Does this have any chance of passing? I would be pretty fucking pissed if I had to get ultra-creative with getting my hands on torrents.

Police the government.

Mandatory source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/googles-brin-calls-sopa-censorship-akin-to-china-iran/2011/12/15/gIQAlV2HwO_blog.html

Of course it has a chance. Probably a great chance. They just passed the bill allowing the military to detain American citizens in America indefinitely without any due process. We don't have a right to anything anymore.

This is fucking nuts!

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Hopefully it is not passed. The law is a joke.

SOPA, PROTECT-IP, etc are all gigantic pieces of shit.

Write your Senators and Congressman.

SPONSOR
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
CO-SPONSORS
Tim Griffin [R-AR2]
Ben Quayle [R-AZ3]
Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Howard Berman [D-CA28]
Adam Schiff [D-CA29]
Judy Chu [D-CA32]
Karen Bass [D-CA33]
Joe Baca [D-CA43]
Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45]
John Larson [D-CT1]
Dennis Ross [R-FL12]
Ted Deutch [D-FL19]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]
John Barrow [D-GA12]
Steve Scalise [R-LA1]
John Conyers [D-MI14]
Alan Nunnelee [R-MS1]
Melvin Watt [D-NC12]
Lee Terry [R-NE2]
Ben Luján [D-NM3]
Mark Amodei [R-NV2]
William Owens [D-NY23]
Peter King [R-NY3]
Steven Chabot [R-OH1]
Thomas Marino [R-PA10]
Tim Holden [D-PA17]
Jim Cooper [D-TN5]
Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6]

None of them should get a vote from anyone again.

http://www.webpronews.com/swiss-government-declares-downloading-for-personal-use-legal-2011-12

The government of Switzerland has issued a statement declaring that it will not take action to alter current copyright laws allowing the downloading of music and movies for personal use. The statement is the result of a lengthy study conducted by the Swiss government into the impact of so-called &#8220iracy” on the entertainment industry.


The entertainment industry has been complaining in Switzerland – as in the US and elsewhere – that the unauthorized downloading of music and movies has harmed their business. The situation in Switzerland is somewhat unique, in that current copyright law considers the downloading of content for personal use as acceptable and legal. The entertainment industry has been lobbying the Swiss government to change the law. This study is the government’s response.

Looks like I may need to take some week-long trips to Switzerland in the future, with a long list of download targets.

I'm not sure what all the acronyms stand for nor do I understand the details of the legislation.

I understand the nature of the complaints by artists and writers, however. Let's say Steven King writes a novel, someone buys an electronic version, then posts it on the Internet for everyone to read. While it's not theft to buy it, but isn't the same person violating a publishing right of Steven King? What if the same original consumer buys it/posts it and THEN asks everyone for $1 to be able to access it. Isn't that theft of King's intellectual property? What is the difference of this act from someone 30 years ago buying a brand new book, making copies, and then selling them? That used to be a copyright infringement punishable by the courts.

I'm all for keeping the internet free of constraints and controlling agencies, but stealing someone else's work used to be illegal until the electonic age. It also follows that much of today's contemporary "music" is little more than sampling and re-writing of previous eras products.

BGFalcons82;1020314 wrote:I'm not sure what all the acronyms stand for nor do I understand the details of the legislation.

I understand the nature of the complaints by artists and writers, however. Let's say Steven King writes a novel, someone buys an electronic version, then posts it on the Internet for everyone to read. While it's not theft to buy it, but isn't the same person violating a publishing right of Steven King? What if the same original consumer buys it/posts it and THEN asks everyone for $1 to be able to access it. Isn't that theft of King's intellectual property? What is the difference of this act from someone 30 years ago buying a brand new book, making copies, and then selling them? That used to be a copyright infringement punishable by the courts.

I'm all for keeping the internet free of constraints and controlling agencies, but stealing someone else's work used to be illegal until the electonic age. It also follows that much of today's contemporary "music" is little more than sampling and re-writing of previous eras products.

it is the same. but the internet wasnt around when the law was made, so people think its ok if its on the internet. its a weird thought process that gets used in other areas too.

Glory Days;1020422 wrote:it is the same. but the internet wasnt around when the law was made, so people think its ok if its on the internet. its a weird thought process that gets used in other areas too.

No, that's not what is going on here.

If you seriously think this type of corporate bought big government censorship is a good idea then you've got a very different view of what is acceptable than most Americans.

Glory Days;1020422 wrote:it is the same. but the internet wasnt around when the law was made, so people think its ok if its on the internet. its a weird thought process that gets used in other areas too.

hey look everyone, its simple jacks long lost offspring.

here is what the Stanford Law Review identifies as troubling in the proposed legislation.

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet

an interesting development, according to YouHaveDownloaded (a torrent tracker on BitTorrent) the RIAA is responsible for downloading about $9 Million worth of television shows. The inflated value figure comes from the precedent of assessing those caught downloading TV shows about $150K in fines per episode. Not that it matters, because "piracy" has been shown to lead to more sales (ask Switzerland)

http://gizmodo.com/5869321/dear-recording-industry-pay-9-million-for-pirating-tv-shows-or-shut-up?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Surprise surprise, the sponsers of this bill got massive amounts of campaign donations from the entertainment industry. Taking lobbying money should be a crime.

I Wear Pants;1021899 wrote:Surprise surprise, the sponsers of this bill got massive amounts of campaign donations from the entertainment industry. Taking lobbying money should be a crime.

How will we have entertainment if the product is allowed to be stolen without reproach?

I'll agree lobbying money leads to cronyism. A virtual guarantee. Like the one currently wherein Barry won't approve the Keystone pipeline because he owes a favor to one of his main constituents, the radical environmentalists. If you dare to answer how the pipeline isn't safe, you better Google how many hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines are currently in place.

My answer to curtailing lobbyists reach is to have term limits on those that they prey upon. Simple answer, but then career politicians like Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, et al won't be at the Left's beck and call for decades.

BGFalcons82;1021941 wrote: My answer to curtailing lobbyists reach is to have term limits on those that they prey upon. Simple answer, but then career politicians like Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, et al won't be at the Left's beck and call for decades.

How will that solve the problem? The lobbyists will just buy new politicians when their limits are up. The only way to solve the problem of cronyism is to eliminate the government's ability to grant them favors.

BGFalcons82;1021941 wrote:How will we have entertainment if the product is allowed to be stolen without reproach?

I'll agree lobbying money leads to cronyism. A virtual guarantee. Like the one currently wherein Barry won't approve the Keystone pipeline because he owes a favor to one of his main constituents, the radical environmentalists. If you dare to answer how the pipeline isn't safe, you better Google how many hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines are currently in place.

My answer to curtailing lobbyists reach is to have term limits on those that they prey upon. Simple answer, but then career politicians like Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, et al won't be at the Left's beck and call for decades.

It isn't allowed to be stolen without reproach. There are penalties for copyright infringement.

How will allowing the entertainment industry to censor the internet at their leisure help the country?

BGFalcons82;1021941 wrote:How will we have entertainment if the product is allowed to be stolen without reproach?

I'll agree lobbying money leads to cronyism. A virtual guarantee. Like the one currently wherein Barry won't approve the Keystone pipeline because he owes a favor to one of his main constituents, the radical environmentalists. If you dare to answer how the pipeline isn't safe, you better Google how many hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines are currently in place.

My answer to curtailing lobbyists reach is to have term limits on those that they prey upon. Simple answer, but then career politicians like Barney Fwank, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, et al won't be at the Left's beck and call for decades.

Just get rid of lobbying. Much simpler choice.

BGFalcons82;1021941 wrote:How will we have entertainment if the product is allowed to be stolen without reproach?

When did it become the job of the feds to worry about the entertainment industry?

I Wear Pants;1022130 wrote:Just get rid of lobbying. Much simpler choice.

First of all, we have a Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, so you can't just keep people away from the government. Second of all, lobbyists don't always slip money in their pockets. They often just give them jobs in the future or pay them exorbitant amounts for speeches or consulting or what have you. I don't know what kind of law you could pass to prevent that. Finally, if you make all of that illegal somehow, they will just do it behind the scenes, so you will never stop it that way. The ONLY way to stop it is to take away the government's ability to grant them favors.

Cleveland Buck;1022175 wrote:First of all, we have a Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, so you can't just keep people away from the government. Second of all, lobbyists don't always slip money in their pockets. They often just give them jobs in the future or pay them exorbitant amounts for speeches or consulting or what have you. I don't know what kind of law you could pass to prevent that. Finally, if you make all of that illegal somehow, they will just do it behind the scenes, so you will never stop it that way. The ONLY way to stop it is to take away the government's ability to grant them favors.

How do you do that?

And when I say lobbying I generally mean corporate lobbying. And I don't think the right to petition the government includes piles of cash.

I Wear Pants;1022180 wrote:How do you do that?

And when I say lobbying I generally mean corporate lobbying. And I don't think the right to petition the government includes piles of cash.

To do that you have to eliminate federal regulations, because the lobbyists are the ones who write them anyway. You have to eliminate government contracts for pretty much everything. We can't get rid of defense contracts, since we need a military, so we would have to find a way to keep those lobbyists from pushing for more wars, but you can get the government out of every other aspect of the economy.