there. Not sure what happened to that. Personally, I say let the people say as they will I can deal with bigots and their ilk just fine I don't need a moderator to protect me.

reply to post by rexusdiablos

Yeah, I like that much better. Do you?
The message is more forceful, I think.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by IAMIAM
[
Is there a conspiracy against pornography?

Who declared the naked body and what we do as human beings with it shameful?

If it cannot be discussed or shared, there is a conspiracy against it.

Did you know that many websites are topically focused? For example, there are car websites, pet websites pornography websites, conspiracy websites, political websites, etc. Do you understand the purpose of such focus is not a conspiracy or a secret plan to tyrannize you?

Is there a conspiracy against the natural desires and actions of the human body?

Don't talk down to me. I am right here on the level with you my friend.

I am telling you that you justify the actions of the government by assuming the role of government where they do not tread. Then you complain when they tread there. Can YOU understand that?

You reap what you sow.


With Love,

Your Brother

Hahaha, oh boy. Looks like there is a lot to respond to here.

Let me start with the whole snowball thing. "One step leads to a mile" and all that. Yes, the government seeks greater control over our sharing. Yes, the government is willing to suspend and remove our rights in order to do so. No, it doesn't give a fart what we have to say about it. And there's a very good (depending on perspective) reason for it.

What do you do when your parents tell you to clean your room or you get no allowance? What do you do when your teacher says you must complete your assignments in order to go to the end-of-term party? You comply, because there is a much-desired benefit. Just as the government cooperates with the media giants because a great deal of the cash flow in our country pours straight into and out of those selfsame giants. Hence, the government depends on those companies for profit. Personally, I can't entirely blame them. This has become a world where every man fights for his own ambitions and furtherance, and to hell with everyone else...mostly because they're possible rivals.

Someone mentioned the interesting observation that despite the claims of officials, SOPA is NOT going to benefit the artists and creators so much as the representative agencies that speak for and promote them. I find this more than slight unjust. If anything, we could be protesting the disproportionate spread of sales funds, but somehow I find that less than moving. However, I would support the argument that it undermines the righteous aims of SOPA (not that it makes a difference in elected eyes).

Additionally, there was a brief discussion on the 'intellectual' aspect of property rights. This, in relation to the above paragraph, is connected heavily to the 'much-desired benefits' bit. What I mean to say is that SOPA is less about getting artists the money they earn, then about mollifying the industry, as well as bringing in the money that the government so badly wants. The artists and creators aren't at issue here; the government's desire for moolah is.

I also would like to briefly comment on the tyranny of moderators, so-called. Moderators are not tyrants; they are the police of the common-ground internet. There are people who respectfully debate whatever they will, and then there are those who talk trash and continually rip down others for nothing more than either entertainment or malicious anger (usually ignorant or misguided). While there are of course moderators who abuse their powers, there are many more who do their jobs well and put up with a lot of dirt in order to keep their respective sites clean and appropriate for chatters and viewers alike. I have a deep respect for mods, as they have helped me in a lot of situations involving rather unscrupulous users.

But the bottom line here is: SOPA is meant to secure the money that the government heavily desires, as well as establishing ever-growing control over the public knowledge, whether it be fact or speculation. Piracy prevention is, in my belief, merely a cover and a bonus to them. What it's really about is keeping us in the dark, controlling our influences and exchanges of information, and monitoring the general state of our minds.

All arguments contribute to the cover, but don't be fooled. They don't have their entertainers in mind when they propose SOPA. It's greed and control.

Originally posted by nenothtu
It's not that simple, however, for people whose sole or main motivation for creating to begin with is financial. My own solution is that if someone doesn't want me to own something they made, I just don't buy it. In that case, I could care less what their motivation for making it is - it's not mine, and it never will be, so it's not for me to worry over. Or purchase.

I totally concur. However if someone purchased a product under an agreement not to make unauthorised copies and distribute them acknowledging only partial ownership of the property he/she thus acquired and if that person violates that agreement either for financial gain or otherwise and is punished it is correct. If the society grants the exclusive financial benefit privileges to the creator or whoever the creator surrenders such rights/privileges to and punishes someone else for trying to financially benefit from such copyrighted works of another, that too is justifiable. But there is no moral justification for seeking to punish someone who is not trying to financially benefit and has never entered into an agreement with the creator to break it, just for being in possession of a copy of the copyrighted work, much less come out with ridiculous laws that violate people's rights in order to enforce these privileges.

Technological advances always destroy someone's livelihood or another's. No one can claim they are entitled to earning a livelihood in a particular manner because some in the past did. If some careers are no longer viable, so be it.

The only thing the record labels produce is the physical media. They produced something, but they created nothing. The artists do the creating, yet they don't get recompensed proportionally. the labels hog the bulk of the profits, simply for chucking out bits of plastic. it seems unfair to me all around.

How can the MPAA and the RiAA have any "intellectual property" that they didn't put any intellect into creating?

The labels acquire the property and privileges by buying them from the creators. How the profits are shared between the label and the creator is best left to them. If those selling their works to the labels are not being illegally coerced into it, I am not sure it is anyone else's business. I am not saying we cannot have opinions about it, we sure can. But such opinions cannot be the basis for judging the right or wrong of it.

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by flexy123
This is exactly the point!! SOPA would enable the government to block a domain on a global level, in particular when it's a site hosted ELSEWHERE (not in the states) - this is the whole idea!

So..no matter where a site is hosted...it would not be able to be accessed from the USA.
SOPA would simply make it "short and painful"..it is like a button for them to disable access via the domain URL in your browser. So you would enter http:// whatever .site.com and the address would be blocked. Where the site then is hosted is not important anymore.

Holy smokes. That's crap as. Sort of like our stupid Australian website Blacklist... Censored sites. Though most of them are like kiddy porn website, etc... And the websites do get reviewed by an "independant" panel.

You say the blacklist is 'stupid' but then say the sites it blocks are promoting child pornography? Is that stupid? I would like to think that is a good thing, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I am telling you that you justify the actions of the government by assuming the role of government where they do not tread. Then you complain when they tread there. Can YOU understand that?

Your previous post accused the owner of this website of a conspiracy or tyranny or double-standards for not having porn distributed on the site, among other things.

Not allowing porn (and the other topics mentioned) is a means to keep the site focused to conspiracy-subjects, just like you wouldnt have pets featured on a website about cars. Why is that so difficult to understand? I responded to your post because it was so unreasonable. You were comparing not allowing the distribution of porn and drugs on this site to not standing up for Jews in WWII.

And no, there is no conspiracy against porn, porn is the #1 industry of the Internet. There is more porn than anything else around. Its the #1 visited subject in the world.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I am telling you that you justify the actions of the government by assuming the role of government where they do not tread. Then you complain when they tread there. Can YOU understand that?

Your previous post accused the owner of this website of a conspiracy or tyranny or double-standards for not having porn distributed on the site, among other things.

I am not an accuser. I said what IS being done, and the ramifications of it.

If it is ok for one man to censor anything, then it is ok for the government to censor ANYTHING.

America is a REPRESENTATIVE government.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Not allowing porn (and the other topics mentioned) is a means to keep the site focused to conspiracy-subjects, just like you wouldnt have pets featured on a website about cars. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Why is it so hard to understand that by believing you can control the discourse of others, YOU are the conspiracy?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I responded to your post because it was so unreasonable. You were comparing not allowing the distribution of porn and drugs on this site to not standing up for Jews in WWII.

And it stands...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And no, there is no conspiracy against porn, porn is the #1 industry of the Internet. There is more porn than anything else around. Its the #1 visited subject in the world.

Exactly my point!

In the shadows, the light of truth is revealed, but don't discuss it where you are seeking the truth.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This should be under "U.S. Political Madness" not "Political Conspiracies" considering, this isn't a conspiracy, it's known fact End of free speech as we know it according to 80 inventors/contributors to the internet.