Hey! That's MY Excuse, RIAA

[Saniflush]

Say it with me Chizad.....

GOOS-fraba

Half Irish, half Italian, half Mexican.

[GH2001]

Half Irish, half Italian, half Mexican.

What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?

[Vandy Vol]

What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?

I'm pretty sure this is Snaggle's catchphrase...

[djsimp]

What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?

By the way, his name's not fat-shit-cat. It's Meatball. And he's eating your crab cakes right now.

[Saniflush]

What, do you think you're better than me, 'cause you got both your nuts?

Sarcasm is the second cousin of Anger.

[djsimp]

Sarcasm is the second cousin of Anger.

You're on my side of the arm rest. We're not gonna have problems, are we?

[RWS]

And that's where you're wrong.

Not saying linked articles is the goal of this bill, but the legislation is intentionally vague enough, that this could be considered an infringement. And absolutely linking to YouTube videos, that copyright holders later deem in copyright violation because someone was humming a pop song in the background, or because someone's Polo horse on their shirt was visible, would not only hold the user that uploaded the video to YouTube viable, but also YouTube itself, and any website that linked to it. It's ridiculous and extreme, I know, but that's within the vague language of this bill.

Want to post a funny little meme of Stan Marsh blowing his load all over the place to express you thoroughly enjoyed someone's post?

1) Viacom can sue you and Godfather for use of the picture
2) You wouldn't be able to find it because Google could be sued for linking to the picture
3) The person that posted it in the first place could be sued for posting it on their blog or whatever to begin with.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure you can be taken to court now for using somebody else's intellectual property without permission. I think you and your hipster friends are freaking out over nothing, really. I don't think it is worded vaguely so they can TAKE OVER THE WOOOORRRRLLLDDDDD! I think it is a matter of, when dealing with the internet, there are probably literally thousands of way to circumvent the exact wording of whatever you put into the bill. We're dealing with something that isn't tangible, something that isn't black and white. Of course the wording is going to be somewhat ambiguous. It's not like writing a law for DUI, or public intoxication, theft, murder, etc.

[AUChizad]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure you can be taken to court now for using somebody else's intellectual property without permission. I think you and your hipster friends are freaking out over nothing, really. I don't think it is worded vaguely so they can TAKE OVER THE WOOOORRRRLLLDDDDD! I think it is a matter of, when dealing with the internet, there are probably literally thousands of way to circumvent the exact wording of whatever you put into the bill. We're dealing with something that isn't tangible, something that isn't black and white. Of course the wording is going to be somewhat ambiguous. It's not like writing a law for DUI, or public intoxication, theft, murder, etc.

Yeah, my "hipster friends", the founders/CEOs of Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Wikimedia Foundation, etc.

Buncha good for nothin punks.

"Maybe I'm crazy", but I think those guys understand the bill, and the threat it poses on technology better than you do.

[RWS]

Yeah, my "hipster friends", the founders/CEOs of Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Wikimedia Foundation, etc.

Buncha good for nothin punks.

"Maybe I'm crazy", but I think those guys understand the bill, and the threat it poses on technology better than you do.

Think about why those people might be against it. Easy answer: money. Plain and simple.

[Token]

So, as long as it's stupid property it's cool for me to post it?

[AUTiger1]

So, is Chizad any closer to going to prison yet?

[GH2001]

So, is Chizad any closer to going to prison yet?

Chances of a heart attack are more likely I would say.

[djsimp]

Chances of a heart attack are more likely I would say.

Maybe chinook can hook Chizad up with some of that Gov't merry-g-juana.

[GH2001]

Maybe chinook can hook Chizad up with some of that girl on girl porn Gov't merry-g-juana.

FIXT

[djsimp]

FIXT

Not sure that would help any. The way Chizad explains it, this may actually make his blood pressure worse....actually, that is guaranteed.

[RWS]

So, is Chizad any closer to going to prison yet?

He's still waiting to hear back from the CEOs of Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc to see if my post is valid.

Bottom line is, those people don't give a shit about this bill, other than the part where it is going to cost them a fuckton of money and time to be compliant. People tend to overlook that aspect when a big name joins their "cause". They just get all kinds of excited and say "SEE, I'm right, you're wrong, because these big companies are smarter than you and agree with me, so NYEEEHHHH!"

[AUChizad]

He's still waiting to hear back from the CEOs of Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc to see if my post is valid.

Bottom line is, those people don't give a shit about this bill, other than the part where it is going to cost them a fuckton of money and time to be compliant. People tend to overlook that aspect when a big name joins their "cause". They just get all kinds of excited and say "SEE, I'm right, you're wrong, because these big companies are smarter than you and agree with me, so NYEEEHHHH!"

