Stupid Ways the Government is Trying to Screw the Internet

[Pinkie Pie]

I think this qualifies for the Serious Topic Discussion. I know it was being voted on and marked up yesterday (at time of creation of this thread) but I don't know exactly what happened at the end and I can't find any information about it so, if someone knows please share, and just discuss in general I guess.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[alphabetagamma]

If you mean the Stop Online Piracy Act then it definitely qualifies for serious topic discussion.

 

It seems just wrong really, censoring the internet would change it's culture drastically. Not only that, but if it only stops DNS servers from redirecting traffic it's not effective at stopping piracy either. It better not pass.

[Axeldeath]

I've signed a petition but seeing as I'm not in the US I can't call up an MP(not sure what you call them in the U.S, senators?) and protest it. Just have to hope for the best now.

[Kirkreng]

A thing I'm wondering is this: This bill is being discussed in the US right? Well we are talking about the WORLD WIDE web. It is, well, world wide. How can a US law affect anyone outside of the US?

[Pinkie Pie]

I don't think even the government knows. It seems like a pretty hastily put together and not very well thought out in the right places law that politicians think they can make money off of imo. Sure some people may be thinking this is right to stop piracy, but if the fine print is taken into account, the whole internet, and the countries that use them will probably get screwed too.

[Razor235]

A more serious thing is the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, the infamous bill S.978. Look it up and you'll see what I mean.

[Kirkreng]

I thought that one got denied. Urgh, why can't anyone give a clear update on whats happening.

[Mr Green]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM

Burn it! Then throw the ashes of this act into hell!

[BDown]

A thing I'm wondering is this: This bill is being discussed in the US right? Well we are talking about the WORLD WIDE web. It is, well, world wide. How can a US law affect anyone outside of the US?

 

Because it's mostly targeted at websites hosted outside the US, who provide content to Americans that is illegal here. It will affect the world the same way the American economy collapse affected the entire world. From what I've read, SOPA would also require changing root level DNS servers, which is a world issue.

 

On a more general note, when a major country decides it's OK to censor the internet, other countries might follow suit. Granted this is a mostly American problem, as you said it's the WORLD WIDE web, and any attack on it should be considered an attack on the entire system.

[Kirkreng]

I knew it would affect me, I just wasn't sure how. Thanks for clearing that up.

[onion]

The fact that if they pass this that they could shut sites like you tube down just because one person posts something that may be copyrighted is seriously messed up. How could they even think to pass this? If they pass it any site you can upload to could be taken down. This is a seriously bad lidea.

[Kirkreng]

Well, the problem is that the people who are discussing this don't seem to have the slightest idea how the internet works.

[Mr Green]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM

This video explains the s.o.p.a act brilliantly.

[Vapymid]

I am tired of all this.

 

But this is a good reminder that the "freedom" of the Internet in the West was never due to the politicians protecting the liberties of the people but because those politicians could not think of ways how to shut it down. Every time they think they might just know how to do it they never fail to try (all the while shouting indignantly about the lack of freedoms elsewhere).

 

Regards

[Michael Archer]

Someone is going to have to explain this to me; the wikipedia article isn't sufficient.

 

Now, you guys probably know that I'm not known for wanting to make things illegal. However, when it comes to the protection of copyrights and intellectual property, I think the government isn't being strict enough. I think they should be more forceful when defending a man's right to his mind and effort. I'm getting the impression that most people speaking out against this bill just want to continue using intellectual property without the owner's permission and that they're ludicrously using the First Amendment to somehow justify their theft.

 

The freedom of speech doesn't mean you're allowed to forcibly use another property, so bills that protect property rights are completely constitutional, moral, and proper for a government. Of course, I probably don't fully understand what the bill entails; for all I know, it could be something out of North Korea. Can someone who actually understands the bill help me out here?

[Mr Nutt]

This video has some evidence that works against SOPA supporters.

WJIuYgIvKsc

[Pinkie Pie]

Someone is going to have to explain this to me; the wikipedia article isn't sufficient.

 

Now, you guys probably know that I'm not known for wanting to make things illegal. However, when it comes to the protection of copyrights and intellectual property, I think the government isn't being strict enough. I think they should be more forceful when defending a man's right to his mind and effort. I'm getting the impression that most people speaking out against this bill just want to continue using intellectual property without the owner's permission and that they're ludicrously using the First Amendment to somehow justify their theft.

 

The freedom of speech doesn't mean you're allowed to forcibly use another property, so bills that protect property rights are completely constitutional, moral, and proper for a government. Of course, I probably don't fully understand what the bill entails; for all I know, it could be something out of North Korea. Can someone who actually understands the bill help me out here?

That's what the politicians are putting it out as, and, it is primarily to stop online piracy, but there's fine print involved. I don't know the technical name for it, but basically, there's a part in SOPA that states instead of sites being able to monitor themselves, that would go over to the government. Meaning, someone could file a claim against a site for copyright (even if it's under fair use) and get the site shut down. And pretty much anything from streaming things live, to using anything from copywritten material can get taken down, and you might even be sued for it. Don't know about that last part.

 

Anyway, the stopping piracy part is fine, I commend the government for finally wanting to take a stand against it, it's the little details that are the problem.

[Kirkreng]

The thing is just badly written and doesn't take into consideration how the internet works.

[Blue]

And if passed, some of the biggest companies in the world, or at least the giants of software would disappear. Google would lose Youtube, for example.

[Arby]

Someone is going to have to explain this to me; the wikipedia article isn't sufficient.

 

Now, you guys probably know that I'm not known for wanting to make things illegal. However, when it comes to the protection of copyrights and intellectual property, I think the government isn't being strict enough. I think they should be more forceful when defending a man's right to his mind and effort. I'm getting the impression that most people speaking out against this bill just want to continue using intellectual property without the owner's permission and that they're ludicrously using the First Amendment to somehow justify their theft.

 

The freedom of speech doesn't mean you're allowed to forcibly use another property, so bills that protect property rights are completely constitutional, moral, and proper for a government. Of course, I probably don't fully understand what the bill entails; for all I know, it could be something out of North Korea. Can someone who actually understands the bill help me out here?

 

I'm coming from the same angle, I strongly support the protection of copyrights and a man's right to his own work, that being said, this bill wouldn't do anything regarding that. It would be incredibly easy to evade and continue to steal copyrighted material, just as it is now, but what it would do, is practically kill "fair use" for anyone on the web and give the government broad, largely undefined, powers to target sites, force censorship, cut their funding, and shut them down. Do you really want the same policy our government used with anti-trust to apply to the Internet? And worse, what example would the world see when America is allowing internet censorship? China would have firm ground to stand on in the international community for its already dubious internet policies.

 

Here's a good video: