US Congress's Internet Censorship Bill

[Bikini Miltank]

Still the DNS removal provisions highlighted by some news agencies is one of the things I was implying that is somewhat easy to bypass.

Yeah, DNS removal stuff is probably the dumbest part of this whole enterprise. The fact that it can easily be got around by someone who knows what they're doing means that it will be no hindrance to pirates, but will have a much greater effect on the casual internet user who now can't access a site that's been taken down due to a bogus copyright notice.

Yes, I have heard this numerous times.

There is absolutely nothing to be frightened of because there is not, and has never been, a genuine chance of this becoming law, and even if it did, its application would be extremely difficult. Notwithstanding the fact that the law applies to only one country.

Having not one but two versions of this legislation making their way through Congress, with the potential for more of them should these fail, is a little too close to "becoming law" for my liking. And the only reason that SOPA is now looking like it won't get much further is that people kicked up a fuss about it. Shutting up and assuming nothing bad will happen is a good way of ensuring that, sooner or later, something SOPA-like will slip through.

 

[Archaic]

Shutting up and assuming nothing bad will happen is a good way of ensuring that, sooner or later, something SOPA-like will slip through.

Yup. This is the big danger. Too many people were too quick to start backing off when it looked like SOPA would be shelved, even though that was revealed as just a temporary thing until February.

That's why Bulba is making a statement today. We didn't want to continue our blackout too long after we finished our upgrade, but we wanted to make sure we continued to send a message.

 

[Fig]

And the "only one country" thing run into three facts:

1. The vast majority of key website online, and the overwhelming majority of the English-speakign internet, is based in that country. It WILL be affected.
2. The law specifically treat all .com, .org and .net sites as part of the US for purpose of the law.
3. The law treat all IPs attributed by US-based IP authorities as American IPs for the purpose of the law.*

*IP attribution is done on a REGIONAL basis. The US based authority covers the United States, the Carribeans and Canada.

So the "only one country" claim is completely, utterly wrong.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

I'm glad to see Bulba has joined in.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Bill supporters are on the retreat.

Sen. Blunt withdraws support of piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Rubio reverses support of piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Lawmakers begin to retreat from piracy bills in face of Web blackout - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

 

[Master Mew]

Blunt backed down? Woot! (My local Senator)

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Orrin Hatch has withdrawn support.

Hatch latest to reverse support of piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

 

[Bikini Miltank]

Orrin Hatch has withdrawn support.

Hatch latest to reverse support of piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Haha, yep, my local senator there. It was a real surprise to see him completely pulling support: he once proposed that copyright holders should be legally allowed to hack the computers of suspected pirates.

Politicians aren't stupid, and there are few who'll be able to stomach having their name attached to something they know is universally loathed. Seeing Mr Hatch withdraw support for these measures is all the proof I need that big demonstrations of discontent like today's blackout really do work.

 

[Moonlight Umbreon]

While the problems caused by SOPA are being a little exaggerated by some, it could still allow corporations to harm free speech- even for people outside the US. I hope this bill doesn't pass.

 

[Dr. Mecha]

I hope the vast majority of the senate (as in 2/3rd of them) turn this down and kills it immediately rather than delay it. It seems that Lamar Smith (that jerkwad that made the bill) will NOT back down and keep delaying it until the people of the United States shut up about it.

 

[Raves]

Lamar Smith?

More like Lame-ass Smith, amirite?

It's Hollywood corporate fat cats like him that need to be shot before they come up with travesties such as this.

 

[H-con]

Lamar Smith?

There is a problem with SOPA, and Lamar Smith, for that matter. I do believe SOPA isn't getting passed in it's current form (though that's certainly not certain), but this is more of a waiting game. No doubts it will resurface, change it's name or something, with generally less focus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't really just SOPA/PIPA be attached to some other text and then pass it (if I'm not mistaken, of course). In that case, there's a possibly bigger threat, one that's quite saddening to realize really. Lamar Smith also happens to sponsor "H.R.1981 - Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011". Do you doubt that something like SOPA/PIPA can't be re purposed into something against child porn, or at least be attached to that? One thing would be to vote against SOPA/PIPA, but this would be political suicide to vote against to say the least, allowing easy passage for SOPA/PIPA. Try to argue against it? "You support child porn!". Of course, this is just one outcome, but I would hardly say it's a far fetched idea, and certainly something they'd try to get a bill like this passed.

After all, think of the children...

 

[Fig]

I'm not entirely sure of how the procedural matters work, but yes, if the SOPA provisions wind up attached to that bill somehow (if that's possible), it's one bad case of "Game Over, MPAA/RIAA/ESA win, the rest of the world lose".

 

[Archaic]

Lamar Smith also happens to sponsor "H.R.1981 - Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011". Do you doubt that something like SOPA/PIPA can't be re purposed into something against child porn, or at least be attached to that? One thing would be to vote against SOPA/PIPA, but this would be political suicide to vote against to say the least, allowing easy passage for SOPA/PIPA. Try to argue against it? "You support child porn!". Of course, this is just one outcome, but I would hardly say it's a far fetched idea, and certainly something they'd try to get a bill like this passed.

After all, think of the children...

This is EXACTLY how they tried to pass similar legislation here in Australia, and that's exactly how they attempted to paint the opposition to the laws.

 

[Mijzelffan]

I think it's pretty good some major sites protested by going dark today, but some sites / persons really think they have too much power. I mean, if you're putting your facebook group on dark you're just pushing it. Or deviantart artists claiming not to upload anything today in protest of SOPA.

 

[Caitlin]

Or deviantart artists claiming not to upload anything today in protest of SOPA.

If I weren't out working today, I totally would have changed all of my old deviations to "CENSORED" in a black box, cause I don't think a single one of them isn't infringing in some form. But alas, I had important things to do today.

Looks like my minecraft builds wouldn't be infringing at least. Whatever.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

I think it's pretty good some major sites protested by going dark today, but some sites / persons really think they have too much power. I mean, if you're putting your facebook group on dark you're just pushing it. Or deviantart artists claiming not to upload anything today in protest of SOPA.

Why not artists? Fan works would potentially be hit hard by SOPA. If sites can suddenly be taken down by copyright infringement claims, large-scale hosting of fanart and fanfiction, by sites such as Deviantart and FF.net, could become a thing of the past. Site owners may decide it's just not worth the legal risks.

And besides, the object isn't to directly inconvenience lawmakers with the sudden censorship of their favourite DA gallery - it's to raise awareness in all internet users that this thing we take for granted is under threat.

 

[Mijzelffan]

I think it's pretty good some major sites protested by going dark today, but some sites / persons really think they have too much power. I mean, if you're putting your facebook group on dark you're just pushing it. Or deviantart artists claiming not to upload anything today in protest of SOPA.

Why not artists? Fan works would potentially be hit hard by SOPA. If sites can suddenly be taken down by copyright infringement claims, large-scale hosting of fanart and fanfiction, by sites such as Deviantart and FF.net, could become a thing of the past. Site owners may decide it's just not worth the legal risks.

And besides, the object isn't to directly inconvenience lawmakers with the sudden censorship of their favourite DA gallery - it's to raise awareness in all internet users that this thing we take for granted is under threat.

Because claiming not to uploadanything in protest of SOPA is weak. It's like me saying I didn't go to the grocery store today in protest of SOPA. If I hadn't just said that probably nobody would have guessed I even had the intention of going to the grocery store today. Plus, I could totally be lying about planning to go to the grocery store (I am fyi), but then pretend it's because of a protest against SOPA. The same applies to claiming you're not uploading anything because of SOPA. I say put up a self-made banner or something against SOPA, that seems more genuine.

And even besides that, awareness has pretty much been raised by google, wikipedia and reddit by themselves. Add to that banners and black-outs of smaller sites and we get even more awareness. I really think a facebook group or single artist posting a blog isn't going to add much more to that, making it kinda pointless imo. The artists might just do it for themselves (so they can say they joined the fight against sopa probably), but the facebook groups blacking out really seems pointless to me.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

Because claiming not to uploadanything in protest of SOPA is weak. It's like me saying I didn't go to the grocery store today in protest of SOPA. If I hadn't just said that probably nobody would have guessed I even had the intention of going to the grocery store today. Plus, I could totally be lying about planning to go to the grocery store (I am fyi), but then pretend it's because of a protest against SOPA. The same applies to claiming you're not uploading anything because of SOPA. I say put up a self-made banner or something against SOPA, that seems more genuine.

And even besides that, awareness has pretty much been raised by google, wikipedia and reddit by themselves. Add to that banners and black-outs of smaller sites and we get even more awareness. I really think a facebook group or single artist posting a blog isn't going to add much more to that, making it kinda pointless imo. The artists might just do it for themselves (so they can say they joined the fight against sopa probably), but the facebook groups blacking out really seems pointless to me.

I disagree. There's a difference between protests by Google and Wikipedia, which are huge operations, and protests by individuals. People may not necessarily be ready to take Wikipedia's word for it that SOPA is a bad thing and that they should be worried about it. The average internet user probably has few concerns in common with Jimmy Wales. But when they see similar protests from their friends, or from that guy they follow on Deviantart, it brings it home that this is an issue that all sorts of people are concerned about.

Also, it's, you know, fun to be a part - however small - of a bigger movement. People are getting involved with this thing and having fun doing it. Even if some individual acts of protest have no effect on awareness, what does it matter?

 

[Mijzelffan]

I disagree. There's a difference between protests by Google and Wikipedia, which are huge operations, and protests by individuals.

I agree, because one of those reaches millions of people, while the other only maybe about 200 if lucky.

People may not necessarily be ready to take Wikipedia's word for it that SOPA is a bad thing and that they should be worried about it.

I thought people nowadays took wikipedia's word for everything (which is why teachers hate it so much)

The average internet user probably has few concerns in common with Jimmy Wales. But when they see similar protests from their friends, or from that guy they follow on Deviantart, it brings it home that this is an issue that all sorts of people are concerned about.

Personally I'm more inclined to read stuff posted on homepages of google and wikipedia (who wouldn't put stuff there unless really important), than take it from some stoner friend who does nothing but post random stuff on facebook all day, or that artist who keeps making journals about how he will do overpriced comissions. But hey, maybe other people disagree with me there. I still think it's pointless though.

Also, it's, you know, fun to be a part - however small - of a bigger movement. People are getting involved with this thing and having fun doing it. Even if some individual acts of protest have no effect on awareness, what does it matter?

No, I don't know, because I tend not to join stuff like that unless I can actually help. People who think they can change stuff in the world by merely changing their avatar or by reposting some generic message annoy the hell out of me.

Also, the one that mattered was the facebook group going black (reaches too few people and troubles its users), the individuals were just another example of actions that won't reach enough people for it to be worth doing, which made me wonder why they'd do it in the first place.