rolanni: (Default)
[personal profile] rolanni
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.

Blog entry here

Re: SOPA

Date: 2011-12-08 06:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] noblesandwich.livejournal.com
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?

Re: SOPA

Date: 2011-12-12 01:52 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
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.

Re: SOPA

Date: 2011-12-14 12:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] noblesandwich.livejournal.com
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.

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     1 2 3
4 5 678 9 10
11 12 13 14 151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags