A colleague sends me the following link to the Copyright Alliance Blog, which argues that SOPA is good for copyright holders and those opposing are distorting the facts.
If you're with the Copyright Alliance, I know you've already seen the opinion piece in the New York Times.
People are afraid of the unintended consequences aspect of the proposed bill. Also, some people (I'm one) wonder how the heck we're going to be policing foreign sites and making anything stick.
Sharon, What we have is a case of opinion pieces being cited as if opinion is fact. I'm very sorry to be forced to conclude that a lot of people are reacting to misinformation put out by Google and EFF, instead of reading the actual wording of the Bills in their entirity.
People who make their living from online advertising are not impartial in this debate.
No, of course no one's impartial in this debate. I would, myself, very much prefer that those who pirate my work would find another hobby. However, I don't prefer it at the cost of the whole interet, and I specifically don't think -- given the bunch of eight-year-olds and bought mouthpieces we have posing as a congress right now -- that it's a frightfully good time to place the off switch within the reach of the critters and their owners.
Rolanni, The problem is, you are spreading irresponsible falsehoods about SOPA.
SOPA does not affect the whole internet. It only applies existing law that applies to domestic sites (that **already** applies to domestic sites!) to rogue foreign sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement.
The "off switch" is not placed within reach of any private individual. There still has to be a court order.
Please read the original text of political bills. Do not rely on opponents of the bill to tell you what it says.
Google/Live Journal apparently refuses to post comments by members who opt "No Thanks" to having their contact information and friends' lists and activities "synched".
Is that censorship, or what?
Google's activities are far more sinister than SOPA or IP protect, which only applies the laws that ALREADY apply to domestic OSPs (and which have not destroyed the internet so far) to FOREIGN rogue sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement, and that do not honor DMCA notices.
SOPA does not (contrary to what you say) give any more powers to individuals. Court orders are still needed. Safe Harbor remains in force to protect sites that are not demonstrably, directly, willfully, knowingly and intentionally involved only in piracy and nothing else.
You really ought to read the Bills themselves rather than the propaganda put out by opponents of the Bills.
Even if there are already potentially censoring bodies - ones not enforced by law, even - surely you aren't using that as an excuse for the possibility of even more, government enforced censorship?
Perhaps we have different definitions of censorship? The one I hold is summed up fairly well on Wikipedia (as so many things are)
-
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
-
Or am I just grievously misunderstanding the bill?
You are grievously misunderstanding the bill. It is not censorship to prevent people from breaking the law or inciting others to break the law.
There is no first amendment right to break the laws of the USA.
Copyright infringement is illegal. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a fine of $250,000 per work infringed.
Censorship is when Ron Wyden deletes the comments on his YouTube page that are critical of his reasons for opposing copyright protections for American copyright owners.... and then he claims that he is for an OPEN internet.
I suppose I must be very grievously misunderstanding it indeed. My assumption was that they were doing this by blocking access to sites. Which, by my definition, is censorship. Whether it's moral or not, it's still censorship. Whether it stops illegal actions or not, it's censorship. That's just what it is, because that's what censorship is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-11-22 08:18 pm (UTC)http://boingboing.net/2011/11/11/stop-sopa-save-the-internet.html
http://write-light.livejournal.com/301158.html
If you're with the Copyright Alliance, I know you've already seen the opinion piece in the New York Times.
People are afraid of the unintended consequences aspect of the proposed bill. Also, some people (I'm one) wonder how the heck we're going to be policing foreign sites and making anything stick.
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-11-29 02:41 pm (UTC)What we have is a case of opinion pieces being cited as if opinion is fact. I'm very sorry to be forced to conclude that a lot of people are reacting to misinformation put out by Google and EFF, instead of reading the actual wording of the Bills in their entirity.
People who make their living from online advertising are not impartial in this debate.
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-11-29 06:08 pm (UTC)Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-04 01:24 pm (UTC)The problem is, you are spreading irresponsible falsehoods about SOPA.
SOPA does not affect the whole internet. It only applies existing law that applies to domestic sites (that **already** applies to domestic sites!) to rogue foreign sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement.
The "off switch" is not placed within reach of any private individual. There still has to be a court order.
Please read the original text of political bills. Do not rely on opponents of the bill to tell you what it says.
Rowena Cherry
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-04 01:38 pm (UTC)Google/Live Journal apparently refuses to post comments by members who opt "No Thanks" to having their contact information and friends' lists and activities "synched".
Is that censorship, or what?
Google's activities are far more sinister than SOPA or IP protect, which only applies the laws that ALREADY apply to domestic OSPs (and which have not destroyed the internet so far) to FOREIGN rogue sites that are dedicated to copyright infringement, and that do not honor DMCA notices.
SOPA does not (contrary to what you say) give any more powers to individuals. Court orders are still needed. Safe Harbor remains in force to protect sites that are not demonstrably, directly, willfully, knowingly and intentionally involved only in piracy and nothing else.
You really ought to read the Bills themselves rather than the propaganda put out by opponents of the Bills.
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-06 09:10 am (UTC)Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-06 09:06 pm (UTC)There is no censorship in this bill, government enforced or otherwise.
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-08 06:40 am (UTC)-
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
-
Or am I just grievously misunderstanding the bill?
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-12 01:52 am (UTC)There is no first amendment right to break the laws of the USA.
Copyright infringement is illegal. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison or a fine of $250,000 per work infringed.
Censorship is when Ron Wyden deletes the comments on his YouTube page that are critical of his reasons for opposing copyright protections for American copyright owners.... and then he claims that he is for an OPEN internet.
Re: SOPA
Date: 2011-12-14 12:46 am (UTC)