You're a dumbass...

Look, you argued that the only people opposed to this legislation is me "and my hipster friends", which is fucking retarded.

Every single tech/web developer, blogger, magazine, enthusiast, agrees that this is basically breaking the internet. Sorry if the boys down at the station disagree. What great financial advantage is JoeSchmo tech blog losing if this passes? But I guess they're just hipsters. Make up your mind. So what you're saying is everyone who understands what is at stake is opposed to this legislation, from CEOs to dumb dirty hippie bloggers. And everything in between.

And why are you bemoaning the poor media giants like Virgin, Viacom, etc. losing a negligible percentage of profits from relatively rare online piracy, but in the same breath bitching about how Google, Wikipedia, etc. are just corporate fatcats afraid of having to lose a few bucks on completely reinventing how the internet works in order to be compliant to this shittacular legislation?

What personal financial interest Erik Ericson, prominant right wing blogger, have in this?

A fund should be created and the left should go out and find candidates to take on the Democrat sponsors. The right should go out and find candidates to take on the Republican sponsors. Heck, maybe Act Blue would let us on the right come by and we can all use their pre-existing platform (a platform no one on the right has even been able to really compete with. Seriously, I’m a big admirer).

The money should then be used to fund the primary challenges against the incumbent sponsors of SOPA. Let the right vet and direct the funding on the right so no one thinks the left is trying to pick the challenger and vice-versa on the left.

This might mean some allies are taken out. It might mean we take out Marsha Blackburn on the right and Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the left.

But sometimes a fight is that important. Killing SOPA is that important. Letting the Attorney General of the United States shut down the internet as he wants, whether it be Eric Holder or a future John Ashcroft, should scare the mess out of every American.

How can you claim to be a Republican and favor this Big Brother government takeover of the Internet because "Hollyweird" is afraid of losing some profits?

But back to your dumbass point you're trying to make. If new legislation was being crammed down everyone's throats that severely hampered the police force's ability to do their jobs, I'd value their opinions on the subject.

When it comes to SOPA/PIPA, I'm going to trust the people who own and operate the sites we use every day before some 60+ year olds in the Senate who literally think the Internet is a series of tubes.

Anyone with a remote understanding of the Internet realizes that this will do jack squat to reduce actual online piracy. Pirates will adapt. They always do. They can play whack-a-mole all they want, but they'll never stop it. This amounts to censorship and monetizing of the internet, plain and simple.

[AUChizad]

The fucking Heritage Foundation is opposed to SOPA/PIPA.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/online-piracy-and-sopa-beware-of-unintended-consequences

Online Piracy and SOPA: Beware of Unintended Consequences
By James Gattuso
December 21, 2011

It is one of the most contentious but least understood issues now before Congress—one that does not align neatly along party lines and has split the business community. The issue is online piracy, the illegal sale of copyrighted and trademarked products on rogue pirate websites. Since last week, the House Judiciary Committee has been struggling with legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or H.R. 3261, sponsored by committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R–TX). The bill would strengthen restrictions on foreign-based rogue websites, while imposing new obligations on U.S.-based firms that facilitate their operation. The legislation addresses a legitimate problem, but it may have unintended negative consequences for the operation of the Internet and free speech. Congress should carefully consider these factors before moving forward with any legislation.

Rogue Sites 

There is no doubt that online piracy is a real problem. Websites selling counterfeit goods, including tangible items, such as branded clothing and pharmaceuticals, and digital goods, such as Hollywood movies, have proliferated on the Internet. Such activity is a form of theft, and the federal government has a legitimate role in preventing it. Currently, U.S. authorities can, and do, shut down domestically based “pirate” websites by seizing control of their domain names under asset-forfeiture laws.[1] But a large number of rogue sites are located outside the United States, putting them largely out of the reach of U.S. authorities.

SOPA is intended to undercut such rogue sites by prohibiting third parties from enabling their activity.[2]

Lawsuits Authorized 

As it is currently drafted, this is how SOPA would work: First, it allows the U.S. Attorney General, as well as individual intellectual property holders, to sue allegedly infringing sites in court. The site would have to be proven to be a foreign site “directed towards” the U.S. and that it would be subject to seizure if it were U.S.-based. Alternatively, a suit could be brought by a private plaintiff, who would have to show that the site is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” That test, in turn, can be met if the site or a portion of the site is “primarily” designed, operated, or marketed to “enable or facilitate” infringement. The bill requires that attempts be made to notify the website operator of any such legal action, but legal proceedings would go forward even if no response is received.           

