SOPA & the battle for the Internet

[weedlefruit]

He did close Guantanamo.

Congress opened it up again.

Was it congress though? I know they can over ride a veto with a majority vote though so could be but I'm forever skeptical of anything, especially when it comes to what Obama says.

[knell]

Was it congress though? I know they can over ride a veto with a majority vote though so could be but I'm forever skeptical of anything, especially when it comes to what Obama says.

politifact isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good starting place for questions like that:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

[mks]

I am skeptical as well. As Dookie above said, Obama said he wouldn't sign the NDAA act, yet he did.

[hayze99]

Letter I received from my state Senator. I hope other people living in the States have contacted their own Senator and House Representatives.

Dear Mr. ...,



Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.



On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.



On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.



Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.



The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.



Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.



Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

Big ups, dude. It's this kind of proactivity that changes shit.

I don't know if Google did say anything about it, but there was talk of it. If Google did go down, a huge amount of things would grind to a halt for the day. Maybe they couldn't afford to do it, ultimately.

[SCope13]

When did Google say anything about a blackout? They just said they would post links in support of the protest on their US homepage..

Obama has already said he will vote against as the bill stands currently which is good...

Obama also said he would not sign the NDAA bill.. which was a lie.

Obama also said he'd close Guantanamo.




There are more reasons he's a false prophet.

He was unable to, he didn't have the votes.

[AllNightDayDream]

I am skeptical as well. As Dookie above said, Obama said he wouldn't sign the NDAA act, yet he did.

He said he wouldn't If it wasn't amended. Then it was. Voila.

On topic, even as a supporter of file sharing, one thing in these bills is something I can maybe get on board with: Cutting off ads and revenue to sites whose sole purpose is to host copyrighted works. File sharing shouldn't be a business in itself.

[mks]

I am skeptical as well. As Dookie above said, Obama said he wouldn't sign the NDAA act, yet he did.

He said he wouldn't If it wasn't amended. Then it was. Voila.

Can you please give me sources that show this bill was amended? As far as I know, it just got pushed through. There is a lot of murkyness surrounding this.

Sunday, January 1, 2012
US president Barack Obama signed into law on New Year's Eve a bill that, among other provisions, give the US military broader authority to detain people suspected of being affiliated with terrorists on US soil.

The bill in question is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It allocates funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also includes "counter-terrorism" provisions which would allow the military to detain anyone on US soil indefinitely, without needing to guarantee a trial.

Both critics and supporters of NDAA say this provision would apply to US citizens; however, the actual text of the bill is phrased less clearly and is ambiguous, according to an analysis by Raha Wala, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch. Wala, however, believes "it’s pretty clear as a general matter that Section 1021 is designed to reach U.S. citizens."

Obama, upon signing the NDAA, said in a statement that he still had "reservations", but decided not to veto it. "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," he said.

"[...] Our success against al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world."
'It should chill all of us to our cores'

Republican presidential candidate and Representative from Texas Ron Paul voiced objection to the bill, saying that "[The bill] should chill all of us to our cores." In a telephone message to supporters, Paul said: "The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

"The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly."

Paul's son Rand, who is serving as a Senator from Kentucky, similarly objected to the legislation.

Other lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, differed. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said the broad measures were necessary for national security. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"

Many human rights groups, however, see NDAA as being a threat to liberties, and unconstitutional. Christopher Anders, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement: "The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain—the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself."

http://theopenglobe.org/wiki/Obama_sign ... l_into_law

Yeah, I don't mean to de-rail this SOPA thread. Maybe this discussion should be taken to another thread.

EZ

[AllNightDayDream]

I am skeptical as well. As Dookie above said, Obama said he wouldn't sign the NDAA act, yet he did.

He said he wouldn't If it wasn't amended. Then it was. Voila.

Can you please give me sources that show this bill was amended? As far as I know, it just got pushed through. There is a lot of murkyness surrounding this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/po ... -bill.html

There ya go. There's no murkiness, all the info is on the web. Only murkiness is a bunch of hype from people who don't actually read what they write about.

But there are other threads about that.

Ontopic:

Best anti sopa protest

[gnome]

Today is a boring day online with stumble upon redirecting stumbles.

[Phase Down]

It's mental.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201112 ... atrick.net

[jameshk]

[kay]

[wormcode]

All the supposed blackouts work for me because I have no scripting enabled, and they seem to all use some redirect scripts which is pretty lame. The sites also work via lynx or if you set your browser to have basic page styles.
You can even leave scripting on and just stop the page after it loads to view it, or use the mobile version of sites with .m or /m. Would have worked better if they actually shut down imo.

[scattybeanhead]

ok right im clearly out of the loop here but can someone explain what SOPA is? im away from the internet for like 2/3days and it all kicks off...

[mks]

I brought the NDAA discussion over here (I know you saw it and replied AllNightDayDream, cheers!) :

http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 7&start=80

Scattybeanhead,
This is from Google's frontpage today, where they have blocked out the word Google in opposition to SOPA and PIPA:

More about SOPA and PIPA

Members of Congress are trying to do the right thing by going after pirates and counterfeiters but SOPA and PIPA are the wrong way to do it.
1. SOPA and PIPA would censor the Web

The U.S. government could order the blocking of sites using methods similar to those employed by China. Among other things, search engines could be forced to delete entire websites from their search results. That’s why 41 human rights organizations and 110 prominent law professors have expressed grave concerns about the bills.
2. SOPA and PIPA would be job-killers because they would create a new era of uncertainty for American business

Law-abiding U.S. internet companies would have to monitor everything users link to or upload or face the risk of time-consuming litigation. That’s why AOL, EBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo and Zynga wrote a letter to Congress saying these bills “pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation.” It’s also why 55 of America’s most successful venture capitalists expressed concern that PIPA “would stifle investment in Internet services, throttle innovation, and hurt American competitiveness”. More than 204 entrepreneurs told Congress that PIPA and SOPA would “hurt economic growth and chill innovation”.
3. SOPA and PIPA wouldn’t stop piracy

To make matters worse, SOPA and PIPA won’t even work. The censorship regulations written into these bills won’t shut down pirate sites. These sites will just change their addresses and continue their criminal activities, while law-abiding companies will suffer high penalties for breaches they can’t possibly control.

There are effective ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that have made the Internet such an important driver of American economic growth and job creation. Congress should consider alternatives like the OPEN Act, which takes targeted and focused steps to cut off the money supply from foreign pirate sites without making US companies censor the Web.

[collige]

All the supposed blackouts work for me because I have no scripting enabled, and they seem to all use some redirect scripts which is pretty lame. The sites also work via lynx or if you set your browser to have basic page styles.
You can even leave scripting on and just stop the page after it loads to view it, or use the mobile version of sites with .m or /m. Would have worked better if they actually shut down imo.

Redirect scripting is what Google advised people to do in order to not ruin their page rankings. Wikipedia's pretty much the only site that did it right though.

[scattybeanhead]

sounds like some straight up bullshit to me son. is this gonna effect the UK as well then or what?

[Pedro Sánchez]

sounds like some straight up bullshit to me son. is this gonna effect the UK as well then or what?

It's currently under judicial review

The UK governments Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has admitted that its controversial Digital Economy Act (DEA), which seeks to tackle "illegal" internet copyright infringement (P2P - File Sharing) by broadband ISP customers, has been delayed until the spring of 2012 at the earliest.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/0 ... -2012.html
Coincidence?

[Raggles]

Let's make a new intranet!

[drokkr]

http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-un ... -sopa-235/

After a Department of Justice-executed raid today on the file sharing site Megaupload, hackers aligned with the online collective Anonymous have shut down the websites for both the DoJ and Universal Music Group, the largest record company in America.
Both universalmusic.com and justice.gov went down on Thursday afternoon, less than hours after it was revealed that Megaupload had been brought down by federal authorities and four people linked to the site, all outside of America, were arrested and charged with a conspiracy related to copyright infringement.
“It was in retaliation for Megaupload, as was the concurrent attack on Justice.gov,” Anonymous operative Barret Brown tells RT on Thursday afternoon.
Brown adds that “more is coming” and Anonymous-aligned hacktivists are pursuing a joint effort with others to “ damage campaign raising abilities of remaining Democrats who support SOPA.”