Quote:
Gizmodo
In short, The government will pretty much be able to control everything on the web. So let's say I post a link to a song (we have plenty of those) Someone an come and claim it copyrighted and The whole website will be blocked without any investigations into it.
So no more Youtube, Wikipedia, Fan websites (Avsim, Flightsim, this site, Sim-outhouse e.t.c) If M$ files copyright claims copyright hold. So in short, They are going to cause havoc on the only thing that is continually growing, increasing and helping people find jobs e.t.c to stop pirates who will find a way around it anyway . I mean, Where else could someone start with little more than an Idea, then turn it into a multi-bilion dollar company? Where else could someone post an news story thousands of miles away and recieve instant feedback? Have forums like these?
What's Your opinion on this. I wasn't sure this would go in the other sites page.
So this may be the end of the World wide web as we know it.
And P.S I have a habit of overthinking things.

I strongly believe in protecting intellectual property and copyrights, but the SOPA/PIPA acts are a bit extreme because of the 'spray and pray' effect from it.

DMCA take downs already exist, so I don't see why they need to change it. SOPA has the potential to be be very effective, but I do not trust the people enforcing the rule to be in any way smart about it. In a somewhat unrelated case, I remember hearing that Uri Geller made copyright claims for his appearance in videos recorded by others, and won. In fact, the copyright holder was the maker of the video, not the subject. If this was applied to SOPA/PIPA, entire websites could be closed down because of negligence to the law.

Websites such as Youtube would be okay though, as SOPA/PIPA will only take down (or 'investigate') websites that aren't actively monitoring their media. As you can see on Youtube, if your video is seen to contain copyright music, they will delete the audio track. Websites such as Flickr are in the firing line though because they aren't 'actively monitoring'. That said, they do have adequate reporting systems against copyright infringement and have a very good turn around time on any complaints. But they could be taken down, because their system isn't actively looking for copyright material.

As I say, instead of helping the people who are actually being affected, they're just nuking entire areas of the web. I doubt many of the people in congress even understand how to use a computer or what copyright/fair use/copyright limitations actually are. There are many exceptions, and an unfair system will not notice them.


I can't make more points because Wikipedia went offline just as I started to write this! Cheers, SOPA/PIPA!

expat wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 6:01am:

It sucks to say it, but you really can't fix the problem... Not unless you shut down all the servers in the world, destroy every computer, gadget and wire. Totally blocking every internet service might do it, but you'd have to ask the mobs of angry people what they think.


How would I manage it? Easy. I would ask of one thing: Web hosts should do manual checks of their site for the content that is present in the most feasable way possible. It would be ideal to have an automated service for everything, but there is too much data out there to collate and manage. The DMCA take down system already exists, so copyright holders can file a complaint against a website for hosting their data. The web host should be noted of this claim, and have time to retaliate. If there is suitable evidence that the property does not belong to them, and does not fit into any exemption (fair use, derivative, etc) then persue the website. If the website is a 'sole site' (like a personal webpage) then take it down. If the website is a social site (facebook, Youtube, etc) then close down that user account and chase down the actual user.


It is one thing to do it fairly (talking to the web host, explaining the problem, and giving them the opportunity to take down the media). It is another thing entirely just to shut the website down and cut them off. Flickr no doubt hosts BILLIONS of images from MILLIONS of users. If one user posts one picture that does not belong to them, it is idiotic to shut down the entire website because of it.


Copyright holders can already sue, but unless they're losing profit, the case usually isn't very strong. That is why you DMCA take down the media from them.

The government will want sites to actively monitor (have automated services and the such) to check their content. This is not always feasable, but according to the government, is enough of a reason to shut the website down if they're unable to do so.



In short: Keep the current system.

Its this what are you talking about?



Its that means that they will remove PORN from the internet?

Oh NOOOOOOO!!!


LMAO!!!!

Sopa in Spanish means Soup ,
lets keep this out of the political stuff shall we? keep it cool 

you know?  ..the rules, etc -->  ....

so we can live in peace

*grabs pitchfork and torch*

WHO'S WITH ME!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Xpand wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 10:20am:


True about politics. Although the reason I like the net is because whenever I get curious about a song I've heard about,  just look it up on youtube and Voilà.
But then If every time I want to hear a song I have to spend $10 on the album or wait for radio to play it that's pathetic.

And Also, SOPA is Masai for "hello"

alrot wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 10:47am:


I got your back.
Weather they like it or not, Pirates always and I do mean always, find ways around these laws. Sad but true

I just thought of an interestign thing.  This is only U.S. government right?  What about sites from OTHER COUNTRIES?  Aren't those out of our (uhhh..... let me think of the right word here)  (legal influence? )