If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, a range of third-party restrictions would go into effect. Specifically, in cases brought by the Attorney General, to the extent “technically feasible and reasonable,” a court order would:

    1. Require Internet service providers to prevent subscribers from reaching the website in question. This would be done by severing the mechanism by which the domain name entered by Web users is connected (“resolved”) to the proper IP address;
    2. Prohibit search engines such as Google from providing direct links to the foreign website in search results;
    3. Prohibit payment network providers, such as PayPal or credit card firms, from completing financial transactions affecting the site; and
    4. Bar Internet advertising firms from placing online ads from or to the affected website.

In cases brought by a private party, only the restrictions on payment networks and advertising firms would apply.

The current version of the legislation, offered as a manager’s amendment in committee, omits a number of controversial provisions that were included in prior versions of SOPA. Most notably, a process that allowed holders of intellectual property rights to trigger third-party obligations without a court order was dropped. This and other recent changes represent a real improvement in the legislation.

Security Concerns 

Yet, a number of serious and legitimate concerns remain. Foremost among these is the potential negative effect on Internet security. A number of concerns have been raised. One is that, by blocking “resolution” of IP addresses by servers in the U.S., users (and their browsers) would instead use less secure servers elsewhere to continue accessing blocked sites. Some have also said such domain-name filtering could disrupt access to other, non-infringing domain names.[3] There are also concerns that SOPA could interfere with deployment of a newly developed Internet security system known as “DNSSEC” (which is intended to ensure the successful “resolution” of IP addresses), further weakening security.[4]

SOPA would undercut other policy goals as well. The requirement that search engines omit links to rogue sites undercuts the role of search firms as trusted intermediaries in conveying information to users. There are, of course, other circumstances where search engines already omit information and links—for instance, Google routinely screens out child pornography from its search results. But there has never been a government mandate that information be withheld from search results. Imposing such a mandate would represent the first step down a classic slippery slope of government interference that has no clear stopping point.

Arguably, the limits placed on search engines as well as other third parties under SOPA would also violate constitutional protections of freedom of speech.[5] But even if not barred legally, any such restrictions should be imposed only after the most careful consideration, only when absolutely necessary, and even then, to the smallest degree possible.           

While the legislation’s goal—the protection of property—is a proper one, there are alternative approaches. One potential alternative was recently outlined in a proposal by Senator Ron Wyden (D–OR) and Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA) to expand the jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission’s copyright and trademark enforcement authority to include imports of digital goods as well as physical products. That would not address all of the problems with foreign rogue websites, particularly producers of non-digital goods. But the Wyden–Issa approach would make it possible to impose reasonable limits on third-party assistance to rogue sites, under established rules.[6]

Consider Legislation Carefully 

The federal government needs to protect intellectual property rights. But it should do so in a way that does not disrupt the growth of technology, does not weaken Internet security, respects free speech rights, and solves the problem of rogue sites. Congress should carefully consider the consequences of and alternatives to the legislation before moving forward.

The Heritage Foundation typically supports the RIAA & MPAA at the drop of a hat.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346829-281/pro-copyright-group-takes-sopa-to-task/?tag=reddit

Pro-copyright group takes SOPA to task
Declan McCullagh
by Declan McCullagh December 21, 2011 9:41 PM PST

The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.

The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.

The Heritage Foundation, President Reagan's favorite think tank and a longtime copyright hawk, is warning of the dangers of SOPA. From left: Ronald Reagan, Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, and Heritage President Ed Feulner.
(Credit: Heritage Foundation)

"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.

Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."

Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided. (See CNET's FAQ on SOPA.)

"The areas that are the most concern are the obligation of service providers to block resolution of IP addresses and the obligation of search engines to block search results," says Gattuso, whose conservative credentials include working at the Federal Communications Commission during the first Bush administration and for then-Vice President Dan Quayle. "Those get to the core issue of why the federal government could be able to interfere with the way the Internet is operated, and the core issue of what people can say and what information they can get on the Web."

A warning from a group like Heritage, usually a staunch ally of copyright holders, could help to sway undecided Republicans. It's no exaggeration: Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general who's now a Heritage fellow, seemed to be channelling an MPAA lobbyist when writing in 2005 that "there is no difference between shoplifting a DVD from a store and illegally downloading a copyrighted movie from Kazaa." Heritage's warnings of international "threats to intellectual property rights" date back to at least 1987. And it scores protection of intellectual property rights in its annual Index of Economic Freedom.

SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially offshore sites such as ThePirateBay.org. It would allow the Justice Department to obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet providers, and other companies forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish, a kind of Internet death penalty. It's opposed (PDF) by Internet companies and many Internet users.

