House of Reps and Obama kill SOPA

My feeling is that they're being much too far. As I said I don't mind a click-through page (make the continue button tricky to find so people pay attention). But blackout is going too far for something that has not even gone through the first house.

This bill could potentially devastate the internet in the US and significantly affect those in other countries as well. I think the forcefulness of the response is proportionate to the damage it could cause. Regardless, perhaps this isn't really directed at Canadians, but at Americans. By blacking out the site globally, the act has more of an impact. Americans aren't typically ones to care about what is happening elsewhere, but I would expect this to have entered into the decision process.
 
Also, its terribly ironic to protest censorship with censorship. Not to mention that it violates the neutrality. They would not do this for another country.

Freedom of Expression (i.e. being against broad censorship) >>> aesthetics of irony.
In actuality, irony is means of expression protected by freedom of expression.

It's safe to say that SOPA could jeopardize Wikipedia's existence in the USA, depending upon how heavily handed it were enforced, so calling attention to that fact with an outage protest is actually sound rational self-interest.


******
Interesting FAQ on CNET.com about SOPA:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/
Are there free speech implications to SOPA?
SOPA's opponents say so--a New York Times op-ed called it the "Great Firewall of America--and the language of the bill itself is quite broad. Section 103 says that, to be blacklisted, a Web site must be "directed" at the U.S. and also that the owner "has promoted" acts that can infringe copyright.

Here's how Section 101 of the original version of SOPA defines what a U.S.-directed Web site is:


(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide such goods and services (or) access to such goods and services (or) delivery of such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.

Some critics have charged that such language could blacklist the next YouTube, Wikipedia, or WikiLeaks. Especially in the case of WikiLeaks, which has posted internal documents not only from governments but also copyrighted documents from U.S. companies and has threatened to post more, it's hard to see how it would not qualify for blacklisting.

Laurence Tribe, a high-profile Harvard law professor and author of a treatise titled American Constitutional Law, has argued that SOPA is unconstitutional because, if enacted, "an entire Web site containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement."

...

For their part, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has been highlighting an analysis it commissioned from First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, a former MPAA attorney, who concluded SOPA is perfectly constitutional. Here's another pro-SOPA rebuttal.


I predict if SOPA is passed that it will lead to a SCOTUS challenge. Did the founding fathers want overseas pamphlets to be blocked? Maybe so/maybe not. Regardless, I think there will be a challenge on at least the fair use grounds that a website might be blocked for interpretation of material covered on "fair use" under US Copyright law. E.g. Video snippets and what not. Granting broad powers to shut down access to websites by US citizens on a case-by-case questionable interpretation of "fair use" will probably trigger a SCOTUS comment in my humble opinion.

I do agree with the intent of SOPA---protecting the strength of copyrights and patents as that is a significant part of the US economy and a key component of the Federal law, but I liked the legislation that talking about going after creditors/banks that support pirate websites rather than risking a "Great Firewall" like we criticize countries like Iran and China for having. Creating an iron curtain is going too far I think.

International diplomacy to get pirate websites shut down makes far greater sense to me, if we value our Constitutional freedoms as citizens of the USA.
 
I think the point Wikipedia, and other sites, are trying to make with the blackout is basically "If SOPA passes, this could happen for real, and for much longer than one day."
 
Just out of curiosity, is there a list of which representatives have voted on this thing or at least their stance on it? I know I can't do anything in regards outside my district, but it will give me a good idea on if I should not vote for the representative in 2012.
 
I guess the cheque they got from the RIAA/MPAA cleared.
 
Apparently wikipedia still plans to protest SOPA
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.
 
I posted that about 5 pages ago :p
 
What would Ron Paul do?

I'm waiting for Super Obama to fly into the committee and rip the bill to shreds. Then turn to the ones who supported the bill and say "U Mad Bro?".
 

I saw this on the Reddit.

From the Chairman's statement:
"To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America’s intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy,” Chairman Smith said.

“Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.

“I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property"
It'll save our jerbs! America! Freedom! Jobs! Democracy! Massively intrusive anti-piracy laws! Jobs!
 
I have a suggestion. How about a law that says if you are a politician who support a law that tries to regulate the internet, you get instantly executed.

Or even better, locked in a room with just a computer with an overly-strict firewall so every second site the politician visits is BLACKLISTED!
 
It'll save our jerbs! America! Freedom! Jobs! Democracy! Massively intrusive anti-piracy laws! Jobs!

At the cost of building the Great Firewall of America!? Nope.avi
 
I thought jobs was the only issue you actually cared about these days.
 
Reddit's still up. Maybe they're waiting a few hours, or something.
 
Really, Wikipedia? I see no change!

edit: noscript. Derp.
 
Top Bottom