OSH;1058651 wrote:I thought this was about banning soap all along...

all those people should be executed.

Yes.

Shoot. Them. All.

krambman;1058390 wrote:It was only put on the "back burner" because people began planning these blackouts which raised pubic awareness and public outcry. Had these sites not made the public aware of these bills, people never would have known about them and they would have passed.

I Wear Pants;1058397 wrote:It wasn't on the backburner for sure until well after reddit had announced it would blackout and all the sites and organizations started speaking up about it.

I can promise you reddit of all sites didn't cause the President and U.S. senate to "change their mind" lol.

This thing was never going to pass, that's just the reality of the situation. I'm not opposed to raising public awareness about it, because regardless any politician who did support it should be tried in the court of public opinion. But this was a very opportunistic way for sites that have refused to take stands on more important issues(google especially) to act like they were doing something "important."

Reddit probably had the most "pure" intentions, but it's disappointing they don't take stands on issues that have a realistic shot of passing. Their user base is probably 90% extreme left, they aren't going to piss people off fucking with the government,

gorocks99;1058479 wrote:I think the short answer is that they've grown to be different informational and interactive media. Because of barriers of cost and a finite number of available signals, it's not practical for a vast majority of people to broadcast using their own television or radio station (HAM withstanding). Printing on a large scale has cost barriers as well, although not as many as television or radio. The low- to no-cost internet (in the case of public computers, such as ones found in public libraries) we've created makes it inherently more accessible by more people, and therefore more collaborative and more user-driven.

krambman;1058592 wrote:The government actually owns the airwaves, and therefore has a level of control over the content. People who start a radio station or TV station have to file for a license with the FCC and must abide by FCC guidelines. Also, since those mediums require sizable amounts of capital to produce and distribute content, it can only be done by corporations with the help of advertisers (except for public TV, which relies on donations from viewers, and government assistance). With print media people could print and distribute their own content, however, without a great deal of capital behind it, distribution would be very low.

Anyone can purchase an Internet domain for under $20 and set up their own website that is searchable and viewable by anyone. Also, anyone can create and upload content to any number of sites for free (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, ets.). Very early on the government decided to put very few restrictions on the Internet and allow it to be a place for free expression, instead of a heavily regulated media, like radion, TV, and print.

so its about the money, because its cheap to be on the internet? thats the difference? why arent people are crying about tv and radio being regulated. why shouldnt i be able to start my own radio station, isnt that stepping on my freedom of speech?

And that doesn't mean it couldn't be regulated as such, it's just that I think many of us have grown to like the internet and what it is today, and feel it would be detrimental to information were it to fundamentally change.

The FCC was created in 1934 after radio stations were around. I am sure they liked that it was free, cheap and unregulated before the FCC came around, but they seemed to up ok.

The response I got from Sen. Sherrod Brown. Gotta love the form letters sent out by staffers...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about legislation to combat online infringement and digital theft.
Last Congress, the Senate considered, but did not pass, legislation entitled the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). The aim of this legislation was to assist the Department of Justice in tracking and shutting down "rogue websites." These sites provide unauthorized downloads, streaming, or direct sale of copyrighted material. Similar legislation, entitled the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act, has been introduced in the Senate. The PROTECT IP Act narrows the definition of "rogue website" in an effort to target only the most egregious purveyors of digital theft and counterfeit crime.

In an age of advancing technology, it is critical we have laws that protect internet users from unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent marketplace practices. Too many consumers today purchase goods over the internet that may pose a significant threat to their health and wellbeing. For example, a consumer may unknowingly purchase counterfeit prescription drugs online that contain incorrect amounts of active ingredients, and thus pose a serious risk to ill individuals.

Additionally, illegal file sharing and unauthorized copying of digital material prevents musicians, producers, filmmakers, software designers, and many others from reaping the fruits of their labor. Such activity has the potential to stifle artistic creativity and compromise electronic innovation. Ultimately, intellectual property theft costs our economy billions of dollars and can result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

However, I have also heard from individuals with concerns about the scope of this legislation, as well as its First Amendment implications. I take these concerns seriously. Should this legislation come before the full Senate for a vote, I will keep your views in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown
United States Senator

Glory Days;1059337 wrote:so its about the money, because its cheap to be on the internet? thats the difference? why arent people are crying about tv and radio being regulated. why shouldnt i be able to start my own radio station, isnt that stepping on my freedom of speech?

The FCC was created in 1934 after radio stations were around. I am sure they liked that it was free, cheap and unregulated before the FCC came around, but they seemed to up ok.

I think that most regulations are tolerated because a few reasons, first because there are (or, were) a finite number of frequencies with which to broadcast in a certain area, driving the need for licensing (BTW you can apply to the FCC start your own radio station, but because of limited frequencies it's unlikely you'll get the go-ahead), and second because television and radio are more passive, less interactive media than the internet.