While Heritage may be the largest, it wasn't the first free-market group to criticize SOPA.

In a letter to Smith last week, TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Job Security, and Americans for Limited Government warned Smith that his committee "simply has not spent enough time on this legislation to properly address the complex and important issues at stake." These aren't left-leaning groups by any measure: TechFreedom has argued against Net neutrality, warned against expansive antitrust and privacy regulations, and defended the now-abandoned merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.

"You don't have to be against copyright to be skeptical of SOPA," Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, told CNET today. "Even those who will defend copyright (believe that SOPA) would have sweeping unintended consequences. So it's perfectly consistent for conservatives to insist on both the need to enhance copyright enforcement and to be exceedingly careful about how we do so."

The most prominent group on the other side is probably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become the most aggressive defender of SOPA, likely because it receives more money in membership dues from Hollywood than Silicon Valley. (Yahoo and Kapersky Lab have dropped out in protest, and Google is under pressure to do the same.) Concerned Women for America and the National Association of Manufacturers have also endorsed SOPA.

In an interview with CNET last week, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a senior House Republican, said SOPA should not be brought to the House floor. (Issa is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, which is busy investigating the Obama administration on many fronts, including Fannie and Freddie bonuses, the Justice Department's Operation Fast and Furious, and the Freedom of Information Act.)

If SOPA clears the House Judiciary committee, "would it be appropriate to bring such a controversial bill to the floor?" Issa asks. "I think the Republican House leadership will look and say, 'Unless we have the support of the vast majority of Republicans, we're not going to take the bill to the floor.'"

So just who the fuck's word are you going to take on this to realize it's a terrible fucking bill?

[AUChizad]

Those dumbass, know-nothing hipster Harvard researchers?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03470117178/harvard-researchers-explain-that-sopa-supporters-are-misusing-their-research-to-support-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Harvard Researchers Explain That SOPA Supporters Are Misusing Their Research To Support SOPA
from the not-so-fast,-daniel-castro dept

We recently discussed how ITIF's Daniel Castro (who's been credited with pushing a SOPA-style censorship program to government officials in the first place) bizarrely used the web censorship done by 13 of the most oppressive governments to support his case that censorship under SOPA would work. The argument was based on a Harvard/OpenNet Initiative to study how the internet is censored and used in various repressive nations. The authors of that study have now come out pretty strongly against Castro for his misuse of their report, and have explained in detail how Castro's assumptions are wrong and his quoting their study is done entirely out of context.

    we disagree with the way that Mr. Castro applies our findings to the SOPA debate. His presumption that people will work as hard or harder to access political content than they do to access entertainment content deeply misunderstands how and why most people use the internet. Far more users in open societies use the Internet for entertainment than for political purposes; it is unreasonable to assume different behaviors in closed societies. Our research offers the depressing conclusion that comparatively few users are seeking blocked political information and suggests that the governments most successful in blocking political content ensure that entertainment and social media content is widely available online precisely because users get much more upset about blocking the ability watch movies than they do about blocking specific pieces of political content.

    Rather than comparing usage of circumvention tools in closed societies to predict the activities of a given userbase, Mr. Castro would do better to consider the massive userbase of tools like bit torrent clients, which would make for a far cleaner analogy to the problem at hand. Likewise, the long line of very popular peer-to-peer sharing tools that have been incrementally designed to circumvent the technical and political measures used to prevent sharing copyrighted materials are a stronger analogy than our study of users in authoritarian regimes seeking to access political content.

Furthermore, they argue that the bill that Castro is so desperately in favor of would have disastrous consequences, in that it would deny important circumvention tools to those in repressive countries:

    Second, our research has consistently shown that those who really wish to evade Internet filters can do so with relatively little effort. The problem is that these activities can be very dangerous in certain regimes. Even though our research shows that relatively few people in autocratic countries use circumvention tools, this does not mean that circumvention tools are not crucial to the dissident communities in those countries. 19 million people is not large in relation to the population of the Internet, but it is still a lot of people absolutely who have freer access to the Internet through the tools. We personally know many people in autocratic countries for whom these tools provide a crucial (though not perfect) layer of security for their activist work. Those people would be at much greater risk than they already are without access to the tools, but in addition to mandating DNS filtering, SOPA would make many circumvention tools illegal. The single biggest funder of circumvention tools has been and remains the U.S. government, precisely because of the role the tools play in online activism. It would be highly counter-productive for the U.S. government to both fund and outlaw the same set of tools.

We noted that Castro's paper read like a joke from the beginning, and the more people dig into it, the more ridiculous it seems.

[Snaggletiger]

What's all this fuss about napster?  I thought that was settled years ago.