Lemma Soft Forums

If the companies themselves mention anything, like for example, if someone posts something up from Avatar: The Last Airbender on YouTube, Viacom could throw a tantrum, and sue YouTube for it being up there. More or less, it's the moneygrubbers who will 'police' said bill.

Gear wrote:If the companies themselves mention anything, like for example, if someone posts something up from Avatar: The Last Airbender on YouTube, Viacom could throw a tantrum, and sue YouTube for it being up there. More or less, it's the moneygrubbers who will 'police' said bill.

But how are they going to do that? How many more staff will they need to keep track of it? Will the money the make cover the cost of extra staff and legal bills? It seems like a weird way of doing anything, let alone trying to stop piracy.

dramspringfeald wrote:Good news guys.
It failed

AWWW YEAAAAH mah porn is safe <3

nah but really i kinda figured it wouldnt pass >_>
its a stupid law geez trying to stop piracy is one thing trying to shut down the whole internet (practically) is another.

Auro-Cyanide wrote:Who would police this type of thing anyway? The shear workforce that would be required to track that many internet sites would be... mind boggling. Not to mention the way the court system would be over run with various allegations :/ DA can't handle the reports they get and they are only just one site. I can't even imagine what you would need to do for the entirety of the internet D: Have they thought through with how it would work and what the repercussions would be, or are they just trying to blindly pass a bill?

Some of the bigger companies actually hire people to scour the internet and issue takedown notices full time. For serious. I know others where that's at least part of someone's job description among other things.

So far, the bill hasn't been passed, but it hasn't been squashed yet, either. Thanks to a lot of the bad press, the hearing wound up being not as secret as the big name companies would have liked, but Congress hasn't made a decision yet. So keep writing those letters~

sake-bento wrote:

Auro-Cyanide wrote:Who would police this type of thing anyway? The shear workforce that would be required to track that many internet sites would be... mind boggling. Not to mention the way the court system would be over run with various allegations :/ DA can't handle the reports they get and they are only just one site. I can't even imagine what you would need to do for the entirety of the internet D: Have they thought through with how it would work and what the repercussions would be, or are they just trying to blindly pass a bill?

Some of the bigger companies actually hire people to scour the internet and issue takedown notices full time. For serious. I know others where that's at least part of someone's job description among other things.

So far, the bill hasn't been passed, but it hasn't been squashed yet, either. Thanks to a lot of the bad press, the hearing wound up being not as secret as the big name companies would have liked, but Congress hasn't made a decision yet. So keep writing those letters~

We have a social media team at my work, and I know some companies have bigger teams for internet related duties. But the internet is a bit like the universe, it goes on forever and is only getting bigger. Frankly I would like to see them try and take it on. The whole thing would be bigger than Ben Hur, not to mention costing more.

Yeah, I suppose it is too early to celebrate, though it's a good sign it's slowing down.

Keep those letters, emails, and phone calls flowing to your representatives!

I'm not a US resident so I guess I can't participate in sending those mail, right?

I'm thinking it wouldn't do much good.

This is one of the worst proposed bills in recent times, and one which I oppose wholeheartedly.

I'm not sure how much the non-US forumgoers here know about the US, but here's a bit of background for you: We have a Constitution written by our founding fathers, and -- more importantly to this news -- a list of constitutional amendments. The first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights, and they define the most fundamental rights of US citizens and of states, and prevent the federal government from having too much control. The Amendments are somewhat vaguely worded -- and intentionally so -- and hence are not concretely defined, and are left open to interpretation. This was done intentionally because the founding fathers could not predict what rights issues might come up in the country's future. Usually, bills develop controversy in the US if there's ambiguity over whether they are opposed by the Constitution or not, which happens sometimes since the Amendments are open to interpretation.

I don't see why there's that type of ambiguity over this bill, though, because regardless of interpretation, it looks to me like this bill violates FIVE Amendments on the Bill of Rights, specifically:

The First: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," to which censorship is contradictory.

The Fourth: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," which is contradicted by part of this bill that allows the federal government to spy on any data on the Internet, even encrypted data like email, online credit card transactions, etc.

The Fifth: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," which is contradicted by part of this bill that allows the government to shut down any site they deem to be a host of illegal activity on the spot without a trial.

The Sixth: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." Basically this gives people the right to a fair public trial, rather than an unfair one, or a lack of one at all. It is contradicted by the same thing that contradicts the Fifth.

The Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Even if this bill wasn't violating those other four Amendments, the power it defines would be enforced by individual states, not by the federal government.


I'm shocked by how far this bill has come in Congress, but I think it will eventually be shot down, both for the reasons listed above, and because of the sheer amount of opposition to it there is among the people.

SOPA isn't dead yet, although it's certainly been wounded. We need to remain vigilant so that its well-funded proponents can't hide it in a must-pass bill.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/internet-censorship-sopa/

LVUER wrote:I'm not a US resident so I guess I can't participate in sending those mail, right?

There was a link to this in the article Pytom just posted:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/

It's a petition you can sign even if you don't live in the US.

well it's a good signe it may have failed seeing as it seems that even the guy pushing it cant fallow it.

Sapphi wrote:

LVUER wrote:I'm not a US resident so I guess I can't participate in sending those mail, right?

There was a link to this in the article Pytom just posted:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/

It's a petition you can sign even if you don't live in the US.

Thanks for the link. I've vote for the petition

I'm highly cynical at the thought of public opinion affecting anything in Congress.

As usual, this will not even affect piracy (since pirates either run torrents or upload to sites based in Canada or Russia, where piracy is legal), but it'll provide plenty of methods for companies to attack sites that they don't like in America.

I wonder if California's frivolous-lawsuit cause of action can be applied against an action taken in federal court? If so, then Google might respond by counterfire, depending on whether they grow some balls or not.

Ramidel wrote: As usual, this will not even affect piracy (since pirates either run torrents or upload to sites based in Canada or Russia, where piracy is legal), but it'll provide plenty of methods for companies to attack sites that they don't like in America.

Ehem...piracy is not legal in Russia they just don't fight with it too much here. Remember that "Star-shitty-Force" was made in Russia (and as far as I know Ubisoft used it for a while).
I honestly don't know what they want to achieve with that bill.