If you wanted your news from a radio or television outlet there were only so many to choose from (using past tense here because cable and satellite offerings have somewhat changed the game in television). So, you're "forced" to listen to one or two sources, the content of which is controlled by the company owning the station and the programming director.

The internet, on the other hand, is a different medium in that there aren't really a finite number of signals, you're a much more "active" participant in where and what you choose to experience (although again, compared to television now that is somewhat untrue), and the content on many platforms is largely user-driven and not decided by a director or owner of a site.

So, like I typed previously, you could regulate the internet like you do radio and television, it just becomes a different medium at that point. Which side of the fence you're on, well, that's each person's opinion. Personally, I enjoy where the internet is now and the role it plays. But it doesn't have to be that way as you opine.

2kool4skool;1059264 wrote:I can promise you reddit of all sites didn't cause the President and U.S. senate to "change their mind" lol.

This thing was never going to pass, that's just the reality of the situation. I'm not opposed to raising public awareness about it, because regardless any politician who did support it should be tried in the court of public opinion. But this was a very opportunistic way for sites that have refused to take stands on more important issues(google especially) to act like they were doing something "important."

Reddit probably had the most "pure" intentions, but it's disappointing they don't take stands on issues that have a realistic shot of passing. Their user base is probably 90% extreme left, they aren't going to piss people off fucking with the government,

You're right that it wasn't just reddit and wikipedia and Google likely had a far larger effect. However the idea of doing a blackout I think was first suggested by Reddit. Hell Senator Wyden has a post on the politics subreddit.

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=417403d2-468a-47a6-863f-946b5dbe4a6a


It was going to pass.

Glory Days;1059337 wrote:so its about the money, because its cheap to be on the internet? thats the difference? why arent people are crying about tv and radio being regulated. why shouldnt i be able to start my own radio station, isnt that stepping on my freedom of speech?



The FCC was created in 1934 after radio stations were around. I am sure they liked that it was free, cheap and unregulated before the FCC came around, but they seemed to up ok.

It wasn't free and cheap to operate a tv or radio station ever.

Not too happy with Megaupload being shut down...

The_Crosby_Show;1059840 wrote:Not too happy with Megaupload being shut down...

And that's what they do without SOPA.

I Wear Pants;1059845 wrote:And that's what they do without SOPA.

They're already back up under a new domain.

The_Crosby_Show;1059840 wrote:Not too happy with Megaupload being shut down...

"...But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other...."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars

If they shouldn't be shut down, who should?

"...Employees even allegedly uploaded content themselves, such as a BBC Earth episode uploaded in 2008. ..."

Con_Alma;1059883 wrote: If they shouldn't be shut down, who should?

It would be interesting to know how the percentages break down between those upset by the legislation primarily due to constitutional issues vs. those upset by the infringement on their "right" to steal.

queencitybuckeye;1060004 wrote:It would be interesting to know how the percentages break down between those upset by the legislation primarily due to constitutional issues vs. those upset by the infringement on their "right" to steal.

Interesting indeed. I would love to see those numbers...if they truly existed.

I do not download or share copyrighted music, movies or games illegally and I'm against SOPA/PIPA

2kool4skool;1059264 wrote:I can promise you reddit of all sites didn't cause the President and U.S. senate to "change their mind" lol.

This thing was never going to pass, that's just the reality of the situation. I'm not opposed to raising public awareness about it, because regardless any politician who did support it should be tried in the court of public opinion. But this was a very opportunistic way for sites that have refused to take stands on more important issues(google especially) to act like they were doing something "important."

Reddit probably had the most "pure" intentions, but it's disappointing they don't take stands on issues that have a realistic shot of passing. Their user base is probably 90% extreme left, they aren't going to piss people off fucking with the government,

You're right, reddit didn't get people to change their mind, but they were the ones who came up with the January 18 blackout idea, that other, more influential websites like Wikipedia and Google became a part of. And it wasn't those websites that made the differences. They simply created awareness of the issues. It was more likely that senators and representatives have heard more feedback, and more one-sided feedback, on this issue than on any other issue while in office that made the difference.

And the bill was going to pass had these websites not raised awareness and gotten people involved. SOPA had 13 initial cosigners and eventually had 31 cosigners by January 16. This was also a bipartisan bill with cosigners from both parties. The bill was also getting overwhelming support in committee (most amendments that would have removed some of the bad powers from the bill were voted down by a 2-1 margin). This bill had a ton of support until these websites raised awareness. Like I said before, the mainstream media wasn't going to touch this bill, at least not negatively, because they are all owned by the companies that are supporting this bill. Until Reddit announced their blackout and began raising awareness, this thing wold have passed, that's just the reality of the situation.

Glory Days;1059337 wrote:so its about the money, because its cheap to be on the internet? thats the difference? why arent people are crying about tv and radio being regulated. why shouldnt i be able to start my own radio station, isnt that stepping on my freedom of speech?



