What is being debated on changes to the law. I guess they are trying to take out the DNS blocking provisions of the bill but three other provisions, according to the article will likely remain: As far as the slippery slope arguments have went these are three of the biggest offenders. Have they talked about removing the 3rd party accusation/shutting down of sites part that people have really been upset with? Wikipedia is a really good start as far as going black to raise awareness. If google got on board and shut down it's sight for a day, probably a pipe dream, it would really garner some attention.
My concern with this is that under section 1021 it states (bold is mine): It is unclear to me who determines this or what are the parameters of this. That is very concerning. If you look at some of the memos produced by the FBI and DoJ here and here it's clear to me that there are groups who are being included under the terrorist activity umbrella for peaceful activity that the Government finds objectionable because it is incongruent with their ideology. The second link I included tells me that if you are displaying the Gadsden Culpepper flag, buying ammunition and perhaps buying gold that you should be looking over your shoulder because big brother may be taking an interest in you. How far from that point is it before the activity goes from questionable to full-blown terrorist activity and you are now labeled as the "associated forces" who has committed a "belligerent act"? To me, this is the slippery slope that people have warned about since the inception of the Patriot Act.
So Wikipedia is blacked out....except that everything is still accessible. You just have to click the stop loading button before it redirects to the blackout page. Sounds good to me...gets the point across while still maintaining usability for those with even a trace of intelligence.
You're giving the casual internet user FAR too much credit. For the record, I think all websites should disable functionality for the day. Can you imagine the shitstorm if Facebook went offline for a day to protest a bill? I'm of the belief that it'd be this generation's version of Walter Kronkite telling our parents that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.
I have no idea if this is legit, but if it is: "lolz". The awkward moment when you break the law you proposed
Some tweets off my least favourite internet site of them all. Hold on to your butts: I would just like to go on record as saying that these were Things That Were Said. And who says this generation is dumber than the others?
I don't like to double post on a non-drunk thread, but seriously-- READ THE QUOTES ABOVE, word for word. I believe "engineer" pops up. We are all going to die.
Very compelling. Looking over list included points out some of the inaccuracies of public information, as well as the Quixotic irony in this "fight." A lot of general comments I heard were about MPAA and RIAA type complaints. Don't "steal" music or movies. Or, how YouTube would be impacted. But, didn't a lot of those companies support SOPA because they thought it would help fight internet trading and sales of counterfeit material? Like, Nike doesn't want people selling fake Nike shoes or golf clubs. That's different than the RIAA being mad that people share mp3's, isn't it? Instead of boycotting Nike, wouldn't it have more impact if you stopped buying fake Nikes? I'm not asking to try and make a point, or support SOPA. It was dumb legislation. I just don't have enough information to process why Nike would support SOPA.
Because you can currently sell your used Nikes on Craigslist or Ebay, and those are new Nike purchases that then don't happen.
In that case, goodbye Craigslist altogether, as well as EBay and any other site where you buy anything preowned. Also, any meme that's ever been created would, by definition, become illegal.
It's the same mentality as the fight that occurred just recently between game developers and GameStop isn't it?
So, Megaupload was shut down for charges of piracy. If the Feds can already do that, what was the point of the new law?
Following the legal procedures for protecting your copyright is hard. I mean, you have to contact a lawyer and everything! It's so much simpler to just be able to shut down a site right when you make the charge, instead of having to wait for the legal system to "determine the facts" and such.
Spelling and grammatical issues aside, The Pirate Bay makes a few good points about anti-piracy legislation: <a class="postlink" href="http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt</a>
I know this is difficult to swallow, given that we all know that our government is totally trustworthy and all, but this bill is not about piracy at all and we're silly to be discussing it as such. Just like other bills with such perfectly appropriate names such as the "no child left behind" act, and the "blue skies initiative," our friends in congress have wrapped a corporate-interest-friendly bill in a pretty title that makes it sound as though they're doing something with a pure and legal purpose. But, read it. It seriously has very little to do with piracy, and the parts that do don't even address it in such a way that it will even work to stop piracy. This bill, and the PIPA bill, are about finding more ways to charge the user for use of the internet.