The FCC was created in 1934 after radio stations were around. I am sure they liked that it was free, cheap and unregulated before the FCC came around, but they seemed to up ok.

radio stations are regulated because there are a finite # of possible stations

queencitybuckeye;1060004 wrote:It would be interesting to know how the percentages break down between those upset by the legislation primarily due to constitutional issues vs. those upset by the infringement on their "right" to steal.

I'd guess a lot of people would be against this solely due to not being able to get what they want how they want it online. But it's like that with most things, as far as politics go. People support things that might be good or bad for personal reasons that often shouldn't have much (if any) bearing on the actual person/legislation's merit.

Like on the political board, I read that someone posted that Paul has support among college students with the reasoning being that he supports states rights to regulate things like marijuana (as opposed to the federal government). Which, in essence, is a pretty frivolous reason to support a candidate. Much like religious right people caring about one's stance on abortion. Silly and unimportant reasons, but ones that wind up as the backbone behind a decision.

Con_Alma;1059883 wrote:"...But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other...."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars

If they shouldn't be shut down, who should?

"...Employees even allegedly uploaded content themselves, such as a BBC Earth episode uploaded in 2008. ..."

Youtube has a ton of copyright infringement, should they be shut down and their employees arrested?

Just an update, Lamar Smith has pulled SOPA

Con_Alma;1059883 wrote:If they shouldn't be shut down, who should?

If they were willfully violating copyright, then they should be. But law enforcement should have to gather evidence and file charges for that to happen (as they did in this case, and now they'll have a chance to prove it). It shouldn't be that a 3rd party source claims infringement and the site is instantly seized and advertising cut off with no investigatory work or due process.

You should be able to combat piracy and copyright infringement without overreaching and breaking the internet, and that's why SOPA/PIPA were and are horribly drawn up laws.

queencitybuckeye;1060004 wrote:It would be interesting to know how the percentages break down between those upset by the legislation primarily due to constitutional issues vs. those upset by the infringement on their "right" to steal.

Never in my life have I stolen something where the 'victim' was never deprived of what was 'stolen'.

If I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I make an exact duplicate of it, I didn't 'steal' it. How could you? You still have your car. I now have a duplicate.

Just because it's cheap to do doesn't make it any less illegal.

The problem with copyright is the problem with an 'ownership' society. We want to make money off of owning things, rather than producing something. A musician should make money for the live production of the music in venues where tickets are sold. Movies should make money from the live production of it in theatres, things that most commoners don't have at home nor the ability to access film of such quality to exhibit.

So, we buy tickets for things. That's where they money is. But, that's not enough. They want money every time you hear or play a song or movie. Any mention or comment. Any pronouncement or discussion. They want money. Simply because they own something because the federal government (of/by/for the people) decided years ago, foolishly, that copyright is a lifetime right to profit as much as possible for doing as little as possible.

And under the Disney world, copyright law will keep getting pushed further and further back to make sure that Mickey Mouse never becomes public domain. Copyright was intended to be temporary to cover the short term cost of producing the work to make back the money in a reasonable amount of time of the life of the creator of the work. That doesn't hold true anymore. Especially with corporations owning things when they can't 'die' and can keep reselling it to other entities.

Eliminate modern copyright and go back to the rules when copyright was first created and we wouldn't have the need for SOPA/PIPA/DMCA, etc.

Sykotyk;1060787 wrote:Never in my life have I stolen something where the 'victim' was never deprived of what was 'stolen'.

If I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I make an exact duplicate of it, I didn't 'steal' it. How could you? You still have your car. I now have a duplicate.

Just because it's cheap to do doesn't make it any less illegal.

The problem with copyright is the problem with an 'ownership' society. We want to make money off of owning things, rather than producing something. A musician should make money for the live production of the music in venues where tickets are sold. Movies should make money from the live production of it in theatres, things that most commoners don't have at home nor the ability to access film of such quality to exhibit.

So, we buy tickets for things. That's where they money is. But, that's not enough. They want money every time you hear or play a song or movie. Any mention or comment. Any pronouncement or discussion. They want money. Simply because they own something because the federal government (of/by/for the people) decided years ago, foolishly, that copyright is a lifetime right to profit as much as possible for doing as little as possible.

And under the Disney world, copyright law will keep getting pushed further and further back to make sure that Mickey Mouse never becomes public domain. Copyright was intended to be temporary to cover the short term cost of producing the work to make back the money in a reasonable amount of time of the life of the creator of the work. That doesn't hold true anymore. Especially with corporations owning things when they can't 'die' and can keep reselling it to other entities.

Eliminate modern copyright and go back to the rules when copyright was first created and we wouldn't have the need for SOPA/PIPA/DMCA, etc.

So it would be ok to make a duplicate of someone's ticket to a concert?

Glory Days;1060795 wrote:So it would be ok to make a duplicate of someone's ticket to a concert?

That's seriously what you took from that?

I Wear Pants;1060797 wrote:That's seriously what you took from that?

No shit right?
Re read it man.